1 / 11

Tackling Area-Based Deprivation: Mainstream Services for Equitable Community Support

This report discusses the importance of mainstreaming services to address area-based deprivation and achieve social justice. It emphasizes the need for permanent funding strategies, equitable service distribution, and improved outcomes for neighborhoods. Key motivations include moral imperatives, local political goals, and continuous improvement measures. The document also covers how to define service needs, allocation fairness, and the significance of local knowledge in targeting community services effectively. Insights into performance indicators and the management of change are included to encourage effective service delivery.

jerod
Download Presentation

Tackling Area-Based Deprivation: Mainstream Services for Equitable Community Support

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Making it happen:tackling area-based deprivation using mainstream servicesNick Bailey, University of Glasgow

  2. Mainstreaming: definitions • Moving from short-term project funding to permanent funding • Using mainstream services and budgets to help “narrow the gap” • Ensuring every neighbourhood gets the right level of service and the right kinds of service to meet local needs

  3. Mainstreaming: motivations • Moral imperative – social justice • Local political goals – SOAs • Best Value – ‘continuous improvement’ • critical reflection on needs, services delivered and outcomes • 2009 Equalities Bill • “identifying and addressing the inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage [to be] a key part of public authorities' planning, commissioning, monitoring and resourcing of services”

  4. Services and ‘real income’ Top:Bottom = 12:1 Top:Bottom = 5:1 • Real Income • = • Earnings and cash benefits (less tax) • + • Benefits in kind • Universal services (health, education) • Targeted services (free school meals, housing and transport subsidies) Jones, F. (2007) The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 2005-06. London: Office for National Statistics.

  5. Questions • How much service does each neighbourhood need? (Service needs or contexts) • How much service does each neighbourhood get? (Inputs/expenditure) • How well does each neighbourhood do? (Outcomes) What are our goals for each service? How do differentservices work in differentareas?

  6. Equal spend Equal service Equal outcomes Service goals • What would a fair allocation look like? • Is it the same for every service? • What other priorities of the LA should be considered? • Do priorities need to explicit/political or can they be implicit/professional?

  7. Service needs or contexts • How much service does each neighbourhood need? • ‘Risk factors’ – what indicators? • Theories and evidence = ‘toolkit’ • Local knowledge • Resident responsibility or behaviour reflects context? • Is area deprivation a good indicator? • How much variation?

  8. Service inputs • How much service does each neighbourhood get? • How are services distributed in theory? • Why might more deprived places get less? • Danger of responding to ‘community’? • Top-down vs bottom-up perspectives? • Theory versus practice • Right service in the right place? • One size does not fit all • Absolute versus relative service levels? • Top-up equals cover-up? • Quality versus quantity?

  9. Outcomes • How well does each neighbourhood do? • Performance indicators • Danger of relying on ‘satisfaction’ measures? • Importance of data • Targets matter

  10. Managing change • Can outcomes be improved using mainstream services? YES • Engineer programmed services to target needs • Avoid inefficient top-up services • Appearance of standardised provision but important variations • Avoid waste - eliminate ‘overperformance’ as well as ‘underperformance’ • Flexibility for operational staff but from a sound base • Continuous local learning • Information systems vital

  11. Further information Final report to be published by Joseph Rowntree autumn 2009 as A Clean Sweep: Narrowing the gap between deprived and better off neighbourhoods Download for free at www.jrf.org.uk or email A.Hastings@lbss.gla.ac.uk Previous report: Cleaning up Neighbourhoods: Environmental problems and service provision in deprived areas free download www.jrf.org.uk

More Related