Research and analysis

Solving town centre challenges around street culture and the associated negative perceptions of safety among residents – Luton

Published 10 April 2024

Applies to England

Partnership for People and Place

The PfPP programme has piloted a new approach to cross-government working to improve local outcomes and efficiency of policy and programmes designed and delivered in place. PfPP funded 13 local government partners to deliver pilot projects focusing on hyper-local issues that could be tackled through better central or local government coordination. The overall objective of the PfPP programme was to test whether closer working between different central government departments and local places can bring measurable benefits to people who live there.

Local background – Luton

Luton has experienced persistent challenges linked to the most deprived communities within the town centre, including crime, anti-social behaviour, rough sleeping and street begging/raising funds. In response, Luton Council set out to work collaboratively with government departments and local partners to raise awareness of these challenges and better understand the complex causes behind them, including health challenges, population churn, limitations of enforcement powers and resources and the interactions of wider residents. Detailed research was commissioned from the University of Bedfordshire to explore current evidence and long-term solutions to persistent challenges linked to the most deprived communities within the town centre.

The town centre regeneration project has two key elements:

• Establishing strategic and operational infrastructure through a newly formed Town Centre Board. The purpose of the Board is to ensure the programme aligns with key partners and builds on wider town centre regeneration investment. This includes £20 million from the Levelling Up Fund and wider investment totalling £1.7 billion.

• Research and trialling interventions by building an evidence base to inform new initiatives and a citizen engagement plan. The project hoped that improved safety and reduced incidents of crime, anti-social behaviour and street begging, as well as transforming perceptions of safety in the town centre among residents, will restore pride in place for the community.

Central government involvement

In their delivery plan, the Luton pilot team set out to work more closely with central government departments to:

• Develop and deliver a new Town Centre Strategic Board and ensure that key central government departments are represented as advisors to the Board.
• Engage with central government departments including Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) about research commissioned through the project.
• Work with the MoJ to deliver an intervention to tackle the churn of individuals of concern arriving in Luton from the criminal justice system.
• Work with the Behavioural Insights Team to deliver an intervention to alter perceptions and behaviour of the wider public towards street begging.
• Work with the Home Office to deliver an intervention around targeted enforcement, addressing the limitations of local enforcement measures.

The Luton project team held quarterly Town Centre Strategic Board meetings as well as several one-off meetings and engagements with central government partners. The project had some success connecting with key contacts in the Home Office who have shown consistent interest in Luton’s research and approach to addressing the town centre challenge and opportunity. Beyond this, the pilot has not created new central government networks or influenced policy as was initially intended.

Luton’s engagement approach to addressing persistent town centre challenges adapted as the project progressed as further research helped redefine the main drivers contributing to these challenges. Initially, one of the planned interventions was to address the movement of individuals from other areas by targeting criminal justice system interventions and responses with support from the MoJ. However, whilst part of the problem, the University of Bedfordshire research did not suggest this was the main priority for Luton town centre. Instead, the research found that the street community often experienced difficulties in accessing help. As a result, plans evolved to include activities focused on reducing harm related to drug and alcohol use, as well as addressing basic needs like food amongst this group. To align with these changes, engagement with central government partners shifted to focus more on collaborating with DHSC and less with the MoJ. As research findings were not finalised until the latter months of the programme, there has not yet been enough time to assess the outcomes of engagement with these central government partners.

Delivery plans	Meetings	Visits	Involvement in delivery
DLUHC, MoJ, HO, DHSC were listed in Luton’s initial delivery plan as departments with a potential interest in long-term solutions to persistent challenges linked to the most deprived communities within the town centre.	DLUHC, HO and BEIS were involved in ad hoc meetings with the project team. Representatives from DLUHC, HO, DHSC have attended some of the Town Centre Strategic Board meetings.	BEIS, HO, DHSC, OHID, HE, DLUHC attended a Town Centre Strategic Board meeting in person followed by a networking lunch and town centre tour (Sep 2022). HO attended a High Streets Taskforce event with town centre stakeholders (Nov 2022).	HO was involved in the coordination of local enforcement.

What was delivered?

Research by the University of Bedfordshire provided 57 recommendations for future interventions, policy change and partnership working to reduce harm to the street community, improve safety and increase positive perceptions of the town centre. Recommendations referred to a need to improve council and housing services, drug and alcohol intervention services, and Bedfordshire Police and enforcement responses. A multi-agency working group has now been formed which is taking these recommendations forward and shaping future interventions.

The Luton team developed a communications plan to help improve perceptions of the town centre among residents. This resulted in a large-scale campaign to educate residents and change behaviour to reduce the number of people asking for money on the street. The campaign promoted alternative giving through the Big Change Luton Scheme, which has reached an estimated 150,000 residents and resulted in a 110% increase in touchpoint donations so far.^{[footnote 1]}

The PfPP project also supported setting up of additional enforcement activity coordinated by local police and enforcement teams with Home Office. This involved increased enforcement presence in the town centre for set periods of time. Additional enforcement operations were held for 3 weeks between October 2022 and February 2023. These operations were funded by the PfPP project to increase visibility of enforcement and improve perceptions of safety among residents, with promotion of enforcement delivered by a Place Activation and Engagement Coordinator.

Local communities

PfPP has facilitated engagement with key local stakeholders: residents, businesses, community and voluntary sector organisations. This has enabled a two-way flow of information, with increasing awareness of the evidence leading to an increased understanding of the causes of street culture and priorities for addressing complex challenges.

While it is too early to capture the overall impact on perceptions of safety in the town centre, there has been increased engagement between enforcement services and the public. The number of street begging offences and interactions has also reduced by approximately 50% in the past 12 months compared to the previous year.

More sustained high-visibility policing operations through the additional enforcement activity in the town centre over the past 6 months coincided with a 37% reduction in street drinking interactions and a 22% fall in anti-social behaviour cases recorded in the town centre. While these improvements are substantial, it is difficult to attribute these changes to Luton’s campaign, and enforcement intervention in isolation.

---

Delivery partners & local government

PfPP has facilitated engagement and buy-in with a range of key local delivery partners through the Town Centre Strategic Board. This includes encouraging data sharing and building understanding about how to tackle the root causes of challenges in the town centre. There has been strong engagement from most health and housing partners and a renewed enthusiasm to work collaboratively to address issues of street culture.

The structure of PfPP has encouraged a greater focus on evaluation. This has enabled Luton Council and local delivery partners to focus on getting the right, coordinated interventions in place to bring about sustained change and capture evidence of effectiveness. As a result, there has been a positive shift in attitudes among delivery partners and local government as to the impact this work could have on long-term improvements to local communities.

---

Central government

The University of Bedfordshire research has provided a detailed evidence-base and recommendations with which to engage central government stakeholders. This has generated more buy-in to the need for long-term strategic partnerships. The evidence is aligned to broader transformation work on Levelling Up and UKSPF. However, due to the timescales of the programme and completion of the research there has been limited opportunity for engagement so far.

Luton Council has actively engaged with Bedfordshire Police (via contacts in the Home Office), and the Home Office on enforcement interventions. The initial learning captured around enforcement was shared with the Home Office to feed into reviews of legislation such as the Vagrancy Act.

Snapshot: Breakeven analysis

Breakeven analysis provides an estimate of the level of change in outcomes within each of the pilot areas that would be necessary for the pilot’s benefits to meet costs. Where there is an absence of medium- or long-term person-level outcomes data, a breakeven analysis can provide an indication of how many beneficiaries would need to achieve specific outcomes for the programme to achieve a net positive economic value. Breakeven analysis has been completed on outcomes identified in each pilot’s Theory of Change, for which monetisable benefits could be estimated through the Understanding Society Survey.^{[footnote 2]}

Based on the evidence available to date, there is uncertainty about whether the pilot will have achieved breakeven in terms of person-level outcomes. This breakeven does not account for system level outcomes connected to the benefits of having access to a more robust evidence base as well as the effectiveness and utility of the Town Centre Plan. Likewise, person-level outcomes which are of focus for this breakeven analysis (e.g. changes to residents’ perceptions of the town centre) are likely to materialise over a long time horizon and in further data collection. This means this breakeven can provide a basis for additional examination of value for money into the future.

Luton town centre has maintained a persistent negative image with 41% of residents rating the town centre as ‘poor’ in 2020.^{[footnote 3]} The pilot included activities aimed at reducing street begging and a campaign to change behaviours toward street culture in Luton town centre, increasing perceptions of safety. In consultation with the Luton pilot team, the outcome “perceptions of living in a good neighbourhood” from Understanding Society was utilised within the breakeven analysis. This aligns with specific person-level outcomes as specified within the Luton project’s Theory of Change, as highlighted below.

Outcomes specified in Luton Theory of Change	Outcomes used in breakeven analysis
Improvements in the perceptions of the town centre, including the offer and perceptions of safety.	Perceptions of living in a good neighbourhood
A greater understanding by residents of the overall vision for the town centre and more residents feeling positive about the future.	Perceptions of living in a good neighbourhood

The outcomes targeted by Luton were used in a breakeven calculator to estimate the number of beneficiaries that would need to be impacted by the pilot to break even in cost terms. The analysis accounts only for outcomes to beneficiaries. The analysis does not account for wider impacts. The analysis provides an estimate which accounts for some of the uncertainties inherent in predicting social value improvements in these outcomes in the local community, which can be calculated without direct primary data collection (out of scope of the evaluation). The table below displays the results of this breakeven analysis for Luton.

Outcome: Good neighbourhood
Value Per Beneficiary: £3,754
Number of Beneficiaries to Breakeven: 86

The outcome targeted by the Luton pilot was used in a breakeven calculator to estimate the number of beneficiaries that would need to be reached for the pilot area to break even in cost.^{[footnote 4]} To live in a good neighbourhood has an associated value of £3,754. Should 86 beneficiaries experience welfare improvements from an increase in the opinion that they live in a good neighbourhood, the total benefits would equal the cost of the programme.

A review of evidence captured to date, highlights some uncertainty in the extent to which it is feasible that the Luton pilot will achieve breakeven. This is due to several data limitations:

• It is too early to capture the overall impact on perceptions of safety in the town centre.
• The number of street begging offences and interactions has reduced by approximately 50% in the past 12 months compared to the previous year. However, it is not possible to attribute this solely to the targeted enforcement intervention funded through PfPP.
• Luton’s contribution to targeted enforcement intervention cumulated in an increase in street police presence for a period of only 3 weeks, therefore we are unable to make broader assertions about the influence this can have on public perceptions of safety.
• There is no evaluation of the effectiveness of the Big Change Luton Scheme, beyond tracking changes in donations.
• Luton’s research outputs which are being used to inform council policy, housing services, drug and alcohol intervention services, Bedfordshire Police and enforcement teams are yet to be realised.

Given that there are approximately 17,600 individuals living in Luton’s South Ward, approximately 1% of residents would need to report an increased in welfare associated with the opinion that they live in a good neighbourhood. However, individuals would need to attribute this change to at least one intervention delivered by PfPP. Further evaluation is currently being conducted to examine the longer-term impact of campaign donations and changes in street begging. This may help to provide a more well-rounded indication of the cost-effectiveness of the pilot over time.

Note that the application of the breakeven calculator to a full business case would require data to be collected that evidences the number of beneficiaries who experienced these outcomes, either through primary surveys (e.g. by replicating the Understanding Society or Community Life survey question on which this analysis was based in a survey on the target population) or administrative data (e.g. administrative records of the number of residents who take part in interventions targeting the city centre of Luton).^{[footnote 5]}

1. The population of Luton is 225,300. This implied the campaign reached almost 67% of residents – assuming the campaign only reaches residents of Luton. ↩

2. Following the methodology set out in HMTs supplementary Green Book guidance for wellbeing appraisal, changes in reported life satisfaction can be used to monetise the social welfare implications of a policy. ↩

3. Baseline analysis of Understanding Society wave 12 data shows that the mean reported life satisfaction score in Luton had a value of 8.33 (when converted to an 11-point scale, uprated from 5.30 on a 7-point scale). This is higher than the national average of 8.20 (5.22 on a 7-point scale). ↩

4. The total cost of the Luton PfPP pilot was £323,729, which was covered by £248,000 in direct funding and administrative costs of £75,729. ↩

5. It may also be possible to assess the wellbeing impacts of the programme through primary survey collection of life satisfaction questions. However, because this requires direct evidence through primary data collection before and after (outside of the scope of this evaluation), we do not provide breakeven analysis in the main body of this report. If it were possible to evidence how an intervention led to an improvement in life satisfaction (through direct primary survey questions compared to baseline levels of life satisfaction, recall 8.00 when converted to the 11-point scale) then a 1-point improvement in life satisfaction among 45 beneficiaries would lead to a breakeven in costs. Note the analyst should take care to ensure that the measure of life satisfaction refers to an 11-point scale, following the guidance set out in the Green Book Supplementary Guidance (2021). ↩