PIW 07
Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee
Inquiry into: Poverty in Wales Strand 4
Response from: Bevan Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation
1.
This paper is
jointly submitted by the Bevan Foundation and Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. They welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the
Committee’s inquiry on this important subject. The
Bevan Foundation develops evidence-based solutions to poverty,
inequality and injustice in Wales. It is a company limited by
guarantee and registered charity, independent of any political
party or views. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), an
independent charitable body, has a long tradition of research and
policy development to tackle the root causes of poverty and has a
well-established commitment to working in and across the nations of
the UK.
Area-based
approaches to reducing poverty and
disadvantage
2. JRF and the Bevan Foundation share the view that there are many things that can be done locally and at community level to reduce poverty. JRF research and practice shows that housing and communities shape people’s health, life chances and prosperity.
3.
Poverty and
disadvantage are not evenly geographically spread in Wales. Some
places have very much larger proportions of people with low incomes
and other disadvantages than others, as a result of, in particular,
differences in access to employment and the housing market. The
geographic concentration of poverty and disadvantage appears to
have an additional impact on socio-economic outcomes, although it
is not clear why this is.
4.
Area-based
programmes have both advantages and disadvantages compared with
non-geographically targeted approaches. The advantages are that
resources and interventions are targeted on people who most need
them and who might not otherwise access them. In addition,
multiple and inter-linked problems can be addressed at the same
time, and there is generally limited ‘leakage’ of
resources outside the area. The disadvantages are that not all
people experiencing poverty and disadvantage live in deprived areas
(and vice versa, not all people living in deprived areas are
disadvantaged), there can sometimes be confusion about whether the
problems are inherently those of the place or those of the people
who live there, and some problems, such as those which are the
result of structural inequalities in the economy and society,
simply cannot be solved by actions in one area.
5.
In general,
evaluations have found that area-based approaches are most
successful for improving housing and local environmental issues and
in achieving ‘soft’ outcomes and less effective at
addressing problems in health, education and employment. At
the very least the latter need strong and effective linkages
between area-based and local authority and national action –
in Wales it was expected that the linkages would be made through
‘programme bending’.
6.
The implementation
of area-based programmes in Wales has been affected by the absence
of evaluation evidence, so it has been difficult for programmes to
learn from early experience. We welcome the Welsh
Government’s action to address this issue.
Geographical
consistency of anti-poverty initiatives
7.
Communities First is
based on a rational, consistent and long-term approach to the
selection of eligible areas. The use of the Welsh Index of Multiple
Deprivation is appropriate in our view, and a sensible approach has
been taken to boundaries where the statistical unit used to
designate the area does not ‘make sense’ on the
ground. While there have been some changes over the life of
Communities First, these have affected planning and operational
issues (e.g. their grouping into clusters) and not the places
that are eligible. This stability is vital and welcome -
long-term consistency of commitment is essential in tackling the
root causes of poverty in these localities.
8.
As the flagship
anti-poverty programme it might be expected that Communities First
areas would be the basis of designating other relevant area based
programmes, but in fact there has not been a neat overlay of
geographies. Recent moves by the Welsh Government to bring
together separate area-based programmes e.g. through consistent
local objectives, sharing data and intelligence and a common
outcomes framework are very welcome.
Family
Policies
9.
Flying Start
operates in areas selected using the Welsh Index of Multiple
Deprivation, as in Communities First, with additional criteria
including free school meals and receipt of income-related benefits.
It is also based on postcode rather Lower Super Output Areas. While
there is significant overlap between Communities First and Flying
Start areas, they are not the same. The evaluation of Flying
Start commented that:
'The integration
and operation of Flying Start appeared to be most advanced in those
areas where work had been done to align both the locus and delivery
of the various policies that had been instituted (nationally and
locally) for work with families'
[1]
10. Families First is said to be
complementary to and work alongside Communities First but, unless a
local authority decides to target activity, it does not necessarily
have an area basis.
Education and
skills
11. The approach to reducing the gap
in attainment according to income has been different to that in
Communities First. Both the RAISE programme and its successor Pupil
Deprivation Grant are based on the proportion of a school’s
pupils entitled to free school meals, not the characteristics of
the wider area. Other education and skills programmes which have a
strong anti-poverty theme are not geographically targeted at all,
such as apprenticeships and Jobs Growth Wales.
Regeneration and
Economic Development
12. Regeneration and economic
development have long been strongly area-based but the connection
between the designated areas and those designated in other
anti-poverty interventions is not obvious. The seven
‘strategic regeneration areas’[2]
(the Heads of the Valleys, Môn a Menai, North Wales Coast,
Western Valleys, Swansea, Aberystwyth, and Barry) in some instances
coincided with Communities First areas, but by no means
always.
13. The current ‘Vibrant and
Viable Places’ programme is based on bids from local
authorities. More than £100 million has been allocated to
town centre regeneration schemes in 11 local authorities[3],
some but by no means all of which serve areas of considerable
deprivation. A further £7 million has been allocated to
town centre schemes which were not successful in securing funding
from the main scheme and are which in the most deprived 10% of
areas according to the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation,[4]
providing a welcome connection with Communities First.
14. Wales’s seven Enterprise
Zones[5]
have a different pattern. There is some coincidence with
Communities First areas (in that the areas either overlap or
provide employment for nearby areas) but this is not necessarily or
always the case.
15. The limited coherence in
geographical coverage has, in our view, made the reduction of
poverty and disadvantage more difficult. Communities First has few
resources of its own and relies on ‘programme bending’
to achieve much of its impact. Yet key, complementary programmes
have not obviously been substantially ‘bent’ in favour
of deprived areas, with the evidence being clear in the
geographical coverage adopted.
16. At best the result is niggling
inconsistencies in the availability of support within a
locality. At worst the crucial linkages that are required,
particularly in respect of strengthening the economy and increasing
employment, are weak or absent.
Effectiveness of
Communities First and other area-based anti-poverty
programmes
17. Communities First and Families
First were and remain ambitious programmes. They are tasked
with reducing levels of poverty and disadvantage that are amongst
the highest not just in Wales but in the UK, with many of the
designated areas being located in areas of widespread, but less
acute, social and economic problems. Communities First does
so with limited resources (£31.7 million for 2015/16[6])
and, at least in its early years, some significant challenges in
the delivery process.[7]
18. A number of evaluations and
other studies of Communities First undertaken pre-2010 highlighted
a lack of impact. The 2006 interim evaluation[8]
found that the programme was struggling to influence mainstream
programmes, while a 2009 Wales Audit Office report[9]
found that although there was statistical evidence of some improved
outcomes in Communities First areas when compared to the rest of
Wales, the improvements could not necessarily be attributed to the
programme itself, and pointed to a number of other weaknesses.
Similarly, early evaluations of Flying Start did not find evidence
of significant improvements in outcomes for children.[10]
19. Recent evidence on Communities
First is more favourable. Hinks and Robson[11]
found that Communities First areas had improved in respect of
worklessness, although the gains were “relatively
marginal”. The final evaluation of the initial
Communities First programme[12]
(covering 2009-2012) also found evidence of improved outcomes in
Communities First areas overall, in respect of worklessness, skills
(especially higher level), educational attainment, and some aspects
of crime and community safety. It is worth noting that the
evaluators found considerable variation in performance between
areas – it is likely that the “best” Communities
First areas achieved a great deal more than the
average.
20. Similarly, the most recent
evaluation of Flying Start found that while parents in Flying Start
areas engaged more with health and childcare services than those
elsewhere, there was no statistically significant difference in
outcomes for children, and also commented on very substantial
differences in outcomes between areas.
21. While it is disappointing
that both Communities First and Flying Start do not appear to have
achieved more against ‘hard’ indicators, such as
employment or literacy, there are two important reasons why this
may be so. The first is that these programmes have operated during
the deepest and longest recession in a generation, during which
people in semi- and unskilled jobs have experienced much greater
loss of employment and reduction in wages than others. In these
circumstances, preventing the gap between the most and least
disadvantaged areas from widening is itself an achievement. Second,
there is in our view a limit to the ability of communities to
change their fortunes on their own and from within. Many of the
challenges they face are the result of deep structural causes in
the economy and society that cannot be addressed by area-based
programmes alone. Any changes that these programmes do achieve will
be in the long-term.
22. Area based anti-poverty or
regeneration programmes are widely recognised to be more effective
in tackling ‘non-material poverty’ i.e. housing,
environment and crime issues, than economic, educational and health
inequalities.[13]
Even when area-based interventions improve the chances of
individuals finding employment, they tend not to reduce
overall levels of worklessness in the area (for reasons that
are not clear).
23. Adamson[14]
has argued that the value of area-based regeneration is in
improving the ‘lived experience’ of people in poverty,
which he terms ‘atmosphere’, ‘landscape’
and ‘horizon’. He finds evidence of Communities First
clearly improving these aspects of ‘social experience’
in its most successful areas. Similarly, the more positive
views of parents in Flying Start areas towards health and education
may well improve the day-to-day experience of living in a deprived
area.
24. Arguably the greatest potential
of area-based programmes is in respect of ‘soft’
outcomes. While they are vitally important to individuals’
everyday lives and routes out of poverty, they are notoriously
difficult to measure. Moreover, measuring change at area
level may simply miss out some of the impact of programmes on
individuals.
25. If Communities First has not
achieved the hoped-for reductions in poverty and improvements in
employment, education and health, it is not necessarily because of
failures in the programme itself. While there are undoubtedly
many ways in which the programme could have been better, as an
area-based programme it is unlikely ever to achieve significant
change on its own.
26. Instead, there needs to be an
dual approach, in which effective community-based action is clearly
and robustly aligned with top-down anti-poverty measures, including
action to create employment and improve its quality, increase
educational attainment and skills levels, and improve health and
well-being.
Progress on the
recommendations of the Assembly’s former Rural Development
Committee’s 2008 report into ‘Poverty and deprivation
in rural Wales’
27. The Assembly’s former
Rural Development Committee’s report provided a useful
insight and package of recommendations into poverty in rural areas,
however we have not tracked the extent to which the recommendations
have been actioned and are therefore not able to comment on
progress specifically.
28. What we would comment is that
there is sometimes confusion in public policy between
poverty, which is an attribute of individuals and
households, and deprived places, which are those in which a
large proportion of the population experiences poverty (and
characteristics associated with poverty).
29. We recognise that poverty is a growing problem in rural Wales, as a result of relatively low household incomes (particularly for in-work households) and relatively high living costs (such as heating, food and the costs of travel). The work that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is undertaking on an anti-poverty strategy for the UK will include proposals to address both low incomes and high living costs in rural areas, including Wales.
___________
[1]Welsh Government (2014) Flying Start synthesis report. Source: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/caecd/research/2014/140131-flying-start-synthesis-report-en.pdfpara 55
[3] Bridgend Town Centre, Colwyn Bay, Deeside, Holyhead, Merthyr Tydfil Town Centre, Port Talbot, Newport City Centre,
Pontypridd, Swansea City Centre, Pontypool, Wrexham Town Centre/Caia Park/Hightown. Source: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/housing-and-regeneration/regeneration/vibrant-and-viable-places/regeneration-areas/?lang=en
[4] Tredegar, Rhymney, Grangetown, Llanelli, Rhyl, Caernafon, Barry. Source: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/housing-and-regeneration/regeneration/vibrant-and-viable-places/tackling-poverty-fund/?lang=en
[5] There are 7 locations: Anglesey, Central Cardiff, Deeside, Ebbw Vale, Haven Waterway, Snowdonia, St Athan – Cardiff Airport
[6] Minister for Communities and Tackling Poverty (2014) Written Statement, 23rd December. http://wales.gov.uk/about/cabinet/cabinetstatements/2014/cffunding/?lang=en
[7] Welsh Government (2006) Interim Evaluation of Communities First. http://wales.gov.uk/docs/caecd/research/060920-communities-first-interim-evaluation-conclusion-recommendations-en.pdf
[8] Welsh Government (2006) Interim Evaluation of Communities First. http://wales.gov.uk/docs/caecd/research/060920-communities-first-interim-evaluation-conclusion-recommendations-en.pdf
[9] Wales Audit Office (2009) Communities First. At: http://www.wao.gov.uk/system/files/publications/Communities_First_English_2009.pdf
[10] National Assembly for Wales Research Service (2014) Flying Start – research note. At: http://www.assembly.wales/research%20documents/flying%20start%20-%20research%20note-03032014-254185/rn14-005-english.pdf
[11] Hinks, S and Robson, B (2010) Regenerating Communities First areas in Wales. At: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/communities-regeneration-Wales-full.pdf
[12] Amion Consulting and Old Bell 3 (2011) The Evaluation of Communities First (full report). At: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/caecd/research/110913-evaluation-communities-first-en.pdf
[13] Crisp, R et al (2014) Regeneration and poverty: evidence and policy review. At: http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/jrf-regeneration-poverty-final-report.pdf
[14] Adamson, D (2010) The impact of devolution - Area-based regeneration policies in the UK. At: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/impact-of-devolution-area-regeneration.pdf