2.6. Assessment and monitoring of the progress or regress

Berlin and other cities distinguish between quantitative (city monitoring with baseline data) and qualitative (interviews with practitioners in the research area) success criteria and indicators. It's necessary to make a distinction between assessing the internal quality of the programme (e.g. co-operation, implementation, steering, funding) and the actual outcome. Both can be done with quantitative as well as qualitative indicators.

Success criteria and indicators are formulated at the local level in Copenhagen and then negotiated with the municipal and national level. Glasgow realised that the initial objec­tives were too broad to be measured and have to be changed therefore. Hamburg uses indicators mainly for the physical regeneration of the Karolinenviertel.

Examples for measurable indicators from the case-studies are:

Numbers of vacancies and fluctuation, Balance of in and out migration of an area, ratio of unemployment, Proportion of welfare recipients among all inhabitants, Diversity of funding, Improvement of administrative structures, Improvement of the atmosphere in the area (Berlin);

Number of cooperative public-private actions and co-financing extent growth (Malta, Vilnius);

Number of indirectly attracted private investments to stimulate the local economy (Dublin, Berlin, Vilnius);

Number of positive articles about the regeneration area in newspapers, Number of local visitors on the regeneration-website (Copenhagen);

Key indicators regarding Social Inclusion and Exclusion (Glasgow);

Balance of public and private funding, Number of modernised flats in square-metres, de­velopment of the rent-level (Hamburg).

But even if one has sufficient instruments and indicators it's still difficult to validate the relation between processes of change and the effects of the regeneration process itself. This means who or what is responsible for the measured change in an area: the regeneration process itself or external factors? Is it possible to evaluate the relation between physical regeneration and socio-economic developments?

A second important question is regarding the change of habits, attitudes and actions within the partnership: Do the partners learn during the process? Do they change their attitudes? How does the partnership between the stakeholders develop during the process? This is a question of assessing the internal quality of the process.

Generally speaking, ongoing efficient process monitoring does make more sense than extensive ex-post evaluation because it allows alterations in the process and does not mean the identification of problems when the process is over and it's too late for adjustments.