2.   The Management of the Urban Project in Hillfields

Management Structure 

       2.1            In bidding for the URBAN Programme the Hillfields Urban Partnership was formed in order to oversee the preparation of the bid and later its implementation.   The composition of the URBAN Partnership Group and its composition are contained in Annexes Two and Three.  The Management Group consisted of 14 members representing the community and key stakeholders.  The Group met regularly and made it a rule to meet within the Programme area. 

         2.2           The local management framework was linked into the European Structural Funds management structure for the West Midlands.  This structure reflects the project appraisal structure.   The working of the management structure was helped enormously by the good relationships and esprit de corps that developed during the working of the URBAN project.  Whilst there were the inevitable frustrations, good and strong working relationships made management of the Programme much easier. 

         2.3           The URBAN Management Committee had seven main tasks: 

ù         Commission capacity building work including community audits to enhance and inform the work of the Hillfields Urban Partnership Group

ù         To invite the Hillfields Urban Partnership Group to submit a draft Urban Action Plan

ù         To examine, review and discuss with the Hillfields Urban Partnership Group and agree the Urban Action Plan

ù         To agree the detailed arrangements for the Hillfields Urban Partnership Group to take forward the Urban Action Plan

ù         To submit to the Programme Monitoring Committee annual progress reports on the URBAN Programme based on Hillfields Urban Partnership Group reports

ù         To agree arrangements for the promotion and publicity of the programme

ù         To make arrangements for the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Urban Action Plan. 

         2.4           The structure required for the management of the URBAN Programme in Hillfields was laid out in a letter to The Chief Executive dated 21 September 1998.  The letter required the Urban Programme Partnership to take cognisance of: 

ù         Claims and payments

ù         State aids regulations

ù         Financial arrangements accountability and audit arrangements

ù         Provisions for information and documentation and arrangements for visits

ù         Publicity

ù         Key dates 

         2.5           Coventry City Council established the correct procedures through the Corporate Regeneration Team European Funding Office.  The letter gave also indicative funding arrangements for the first two years of the Programme. 

         2.6           The consolidation of the SRB Rounds One and Two into a unified Budget also helped improve the flexibility of the matched funding 

The Strategy and Planning 

         2.7           One of the first tasks undertaken by the Hillfields URBAN Partnership group was to look at the issues faced by Hillfields and draw up a ‘vision’ for the area (see Annex One).  This vision aimed to be comprehensive and set out the principles for the URBAN Programme.  It is a long vision reflecting the issues faced by and the aspirations of the local community however the following abstract gives a clear sense of direction.

 By the year 2001 Hillfields will be a desirable place to live and to work in; a place that people value and where they are prepared to invest their time, energy and money.  People will see Hillfields as ‘ the village community in the heart of the city.’  It will be a positive area where people can develop and where educational, cultural and spiritual needs are met……………………….

……….The overall image of the area will be lively, exciting and friendly.  It will be a positive place to live and work.  Local people will ‘own’ their area, be proud of it and protective towards it.  Hillfields’ image of itself will be shared by people outside.
Hillfields Partnership

Urban Action Plan

         2.8           The plan described the issues and problems facing Hillfields and set out the base line data by which it can be evaluated (see section 3).    The Plan made it clear that it encouraged community participation in the Programme and noted that every household in the area had been sent leaflets in January 1998 and local consultation meetings were held in February 1998.  The aim was to attract local input into the plan.  

         2.9           The vision underlined the Action Plan.  Many of the themes within the vision are contained within the Action Plan which grew out of the request from the Urban Management Committee.  The first plan laid out the way in which the URBAN Programme was to operate in Hillfields.  It highlighted the administrative structure and laid out the major projects under the programme and how they were to be managed during the first two years.  

Project Management 

     2.10           It was this first plan which established the three key measures under which projects would be funded: 

1.      Training and confidence building

2.      Infrastructure and enterprise

3.      Community capacity building 

 It noted the role of Coventry City Council as the accountable body acting on behalf of the URBAN Partnership Group.  Each project under the key measures had as a result a project officer appointed by the City Council.  The Officer had the responsibility of ensuring that records were maintained, outputs logged and all expenditure and income recorded. 

     2.11           All project expenditure was issued through the City Council financial systems on the instruction of the URBAN Initiative Manager located in the Regeneration Resources Team.  This ensured that the normal checks were made in accordance with European Procurement and Funding regulations.  A check was made of any State Aid implications. 

     2.12           The URBAN Initiative Manager made a regular quarterly report to the Urban Partnership Group on the performance of projects, their expenditure and cumulative performance.  It was in this format that any difficulties were recognised.  This reporting procedure ensured that the work of the URBAN programme was reported around the Hillfields area and that the process was transparent.  

     2.13           Project leaders made reports on their projects; its work, achievements, expenditures and challenges it faced.  This would be followed by a general discussion where any linkages, solutions or ideas emanating from the report could be made.  Importantly, the impact and contribution of the project at hand could be tested.  This would feed through the reporting process up the latter to the Urban Management Committee and to the West Midlands Government Office.  

     2.14            Although the Action Plan is referred to as 1997 - 1999, in reality it covered a period from 1999 - 2001. 

Measure One:  Training and Confidence Building  (ESF) 

     2.15           This measure recognises that the Arena’s main assets are its people and the local economy’s main resource is its workforce.  Measure One actions focussed on tackling the long-term unemployment in the area through personal development, training and improving access to jobs located in the nearby City Centre and elsewhere in the city. 

     2.16           Hillfields has had a difficult time during the last 25 years and as a result many people in the area have been scarred by lifetime experiences of repeated redundancy and unemployment.  Many have had to face discrimination and witness their skills and their potential for good jobs erode as technological change has fundamentally changed the nature of work.  People facing difficulties from all over the city have taken advantage of cheaper housing to meet their reduced circumstances.  This means that there are relatively more people in need of this form of support than in other areas of the city. 

     2.17           Over the years people in Hillfields have been on training courses in the hope and expectation of gaining work at the end.  However, in reality their hopes have been dashed through lack of jobs and / or support.  These experiences have tended to reduce expectations and aspirations of local people.  Those who manage to overcome the barriers have tended to move out of Hillfields. 

     2.18           The Urban Partnership Group were keen to engage local people and involve local employers and organisations located in the area.  This approach linked into the Single Regeneration Budget Rounds 1 and 2.  The City Council’s Community Plan, which was developed a little later, stressed the same approach setting targets. It was seen that the URBAN Programme could fill gaps in the provision and build on the success of the then Coventry & Warwickshire Training and Enterprise Council. 

     2.19           The measure was funded by European Social Fund moneys and aimed to: 

§         Identify and provide training required to assist people into jobs 

§         To help disadvantaged people gain skills and confidence needed to take up training places, education opportunities and jobs 

§         To help unemployed people obtain and retain employment 

§         Support employers in their recruitment to jobs with or without training 

     2.20           The actions undertaken under this measure sought to tackle barriers to the full functioning of the labour market in the area through the development of skills and competencies of individuals and the overcoming of prejudice.  This required training and the focussing on gaps in the provision of services that help people into work.   The measure worked with the Coventry & Warwickshire Training & Enterprise Council and Business Link.  URBAN sought to optimise the benefit to local people by working in partnership with organisations working in the area.  The additional resources encouraged the generation of novel or innovative approaches to get people back into the socio-economy.

     2.21     There were 11 projects targeting 843 people or equivalent to 9% of the local population developed under this measure. These projects offered a diversity of approaches aimed to attract people but not all were successful at the start as there was resistance to the schemes and some had to be reformulated. 

     2.22           The actual projects undertaken aimed to: 

ù         Build personal confidence and raise self esteem

ù         Improve basic skills including English and numeracy

ù         Engage people in learning and training

ù         Develop ICT skills

ù         Gain NVQ qualifications

ù         Help with job search

ù         Provide work placements

ù         Provide jobs under New Deal

ù         Training the trainers 

     2.23           These projects highlight the innovative approach undertaken by the partners to break down the reticence of local people facing barriers to their participation in the socio-economy.   In order to do this, the range of the services provided by the projects was broad: 

o        The Focus Housing Project linked the physical development in the area to jobs aimed at long term unemployed over 25 years old linking into the New Deal for 25 plus.  The project aimed to provide work and vocational training on a real employment site.  

o        In sharp contrast the University of Warwick Arts Centre Utopias Outreach Project sought to engage disadvantaged people through working with artists with the purpose of developing a website on the theme of utopia’s.  In doing this, the aim of the project was to break down personal barriers, provide positive experiences, develop self confidence and social skills as well as engage in learning new skills in IT.  The project was run in conjunction with WATCH. 

o        The Tile Hill College Training Opportunities aimed at providing vocational training for long term unemployed people, the majority of whom had no relevant qualifications.  The training aimed at providing core skills such as English, mathematics (numeracy), IT and study skills.  The training was provided in a focussed way supported by counselling and guidance.  Job search and careers guidance support was also provided for the participants.

2.24             The Urban Programme accounted for 43.3% of the total spend under measure one.  This compares to the projected 45% at the start of the project (The proportion in some reports is different as income-in-kind has been treated differently.) All the projects were revenue spend with no capital items being purchased 

  2.25           The METO, the NTO, was by far the largest project with a budget of £650,000 followed by Tile Hill College’s Training Opportunities at £434,880.  The City Council had two projects:  Sports and Training and Young People’s Placement totalling £354,325.  It is unlikely that any of these projects would have taken place without the URBAN Programme support.

 Measure Two:  infrastructure and Enterprise Development 

     2.26           This measure focussed on improving the physical environment of Hillfields in order to enhance the image of the area.  By improving the image of the area, the aim was to reduce prejudice and contribute to increased investment in Hillfields.  

     2.27           The poor environmental quality of the area was felt to have an adverse effect on both residents’ motivation and local business confidence.  A number of firms had moved out to greener industrial estates including Coventry Tubes employing 48 people which relocated from Paynes Lane to Progress Way on the Leofric Business Park.  A number of companies closed including Fosse Engineering employing on East Road employing 35 people. 

     2.28           The poor image re-enforced the view that Hillfields was a high security risk and it was felt hat this contributed to the high levels of crime in the area.   Urban Partnership Group felt that there was a need for physical protection measures in the area for both domestic and business premises. 

     2.29           Finally with urban design becoming more important in government thinking, this measure sought to capture local people’s involvement in the design and delivery of projects in relation to the built environment and open spaces.   By engendering a local involvement, the measure aimed at strengthening the area’s asset base and self image. 

     2.30           The measure’s objectives, which were funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), aimed to: 

§         Improve the quality of the environment and improve the physical appearance of the area 

§         Create a safe and secure environment for all parts of the community and for local business. 

§         To improve business confidence in the area 

§         Engage local businesses in the regeneration of the URBAN area via image improvements, improved security and hence linkages to local job opportunities. 

     2.31           The Urban Partnership Group saw that the completion of the plan for the comprehensive redevelopment and improvement of the Hillfields Shopping Centre was a key part of this measure.  In order to ensure the success of the redevelopment, a project to increase business confidence and security in the area through nearby environmental and security measures was planned.  

     2.32           Other planned actions included environmental enhancements, tackling crime by improving safety in residential areas by undertaking physical improvements to premises and having better lighting. 

     2.33           The measure aimed at encouraging people to become self-employed and start up in business. It also sought to build up business capacity and improve business competitiveness.

2.34      The actual projects undertaken aimed to: 

ù         support the ongoing redevelopment of the of the small business  area to make it more attractive commercially 

ù         To undertake environmental enhancements with local people involvement through physical improvements 

ù         Provide environmental training to link with job creation and the physical appearance of the area 

ù         Tackle crime and improve public safety 

     2.35           The projects link in with the Single Regeneration Budget Rounds 1 and 2 projects so that the URBAN Programme, which started after the SRB, was fully integrated and co-ordinated with the actions already taking place. 

     2.36           The projects were designed to build on 

Anti crime 

ù         The City Council led on the Hillfields Concierge Safety Project which aimed at enhancing business confidence and security in the centre of Hillfields by improving the environment and management of the area around the Shopping Centre.  This involved environmental improvements; the erection of fences and walls (to hinder vandalism and escape routes from crimes); and CCTV cameras.  Some 2.4 hectares were covered by the project increasing the security for over 1,000 residents. The project budget was £320,000. 

ù         The City Council led also on the Hillfields Secure Community Programme which aimed to install improvements within the URBAN area in order to reduce criminal opportunity.  This was done by installing a comprehensive ‘gating’ scheme for the myriad of back alleyways behind terraced houses.  The project also installed lighting and CCTV cameras where needed.  Some 159 gates were installed as part of eight major safety and seven crime prevention initiatives.   The Project cost £291,000 

      Business Development 

ù         The Coventry & Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise led on the Hillfields Business Development Project.  The aim was to strengthen existing links between the Chamber and businesses in the area; help identify new business start up ideas and provide the necessary advice and support, identify new business opportunities and help provide linkages with potential customers, develop action plans with individuals and businesses identifying each other’s roles and responsibilities and provide training as needed.  The project assisted 70 local businesses creating 36 new jobs. The budget was £75,176 

ù         The Hillfields Early Years Centre led on the Developing Small Enterprises in Hillfields project, which aimed at strengthening childcare facilities in the area.  The project aim was to establish childcare facilities so helping employers recruit local people who were unable to go out to work, as there were no adequate facilities available.  Businesses themselves needed assistance in understanding the needs of parents.  The project also provided advice for new start businesses that could be established as a result of this work.  The Project assisted 23 SME’s, helped with 2 business start-ups and created new childcare facilities and spaces.  The Project budget was £62,500. 

Environmental projects under this measure included: 

ù      The Hillfields Patchwork built on and was co funded by the SRB Projects in the area.  The Patchwork Project aimed to undertake environmental improvements that would enhance the street scene – provision of seating, landscaping, planting schemes, murals, street lighting etc.   The improvements included leisure facilities, play areas, community gardens and funding for a community dog walk.  The project linked into the improvement of the Hillfields Shopping area and other improvements in the area.  Some 2.2hectares of land and 320 dwellings and 7 other buildings were improved, 492 people directly benefited from these improvements and some 347 security improvements were installed.  In order to reduce accidents a traffic calming initiative was undertaken.  The Project Budget was £496,722.

ù      The Arts Exchange led on the Hillfields Public Art Challenge which sought to carry out a varied programme of public arts projects across the URBAN area.  Its aim was to get local people involved in enhancing their neighbourhood in order to build a sense of local pride and identity. Some 3,441 temporary jobs were created during the project’s life leading to 61 installations improving the street scene, 7 community safety initiatives, and a small site and one building being improved.  The Project Budget was £160,000.

     2.37         Expenditure on measure two totalled some £1,038,213 on revenue (or consumables) and £493,521 on capital spending giving a gross expenditure of £1,531,733.  This pattern shown in the graph is not unusual as capital spend patterns are usually contracted payments which are billed regularly whilst revenue payments including salaries are usually less accessible and generally are claimed late in the project period.    The capital spend chiefly occurred in 1998 and 1999 with much current activity focused on people taking place alongside and following the completion capital works. 

2.38              The URBAN Programme rate of grant under ERDF is 50% and under measure two, it accounted for just under 50% of the total eligible spend. This reflects that the lead partner in the Hillfields Business Development Project was in receipt of Objective II funding for citywide projects including the Hillfields area.  

 2.39             The integration of the URBAN programme and the existing strategies and schemes is shown by the fact that just under a quarter of the project costs were met by the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB). 

2.40               The largest projects tended to have the highest capital spend.  The Hillfields Patchwork project was the biggest with a capital spend of £240,258 and a revenue cost of £256,460 making a total of £496,718.  The second largest project was undertaken by the Hillfields Secure Communities Programme with a capital spend of £161,807 and revenue of £129,107 totalling £290,914.  These big programmes, as noted above, made substantial improvements in the Hillfields area.  However, some of the smaller projects aimed at promoting a sense of well being and change.  These had lower cost profiles.  For example the creating Safer Environments Project aiming at the development of active citizenship had a spend of £103,887 revenue and was directed at people and local organisations working in the area.

 2.41           The projects contained in measure two blended the hard face of capital spending with measures aimed at involving and empowering local citizens to take an active role in their community and for some to gain full time employment. 

Measure Three Community Capacity Building 

 2.42              This measure was concerned with the need to extend community facilities and the fostering the establishment of a self-sustaining community.  Hillfields has suffered economic decline for over a quarter of the century.  The pattern of investment in the city has been such as to encourage people and businesses to move away from the city centre area towards the green edges of the city.  This has meant that the capacity of Hillfields to regenerate has tended to be handicapped through mainstream policies 

2.43              There were not people in the mid 1990’s who wished to take a more active role in the development of their neighbourhood. Many longer-term residents were / are extremely loyal to the area.  However most local people did / do not have the skills to tackle all the problems and issues facing Hillfields.  The area lacked in 1997 the necessary community resources to start a local-led regeneration of the area.  Measure three aimed to strengthen professional support and delivery mechanisms including using social aminateurs to help develop the capacity of the community. 

2.44              One of the key factors affecting communities like Hillfields that have been scarred by economic change is the lack of self confidence and knowledge of how and where to start tackling problems.  This lack of know-how is a major barrier facing communities that have been socially excluded. This lack of self-confidence has meant that the people of Hillfields have not tuned into how to relate to government initiatives and management of funding schemes such as URBAN.  In order to make the project work, capacity building for local people was seen as an essential first step.  

 2.45              The area lacked the necessary office, IT, equipment, community transport and communications systems.  People living in poor homes did not in 1997 have access to computers or even cars (64% of household in St. Michaels Ward had not access to a car in the 1991 census).  

2.46             The measure’s objectives, which were funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), aimed to: 

ù         Develop the local community through projects which will directly tackle issues of social exclusion and isolation 

ù         Develop skills of individuals and know how in all aspects of local community activity 

ù         To equip voluntary and community groups to contribute to the regeneration through projects which accord with the development of a self-sustaining community. 

     2.47           The measure faced some considerable difficulties in that in relatively deprived communities, there tends to be a resistance towards formal learning and also impatience with bureaucratic procedures. This meant that the URBAN Programme approach had to be subtle in how the measure was implemented.  On the other hand, it had to positive in order capture the pool of people willing to get involved and work for Hillfields.  The measure sought to develop individuals within the community to provide a nucleus for community development as well as playing a major role in the URBAN Programme. 

     2.48           Organisations operating in the area tend to be overwhelmed by issues within their particular remit and tended not to look beyond their immediate needs.  This means that however much these organisations and the people working within them wish to contribute to the regeneration of the area, they do not have the knowledge, capabilities and / or resources do so.  Measure 3 sought to remedy this. 

     2.49           The projects undertaken under the measure 3 strategy included: 

ù         Development organisations and other support mechanisms to sustain local people in project implementation of projects aimed at benefiting the community 

ù         Design and the implementation of projects which gave a co-ordinated marketing campaign in the media to counter the area’s poor image and prejudice 

ù         Development of the means by which people can escape from social exclusion and isolation by raising self esteem and confidence in order to contribute fully in the life of the Hillfields socio-economy 

ù         Provision positive models for money management which would help free individuals from over-whelming debts and enable them participate more in the local economy. 

ù         Promotion of healthy lifestyles and linkages to active leisure activity 

ù         Development of innovative approaches to the provision of affordable child care so that the local community could take up employment and /or training opportunities. 

     2.50           As with measure two, the activities under community capacity building linked across to other measures being taken in other policy initiatives such as the Single Regeneration Budget Rounds 1 and 2 and in activities then being undertaken by Area Co-ordination. 

     2.51           The projects under this measure south to empower local people so that they could participate in the socio economic development of Hillfields.  

ù         The UPG Capacity building project was aimed at empowering and skilling members of the URBAN Partnership Group.  The group was the Programme Manager of URBAN in Hillfields and as such were answerable to the Urban Management Committee and the Government Office for the West Midlands.  Almost all members of the UPG had no experience of such a role. This project sought to build UPG member’s capacity through the provision of training and capacity building.   The training covered strategic management, programme selection, review and monitoring, budget management, best practice, project appraisal and scoring, performance management, reporting and networking.  This training had the effect of providing a cadre of people to bid for and manage bids in the future.  Previously all this would have been performed by statutory bodies.  The Project Budget was £169,835. 

ù         Running in parallel, the Initiatives management project aimed to extend and replicate the UPG capacity building project for both UPG members and would be applicant bidders and project officers so as to improve knowledge of the details skills needed to manage projects and link into the require management procedures laid down by the Government Office and the European Commission.  The project budget was £124,050.  

ù         The Hillfields Internet Project sought to provide access to local residents to the resources of the Internet.  (It must be remembered that in 1997 the Internet was still very new in project working.)   The project aimed to establish public access points including the establishment of a cyber café at Sidney Stringer Community Technology College.  The participants would be trained in eth use of the web and Hillfields residents participated in building a web site where information could be shared.  The Internet resource aimed at linking groups in a network.  The project brought ICT skills into project management and gave skills to local people. The Project Budget was £166,000. 

ù         The Community Centre development aimed at building a new community hall for Hillfields and an extension to a refurbished St Peter’s Church social centre.  The aim was to make the facility more accessible to local people and give space for meetings, music, drama, training and worship.   Hillfields lacked such facilities and the development of a community space had been identified by the Partnership as a local need.  The development of the Community Centre has provided a space by which local groups can meet and local people can interact socially and culturally.  The Project Budget was £402,268. 

ù         The Hillfields Community Development Project led by WATCH aimed to provide a team to manage the activities of WATCH, the Hillfields community development organisation (an acronym for Working actively to change Hillfields).   The project provided capacity to groups who did not have the capacity to bid for projects.  Some 70 initiatives were supported and 95 community groups benefited from the support given.  The Project Budget was £487,000 – half funded by ERDF resources and half from the SRB.  Both programmes had a commonalty of interest in developing group capacity to bid for project support. 

ù         The Osaba Women’s Centre led the Capacity Building Project which sought to develop support and empowerment skills to black women so that they could effectively organise themselves to engage in the wide regeneration of the area.  The project enabled Osaba to continue to provide services and strengthened the skills of the management committee, strengthen partnership working and extend the operation of this unique organisation.  The Project Budget was £222,573.

The CASH Project was led by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, a widely trusted organisation which is used by many local Hillfields people.  The project sought to assist local economically active people to address the issue of poverty.   The project gave sensitive money management advice services to Hillfields residents and provided money management.   Over 1,000 people benefited from the service and 150 attended the money management courses.  The Project Budget was £134,875

 ù         The Coventry & Warwickshire Co-operative Development Agency led the project to develop the fledgling Hillfields Credit Union and attempting to create an alternative form of borrowing to the usurious moneylenders.  It did this by providing resources to the Credit Union, formulising its constitution and had it formally registered, training volunteers. The Project Budget was £69,760.

     2.52           The total expenditure under measure three exceeds £2 million – the largest of the three measures.  This indicates the degree by which Hillfields had lost its capacity to deal with opportunities presented by the two major regeneration schemes of URBAN and the Single Regeneration Budget which were running together in an integrated approach.

  2.53           St Peters Community Centre accounted for the vast majority of the capital spend of £436,708.  Most of the projects were based on revenue expenditure consisting of wages and salaries and consumables. Revenue expenditure came to £1,647,419.  The pattern of expenditure claims was erratic as is shown in the chart.  This pattern is a result of delays in billing by contactors and delays in organisations being able to put in their claims.

  2.54       The URBAN Programme provided just under the 50% maximum.   The private sector mostly reflected by Church inputs into the development of St Peter’s Community Centre.  SRB made a major contribution to the development of WATCH.   

     2.55           The largest projects were the development of the Community Centre and the strengthening of WATCH capacity.  The smallest were the Credit Union Project with a budget of £69,760, the Hillfields Marketing Project with a budget of  ££72,570. These projects were more tightly focused than the more general capacity building training programmes. 

     2.56           The primary focus of measure three activities was the strengthening of the local community building on the enthusiasm of individuals and local organisations.  With building this local capacity, URBAN would not have left a lasting legacy of skills and knowledge and the experience of having taking an active part in regeneration of Hillfields.   

Evaluation of the Hillfields URBAN Programme