Presentation on theme: "CASE: Going local Applying & developing sub-national analysis."— Presentation transcript:
CASE: Going local Applying & 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 assets per 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 assets per 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 heritage assets 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 317 th & 303 rd 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...