Defra—Production of the SDR
The full integration of the sustainable development
dimension of SR2002 and of the preparation of the department's
SDR into the wider spending review was central to Defra's approach.
The Treasury guidance on this issue was circulated widely, and
was supplemented by department-specific advice on how sustainable
development should be addressed.
Policy directorates were required to consider
the wider social, economic and environmental implications of the
public spending programmes that they wished to pursue. The Government's
15 headline indicators of sustainable development were used where
possible, but where these were not suitable or did not address
all of the impacts, other indicators (such as those in the Rural
White Paper) were used.
To facilitate comparisons between public spending
in priority areas, many directorates used the Integrated Policy
Appraisal methodology. Where possible the department used quantative
data about sustainable development impacts to inform its proposals.
In areas where this was not available the department ensured that
a qualitative assessment of likely impacts was undertaken and
included.
Defra Ministers were closely involved from the
outset in this aspect of the department's SR2002 work. A seminar
was held for senior officials by the department's Green Minister,
Alun Michael, which provided a useful opportunity for officials
to explore in more detail with Ministers this aspect of the Spending
Review.
The Sustainable Development Unit, located within
Defra, also worked with the Treasury in preparing the guidance
and providing assistance to departments as they produced their
SDRs.
MINISTERIAL ENGAGEMENT
IN THE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
21. A second important innovation in SR2002
was the establishment of a process by which Ministers from spending
departments could discuss the sustainable development implications
of their public spending submissions with Treasury Ministers (initially
the Financial Secretary and, following the Prime Minister's decision
on Ministerial portfolios in June, the Economic Secretary).
22. ENV (G) (the Cabinet sub-Committee on
Sustainable Development) discussed the Spending Review at a number
of meetings, on the basis of presentations from Treasury Ministers.
These discussions provided Ministers with a useful collective
opportunity to share best practice on this aspect of the Review.
23. In addition, during April, May and June,
Treasury Ministers met with their colleagues with Defra, DTI,
DfiD, DCMS, and the then DTLR to discuss the issues raised by
their sustainable Development Reports. These discussions, and
the departmental Reports on which they were based, highlighted
particularly important interactions between social, economic and
environmental issue for the departments in question, and enabled
further thought to be given to these wider impacts.
24. Following each of these meetings, the
Financial Secretary reported to the Chancellor and the Ministerial
Committee on Public Expenditure (PSX), ensuring that sustainable
development was considered at all levels during the Review.
25. Contact at Ministerial level was complemented
by extensive dialogue at official level throughout the process.
Expertise in different aspects of sustainable development exists
across Whitehall and one valuable result of this process has been
to provide departments with improved access to and awareness of
the expertise available in other departments, building on the
considerable progress already made by the sustainable Development
Unit.
26. Annex B sets out the process by which
sustainable development was considered in SR2002.
THE OUTCOMES
OF SR2002 FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
27. Spending Review 2002 provided a clearer
framework than ever before within which Government departments
could consider the implications of their expenditure priorities
for sustainable development. The Government believes this represents
considerable progress, and demonstrates its commitment to putting
sustainable development at the heart of departmental activities.
28. In addition to the development of a
valuable new framework for policymaking, Spending Review 2002
will also deliver real progress against the Government's social,
economic and environmental priorities.
PUBLIC SERVICE
AGREEMENTS
29. Departmental priorities are set out
in their Public Service Agreements, and those for the SR2002 period
(2003-06) demonstrate how the Government has aligned its medium
term objectives with its long-term goals for sustainable development.
Annex A illustrates how departmental priorities during this period
will deliver progress against the Government's 15 headline indicators,
in accordance with its commitment in the UK Sustainable Development
Strategy to adjust policies where the indicators are moving in
the wrong direction. The table in Annex A is not intended to be
comprehensive. Many of the headline sustainable development indicators
will be delivered by progress against more than one PSA target
(for example, the trend measured against the headline indicator
on employment will be impacted upon by a range of PSA targets
across government).
30. As it has previously indicated to the
Committee[4]
and as the Spending Review Guidance made clear, the Government
believes that sustainable development will not be achieved simply
by adding those words to departmental PSAs. However, it is important
that departments are clear about the priority objectives they
wish to pursue, and that these are communicated clearly to internal
and external audiences.
31. During the SR2002 process, departments
therefore revisited their core aims, objectives and targets, and
in a number of cases concluded that amendments were needed to
reflect more fully the social, economic and environmental priorities
they were pursuing. The Public Service Agreement targets[5]
set in SR2002 demonstrate clearly how central to departmental
thinking and priorities the quality of life agenda has become.
An increased number of departments have now explicitly identified
sustainable development as underpinning their work and strengthened
the manner in which this communicated.
32. Departments across Whitehall now highlight
this agenda in their high-level aims, objectives and targets and
the table below provides some examples of this.
| Department | Aim or Objective
|
| Department for Transport | Objective I:
"reliable safe and secure transport for everyone, which respects the environment"
|
| Office of the Deputy Prime Minister | Aim:
"Thriving inclusive and sustainable communities in all regions"
|
| Foreign and Commonwealth Office | Objective III:
"increased prosperity and a better quality of life in the UK and worldwide"
Objective VII:
"secure and well-governed British overseas territories enjoying sustainable development and growing prosperity"
|
| Department for International Development |
Aim:
"Eliminate poverty in poorer countries in particular through achievement by 2015 of the Millennium Development Goals"
|
Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs
| Aim:
"Sustainable Development, which means a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come"
|
| HM Treasury | Aim:
"Raise the rate of sustainable growth and achieve rising prosperity and a better quality of life, with economic and employment opportunities for all"
Objective 10:
"protect and improve the environment by using instruments that will deliver efficient and sustainable outcomes through evidence-based policies"
|
33. Many other departments not mentioned in this table
are also making vital contributions to the Government's quality
of life agenda. The work of the Home Office in building a safe,
just and tolerant society or of the Department for Education and
Skills in helping to build a competitive economy and inclusive
society through promoting skills and learning are equally important
to our quality of life.
THE PURSUIT
OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT DURING
THE SR2002 PERIOD
34. In addition to setting out priority objectives for
departments that contribute to the delivery of a better quality
of life, the Spending Review also identified the plans by which
departments will achieve this.
35. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out full departmental
spending plans in July 2002[6]and
this memorandum will not reproduce that information. The examples
given below demonstrate just some of the ways in which SR2002
contributes to the pursuit of sustainable development.
(a) an additional £4 billion a year by 2005-06 of
public spending on transport to deliver the 10 Year Plan
(b) investment totalling £500 million over three
years for sustainable food and farming
(c) significant increases in the Neighbourhood Renewal
Fund and new targets for local environmental quality
(d) an extra £1.25 billion by 2005-06 for science,
and increased funding for renewable energy
(e) increases to the UK's aid budget so that the ratio
of aid to national income will reach 0.40% by 2005-06, enabling
the UK to increase further its contribution towards meeting the
Millennium Development Goals and helping to ensure a better quality
of life overseas, as well as at home.
36. In helping to deliver sustainable development, SR2002
was not just about providing significant additional resources.
The process of producing Sustainable Development Reports and the
Government's emphasis on a strong evidence base also helped departments
to identify policy measures other than public spending that could
help to deliver sustainable development.
37. Through the production of a Sustainable Development
Report, for example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
concluded that it needed to do further work on sustainable tourism,
and a strategy addressing this will now be produced. Through the
cross-cutting review on public space, Defra and DTLR (now the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) identified the need for a
further analysis of the powers and responsibilities that govern
and regulate the quality of public space and local environments.
The Urban summit in October 2002 demonstrated further progress
in this area since the Spending Review[7].
38. The identification of such areas of additional policy
work represents a further valuable benefit of the analytical,
evidence-based approach that the Government took to the Review,
and of which the requirement for Sustainable Development Reports
was one part.
BEYOND THE
SPENDING REVIEW
39. With the conclusion of the spending Review departmental
Public Service Agreements and spending plans for 2003-06 are now
set. Departments are now considering in detail how they will deliver
on these targets and make their contribution to sustainable development.
40. Many of the detailed implications for sustainable
development will only emerge as departments start to develop very
specific policy measures, and it will be important that they continue
to consider the wider social, economic and environmental implications
of their work. The Government has in place detailed requirements
for assessing costs and benefits of specific programmes, through,
for example, the Green Book, the Regulatory Impact Appraisal methodology,
and the Policymaker's Checklist.
41. The Government collectively will continue to demonstrate
its commitment to sustainable development by meeting its commitment
to report accurately and transparently each year on progress against
the headline indicators. It will also continue to ensure that
the full range of social, economic and environmental impacts are
taken into account when developing new policy, in areas such as
transport, energy, waste and food and farming.
CONCLUSION
42. The Government believes that SR2002 demonstrated
its commitment to putting sustainable development at the heart
of key decisions. Departmental spending plans and PSA targets
set out clearly the steps by which public expenditure will play
its part to deliver the Government's quality of life objectives.
The use of a new, common approach throughout the Spending Review
made an important contribution to the overall process. The Government
is keen to hear the views of the Committee on these issues.
November 2002
Annex A
Sustainable Development Headline Indicators and PSA
targets
| Headline Indicator | PSA Target
|
Economic output
(GDP) | Demonstrate progress by 2004 on the Government's long-term objective of raising the trend rate of growth over the economic cycle from the current estimate of 2.5% and make further progress towards increasing trend growth up to 2006 (HM Treasury)
|
Investment
(per cent of GDP) |
Deliver measurable improvement in the business performance of Trade Partners UK's of British Trade International customers; and maintain the UK as the prime location in the EU for foreign direct investment (FCO and DTI)
|
| Employment | Demonstrate progress by spring 2006 on increasing the employment rate and reducing the unemployment rate over the economic cycle (HMT ad DWP)
|
Education
(qualifications at 19)
| Raise standards in schools and colleges so that: the proportion of those aged 16 who get qualifications equivalent to 5 GCSEs and Grade A* to C rises by 2 percentage points a year and in all schools at least 20% of pupils achieve this standard by; 2004, rising to 25% by 2006 (DfES)
|
Health
(expected years of healthy life)
| Reduce substantially the mortality rates from the major killer diseases by 2010: from heart disease by at least 40% in people under 75; from cancer by at least 20% in people under 75 (DoH)
|
Housing
(unfit/non-decent
homes)
| By 2010 bring all social housing into decent condition with most of this improvement taking place in deprived areas, and increase the proportion of private housing in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups (ODPM)
|
Crime:
(vehicle burglary, robbery)
| Reduce crime and the fear of crime, improve performance overall, including by reducing the gap between the highest crime. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas and the best comparable areas; and reduce:
— vehicle crime by 30% from 1998-99 to 2004
— domestic burglary by 25% from 1998-99 to 2005
— robbery in the ten Street Crime Initiative areas by 14% from 1999-2000 to 2005; and maintain that level (HO and CJS)
|
| Climate change
(greenhouse gases) | Improve the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources, including through the use of energy saving technologies, to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% from 1990 levels and moving towards a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 (DTI and DEFRA)
|
| Air quality
(days of air pollution) |
Improve air quality by meeting our National Air Quality Strategy objectives for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particles, sulphur dioxide, benzene and 1-3 butadiene (DEFRA and DfT)
|
| Road traffic | Reduce congestion on the inter-urban trunk road network and in large urban areas in England below 2000 levels by 2010 (DFT)
|
| River water quality | The Government does not have a specific PSA target to measure river water quality. However, monitored river lengths have a baseline assessment called the River Quality Objectives (RQO), which is the level of water quality that a river should achieve in order to be suitable for its agreed uses.
The government set a target to increase River Quality Objectives compliance in England and Wales from 82% in 1997 to at least 91% in 2005 (by 2000, RQO compliance and increased to 90.4%) (DEFRA)
|
| Wildlife
(farmland birds) | Care for our natural heritage, make the countryside attractive and enjoyable for all and preserve biological diversity by reversing the long-term decline in the number of farmland birds by 2020, as measured annually against underlying trends (DEFRA)
|
| Land use
(percentage of new homes on Brownfield
sites)
| Achieve a more sustainable balance between housing availability and the demand for housing in all England regions, while protecting the countryside and the sustainability of existing towns and cities through specific measures to be set out in the Service Delivery Agreement (ODPM)
|
| Waste
(more waste reduction) | Enable 25% of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2005-6 (DEFRA)
|
Annex B
Sustainable Development in SR2002 Process
Step 1
June 2001: CST announces terms of reference and priorities
for SR2002—improving quality of life a key priority.
Step 2
Summer 2001: Guidance on SR2002 process prepared—including
specific guidance on sustainable development.
Step 3
November 2001: Guidance made available to Environmental
Audit Committee; and to other stakeholders.
Step 4
Early 2002: Cross-departmental seminar on sustainable
development in public spending; mock Sustainable Development Report
prepared for departments; Green Ministers Committee discussion.
Step 5
Spring 2002: Departments prepare and submit Spending
Review submissions, including Sustainable Development reports.
Step 6
March-June 2002: Analysis of submissions; financial
Secretary/Economic Secretary hold bilateral meetings; with key
departments to discuss Sustainable Development Reports; outcomes
reported to PSX Committee.
Step 7
July 2002: Final decisions made on Spending Review
2002; Chancellor announces outcomes.
Step 8
Ongoing: Departments implement and deliver spending
plants; reflection on SR2002 process and consideration of improvements
for future reviews.
Annex D
Mock Sustainable Development Report
Department of Administrative Affairs: SR2002 Sustainable
Development Report
This Sustainable Development Report outlines the sustainable
development impacts of the Department of Administrative Affairs'
key priorities. Delivery of our PSA targets contributes towards
the Government's headline and core sustainable development indicators,
some of which have been following a negative trend. The environmental,
social and economic implications of each of DAA's key priorities
are outlined in qualitative terms followed by a quantitative analysis
of each of the key priorities. The three departmental priorities
covered in this report include the provision of four new geriatric
care units, funding of a large ICT modernisation scheme for schools
and the introduction of a youth offenders scheme.
DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES
1. GERIATRIC CARE
UNITS
| PSA TARGET | Care for the elderly
|
INDICATORS
(that have a direct link to PSA target.)
| Expected years of healthy life (H6—Improve health of the population overall).
Death rates from cancer, circulatory disease, accidents and suicides (F1—Deliver key health targets).
Respiratory illness (F2—Environmental factors affecting health).
Health inequalities (F3—Address major factors leading to health inequalities).
NHS hospital waiting (F4—Provide people with access to effective healthcare, based on patients' needs, and not on where they live or their ability to pay).
Access for disable people (J3—Ensure that disabled people have access to a wider range of goods, services and facilities).
|
OVERVIEW OF
POLICY
There has been under investment in Geriatric Care Units (GCUs)
for several decades, compared to other OECD countries, including
investment in physical capital and in recruitment, retention and
training of staff. The demographic pressure of an ageing population
is now exposing this under investment. DAA has a PSA target on
care for the elderly, which this programme will contribute towards.
The proposals include a recruitment and retention scheme for nurses
in GCUs, a PFI deal to build four new hospitals specialising in
geriatric care and significant investment in the GCUs themselves.
Current provision is not enough to meet the pressures of under-staffing
and consequently DAA is likely to lead to slippage against the
relevant PSA target.
DECISION MAKING
PROCESS
The provision of large hospitals was not the only option
considered by the DAA. For example a series of cost-benefit analyses
of home adaptations, geriatric daycare and a larger number of
smaller units around the country was undertaken before the final
decision to build four GCUs was made. However, research showed
that more people could be cared for and a better standard of expertise
and care could be delivered if the resources were concentrated
in four major units. In the long-term it is less cost-effective
to fit home adaptations than to build and run sustainable institutions.
DAA used a design evaluation toolkit during the decision-making
process and results suggested that smaller institutions failed
the impact assessment (eg character and innovation, citizen satisfaction,
internal environment, urban and social integration).
KEY BENEFITS
There is a strong social dimension to the provision of two
geriatric hospitals. Specific provision for elderly people contributes
to the Government's objective for health policy of increasing
the expected years of healthy life. This service will also reduce
waiting lists for surgical and medical provisions commonly associated
with old age (eg joint replacements). Architects plans show that
the hospital will be easily accessible for patients with restricted
mobility and public transport links with rural regions make them
convenient institutions for rural communities.
— Expected years of healthy life (H6—Improve
health of the population overall)
— Death rates from cancer, circulatory disease,
accidents and suicides (F1—Deliver key health targets)
— Respiratory illness (F2—Environmental factors
affecting health)
— Health inequalities (F3—Address major factors
leading to health inequalities)
— NHS hospital waiting (F4—Provide people
with access to effective healthcare, based on patients' needs,
and not on where they live or their ability to pay).
— Access to services in rural areas (Need better
access to services.)
— Access for disable people (J3—Ensure that
disabled people have access to a wider range of goods, services
and facilities)
The provision of four new hospitals will provide a net employment
gain of [x] hospital staff. This will contribute to the Government's
social inclusion objectives by providing employment for skilled
and semi-skilled workers. Furthermore, the amount of money invested
in geriatric care in the UK has not been in line with other OECD
countries over the previous decade. Investment over three years
of £155 million resource funding and £45 million capital
funding will help address the shortfall in % of GDP invested in
health care, thus allowing nine existing GCUs to stay in operation,
thus contributing to the following indicators:
— Investment (H2—% of GDP)
— Employment (H3—Proportion of people of working
age who are in work)
INSTITUTIONS
The building of four new hospitals will provide the opportunity
to set up institutions that operate sustainably and efficiently.
The Department will ensure that the specifications are in line
with best practice on sustainable procurement.
We anticipate being able to make a positive contribution
to the following SD indicators:
— Primary aggregates per unit of construction value
(D9)
— Construction and demolition waste going to landfill
(D10—Greater use of sustainable construction materials)
— Energy efficiency of new appliances (D11—Need
more efficient appliances)
DISTRIBUTIONAL ISSUES
In determining where to site the four new GCUs, the DAA has
considered the inter-regional distribution of provision for the
elderly and regional differences in life expectancy. The department
therefore proposes to site the GCUs at [xxxx], in order to address
this.
MITIGATION MEASURES
While the additional expenditure on these GCUs will bring
benefits, there are also some potentially negative effects. The
provision of four hospitals will attract a greater amount of traffic
to urban centres from patients, visitors, hospital staff, ambulances,
and suppliers. This could have adverse consequences for headline
indicators on air quality and emissions of greenhouse gases.
However, we have considered the following measures to limit
the negative trade-offs on the environment that an increase in
traffic could create:
— hospitals will be constructed on brownfield urban
sites where a good public transport infrastructures already exists;
— car parking spaces have been limited to [x] parking
spaces; and
— provision will be made for car-sharing schemes
for staff.
Quantitative evidence at Annex B provides information concerning
the disadvantages of congestion and CO2 emissions. Modelling suggests
that vehicles traffic will increase by [x %] but having considered
the trade-offs DAA have taken the decision that the construction
of four new hospitals in areas with poor geriatric care provision
(taking account of regional disparities in life expectancy and
health of over 60s) will make a net positive contribution to the
overall quality of life of local inhabitants and help meet DAA's
PSA target on care for the elderly, which is in danger of failing.
Patients from rural communities will have easy access to the hospital,
given the availability of transport links.
2. SCHOOLS IT MODERNISATION
| PSA TARGET | All secondary school attainment targets to be raised by 5% points and achieved by 2006
|
INDICATORS
(that have a direct link to
PSA target).
| Qualifications at age 19 (H5—Equip people with the skills to fulfil their potential).
16 year olds with no qualifications (C1—Raise educational standards at all levels and close the widening gap between high and low achievers).
Learning participation (C3—To become a learning society—in a rapidly changing world people need the skills to adapt, and opportunities to update them throughout their lives).
|
OVERVIEW OF
POLICY
The proposed modernisation of schools IT should unlock further
savings by increasing teacher efficiency.
Funds for large-scale investment in ICT equipment in schools
will be met through the sale of surplus school land. The modernisation
will allow the department to run on-line learning seminars, disseminate
information and teaching materials to schools electronically and
allow schools to communicate instantly with each other across
the country. This work contributes to DAA's PSA to increase the
percentage of children who achieve level 4 of the key stage 2
ICT tests.
KEY BENEFITS
In addition to the benefits associated with reducing teachers'
workloads and improving the efficiency of schools, better knowledge
of ICT will improve the skill base of UK school leavers and enhance
their employability.
ICT may also be an effective way of extending social inclusion.
[x %] of teenage girls that become pregnant leave school and do
not re-enter formal education. The "laptops for schools"
programme will provide students in this situation with continued
access to education.
Indicators:
— Qualifications at age 19 (H5—Equip people
with the skills to fulfil their potential).
— 16 year olds with no qualifications (C1—raise
educational standards at all levels and close the widening gap
between high and low achievers).
— Learning participation (C3—To become a learning
society—in a rapidly changing world people need the skills
to adapt, and opportunities to update them throughout their lives).
Modernisation of schools IT provides an indirect link to
higher employment rates through a better skilled and qualified
young workforce. Knowledge of ICT systems will equip students
with the skills that are becoming more vital for jobseekers. [x
%] of employers advertise new posts on the Internet and [x %]
of employers require web-based skills.
— Proportion of people of working age who are in
work (H3—Maintain high and stable levels of employment to
everyone can share greater job opportunities)
Based on experience in other organisations we predict that
the increased use of computers by students and teachers will lead
to a reduction of x % in the quantity of waste paper generated
(See Annex B). New ways of working will enable students to submit
work via e-mail as opposed to on paper. Electronic records management
software and training will be provided to ensure a move to fully
electronic handling of documents, including students' work. The
reduced need to use paper will make some contribution towards
the following indicator:
Waste arising and management (H15—Move away from disposal
of waste towards waste reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery).
MITIGATION MEASURES
Schools will also be encouraged to put sustainable mechanisms
in place to deal with the increased electronic waste that will
be created by the greater use of ICT equipment. The DAA is exploring
mechanisms for dealing sustainably with additional waste electrical
equipment, which will be generated by this initiative.
3. YOUNG OFFENDERS
SCHEME
| PSA TARGET | Reduce the number of young offenders by 10% over five years
|
INDICATORS
(that has a direct link to
PSA target).
| Level of crime (H8—Reduce both crime and fear of crime).
Indicators of success in tackling poverty and social exclusion (H4—Tackling poverty and social exclusion).
Expected years of healthy life (H6—Improve health of the population overall).
Quality of surroundings (K6—Attractive streets and buildings, low levels of traffic, noise and pollution, green spaces, and community safety).
|
OVERVIEW OF
POLICY
The Prison Service is currently facing rapid growth in the
prison population. YOS will reduce growth in the prisoner population,
and will allow us to wind-down three Regional Prison Support Units
by the end of 2005-06. The Department has proposals to reduce
the number of young offenders by 10% over five years. Reducing
the number of young offenders will support several high-profile
PSA targets on reducing crime rates and will unlock direct and
indirect savings. The scheme includes fully costed and evidence-based
proposals to tackle youth street crime, Class A drug-taking and
distribution and anti-social behaviour, with an emphasis on preventative
measures. The proposals incorporate many of the recommendations
of the cross-cutting review of Children at Risk.
The department is planning on investing in a community rehabilitation
scheme so that young offenders can be assisted in the local community
as opposed to being sentenced in prisons. The scheme will set
up drop-in centres in communities where the prevalence of youth
offenders is particularly high. Experts will staff these centres
(social workers, health visitors, career advisors) and will provide
advice to clients. As well as receiving advice about drugs and
education, young offenders will be encouraged to participate in
local regeneration projects to improve the surrounding environment
and to engender a greater feeling of responsibility for the area.
LINKS TO
CROSS-CUTTING
REVIEWS
The Youth Offenders Scheme draws on research undertaken for
both the Community Space and the Children at Risk cross-cutting
reviews. In a survey undertaken for the Community Space cross-cutting
review, 69% of householders said that crime was a problem in their
area, including 19% who said that it was a serious problem. Other
problems often mentioned included vandalism and hooliganism (55%),
litter and rubbish (41%), graffiti and noise. Evidence suggested
that noise, litter, graffiti and vandalism may be symptoms of
wider problems, but they can promote a spiral of degradation.
Crime reinforces social exclusion and decline.
KEY BENEFITS
The YOS aims to limit instances of street crime and engender
a greater feeling of responsibility for the local environment.
Youth crime is particularly prevalent in areas where unemployment
is high and social exclusion is widespread. Limiting the amount
of people dependent on consuming and selling drugs contributes
towards the Government's life expectancy and health inequalities
indicators. The type of area in which people live is one of the
most important factors related to the perceived number of problems
in the area—households living in areas consisting mainly
of council estates and low-income areas have the highest problem
count. A successful outcome to this project will contribute to
the following indicators:
— Quality of surroundings (K6 Attractive streets
and buildings, low levels of traffic, noise and pollution, green
spaces, and community safety).
— Level of crime (H8 Reduce both crime and fear
of crime).
— Indicators of success in tackling poverty and
social exclusion (H4 Tackling poverty and social exclusion).
— Expected years of healthy life (H6 Improve health
of the population overall).
DISTRIBUTIONAL ISSUES
The YOS is most likely to benefit residents in deprived areas
of the country. However, there are a number of potential negative
trade-offs, which this scheme could bring about. Although they
reduce actual crime, community rehabilitation programmes could
increase the fear of crime (core indicator K9) amongst local residents
in areas where it is in use. According to a survey carried out
for the Community Space cross-cutting review, women and elderly
people are most intimidated by the fear of crime. This programme
could, therefore, contribute towards a negative trend in indicator
K9 and it may have detrimental distributional effects. DAA will
aim to mitigate this trade-off by keeping local residents will
informed about the YOS.
4
The Government's Response to the Environmental Audit committee
first Report (2001-02): Departmental Responsibilities for Sustainable
Development Back
5
CM 5571 2002 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 2003-06-HM
Treasury Back
6
"Opportunity and security for all: Investing in an enterprising,
fairer Britain"-HM Treasury, July 2002 Back
7
"Living Places-Cleaner, Safer, Greener"-October 2002.
"Living Places-Powers, Rights, Responsibilities"-October
2002 Back
| 
