Tackling inequalities in health: evaluating the New Deal for Communities initiative

Abstract

Evidence from two-year follow-up does not support an NDC effect, either overall or for particular population groups. Residents with lower education experienced the least favourable health profiles at baseline and the smallest improvements. Programme leaders should consider how to encourage participation among those with the lowest education. A shallower social gradient in participation in education and training in NDC areas and a lack of gradient in income, crime and environmental outcomes indicate that some aspects of the programme may be reaching all sections of the community.

The impact on health inequalities of approaches to community engagement in the New Deal for Communities regeneration initiative: a mixed-methods evaluation

“…The likelihood of quitting smoking, finding work and participating in education or training, for example, increased steadily with increasing levels of education and the likelihood of developing a new long-term limiting illness decreased with increasing levels of education. 68 Similar differential impacts were found by gender, age and ethnicity and these patterns were mirrored in comparator areas. There were, however, two important exceptions, suggesting that at least some of the social inequalities that drive health inequalities were growing less fast in NDC areas than in comparator areas during these early years of the programme.…”

“…In other words, although this early evidence suggested that things were improving across all domains, it did not support a greater improvement in NDC areas than in non-intervention areas at the 2-year follow-up. 68 Results from the NET published in 2010 present a more positive picture, with a modest effect of the initiative as a whole for the first 8 years of the programme. 69 However, using 2008 data only, only nine of the 36 selected indicators across the six NDC outcome domains (housing and the environment, crime, education, employment, community and health) showed any significant positive difference between NDC and comparator areas.…”

“…72 Significant variations between NDC areas were also found in our evaluation of the early impact of the NDC in 2002/4. 68 However, as a proportion of the total variation between individuals, differences between NDC areas were small (< 2% on all outcomes), suggesting that differential impacts between DOI: 10.3310/phr03120 PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH 2015 VOL. 3 NO.…”

‘Most of industry's shutting down up here. . .’: Employability Initiatives to Tackle Worklessness in Areas of Low Labour Market Demand

“…As Stafford et al (2008) argue, those individuals with more financial and human capital are likely to be at an advantage in terms of accessing information, using services and feeding back on their experiences relating to the labour market. There is a need, therefore, to equalise the routes into employability interventions and, perhaps more importantly, to provide tailored support for individuals facing multiple barriers to employment.…”

Social change or business as usual at city hall? Examining an urban municipal government's response to neighbourhood-level health inequities

“…Municipal governments are strategically positioned to impact Social Determinants of Health (SDOH), and can therefore act to ameliorate or exacerbate health gradients across neighbourhoods (CSDH, 2008;Stafford et al, 2008). Communities also play a key role in reducing health inequities as they can inform strategies by offering critical insights on local assets and challenges (Bradford, 2005;Hancock, 2009).…”