CASE: Going local Applying & developing sub-national analysis.

CASE: Going localApplying & developing sub-national analysis

Issue

Increasing ‘localism’–More power at a local and sub-local level–Reducing role of central government:–Not imposing from above

BUT... Limited resources locally to exploit social science

Local needs

Data: Base-lining, benchmarking, transparency, accountability

Analysis: Business cases, policy options Evidence: relevance, effectiveness and

persuasiveness (partnerships) Others?

What CASE has - Data

Baselining, benchmarking, accountability–‘Regional Insights’–Toolkit for asset mapping

Data (for making evidence)–Understanding Society (longitudinal data)

What CASE has - Analysis

Drivers, Impact and Value project–Understanding local population (Drivers)–Policy simulation tool (Drivers)–Valuing policy impacts (Value)

Issues:–Drivers work based on Taking Part–Local conditions not fully accounted for

What CASE has - Evidence

Drivers, Impact and Value project–Sound evidence for learning effects in young people–Research database: practical benefit

Issue–Not geographic specific–Need to make the ‘generalisation’ leap

Where next?

No guarantee of a future for CASE

BUT... Could focus on a number of areas:

–More data at local level–More analysis at local level–Better access to data for local areas

Marshal more data...

CIPFA data Audience data Wider economic and social data Drawing together local datasets on assets etc

What else?

More analysis at a local level...

Eg. GIS analysis Nearest neighbour etc

BUT... Danger of top-down analysis Resource-heavy for centre Needs demand from local areas to justify

Density of all arts, museums, libraries and sports and heritage assetsper head of population as at 2008/9

This map shows the steep differences in both privately- and publicly-funded culture and sport opportunities by local authority.

Fewer than 8% of authorities have over 25% of the assets

1-3 assets per 1000

3-4 assets per 1000

4-7 assets per 1000

7-34 assets per 1000

Count of all arts, museums, libraries and sports and heritage assetsper local authority as at 2008/9

9-250 assets

251-385 assets

386-558 assets

559-4056 assets

Removing the population figures from the analysis has little effect overall, with rural areas remaining higher up the scale. However, small town type areas now tend the lower part of the scale

Fewer than 8% of authorities have over 25% of the assets

Density of arts, museums, galleries, libraries, sport and heritageassets per hectare per 10,000 people for each local authority

Highest accessibility is in London and areas of the south coast. Larger, rural counties have much lower accessibility. Key metropolitan areas such as Leeds and Birmingham are 317th & 303rd out of 324.

Accessibility is very unevenly distributed. A rural-urban divide exists, but is not consistent.

Better access to data...

Already got Taking Part Netquest Could go further with ‘regional insights’ data? E.g. Dynamic website, bespoke analysis

BUT... Skills available locally? Demand for this? Requires resources to develop...

Your views

We are exploring different channels

QUESTION IS... How do you think CASE can be more relevant for

local areas?