Reconciling “Bottom-Up” Perspectives with “Top-Down” Change Data in Evaluating Area Regeneration Schemes

Abstract

During the 2000s, policy development in the UK was increasingly underpinned by evidence-based research. This was seen as providing policy-makers with a more robust scientific base upon which to make decisions, although in practice other impulses, such as the need to legitimize decisions, proved as important as the evidence base in defining policy. Evaluations of area-based initiatives (ABIs) are complex because of a range of both generic and operational constraints. England's New Deal for Communities (NDC) Programme was subject to a long-term evaluation based on a mixed methods research design involving both “top-down” quantitative data and “bottom-up” qualitative case-study findings examining how regeneration played out at the local level. There were marked inconsistencies between the two sets of evidence, due largely to local observers being overly optimistic about change associated with the Programme's three key design principles: establishing NDC Partnerships; working with agencies; and placing the community at the heart of the initiative. Findings have implications for evaluating, and justifying, ABIs.