Summary of direct impacts on health and socioeconomic status reported in evaluations of national (UK) area based initiatives
| Programme (dates of data collection) >Number of case study areas included in evaluation/total number of target areas included in programme | Outcome measure used >(number of case study areas where data reported/no of case study areas included in evaluation) | Overall impact and range across case study areas | Direction of overall impact | Range of effects across case study areas includes zero * | Improvement reported over and above national or regional trends over same time period * |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *Where data provided in the evaluation report. | |||||
| Impacts on health outcomes | |||||
| SRB32 (1996 v 1999) >Panel survey in three target areas | self reported “good health” | 44% v 40%, −4% (range −6% to +2%) | Deterioration | Yes | |
| self reported “not good health” | 26% v 28%, +2% (range −7% to +8%) | Deterioration | Yes | ||
| self reported “health worse in past three years” | 29% v 35%, +6% (range 0% to +13%) | Deterioration | Yes | ||
| self reported “health improved in past three years” | 7% v 10%, +3% (range +2% to +4%) | Improvement | No | ||
| New Life26 (1988 v 1994) >All four target areas | standardised mortality (three areas) | 131 v 114, −17 (range −29 to +12) | Improvement | Yes | |
| SRB31 (1994 v 1998) >Two case study areas | crude mortality rate (%per 1000) (one area) | 12.5% v 13.1%, −0.6% (range −1% to −0.2%) | Improvement | No | |
| standardised mortality (England = 100) (one area) | 122 v 118 (range −7 to −1) | Improvement | No | ||
| Impacts on employment | |||||
| New Life26 (1988 v 1998) >All four target areas | employment rate (% of working age in employment) | 41% v 47%, +6% (range −9% to +20%) | Improvement | Yes | |
| SRB32 (1996 v 1999) >Panel survey in three target areas | employment rate (% of working age in employment) | 56% v 60%, +4% (range +3% to +5%) (England data 1996–1999, +4%, 78% v 82%) | Improvement | No | No |
| SURI (1993 1998)27 | number of households with at least one person economically active | +9%, compared with non-SURI area −5% | Improvement | Yes | |
| Impacts on unemployment | |||||
| Urban Programme18 (1981/82 v 1991) >Two target areas | % unemployed | +3.25% London data 1981 v 1991 +0.5% | Deterioration | No | |
| SRB31 (1995 v 1997) >Two target areas | % of population unemployed (one area) | 4.5% v 3.2%, −1.3% (range −1.5% to −1.2%) standardised rate 120 v 133 (range +6 to +23) | Small improvement | No | No |
| New Life26 (1988 v 1998) >All four target areas | % of working age registered unemployed or economically inactive | 58.5% v 53.2%, −5.3% (range −20% to +9%) | Improvement | Yes | |
| SRB32 (1996 v 1999) >Panel survey in three target areas | % of working age population economically inactive | 29% v 25%, −4% (range −7% to −4%) England data 10% v 10% | Improvement | No | Yes |
| City challenge28 (1992 v 1994) >14 of 31 target areas | unemployment rate (seven areas) | 21.9% v 21.6%, +0.3% (range −2.4% to +3.0%) | Unclear- mixed impacts | Yes | |
| SIP34 (1996 v 1999/2000) >All nine target areas | unemployment rate (three areas) | 10.7% v 6.9% −3.8% (range −4.9% to −1.7%) Scotland data 1996 v 1999, −4.6% | Improvement | No | No |
| SRB30 (data collection over four years, dates not specified) >Three target areas | unemployment rate (one area) | 15% v 4.2%, −10.8% England data 8.4% v 4.7%, −3.6% | Improvement | Yes | |
| Estate Action25 (1991 v 1997/98) >Seven case study areas | % change in number of unemployment claimants over six years: in target area v local district | −29.5% (range −11% to −48%) v −36.9% (range −22% to −42.2%) | Improvement | No | No |
| SIP34 (1996 v 1999/2000) >All nine target areas | % change in numbers of unemployment claimants (five areas) | −32% (range −44% to −17%) | Improvement | No | |
| Impacts on long term unemployment | |||||
| City challenge28 (1992 v 1994) >14 of 31 target areas | % of unemployed who have been unemployed >12 months (five areas) | 40.9% v 42.8%, +2.9% (range −4.1% to +5.8) | Deteriorated | Yes | |
| SRB30 (data collection over four years, dates not specified) >Three target areas | % of unemployed who have been unemployed >12 months (one area) | 40% v 23%, −17% England data 38% v 26%, −12% | Improvement | Yes | |
| SRB31 (1995 v 1997) >Two target areas | % of unemployed + employed who are unemployed >12 months (one area) | 4.4% v 2.8%, −1.6% (range −2.3% to −1.3%), standardised rates compared with all England increased 129 v 167 (range +15 to +71) | Small improvement | No | No |
| Impacts on educational attainment | |||||
| New Life26 (1988 v 1994) >All four target areas | pupils obtaining 1+ highers (two areas) | 12.5% v 15%, +2.5% (range +2% & +3%) | Improvement | No | |
| pupils obtaining 3+ standard grades (two areas) | 69% v 79%, +12% (range +4% & +16%) | Improvement | No | ||
| attendance rates at secondary school (two areas) | 74% v 82.5%, +11.5% (range +9% and +14%) | Improvement | No | ||
| City Challenge28 (1992 v 1994) >14 of 31 target areas | pupils achieving >4 GCSEs grade A-C | 16.3% v 20.8%, +4.5% (range +1.6% to +10.4%) | Improvement | No | |
| School leavers with no GCSEs | 14.8% v 14.2%, +0.6% (range −8.3% to +3.8%) | Unclear- mixed impacts | Yes | ||
| SRB30 (1994 v 1997) >Three target areas | pupils achieving >4 GCSEs grade A-C (one area) | 41.6% v 45.8%, +4.2% English data 43.3% v 45.1%, +1.8% | Improvement | Yes | |
| SRB31 (1994 v 1999) >Two target areas | pupils achieving >4 GCSEs (one area) | 50.3% v 56.1% +5.8% (range +4.3% to +7.3%) | Improvement | No | |
| standardised rate where England = 100 (one area) | 116 v 117 (range −2 to +3) | Little or no improvement | Yes | No | |
| SRB32 (1996 v 1999) >Panel survey in three target areas | any member of household with CSE/GCSE/O level | 53% v 54%, +1% (range −10% to +3%) | Small improvement | Yes | |
| taken part in training in past three years | 22% v 29%, +7% | Improvement | |||
| Impacts on household income | |||||
| New Life26 (1988 v 1994) >All four target areas | households with incomes below £100/week | 65.3% v 48.8%, −16.5% (range −34% to +3%) | Improvement | Yes | |
| SRB32 (1996 v 1999) >Panel survey in three target areas | households with incomes below £100/week | 30% v 26%, −4% (range −10% to −3%) England data 19% v 16%, −4% | Improvement | No | No |
| Impacts on housing quality and rent | |||||
| UDCs22 >3 of 11 target areas | % of residents from local target areas now living in new/improved housing (two areas) | 42.5% | Improvement | ||
| Estateaction25 (1990/91 v 1997/98) >Seven case study areas | Average weekly rent in LA housing 1990/1–1997/8 (areas) | +99.3% (range +8.9% to +324%) | Increased housing costs | No | |
| Average housing association weekly rent compared with previous local authority (four areas) | +116.8% (range +83.7% to +162.5%) | Increased housing costs | No | ||