No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The purpose of this paper is to compare two methods for the identification of priority areas for intervention and funding based on quantifiable assessments of multiple social need. This is an increasingly important aspect of evidence-based policy in a range of social programmes both in Britain, and in other countries. The context within which this methodology is assessed is the preparation of multiannual plans for the provision of services to children and young people. This is a statutory requirement in Britain on all local authorities, and is based on the Children Act 1989. The first method develops a composite indicator in which areas are scored on several variables, and the scores combined to identify those areas that are consistently high across all variables. The advantage of this method lies in its arithmetic transparency, which makes it ideal for use by local authorities and agencies engaged in needs assessment and planning. The potential drawback is that this composite indicator disregards any spatial structure in the data and gives no measure of statistical significance. The second method identifies statistically significant clusters using the exploratory technique of Besag and Newell for cluster detection in rare events. Clusters are combined to identify those areas affected by multiple problems. As shown in the paper, the two methods produce similar patterns of social need which is reassuring from a policy perspective as a large number of areas are now requiring a multiagency ‘joined-up’ approach for needs assessment, targeting intervention, and monitoring outcomes. The findings of this paper will be of relevance to researchers and practitioners.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.