110 likes | 244 Views
Making it happen: tackling area-based deprivation using mainstream services Nick Bailey, University of Glasgow. Mainstreaming: definitions. Moving from short-term project funding to permanent funding Using mainstream services and budgets to help “narrow the gap”
E N D
Making it happen:tackling area-based deprivation using mainstream servicesNick Bailey, University of Glasgow
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
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”
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Outcomes • How well does each neighbourhood do? • Performance indicators • Danger of relying on ‘satisfaction’ measures? • Importance of data • Targets matter
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
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