Output details

Reconciling "Bottom-Up" Perspectives with "Top-Down" Change Data in Evaluating Area Regeneration Schemes

This paper draws on evidence emerging from the 2001-2010 national evaluation of the New Deal for Communities (NDC) programme funded by Communities and Local Government and its predecessor departments. The NDC programme was a ten year regeneration scheme designed to improve outcomes for residents in some 39 deprived English neighbourhoods, each accommodating on average 10,000 people. The programme was intended to achieve positive outcome change across six outcomes: three relating to the area: crime, community and housing and the environment; and three to local residents: education, health and worklessness. The evaluation involved a range of data collation and analysis tasks including four household surveys in all 39 NDC areas and similarly deprived comparator areas every two years, collection of administrative data through time on indicators such as benefit claimants and educational attainment statistics; and also qualitative work in NDC case study areas. Change was assessed both in relation to the 39 NDC areas and also for those living within these localities. Final evaluation reports were published in 2010.

Academic papers drawing on evidence from the evaluation fall into four categories: (i) assessments of methodologies used to identify change (ii) change for areas (iii) change for residents (iv) change for one of the programme's six outcomes.

This paper is one of two to fall into category (i). It attempts to reconcile contrasting results emerging from two different approaches towards evaluation: top-down and bottom-up. Wilson (2) assesses the role of shadow pricing methodologies in identifying benefits arising from area-regeneration programmes.