Evaluation of the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative

Evaluation of the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative

Report at end of evaluation year 3, July 2005

______

Evaluation of the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative

End of year 3 report

Sally Downs Consulting and Alison Millward Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1Introduction 1

The GSSC initiative 1

Progress with the evaluation 1

Approach to the project work 2

Aim of the report 2

2The sample of case studies 4

Choice of projects 4

The projects evaluated and presentation of findings 5

Overview of sample 6

Contributing to the four themes of the GSSC programme 6

3Projects in England 9

GSSC themes in England 9

The projects visited10

Achievements10

Contribution to sustainable development12

Contribution to social inclusion14

Contribution to social capital15

4Projects in Northern Ireland17

Background17

Programme aims in Northern Ireland17

The projects visited18

Achievements - Umbrella Scheme – housing estates19

Achievements - Open Grant Scheme19

Contribution to sustainable development20

Contribution to social inclusion20

Contribution to social capital21

5Projects in Scotland22

Background22

Programme aims in Scotland22

The projects visited23

Achievements24

Contribution to sustainable development25

Contribution to social inclusion26

Contribution to social capital27

6Projects in Wales28

Background28

Programme aims in Wales28

The projects visited29

Achievements30

Contribution to sustainable development30

Contribution to social inclusion31

Contribution to social capital31

Contribution to Enfys Paratnership Objectives31

7Project beneficiaries32

Introduction32

What do we mean by project beneficiaries?32

Types of benefits32

Projects and their target beneficiaries33

8Other findings and issues36

Issues discussed in earlier reports36

The ‘Sustainable Communities’ agenda36

Wider learning from GSSC experiences38

Project sustainability40

Enhancing public sector investment40

9Final stages of the evaluation43

ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF PROJECTS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF THE GSSC PROGRAMME

1

Evaluation of the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative

Report at end of evaluation year 3, July 2005

______

1Introduction

The Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities initiative

1.1The Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities (GSSC) initiative provides lottery funding to help communities understand, improve and care for their natural and living environments. When it established the initiative, the then New Opportunities Fund (now merged into the Big Lottery Fund) identified two key purposes which come from the policy directions issued by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport:

•to create, preserve, or improve access to open space of education, recreation and environmental value to the community

•to support small community-based projects that engage local people in improving and caring for their environment and promote sustainable development

1.2As later chapters show, each of the four nations created objectives for their own countries which sat within these two key purposes.

Progress with the evaluation

1.3This report marks the end of year 3 of the evaluation. It has been preceded in this evaluation year by a major report on the Award Partner (AP) route to delivery. The focus here, therefore, is on the other component in the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities (GSSC) evaluation, namely the projects and, in particular, the impact of those projects, and hence the initiative, on sustainable development, social inclusion and social capital.

1.4The first key feature of this report is that, for the first time, it is possible to see the full sample of projects as currently chosen. The second key feature is that it is a report on an initiative which, taken overall, continues to perform very positively in terms of its processes and outcomes.

Approach to the project work

1.5The first step in the project work was to achieve a reasonably representative sample. The approach to this is summarised in chapter 2. We have then, in the very great majority of cases, visited the projects. New projects have been taken on in each of the three years of the evaluation, building up to a sample now of 101 projects. Whilst these new projects have been brought into the sample, we have also been re-visiting the ones from earlier years. Through these revisits, we have the ability to build up a sort of ‘longitudinal profile’, enabling us to explore impacts arising directly or indirectly from GSSC funding over a period of time.

1.6Not all projects need extended revisits and we have shaped our approach to the circumstances of each project. Occasionally, for example in the case of a feasibility study which is not proceeding to implementation, a phone call is sufficient. Sometimes, two visits have been enough, and in this third year we have asked projects to respond electronically. Sometimes projects feel that they have already given enough time to the evaluation, but are happy to talk on the phone. Many projects, however, fully justify a second and some even a third visit.

1.7The ability to explore longer term impacts is an important feature of this evaluation. It enables us to get a much clearer picture of what the impacts of the funding have been and, very interestingly, the extent to which those impacts last and get enlarged on, or start to whither away. This issue will be a particular focus in the final phases of the evaluation.

1.8By and large, this report is about projects rather than Award Partners. However, in various parts of the report reference is made to specific programmes, and this is particular so in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is important, therefore, to note that, for each of the Award Partners, a minimum of two evaluators were involved in the projects so as to ensure that there was no personal bias introduced by any one evaluator.

Evaluation framework

1.9From the outset of the study, the evaluation has been structured around the objectives of the then New Opportunities Fund for the projects it funded, namely to:

•improve the quality of life for people throughout the UK: this has been understood to be a reflection of the then Fund’s commitment to sustainable development

•address the needs of those who are most disadvantaged in society: this has been understood to reflect the then Fund’s aspirations with respect to social inclusion

•encourage community involvement: this has been understood to relate to the development of social capital

•complement relevant local and national strategies and programmes.

1.10Notwithstanding the fact that the New Opportunities Fund is now part of the Big Lottery Fund (BIG), the evaluation framework continues to be based around these objectives. Despite differences in terminology, there is much that is congruous with them in BIG’s commitment (in its mission statement) to ‘bringing real improvements to communities and to the lives of people most in need’ (Big Lottery Fund website, July 2005).

Aim of the report

1.11The aim of the report is to facilitate an understanding of the projects now that we have coverage of all the Award Partners, and can see the spread across the whole initiative. It is not the intention to evaluate the performance of the Partners with respect to projects, though inevitably some conclusions can start to be drawn. Hence, we do not, for example, attempt to consider the extent to which there has been achievement of targets set out in original bids. Such commentary, however, remains a possible task for the Final Report on the programme.

1.12The remainder of this report is therefore set out in a further eight chapters and covers:

•the sample of projects

•projects in England

•projects in Northern Ireland

•projects in Scotland

•projects in Wales

•project beneficiaries

•emerging issues

•the final stages of the evaluation.

2The sample of case studies

Choice of projects

2.1The sample of projects has been chosen on a structured and independent basis. This should provide assurance to outside commentators that the chosen project mix is a reasonably robust reflection of the whole initiative, and has been selected without bias.

2.2The sample needed to reflect a number of key variables:

•value of awards: size varies substantially within programmes and between programmes

•number of awards being made by the different Award Partners

•type of awards: whilst the scope of awards was shaped by the Fund’s objectives for the national programmes, there are significant variations between Award Partners, and for some (eg the Fresh Futures Consortium) there are several award strands/themes within the scheme which each need to be reflected

•geographical spread: national and regional coverage is a requirement of the Fund and, in addition, some APs with a strong regional delivery structure (for example, the Countryside Agency) asked if all of their regions can be covered through at least one project being evaluated.

2.3The selection process was based on data provided by the Fund on the Magic Database. For each Award Partner, a ‘profile’ of projects types was established. By inspection, projects were then allocated to these types. This was done using project descriptions on the database, and in some instances required interpretation. The data base also supplied information on project size and region.

2.4A sampling base was then developed. To exemplify the process, a typical selection requirement would be 10 projects from a total of 150 available. In the case of English Award Partners, the sampling framework would require a geographical spread which results in at least one project for each of the nine regions. The split of project types was weighted to reflect the project profile of that Award Partner. The final step was for a split to be made on project size, reflecting the range of project sizes available for selection in the particular data base.

2.5The starting point for project selection was based on a simple division of the total number of projects for any Award Partner by the number of projects required for the sample. For example, 10 projects out of 150 meant that the initial random selection was focused on sampling every 15th project. The first run through selecting every 15th project resulted in a number of projects that fitted the parameters of the framework but some that did not, for example because they over-represented a region or a particular project size. A second run through was often required to complete the selection. To ensure that the random process was continued, selecting every 15th project from an alternative starting point in the spreadsheet resulted in further projects that met the framework requirements. In some cases, to complete the process, a 'gap filling' approach was taken to find projects that met the voids in the sample framework.

2.6In a number of instances, projects had to be replaced during the course of the evaluation, for example because they had not proceeded (e.g. due to problems with land assembly) or because they had been over-visited. In these instances, replacements were sought which as far as possible matched the rejected projects.

2.7Whilst the sample so selected should be reasonably representative, it is inevitably limited by virtue of its size. It is proposed to return to each of the Award Partners with a description of the projects evaluated and, if any feel that there are dimensions of their programme which have been missed as a result of the approach we have taken, additional projects can be selected so as to secure a more representative coverage.

The projects evaluated and presentation of findings

2.8A total of 101 projects have been chosen. These are made up of six from Sustrans, 15 from BTCV, and 10 from each of the other Award Partners. 99 have been evaluated to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the year their evaluation commenced). One remains to be done, and one has to be substituted because of unforeseen problems.

2.9Annex 1A provides an overview of each in terms of a brief description of its funding profile, its key aims, and a commentary on its approach to deprivation.

2.10In our report at the end of year 2 we explored the use of a scoring system to distinguish the performance of projects. We found that this brought significant benefits and we intend to take it forward in the Final Report. For this report, however, we felt constrained by two aspects:

•stage of completion: The projects are at very mixed stages. Some are complete and show very positive outcomes. Others currently appear to have weak outcomes. Sometimes this is because they have not yet got very far, but we feel that ultimately they will become very good projects. A typical example is the Falkirk Green Travel Plan, the benefits of which have yet to come through, though employers are already considering how they can take it forward and the authority’s planners are using its findings when negotiating section 106 agreements.

•need for moderation: Whilst some projects will not be visited again, many will. We are aware that the results for all the projects will have to go through some form of moderation to ensure that the findings from five separate evaluators are consistent in their scoring. This cannot be done until all projects are complete.

2.11It was therefore decided that it would be premature to produce scoring results for any project that could be regarded as complete, and that production of scores would therefore be misleading.

2.12Nonetheless, this year we have had to make judgments about performance. This needs to have health warnings attached since projects are at different stages of development, and the performances of many can be expected to change before final study findings are prepared. In addition, it seems to be the case that there is a tendency for projects about sustainable development to apparently perform less well (though more broadly). This is in part due to the fact that many of them are investing in the future, for example raising environmental awareness amongst school children, and the evidence of their success is hard to come by. It is very important, therefore, that the notation system is not seen as a commentary on Award Partners’ performance. Those who have been tackling the sustainable development agenda are breaking new ground and success is less easy to establish than for Award Partners working with ‘tried and tested’ types of projects.

2.13That said, the notation system provides a simple means of visually scanning the sorts of results that we are currently finding.

Overview of sample

2.14Our review shows that the GSSC initiative is remarkable for the very diverse range of projects that cut across geographical, social, cultural and economic boundaries:

•geographical: across four countries, having distinct characters and cultures and different social, environmental and economic problems, and ranging from the housing estates of Northern Ireland (Glenfield Housing Estate) through suburban estates on the outskirts of Cambridge (Cambridge Wildspace) to hill farming communities in Wales (Pontbren).

•social: including sparsely populated rural communities, former mining communities, small and medium sized towns and villages, and densely populated housing estates in the centres of major conurbations. For example they cover village communities in the Scottish Borders (No Waste Gardening), former mining communities in County Durham (Surtees Doorstep Green), towns of the North West ( Lancashire Wildlife Trust, Bolton), centres of major conurbations (Oasis Environmental Play in London)

•cultural and religious: many projects, particularly in urban environments, reflect cultural and religious diversity in their constituent communities. The responses to this are different: some projects are working in ways that challenge the divided nature of their communities (eg housing estate projects in Northern Ireland) and others are celebrating religious diversity whilst actively bringing together different faith communities (eg Hidden Garden in Glasgow). The majority of projects, however, simply cater for the needs and interests of the whole community irrespective of religion or ethnic origin and aim to reflect and respect diversity and encourage integration, tolerance and understanding (eg Triple A Play, Bigland Doorstep Green, Burnley Community Farm)

•economic: many of the projects are located in very deprived urban areas in terms if the IMD (eg Friends of Milecross Gardens); however, projects funded under the initiative also reflect the fact that economic deprivation is not purely an urban problem and that there are economically deprived communities in rural locations (North Somerset Wildspace) and in isolated pockets within otherwise relatively affluent parts of the country (Wheels Park).

Contributing to the four themes of the GSSC programme

2.15Whilst there were modifications to reflect the particular circumstances of each of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (see chapters 4-6 for relevant discussion), the GSSC initiative as a whole can be said to be focussed around four themes:

•recreational green space and playing fields

•playspace and enabling opportunities for children's play

•making green space more accessible (both physically accessible, and more user friendly)

•sustainable communities, in the sense of being more environmentally aware and adjusting lifestyles to reduce damage to the long term prospects for the earth.

2.16Our review of the case study projects has shown that, in practice, the GSSC initiative is delivering on each theme through the following types of projects:

•recreational green space and playing fields:

-development and improvement of playing fields and other ‘soft’ landscapes to accommodate team sports such as football, rugby, hockey, rounders, athletics, cricket (i.e. emphasis on ‘soft’ = green)

-development of hard surface play areas such as MUGAs (Multi-Use Games Areas); skateboard areas; cycle tracks etc for informal sport (i.e. emphasis on ‘hard’ = concrete etc)

-creation of community green space (such as ‘Doorstep Greens’) with associated (often small scale) facilities for passive and active recreation and enjoyment by the whole community (i.e. emphasis on predominantly informal and whole community use)

-major improvements to the external environment of housing estates to improve all aspects of communal space

•playspace and enabling opportunities for children's play:

-provision and installation of children’s play equipment and play facilities (i.e. play facilities and equipment)

-creation of nature gardens and other environmental education/play provision for children and young people(i.e. nature based play)

-running of children’s play schemes, adventure play, activities and events (term time, after-school and holiday) (i.e. activity based rather than facility based)

-preparation of play strategies(i.e. studies)

•making green space more accessible:

-improving the physical accessibility of green space, especially for people from deprived communities and disadvantaged sections of society (i.e. physical on- and off-site provision)