Appendix 2
Community Regeneration Evaluation Framework
Level 1 results – Area statistical changes 2005-2008
1.Introduction
The standard indicator of multiple deprivation in communities in Wales is the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD). WIMD was first published in 2000; it was revised and republished in 2005 and then again in 2008); the next revision is due in 2013. Each publication uses the latest available national data.
In 2000 21% of Wrexham’s communities were amongst the most deprived 30% in Wales. By 2005 this figure had risen to 27%. In 2008 the figure stood at 29%. This suggests a worsening situation, although Wrexham remains ahead of the Welsh average of 30%. The Council’s community regeneration aim is to redress this trend.
WIMD is helpful in targeting efforts, and hence its use in the Council’s Community Regeneration Strategy and many other local and national strategies. However, its use for making comparisons over time, particularly to demonstrate actual change, is very limited. This is because it considers ‘relative’ positions rather than ‘absolute’ ones. For example, the position above could be a true reflection of worsening quality of life in Wrexham, but it could equally be because other areas of Wales are improving more quickly than Wrexham despite Wrexham’s ‘real’ improvement. Using WIMD to consider change has been further hampered by the continued refinement of its methodology – no two WIMDs have yet used the same method.
The area level of the evaluation framework seeks to consider ‘absolute’ change instead of ‘relative’ change. To do this a range of statistics used to produce WIMD – rather than WIMD itself - have been obtained and analysed for the areas of Wrexham covered by the Community Regeneration Strategy.
Fifteen statistics have been chosen, and data has been collected for these for the years 2005 and 2008. For each statistic it is possible to determine a trend – positive or negative – over the three year period for each of the twenty five areas targeted by the Strategy.
During 2010 officers will consider the trend between 2006 and 2009; in 2011 the trend between 2007 and 2010 will be reported, and so on.
By comparing the level of change over time for each area across all fifteen statistics it is possible to judge which communities have experienced the greatest level of positive change.
2.Methodology
- 15 statistics covering income/employment, education, and community safety have been chosen.
- All 15 have data available at 3 date points – 2005, 2007 and 2008. Some did not have data available for 2006, hence the exclusion of this data.
- The trend over this period - positive (improving) or negative (weakening) –has been expressed in either numbers or percentages depending on the statistic, eg a reduction in incapacity benefit claimants from 240 in 2005 to 235 in 2008 is reported as 5, a reduction in burglary rates from 13 to 11 over the same period has been reported as a drop of15%.
- For each statistic the trend has been used to rank the twenty five areas in terms of theirchanging position. The most improved is ranked 25.
- For each statistic each area has then been given a score value of between +2 and -2. A score of +2 has been given to the five areas that are those that have improved the most;a score of +1 has been given to each of the next five, and so on through 0 and -1 to -2 for the areas experiencing a weakening position.
- This score has been weighted in the same way as the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation – ie a change in income/employment position is considered more significant than a change in community safety statistics – to give a final score for each statistic.
- Thefinal (weighted) scores have been combined for all fifteen statistics to give each area an overall score.
- All twenty five areas have then been ranked to give the table below. The areas at the top of the table are the weakest performing.
Table 1 – Ranked positions – CRS target areas 2005-2008
- A score of below -23 suggests a net weakening across 15 key statistics 2005-2008.
- A score of -23 or above suggest a net improvement.
- The extent of the score indicates the extent of the weakening or improvement.
- Shaded areas are those targeted by community regeneration work during the period.
- Annex 1 gives the extent of change for each statistic for the group of 25 areas, illustrating how some statistics show improvements for nearly all areas whilst others show most areas to be weakening.
Area / Score / Rank
Chirk North 2 / -115 / 1
Gwersyllt West 1 / -103 / 2
Ruabon 1 / -87 / 3
Brymbo 2 / -86 / 4
Hermitage 2 / -64 / 5
Grosvenor 2 / -57 / 6
Cefn 3 / -31 / 7
Cartrefle 2 / -26 / 8
Gwenfro / -25 / 9
Net improvement threshold
The 16 areas below this line have experienced more things improving than weakening, and their improvements have been more significant than the areas above the line
Ponciau 2 / -23 / 10
Whitegate 1 / -22 / 11
Gwersyllt North 2 / -17 / 12
Acton 2 / -8 / 13
Smithfield / -3 / 14
Plas Madoc / 2 / 15
Coedpoeth 1 / 4 / 16
Johnstown 2 / 10 / 17
Penycae / 14 / 18
Queensway 1 / 19 / 19
Cefn 2 / 21 / 20
Pant / 43 / 21
Llay 3 / 54 / 22
Wynnstay / 54 / 23
Queensway 2 / 82 / 24
Cartrefle 1 / 97 / 25
3.Analysis and interpretation
The results suggest that tangible improvements are being made, with many areas experiencing net improvementsin statistical position. Those experiencing the greatest improvements are Cartrefle 1, Queensway 2, Wynnstay, Llay 3, and Pant. Table 2 below considers the extent to which improvements correlate with levels of community regeneration support.
The results from Table 1 also suggest, however, that many areas are experiencing a net weakening of their situation. Taken alongside the most recent Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation it could indicate that areas such as Gwersyllt West 1, Chirk North 2, Brymbo 2 and Ruabon 1 may not be amongst the most acutely deprived now, but that if focussed action isn’t taken they could find themselves in this category in the near future.
Table 2 – Changes in position grouped by the extent of community regeneration support
- Part A shows Wrexham’s Communities First areas.
- Part B shows overall Communities First changes in position excluding and including Hightown (which joined the programme at the end of 2007).
- Part C shows the areas supported by the Council, including the URBAN II programme.
- Part D shows the areas targeted in the Council’s Community Regeneration Strategy 2009-2012 that were not actively supported during the 2005-2008 period.
Group of communites / Average score
A / CF - All Caia areas (7) / 29
CF - Plas Madoc / 2
CF - Gwenfro / -25
CF - Hermitage 2 / -64
B / CF avg exc Hermitage 2 / 20
CF avg inc Hermitage 2 / 11
C / Supported west - average / -29
Supported south - average / -3
Supported all - average / -23
D / New central - average / -32
New south - average / -26
Part A reflects the relatively strong change in position of the CaiaPark areas, and suggests that even when all seven CaiaPark areas are combined there have still been net improvements. It also suggests that Plas Madoc has experienced positive change, but it suggests that the Gwenfro area has been less successful so far. The result for Hermitage 2 (Hightown) perhaps reflects its late inclusion into the Communities First programme (2007).
Part B combines all Communities First areas and suggests that even with Hightown included there has been positive change across the programme in Wrexham.
Part C suggests that the areas that have been supported through the west Wrexham URBAN II programme during the period in question have experienced a net weakening. This might be explained by the focus of the programme being extensively building and business related during this period. Community development and adult community learning work has become the focus of regeneration activity in this area since 2008, and so it is envisaged that the resulting positive change will take longer to appear statistically.
Part C also suggests that the council-led community regeneration work (mainly through Dee Valley Community Partnership) in the Cefn and Plas Madoc area is having an impact, but that this is not as great as that experienced in Communities First areas.
Part D could be considered a control group. These areas are now being targeted but weren’t during the 2005-2008 period. Consequently they suffered from similar symptoms of multiple deprivation but did not receive specific focussed support to address them. There are eight such areas, two in central Wrexham and six in the south of the county borough. Scores for the averages of both groups suggest a net weakening, although this disguises the strong changes in position of individual areas such as Pant and Johnstown 2.
4.Caveats
The period in question is before the recession. Future re-runs of this exercise could show vastly different patterns of changed position depending on the extent to which the recession has impacted on the communities being considered.The methods used in this exercise are valid, but a more meaningful picture could be achieved with five specific improvements:
- The re-calibration of the overall scores to reset the score for the area at rank 9 (Ponciau 2) from -23 to 0. All areas would see there scores adjusted (the rank order would remain the same) and this would allow easier interpretation of the results – a minus score would indicate a net weakening, a positive score a net improvement;
- the inclusion of a wider range of statistics, for example health and housing;
- the inclusion of all areas supported by the URBAN II programme to give a more accurate picture of the outcome of that programme;
- the inclusion of all 85 areas of the county borough to allow improvements to be compared with areas not considered deprived; and
- the ability to compare changes in position in Wrexham with other areas in Wales.
Officers are working to address the first four points in time for a repeat of this exercise during early 2011. The Council has responded to the WAG’s recent consultation regarding the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation to recommend that the WAG perform routine analysis and reporting for all 1,896 lower super output areas in Wales. This would allow the fourth point to be addressed.
The extent to which improvements are attributable to community regeneration work is subjective. The other two levels of the community regeneration evaluation framework seek to inform this assessment further.
5.Conclusions
Accepting the caveats above this exercise suggests a positive correlation between community regeneration work and tangible improvements in quality of life for the people living in the targeted areas.
Improvements appear to be greatest where the level of support has been highest. This is true for the Communities First areas. Although changes in position in the areas supported through the URBAN II programme and the work of Dee Valley Community Partnership shows a net weakening, the extent of the weakening is less than the control group, suggesting that this work has arrested the pace of decline.
The relatively poor levels of change of the west Wrexham areas could be a factor of the limited area representation in this exercise (ie the URBAN II programme targeted all west Wrexham wards, not just the partial wards shown here). It could also be related to the focus of the programme and the fact that more recent community development and learning initiatives are yet to make a statistical impact.
The areas that have performed the weakest are generally not those with the highest levels of multiple deprivation. This supports the Council’s decision to target its efforts on a wider band than the Communities First programme.
January 2010
Annex 1
Improvements per statistic 2005-2008.
- This table shows the number of areas that have experienced a weakening situation and the number of areas that have seen improvement for each statistic.
- The final column shows the rank position that separates areas that have weakerned from those that have improved. For example an area with a rank of 5 for incapacity benefit will be amongst those that have improved their position.
- The figures change for each statistic, meaning that for some indicators, most areas have improved, whilst for others, most have weakerned.
- The final row of the table suggests that on average 9 areas have experienced weakening positions whilst 16 have improved.
Income and employment related / Number of areas weakening / Number of areas improving / Improvement threshold (rank)
Incapacity Benefits/ESA / 3 / 22 / 4
Jobseekers Allowance / 20 / 5 / 21
Lone Parents / 5 / 20 / 6
Income Support / 8 / 17 / 9
Disability Living Allowance / 18 / 7 / 19
Pension Credits / 11 / 14 / 12
Education related
Key stage 2, average point scores / 5 / 20 / 6
Key stage 3, average point scores / 10 / 15 / 11
Key stage 4, average point scores / 5 / 20 / 6
Secondary school all absence rate / 4 / 21 / 5
Community safety related
Antisocial Behaviour / 1 / 24 / 2
Burglary / 18 / 7 / 19
Robbery / 4 / 21 / 5
Vehicle Crime / 10 / 15 / 11
Violence / 16 / 9 / 17
Unweighted average / 9 / 16 / n/a
Page 1 of 7