Community Renewal Lifting Neighbourhoods Together: Evaluation Baseline by Community Renewal Trust

Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together

EVALUATION BASELINE

www.liftingneighbourhoods.org.uk #communityrenewal #LiftingNeighbourhoodsTogether

Evaluation by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), at Sheffield Hallam University and Sonnet Advisory and Impact

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................

2. Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together .........................................................

3. Evaluating Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together ...................................... 16 4. Neighbourhood characteristics and perceptions ..................................................................... 33 5. An assessment of Systems Maturity ...........................................................................................

6. Implications for Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together .............................. 62

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“

A radical project which is testing a simpler solution to addressing poverty

“

An introduction to Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together (LNT) is a radical project which is testing a simpler solution to addressing poverty at a neighbourhood level. Developed by Community Renewal Trust, the project has been awarded grant funding of £2.1 million from the National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF). This funding enables LNT to test and learn from the approach in two neighbourhoods. Community Renewal Trust is leading the project in the Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays area of Edinburgh. In addition, Building Futures East is running a similar project in the Walker area of Newcastle upon Tyne. The Walker neighbourhood team has been funded to test the replicability of the LNT approach under the guidance of Community Renewal Trust. The LNT approach responds to experience that, despite multiple and often successful interventions to address specific aspects of poverty and disadvantage, or to improve services, there are limits to what single initiatives working in isolation can achieve. Poorer outcomes for households in disadvantaged communities persist, and many of those living in deprived areas face multiple challenges which have impacts across their lives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

LNT is rooted in evidence that:

• People’s lives are shaped by complex ecologies. A holistic, area-based approach offers the best opportunity to address poverty and improve outcomes for those living in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods1. • A co-ordinated and holistic approach to service delivery is required to overcome some of the limitations of siloed, single-issue based delivery. • The positive effects of specific interventions can also ‘transfer’ to improve outcomes in different areas of people’s lives, or later in time. Evidence suggests multi-strand services lead to improved outcomes in addition to, or beyond the scope and purpose of, the original intervention.2 • Better quality and more cost-efficient services are required to ensure support is sustainable.3 This calls for proactive, planned, and integrated services that residents can navigate easily.4 • People’s needs are better met when they are involved in an equal and reciprocal relationship to co-produce services and support. This empowers people and communities, supporting them to build up their own autonomy and resilience.5 • Other similar projects which foster place-based, integrated and holistic support, have improved a wide range of outcomes for those living in targeted areas.6 7

Knight, A. D., Lowe, T. Brossard, M. and Wilson. J. (2017) A whole new world: funding and commissioning in complexity. Newcastle: Collaborate for social change. Knight, A. D., Lowe, T. Brossard, M. and Wilson. J. (2017) A whole new world: funding and commissioning in complexity. Newcastle: Collaborate for social change. Locality/Vanguard (2014) Saving money by doing the right thing: Why ‘local by default’ must replace ‘diseconomies of scale London: Locality. Sher, M. (2013) The Dynamics of Change: Tavistock Approaches to Improving Social Systems. London: Karnac. Pollard, G., Studdert, J. and Tiratelli, L. (2021) Community Power: The Evidence. London: Local Trust. Batty, E., Harris, C., Leather, D., Pearson, S., Wilson, I., Carter, C., Coldwell, M. Stiell, B. and Willis, B. (2020) Children’s Communities final evaluation report. Save the Children UK. Crisp, R., Fletcher, D.R., Parr, S. and Wilson, I. (2020) West-Yorkshire Finding Independence (WY-FI): Effectiveness, outcomes and impact - final evaluation report 2020. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As a response Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together has two key aspects: 1 Engaging and listening to individuals and families in the target neighbourhood – using established community development processes and case management processes – to find out if it is possible to help them lift themselves out of poverty, and what support would they need.

2 Reorganising existing resources and public services around what they need, working holistically; recognising that support currently available is disjointed, specialist and siloed.

Evaluating Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together The evaluation is guided by the following four research questions, which are shown visually in Figure 1: 1. To what extent can we say that a Lifting Neighbourhoods Together neighbourhood has been lifted out of poverty? A multidimensional impact and outcomes measurement framework has been developed to assess the success of LNT in lifting the two neighbourhoods out of poverty. The framework’s indicators (contained in Section 3.4 of the main report) have been chosen to evidence both the key longer-term neighbourhood level impacts, as well as beneficiary outcomes that are likely to emerge in the short and medium-term. Indicators have also been identified based on their importance to the cost benefit analysis of the programme.

Within the comprehensive framework, a shorter list of 12 core indicators have been identified to summarise the impact of LNT: • Number of beneficiaries supported into employment/self-employment. • Unemployment rate. • Households 60% Below Average Incomes (HBAI). • Percentage assessed as being in income deprivation by the SIMD/IMD definition. • Wellbeing assessment – ONS question. • Proportion of population being prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression, or psychosis. • People aged 16-19 not participating in education, employment or training. • School readiness. Early Learning and Childcare in Scotland/EYSF in England. • Percentage of residents who feel their neighbourhood is a good place to live. • Percentage of residents who feel satisfaction with the repair of their accommodation. • Percentage of residents who are worried about being a victim of crime. • Overall crime rate. 2. To what extent can we say that systems change has been achieved? A Systems Maturity and Behaviours Framework has been developed to help assess, plan and measure progress of the LNT programme in creating an effective, joined up local system that works to lift neighbourhoods together so residents can thrive. It is intended that the tool can inform the delivery of the LNT programme, as well as its evaluation. 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The tool identifies 11 systems maturity indicators which are assessed against a five-stage categorisation of maturity. This categorisation captures the processes through which systems maturity can be observed and established and will have positive longer-term outcomes for the neighbourhoods. This assessment is based on qualitative work by the evaluation team as self-assessment by the LNT Neighbourhood Teams. 3. Is the Benefit Cost Ratio positive? This evaluation question seeks to establish whether the benefits created by LNT exceed its costs: the economic case for LNT. The evaluation is adopting a cost benefit analysis methodology based on the Department for Work and Pensions’ Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework (2013)8 and reflecting the principles set out in the Treasury’s Green Book. In broad terms, it involves comparing the monetised value of outcomes that can be attributed to the programme against its costs to derive a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). Section 3.6 of the main report indicates the benefits that will be considered in the model and the approach to value benefits.

Figure 1: A summary of the evaluation questions To what extent can we say that a LNT neighbourhood has been lifted out of poverty?

To what extent can we say that system change has been achieved?

Inputs

Systems maturity

Participants /bens

Activity

Outcomes

Impacts

What have we learnt about how and whether the LNT model can be replicated?

Is the BCR positive?

4. What have we learnt about how, and whether, the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together model can be replicated? The replicability of the LNT model will be assessed qualitatively and by the success of the Walker LNT neighbourhood, which has been specifically established to assess how the model can be replicated.

8 Fujiwara, D. (2013) The Department for Work and Pensions Social Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework. Methodologies for estimating and incorporating the wider social and economic impacts of work in Cost-Benefit Analysis of employment programmes. Working Paper no. 86. This document/publication is also available on the DWP website at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrs-index.asp

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“

The rationale for Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together

Both communities feel forgotten about and have gone through various cycles of interventions which have either failed to deliver what has been promised or been taken when initial funding expired. It is important to consult communities effectively and for agencies to commit over the longer term to delivering against their needs and expectations. The LNT approach is suited to this. Listening Conversations provide an effective and inclusive mechanism to consult residents. Neighbourhood Teams are positioned to add accountability, resource, and capacity to better ensure expectations are met. LNT also seeks to ‘hard wire’ the LNT approach into the ecosystem, providing long-term sustainability.

Initiatives which address single aspects of deprivation are unlikely to have a lasting effect for residents or the neighbourhoods.

The baseline report finds: Deprivation and poverty are widespread and deep seated in both LNT neighbourhoods. They also cut across interrelated policy domains. Data reveals both neighbourhoods exhibit high levels of unemployment and households with low income; low levels of health and wellbeing, and high rates of crime and anti-social behaviour. This supports LNT’s coordinated and holistic approach to address the multiple forms of deprivation affecting residents. Initiatives which address single aspects of deprivation are unlikely to have a lasting effect for residents or the neighbourhoods. This is because people’s lives are shaped by complex ecologies in which a series of ‘systems’ (which include family, neighbourhood, economic, social and cultural contexts) interact to directly, and indirectly, affect outcomes.9

communities feel forgotten about and have gone through various cycles of interventions.

9 See for example Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American psychologist, 32(7), 513.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Local people have considerable skills, knowledge, and experience, as well as a willingness to pull together to help themselves. However, this is often latent or constrained in its effectiveness, due to a lack of agency and infrastructure. This supports the LNT’s community capacity building role to enable the communities to co-produce hyper-local responses, so they can tackle their own problems. Community capacity building should work with, and enhance, existing community infrastructure to avoid duplication and competition. It should also seek to bridge differences that are identified between subpopulations, and with the wider ecosystem. As resident needs and demand for services rise, accessing and coordinating provision in an appropriate and timely manner for the best outcomes is becoming more complex and difficult. There is increasing support by a range of stakeholders (including policy-makers, commentators, and academics) for the LNT approach of proactive, planned and integrated services that residents can navigate easily.10 The evaluation considers this by assessing level of systems maturity, adopting the methodology set out in Section 3.5 of the main report. Baseline levels of systems maturity in the two neighbourhoods – before service delivery of the LNT projects begins – were assessed at a ‘building’ level. This implies increasing momentum for a more strategically planned and integrated delivery of services. But little change has taken place to achieve this. Consequently, there is a clear role for LNT to add coordination, capacity, and leadership to ensure these aspirations are met.

Immediate priorities are likely to include: • Providing capacity and coordination to bring strategies together into a shared vision. • Coordinate, and when appropriate, provide leadership, in establishing governance relationships and formal partnerships. Evidence suggests formal infrastructure and arrangements are required to overcome challenges (such as competition) in the ecosystem, and ensure the LNT model is sustainable. • Continue Listening Conversations as a means to: bridge the gap between residents and services; generate evidence to inform service provision and design; and promote community improvement and capacity building. • Provide capacity and coordination to map, integrate, and join up services. This includes establishing support pathways and multi-agency groups to support the most in need.

10 Sher, M. (2013) The Dynamics of Change: Tavistock Approaches to Improving Social Systems. London: Karnac.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Summary

The next phase of the evaluation will:

The baseline report provides:

• Continue to refine the evaluation approach; ensuring the necessary tools are in place to evidence the success and learning from LNT.

• A clear framework and methodology to respond to the evaluations’ four questions. • The rationale for the LNT approach. It considers the literature, as well as evidence from the two neighbourhoods, with regards to area level data, resident perceptions, and a baseline assessment of systems maturity. • Learning and recommendations to inform the development of LNT in the two neighbourhoods.

• Evaluate the progress of LNT in reorganising resources and services to support residents better, in a more sustainable, holistic, and integrated way. • Assess early evidence on the extent to which LNT in supporting neighbourhoods to become lifted out of poverty. • Support the LNT teams in developing tools to enable the replication of the LNT approach.

1 INTRODUCTION

“

A baseline assessment of conditions in the two Lifting Neighbourhoods Together neighbourhoods…

1 This is the first report of the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together (LNT) evaluation being undertaken between 2020 and 2024, by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), at Sheffield Hallam University and Sonnet Advisory and Impact. It presents a baseline assessment of conditions in the two LNT neighbourhoods, in the Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays area of Edinburgh and the Walker area of Newcastle upon Tyne. The report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 outlines the LNT programme and its aims and objectives, in the context of evidence for addressing poverty and place-based working. Chapter 3 sets out the research questions for the evaluation, and describes the methodological approach it is taking. Chapter 4 describes the two LNT neighbourhoods, and compares them, using a set of dimensions. Chapter 5 assesses the systems maturity in the two LNT neighbourhoods with respect to: strategic planning; governance; services delivery; as well as the generation and use of evidence. Based on this evidence, Chapter 6 identifies key implications for the delivery of the LNT programme in the two neighbourhoods.

2 Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together

“

Tackling poverty requires a different approach that factors in the complexity and challenge of people lives

“

2 2.1. Introduction This chapter describes the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together (LNT) programme and its delivery model. It then briefly sets on the evidence in which the approach is located.

2.2. Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together is a radical project which is testing a simpler solution to addressing poverty at a neighbourhood level. Developed by Community Renewal Trust, the project has been awarded grant funding of £2.1 million from the National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF). This funding enables LNT to test and learn from the approach in two neighbourhoods. Community Renewal Trust is leading a project in the Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays area of Edinburgh. In addition, Building Futures East is running a similar project in the Walker area of Newcastle upon Tyne. The Walker Neighbourhood Team has been funded specifically to test the replicability of the LNT approach under the guidance of Community Renewal Trust. 1 Engaging and listening to individuals and families in the target neighbourhood – using established community development processes and case management processes – to find out if it is possible to help them lift themselves out of poverty, and what support would they need.

2 Reorganising existing resources and public services around what they need, working holistically; recognising that support currently available is disjointed, specialist and siloed.

The Community Renewal and Building Futures East Neighbourhood Teams will work street-by-street in their respective neighbourhoods, systematically engaging every single household in a Listening Conversation. These conversations seek to understand household situations, their needs and their goals. Each household that needs support to lift themselves out of poverty will be supported by the same team member for the remaining duration of the initiative. That team member will case manage the need to bring in the specialist knowledge of colleagues and support as required. In conjunction, the LNT project will work with existing resources and public services to reorganise provision around what individuals and households need, with the aim to empower the residents to lift themselves out of poverty. The LNT teams in Edinburgh and Newcastle will invite public and third sector workers – ‘time donors’ – to join their Neighbourhood Teams. These workers will bring their expertise into the team but will work from a set of principles and holistic working methods that look at the whole person or whole family rather than leading with their specialism. The aim of the two LNT neighbourhoods is to demonstrate that the approach leads to more effective mechanisms of support – from agencies and the community itself – and is successful in lifting neighbourhoods out of poverty. It aims to set out how the LNT model can be replicated so the approach can be expanded into other deprived neighbourhoods across the UK. 13

2 2.3. The evidence base underpinning Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together The LNT approach is rooted in evidence The LNT approach is rooted in evidence that, despite multiple and often successful interventions to address specific aspects of poverty and disadvantage, or to improve services, there are limits to what single initiatives working in isolation can achieve. Poorer outcomes for households in disadvantaged communities persist, and many of those living in deprived areas face multiple challenges which have impacts across their lives. Community Renewal Trust has tested smaller scale changes and commissioned background research over twenty years to reach their programme design.11 A review of the evidence base for the development of a co-ordinated, placebased approach to address poverty and improving outcomes for residents reaches six key conclusions: • People’s lives are shaped by complex ecologies in which a series of ‘systems’ (which include family, neighbourhood, economic, social and cultural contexts) interact to directly, and indirectly, affect outcomes12. Initiatives which address only single aspects of these ecologies will have limited impacts. Instead, a holistic, area-based approach offers the

best opportunity to address poverty and improve outcomes for those living in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.13 • There is a wealth of evidence available across a range of interventions that it is possible to improve various outcomes (including for instance, educational attainment14, employability15, financial health16, social and emotional wellbeing17, and engagement in risky or criminal behaviours18). This leads to a strong rationale for an approach which marshals a coordinated and holistic approach to service delivery, to overcome some of the limitations of siloed, single-issue based delivery. • The positive effects of specific interventions can also ‘transfer’ to improve outcomes in different areas of people’s lives, or later in time. Examples might include interventions which seek to address health inequalities, but which also facilitate improved management of health conditions, readiness for work and employability, ultimately facilitating the take up of sustained employment and higher household income19. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that positive impacts arising from interactions between different strands of a multi-strand services lead to improved outcomes in addition to, or beyond the scope and purpose of, the original intervention.20 • There is increasing recognition that better quality and more cost-efficient

11 For more information see the following sources: https://www.communityrenewal.org.uk/resource/reports-evaluations/evaluation-of-craigmillar-health-case-management-project/; https://www.communityrenewal.org.uk/resource/reports-evaluations/transforming-young-lives-2/; https://www.communityrenewal.org.uk/resource/reports-evaluations/area-employment-projects-2011/; https://www.communityrenewal.org.uk/resource/reports-evaluations/community-renewal-moray-link-worker-evaluation/ 12 See for example Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American psychologist, 32(7), 513. 13 Knight, A. D., Lowe, T. Brossard, M. and Wilson. J. (2017) A whole new world: funding and commissioning in complexity. Newcastle: Collaborate for social change. 14 Learning and Work Institute (2020) Improving attainment among disadvantaged students in the FE and adult learning sector: An evidence review. Social Mobility Commission. 15 Damm, C., Green, A., Pearson, S., Sanderson, E., Wells, P. and Wilson, I. (2020) Talent Match Evaluation: A Final Assessment. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University. 16 Personal Finance Research Centre at the University of Bristol and Ipsos Mori (2018) What Works Fund Evidence Analysis by Life Stage. The Money Advice Service: London. 17 Solutions for Public Health (2020) Rapid Evidence Assessment of Wellbeing Impact Evaluations using ONS4 Personal Wellbeing Measures. What Works Wellbeing. 18 Levy, L., Santhakumaran, D. and Whitcross, R. (2014) What Works to Reduce Crime?: A Summary of the Evidence. Scottish Government Justice Analytical Services. 19 Public Health England (2014) Local Action on health inequalities: Increasing employment opportunities and improving workplace health. Public Health England: London. Health Equity Review 5. 20 Knight, A. D., Lowe, T. Brossard, M. and Wilson. J. (2017) A whole new world: funding and commissioning in complexity. Newcastle: Collaborate for social change. 21 Locality/Vanguard (2014) Saving money by doing the right thing: Why ‘local by default’ must replace ‘diseconomies of scale. London: Locality.

2 services are required to ensure support is sustainable21. As people’s needs and demand for services rise, accessing and coordinating provision in an appropriate and timely manner for the best outcomes is becoming more complex and difficult. Tackling poverty requires a different approach that factors in the complexity and challenge of people’s lives and the neighbourhoods where they live and work.22 It requires proactive, planned and integrated services that residents can navigate easily.23 • There is strong evidence that people’s needs are better met when they are involved in an equal and reciprocal relationship to co-produce services and support. This allows services to be built around communities, their needs, aspirations, capabilities, and skills, to empower them to build up their own autonomy and resilience.24 • There is encouraging, emerging evidence that other similar projects which foster place-based, integrated, and holistic support, have improved a wide range of outcomes for those living in targeted areas.25 26

2.4. Summary This chapter has outlined the LNT model and summarised the evidence supporting a holistic, place-based approach to addressing poverty and improving outcomes for residents in the target neighbourhoods. The next chapter outlines the evaluation questions, and how these will be addressed.

22 23 24 25 26

Cottam, H. (2018) Radical Help: How we can remake the relationships between us and revolutionise the welfare state. Virago Little Brown. Sher, M. (2013) The Dynamics of Change: Tavistock Approaches to Improving Social Systems. London: Karnac. Pollard, G., Studdert, J. and Tiratelli, L. (2021) Community Power: The Evidence. London: Local Trust. Batty, E., Harris, C., Leather, D., Pearson, S., Wilson, I., Carter, C., Coldwell, M. Stiell, B. and Willis, B. (2020) Children’s Communities final evaluation report. Save the Children UK. Crisp, R., Fletcher, D.R., Parr, S. and Wilson, I. (2020) West-Yorkshire Finding Independence (WY-FI): Effectiveness, outcomes and impact – Final evaluation report 2020. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.

3 Evaluating Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together

“

The community renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together programme is rooted in a Systems Thinking approach

“

3 3.1. Introduction This chapter sets out the questions for the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together (LNT) evaluation and then articulates the methodology that will be applied to address them.

3.2. The evaluation questions The evaluation is guided by the following four research questions, which are shown visually in Figure 2:

Figure 2: A summary of the evaluation questions To what extent can we say that a LNT neighbourhood has been lifted out of poverty?

To what extent can we say that system change has been achieved?

Inputs

Systems maturity

Participants /bens

Activity

Outcomes

Impacts

• To what extent can we say that a LNT neighbourhood has been lifted out of poverty? • To what extent can we say that system change has been achieved? • Is the Benefit Cost Ratio positive? • What have we learnt about how and whether the LNT model can be replicated?

What have we learnt about how and whether the LNT model can be replicated?

Is the BCR positive?

• Horizontal complexity: LNT works across multiple sectors (social, economic, physical, political and others) simultaneously and aims for synergy among them. • Vertical complexity: LNT aims for change at the individual, household, community, organisational and systems levels.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES

LNT OUTCOMES

• Community responsiveness and flexibility over time: LNT is designed to be community-specific and to evolve in response to the dynamics of a specific target neighbourhood, and the lessons being learned by the overall model.

Ecosystem

LNT Community

LNT

Ecosystem

Community Ecosystem

Ecosystem Community

Systems Maturity and Behaviours Governance

Planning

Service delivery

Activity

Building

Basic

• Community building: LNT aims to strengthen and empower community capacity with enhanced social capital. • Contextual issues: LNT aims to incorporate external political, economic, and other conditions into their framework, even though they may have little power to affect them.

SYSTEM OUTCOMES

Evidence

Sustaining

The evaluation is taking a theory-based approach, drawing on systems and complexity thinking, to develop a systems-based Theory of Change approach. This model reflects the conceptual basis of the LNT programme:

Figure 3: A change model for LNT

Developed

3.3. The evaluation approach

The remaining sections in this chapter outline our approach to measuring outcomes and impact, evaluating systems change, and assessing the economic case for LNT.

• Community saturation: LNT aims to reach all members of a community, and therefore individual residents cannot be randomly assigned to treatment and control groups for the purposes of assessing impact. Figure 3 lays out a basic change model for LNT.

3 3.4. To what extent can we say that a Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together neighbourhood has been lifted out of poverty? This section outlines how the evaluation will assess the impact of LNT in lifting the two neighbourhoods out of poverty. Beneficiary and Neighbourhood Level Outcome measures Poverty is understood as a multidimensional problem, yet traditionally it has been measured in monetary terms: assessing whether a household’s income meets a given absolute or relative amount of income. LNT, though, is aligned with broader multidimensional concepts of poverty, both its focus and mode of delivery. This recognises aspects such as multidimensional poverty, capability poverty, clustered place disadvantage, as well as social inclusion, cohesion, and mobility.

Lifting Neighbourhoods Together is aligned with broader multidimensional concepts of poverty…. such as capability poverty, clustered place disadvantage, as well as social inclusion, cohesion and mobility.

Table 4 overleaf outlines the framework. It shows: • Which indicators will be measured. These have been grouped under broad thematic headings with the Core Indicators (shaded in light grey) identified first.

Working with the LNT Neighbourhood Teams, the evaluation has developed an initial outcome and impact measurement framework to reflect the planned work. The framework’s indicators have been chosen to evidence both the key longer-term neighbourhood level impacts, as well as beneficiary outcomes that are likely to emerge in the short and medium term. Indicators have also been identified based on their importance to the cost benefit analysis of the programme.

• Whether indicators measure beneficiary outcomes or area level impacts.

Within the comprehensive framework a shorter list of 12 Core Indicators have been identified to summarise the impact of LNT. These indicators have been selected for their importance in assessing poverty and stronger alignment to the proposed work of LNT.

During the next year, the evaluation will refine the framework with key stakeholders. This will include identifying data sources for indicators which are not readily available, or not available in a timely manner, to allow the evaluation to assess the ongoing impact of the LNT programme.

• The data source (or intended source) where indicators will be measured. • How the evaluation will assess additionality (see the sub-section below for further explanation). • How, and if, the indicators will be included in the Cost Benefit Assessment.

3 Table 4: The outcomes Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Supported into employment/self-employment

Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT monitoring data)

Quasi-experimental compared to LFS

Primary evidence: net change in income received and societal benefit

Unemployment rate

Neighbourhood level Area level matched comparator DWP benefits data

Primary evidence: Average cost to exchequer

Supported into sustainable employment/ self-employment

Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT monitoring data)

Quasi-experimental compared to LFS

Primary evidence: net change in income received

Employment/employability goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data

Qualitative assessment

Proportion of young people who are Not in Employment Education or Training (NEETs)

Neighbourhood level Area level matched comparator DWP benefits data

Employment indicators

GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£4,952)

3 Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Employment indicators Households 60% Below Average Incomes (HBAI)

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Primary evidence: net change in income

Percentage assessed as being in Income Deprivation by the SIMD/IMD definition

Neighbourhood level DWP Area level matched comparator benefits data

Primary evidence: average cost to exchequer

Financial/Poverty goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data

Qualitative assessment

Debt goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data

Qualitative assessment

Welfare Rights goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data

Qualitative assessment

How well would you say you yourself are managing Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT Qualitative assessment financially these days monitoring data)

HACT Social Value calculator (£8,917)

IMD – income deprivation affecting children (IDAC) Neighbourhood level; DWP Area level matched comparator benefits data

Primary evidence: Average cost to exchequer

IMD – income deprivation affecting older people (IDAOP)

Neighbourhood level; DWP Area level matched comparator benefits data

Primary evidence: Average cost to exchequer

Free School Meals

Neighbourhood level; Pupil census and National Pupil Database

Area level matched comparator

3 Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Health, Wellbeing and Social Care indicators Wellbeing assessment – ONS question

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data)

Primary evidence: wellbeing valuation

Proportion of population being prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression or psychosis

Neighbourhood level; SIMD and IMD

TBC

Mental Health goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Physical Health goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Self-Care goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Substance Dependence goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Suicidal Thoughts goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Isolation Social Exclusion goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Bereavement/Grief goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Standardised mortality ratio (Deaths all ages)

Neighbourhood level; SIMD and IMD Area level matched comparator

Alcohol-related hospital admissions

Neighbourhood level; Public Health Scotland (TBC in Walker)

Area level matched comparator

TBC

Drug-related hospital admission

Neighbourhood level; SIMD and IMD Area level matched comparator

TBC

Comparative illness factor: standardised ratio

Neighbourhood level; SIMD and IMD Area level matched comparator

Area level matched comparator

3 Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Health, Wellbeing and Social Care indicators / continued Emergency patient hospitalisations

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Public Area level matched comparator Health Observatory (TBC in Walker)

Proportion of live singleton births of low birth weight Neighbourhood level; Public Health Scotland (TBC in Walker) Hospital admissions

GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£TBC)

Area level matched comparator

Neighbourhood level; Public Health Area level matched comparator Scotland (TBC in Walker)

GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£TBC)

3 Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Education and Training indicators People aged 16-19 not participating in education, employment or training

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Area level matched comparator Government Education Statistics; School destinations data

GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£4,952)

School readiness. Early Learning and Childcare in Scotland/EYSF in England

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Government Education Statistics; NPD

TBC

Education goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Digital Exclusion goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Training qualifications

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Childcare goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Familial Estrangement goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Truancy or unexplained absence

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Area level matched comparator Education Statistics

GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£1,965)

Exclusions

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Area level matched comparator Government Education Statistics

GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£12,007)

Attainment of school leavers

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Education Statistics

Area level matched comparator

TBC

17-21-year-olds enrolling into higher education

Neighbourhood level; SIMD/HESA

Area level matched comparator

TBC

Area level matched comparator

Child in care Neighbourhood level; TBC TBC

GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£58,664) 24

3 Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Community and Housing indicators Overall, do you think your neighbourhood is or a bad place to live?

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

HACT social value calculator a good (£1,747)

Satisfaction with repair of accommodation

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Primary evidence; subjective wellbeing method

I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

HACT social value calculator (£3,753)

Housing/Risk of Homelessness goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Transport/Mobility goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Neighbourhood Dispute goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Number in rent arrears of 4+ weeks

Neighbourhood level; TBC

Rough sleeping to secure housing

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

HACT social value calculator (£24,467)

Temporary accommodation to secure housing

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data)

HACT social value calculator (£8,019)

Rough sleeping to temporary accommodation

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data)

HACT social value calculator (£16,448)

Area level matched comparator

Primary evidence: reduction on arrears

3 Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour indicators How worried are you about being a victim of crime?

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Overall Crime Rate Neighbourhood level; Police Scotland Area level matched comparator Local Violence/Intimidation goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Domestic Violence goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Discrimination goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Criminal Conviction goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

Legal goals achieved

Beneficiary level; LNT monitoring data Qualitative assessment

HACT social value calculator (£12,274) GMCA unit cost database: Financial (£1,036)/Economic (£1,175)

Non-sexual crimes of violence Neighbourhood level; Police Scotland Area level matched comparator

GMCA unit cost database: Violence without injury Financial (£2,477)

Sexual crimes Neighbourhood level; Police Scotland Area level matched comparator

GMCA unit cost database: Other sexual offences Financial (£1,640)

Crimes of dishonesty

Neighbourhood level; Police Scotland

Area level matched comparator

TBC

Fire-raising/vandalism etc.

Neighbourhood level; Police Scotland

Area level matched comparator

TBC

Other crimes

Neighbourhood level; Police Scotland

Area level matched comparator

TBC

3 Indicator

Measurement (level and source)

Additionality

Valuation

Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour indicators / continued Recorded fires

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

Area level matched comparator

TBC

Deliberate fires

Neighbourhood level; Scottish Fire Area level matched comparator and Rescue Service

GMCA unit cost database: Other sexual offences Financial (£5,472)

How much of a problem are teenagers hanging around on the streets?

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

HACT social value calculator (£5,760)

How much of a problem is vandalism or graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles?

Beneficiary level; TBC Qualitative assessment (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

HACT social value calculator (£4,072)

How much of a problem is rubbish or litter lying around?

Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Qualitative assessment

HACT social value calculator (£449)

How much of a problem are scruffy gardens/ landscaping?

Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Qualitative assessment

HACT social value calculator (£379)

How much of a problem is dog or other excrement?

Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Qualitative assessment

HACT social value calculator (£401)

How much of a problem are the external condition of dwellings?

Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Qualitative assessment

HACT social value calculator (£336)

How much of a problem is the condition of road, pavements, and street furniture?

Beneficiary level; TBC (LNT monitoring data/Survey)

Qualitative assessment

HACT social value calculator (£196)

3 Establishing Impact

A key challenge for the evaluation is how to determine the attribution of outcome change to LNT interventions: outcomes over and above what would have happened in the absence of LNT interventions. This is particularly important in the context of Covid-19, where the lasting social, economic and health effects of the pandemic mean the current baseline situation is an unreliable counterfactual. For example, maintaining the current unemployment rate may represent a positive outcome compared to what is happening in similar neighbourhoods. The evaluation is adopting a multi-method approach, based on practical considerations (such as data availability), to generate a robust counterfactual by combining evidence from multiple methods. These methods will include the following, with the third column of Table 4 indicating which method will be used to assess each indicator: • Quasi-experimental matched sample analysis using the Labour Force Survey (LFS) Five Quarters Panel. The advantage of this source is the high degree of methodological rigour and robustness provided in assessing additionality (achieving level 4 on the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale). However, the following weakness need to be acknowledged, which explains the need to combine this source with other assessments: comparison is only available at baseline, three, six and/or 12 months, and many key outcomes are unlikely to be contained within the LFS, so levels of additionality cannot be estimated. • Area level matched comparator. Benchmarking change in LNT neighbourhoods to statistically similar neighbourhoods. Taking place across secondary and administrative data which is available at a Data Zone or LSOA level. This approach provides a high level of scientific rigor.

However, it will only be able to consider a limited number of outcomes for which secondary and administrative data are available. Also, because the analysis is at an area level, the impact of LNT may be watered down if it does not engage a higher proportion of residents. • Qualitative assessment of additionality undertaken as part of in-depth qualitative case study work with beneficiaries. The approach can: provide a more rigorous assessment of additionality; facilitate a greater understanding of the causes of impact and the ‘contamination’ from other factors and interventions; and provides a perception of additionality across a wide range of outcome areas. However, this approach is less robust because the assessment is made on a lower number of cases. It will not be possible to undertake detailed subgroup analysis to understand variation in additionality across resident groups.

The maturity framework … represents a path towards an increasingly organised and systematic way of doing work.

3.5. To what extent can we say that system change has been achieved? The change model presented above, recognises that the LNT programme is rooted in a Systems Thinking approach: existing public and third sector workers will be invited to join the LNT programme, bringing their expertise into the team but working from a set of principles and holistic working methods, that look at the whole person or whole family rather than leading with their specialism. A system is any group of interacting, interrelated or interdependent parts that form a complex and unified whole that has a specific purpose. In the context of LNT, these may include: • Macro level systems such as all neighbourhood services and/or agencies that are involved in addressing neighbourhood poverty. • Systems targeted at specific issues such as services and/or agencies supporting residents into employment or alleviating social isolation and loneliness.

Systems Thinking is a holistic approach to work that focuses on the way that constituent parts (e.g. particular services or agencies) interrelate and how systems work over time and within the context of larger systems. Underpinning Systems Thinking approaches are both visible and intangible aspects that promote holistic and joined up working. These aspects include local multiagency strategy and plans, leadership, partnership working between services and information sharing. A Systems Maturity and Behaviours Framework has been developed to inform and understand the impact of LNT. The maturity framework is a technique to assess ways of working. It represents a path towards an increasingly organised and systematic way of doing work. A maturity assessment can be used to measure the current maturity level of system in a meaningful way, enabling stakeholders to clearly identify strengths and improvement points, and accordingly prioritise what to do to reach higher levels of systems maturity. The Systems Maturity and Behaviours Framework has been developed to help assess, plan and measure progress of the LNT programme in creating an effective, joined up local system that works to lift a neighbourhood together, so residents can thrive. It is intended that the tool can inform delivery of the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together programme, as well as its evaluation. The current Systems Maturity and Behaviours tool represents a first version. It has been developed from the literature on what makes an efficient and effective system. The evaluation we will seek to review and refine the tool, so it is reflective of the LNT programme and better able to inform future evaluation and planning.

3 The Framework focuses on the processes of local systems change, as well as the impacts that are anticipated because of the changes by LNT to systems. This is important because it allows us to understand how change has happened as well as what difference it has made. In the context of the LNT evaluation, the Systems Maturity and Behaviours Framework can be utilised to build a set of indicators of process change, which are associated with differing levels of ‘maturity’ of the two neighbourhoods. This allows the evaluation to understand the progress at different stages of development, and ultimately the relationships between system level outcomes and those for residents. For the evaluation purposes, the LNT Neighbourhood Teams are treated as an agent of change within the neighbourhood in a local system, with an associated set of structures, processes, and functions. Thus, the relationships between LNT and the wider systems within which they are working, are of critical importance to the evaluation. We have organised the systems maturity indicators into four sets of categories. reflecting the levels which LNT, as an agent of system change, operates: Planning, which includes: • Strategy: Understanding needs and the creation of a plan of action for local services to achieve long-term aims and objectives. • Commissioning: Planning for what services are needed by local populations and making sure that those services are available. • Workforce planning: Planning to ensure agencies have the right people, with the right skills and capabilities, in the right job and at the right moment. Governance, which includes: • Partnership: Collaborative relationships between multiple agencies based on trust, equality, and mutual understanding for the achievement of a specified goal(s).

• Leadership: Leaders: create an inspiring vision for better joined up working; motivate and inspire people to engage in the vision; manage the delivery of the vision; and coach and build a team to more effectively achieve the vision. • Community involvement: Local people and communities are able and empowered to play a full part in decision-making to locally design solutions, to solve their own problems. Service delivery, which includes: • Services and interventions: The neighbourhood is served by high quality services delivering sustainable, joined-up, evidence-based interventions. • Information sharing: This is safe and secure sharing of information and data to deliver better and efficient services that are coordinated around the needs of the individual. • Service experience: There is a positive user experience of local services and journey between local services. Outcomes and evidence, which includes: • Outcomes: Shared frameworks help to understand, monitor, and test the link between action and activity with what services want to achieve. • Using and generating evidence: An available body of facts or information about what is needed, or works, is used to inform decisions. There is also investment in good evaluation about whether solutions work.

3 Under each heading, the evaluation utilises a five-stage categorisation of maturity to capture the processes through which systems maturity can be observed and established and will have positive longer-term outcomes for the neighbourhoods. These are: • • • • •

Basic Building Developing Developed Sustaining

The Systems and Behaviours Tool, which is hosted on the LNT website, presents a series of descriptors at the relevant maturity level for that indicator. But appreciating in reality, there will be variable progression (stagnation and regression) across different aspects of systems change.

The questions the Neighbourhood Teams are asking for each sub-system are: 1 Which organisations are currently operating around the neighbourhood and are part of this subsystem?

2 What is the nature of the links between these organisations, and between the LNT Neighbourhood Team and these organisations?

3 Do the LNT Neighbourhood Team have named, trusted relationships within those organisations?

4 Have they been invited to become part of the Neighbourhood Team and fully coordinate with our emerging system?

Figure 5: LNT sub-systems

Describing sub-systems

The LNT project is setting out to achieve whole system change. However, as a tool to support the methodology for system change. The Neighbourhood Teams have opted to work on eight interrelated sub-systems (shown in Figure 5). This allows mapping and development of relationships to be broken down into more manageable workstreams. These eight areas are designed to mirror the social determinants of health used in public health bodies. The evaluation will report on mapping and modelling of the whole system. It will also consider these eight sub-systems and their interrelationships, particularly as part of interim assessments reflecting the focus of the LNT Neighbourhood Teams. 31

3 3.6. Is the Benefit Cost Ratio positive?

established to assess how the model can be replicated.

This evaluation question seeks to establish whether the benefits created by LNT exceed its costs: the economic case for LNT. The evaluation is adopting a cost benefit analysis methodology based on the DWP’s Cost-Benefit Analysis framework (2013)27 and reflecting the principles set out in the Treasury's Green Book. In broad terms, it involves comparing the monetised value of outcomes that can be attributed to the programme against its costs to derive a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

The qualitative assessment will consider whether it is possible to:

In computing the costs of delivering LNT, the evaluation will assess the direct and indirect costs of delivering LNT. This will include set up, management and oversight costs, costs for the two LNT Neighbourhood Teams as well as the additional resources levered in to support LNT (such as donor time from partner agencies). The evaluation will calculate the cost of supporting residents through LNT and assess, through qualitative work, how the costs of service delivery change because of the new ways of working. The costs of LNT will be compared against the monetise net additional financial and societal benefits emerging from the programme, to compute a BCR. The final column of Table 4 indicates the benefits that will be considered in the model and the approach to value benefits.

3.7. What have we learnt about how and whether the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together model can be replicated? The replicability of the LNT model will be assessed qualitatively and by the success of the Walker LNT neighbourhood, which has been specifically

• Identify core philosophy and design principles components of the LNT model. • Identify core implementation components, such as cost, delivery structures and activity of the LNT model. • Identify discretionary and adaptable components of the LNT model which allow other neighbourhoods to tailor and customise an effective LNT model. • Identify standalone parts of the LNT model for use in neighbourhoods which want to implement only parts of the model. • Demonstrate levels of efficacy and effectiveness of the LNT model. to communicate the benefits of the approach to other neighbourhoods. • Provide technical assistance and consultation on how to implement the LNT model. • Assess the effects of contextual factors which may impact on the successful replication of the LNT model.

3.8. Summary This chapter has set out the four evaluation questions. It has also outlined a clear framework and methodology to respond to these questions. The next chapter presents data on the current situation in the two LNT neighbourhoods, before delivery of LNT begins.

27 Fujiwara, D. (2013) The Department for Work and Pensions Social Cost-Benefit Analysis framework. Methodologies for estimating and incorporating the wider social and economic impacts of work in Cost-Benefit Analysis of employment programmes. Working Paper no. 86. This document/publication is also available on the DWP website at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrs-index.asp

4 Neighbourhood characteristics and perceptions:

“

evidence reveals deprivation and poverty are widespread and deep seated in both COMMUNITY RENEWAL: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together neighbourhoods… across a number of interrelated policy domains.

“

4 4.1. Introduction

Map 4.1: Bingham, Magdalene, the Christians and the Hays

This chapter profiles the baseline characteristics of the two LNT neighbourhoods before the programme commences. It then draws out key points from interviews with residents about their perceptions of their local neighbourhoods.

4.2. Neighbourhood profile of Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays Population characteristics

Bingham and Magdalene are suburbs of Edinburgh, lying approximately 3 miles southeast of the city centre. The Bingham and Magdalene neighbourhood emerged in the postwar period when, in 1948, The City of Edinburgh Council built a housing scheme in the area known as Bingham. This continued eastwards, across the now Duddingston Park South Road, into another housing scheme called the Magdalene Scheme. At the very east of the neighbourhood lies the A1. The LNT neighbourhood also includes The Christians and parts of the Hays (in Niddrie), as shown in Map 4.1.

4 The population of the combined Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays neighbourhood is 4,751 residents according to the latest 2019 mid-year population estimates. A distinctive feature of the population is its relatively high proportions who are both young and old. Eighteen per cent of residents are aged 65 years and over, while 20 per cent under 16 years of age. This compares to the City of Edinburgh, where just 15 per cent fall into each age bracket. At the time of the 2011 Census, the neighbourhood had a notably higher White British and Irish population (88 per cent) compared to the City of Edinburgh as a whole (84 per cent). However, resident interviews suggest the population has experienced a high turnover over recent years, with a growing non-White, British population. Given its history as a series of postwar housing schemes, it is unsurprising to see a high level of social renting in the area. Fully 52 per cent of households are in social renting compared to just 17 per cent in Edinburgh, and 24 per cent in Scotland. Conversely, levels of owner occupation are lower, with 38 per cent in this tenure compared to three fifths in both the Local Authority and Scotland as a whole. The 2011 Census contains the most reliable data available on household types in the neighbourhood. This data shows the neighbourhood has relatively high levels of lone parent families with dependent children (14 per cent) and older aged single person (16 per cent) households. By way of comparison, in Edinburgh, nine per cent of households are lone parent with dependent children and 12 per cent comprise older age single-person households.

Bingham and Magdalene: Population Profile A brief look at the deprivation in the Bingham and Magdalene area, compared with Edinburgh. Bingham and Magdalene has a population of 4,754. Broad age groups Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Edinburgh

70%

62% 20% Under 16

Working age (16-64)

18%

15%

65 and over

Under 16

15% Working age (16-64)

65 and over

Non White British/Irish population

Lone parent households with dependent children

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Edinburgh

13% 16%

Edinburgh

14%

Social rented households Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays Edinburgh

52%

17%

Sources: Population and broad age groups; Scottish Population Estimates (2019) / / Non-white British/Irish population, Social rented households, lone parent households, Census (2011)

Data shows that the current (April 2021) working age claimant unemployment rate in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays (12 per cent) is double that for Edinburgh (five per cent) and Scotland (six per cent). The rate in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays has increased significantly since the onset of the pandemic. For example, in April 2019 the working age claimant unemployment rate was less than half the current level: 5 per cent. This mirrors the pattern seen more widely. According to the latest SIMD data, 28 per cent of households in Bingham and Magdalene (approximately 1,330 households) were classified as being Income-deprived. This is the percentage in receipt of Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance, Job Seekers Allowance, Guaranteed Pension Credits, and Child and Working Tax Credits. This level would place the neighbourhood in the most deprived 10 per cent of Data Zones in Scotland and the 5 per cent most deprived in Edinburgh. In Edinburgh, only eight per cent are classified as income deprived. An alternative way to assess income deprivation amongst families with children is the percentage claiming Free School Meals (FSM)28. Levels claiming free school meals in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays are significantly higher than the national and Local Authority benchmarks; with 35 per cent of pupils registered for FSM, compared to 14 per cent in Edinburgh and 21 per cent in Scotland as a whole.

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays: Deprivation Profile A brief look at the deprivation in the Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays area, compared with Edinburgh. Income Deprived

28%

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Edinburgh

Claimants of Universal Credit who are required to seek work and be available for work as well as all JSA claimants 12% Working age population (%)

Employment and income

10%

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

8% 6% 4%

Edinburgh

2% 0% Apr ‘16

Oct ‘16

Apr ‘17

Oct ‘17

Apr ‘18

People aged 16-19 participating in education, employment or training

8% Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Oct ‘18

Apr ‘19

Oct ‘19

Apr ‘20

Apr ‘21

No qualifications

33% 11%

4% Edinburgh

Oct 20

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Edinburgh

Sources: Income deprivation, People aged 16-19 not participating in education, employment or training, Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2020) // Claimant Count, NOMIS (2016-2021) // No qualifications, Census (2011)

28 Though it is acknowledged that not all eligible children will take up FSM.

4 Education

Education attainment and participation in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays are significantly lower than in other parts of Edinburgh, and for Scotland as a whole: • According to the 2011 Census, 33 per cent of the working age population in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays have no qualifications. This is significantly higher than for the City of Edinburgh and Scotland as a whole: 11 per cent and 18 per cent respectively. • SIMD data show levels of 16-19 year olds who are classified as being NEET (Not participating in Education, Employment or Training) are double Local Authority and National levels. Eight per cent of 16-19 year olds in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays (approximately 240,16-19 year olds) are NEET compared to four per cent in Edinburgh and four per cent in Scotland. • Just four per cent of 17-21 year olds in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays enrol into higher education. Crime

SIMD data reveal the combined Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays neighbourhood has a higher rate of overall crime compared to Edinburgh as a whole: 486 crimes per 10,000 population compared to 346 crimes per 10,000 population. The computed rate for Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays would place it in the second most deprived decile of Data Zones in Scotland. Based on resident interviews, it is likely that specific types of crime and antisocial behaviour are relatively higher than in other areas of the city. However, this information is not publicly available at a Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays neighbourhood level.

Another important aspect to consider is the visibility of different types of crime and anti-social behaviour which in turn is likely to have a greater, negative effect on residents.

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays: Deprivation Profile Crime rate per 10,000 people

486.2

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

346.0

Edinburgh

Hospital stays for alcohol related harm

287.4

133.44

85.4

84.14

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Edinburgh

People being prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression or psychosis Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays Edinburgh

Drug related hospital admissions

Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Comparative Illness Factor

192.5 79.4

24% Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

15%

Edinburgh

Mean House Price Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays Edinburgh

£161,782 £314,042

Sources: Crime rate, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (2020) // Hospital stays for alcohol-related harm (Broad definition), standardised admission ratio; Hospital stays related to drug use: standardised ratio; Proportion of population being prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression or psychosis; Comparative Illness Factor: Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (2020) // Mean House Price: Land Registry (2021)

4 Health

Housing

Analysis of data which make up the SIMD health domain reveal many Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays residents are in poor physical and mental health and/or take part in unhealthy behaviours. In particular:

Publicly available, neighbourhood-level data on housing is limited. What is available is also likely to underplay the key issues identified through the qualitative work presented later in this chapter. This includes the poor condition of the housing stock, level of homelessness and people in temporary accommodation, as well as high level of population turnover. These housing related factors will affect wider outcomes such as cohesion, health, employment and education levels in the neighbourhood.

• The computed Comparative Illness Factor for Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays is fully 93 per cent higher than the expected level for the Scotland average for a population with the same age and sex profile. This is the expected level of general health and long-term limiting illness in the area. • The computed standardised rate of drug related hospital admissions (287) is almost three times the expected level for a Scottish population with the same age and sex profile. • 24 per cent of the neighbourhood’s population are being prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression or psychosis. This compares to 15 per cent in Edinburgh and 20 per cent in Scotland as a whole. • Alcohol-related hospital admissions from Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays residents are 33 per cent higher than the expected level for the Scotland average for a population with the same age and sex profile.

SIMD 2019 data reveals Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays has very highdensity housing. The average number of properties per hectare is over double the average for the Local Authority. In Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays there are 29 properties per hectare compared to 10 properties per hectare across the City of Edinburgh. Despite this high-density housing, levels of overcrowding are similar to those for the Local Authority: both at 13 per cent of households. Analysis of average house prices in August 2021 from Scottish Government Statistics show levels in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays (£161,782) are significantly below the Local Authority average (£314,042). The average for Scotland is £180,832.

4 4.3. Area level outcomes in Walker Walker is a residential suburb and electoral ward just east of the centre of Newcastle upon Tyne. The area has a significant industrial past, first in coal mining, and then in ship building. However, these industries have declined significantly over the past 50 years, with the area suffering as a result. Many jobs have gone from the immediate job market and not replaced with any significant industry for local workers. Map 4.2: Walker

The population of Walker stands at just under 12,800 residents according to the latest 2019 mid-year population estimates. It has a sizable children and young person population, with just under one in four residents (24 per cent) being aged under 16 years of age. This compares to 16 per cent in Newcastle upon Tyne and 19 per cent in England. Sixteen per cent of Walker residents are aged 65 years and over, slightly higher than the 14 per cent in Newcastle upon Tyne as a whole. Nationally 18 per cent are aged 65 years and older. At the time of the last Census (2011) the neighbourhood had a notably higher White British and Irish population (91 per cent) compared to the Newcastle upon Tyne (83 per cent), and nationally in England (81 per cent). Over two thirds of residents (68 per cent) live in social housing. This is more than double the proportion in the Local Authority (30 per cent) and almost four times the proportion in England (18 per cent). Conversely levels of owner occupation are low. Just 23 per cent reside in this tenure, compared to 50 per cent in Newcastle upon Tyne and 64 per cent in England. The 2011 Census shows relatively high levels of lone parent households (20 per cent) in the neighbourhood. In Newcastle upon Tyne, eleven per cent are lone parent households, the same proportion for England as a whole. Walker also has a higher proportion of single person households (40 per cent) compared to the Local Authority (34 per cent) and nationally (30 per cent).

4 Employment and income

Walker: Population Profile A brief look at some selected facts about the population in the Walker area, compared with Newcastle upon Tyne. Walker has a population of 12,770. Broad age groups Walker

Newcastle

68%

60% 24% Under 16

Working age (16-64)

16%

17%

65 and over

Under 16

Non White British/Irish population Walker

Newcastle

Working age (16-64)

65 and over

Lone parent households

20%

Walker

17%

14%

Newcastle

11%

Social rented households

68%

Walker Newcastle

30%

Data for March 2021 show that the current working age claimant unemployment rate in Walker (15.5 per cent) is double that for Newcastle upon Type (7.6 per cent) and England (6.6 per cent). The rate in Walker has increased significantly since the onset of the pandemic. For example, in April 2019, the working age claimant unemployment rate was a third lower than the current level: 10.6 per cent. This mirrors the pattern seen more widely. According to the latest IMD 2019 data, 39 per cent of households in Walker were classified as being Income-deprived. This is the percentage in receipt of Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance, Job Seekers Allowance, Guaranteed Pension Credits, and Child and Working Tax Credits. This compares to just 18 per cent in Newcastle upon Tyne. An alternative way to assess income deprivation amongst families with children is the percentage claiming Free School Meals (FSM).29 Levels claiming free school meals in Walker are significantly higher than the national and Local Authority benchmarks. Fully 56 per cent of primary pupils from Walker are in receipt of FSM compared to 34 per cent of primary pupils in Newcastle upon Tyne and 18 per cent in England as a whole. Similarly, 49 per cent of secondary school pupils from Walker are in receipt of FSM. This is higher than the proportion in the Local Authority (31 per cent) and England (17 per cent).

Sources: Population and broad age groups; Office for National Statistics Mid-year Population Estimates (2019) / Non-white British/Irish Population, social rented households, lone parent households, Census (2011)

29 Though it is acknowledged that not all eligible children will take up FSM.

4 Education

• According to the 2011 Census, 36 per cent of the working age population in Walker have no qualifications. This is significantly higher than for the Local Authority and England as a whole: 17 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. • In 2018/19, 38 per cent of students enrolled into higher education or training. This is significantly lower than the proportion for England: 62 per cent. Crime

Walker’s total recorded crime rate in 2018/19 is broadly similar to the level for Newcastle upon Tyne as a whole: 60.8 crimes per 1,000 population and 60.1 crimes per 1,000 population respectively. However, levels for specific types of crime are significantly higher in Walker, compared to the Local Authority. These include: • Violence and sexual offences. • Criminal damage and arson. • Public order offences.

Walker: Deprivation Profile A brief look at the deprivation in the Walker area, compared with Newcastle upon Tyne. Income Deprived

39%

Walker

18%

Newcastle

Claimants of Universal Credit who are required to seek work and be available for work as well as all JSA claimants 20%

Working age population (%)

Education attainment and participation in Walker are significantly lower than in other parts of Newcastle upon Tyne and for England as a whole:

Walker

15%

10%

Newcastle

0% Feb ‘16

Aug‘16

Feb ‘17

Aug‘17

Feb ‘18

Aug ‘18

Students not in education or employment for at least two terms after study

19%

Walker

Newcastle

Feb ‘19

Aug ‘19

Feb ‘20

Aug ‘20

Feb ‘21

No qualifications

36% 17% Walker

Newcastle

Sources: Income deprivation, Indices of Deprivation (2019) // Claimant Count, NOMIS (2016-2021) // No qualifications, Census (2011) // Students not in education or emplyment for at least two terms after study; Department for Education (2018/19)

4 Health

9 per cent of households respectively at the time of the last Census (2011).

Analysis of data which make up the IMD 2019 health domain reveal many Walker residents are in poor physical and mental health and/or take part in unhealthy behaviours. In particular:

Analysis of average house prices in 2020 from the Land Registry show levels in Walker (£141,000) are significantly below the Local Authority average (£298,000). The average for England is £374,000.

• The computed Comparative Illness Factor for Walker is fully two and a half times higher than the expected level for the England average for a population with the same age and sex profile. This is the expected level of general health and long-term limiting illness in the area. The computed figure for Newcastle as a whole is only 61 per cent higher than the expected level. • Alcohol related hospital admissions from Walker residents are 82 per cent higher than the expected level for the England average for a population with the same age and sex profile. The rate for Newcastle upon Tyne as a whole is 27 per cent higher than expected.

Walker: Deprivation Profile Crime rate per 10,000 people

60.8

Walker

Hospital stays for alcohol-related harm

182.2

161.0

127.4

Walker

Newcastle

Walker

Newcastle

Mean House Price Walker

Valuation Office Agency (VOA) data reveals Walker has very high-density housing with the average number of properties per hectare just under double the average for the Local Authority. In Walker there are 22 properties per hectare, compared to 12 properties per hectare across Newcastle upon Tyne. Despite this high-density housing, levels of overcrowding in Walker are only slightly higher than those for the Local Authority: 11 per cent of households and

Comparative Illness Factor

257.5

Housing

The available data on housing is fairly limited, and is likely to underplay key aspects such as condition which evidence highlights can affect other health as well as employment and education outcomes. It is also important to cite the early tenure breakdown which identified two thirds of residents (68 per cent) live in social housing.

60.1

Newcastle

£140,774 £298,004

Sources: Crime rate, Police UK (2018/19) // Hospital stays for alcohol-related harm (Broad definition), standardised admission ratio; Public Health England (2013/14-2017/18) // Comparative Illness Factor: English Indices of Deprivation (2019) // Mean House Price, Land Registry (2020)

4 4.4. Resident perceptions in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays It is worth prefacing this section by noting that residents viewed Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays as very different communities. Relationships and feeling of community spirit lay within, but not between, the two neighbourhoods. Many of those interviewed commonly referred to competition and rivalry existing between the Bingham and Magdalene neighbourhoods. Feelings of community and pride in the individual neighbourhoods of Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays emerged as the most positive aspect reported by residents. Most recently this had emerged during Covid-19 lockdowns, with people coming together to help with meals, shopping for those shielding and fundraising activities. FareShare parcels have also been distributed by the community centre with the support of volunteers. However, this momentum and coming together has not lasted, and community spirit appears to be fading away again.

When Covid started, the community centre people rallied and they have been brilliant. We had a Covid response group as well, which was Bingham and Magdalene.

Neighbours were important to those we spoke to, particularly when they had no family or family living close by. Neighbours were seen as a source of support and in turn offering reciprocal arrangements. One interesting aspect is the very small areas that residents referred to when considering their neighbours. There often were situated at the housing block or ‘stair’ level.

I like the fact that I know my neighbours and we’ve got good neighbours and we look out for each other.

Supporting this sense of community and pride, respondents referenced the importance of community facilities and infrastructure. These included: allotments (Magdalene Growers allotments and Bingham Growers), the community centres, The Bingham Blether and Facebook page as well as local shops and cafes. Community Renewal Trust has also had a local base and supported the Bingham community for an extended period of time.

There is definitely a sense of community because people will get together. Shops and the cafe are nice places to be. Everybody knows each other.

I feel like I belong to the area, and especially when the community gardens’ on. I’ve got my own plot… You can go out to the allotment, you can talk to someone, ok its two metres, you’re still having that connection with someone.

However, some respondents cited very difficult and challenging relationships with their neighbours. Housing allocations were stated as a reason for this. Several residents cited a high turnover and new populations moving into the area over the last few years. Far more negative views emerged when residents considered their housing and satisfaction with the area. This includes the local environment, crime and antisocial behaviour. Specifically, interviewees identified: • The housing stock was rated as being very poor, especially amongst Magdalene residents, with structural and physical improvements needed. The quality of the properties was seen to affect various aspects of residents’ lives, including their comfort, mental and physical health and feelings of safety. • Local parks and green areas were seen to be poorly maintained and overgrown. As a consequence, they are underused by residents, such as parents and children.

• Street lighting was reported to be poor in and around the neighbourhoods, which affected feelings of safety after dark. • Drug dealing was identified as a significant issue by residents, with its visibility on the streets a serious concern:

They don’t even take it in the house, they do it on the street.

• One resident also noted the involvement of local children and young people from the neighbourhood as a particular concern. • Fly-tipping had reportedly increased in the neighbourhoods, particularly around the back of the houses. There were concerns from residents that this had not been addressed by the council, despite repeated calls. • Finally, many references were made to other Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) issues such as the use, and speed, of monkey bikes. • ASB in the area had also led to a key bus service being removed from their neighbourhood, which meant access to other parts of the city and the services they offer were more difficult. • Use of, and satisfaction with, local services was limited amongst those interviewed. Most commented that they felt the area had been forgotten about by the council, and other key services. Similarly, they suggested that there was no local voice in the area to call for, or make a difference in the area. Drawing out key examples.

4 • Despite the issues raised above, residents saw very little police or community policing presence in the neighbourhood. As a result, faith in the police is extremely low. Most of those who we spoke to, request more community policing in the area to deter crime and ASB, as well as to improve feeling of safety. • Most felt they had poor access to support for skills, employment, and benefits. For example, the ‘local’ Jobcentre Plus (JCP) offices were in Leith which is approximately 40 minutes away by bus. Some respondents also reported difficult relationships with staff at JCP. • Many felt communications between the council and the community were poor. • The local Asda was used, but there are issues accessing it, particularly if walking across the ‘Glen’.

The Glen is shocking because you’ve got to go down the steps which is a big hill and then you’ve got to go up the steps to go up to the road.

The access route was not well kept and hard to manage with a buggy or for those with walking difficulties. As a consequence, many of those we spoke to used local shops for everyday supplies.

4 4.5. Resident perceptions in Walker This section summarises key points to emerge from in-depth interviews with Walker residents about their views of their local neighbourhood. Walker emerged as having a more granular variation in feelings of community across the neighbourhood compared to Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays. An explanation offered for this is the high levels of population churn in the area, with many households moving in and out of the area in quick succession. Most of those interviewed didn’t feel part of a community and felt isolated with few friends.

I’ve been here all my life, but I don’t really bother with anybody in this particular area. The street that I live in I don’t really bother with anybody. There are areas around that do have that [support and a neighbourhood feel]…you haven’t really got that community kind of thing.

Interviewees suggested that there had historically been a greater sense of community spirit in Walker. However, many now felt that there was no desire for the community to come together as a group, to bring about change or raise concerns. This can be seen in the use of the Walker – Newcastle Upon Tyne Community Group Facebook page, which is viewed as being ‘individualistic’, rather than a source of community action and support. Some suggested that any attempts to get the community together would end up being confrontational. This was due to the fragmented sense of community in the area. To overcome this, it was suggested that a leader is needed, employed or from the community, to bring it together. If this were successful, there were reports that Walker has a ‘latent volunteerism’, with several interviewees (and likely their neighbours) being willing to donate their time to support the community. When interviewees were more positive about feelings of community, this tended to be in small geographical areas, such as small housing blocks. For example, the following resident talks about the community spirit in the block of flats that she lives in.

I speak to one or two of them [neighbours] but not on a regular basis. Everyone’s so friendly. You go out and everybody says hello and how are you? They’ll stop and have a natter. You might not see them again but there is that feeling like you belong, feeling like they have accepted you into the area. 46

4 Residents reported that the shops and shopping facilities in the area were good, generally affordable and could be accessed easily by foot, car and bus. However, there were reports of crime and anti-social behaviour around the local shops which discourages some from using them. Particularly in the evening and after dark. Generally, residents were positive about key services in the area. These included local GPs, schools, the library, welfare advice (provided at the library) and the nearby Jobcentre Plus. Positive feeling also extended to local organisations such as Building Futures East, who have worked in the neighbourhood, supporting community issues, for many years. Prior to the onset of Covid-19, there were a number of popular clubs and activities available in the area. These included a local boxing club and Kids’ Corner, which provided activities for children and football after school. Kids’ Corner continued to provide some activities via Zoom during the Covid lockdowns, such as cooking and meeting up. At the time of interview, just after the end of the third lockdown, it had just reopened with restricted numbers. Despite these positive views, all the residents who we spoke to, felt that the area had been forgotten and neglected by the council. Underlying this feeling is the poor upkeep of properties, unkept green areas and parks, and failure to address concerns relating to crime and anti-social behaviour. Crime and ASB was by far the main concern raised by residents, with many believing that ASB had increased during Covid. Specific points raised include: • Gangs of children/teenagers. Residents remarked that this was probably because there was nowhere to play and nothing for children to do. Parks were thought to be unsafe, with overgrown trees and bushes making it hard to see the children playing.

• Drug issues and needles were a very big problem, with residents reporting visible signs of needles in the parks and open spaces. • Litter, glass and fly-tipping are problems in the area, particularly fly-tipping in the cemetery and parks.

The grass area is a dumping ground. People just throw everything on the grass.

• One resident reported that they were scared to say anything about the ABS for fear of threats. She doesn’t go out at night or let her grandson out at night.

I wouldn’t go out on a night-time as there’s too many gangs of kids walking around.

She is keen to make sure her grandson is not getting involved with the ’wrong people’, so she doesn’t let him play out as much as he should.

its hard to let them [children] play out because the kids around here are quite bad ….its anti-social behaviour. I can be in the garden and there’s stones coming in the garden.

• Finally, several residents raised the speed of traffic as a concern, particularly along the main roads in the area, which have few crossing points.

…. local people have considerable assets and willingness to pull together to help themselves; but currently lack agency and infrastructure to do this.

4.6. Summary Chapter 4 has profiled the two LNT neighbourhoods before work begins delivering the programmes. It has also drawn-out key points from interviews with residents about their perceptions of their local neighbourhoods. The evidence reveals deprivation and poverty are widespread and deep-seated in both LNT neighbourhoods. This cuts across a number of interrelated policy domains, including high levels of unemployment and households with low income; low levels of health and wellbeing and high rates of crime and anti-social behaviour. However, local people have considerable assets and willingness to pull together to help themselves; but currently lack agency and infrastructure to do this. The next chapter considers the level of systems maturity in the two LNT neighbourhoods.

5 An assessment of systems maturity

“

on the front-line there are barriers to joint working.

“

5 5.1. Introduction This chapter provides a baseline assessment of systems maturity in the two LNT neighbourhoods. It considers the neighbourhoods separately in relation to: • Planning • Governance • Service delivery • Generation and use of evidence Please see Section 3.5 for a description of systems maturity and information about how systems maturity is being evaluated.

5.2. Systems Maturity in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays Strategic planning

Overall, the baseline level of planning has been assessed at a building level in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays. In essence, this means the need for (and commitment to) more strategic joined up planning is recognised, but action to achieve this has not yet begun. An increasing number of strategic plans were identified during the baseline work covering different policy domains and spatial levels. However, there was no evidence found of planning specifically for the LNT neighbourhood in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays. Key strategic plans and reports include: • The North East Locality Improvement Plan (LIP) 2017 – 2022, which covers the wards of Leith, Leith Walk, Craigentinny/Duddingston and

Portobello/Craigmillar. The plan sets out: priorities for improving the area over the next five years; actions that will be carried out in the short, medium and long-term with measures to assess progress; and commitment to target shared resources in the most effective way to tackle inequality. • The Edinburgh Local Employability Partnership’s Joined Up for Jobs strategy. It sets out how a partnership of key agencies will help more people into employment. This ensures a strategic approach to planning, implementation, and delivery, and identifies opportunities for joint working and helps tackle inequality and poverty and improve job outcomes and increase skills. • The Health and Social Care, Four Year Transformational Plan, which includes: moving to a person-centred approach around the concept of Three Conversations; developing a more holistic way of working with local people; changing the conversation to what ‘matters to you’ rather than ‘what is wrong’; and connecting people to different resources in their community while build up those hyperlocal networks and sources of support. • The Magdalene Matters Improvement Plan. This emerged out of a community-led, environmental improvement initiative, involving an estate walkabout with local people to raise issues and concerns with partners and elected members to agree solutions to tackle the issues. The Magdalene Matters Improvement Plan was developed as a result, with key actions addressing concerns of community safety, housing and environment improvements and community identity. • The Edinburgh Poverty Commission report – A Just Capital. This provides what it believed to be the most extensive inquiry into poverty, its causes, consequences, and solutions ever undertaken in a Scottish 50

5 local authority. It states poverty is not inevitable but requires action so that people who are struggling are supported to move out of poverty quickly, take control of their lives, and contribute to a city where people look after each other. The report identifies six areas for action: fair work, a decent home, income security, opportunities to progress, connections, health and wellbeing and one cultural challenge. To achieve these, it calls on a new relationship-based way of working for all public services that is sustainable, collaborative, empowering and holistic, putting prevention of poverty at the heart of everything services do. Reflecting on these plans, stakeholders identified the following points: • Strategic plans were generally seen as being developed from the topdown. Residents and front-line workers had little input into decisions, or opportunity to change decisions through consultation exercises. • Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays residents were typically underrepresented in consultations that had taken place. Stakeholders identified that consultation generally focus on neighbourhoods such as Craigmillar, meaning the views and needs of Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays residents can be excluded. • Most of the strategic plans that had been developed were unconnected, even when seeking to address similar issues or support similar populations.

There are lots of plans that are in existence at the moment, that could have the potential to come together as a shared vision in a way, but they’re just sort of coming at it from lots of different places and so on.

5 Momentum is building for more mature levels of commissioning at all levels Commissioning is vital part of planning more mature systems of working. It can be used as an effective tool to promote a more preventative, joined up, holistic provision and ways of working. Momentum is building for more mature levels of commissioning at all levels and across commissioning agencies, such as The City of Edinburgh Council, the Edinburgh City Partnership and the Health and Social Care Partnership. This remains a work in progress. Work is required to identify partners, and for these to come together to develop joint commissioning strategies. Where joined up commissioning can be identified, it often emerged as a bottom-up response, with local agencies starting to work together and identify new ways of working together to meet needs. An example being the Community Pantry coming together with Community Renewal Trust and Castle Rock Edinvar. The community has responded to negative experiences in accessing longer-term support needs by not coming forward until points of crisis have been reached. More mature commissioning is also characterised by a focus on preventative, as opposed to reactive, services. Stakeholders reflected that this is difficult to influence due to funding and capacity constraints in local services. As a result, services focus their capacity at supporting people most in need – often in a point of crisis. A reflection was also made that the community has responded to negative experiences in accessing longer-term support needs, by not coming forward until points of crisis have been reached. Something which Covid-19 has exacerbated.

Despite this context, stakeholders who had been most involved in LNT, reflected on emerging models of support which seek to identify people in need of support before crisis situations are reached. An example of this is the debt advice undertaken by Community Renewal Trust. This service has sought to encourage people to save and put in place money management strategies before financial crisis is reached. Workforce planning is also at a building level. Commitments are emerging from different agencies to develop plans to ensure the right people are available, with the right skills and capabilities, in the right job and at the right moment. Strengths were identified in the specialised knowledge and expertise of the workforce to support clients in their service area. However: • Working is often siloed, with no formal support pathways between agencies. • There are significant capacity constraints, so someone might get emergency support at one service, but referrals into longer-term support do not get picked up due to capacity/waiting lists. Specifically, it was mentioned that there is no mechanism to request clients are seen sooner even if they need urgent support. • Community knowledge of the range of services available and their ability to self-refer into services, is often unclear.

5 Governance

The emergency response to Covid-19, particularly during the first wave in 2020, was seen to prompt partnership working. Governance is assessed at a building level of maturity in the Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays LNT neighbourhood. Strong and widespread commitments to strategic partnerships and joined up leadership were identified through the baseline work. Though, as yet, this had not translated into more formal governance structures, partnership working, joined up leadership or community involvement. This meant silos remained common place. Relationships between agencies were generally viewed as being positive. But in most cases, tended to be transactional – about referrals – rather than collaboration and working partnerships. Where partnerships have emerged, such as between Turning Point and Chai, these have been informal and at an operational ‘front-line’ level – often promoted by funding requirements and agencies collaborating within their specialisms on individual cases. The emergency response to Covid-19, particularly during the first wave in 2020, was seen to prompt partnership working. This saw many services pooling resources and facilitating community ‘grassroots’ support to help those in need. Although, as has been seen in many communities across the country, reports are that this has since diminished. Several stakeholders cite the lack of formal partnerships and oversight, meant there was no accountable body to ensure things moved forward, and support pathways were not clearly worked out. Consequently, there remained an inconsistent service and support offer at the neighbourhood level. Alongside a lack of clarity how, or to whom, to make the best referral. Stakeholders also identified duplication and gaps in provision.

Leaders in key agencies were seen to be on board and actively promoting more joined up holistic approaches. Underpinning this is the Edinburgh Poverty Commission Report as well as Service Transformation agenda. However, at the neighbourhood level, there is not a leader or leadership body to move these commitments forward into action. This could be a role for LNT. However, it would need to be negotiated with The City of Edinburgh Council, to ensure it aligns within its own strategy structures and locality governance arrangements. The stakeholders consulted identified that leadership needs to understand the challenges of frontline work, and how ideas might work in practice. An example of this is seen in relation to the Locality Improvement Plans, which have structures set around thematic working. According to one interviewee, these structures had served to reinforce silo working in separate work streams.

There’s not much scope for actually having all the partners together developing one action plan, focusing all their resources, and just being much more efficient with the work... and with the partnership working.

Similarly, on the front-line there are barriers to joint working. This emerges from organisations being protective over their client base to maintain funding. Instead of sharing resources and referring clients to other organisations better placed to provide necessary support.

5 As with the partnership working and joint leadership, there is recognition of the need to have local community involvement in governance. Yet, more needs to be done to facilitate this on a consistent and effective basis. As mentioned earlier, stakeholders identified that strategic plans were often made at higher levels. Although some effort had gone into community consultation, the power of the community to affect plans was seen to be limited. Plans also rarely focus on the local Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays neighbourhood. Whilst some projects have been more successful with consultation, stakeholders recognised this can be resource intensive, as well as creating expectation to ensure resident needs are met. Examples were identified of residents reaching out to organisations to help solve issues or provide support, so that the community can help itself. However, often this created frustration when responses or action was not created. A key challenge here is residents are feeding their views into frontline workers who are unable to affect bigger decisions. They are not reaching leaders and decision makers.

As one interview noted:

There was nothing that had been set up really, to start working in this new way, to create these front-line teams. It was still very much conversations about how we could integrate this work into what’s going on and how we could ensure that they can work in an innovative way. Much more at strategic level discussions – between strategic people and strategic Community Renewal staff. …it’s still very kind of another thing that you have to do in your role rather than it being your role.

Service delivery

Aspirations for more preventative services are challenged by the dual forces of increasing numbers of clients on waiting lists as well as funding and capacity constraints. Services were seen as being at a building level of systems maturity in the Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays LNT neighbourhood. Significant strengths were identified in the quality, knowledge, and expertise of many of the organisations and individuals working in the neighbourhood. However, there were limited examples of joined-up, holistic working between services, information sharing and more preventative services.

As raised in the previous section, there are no formal pathways set up to support clients. Therefore, support pathways are inconsistent. They are often dependent on the experiences and existing contacts of staff providing support. Where pathways worked well, there were reports that this informal nature can lead to better outcomes, with more information about clients being shared through close connections.

5 However, this informality creates challenges, most notably: • Referrals are less likely to be the most effective and efficient pathway for the individual. Instead, being set out by aspects such as; who knows who, confidence that a given referral will be picked up and addressed straight away, and the persistence of workers and clients to follow referrals through. • Informal pathways can break down when staff and services working in an area change – for example, when funding ends. • Without clear pathways, individual staff can feel like they have no control over how the overall system works, reinforcing silo working. Something that has implications for the realisation of more integrated and holistic means of service delivery.

Local Outcome Improvement Plan and that’s for the whole of Edinburgh, and that does focus on the social determinants quite clearly – you know, identifying education and training as being a key area, having enough money, income maximisation work, employment and housing… But in terms of who’s aware of that on the front line, in terms of front-line staff, it just – there’s a huge disconnect. An absolutely huge disconnect.

Information sharing, or the lack of, was raised as placing a curb on joint working. In particular, GDPR has created hesitance to sharing information between services. Aspirations for more preventative services are challenged by the dual forces of increasing numbers of clients on waiting lists, as well as funding and capacity constraints. As a result, services tend to be reactive: supporting those most in need, often in points of crisis. One stakeholder also identified a disconnect between ambitions of service leaders for more holistic working and awareness on the front line:

5 Generation and use of evidence

Baseline work identified building levels of gathering and using evidence. Most funded programmes and strategies have developed hard quantitative outcomes. However, data availability at city and neighbourhood level, meant there were issues to assess performance:

…we’re actually developing the local outcome framework that will sit against the Edinburgh Partnership city plan and the locality level, you know, the locality improvement plan, so there’s a piece of work that’s been undertaken to develop that, but you know, it’s not easy because a lot of the information is actually only available and collected at a higher level … [this means]…measuring outcomes and being able to demonstrate that we have successfully delivered against outcomes, it is much more challenging.

Stakeholders recognised that most evaluation and outcomes frameworks focused on change in hard quantitative outcomes at an area level. This prevented effective evaluation of whether projects have worked. It meant there is a disconnect in the evidence base between projects, what they do, progress made by beneficiaries and area level outcomes. Combined with this, several stakeholders identified that the beneficiary voice was all too often missed when assessing services. It was suggested that user experience/satisfaction should be measured more routinely to assess interventions. Evidence emerges of a few examples where local information had been fed up the chain to influence commissioners and decision makers. An example of this being the Magdalene Matters project. However, generally organisations reported scepticism about what information was being used to inform commissioning decisions.

5.3. Systems maturity in Walker Walker has been assessed as having a building level of Strategic Planning, with elements of more developed planning in some areas, for example – commissioning. There were few reports of strategies or plans being in place for Walker. BFE identified a plan for housing, however this was seen to be out of date. This was thought to be common across communities in Newcastle upon Tyne. One stakeholder felt that the council took a city-focused approach to its strategic planning, which they thought disconnected and failed many peripheral communities like Walker. The initial momentum behind the Walker LNT programme meant that it was seen to be ahead of many neighbourhoods in terms of strategy and planning. 56

5 Although this was seen as being in a building phase: engaging and building support amongst stakeholders, as well as consulting the community. As yet, no shared vision had been established or plan for achieving this, developed. There were reports of some energy to developing a neighbourhood plan. Before Covid-19, in February 2020, Walker Workers had undertaken some initial mapping to plan how they could best respond to the community as a whole. As identified later, working with, and learning from this partnership provides a frame for LNT to work. Commissioning emerged as the most developed element of strategic planning in the area. Newcastle has seen the formation of a Hub which emerged from white papers via the Kings Fund and Collaborative Newcastle. The Hub provides an opportunity for commissioning colleagues to come together to talk and champion joint approaches. When fully operational, it will promote mature levels of commissioning with a more relationship-based contracting approach. Its two main agencies – Newcastle City Council and the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) – are currently building a collaborative Newcastle model, which will include commissioners under the one umbrella. It is thought this model will affect the systems in place to share out funding. It will promote learning-led approaches which are reportedly becoming much more common in the area. This will see greater voluntary and community sector involvement as well as aspirations to build in local people’s voices. Although the mechanisms for this are yet to be established. Several stakeholders identified how the Walker LNT neighbourhood could provide a test bed to learn and understand how changes to commissioning practices work and deliver positive outcomes. Levels of workforce planning were not seen as being widespread in Walker. Several stakeholders reported that this is an aspiration. However, it has not trickled down to operational levels. ‘Hierarchy’ was seen to be very prevalent

in most of the organisations operating in the area, especially the council. In addition, most organisations tend to work in silos. Partnerships like Walker Workers are an attempt to address this. But many organisations working in the area were reported to have their own agenda and were not routinely sharing information or work together. As in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays, funding is a key reason for this. The conditions attached to funding place ridged targets on organisations and require clean lines of impact. Evidence of capacity gaps were reported. This is both in terms of: • the range of services operating in the area, As a result, residents can fall through the nets where they don’t ‘fit’ services, • the capacity of individual services. This means there are often long waiting lists to receive support, and cases are not always appointed to staff members with the right skills and capabilities. Governance

Governance is assessed at a building level of maturity in Walker. There are some really strong examples of partnership in the area, for example being facilitated by Walker Workers. However more generally, aspects of governance were still being established and there remains a lot of work to be done to build partnership, set up leadership and involve the community. Compared to other areas of Newcastle upon Tyne, Walker was viewed by stakeholders as having stronger and more established partnerships. Although many of these partnerships were informal and tend to focus on a single policy domain or issue. A council representative observed that local VSCE partnerships in Walker are strong compared to others in the city, with lots of grassroots, community / 57

5 partners see LNT as an opportunity to test, inform and influence future planning and policy.

keen to work together with community leadership. Something reported by those working within, and outwith, the council.

Many of the partnerships in place were accredited to Walker Workers. This is a sizable network of local charities, private organisations, and some statutory partners, mainly supporting children and young people. Members of the network work together to support the community. They link up on aspects such as food support, referrals, co-delivery, development of ideas and responding to service needs or gaps. The partners bring different things to the meetings, but the group mainly relies on goodwill for support. As such, the partnership is not ‘hard-wired’ into the system.

Crucially, however, there was less evidence to suggest more joined-up leadership is happening effectively yet or that messages are translating down through organisations. There are also several agencies in the area where factors such as competition for funding mean leaders are less willing to engage in more mature systems. Funding here is seen to promote silos and mean innovation is seen as a risk compared to ‘business as usual’. As one stakeholder commented:

Several stakeholders reflected on the strong partnerships in Walker. Principally, this came down to the quality of relationships and longevity of individuals in organisations. This contributed to a level of trust and understanding between organisations, as well as knowledge of who to go to when help and support are needed. While positive, it points to the informal nature of partnerships and pathways of support in the area.

It would be better to think in terms of collective impact.

Conversely, funding requirements were identified as discouraging partnership working. The funding environment in the area is competitive, with many organisations having targets set that mean they are competing to support the same people to achieve similar outcomes. This serves to discourage information sharing and joined up working between organisations. A very strong discourse was identified amongst leaders, championing an inspiring vision for better joined-up working. This is particularly evident in policy domains activity going through Transformation agenda – such as the CCG, Primary Care Network and Adult Social Care – as well as more innovative organisations (and groups) working in the area. These include Your Homes Newcastle and key members of Walker Workers. The council was also

Many examples were offered of previous efforts to engage and consult with the community. These extended across the Northeast where consultation has been mandatory for some time. Furthermore, through the early development work for the LNT programme, it was clear that residents had been 'consulted to death'. However, this previous consultation was regarded as being ineffective and, ironically, served to reinforce feelings that the community are ignored. Put simply: a gap exists between the original wants, needs or desires identified through consultation and what outcomes and actions emerges as a result. Involvement of the community in governance is also underdeveloped. Several stakeholders identified that the community has a lot to offer. But it needed capacity building support to foster and accelerate its potential, as well as to bridge (and overcome) the gap between the community and the wider ecosystem. 58

5 Service delivery

Services were seen as being at a basic level of maturity in the Walker LNT neighbourhood. Stakeholders identified that many services in the area were rated poorly by users and were lacking in quality. Funding levels and stability were identified as key contributing reasons. This has meant a lot of organisations have folded – especially in the last year due to Covid-19, leaving significant gaps in services such as money advice/welfare rights. Many key services also lacked a base in the area. This made it harder for potential service users to engage. The Citizens Advice Bureau reported that it can cost £4.30 for a return bus fare from Walker to their offices. Digital exclusion also meant that few could take up online offerings. A secondary consequence of this is that many services were not tailored or responsive to the specific needs of the community. The lack of a ‘one stop shop’ for support and information was identified as an issue for residents. This means many residents were unaware of – and miss out on – badly needed support. Support pathways between services were also underdeveloped, with many services delivered in silo. This was cemented by funding, which encourages services to narrowly focus their attentions on what they have been funded to support. As opposed to making a holistic assessment and providing joined-up support. This finding is supported by our evaluative work to understand the experience of high service users. The common experience was of repeated one-off service interventions often happening at a time of crisis. Surrounding this there was little coordination of longer-term support pathways, or the joined-up delivery of support (for example by a multi-agency board). While this is the common experience it was recognised that some joined up approaches were being developed, such as those by Collaborative Newcastle – which is seeking a person-centred, relational approach.

As is the case in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays, information sharing is far from routine and has been raised as placing a curb on joint working. It also means that service users repeatedly provide the same information when engaging services. In particular, GDPR has created hesitance to sharing information between services. One stakeholder commented that:

[GDPR is a] law in itself, and people’s interpretation / understanding of it. People are scared to share data.

However, there were instances where more informal relationships between staff in different organisations has meant personal information is emailed without regard for GDPR and sharing information procedures. Generation and use of evidence

Baseline work identified basic levels of gathering and using evidence. Stakeholders reported that the area had no joint or shared outcomes framework. In 2019, Walker Workers attempted to develop an outcomes framework, but this proved difficult to coordinate across organisations. Stakeholders reported that organisations were primarily focused on their own targets that were set out in funding reporting requirements. Generally, the design, commissioning and delivery of services was not viewed to be evidence informed. Although projects are piloted, there were reports that the outcomes achieved did not seem to affect recommissioning or mainstreaming. 59

5 However there appeared to be genuine interest from the local authority and other stakeholders to measure outcomes and learn from LNT. While others recognised the challenges above repeating in this aspiration:

Risk is that providers rely on funders’ contracts. They have to deliver their own programmes and chase funding. Competition is an issue.

5.4. Summary This chapter has considered the baseline level of systems maturity in the two neighbourhoods, before service delivery of the LNT projects begins. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 provide a summary for both neighbourhoods. Adopting the methodology set out in Section 3.5, it finds systems were at a ‘building’ level in the two neighbourhoods, before service delivery of the LNT projects begins. This implies increasing momentum for a more strategically planned and integrated delivery of services. But little change has taken place to achieve this.

Table 5.1: Summary of systems maturity in Bingham, Magdalene and the Hays

Planning

Governance

Service delivery Outcomes and evidence

Basic

Levels of Systems Maturity Building Developing Developed

Sustaining

Strategy  Commissioning  Workforce planning  Partnership  Leadership  Community involvement  Services and interventions  Information sharing  Service experience  Outcomes  Using and generating evidence  60

5 Table 5.2: Summary of systems maturity in Walker

Planning

Governance

Service delivery Outcomes and evidence

Basic

Strategy  Commissioning Workforce planning Partnership Leadership Community involvement Services and interventions  Information sharing  Service experience Outcomes  Using and generating evidence

Levels of Systems Maturity Building Developing Developed

Sustaining

    

 

6 Implications for Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together

“

THIS holistic approach is needed to address the multiple forms of deprivation affecting residents.

6 The following bullets summarise and draw out implications for LNT from the baseline assessment provided in this report: • Chapter 3 outlined a clear framework and methodology to respond to the evaluations’ four questions: 1. To what extent can we say that a Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together neighbourhood has been lifted out of poverty? 2. To what extent can we say that system change has been achieved? 3. Is the Benefit Cost Ratio positive? 4. What have we learnt about how and whether the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together model can be replicated?

• Area level data show deprivation and poverty are widespread and deepseated in both LNT neighbourhoods. They also cut across a number of interrelated policy domains. Therefore, a holistic approach is needed to address the multiple forms of deprivation affecting residents. A focus on single aspects of support, such as only providing employment support, is likely to have a lasting effect in addressing deprivation for either residents or the neighbourhoods.

Listening Conversations provide an effective and inclusive mechanism to consult residents

• Both communities feel forgotten about and have gone through various cycles of interventions which have either failed to deliver what has been promised, or been taken when initial funding expired. It is important to consult the communities effectively and for agencies to commit over the longer term to delivering against the communities needs and expectations. The LNT approach is suited to this. Listening Conversations provide an effective and inclusive mechanism to consult residents. Neighbourhood Teams are positioned to add accountability, resource and capacity to better ensure expectations are met. LNT also seeks to ‘hard-wire’ the LNT approach into the ecosystem, providing long term sustainability.

The LNT model is consistent with how leaders are currently reimagining how local systems will operate

• There is considerable untapped skills, experience, and expertise in the communities. However, community capacity is often latent. This underlines the importance of LNT’s community capacity building role to enable the communities to establish hyper-local responses, so they can tackle their own problems. Community capacity building should work with and enhance community infrastructure to avoid duplication and competition. It should also seek to bridge differences between sub populations, and with the wider ecosystem. • There is considerable willingness across agencies to develop more mature systems of working. These are characterised by strategic planning, joint commissioning, partnership working, joined up leadership and joined up and integrated service. The LNT model is consistent with how leaders are currently reimagining how local systems will operate. However, efforts so far have seen difficulties translating the aspirations of senior leaders into tangibles and more joined up delivery. Therefore, there is a clear role for LNT to add coordination, capacity and leadership to ensure these aspirations are met. Immediate priorities are likely to include: ◦ Providing capacity and coordination to bring strategies together into a shared vision. ◦ Coordinate, and when appropriate, provide leadership in establishing governance relationships and formal partnerships.

◦ Continue Listening Conversations as a means to: bridge the gap between residents and services; generate evidence to inform service provision and design; and promote community improvement and capacity building. ◦ Provide capacity and coordination to map, integrate, and join up services. This includes establishing support pathways and multi-agency groups to support the most in need. • LNT should seek to embrace and enhance current progress and learning within the respective communities, involving a ‘coalition of the willing.’ However, the evidence suggests formal infrastructure and arrangements are required to overcome challenges (such as competition) in the ecosystem, and ensure the LNT model is sustainable. The evaluation of the LNT programme will run until 2024 and will culminate in a range of outputs which address each of the four questions set out in the first bullet above. In the next year the evaluation will: • Continue to refine the evaluation approach; ensuring the necessary tools are in place to evidence the success and learning from LNT. • Evaluate the progress of LNT in reorganising resources and services to support residents better, in a more sustainable, holistic and integrated way. • Assess early evidence on the extent to which LNT is supporting neighbourhoods to become lifted out of poverty. • Support the LNT teams in developing tools to enable the replication of the LNT approach.

To follow the progress of Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together, visit www.liftingneighbourhoods.org.uk This is the first report of the Community Renewal: Lifting Neighbourhoods Together (LNT) evaluation which is being undertaken between 2020 and 2024, by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), at Sheffield Hallam University and Sonnet Advisory and Impact.