DMU Policy Exchanges

Localism and Equality

Equality and Diversity, Localism, Uncategorized No Responses »

Oct 192011

An important element in the Coalition Government’s platform, the Localism Agenda is based on four main strands:

1. New freedoms and flexibility for local government;

2. New rights and powers for local communities;

3. Reform to make the planning system clearer, more democratic and more effective; and

4. Reform to ensure that decisions about housing are taken locally.

The Department for Communities and Local Government asserts that the Bill has ‘the potential to effect a significant change in national life, passing power to a local level, creating space for local authorities to lead and innovate, and giving people the opportunity to take control of decisions that matter to them’.

In general, it is difficult to argue with the goals of the Bill (although, the specifics of how they will be achieved have been challenged by several sources). However, local authorities must ensure that delivering the Localism Agenda does not have a detrimental impact upon meeting the needs of all residents. Whilst communities of place and communities of interest may sometimes coincide (ethnic/religious conclaves), local communities are diverse and often people may find that the community they feel more connected to is a geographically dispersed community of interest, e.g. LGBT community. Hence a narrow focus on meeting the needs of a local majority must not ignore the needs of a disadvantaged minority.

It is easy to recall examples of tension between the interests of local communities and those of minority groups. The proposal to construct a large mosque in east London was met by opposition from residents in Newham Council. Similarly, Basildon Council has been involved in an ongoing controversial legal battle to evict the gypsy and traveller residents of Dale Farm.

While there is no quick and easy solution to these disputes, local authorities must remain mindful of their responsibility to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and promote good relations between different groups of people. A myopic view of localism can easily give way to an “us against them” mentality. Local authorities must carefully balance the needs of local communities while guarding against NIMBYism.

Equality simply must not be sacrificed for localism.

Heather Cover, Equality and Diversity Management Analyst, West Lindsey District Council and Centre for Local Policy Studies, Edge Hill University

Why focusing on equalities still matters

Equality and Diversity, Spending cuts No Responses »

Oct 192011

Recent developments in the public sector make it easy for the average bystander to conclude that equality and diversity is losing its importance for local authorities. Following ten years of rather prescriptive regulation, the last two years have seen statutory obligations around equality & diversity rapidly falling away. In came budget cuts and out went officers with responsibilities for equalities. In many cases the work is not fully picked up by remaining staff. More recently, equality monitoring surveys have come under attack as being costly, ‘unnecessary, and intrusive’. Furthermore, demand for assessments to be completed under the Equality Framework has dropped drastically.

Despite all of these difficulties, there remains a strong argument that equality and diversity is still relevant to local authorities’ work for legal, practical, and moral reasons.

Legal

The Equality Act 2010 imposes a single equality duty upon the public sector, under which local authorities have certain responsibilities. While there are less rigid structures in place to govern how the councils will meet their duties, they are still obliged to demonstrate their compliance with the Equality Act. Indeed, if a council were challenged under a judicial review, it would have to satisfy a court that it has met its legal requirements.

Practical

Every local authority in the country aims to provide public services which meet its residents’ needs. Taking full account of equality and diversity issues into consideration is part of understanding that different residents have different types of needs. Using this information allows councils to effectively target their resources and services. Focusing on equalities is still relevant to councils because it helps them to deliver better services to local residents.

Moral

Equalities should still matter to local authorities because Britain remains a deeply unequal society. Women are still paid less than men in similar positions. Homophobic bullying remains a real problem and this summer’s riots suggest that racial divides remain. Local authorities need to ensure that their policies and services tackle rather than further entrench equality and discrimination. The social and economic importance of this is demonstrated by analysis such as that published in the ‘Spirit Level’ , which illustrates that more unequal societies do worse on almost every quality of life indicator.

Heather Cover, Equality and Diversity Management Analyst, West Lindsey District Council and Centre for Local Policy Studies, Edge Hill University

Proof of delivery?

Co-ops and mutuals, Public Service Reform, Spending cuts No Responses »

Aug 192011

Ministers are keen to promote mutuals as the way forward for the public sector, but there is little evidence to suggest that these will help to improve the quality and efficiency of services

Many extravagant claims have been made about the potential benefits that co-operatives and mutuals could bring as service delivery vehicles for the provision of local public services. However, when the evidence is examined in detail do these claims stand the test of scrutiny?

The latest research publication from the Association for Public Service Excellence, Proof of delivery, finds very little evidence base to support any of the claims made about the superiority of co-operatives and mutuals over any other form of service delivery in public services. From 1,600 sources our researchers were only able to find 12 case studies where any impact evaluation had been carried out.

For a concept that is being pushed so hard as a response to the cuts agenda this is asking decision makers to take a huge leap of faith.

From the limited evidence base that exists there are some key factors for successful operation of mutuals and co-operatives within the public sector. These include:

Contract lock in – an initial sufficiently long contract in terms of volume of work and financial commitment to allow bedding in of new arrangements and also ensuring the avoidance of future divestment of services that would change the character of the original body.
Collaboration – the need for on-going support through public subsidy, advocacy and expert advice in order to support the fledgling organisation.
Buy in – there needs to be buy in from all stakeholders, staff, elected members, citizens and service users.

Apse has argued for a number of years that without on-going support, collaboration and facilitation from the public sector the social economy will struggle to survive. This research reinforces this message.

A further point to emerge from the research is that there appears to be downward pressure on staff terms and conditions brought about by the formation of co-operatives and mutuals. At a time when statutory protection of terms and conditions are being removed from public sector workers by the government this is highly unlikely to generate great enthusiasm for a transfer to this model of provision among the key asset of any organisation, the staff.

A final and fundamental point is the fact that very little evidence exists of accountability to elected members and/or the wider community. In a time of diminishing budgets and intensified scrutiny of public spending, are local politicians really going to handover public funds to bodies with a self interest without any influence or recourse should things start to go wrong?

We need a proper evidence-based debate on the role that co-operatives and mutuals can play in public service delivery. Where they can demonstrably add real value, they should be supported. Anything less would do local communities a great disservice.

Paul O’Brien is chief executive of the Association for Public Service Excellence. The Proof of delivery research was undertaken through Apse’s knowledge transfer partnership with De Montfort University by Adele Reynolds. It is available for sale here.

Performing governance

Uncategorized No Responses »

Aug 042011

I have spent recent years researching various aspects of collaboration in public and social policy and have been struck by a number of observations which seem puzzling. Partnership, collaboration, integration (or whatever we currently call it) seems to continue to be a central aspect of policy reform across a range of different areas (health and social care, education, regeneration, child protection, criminal justice…) regardless of the fact that we have little evidence that these ways of working improve outcomes for service users. Collaboration has long been seen as a kind of public good that is beyond criticism and individuals, institutions and organisations still continue to engage in collaborative activities despite often being bruised from previous attempts. What is it then that is so compelling about collaboration?

In an attempt to get to the bottom of this mystery I started to think about the nature of performance. Collaboration is often predicated on the notion that it should improve performance; yet what isn’t always clear is what types of performance it should improve. Generally it is supposed that collaboration will make things quicker, safer, more innovative and a number of other rather abstracted and optimistic aims but with little specificity of what or how or why. Yet we also accept that collaboration changes working practices, organisational structures, roles, patterns of communication, rules of engagement etc, meaning that it has a wide range of impacts beyond these broad types of aims across a number of different domains.

Therefore in thinking about the performance of partnerships we need to go beyond traditional measures of organisational performance such as efficiency and effectiveness and also delve into issues of identity, legitimacy and prevailing norms and rules. The sorts of measures which have traditionally been used to evaluate the performance(s) of partnership seemed to be incapable of capturing the complexity and the dynamism of a number of the collaborative initiatives that I had researched. Nor did any of them manage to explain the enduring appeal of collaboration in its broadest sense.

At this point I came across the work of an English professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) called Jon McKenzie. Jon has broad research interests encompassing performance theory, new media, and civil disobedience. He also heads a major initiative in digital humanities involving media studies, studio-based practices, digital learning, and quantitative humanities research. In 2001 Jon wrote a book called Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance and this really resonated with me in thinking about performance and partnerships.

Jon argues that in addition to more traditional measures of performance, cultural performance (efficacy) has emerged as an important force within contemporary society. Cultural performance incorporates a whole field of human activity; in all cases a performance act, interactional in nature and involving symbolic forms and live bodies, provides a way to constitute meaning and affirm individual and cultural values. McKenzie argues that a focus on cultural performance allows us to go beyond rationalist models of policy analysis, to consider policies as more than instruments for bringing about particular ends, but rather to explore their social and cultural impacts. This is particularly important when applied to the field of public policy where policies are made in relation to some sort of notion of the “public good”.

With this in mind, Helen Sullivan and myself decided to put together a seminar and invite Jon McKenzie to address the assorted collection of academics who had gathered together at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham. We invited Jon to set out his thesis about cultural performance and then followed up Jon’s paper with our own attempt to apply these notions to collaboration in health and social care. McKenzie defines performance as the ‘embodied enactment of cultural forces’. As such it offers a new way of examining the enactment of policy and identifying the “additional value” of particular policy terms. This can tell us much about why policies do – or do not – work and how these might be developed more effectively so that they influence practice. Not only does this provide value in terms of a new theoretical perspective on policy analysis but there are also practical implications which may be transferred across a range of different policy domains.

This certainly seemed to be borne out by the experience of the participants who provided a number of fascinating contributions and insights during the course of the day. Some of the conversations focused on the operationalisation of the notion of performance. So, for example, if we understand performance in a wider sense then is everything a performance? Is there anything outside of performance? Should we only look at what is being performed or should we look at what isn’t being performed? The issue of emotion and the affective realm was also a core component of conversations and the how emotions interplay with performance in policy enactment was of interest to a number of contributors. Although most present agreed that a different type of performance that goes beyond the traditional efficiency and effectiveness was a helpful analysis there was less agreement over whether this “additionality” was efficacy as outlined in McKenzie’s work. Many of the discussions centred around how we might define what these other types of performance are, whether this is one type of performance and whether it is appropriate to intervene in these types of performance.

Although we didn’t find any definitive answers to the puzzles set out above we did seem to get closer to the issues during the day and this type of theoretical framework seemed to have resonance with others. So much so that we hope to organise another event building on the success of this first meeting, a second seminar will be held at DMU in early 2012, if you are interested in the seminar please get in touch with me (h.e.dickinson@bham.ac.uk) or Catherine Durose (cdurose@dmu.ac.uk).

Helen Dickinson, Lecturer at the Health Services Management Centre at the University of Birmingham.

Opening up Public Services: power to the people or power to the market?

Citizen Engagement, Public Service Reform, Spending cuts No Responses »

Jul 182011

High quality public services are an essential part of everyday life. Being able to access those services is one of the most basic requirements that we as citizens demand from the government. Not my words; but those of David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the first paragraph of this week’s long awaited and much trailed Open Public Services White Paper. The coalition government make much of their urgent moral purpose, which aims to extend equality of opportunity to all. But does the White Paper contain the broad strategic direction and specific policy solutions that will allow them to deliver on these laudable objectives?

Why does it matter?

Predictably there is very little in the White Paper that represents anything new with most initiatives having already been announced. It does however represent a clear statement of intent about the future of public services. The broad direction of travel set out in the White Paper is one of ideology over evidence with the marketisation of public services driven by choice and competition.

There can be no clearer message that the White Paper seeks to open up public services to the market than the statement made by David Cameron;

‘This White Paper says loud and clear that it shouldn’t matter if providers are from the state, private or voluntary sector’

Those of us in local government know that despite the media narrative, a state monopoly in the provision of public services has never really existed. In fact a recent guardian article makes the point that at least 40% of local authority spending goes on private and voluntary sector contracts. But in the end although local authorities can divest themselves of public service delivery, they cannot divest themselves of the responsibility for those same services.

Much of the commentary and analysis thus far has focused on the potential for further marketisation, yet the White Paper does set out five key principles for reforming public services:

Choice

People will be given direct control over the services they use, increasing choice through methods such as direct payments and personal budgets. This is premised on the notion that choice will drive competition, which will in turn improve standards. But choice for who?

Indeed, a recent blog from NEF makes the critical point that;

‘People who are better educated, better off and better connected have louder voices and are better placed to navigate information and make choices that bring them real benefits’

Decentralisation

Power should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level because the closer decision making is to the people affected, the better. Again, no one across the public sector is going to argue that empowering local communities isn’t a good thing. Indeed, some of us have been arguing for a greater focus on empowering local communities for a long time. But is it not the case that major public spending cuts impacting severely upon local services means that decentralisation isn’t just about devolving power, it’s also about devolving responsibility for cuts to services?

Diversity

This is without a doubt the most controversial element of the White Paper. The government are clear that services should be open to a range of competing providers and there is no presumption that only one sector should run services. It has been much commented upon that the government announced its plans to introduce further competition and marketisation into public services on the day that Southern Cross announced it was shutting down. There can be no clearer example of the impact that market failure can have on the provision of frontline public services.

So, how can opening up more public services to more market competition possibly address this problem of endemic market failure?

Fairness and accountability

The state will have a new role to ensure fair access to public services that are responsive to the people they serve and held to account by citizens and elected members. However, there is a clear gap between rhetoric and reality with no sign of these warm words around ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ being matched by the required policy substance. The White Paper talks about improving accountability through mechanisms such as ‘choice’ and ‘voice’; but it is difficult to see how this can be squared with the need to reduce inequalities.

Good public sector organisations are always innovating and changing to improve services. But of course public services need to adapt and respond to changing circumstances. It’s about time we had a real debate about reforming public services;

A debate that doesn’t disguise reform as a cover for public sector spending cuts and marketisation
A debate that seeks to draw upon the expertise, knowledge and passion of public sector staff rather than constantly attacking their pay, pensions and job security
A debate that recognises that local government is key to the size and vibrancy of the voluntary sector and understands the need for collaboration rather than competition

Written by Adele Reynolds

The future for citizen-run services

Big Society, Citizen Engagement, Community Action No Responses »

Jun 202011

Researchers and practitioners met at the University of Birmingham on 9-10 June 2011 for the first seminar of series funded by the Economic and Social Research Council on ‘third party government’. A slightly ambiguous term which nonetheless draws the attention to an often neglected but major plank of public policy over the last two to three decades, the location of public policy making at arm’s length from the institutions of representative democracy. A discussion of ‘third party government’ opens up questions democracy, delegation of authority, transparency, and autonomy in the contemporary state. ‘Third party government’ is also a focus which allows discussion across public, private, voluntary and community spaces where public policy is being shaped and delivered. Core themes of discussion included:

Who are the actors and stakeholders who ‘fill’ these ‘spaces’ of third party government?
How do these different actors interact and co-ordinate?
How can third party government be considered in a comparative perspective particularly between the US and UK?

Discussions included a number of highly policy relevant topics from the commissioning of public services to the role of the third sector in delivering public services to the potential for citizen-run services.

Citizen run services have been central to the current Coalition government’s policy agenda of the ‘Big Society’. ‘Big Society’ builds upon but also challenges the role for citizens outlined by the previous New Labour government. The challenge comes in the shift from citizens ‘influencing’ or shaping decisions which affect their everyday lives and the public services they receive to actively ‘doing’ and becoming involved in the delivery and even running public services. The ‘Big Society’ has been relentlessly (arguably deservedly) critiqued since its emergence in the run up to the 2010 General Election and is now somewhat of a beleaguered brand (it was recently re-launched for the fourth time), but what does it mean for the future of public services?

There are some initial concerns that the ‘Big Society’ raises for looking at citizen-run services. ‘Big Society’ has been pitched as a response or correction for the ‘big State’ associated with the previous government. However, delivering on the ‘Big Society’ cannot mean the ‘small State’ espoused by many. Extensive and varied evidence shows that the community action demanded by the ‘Big Society’ is importantly catalysed by state intervention and sustained through state support, advocacy and brokerage. This ongoing role for the state is particularly important in disadvantaged areas to ensure that the Big Society is not something which only includes those with the existing skills and opportunity to get involved.

This is an argument that citizen-run services should not be about citizens delivering services on their own, but in collaboration. But it is not about apologising for the current role of the state. Demands for citizen engagement have long been swimming against the tide of a managerial revolution in public services. Indeed, opportunities for citizens to get involved have often been structured to allow the ticking of a box rather than reflecting what citizens are interested in and informed about. There are often mismatches between citizens’ needs and priorities and what they are assumed to be. Public bodies can often be narrow and inflexible. Innumerable policies have been developed with the aim of engaging citizens, but rather than looking at citizens in the round, such policies have often caricatured citizens, focusing only on ‘real’ or ‘ordinary’ people. Such measures have also often been set in a context of contradictory measures which have pathologised or ignored some citizens whilst seeking to ‘activate’ or ‘empower’ others.

So, where do we go from here? Well let’s not under-estimate or assume that the state, notably in its local form doesn’t have the capacity to respond to the challenge of the ‘Big Society’. Many public sector staff, notably those who engage regularly with citizens in their communities, have the expert ‘local knowledge’ to inspire and catalyse action in those communities. In order to deliver the ‘Big Society’ we should be encouraging these skilled public sector staff to collaborate with citizens, communities and organisations of the third sector to shape and deliver services that best meet the needs of communities. But, these individuals who ‘work’ the spaces of third party government are the same people being targeted by current cuts to public spending. The Government should be cautious that it is not losing the very people who can deliver on their policy ambitions.

Local Government beyond the fragments

Big Society, Commissioning, Localism, Spending cuts No Responses »

Jun 172011

Recently this blog hosted an article urging local government to set out a positive and compelling vision that will guide the sector through an ever changing environment. There can be no doubt that local government is facing an unprecedented set of challenges, having to respond to increased levels of need whilst at the same time working within vastly reduced budgets. Yet current developments in public policy seem to actually remove the ability of local government to respond effectively to these challenges. Indeed the moves towards radical public service reform wrapped up within the discourse of ‘Building the Big Society’ seem to sit most comfortably within the conception of a residual local authority acting primarily as commissioners rather than deliverers of local public services.

This approach risks the continued hollowing out of local capacity from local government with complex strategic issues reduced to a disparate set of contracts. It is always interesting to hear about local authorities like Enfield who reject this fate and are instead determined to redefine their role, establishing clear plans for service delivery. Last week Enfield Council hosted a conference which sought to consider what the role of the co-ordinating council should be in a landscape where services are becoming increasingly fragmented. In an article prior to the conference Enfield’s Council leader Doug Taylor makes the highly salient point that common services such as street cleansing can only be provided within a single area wide framework. Just imagine different waste vans competing to collect rubbish from the same street? He opened the conference by emphasising the importance of a strategic co-ordinating role for local government and this was very much the theme for the rest of the day.

Setting out the current opposition thinking

Caroline Flint (Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) pitched her address well by emphasising that the breadth of services that local government provides as well as its unique democratic mandate means it is well placed to be a place shaper as well as a service provider. The Shadow Minister then went on to outline the three pressing challenges that the sector needs to address;

Restoring the public finances in a way that is fair and supports jobs and growth
Improving public services, making them fairer and more efficient
Reversing the trend of disengagement from the political process and civil society

When seeking to predict future opposition thinking around the future of local government, it is important to understand that market based orthodoxies have very much become the prevailing public policy norm regardless of which party is in power. The real test of opposition thinking is likely to come when the Shadow Local Government team set out with clarity how they will ensure that the capacity, knowledge and expertise to intervene in local communities is both retained and enhanced.

Should the role of the local authority be as a co-ordinator of services and provider of last resort?

It is clear that if the result of government policy is to increasingly fragment service provision, then local government will have to carve out a vastly different role for itself. There are however radically different and competing views on what the future role for local authorities should be. Too often this debate has been driven by a comfortable acceptance of orthodoxies such as markets, competition and choice rather than seeking a strong values framework within which to make decisions and drawing upon evidence of what has actually been shown to work. The conference clearly set out two quite distinct visions for the future, which could be summarised as collaboration vs competition.

The standout speech of the day was definitely the one given by the Chief Executive of Family Action who put across a compelling case for greater collaboration between the public and voluntary sectors, pressing home the point that local government is key to the size, vibrancy and quality of the voluntary sector. There have been many commitments from Government ministers to put the voluntary sector at the heart of public service reform, opening up new opportunities for them to deliver public services as part of the Big Society. Yet what came through very strongly was that yes there does need to be much more of a level playing field between sectors; but between the private sector and the voluntary sector, where there are often vast disparities in the length of contracts that are awarded to deliver public services. This would seem to be contradicted by recent soundings from Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, implying that the Government will not scale back plans to use for profit providers in public services in an attempt to boost charities and social enterprises.

Really vital issues were raised about what the co-ordinating council means for democracy. Who will be accountable as service delivery gets more fragmented? Service deliverers or commissioners?

In light of some of these issues that were raised around democracy and accountability, it was great to hear the speaker make the positive case for local government and urge the sector to reclaim some of its ground as a deliverer of services. Equally, the narrative that is often propagated amongst certain elements of the media that the public sector is inefficient and creativity can only come out of the private sector must be challenged.

An altogether different vision for the future of local government was articulated by other members of the panel who sought to emphasise the importance of choice and competition in public service delivery. Clearly there is a belief amongst certain stakeholders that more competition will generate the entrepreneurial spirit that is necessary to redesign services. This narrative should be challenged because real innovation must come from those closest to the frontline rather than a top down, one size fits all approach to redesigning services that has been proven not to work.

What role for the co-ordinating council?

No local government event would be complete without Tony Travers, Director of the Greater London Group at LSE who closed the event by giving his views on what the future landscape in local government might look like. Emphasising that whilst fragmentation of service provision is likely; all the basic units of the state will still be in place. The overall message from the conference as a whole was that there is a real necessity for an institution with the specific accountability that is derived from the ballot box and which has the capacity to shape an area.

The conference itself outlined a really interesting vision for the future of local government styled around the idea of the ‘co-ordinating council’. Only the local authority can join up services and shape the local area, only the local authority can advocate across the whole of the local area with one single voice and only the local authority can distribute services and spending fairly. This isn’t an arrogant out of touch vision that says that the local authority is irreplaceable; but one that draws upon a deep sense of responsibility and straightforward accountability to local people and local communities.

This represents a clear and compelling vision for the future of local government. Yet some of the potential problems with the co-ordinating council became much more apparent after listening to Tony Travers’ closing address. There are unresolved contradictions between increased fragmentation of service provision and the logic of place shaping and local democracy. The conference was very much focused around how to respond to a more fragmented service landscape yet, it seems to me that the challenges that local government faces are so big that there needs to be much more focus on avoiding this service fragmentation in the first place. In light of this, I came away with two key questions that must be answered about the co-ordinating council before it can be considered to be a workable alternative model to what the Government are driving forward;

Is there a need to retain a strong core of directly delivered services in order to ensure that the capacity to shape the wider local place is retained?

What are the implications for democracy and local accountability if service provision becomes increasingly fragmented?

Written by Adele Reynolds

Housing: Bricks or Bubbles?

Big Society, Co-ops and mutuals, Community Action, Uncategorized No Responses »

Jun 102011

No longer seen as ‘safe as houses’, there has been a recognition following the financial crisis, that the housing market is inextricably linked to the health of the wider economy. When the bubble bursts for housing, the effects are felt widely. A recent report: Forever Blowing Bubbles, by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) makes the link between the fate of the housing market and the fate of the economy very clear. It suggests a number of solutions:

Increase the supply of housing – ‘clearly necessary…, but alone it is insufficient and slow to take effect’
Explicit consideration of house prices in monetary policy
and fiscal policy too – ‘but arguably tangential,… and politically highly fraught’
Regulation of credit – is suggested by IPPR as the key area of focus (and they state this also what IMF and OECD want to focus on).

IPPR does also suggest ‘improving the strength of substitutes to owner occupation’ through, for example, reform of the private rented sector, improve market pricing, and to prevent ‘moral hazard’ (e.g. the assumption that house prices can only go up).

But is there another way? The IPPR suggestions are still framed in the discourse of ‘market knows best’ and that we should tweak the regulation of markets to mitigate the effects of housing bubbles and the after-effects of them bursting. This persistent orthodoxy of the markets (in addition to suggesting a collective amnesia of the banking crisis that preceded the recession) prevents more radical solutions being mooted.

In her blog, below, Adele Reynolds, also seems frustrated at the pervasiveness of the orthodoxy that the principles of private sector markets still rule the discourse of local government. Adele’s analysis of KPMG’s concept of what a ‘Brilliant Council’ should look like demonstrate the need for us to boldly offer alternative ideas.

An idea that is worth examining in more detail in the provision of housing and the avoidance of overblown bubbles, is the idea of de-coupling the vagaries of the market and the provision of affordable homes. One example of this is the Community Land Trust (CLT) model in the United States of America. At a recent National Housing Federation conference the example of providing homes through CLTs was provided by Dev Goetschius and John Emmeus Davis who urged us to “take a stand on the land”.

In the USA, and very important to the success of the CLT approach, the value of the property is not linked to value of land, it is independent of the market. It is linked instead to average income and earnings in the area. In a number of schemes the leasehold of the home is available to the occupier, but the freehold of the land is retained by the Trust – the land itself always remains debt free and detached from market prices. There are varying models in U.S – but the key is that the resale value of homes is independent of land value.

There are some excellent examples of CLTs closer to home, at High Bickington in Devon affordable homes are being provided’ and at Lyvennet in Cumbria the model is being expanded to include a village pub and other community resources. In the U.K these CLT models share many of the values of their U.S counterparts, but the value of land and property is still wedded to the market. Successful CLTs in this country are dependent on generous landowners gifting land, charitable organisations providing start-up capital funding, or public sector agencies providing land and support for projects.

CLTs are an exciting part of the solution to provide affordable homes following a recession. There are some excellent home-grown examples. However, perhaps it is time to think more radically about how we value land and property – there may be some scope for the model from the U.S.A where the value of the home is linked to average incomes, rather than over-inflated market prices which have a tendency to balloon and then burst.

Written by Jo Richardson. Editor and contributing author of the policy press book (2010): From Recession to Renewal.

Setting out a future vision for local government: local authorities at the heart of every local community

Commissioning, Localism, Spending cuts 2 Responses »

Jun 022011

Local Government faces an unprecedented series of challenges and will have to respond to an increased level of need whilst at the same time working within vastly reduced budgets. It has never been more vital that the sector sets out a positive and compelling vision for what local government will look like as we move forward into an unknown future. It was therefore interesting to read the joint effort by KPMG and CPSP setting out what the ‘brilliant local authority of the future’ will look like. Yet by the end of the document, a feeling of pessimism set in about the narrowness of the vision that they set out and the way in which it reinforced rather than sought to challenge prevailing public policy orthodoxies.

The paper consistently espouses the need to ‘explicitly manage the council as a business’ and operate with a ‘board of shareholders mentality’. Yet surely key local government services from leisure centres to street cleaning benefit the whole of society, not just individual service users. Stated very simply, the problem with managing a local authority as if it is a business is the fact that it isn’t actually a business! Whilst the private sector can rigidly focus on delivering shareholder value, local authorities have a wider strategic role in ensuring the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of their local communities. Without reading too much further than the Executive Summary, it became clear that the ‘Brilliant Local Authority’ would be hampered by its lack of core capacity to deliver on some of these broader policy objectives.

Does it matter who delivers services?

The idea that local authorities can be agnostic about which part of the economy delivers service provision or that councils should simply be strategic commissioners is a very worrying one. Although local councils have never been the sole provider of public services, there is a clear need to retain a strong core of directly delivered services in order to ensure that the capacity to intervene in local communities is retained. Without this capacity, dealing with complex strategic issues from climate change to flood management will become reduced to a disparate set of contracts.

The notion that local authorities should enthusiastically cede control to others is also a problematic one. Of course, empowering local communities is important; but decentralisation must not become an end in itself. And is not the case that markets can be every bit as disempowering as large bureaucracies? Maybe the answer lies in a commitment to supporting and working with local communities to add value to the way in which services are delivered rather than divesting responsibility onto others.

What are the implications for local democracy and accountability?

Local Government is based on the notion of an effective local democracy and the paper specifically states that, ‘local government is by definition political’. Yet by depoliticising service delivery and conflating commissioning with the procurement process, politics is actually removed from local government. Not least in the way in which local democracy is damaged by reducing the role of elected members to handing out contracts. It could also be argued that the role of politicians in shaping the wider local place can only ever be an aspiration, if local authorities go down the road of systematically removing the strategic levers and mechanisms of service delivery.

It is welcome that the paper raises vital issues such as place shaping, public value and the political nature of local government. Yet as this article argues, the policy framework set out within the paper will remove all the capacity from local authorities to actually act on these issues. There is therefore an urgent need to set out an alternative non prescriptive vision emphasising key principles such as public value, local democracy and collective citizenship. It would be useful for stakeholders across the sector to look at and contribute to the concept of the Ensuring Council, which seeks to deliver services in accordance with a set of values and democratic practises, responding to changing circumstances in a way that is value rich rather than value less.

Local Government is now clearly at a tipping point where it must set out its vision for the next 10, 20 or even 30 years. However, this should be based on a vastly different vision to the one set out in the ‘brilliant local authority of the future’ report. Local authorities have a duty be at the heart of every local community, delivering those visible frontline services that the public rely on. This is of course very different to reducing citizens to shareholders and treating public services like private businesses.

Impact of Planning Circular 1/06 on Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision

Uncategorized No Responses »

May 072011

Over the past five years I have undertaken research on the impact of planning guidance Circular 1/06 on site provision for Gypsies and Travellers. This blog summary outlines the key findings and recommendations in a fuller research report, which examined the impact of Planning Circular 1/06 on the delivery of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. It is part of ongoing analysis of planning appeal data gathered over three tranches of research activity. Initial findings and thoughts are published early in this report as part of a quick response to the draft National Planning Policy Statement – Consultation on planning for traveller sites – which was published by Secretary of State Eric Pickles on 13^th April 2011.

The research involved examination of 100% planning appeal cases during three tranches and four distinct research periods:

	Time frame	Number of cases
Period 1	1^st November 2005 – 31^st January 2006 (Tranche One – pre Circular 1/06)	75
Period 2	1^st February – 30^th April 2006 (Tranche One – post Circular 1/06)	54
Period 3	1^st February 2007 – 20^th January 2009 (Tranche Two – ‘embedded Circular’)	231
Period 4	27^th May – 31^st December 2010 (Tranche Three – post revocation announcement)	45
		405

Findings

Although a wide range of factors was considered across all cases, which were decided upon by a number of different Planning Inspectors, three key areas seemed to be discussed most:

Unmet evidenced need and lack of alternative sites
Weighing up impact on the Green Belt
Health, education and other personal circumstances

The Planning Circular 1/06 research found that the number of permissions given at appeal increased substantially (from 40% prior to implementation of Circular 1/06 to 70% during the ‘entrenched period’ of implementation of the Circular).

The majority of permissions given during this ‘entrenched period’ were temporary permissions. Inspectors’ discussion on reasons for decisions showed that weight was given to evidenced need for more sites and lack of alternative accommodation. Appeals were being allowed on a temporary basis to stop the gap.

Since the Secretary of State’s announcements to revoke Regional Strategies and Planning Circular/ 1/06 there has been an impact on number of temporary permissions allowed at appeal. Inspectors’ decision reports show that the revocation announcements were considered and in some cases, weight was given to this.

Whilst there is clear evidence that Circular 1/06 did have a positive impact on the number of permissions (albeit temporary) given for Gypsy and Traveller sites, this should not be seen as a system skewed to advantage Gypsies and Travellers. Instead the Circular levelled the playing field for this traditionally disadvantaged group.

Key Recommendations

Equality Impact Assessments should be undertaken on the cumulative effect of the combined loss of Regional Strategy targets for pitch requirements, together with the withdrawal of Circular 1/06 and the reduction in available government grant funding for site development.
Government should consider retaining the word ‘normally’ in the guidance on consideration of site applications in Green Belts. This would allow decisions to be made on a case by case basis and where it is the most appropriate and least contentious location for a site: Green Belt could be considered as an option.
The Government should not remove the obligation for councils to undertake GTAAs specifically from the Planning Guidance, as this may mean councils do not update and use this source of evidence but instead rely on other sources – such as count data – which are not so robust.
Government should retain the imperative for Planning Inspectors to give ‘substantial weight’ to unmet evidenced need and lack of alternative accommodation, in Planning Guidance.
Whilst cuts to Government grant for sites fall within a wider context of cuts, the Government should be mindful that there is a business case for funding sites to negate spend on dealing with unauthorised encampments and developments. There is a social case for facilitating sites to enable Gypsies and Travellers to access healthcare and education.
Alternative approaches to site provision, where appropriate, should be supported and facilitated by the Government through matching development funds from charitable organisations, for recyclable grants for schemes such as Community Land Trusts. Currently applications for funding are made through the Traveller Pitch Funding Stream of the HCA National Affordable Housing Programme; it may be appropriate to make additional funding available for this innovation.
Care should be taken in political debate on Gypsy and Traveller issues to avoid stoking contentious and discriminatory rhetoric in the popular press and in community debates on site provision.

Written by Jo Richardson

Older Entries