HAMP S.R.B -THE FACTS

There has been much interest recently about the SRB . This was a period of increased funding for the Hamp estate which ended in 2007. Since then the projects and facilities achieved have struggled to continue alone and the Hamp Community Association has the responsibility of managing them. There are numerous potential projects on the estate currently in need of funding and the HCA is looking for a way forward to unite these campaigners under one umberella so that Hamp can speak with one voice. One idea which the Board of HCA is considering is that of a Community Interest Company. However, before they can consider this, the period of SRB is under investigation. The Board has called in the South West Auditors and a full report on the facts will be carried out.

So that people fully understand what the SRB actually was we have summarised the end of term Project Evaluation Report below.

What is the SRB ?

The SRB (Single Regeneration Budget) is a way of attracting major investment into deprived areas. This was first achieved on Bridgwaters Sydenham estate in the early 1990s. On Hamp we set up the Hamp Community Association (HCA) in 1996 to attract the next available funding to our estate.

The HCA set about bringing together the community with a Partnership of professional groups that were active on the estate with a view to jointly addressing the key problems and attracting the funds to achieve them. The first Chair was Frank Drake (from the Holy Trinity Church) and the first secretary Cllr Brian Smedley (Hamp Labour) .

By 2000 the case had been made and money awarded under the SRB scheme.

Originally due to operate over a 6 year period from August 2000 to March 2006, the Programme was extended in 2005 by a year, to 31st March 2007, to enable the completion of key investments and development of a forward strategy.

THE FINAL REPORT

The Final Report for the End of Scheme Evaluation of the Hamp Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Round 6 Programme in Bridgwater, Somerset. (undertaken by EKOS between March and September 2007, overseen by the Hamp SRB Management and Administration Group. ) is available on the web and although it points to some criticisms it is broadly supportive . It's key points are summarised below.

The area was selected for an SRB6 bid on the basis of the high levels of deprivation on the Hamp estate and the long standing desire of both residents, the Hamp Community Association (HCA) and the other agencies represented in the Hamp SRB6 Partnership to achieve major improvements in quality of life.

The overall aim of the Programme was to:

“Raise the self-esteem of the community and promote ownership of the Hamp neighbourhood by improving employment and recreational opportunities, supporting self help initiatives by the community, improving educational achievement and health, and reducing poverty and crime”.

The five strategic objectives• SO1- Improving the employment prospects, education and skills of local people;
• SO2 - Addressing social exclusion and improving opportunities for the disadvantaged;
• So3 - Promoting sustainable regeneration, improving and protecting the environment and infrastructure, including housing;
• SO4 - Supporting and promoting growth in local economies and businesses; and
• SO5 - Reducing crime and drug abuse and improving community safety.

A clear focus was evident on enhancing the uptake of employment and other opportunities for local people in addition to improving quality of life for all. In an area where there was no case for significant physical change, these objectives were generally valid and appropriate.

The SRB allocation of £1.68m was fully spent by the end of the Programme period, albeit a one year extension was required to enable resources to be fully deployed. performed well in financial terms, with monies spent largely in line with the objectives

The SRB Programme has successfully delivered two high profile capital projects – ReCreation and 1 Edinburgh Road

As well as the main SWRDA outputs, the Programme has also delivered a number of other activities and outcomes, including:
• 194 pupils benefiting from support to enhance or improve their attainment;
• 815 people gaining access to ICT;
• 285 individuals involved in voluntary work;
• More than 2,000 people gaining access to new cultural opportunities or facilities; and
• 1,400 young people benefiting from projects to boost their self esteem.

Overall, the mix of achievements is substantial and provides a platform for the future regeneration of the estate.

The bottom up characteristic of the SRB6 programme has also been a key feature, with significant HCA involvement in a number of schemes and extensive resident consultation and engagement in the vast majority of projects. There is a very strong relationship between the needs and priorities of residents and the package of activity that has been supported.
There are a number of examples of good practice evident from the Programme, including:
• The development of 1 Edinburgh Road as a multi purpose community facility;

• The consultation and development process on ReCreation which enabled a successful centre to be achieved.

• The Furniture Store which combines a social and training enterprise with a valued service for local residents.

The HCA have played a leading role in the delivery of the Programme. .

At the beginning of the Programme, the full Partnership comprised 21 representatives, which by 2003/4 had expanded to 33 organisations.

The key socio-economic indicators suggest that Hamp has changed for the better in many ways over the programme period, although it remains relatively disadvantaged. Some of the positive trends include:
• A reduction in the number of Job Seekers Allowance claimants;
• Fewer families eligible for free school meals;
• An overall reduction in crime rates, albeit crime and anti-social behaviour remain high; and
• An improvement in the estate’s ranking on the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

The changes in the key indicators are echoed in the views of residents we consulted as part of the evaluation – more than 80% of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that the estate has a more positive image and quality of life has improved. A total of 75% of residents feel safer in their homes and on the streets of Hamp.

The programme has contributed to reversing a long term period of decline, although, given its size, its direct impact was always going to be limited. The challenge now is how the positive momentum is built upon to further the estate’s regeneration.

The Hamp SRB Programme has been a success overall. The two key projects desired by residents have been successfully delivered and the long term decline of the estate has been reversed.

The Hamp Community Association was formed in 1996 to represent all residents. It undertook a major consultation exercise ‘Hamp on Hamp’ in which a total of 1,029 residents took part. This consultation formed the basis of the SRB bid and helped the programme target activity towards community needs.

The Hamp SRB scheme was awarded £1,688,842 of SRB resources, 100% of which has now been spent and accounted for.

1 Edinburgh RdThe property at 1 Edinburgh Rd was purchased at the beginning of the SRB Programme as a temporary operating base for the SRB team. The original intention was that when a community resource centre was established it would be resold and money used for other projects. The building was purchased and made fit for purpose at a cost of £80,586.
In 2002, a project was approved to provide information and advice at 1 Edinburgh Rd. Total project costs of £74,096 paid for:

• a paid part time manager to run the centre and provide some admin support to HCA and SRB,
• an operating base for HCA;
• a base for organisations such as Citizen’s advice, JobCentre plus, Bridgwater Credit Union to operate from (see below);
• a venue for working together to further projects in Hamp; and
• allow access to ICT, provide training and volunteering opportunities.

2 ReCreation – A New Kind of Youth Buidling
The development of ReCreation was identified from the outset as a crucial element in the regeneration of Hamp. Consultation showed this was high on the community agenda. The picture to the left shows the old building which had fallen into disrepair and had to be demolished. 25% of the population are under 16 compared with 20% regionally13. Lack of facilities for young people was leading to anti-social behaviour and crime. The community was in talks with the SWRDA about funding the development of a youth centre through non SRB funds, but when this did not develop, it became a high priority for SRB funding.
The solution was to build a £641,501 new youth centre, funded with £403,33914 from SRB plus an additional £47,245 of revenue support. The project received some revenue support from the SRB, but it has since obtained money from Children in Need and the Safer Sedgemoor Partnership. In addition, it raises some funds through sale of goods in the café, other paid trips and room hire and functions. Funding has been secured for the next three years, but there is an ongoing need to ensure future funding is in place.

The key issues for the project going forward are:
• Obtaining funding to continue activities;
• Obtaining funding for additional activities – additional opening hours, more trips etc;
• Extending the work to support parenting skills;
• Extending the work to support older children and teenagers; and
• Capacity of the community to manage the operation.

Overall, the building is a tremendous asset to the estate, especially in the absence of a community centre. Other community groups do use the building during the day and after the youth club session in the evening. Currently, this additional use is limited. It will be important for the centre to expand its use to other groups to provide an additional source of revenue and ensure the community achieves the maximum benefit from the SRB expenditure.

Partnership Structures and Functioning

The original structure comprised a partnership body (with responsibility for the strategic direction of the programme, review of strategy, overall monitoring of performance and policy decisions. This was supported by a steering group elected from the partnership which had delegated authority for day-to-day decision making and monitoring. Six sub-groups were set up to develop activity at theme and project level. Two further groups were set up to deal with the appraisal of projects and arrangements for setting up a charitable trust in 2004, changes to the sub-group structure were agreed by the partnership as follows:
• A management and administration sub-group was formed to formalise an informal arrangement where the chair, vice chair, representative of the accountable body and programme manager met;
• The housing sub-group was disbanded due to lack of activity; and
• The social inclusion group took on the appraisal of projects under £25,000 and regular monitoring of projects and report to the steering group.
ProjectsProject Subgroups:
• Education, Training and Employment Sub-group (SO1, SO4)
• Social Inclusion Sub-Group (SO2)
• Environment Sub-group (SO3)
• Housing Sub-Groups (SO3)
• Crime and Disorder Reduction sub-group (SO5)
• Buildings sub-group (SO1, SO2, SO4)
Full Partnership
Steering group
Charitable Trust Sub-Group
Appraisal Sub-Group

Community Involvement and the Hamp Community Association

At the outset of the SRB Programme, the HCA was already in place undertaking a range of activities across the estate. As the main umbrella organisation for residents on the estate, it was appropriate and sensible that the HCA should play a leading role in the SRB partnership.

Overall, the involvement of the staff and volunteers at 1 Edinburgh Rd and other residents in the delivery of projects has been a very positive feature of the Programme.

ROLE OF ELECTED MEMBERS

The Report points out that "Elected members have also played a very positive role as champions for the Programme and the estate in a variety of arenas. "

Councillors representing Hamp over the years have included;

Bridgwater Town;- John Turner, Kathy Pearce, Julie Raven, Pat Parker

Sedgemoor District;-John Turner,Kathy Pearce, Brian Smedley

Somerset County;- Dean Lampard, Pat Parker, Steve Gill

Sedgemoor District Council took on the role of accountable body, with the intention that it should eventually pass from the District Council to a new charitable trust set up by the partnership, once the partnership had gained sufficient confidence and experience to undertake the role.

Whilst considerable efforts were put into developing the charitable trust, it was slow to get off the ground and lacked capacity to deliver. Therefore in 2004, with advice from the SWRDA, Sedgemoor District Council agreed to remain the accountable body for the remainder of the scheme. Whilst this was an appropriate decision in order to ensure that SRB funds could be administered appropriately, it has had a significant impact on the proposed exit strategy which relied on there being a charitable trust in place to take over assets and continue regeneration activity in Hamp

Criticisms

The programme manager was employed by Sedgemoor District Council as the accountable body. However, the line management responsibility lay with the Chairman of the partnership for programme delivery matters and through a nominated officer of the council for administrative, system and personnel issues. This caused considerable confusion and the lack of clarity caused unnecessary difficulties in the running of the Programme. This ended in mediation between the SRB staff, the chair of the Hamp Community Association (and Partnership) and the Sedgemoor DC team.

Overall, the consensus amongst stakeholders was that the Sedgemoor DC regeneration team had generally managed the Programme well, with considerable efforts made by a number of key individuals.

As is often the case in small regeneration programmes, a small group of highly committed individuals, primarily from SDC and the HCA, were responsible for managing and delivering the bulk of the programme. Without their sustained efforts, much less would have been achieved. On the other hand, there was perhaps too much reliance on a small number of representatives to take forward the regeneration of the estate.

SUMMARY OF PROJECT FUNDING

Canal Access Improvements
30000.00
Gloucester Road
3763.50
Gloucester Road phase 2
16000.00
Gloucester Road phase 2
10200.00
Mansfield Park
15000.00
Quantock View Lighting
27396.07
The Green Cockadoodle Doo
2532.00
Wolmer Close
5552.00
1 Edinburgh Road
89750.17
1 Edinburgh Road Information & Advice
147269.52
Community Centre
31474.60
Extension to 1 Edinburgh Road
124870.53
Furniture Store
47484.40
Hamp Minibus
31644.01
Neighbourhood Nursery
21000.00
Hamp Web Initiative
30550.00
Hamp Wireless
29508.98
HITEX
25962.05
ICT Champ
54118.59
Junior ICT
24861.00
Breakfast Club
8000.00
Hamp Youth Project
5610.96
Re Creation - building
439133.10
Re Creation Kitchen improvements
2000.00
Re Creation Landscape Project
10280.62
Re Creation revenue support
30000.00
Re Creation Youth Centre
18557.58
Sportee
4000.00
Summer Challenge
3000.00
Police Bicycle
460.00
Safe as Houses
13329.00
Activity Leaders
36919.84
Admin & Grants officer
14500.00
Community Capacity Build
21250.09
Community Chest
42600.00
Community Development Worker
78063.30
Community Panto
5100.00