skip to main content
10.1145/3209281.3209300acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesdg-oConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Big data analytics in social care provision: spatial and temporal evidence from Birmingham

Published:30 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

There is significant national interest in tackling issues surrounding the needs of vulnerable children and adults. At the same time, UK local authorities face severe financial challenges as a result of decreasing financial settlements and increasing demands from growing urban populations. This research employs state-of-the-art data analytics and visualisation techniques to analyse six years of local government social care data for the city of Birmingham, the UK's second most populated city. This analysis identifies: (i) service cost profiles over time; (ii) geographical dimensions to service demand and delivery; (iii) patterns in the provision of services, and (iv) the extent to which data value and data protection interact. The research accesses data held by the local authority to discover patterns and insights that may assist in the understanding of service demand, support decision making and resource management, whilst protecting and safeguarding its most vulnerable citizens. The use of data in this manner could also inform the approach a local authority has to its data, its capture and use, and the potential for supporting data-led management and service improvements.

References

  1. ADASS. 2016. ADASS Budget Survey 2016 Report. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Local Government Association. 2014. Transforming local public services: using technology and digital tools and approaches. (June 2014). Retrieved April 20, 2017 from https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/transforming-public-servi-2a5.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Julian Besag and James Newell. 1990. The Detection of Clusters in Rare Diseases. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) 154, 1 (June 1990), 143--155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Marian Brandon, Sue Bailey, Pippa Belderson, Peter Sidebotham, Carol Hawley, Catherine Ellis, and Matthew Megson. 2013. New Learning from Serious Case Reviews: a two year report for 2009--2011. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tania Burchardt, Polina Obolenskya, and Polly Vizard (Eds.). 2016. Social Policy in a Cold Climate (eds. ed.). Policy Press, Bristol, Chapter 9, 187--214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Paul Bywaters, Geraldine Brady, Lisa Bunting, Brigid Daniel, Brid Featherstone, Chantel Jones, Kate Morris, Jonathan Scourfield, Tim Sparks, and Calum Webb. 2017. Inequalities in English Child Protection Practice under Austerity: A Universal Challenge? Child & Family Social Work (July 2017), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Birmingham City Council. 2016. Business Plan and Budget 2016+. Technical Report. Birmingham, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Massimo Craglia, Robert Haining, and Paola Signoretta. 2003. Identifying Areas of Multiple Social Need: A Case Study in the Preparation of Children Services Plans. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 21, 2 (April 2003), 259--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Susan L. Cutter, Jerry T. Mitchell, and Michael S. Scott. 2000. Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographer 90, 4 (Dec. 2000), 713--737.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Joy Swanson Ernst. 2000. Mapping Child Maltreatment: Looking at Neighborhoods in a Suburban County. Child Welfare 79, 5 (Oct. 2000), 555--572.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jose-Luis Fernandez, Tom Snell, and Gerald Wistow. 2013. Changes in the Patterns of Social Care Provision in England: 2005/6 to 2012/13. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Michele Foster, Jennifer Harris, Karen Jackson, and Caroline Glendinning. 2008. Practitioners' Documentation of Assessment and Care Planning in Social Care: The Opportunities for Organizational Learning. The British Journal of Social Work 38, 3 (April 2008), 546--560.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. The Kings Fund. 2015. The Budget: Health and Social Care Funding. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Caroline Glendinning. 2012. Home Care in England: Markets in the Context of Under-Funding. Health & Social Care in the Community 20, 3 (Feb. 2012), 292--299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jonathan Godwin. 2013. Better Data will Help Early Intervention Teams Orotect Vulnerable Children. (Dec. 2013). Retrieved December 12, 2016 from https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/dec/05/vulnerable-children-early-intervention-dataGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Rick Hood, Allie Goldacre, Robert Grant, and Ray Jones. 2016. Exploring Demand and Provision in English Child Protection Services. The British Journal of Social Work 46, 4 (June 2016), 923--941.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. HSCIC. 2015. Personal Social Services: Expenditure and Unit Costs, England - 2014--15, Final release. Technical Report. Leeds, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitchel Langford and Gary Higgs. 2006. Measuring Potential Access to Primary Healthcare Services: The Influence of Alternative Spatial Representations of Population. The Professional Geographer 58, 3 (May 2006), 294--306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jane Lewis and Anne West. 2017. Early Childhood Education and Care in England under Austerity: Continuity or Change in Political Ideas, Policy Goals, Availability, Affordability and Quality in a Childcare Market? Journal of Social Policy 46, 2 (April 2017), 331--348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Juliette Malley and Jose-Luis Fernández. 2010. Measuring Quality in Social Care Services: Theory and Practice. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 81,4 (Nov. 2010), 559--582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Fola Malomo and Vania Sena. 2017. Data Intelligence for Local Government? Assessing the Benefits and Barriers to Use of Big Data in the Public Sector. Policy & Internet 9, 1 (March 2017), 21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. James Manyika, Michael Chui, Brad Brown, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Charles Roxburgh, and Angela H. Byers. 2011. Big data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. Technical Report. USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Emily R. Munro, Rebecca Brown, and Esmeranda Manful. 2011. Safeguarding Children Statistics: The Availability and Comparability of Data in the UK. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Andrew Nash. 2015. Statistical Bulletin: National Population Projections: 2014-based Statistical Bulletin. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ofsted. 2013. Ofsted: Rasing standards improving lives 2012--2013. Technical Report. Manchester, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ofsted. 2014. The impact of funding reductions on local authorities. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ofsted. 2016. Birmingham Re-inspection of Services for Children in Need of Help and Protection, Children Looked After and Care Leavers. Technical Report. Manchester, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Mirella Rodrigues, Cristine Bonfim, José Luiz Portuga, Idê Gomes Dantas Gurge, and Zulma Medeiros. 2013. Using Spatial Analysis to Identify Areas Vulnerable to Infant Mortality. Rev Panam Salud Publica 34, 1 (July 2013), 36--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Laura Santhanam. 2016. Can Big Data Save These Children? (March 2016). Retrieved June 4, 2017 from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/can-big-data-save-these-children/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Holden Slattery. 2015. Big Data Wave Breaks on Child Protective Services. (April 2015). Retrieved February 2, 2017 from https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/los-angeles/big-data-wave-breaks-on-u-s-child-protection/10822Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Tom Symons. 2016. Datavores of Local Government: Using data to make services more personalised, effective and efficient. (July 2016). Retrieved January 15, 2017 from https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/local_datavores_discussion_paper-july-2016.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tom Symons. 2016. WISE COUNCIL: Insights from the Cutting Edge of Data-driven Local Government. (Nov. 2016). Retrieved February 1, 2017 from https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/wise_council.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Agnes Turnpenny and Julie Beadle-Brown. 2015. Use of Quality Information in Decision-Making about Health and Social Care Services âĂŞ A Systematic Review. Health and Social Care in the Community 23, 4 (July 2015), 349--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Barbara Ubaldi. 2013. Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance 22 (May 2013), 1--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Ivana L. Valle, Lisa Holmes, Chloe Gill, Rebecca Brown, Di Hart, and Matt Barnard. 2016. Improving Children's Social Care Services: Results of a Feasibility Study. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Chris Yiu. 2012. The Big Data Opportunity: Making Government Faster, Smarter and more Personal. Technical Report. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Hwa-Lung Yu, Chiang-Hsing Yang, and Lung-Chang Chien. 2013. Spatial Vulnerability under Extreme Events: A case of Asian Dust Storm's Effects on Children's Respiratory Health. Environment International 54 (Feb. 2013), 35--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Big data analytics in social care provision: spatial and temporal evidence from Birmingham

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age
        May 2018
        889 pages
        ISBN:9781450365260
        DOI:10.1145/3209281

        Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 May 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate150of271submissions,55%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader