DETR commissioned a team from the University of Cambridge to evaluate Rounds 1 and 2 of the Single Regeneration Budget. Since the publication of an Interim Evaluation in 1998, the research team has undertaken final evaluations for three of the twenty case studies that are the focus of the evaluation. Findings from these first three final evaluations are, therefore, necessarily tentative and they will be built on and tested as more final evaluations are completed. The small amount of resources available to smaller schemes provides an incentive to target activities to small geographical pockets of deprivation, to particular thematic activities, such as community safety, or to specific client groups.
Small schemes offer an opportunity to develop and try out new types of regeneration initiative.
Partly because of these two strengths small schemes tend to be cost-effective as measured in the conventional way, as the public sector cost per unit of net additional output. In two of the three case studies the lead partners were dominant. Use was made of some existing Partnerships and some partners were marginalised and did not consider themselves to be involved in decision making. The small scheme case studies had made genuine attempts to involve the community in their activities but had not been wholly successful - partly because of the short duration of the schemes. Private sector leverage of funding was below the average for all SRB schemes in these small schemes partly because of the absence of larger capital projects.