Cabinet Office Strategy

Improving The Prospects Of People Living In Areas Of Multiple Deprivation In England

First Advisory Group Meeting

11 February 2004

Present:

• Lord Rooker (Regeneration Minister) - Chair
• Des Browne (Minister for Work, DWP)
• Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary, ODPM)
• Fiona Mactaggart (Parliamentary Under Secretary, Home Office)
• David Henshaw (Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council)
• Vincent de Rivaz (Chief Executive, EDF Energy)
• Sukhvinder Kaur Stubbs (Director, Barrow-Cadbury Trust)
• Jonathan Blackie (Regional Director, Government Office for the North East)
• James Bowler (Head of Housing and Urban Policy, HM Treasury)
• Jon Bright (Head of Neighbourhood Renewal Unit Implementation Division)
• Martin Gibbs (Senior Policy Advisor, Department of Health)
• Mohammed Haroon (Divisional Manager, Regional and regeneration division, DfES)
• Bronwyn Hill (Director of Regional Transport DfT)
• John McTernan (Senior Policy Advisor, No10)
• Joe Montgomery (Director General, NRU)
• Ray Shostak (Director, Public Services Directorate, HMT)
• Rob Smith (Director General Regional Co-ordination Unit, ODPM)
• Claire Tyler (Director, Social Exclusion Unit)
• Patricia Greer (Deputy Director, Strategy Unit)
• Stephen Aldridge (Deputy Director, Strategy Unit)

The group discussed the SU/NRU findings from phase one of the project. In particular, they were asked to comment on an analysis of the problem and priority areas to address in phase 2 of the project.

In discussion the following points were made:

• Worklessness was recognised as a key driver of deprivation. Deprived areas do not appear to have benefited from growth in the economy to the same extent as the rest of the country. The importance of incentives to work and the benefits system were highlighted as key issues.
• Although worklessness is an important factor it is not the only driver of deprivation. The project needs to be careful to avoid over simplification by assuming there is a single common driver of deprivation in all areas. In practice, there are a number of stubborn problems in deprived areas and all need to be addressed holistically when forming policy responses.
• The choice between targeting 'deprived people' as opposed to 'deprived places' was raised. The two should not be considered as diametrically opposed because they often interact. For example, improving outcomes for some residents (e.g. finding employment) may lead them to leave an area unless the locality becomes a more attractive place to live. In other places out-migration may be inevitable because there is less chance of a sustainable economic recovery.
• The project has set out the drivers of decline or growth of an area in relation to housing and liveability. It was suggested that it would be useful to expand this analysis to include the drivers of economic development and public service outcomes. The appropriate policy responses would be clearer if the key drivers of growth and decline of an area are thoroughly set out. These, in turn, will also allow a more rigorous assessment of whether to focus on people or place-based policies.
• The roles of different agencies operating in deprived areas were found to be complex and disjointed. A number of funding streams are ending soon and the role of Regional Development Authorities will become more crucial. There remain questions regarding the appropriate role of Local Strategic Partnerships and Local Authorities. Appropriate governance arrangements for area based initiatives (including New Deal for Communities partnerships) were raised and the role of greater local targeting was discussed. Appropriate delivery structures were considered to be vital.
• The role of communities in the delivery of regeneration was viewed as varied, but important to get right. There should be a greater focus on the importance of leadership, capacity, trust, aspirations and culture in local communities to ensure that any interventions are sustainable.
• The role of the private sector is crucial. More needs to be done to encourage private investment in deprived areas and to encourage the private sector to get involved in regeneration. There may be a tension however between the long-term timelines of regeneration programmes and the shorter time horizons of business.
• It was suggested that the project should look more closely at successes as well as failures, and highlight the conditions for success and how to achieve quick wins. It was suggested that the project should examine how close particular areas are to 'tipping points' that will lead to positively reinforcing improvements.
• The importance of opportunities, facilities, education and funding for young people was emphasised.
• Funding was seen as something that can be used as a powerful tool to incentivise and guide regeneration. However, it was noted that sometimes projects are evaluated according to the quantities of funding they have spent and not according to other measures of success and improvement. The delivery chain and lines of responsibility for funding can be confused.
• A number of other points were raised - including suggestions that the project look further at the issues raised by drugs, ethnicity, and growing income differentials. The suggestion was made that case studies of different deprived areas should be carried out.

Strategy Unit / Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
March 2004