Chapter Five – Methodological Considerations and Case Study Selection
5.13 The Case Study Areas in Context
Before moving on to discussing the findings in more detail, a deeper understanding of the two case study areas is required. The purpose of this is to allow the outside observer, who might not be familiar with the areas, to better understand their context and background.
This will cover the general characteristics of each area, the political history, the key figures in the LSP/LAA process and the nature of its governance
arrangements (particularly during the period covering the LAA).
5.13.1 Liverpool
With a population of 466,000 at the 2011 Census, Liverpool is the 5th largest UK city outside of London (ONS: 2012). Liverpool is also included as one of the eight UK core cities - noted for their size and economic performance.
Located on the River Mersey, historically, Liverpool's economy has been built around the river. In particular the city's docks and accompanying industries (e.g. docks, sugar, tobacco) were amongst the main employers in the city. As part of this, the city also had a central role in the slave trade (after which several locations in the city are still named), yet Liverpool was also the birthplace of one
of the key figures who ended the Britain's involvement in the slave trade - William Gladstone.
During the 1970s and 1980s, owing in part to globalisation, a shift in focus from the Atlantic to the European Union and changes to the shipping industry Liverpool went into swift and sharp decline experiencing high unemployment figures.
During the late 1990s and 2000s the city began to regenerate itself, drawing upon European Objective One funding to deliver significant improvements to the City's infrastructure and the city centre in particular. It could be argued that this process culminated in 2008 when the city celebrated being the European Union's 'Capital of Culture' - owing to its musical, artistic and sporting heritage.
5.13.2 Political History
Between 1974 and 1986 Liverpool was part of the wider Merseyside Borough Council structure. During this period Liverpool also operated as a district council. From 1986 to the present day Liverpool has held unitary authority status.
Although the Conservative Party did enjoy some support, in the period following 1974 the party has never held political control of the city. Instead political control has swung between the Labour Party and Liberals/Liberal Democrats. In the past this has presented a particular challenge as, besides the period 1997-98, Liverpool has never been controlled by the same party as that of national government. This has meant that the city has been forced to work with its political opponents in order to secure progress against any initiatives requiring national backing.
Much of New Labour's LGMA was overseen in Liverpool by a Liberal Democrat administration led by Mike Storey between 1998 and 2005, and then Warren Bradley between 2005 and 2010. Throughout this period, the Chief Executive of
the City Council was Colin Hilton. The chief executive in all councils is a full time employee of the council who acts in an apolitical capacity. The 2010 local elections saw Joe Anderson become leader of the City Council for the Labour Party. During this period Colin Hilton also stood down from his post, being replaced by Ged Fitzgerald.
5.13.3 Liverpool's LSP and LAA
There were two models that councils could draw upon when establishing their LSP - arm's length, or council-led. Liverpool opted to create an arm's length LSP, whereby the LSP would be, in effect, a separate organisation from the council itself. To this end Liverpool's LSP was known as 'Liverpool First'.
In reality, all LSP employees remained council employees, but Liverpool First's premises were located away from the main council offices, and the LSP had its own organisational structure. Liverpool First was run by Carol Perry, who served as chief executive.
With regards to the executive board17 and LSP structure, Carol Perry held the strategic lead of the LSP, alongside the leader of the council and Colin Hilton. They were supported by the numerous statutory partners that comprised the LSP, as outlined in chapter three.
Beneath the executive board the LSP split into five thematic partnerships, broadly reflecting the policy blocks that comprise the LAA itself (see chapter three). Those five partnerships were:
Health and Wellbeing Housing
Safer and Stronger Communities
17
Children and Young People Economic Growth
(Source: Liverpool First: 2009)
Liverpool opted to wait until phase three of LAA rollout in 2008 until it established its LAA18. This made Liverpool one of the last 61 local areas to adopt an LAA.
5.13.4 St Helens
With a population of 175,000 at the 2011 census (ONS: 2012), and located some 15 miles to the west of Liverpool, St Helens is a medium sized town which forms part of the wider Merseyside region.
Like Liverpool, St Helens' economic traditions lie in industry. The glass industry in particular was one of the principle economic drivers of the area, coupled with collieries and the chemical industry that bloomed in the area in the 20th century. St Helens also suffered a period of economic decline following the scaling back and closure of its core industries, however unlike its neighbour, there has been no cultural renaissance to act as a driver for change.
5.13.5 Political History
Like Liverpool, St Helens has experienced a changing political landscape over the years, albeit which markedly less regularity. Operating as a unitary authority since the disbanding of Merseyside Borough council in 1986, the Labour party have consistently been the most successful political party throughout, providing the area's MPs and the largest number of councillors. This allowed them to control the council from St Helens Borough Council's conception in 1974 until 2006.
However, the number of Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors has, at times, been sufficient to create a coalition which has run the council. This
18
happened between 2006 and 2010. Following the 2008 local council elections the council was hung, although the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition held on to control. During this period the council was led by Brian Spencer. In 2010 control of the council returned to the Labour party, with Marie Rimmer returning as leader. Throughout, the chief executive of St Helens Council was Carole Hudson.
Although not as extreme, the political makeup of St Helens offers some parallels to Liverpool. In particular, during the period of the LAA St Helens political composition differed from that of central government. Thus the ability for the area to work with a different political party to achieve local outcomes could be scrutinised and compared with its neighbour.
5.13.6 St Helens' LSP and LAA
Unlike Liverpool, St Helens opted to have its LSP integrated within the structures of the council. The LSP was known as 'St Helens Together' but was operated principally by council employees, operating out of the town hall.
Meetings of the executive board19 were chaired by the leader of the council, with the support of the chief executive. Beneath the executive board, St Helens split its working into four thematic partnerships, eschewing the explicit focus on housing that Liverpool opted to take.
Economic Development and Enterprise Health and Wellbeing
Children and Young People Community Safety
(Source: St Helens Together 2012)
19
St Helens' LAA20 was introduced as part of the second phase of LAA rollout in 2007, making St Helens one of the 66 areas to participate in this phase.
5.13.7 Liverpool and St Helens' LAA: A brief analysis.
Developing on the socio-economic analysis undertaken earlier, which helped to justify the case study selection, a side-by-side analysis of the two respective LAAs from each area can help provide further understanding of the two areas and the kinds of issues they face.
Table 5.6 highlights which indicators21 were adopted by each respective area, as well as indicating which indicators were adopted by both areas.
Table 5.6 Indicator uptake in Liverpool & St Helens and side-by-side comparison
Liverpool St Helens Shared Indicators
1, 4, 15, 16, 19, 20, 29, 30, 32, 39, 53, 56, 62, 115, 116, 117, 120, 124, 151, 153, 154, 156, 163, 165, 167, 171, 172, 175, 195 5, 6, 15, 16, 21, 30, 32, 39, 40, 47, 53a, 53b, 55, 63, 79, 111, 112, 115, 117, 120a, 120b, 123, 130, 135, 136, 141, 151, 153, 154, 163, 166, 171, 176, 187a, 187b, 192, 195a, 195b 15, 16, 30, 32, 39, 53, 115, 117, 120, 151, 153, 154, 163, 171, 195 N=29 N=34 N=15
Sources: Liverpool First: 2008, St Helens Together: 2008
Although areas had the option to select up to 35 improvement indicators neither area opted to do this. St Helens selected 34 improvement indicators, whilst
20
A full version of St Helens' LAA can be found in Appendix V
21
Liverpool adopted only 29. This figure does not include the statutory education indicators present in both sets of LAAs.
When the LAAs are compared to see which indicators were adopted by areas, it is apparent that there are 15 indicators that are jointly held. They principally relate to crime, health (particularly mortality), drug abuse and employment (including youth employment).
This reflects the analysis conducted in chapter three around the homogeneity of indicators and their selection. Indeed, many of the jointly held indicators are those covered in that analysis. Given that the socio-economic composition of St Helens and Liverpool has been shown to be broadly similar, the fact that roughly half of the LAA has included the same targets demonstrates the ability to produce bespoke solutions to local issues may somewhat limited.
However despite this, there are still some differences in approach. Even though St Helens socio-economic and deprivation performances are nominally better than those of Liverpool, the area has opted to select more indicators. More tellingly than this, however, is the fact that St Helens opted for less ‘satisfaction’ style indicators than Liverpool, instead opting for more ‘hard-nosed’ practical indicators. This would run counter to expectations that an area experiencing poorer performance, might opt to select indicators more likely to deliver a practical outcome.
Another approach that St Helens has taken, which Liverpool has not, is to split a performance indicator into component parts – allowing for measurement on a number of things. One example of this is NI187, which focuses on households receiving income benefits. St Helens has opted to split this into high and low energy homes, allowing for an explicit focus on those in fuel poverty.
Beyond this, here are differences in how each area opts to present its LAA, although it is accepted that they might be purely aesthetic in nature. Liverpool appears to set out its LAA as if telling a story, with indicators grouped thematically including local indicators, whereas St Helens opts to produce a list of indicators, running in sequential order, with local indicators at the very end.
Although this makes little difference, the presentational issues show that areas can opt to present their priorities differently, even if in the case of Liverpool and St Helens the substance is similar.
Now that the case studies have been outlined in more detail, including a discussion of their background, the following chapters will explore the in depth findings that emerged from them. This will draw upon issues of vertical and horizontal governance, and involve interviews with key practitioners within each area’s LSP/LAA structures.