“How accurately does regeneration target local need?” Targeting deprived communities in the UK
Author:
Shiels Chris,Baker Deborah,Barrow Stephen
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate to what extent urban regeneration programmes were targeted at the most deprived geographical areas and populations within the boundaries of nine local authorities (LAs) in the North West of England.Design/methodology/approachFor each of the nine LAs, area‐level and individual survey data were used in estimating the proportions of the more deprived neighbourhoods and individuals included in (or excluded from) regeneration target populations after 1995.FindingsThe area‐level approach found that, in general, the more deprived neighbourhoods within local authority districts had been included in a main regeneration programme target area. However there was evidence of inconsistent coverage between LA areas, as well as some cases of very deprived local areas having no involvement at all in major regeneration programmes since 1995. Additional analysis of available survey data found that substantial numbers of residents with one or more individual indicators of deprivation (not in full‐time employment, not owning home, in difficult financial situation) had not been included in a regeneration target population.Research limitations/implicationsThe basic nature of the measures of regeneration and deprivation used in the study reflect its status as the first stage of a wider project investigating the association between regeneration activity, social exclusion and health.Practical implicationsThe findings of the study highlight the requirement for evaluators of a regeneration programme to consider how successful the intervention has been in targeting those residents for whom it was initially designed. This should precede any measurement of the programme outputs and their impact upon the “well‐being” of the targeted community.Originality/valueThe study is original in its use of both aggregated and individual level data in its consideration of how regeneration targets “need”.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Political Science and International Relations,Public Administration,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference16 articles.
1. Atkinson, R. and Kinton, K. (2001), “Disentangling area‐effects: evidence from deprived and non‐deprived neighbourhoods”, Urban Studies, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 2277‐2298. 2. Beatty, C., Foden, M., Lawless, P. and Wilson, I. (2007), “New deal for communities national evaluation: an overview of change data”, Research Report 33, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield. 3. Brennan, A., Rhodes, J. and Tyler, P. (1999), “The distribution of SRB challenge fund expenditure in relation to local‐area need in England”, Urban Studies, Vol. 36 No. 12, pp. 2069‐2084. 4. Duncan, C., Jones, K. and Moon, G. (1998), “Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multi‐level models in health research”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 97‐117. 5. Lawless, P. (2006), “Area‐based urban interventions: rationale and outcomes: the new deal for communities programme in England”, Urban Studies, Vol. 43 No. 11, pp. 1991‐2011.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|