1 / 28

Five Questions

Making it Happen: closing the outcome gap between deprived and better off areas using mainstream environmental services Annette Hastings Glen Bramley Nick Bailey Rob Croudace David Watkins University of Glasgow Heriot-Watt University. Five Questions.

gracie
Download Presentation

Five Questions

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: closing the outcome gap between deprived and better off areas using mainstream environmental servicesAnnette Hastings Glen BramleyNick BaileyRob Croudace David WatkinsUniversity of Glasgow Heriot-Watt University

  2. Five Questions • Do we know the extent to which outcomes vary with area deprivation? • Do we know why outcomes vary with area deprivation? • Do we know where public money goes in relation to area deprivation? • To what extent can outcomes in deprived areas be improved using mainstream services? • What makes it happen? What are the national and local policy levers for closing the gap?

  3. Or : • Do we really know how mainstream services work in relation to area deprivation? And with diminishing budgets, who and where will suffer most?

  4. About the research study Aims • To understand more about how different neighbourhood contexts predict environmental problems; • To explore the organisational challenges and financial costs involved of meeting different kinds and levels of need ; • To examine different approaches to narrowing the gap; • To provide ideas, strategies and tools which local authorities can use to design policy and practices capable of narrowing the gap with relation to street cleanliness.

  5. Research methods • Analysis of national data sets • Three case-study local authorities – contrasting urban locations • Street-level analysis • Quantitative and qualitative methods • Assessment of distribution of service inputs and cleanliness outcomes by area deprivation • Test hypotheses from previous research on neighbourhood context and environmental challenges • Research funded by Joseph Rowntree Foundation

  6. Why try to narrow the gap? • Different neighbourhoods present distinctive challenges – one size doesn’t fit all • Need to show ‘continuous improvement’ • Moral imperative – consistency or ‘justice’ • 2009 Social Mobility White Paper : “tackling socio-economic disadvantage and narrowing gaps in outcomes for people from different backgrounds is a core function of key public services”

  7. Question 1 1. Do we know the extent to which outcomes vary with area deprivation in relation to environmental cleanliness • nationally? • locally? • in sufficient detail?

  8. % reporting litter/rubbish problems 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% SEHEng 40.0% BVPIUrb SHSScot 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Worst 10% Next 10- 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Best 80- 20% 100% Deprivation Band Litter and Rubbish Problems by Deprivation in England and Scotland

  9. Litter/rubbish average grade by street deprivation (SOA level) for each case study

  10. Litter/rubbish more detailed grades by street deprivation (SOA level) for each case study

  11. Question 2 2. Do we know why outcomes vary with area deprivation? What is it about deprivation which matters with respect to this service arena?

  12. Going beyond ‘deprivation’. What are the risk factors for environmental problems: the national picture Separable from ‘deprivation’ (ie IMD/SIMD): • a range of demographic factors are important such as child and youth density, lone parents and minority ethnic households • the physical characteristics of dwellings matter, such as their size, built form and whether they have gardens or not • density matters as does overcrowding • wider neighbourhood characteristics are important such as location, street layout, tenure, and the mix and use of properties and buildings • Suggests not just behaviour…? • Policy implication? Specific (composite) indicators for specific services?

  13. Going beyond ‘deprivation’. What are the risk factors for environmental problems: the case studies

  14. Question 3 3. Do we know where public money goes in relation to area deprivation?

  15. Does expenditure track area deprivation?: the case studies

  16. Programmed services topped up in deprived areas: case study one • Overall, positive skew in expenditure • Responsive services skewed towards more deprived streets • Programmed services skewed away from deprived streets

  17. Do we really know how mainstream service spending relates to deprivation? Case study one

  18. Where does the money go? Case study two

  19. Do mainstream services spend enough on the right things to tackle area deprivation? Case study two • Mainstream resource distribution skewed relative towards deprivation; • But what about absolute service levels? • Most deprived decile swept once a week or fortnight • Deciles 7, 8, 9 every three weeks • Use of mechanical sweepers – appropriate for these areas? • Topped up with non-mainstream services in most deprived deciles • Improving outcomes evident with increased service

  20. Additional ‘special’ resources associated with narrowing the gap: case study two

  21. Aligning mainstream services with need: case study three

  22. Using mainstream services to tackle area deprivation: case study three – the stealth approach

  23. Using mainstream services to tackle area deprivation: case study three – the stealth approach • Deliberate engineering of workloads to meet needs • Looks like standardised provision • Actual vs apparent workloads • Has the most equal outcomes • Very few excellent grades • But also relatively few fails • But also very few ‘demanding’ affluent areas • What can mainstreaming achieve? • More equal outcomes? • Levelling down? • Avoid wasting/save resources • Can equality be balanced with other objectives?

  24. Questions 4 & 5 4. To what extent can outcomes in deprived areas be improved using mainstream services? 5. What makes it happen? What are the national and local policy levers for closing the gap?

  25. Outcome change over time by deprivation: the case studies (mean grade)

  26. Outcome change over time by deprivation: the case studies (excellent grade)

  27. Summing up • Not enough is known about how deprived areas fare in relation to mainstream service provision • Requires complex and subtle research • Need better understanding of relative needs • Results can be surprising and illuminating • To understand why we have area deprivation and what can be done about it need to understand neighbourhood dynamics of service provision • Mainstream service provision can produce equal cleanliness outcomes despite neighbourhood diversity • Policy matters: • Broad intentions to narrow the gap important • But the devil is in the detail

  28. 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