1. Making it happen: tackling area-based deprivation using mainstream services Nick 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. Top:Bottom = 12:1 Services and ‘real income’ Real Income = Earnings and cash benefits (less tax) + Benefits in kind Universal services (health, education) Targeted services (free school meals, housing and transport subsidies) Top:Bottom = 5:1 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 different services work in different areas ?

6. 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? Equal spend Equal outcomes Equal service

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. Service inputs

10. Overall, positive skew in expenditure Programmed services skewed away from deprived streets Responsive services skewed towards more deprived streets

11. Service inputs - workloads

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

13. 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

14. 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.ukwww.jrf.org.uk 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 www.jrf.org.uk