Government frequently adopts an area-based approach to the targeting of urban policy initiatives as an indirect way of reaching the individuals that the initiatives are intended to help. The paper develops a method for assessing the success of this spatial targeting. It uses a geodemographic classification system to produce a generalised socioeconomic profile for a particular initiative. This profile can be used to examine the targeting of the initiative in different localities, in order to assess whether targeting has been inefficient (the targeted areas have been defined so that many of the people they contain are in fact not those for whom the initiative is intended) or incomplete (deserving cases have been missed because the initiative's boundaries have been drawn too tightly). The utility of the method is demonstrated by employing the P2 People and Places geodemographic system to assess the targeting of the Sure Start initiative in eight large provincial cities in England.
BarnesJBelskyJBroomfieldK ADaveSFrostMMelhuishE, 2005, “Disadvantaged but different: variation among deprived communities in relation to child and family well-being”Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry46952–962
3.
BateyP W JBrownP J B, 1994, “Design and construction of geodemographic targeting systems: what we have we learnt in the last ten years?”Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing3105–115
4.
BateyP W JBrownP J B, 1995, “From human ecology to customer targeting: the evolution of geodemographics”, in GIS for Business and Service Planning Eds LongleyPClarkeG (Longman, Harlow, Essex) pp 77–103
5.
BateyP W JBrownP J B, 2004, “Geodemographic typology development and the 2001 Census: the example of People and Places”, paper presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the British and Irish Section of the Regional Science Association International, Cork, Ireland, August; copy available from the authors
6.
BrownP J BHirschfieldA F GBateyP W J, 2000, “Adding value to census data: public sector applications of the Super Profiles geodemographic typology”Journal of Cities and Regions1019–32
7.
BulmerM, 1986, “The ecological fallacy: its implications for social policy analysis”, in Social Science and Social Policy Ed. BulmerM (Allen and Unwin, Sydney) pp 223–246
8.
DETR, 1998Updating and Revising the Index of Local Deprivation (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London)
9.
DewsonS, 2005“Evaluation of the Working Neighbourhoods Pilot”, RR 297, Department for Work and Pensions, London
HoltermannS, 1975, “Areas of urban deprivation in Great Britain; an analysis of 1971 Census tete”Social Trends633–47
15.
KleinmannM, 1999, “There goes the neighbourhood: area policies and social exclusion”New Economy6188–192
16.
LeventhalB, 1995, “Evaluation of geodemographic classifications”Journal of Targeting Measuring and Analysis for Marketing4173–183
17.
LongleyP, 2005, “Geographical information systems: a renaissance of geodemographics for public service delivery”Progress in Human Geography2957–63
18.
McCullochA, 2001, “Ward-level deprivation and individual social and economic outcomes in the British Household Panel Study”Environment and Planning A33667–684
19.
MartinD, 2002, “Output areas for 2001”, in The Census Data System Eds ReesPMartinDWilliamsonP (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 37–46
20.
MartinDNolanATranmerM, 2001, “The application of zone-design methodology in the 2001 UK Census”Environment and Planning A331949–1962
21.
MitchellRMartinDFoodyG M, 1998, “Unmixing aggregate data: estimating the social composition of enumeration districts”Environment and Planning A301929–1941
22.
NobleMSmithGPenhaleBDibbenCOwenTLloydM, 2000Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the Local Level: Indices of Deprivation 2000 (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, London)
23.
ODPM, 2003Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London)
24.
ReadingROpenshawSJarvisS, 1994, “Are multidimensional social classifications of areas useful in UK health service research?”Journal of Epidemiological Community Health48192–200
SmithG R, 1999, “Area-based initiatives: the rationale and options for area-targeting”, paper 25, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics
27.
SmithGNobleMWrightG, 2001, “Do we care about area effects?”Environment and Planning A331341–1344
28.
TunstallRLuptonR, 2003, “Is targeting deprived areas an effective means to reach poor people? An assessment of the rationale for area-based funding programmes”, paper 70, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics
29.
VickersDReesPBirkinM, 2005, “Creating the national classification of census output areas: data, methodology, results”, WP 05/2, School of Geography, University of Leeds
30.
VisvalingamM, 1983, “Area-based social indicators: signed chi-square as an alternative to ratios”Social Indicator Research13311–329
31.
VoasDWilliamsonP, 2000, “The scale of diversity: concepts, measurement and an application to socio-economic variation across England and Wales”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series25465–481
32.
VoasDWilliamsonP, 2001, “The diversity of diversity: a critique of geodemographic classification”Area3363–76
33.
WebberR JLongleyP A, 2003, “Geodemographic analysis of similarity and proximity: their roles in the understanding of the geography of needs”, in Advanced Spatial Analysis Eds LongleyP ABattyM (ESRI Press, Redlands, CA) pp 233–236
