The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Target J:

To promote community regeneration of the most deprived neighborhoods, through improvements by 2008 in employability, education, health, access to local services, and quality of the local environment

SUMMARY EVALUATION

A4.221 Target J is multi-faceted, comprising improvements over five domains (some of which are directly linked to other Targets) and improvements which will follow from Regeneration Outcome Agreements. Target J is concerned with improvements to the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland, as defined in the 2004 Scottish index of Multiple Deprivation.

A4.222 Community regeneration will be judged to have been undertaken, if there is positive change for the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods for the following sub-targets:

• Employment (% of employment deprived among working aged adults, i.e. not claiming work-related benefit)
• Education (Average tariff score - Pupil Performance on SQA at Stage 4)
• Health (Heart Disease and Cancer rates)
• Access to Services (not yet defined)
• Environmental quality (not yet defined)
• Outputs and outcomes of Regeneration Outcome Agreements (not yet available)

A4.223 It is not yet possible to evaluate the extent to which Target J is being fulfilled. However, it has been possible to set baseline measures for most facets of Target J. These baseline measurements establish the extent to which the most deprived neighbourhoods in Scotland fall behind the less deprived neighbourhoods in key aspects of community well-being.

WORK PROGRAMME AND POLICY CONTEXT

A4.224 Target J is closely aligned to Objective 4 and the work programme and policy context discussed previously are also pertinent to this Target.

A4.225 The Scottish Executive has led a wide ranging series of interventions to improve the quality of life in the most deprived neighbourhoods in Scotland. These interventions include work which has been introduced through CtOG and other interventions that are beyond CtOG.

EVIDENCE

A4.226 For the purpose of this interim evaluation, evidence to appraise Target J has been drawn for a range of sources. All comparisons refer to changes in those data zones described as among the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland in 2004:

• Employment (comparing 2006 and 2004 rates)
• Education (comparing 2006 and 2004 average tariff scores)
• Health (comparing 2006 and 2004 Mortality)
• Access to Services (comparing 2006 and 2004 rates for 3 key services)
• Environmental quality (selected indicators from the Scottish Household Survey - 2005 data, which can serve as a baseline for subsequent studies)
• Outputs and outcomes of Regeneration Outcome Agreements (not yet available)

A4.227 Table A4.50 provides an overview of change in the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland in 2004. For five broad domains (four of which correspond to the domains identified as sub-targets), this Table reports the percentage of Data Zones which left the 15% Most Deprived (column 2) and the percentage of Data Zones which remained in the 15% Most Deprived by 2006 (column 3). Conditions improved to the extent that a significant minority of neighbourhoods (around one in five) were no longer described as being among the 15% Most Deprived for these domains in 2006.

A4.228 More detailed analysis of the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods is provided in the final three columns of Table A4.50, which present a vigintile analysis of movements for the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland in 2004. Although the majority of neighbourhoods maintained their status between 2004 and 2006 as either among the 5%, 6-10% or 11-15% Most Deprived neighbourhoods in Scotland, it can also be observed that there is a significant volume of change, with conditions worsening in around one in five Neighbourhoods and improving in a similar proportion.

A4.229 On the whole, Table A4.50 demonstrates that there is flux among the Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland. Income status would appear to be less volatile or amenable to change ³⁵.

Table A4.50: Change in Deprived Area Status for Key Domains, 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods (Data Zones) in Scotland 2004, Percentages

Source: Calculated from background data drawn from Scottish Executive (2006) Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2006. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive and Scottish Executive (2004) Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Note: For each domain in turn, this table only reports data for data zones which were both among the 15% Most Deprived Areas in 2004 and among the 15% Most Deprived Areas for each domain in 2004. The Table does not report on those 15% Most Deprived Areas overall which were not among the 15% Most Deprived Areas for each domain in 2004, nor for areas which were among the 15% Most Deprived Areas for that domain in 2004, but not the 15% Most Deprived Areas overall.

A4.230 However, data on the relative status of the Most Deprived Neighbourhoods are merely suggestive of the extent to which actual changes have been evident. To consider this issue, it is necessary to review actual changes in circumstance, as opposed to changes relative to other areas.

A4.231 Table A4.51 review the actual changes in circumstance in the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland in 2004, wherever possible using the key indicators defined in Target J.

A4.232 The over-riding conclusion to be drawn from comparing change in the circumstance of the 15% Most Neighbourhoods in Scotland in 2004 is that conditions are improving; for the seven measures presented in Table A4.51, positive change is evident in the majority of neighbourhoods (15% MD column).

A4.233 The final three columns of Table A4.51 present more detailed analysis by comparing the extent of positive change among the three vigintiles within the 15% grouping. It can be seen that positive change is evident across the spectrum, and indeed, is more marked for the 5% Most Deprived Data Zones in five of the seven indicators presented.

A4.234 Table A4.51 also demonstrates that the positive change in employment rates in higher in the seven local authorities that are the focus of Target A than they are for Scotland as a whole.

Table A4.51: Data Zones in the 15% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland for Which There Have Been Improvements in Key Indicators, 2004 and 2006, Percentages

Source: Calculated from background data drawn from Scottish Executive (2006) Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2006. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive and Scottish Executive (2004) Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

Notes: 1. Percentage of working aged adults who are either on the claimant count, or receive Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance, New Deal for the under 25s and New Deal for the 25+ not already included in the claimant count.
2. As targeted in Target A.
3. Pupil Performance on SQA at Stage 4.
4. The Comparative Mortality Factor used in SIMD 2004 has been renamed Standard Mortality Ratio in 2006, in line with naming conventions used in Health statistics. It contains the same data and is an indirect age and sex standardised measure of mortality and morbidity. However, the age-sex standardisation method also changed between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2006.
5. Access is indicated by drive time.
6. A more expansive measure of shopping facilities was used in 2006, in contrast to the more limited measure of 'supermarkets' in 2004.

A4.235 Table A4.52 compares local residents' rating of the quality of their neighbourhood in the 20% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland in 2005, to that of residents in less deprived neighbourhoods. Although the majority of people living in the Most Deprived Neighbourhoods consider that their neighbourhood is a good place in which to live, it is notable a higher percentage of people outwith these deprived areas are more satisfied with what their neighbourhood has to offer. These data can serve as a benchmark for measuring progress with CtOG Target J in future years.

Table A4.52: Rating of the Neighbourhood as a Place to Live, 2005

Source: Scottish Executive (2006) Scotland's People 2005. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Table 4.26

A4.236 Table A4.53 compares different aspects of neighbourhood quality for the 20% Most Deprived Neighbourhoods in Scotland in 2005 with less deprived neighbourhoods. Once again, it can be concluded that the majority of people living outwith the Most Deprived Neighbourhoods have a more positive outlook on their neighbourhood.

Table A4.53: Aspects of the Neighbourhood Which Are Disliked and Liked, 2005

Source: Scottish Executive (2006) Scotland's People 2005. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Tables 4.30 and 4.33

DATA ISSUES

A4.237 These data must be interpreted with caution. Firstly, No evidence is yet available from Regeneration Outcome Agreements.

A4.238 Secondly, the key indicators selected to represent community regeneration are partial, and do not necessarily convey wider aspects of the domain which they purport to represent. For example, the key indicators for health have been represented by different measures, reflecting data availability. The data on environmental quality are perceptual; it is important to appraise the experiences of those living in neighbourhoods, but it must always be remembered that perceptions may not reflect the objective conditions in the wider neighbourhood.

A4.239 Time series data are used to compare results presented in SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2006. It should be acknowledged that data for these publications are drawn, for the most part, from 2001/02 (for SIMD 2004) and 2004/05 (for SIMD 2006). Thus, these data do not portray conditions in Scotland in 2004 and 2006; indeed, the results from SIMD 2006 are more likely to present conditions in Scotland in 2004, when CtOG Objectives and Targets were launched. However, these data are useful in that they present an account of changes in status immediately prior to the introduction of CtOG. As such, they provide both a useful benchmark against which to measure the subsequent impact of CtOG and provide contextual information to better understand the dynamics of changing circumstance in deprived neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the indicators used to represent the domains were revised for all but the employment domain between SIMD 2004 and SIMD 2006; this places limitations on the extent to which indicators are directly comparable over time ³⁶.

A4.240 Finally, the decision to focus Target J upon the neighbourhoods - defined as being the 15% Most Deprived Areas in 2004 is significant. The rate of change in status implies that subsequent measurements of Target J will include around 20% of Data Zones which are lo longer among the most deprived neighbourhoods in subsequent years. Furthermore, it necessitates identifying and matching Data Zones over time, which makes analysis a more time consuming process than would otherwise be the case if the Target was focused on profiling the overall cohort of 15% Most Deprived Areas.

« Previous | Contents | Next »