The LAA as a Means to be Locally Responsive: An Initial Analysis

Through some simple documentary analysis, it is simple to get a sense of whether the performance management nature of the LAA did reflect these concerns about centralisation and local responsiveness. This can be achieved by examining a variety of published LAAs to see what indicators were adopted and the extent to which the indicator targets allowed local areas to focus on

issues of importance. To achieve this, a 'typology' of indicators is required – in this case, deprivation.5

In order to assess how deprived an area was, and to subsequently assess how they used their LAA to respond to the extent of the deprivation faced, the analysis utilised the 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The IMD 2007 brings together 37 indicators covering specific aspects or ‘domains’ of deprivation: Income, Employment, Health and Disability, Education, Skills and Training, Barriers to Housing and Services, Living Environment and Crime. These are weighted and combined to create the overall IMD2007 (CLG, 2007c). The IMD 2007 itself is based on the small area geography known as Lower (Layer) Super Output Areas (LSOAs). LSOAs have between 1,000 and 3,000 people living in them with an average population of 1,500 people. This unit of measurement is smaller than wards, thus allowing the identification of small pockets of deprivation. There are 32,482 LSOAs in England. The LSOA ranked 1 by the IMD 2007 is the most deprived and that ranked 32,482 is the least deprived (CLG, 2007c).

This analysis utilised the eight English core cities (Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield) which represent the major population centres outside of London. They have collaborated on issues such as economic performance but, given a past experience of industrial and economic decline, these areas can offer insights about responses towards tackling deprivation. As such they provide a useful base from which to study the extent to which the National Indicator Dataset has allowed local areas to focus on a specific problem affecting them. Given the importance of London on a national and global scale it was also considered important to provide a context of how these efforts to tackle deprivation were taking place in the Capital.

5

The subsequent section and analysis draws upon a paper first published in the Journal of Urban Renewal and Regeneration in 2010 (Nurse and Pemberton: 2010) (Full Paper can be found in Appendix III)

Consequently, as the most deprived authority area in London6, the Borough of Hackney was also included.

The next stage was to consider how the LAA indicators from the suite of 198 tallied with the 37 indicators used to measure the IMD. Consequently, by looking at the uptake of these indicators, one could have an indication of how LAAs in deprived areas were utilising the indicators to focus on issues around deprivation. In all, 33 indicators7 from the National Indicator Dataset were deemed to match those in the 2007 IMD, considering the caveats outlined below.

1) the national indicators that were selected have an explicit, rather than

implicit relevance to the IMD indicators (e.g. NI152 Working Age People on Out of Work Benefits directly relates to the IMD 2007 indicator measuring Adults and Children in Income-Based Job Seeker Allowance Households);

2) several national indicators were included on the basis of their broader relevance / potential impact on the deprivation indices (for example, NI116 Proportion of Children in Child Poverty and NI153 Working Age People

Claiming Out of Work Benefits in the Worst Performing Neighbourhoods);

3) a small number of national indicators were included even though they measured participation rather than non-participation as by proxy they could then highlight the latter issue – for example, NI91 Participation of 17 year olds in Education or Training is inversely related to the IMD 2007 indicator measuring the Proportion of Young People not staying on in

School or Non-advanced Education above the age of 16);

4) some national indicators were covered more than once as they apply to more than one deprivation indicator; and

6

At the time of selection, drawing upon the 2007 IMD (CLG: 2007c)

7

5) several of the national indicators were not subsequently considered as they were statutory education-focused targets and as such would therefore need to be included within every LAA.

These urban areas were then analysed to consider what percentage of their SOAs fell within the most/least deprived SOAs on a national scale, as well as considering their overall national deprivation ranking (Table 3.1). This was to provide an indication of the depth and scale of deprivation in each of the areas. What emerged was a two-fold typology which could be used to analyse how the LAA was used to focus on the issues of deprivation that were evident.

Table 3.1 - Core City LAAs and Multiple Deprivation

City Overall IMD Rank

% of SOAs that fall within

Most deprived Least deprived Up to 5% most deprived nationally Up to 10% most deprived nationally Up to 50% most deprived nationally Up to 50% least deprived nationally Up to 10% least deprived nationally Up to 5% least deprived nationally Birmingham 10th 25.90 39.63 86.4 13.6 0.62 0 Bristol 64th 7.54 15.48 67.4 32.6 1.59 0 Hackney 2nd 19.7 55.47 100 0 0 0 Leeds 85th 8.40 20.17 54.2 45.8 6.72 3.15 Liverpool 1st 44.33 55.67 90 10 0 0 Manchester 4th 30.5 52.12 91.1 8.9 0 0 Newcastle Upon Tyne 37th 17.92 24.86 64.2 35.8 4.62 1.73 Nottingham 13th 15.3 31.8 89.8 10.2 0 0 Sheffield 63rd 13.27 23.89 61.1 38.9 5.90 1.77 Source: CLG: 2007c

3.5.1 Group One: ‘Collective Game Raising’

The group one cities were Birmingham, Hackney, Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham. They are characterised by deprivation that is highly concentrated, whilst also being widespread across the urban area. In these areas 30 per cent or more of the super output areas were located in the 10 per cent most deprived nationally, whilst a minimum of 85 per cent of super output areas fell within the 50% most deprived in the country.

Given the scale and depth of the deprivation issues facing these areas, it would be expected that the LAA targets that were selected would focus on ‘collective game raising’ i.e. the selection of indicators which would tackle deprivation across the board, as opposed to purely focusing on areas of the most concentrated deprivation, given that improvements on any level would have a significant impact.

3.5.2 Group Two: ‘Addressing Inequalities in the Concentration and Extent of Deprivation

The second group of cities consisted of Bristol, Leeds, Newcastle Upon Tyne and Sheffield. Whilst these areas are ranked lower compared to the group one cities in terms of deprivation, and have lower overall concentrations of the most deprived areas, they are characterised by still having a substantial percentage of their SOAs ranked as the most deprived in the country. What separates this group from group one is that they also have a significant number of the least deprived areas nationally as well.

This would lead to an expectation that the LAA and its targets would attempt to focus on lifting the performance of the most deprived areas to reduce the ‘deprivation gap’, whilst also seeking to improve the prospects of individuals and groups which live in the less deprived areas of those cities.

3.5.3 What the groupings show

The next stage was to analyse which of the ‘deprivation indicators’ were selected by each of the cities to see how well the indicator take up matched the broad typologies and the extent to which they varied their approaches to deprivation. The ‘deprivation indicators’ that were selected by each area can be seen in table 3.2 below.

What emerges is that those in the first group (i.e. the cities involved in ‘collective game-raising’) have placed a significant amount of focus on a number of themes, notably the economy, crime, housing and health. For example, all of the group one areas have selected NI15 and NI16 which focus on serious violent and acquisitive crime respectively, indicating a high priority on reducing crime rates in these areas due to relationship with deprivation in the worst performing areas. Addressing Child Poverty (NI116), those 16-18 year olds not in Employment, Education and / or Training (NEETs – NI117), Mortality rates (NI120) and Improving the economic performance of the areas were also seen as high priorities, and with all five areas selecting NI151 focusing on overall employment rate. Housing (NI154 and NI 156 respectively) and education were (NI63) were also deemed to be important.

However, analysis of the indicator selection within the LAAs of the second group (i.e. cities with both reasonable proportions of both deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods) reveals some significant similarities with the first group (for example, the selection of NI16, NI117, NI152-155 – economic focused - and NI163). This starts to draw our attention to the lack of breadth / opportunities for local flexibility through areas having to select the same type of indicators/targets for improvement from the national set. However, there is a certain degree of variation evident, with the cities in the second group being much more likely to prioritise efforts to reduce assault (NI20) rather than serious violent crime (NI15) through their LAA, whilst at the same time being less likely to prioritise child

Table 3.2 - Indicator Take Up by Area National Indicator GROUP 1 GROUP 2 B ir m ing ha m Hac k ne y Li v erpo ol Ma nc he s ter Notti ng h am B ri s to l Leeds She ffi e ld Newc as tl e Upo n T y ne T ota l Nat ion al Upta k e (O ut of 1 52 L A A S ) 15 X X X X X X ₄₈ 16 X X X X X X X X X ₁₀₀ 20 X X X X X ₈₃ 28 ₁ 29 X X ₃ 30 X X X X X X ₈₅ 32 X X X ₇₉ 34 ₀ 47 X X X ₄₉ 48 ₃ 76 X ₁ 78 ₉ 84 ₀ 91 ₈ 106 X X ₉ 116 X X X X X ₄₅ 117 X X X X X X X X X ₁₁₈ 120 X X X X X X ₈₈ 121 X X X X ₅₁ 122 X ₆ 151 X X X X X ₃₄ 152 X X X X X X X ₇₆ 153 X X X X X X ₆₂ 154 X X X X X X X X ₁₀₇ 155 X X X X X X X ₁₀₂ 156 X X X ₃₇ 158 X X X X ₂₄ 161 ₁₈ 162 ₁₅ 163 X X X X X X X X X ₉₇ 173 ₆ 187 X X X ₄₁ 194 ₁

poverty (NI116), overall employment rates (NI151) and numbers in temporary accommodation (NI156).

The nature of deprivation in the second group of cities – both deprived and less deprived neighbourhoods are apparent - may actually be informing this pattern of selection but in overall terms there is a similar level of uptake of these deprivation-related indicators regardless of group. Moreover, if the analysis is broadened out to include the LAAs that have been agreed across the rest of England (n=152), we can note similar patterns of selection in terms of these deprivation-related indices, and with only NI161 (Level 1 literacy) and NI162 (Level 3 numeracy) being prioritised over and above those by the core cities (and Hackney) to any significant extent (18 and 15 instances respectively).

Hence despite one of the key elements of the LAA system being the opportunity for local areas to select targets relating to the issues which affect them (ODPM, 2005), the outcomes noted above indicate broadly similar choices being made, regardless of the levels or patterning of deprivation within urban areas. This, in turn, inevitably leads to questions about the ability of the national indicator dataset and LAAs to deliver locally responsive solutions, and to address concentrations of deprivation therein. Similarly, apart from NI153, which explicitly focuses on reducing numbers of individuals claiming out of work benefits in the worst performing neighbourhoods, there appears to be little opportunity for areas to select indices from the national set around reducing disparities in performance between the best and worst performing areas.

3.6 Is the LAA Subject to Gamesmanship?

Coulson (2009) has criticised the performance management style of the LAA, noting that a system of indicators and targets utilised by the LAA can lead to deviant behaviour known as ‘gaming.’ In essence this involves a manipulation of the system by those which have responsibility to deliver on any particular indicator in order to make it appear that the indicator is performing better than it

is in reality. This can manifest itself in a variety of forms. The first is focusing on short term ‘easy wins’ instead of long term issues that require strategic effort and may not yield early results. The second revolves around the distortion of target definitions in order to devote resources to something that is achievable at the expense of more substantive efforts. The final method would be presenting data in a misleading form or omitting data that would indicate failure or incur penalties. In particular, the concept of ‘easy wins’ at the expense of long term gains is one that should be explored at a case study level, when discussing how the LAA in each area was formed. Whether an LAA was used in good faith to address the long term challenges facing an area, as opposed to focusing on short term gains is a pertinent question. This could include the selection of indicators that an area knew they would meet yet might not be a policy priority, as opposed to an indicator which would stretch an area. However, even when an indicator was selected that may challenge policy delivery, gaming still applies to the target setting aspect as well. Would the area be more likely to accept a target that stretches their resources, but delivers long term benefits, or would they be more likely to push for a target that they knew was deliverable, thus avoiding any risk to reputation.

The extent to which gaming occurred was also reliant on other actors, particularly the Government Office for the Regions (GOR), which held responsibility for signing off each LAA. The extent to which they allowed local areas a free hand to set their own indicators and targets was to be central to this. Furthermore, the role of some of the actors at the local level will come under scrutiny, particularly those with a significant number of internal targets and accountability structures such as health and police. Again, the nature of these issues will be discussed in significant detail further into this chapter.