Urban Regeneration Partnerships - Essay Example

Running head: Urban Regeneration Partnerships Different Approaches to Evaluating Urban Regeneration Partnerships Urban regeneration Partnerships Urban Regeneration can be defined as the comprehensive and integrated visions and actions which lead to the solution of urban problems and which seek to bring about a lasting improvement in the areas of social, economic, physical and environmental condition of an area that has been subjected to change.(Roberts,2000). To effectively realize and sustain the goals of urban regeneration the British government initiated partnerships with public, private, community and voluntary sectors from the fields of infrastructure, education, health, social, finance etc. These partnerships can be explained as the sustained working joint ventures between these agencies which produce additional social benefit which could not have been produced by a purely public, commercial or charitable venture. (Mackintosh, 1992). It is a multi agency approach to pool all the resources (knowledge, skill, finance, experience, expertise etc.) to achieve the goals of urban regeneration. Key Features of Public Sector Partnerships Certain key features of public sector partnerships can be summarized as The best of resources in the form of knowledge, skills, investment, experience, human resource etc. are pooled together from different sectors to realize the aims of regeneration effectively. Partnerships with those affected by an urban regeneration initiative make it more sensitive to the local needs and achieve greater economic and social benefits. Implementation can be more effective with the involvement of different sectors which helps to build commitment towards the goals and releasing the means to achieve them. (Thake, 1995) Two examples of urban regeneration partnership programs involved in contributing to regeneration are New Manchester Ltd and 1st East. (http://www.urcs-online.co.uk/companies/company.aspid=44). New East Manchester Limited, established in October 1999, the second Urban Regeneration Company is a partnership between national (English Partnerships), regional (North West Development Agency) and local government (Manchester City Council), with local communities playing a full part. There are two core objectives to East Manchester's regeneration: Creating sustainable communities through making East Manchester an attractive place to live and work with a range and quality of facilities and services that the local community needs and through making sure that economic benefit is secured for local people and ensuring that East Manchester maximizes the contribution it can make to the regional national and global economy. The regeneration plan involved constructing new homes, a town city center, sport city, a business park, integrated transport system and achieving an educational attainment above the city average. (http://www.manchesterpartnership.org.uk/page/23,51/ Necessity for evaluation of urban regeneration partnerships Evaluation is an analysis of the objectives, inputs (processes), outputs and outcomes of any initiative. As urban regeneration partnerships involve the resources of many different agencies but with an important aim, a critical analysis of the partnerships working and activities is necessary to enable the partnership to develop and be more effective. The evaluation made at the developmental stage of an activity gives back information and guidance in to an intervention on how improvements can be made (if required), evaluation done at the process stage tells how the intervention is working and at the outcome stage analyses the effectiveness of the intervention. (EIU, Evaluation Guides: evaluation Guide1 - definition and common concepts). Evaluation of partnership working helps to understand the impact of joint working in regeneration programs and how to achieve maximum effectiveness of the initiatives. (Partnership development, www.sqw.co.uk/services/partnership-development.php) Principles behind an evaluation Any evaluation activity should measure the following Understanding of the objective of the activity The inputs that are given and how the work is progressing The results produced by the work The effects the results and its implications (Education Department, Scottish, 2000) These are done through the following stages Structuring- defining expected effects and setting up indicators, scales and typologies Observing- focus on data collection Analyzing- Understanding the causes and effects, concluding about the net effects Judging - Judging the various merits according to the criteria. (Office of the Chief Researcher, Scottish Executive, 2002) Challenges in Evaluating Partnerships Even though the evaluation of a partnership program helps to improve the effectiveness of the activity some challenges such as given are encountered during such evaluations. Collaborative working is instigated to address wide issues and it is difficult to select the measures of success that could be attributed to the partnership alone. Level of coordination and investment required in terms of time and resources are considerable. Success of the evaluation depends on the importance given to it by the various partners engaged in the partnership. Difficulty in defining the appropriate quantifiable measures of success. When the partnerships at the early stages don't agree beyond the terms of reference (which contains broad aims) it is difficult to find the criteria against which success could be measured.( Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2000) (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/25954/0028683.pdf)) Different partnership evaluation Frameworks The types of frame work within which the evaluation of partnerships can be carried can be summarized as following Formative or developmental evaluation Value for money evaluation- based on economy, efficiency and effectiveness Outcome focused evaluation - outcomes of collaborative activity and less emphasis on how it was achieved Process outcome evaluation- methods of implementing the objectives Collaborative mechanism evaluation - which evaluates the partnerships Interactive evaluation - based on the different stakeholders' view Based on the above different frame works can be designed and each would have its merits and demerits. One type of framework best suited to measure the economic growth may not be suitable to evaluate a health improvement partnership. 1. Performance Management framework -NRU model The Neighbourhood Renewal model for local strategic partnership was developed by Neighbourhood renewal unit as a performance management tool to Strengthen the delivery of services to meet the national and floor level targets Review achievement and to keep track of the progress Identify the areas of weakness and to locate where to concentrate the efforts Help the local strategic partners to plan actions that would improve its impact. The model consists of three areas - 1. Reviewing Delivery- evaluating the progress the LSP has made against the targets and priorities set out by the local strategic partners strategy or local strategy 2. Partnership working - reviewing the effectiveness of the LSP and the value it adds to the delivery of services. 3. Improvement Planning - Using the results of the above to set out the activities and support needed to build on and improve the delivery of services in the coming years. This model not only evaluates the performance management of the entire partnership working but also checks whether individual partners have aligned their own performance management arrangements to meet the LSP business planning cycle. To evaluate the above three mentioned aspects, this model uses six core criteria and each aspect of the evaluation is considered under these. They are strategy, inclusive, action focused, performance management, efficient and learning & development. This model is considered as one of the best models for evaluation as the entire aspects of the partnership working are under scrutiny and if the feedbacks are properly incorporated, the final goals can be achieved fully. (NRU model, office of the Deputy Prime minister) 2. SMART Model This cited by the effective Intervention Unit and education Department of the Scottish executive and is aimed mainly at the practitioners in the rehabilitation of alcohol and drug users. It involves evaluating Specific (Whether all the people involved are aware of the exact objectives, Measurable (Possibility to quantify and measure the results), achievable (resources and capacity to achieve goals), Realistic (matched to the capacity of the target group) and Time bound (awareness of all the partners to meet the timeline). This model considers the implications from the planning stage of an initiative and finds out their effect on the evaluation and measurement procedures. (EIU, Evaluation Guides) 3. ROAMEF Model This model uses Rationale (justification for the initiative and expected impact on the objectives), Objectives (intended actions and purposes of the initiative), Appraisal (determining the delivery mechanisms that would best serve the rationale and objectives), Monitoring (gathering data of quantitative and financial information to check attainment of the progress), Evaluation (assess the impact of the initiative either during or after the lifespan) and Feedback ( Dissemination of information to all people involved and interested) (www.Scottish- enterprise.com/about/what/research/evalguide/tool/advmeth/roamef) This model is basically a planning framework and comprises not only the monitoring and evaluation aspects of an initiative and also the mechanisms by which to develop the initiative. This model clearly differentiates between monitoring and evaluation. This is widely used by the Department for Education and Skills in its projects. This framework is being used in the current development of performance indicators and evaluation program which focus on the Skills for Business Network and sector Skills Councils within UK. 4. LEAP Model This Learning ,evaluation and Planning model is based on the following framework - Understanding what goes in to the activity, how the work is conducted and what it produces and what effect it has. It stresses the importance of evaluation of the inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. This model is used by the Education department in its community Learning Projects. This model stresses the importance of formative evaluation. Evaluation based on this model helps to make proper planning in the initial stages as it tries to assess the outcomes precisely. This model is being used by the Scottish executive in its community learning projects evaluation. (Scottish Community Development Center, 2000). This model is being successfully used by the Partnership of 33 - Scotland's volunteering partnership comprising 32 local volunteer centers and Volunteer Development Scotland - Scotland's center for excellence for volunteer development. This spearheads a youth volunteering program in the country. LEAP model is used for this partnership working evaluation and the outcomes of the LEAP plans have indicated the common national themes to be taken up the partnership 33 under the annual partnership action plan. (Volunteer Development Scotland, 2006) 5. High performing partnership model This is based on the following frame work. Purpose and leadership - Partners share common vision and purpose and accepted the importance Outcomes and customer focus - focusing on the results and satisfying the requirements of customers Culture and communication- promoting effective communication between all partnership organizations Learning and innovation- seeking improvements in ways of working and in activities Management for partnership performance-putting in place the necessary practices and resources to achieve partnership goals To achieve the objectives of an initiative taken up an urban regeneration partnership, the partnership should have clarity in its vision and the modes of operation. The different agencies with varied work cultures should amalgamate in to a single working group. They should be clear with the common goals as well as the individual goals and should be able to accommodate the other agencies involved in the work. This understanding and co operation between the different agencies is of prior importance for any partnership initiative to succeed. So it is essential the partnership also should be evaluated along with the initiative. The above frame work is meant for the evaluation of partnership performance. This frame work comes under the collaborative mechanism evaluation. (Department of education and employment) 6. Frame work for evaluation of partnerships for economic empowerment This frame work which is based on the UK government treasury guidelines measures the following Strategic Objectives Input and expenditures Activity measures Output and outcome measures Gross impact measures Net impact This model is suited for evaluating partnerships in the regeneration of economic status of the region. This is based on the value for money evaluation technique. It has a quantitative assessment tool and is maintained by the treasury department. It is supplied to all the departmental private finance units engaged in the partnership and use of this tool is mandatory for all the partnerships for the value for money evaluation. The results help to check whether the progress of the initiative is in tune with the expenditure in all the areas and to form better investment strategies. (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public_private_partnerships/key_documents/ppp_keydocs_vfm.cfm) Evaluation of partnership in health and social sectors Case study This case study deals with multi agency partnership working in the Children's services planning program in the Southern Health and Social Services Board's area in Northern Ireland. It uses the bespoke evaluation frame work with the concept of a virtuous cycle formed by evaluation, learning, improvement, measurement and back to evaluation. The southern Health and Social services Board of Northern Ireland works with statutory, trusts, private and voluntary bodies and agencies in partnership to meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people in its area. The main objectives of the Children's Services Planning program are promoting social inclusion; equality and human rights; planning and resourcing and coherent and integrated family support. Eight multi agency working groups are involved in the planning. The evaluation frame work to be discussed here deals with the action planning stage of the project. The bespoke evaluation framework designed for this project is structured in terms of Dimensions, Sub-dimensions and assessment criteria. The key area or dimensions which require evaluation are identified and they are further classified in to sub dimensions. Each sub dimension is defined clearly as a range of questions to provide the base on which evaluation would be conducted, to understand the components and working of the dimension. As the children's services Planning is a complex initiative with multiple strategic objectives involving different agencies, the resultant frame work zeroed on the following seven dimensions on the basis of which the project planning would be evaluated. They are impact, vision and leadership, partnership dynamics, strategy and performance measurement, influencing, participation and cost effectiveness. The sub dimensions upon which the evaluation was carried were Impact- quality, innovation, integrated services delivery, efficiency and resources Vision and leadership- future orientation, making it to happen, creating opportunities to lead Partnership dynamics- structure and processes, trust, commitment to collaborative working, communication, learning and capability Strategy and performance measurement - developing a strategic vision, setting objectives and performance targets, formulating a plan and implementing it to achieve them, evaluating the performance and reformulating the strategy and implementation. Influencing - influencing government departments /funders, influencing partner organizations and other initiatives Participation - membership, community development, consultation with users, communication, reduction in social exclusion and generating knowledge The above evaluation frame work was required to allow judgments to be made about the overall effectiveness of the collaboration, sustainability, future direction, identifying areas for improvement, development and learning. The resulting frame work is underpinned by the cycle of evaluation, learning, improvement, measurement and back to evaluation. On the basis of the above frame work of evaluation, it was concluded that partnership is the best way to deliver the results of the Children's Services Planning and to realize the full benefits if implemented. Though it can not be said that this is the ideal frame work to evaluate a complex initiative like Children's Services Planning, it definitely best suited the purpose. (Maurice Atkinson, 2005) The valuation of a partnership performance is an absolute necessity for the successful implementation of the set initiative. The appropriate model should be used based on the purpose (formative, developmental, outcome, collaborative or value for money etc) and the sector. References EIU, Evaluation Guide; evaluation Guides 2- Planning an Evaluation EIU, Evaluation Guides: evaluation Guide1 - definition and common concepts New East Manchester Ltd, available from: http://www.manchesterpartnership.org.uk/page/23,51/, [Cited 17 January 2007] Mackintosh, M. (1992), Partnership: Issues of Policy and Negotiation, Local Economy, Vol 7, no 3, November, pp 210-224. Maurice Atkinson, (2005), The Development of an Evaluation Framework for Partnership Working, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Volume 3, issue 1, pp-1-10. Office of the Chief Researcher, Scottish Executive, (2002), Partnership Working: Key Issues around Evaluation, available from www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch [Cited 17 January 2007] Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, NRU Model, A Suggested Approach Available from http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/publications.aspdid=200 [Cited 17 January 2007] Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (2000), Mapping Partnerships in eleven local authorities (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/25954/0028683.pdf)) [Cited 17 January 2007] Partnership development, available from www.sqw.co.uk/services/partnership-development.php) [Cited 17 January 2007] Peter Batey, October 2000, Urban Regeneration in Britain: Progress, Principles and Prospects, International Symposium on Regeneration of City Downtown, Lessons from the sustainability and private sector initiatives of the EU, Tokyo, Japan. ROAMEF, available from: (www.Scottish- enterprise.com/about/what/research/evalguide/tool/advmeth/roamef) [Cited 17 January 2007] Roberts, P.and sykes.H. (2000), Urban Regeneration: A Handbook, London: Sage (Scottish Community Development Center, (2000), Learning Evaluation and Planning Thake, s. (1995), Staying the Course: The Role and Structures of Community Regeneration Organizations, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York Urban Regeneration Companies, available from: http://www.urcs-online.co.uk/companies/company.aspid=44, [Cited 17 January 2007] Volunteer development Scotland, (2006), National Youth work Strategy Consultation, Response from the Partnership of 33. pp 13 Available from http://www.vds.org.uk/docs/National%20Youth%20Work%20Strategy%20Response%20_Partnership%2033%20Response%20FINAL_.pdf [Cited 23 Jan 2007] Read More