United nation?
The coalition government has outlined its vision of a society run at the local level, with councils, businesses and ordinary citizens working together to create more effective public services. Here, we look at some of the ways in which the Big Society is becoming a reality.
1. An end to micro-management
Greg Clark MP explains how the coalition government is enabling communities to exercise more control over resources and make more effective decisions
Some time ago, I edited a book called Total Politics. It was an argument against the centralism of the past decade, showing how Whitehall micro-management was undermining frontline professionals, disempowering citizens and frittering away taxpayers’ money on inspection, target-chasing and bureaucracy.
I argued, instead, for genuine power to reside at a local level, and for local authorities and frontline professionals to have wide discretion in shaping public services. I wanted to see an end to the division of Britain into a minority of people who ‘do’ government and a majority who have it ‘done to’ them. Everyone should have the opportunity to exercise influence. This is the essence of the Big Society.
The sentiment may sound familiar. In recent British history, many politicians have campaigned as localists, only to govern as centralists. Today, however, the conditions are right for meaningful, lasting change.
First, localism isn’t peripheral to this government. It goes to the heart of what we aim to achieve; it is a golden thread running through the coalition agreement.
Second, my brief as decentralisation minister is to report to the prime minister on progress across the whole of government. When I talk to cabinet colleagues, I am working with the grain. Philip Hammond MP, for instance, has indicated that he is keen to explore how transport funding can be devolved further than ever before.
Third, with tight resources, many local authorities are already considering radical reforms, which include sharing chief executives, pooling powers and redesigning services from scratch. This moment of change is an opportunity to embed local responsiveness in the way public bodies operate.
So how do we make the most of it? The irony of being a minister for decentralisation, based in Whitehall, is not lost on me. Yet the fact is that action by central government is essential if we are to put localism into practice. That action comes in several forms.
In some cases, the best thing central government can do is to get out of the way. Since May, we have begun to sweep away the apparatus of the command state. Regional spatial strategies and regional development agencies, for example, were Whitehall creations whose arbitrary borders did not reflect the ways different areas thought about themselves and worked with one another.
We are creating the conditions for greater local control over resources. In the Spending Review, as a counterpart to tight budgets, we have given local authorities greater discretion about how to spend money. We have also indicated that we will enable authorities to keep money from rents and borrow against future business rates, giving further scope for local control.
Changes in the way we think about power demand changes in the way we think about accountability. In the past, local area agreements required authorities to spend time reporting to Whitehall on dozens of measures and targets. Some were so complex that they could only be understood with copious guidance. Instead, local authorities should be free to spend more time listening and responding to their local constituents.
This shift should be underpinned by a shift in transparency. The Department for Communities and Local Government has begun publishing details of every item of spending above £500. Many local authorities have already followed suit, and we expect others to do so next year. With proper information, taxpayers will be able to hold public bodies to account.
Better information will also enable charities, voluntary organisations and community groups to decide whether to compete to run public services. In the private sector, there is a tradition of law designed to prevent monopolies, because it is generally accepted that competition drives innovation and delivers better results for the people who use goods and services. In many parts of public service provision, by contrast, monopolies persist, curbing the scope for new ideas. When local groups have viable alternative proposals to run services, we want to ensure that they get a proper hearing. Over the next two years, a transition fund worth £100m will help voluntary and community organisations build up their capacity to bid to run services. In the longer term, a Big Society bank will provide new finance for neighbourhood groups, charities and social enterprises. The aim will be to take money lying dormant in forgotten accounts and put it to work for the good of society, helping new civic organisations to take root.
Empowering local people
Finally, if the Big Society is to become a reality, central government will need to do less directing and more listening. We have set up four Big Society vanguard areas – in Sutton, Windsor and Maidenhead, Eden Valley in Cumbria, and Liverpool – in which we are encouraging local authorities and community groups to be ambitious about putting power in the hands of local people. Our goal is to bust the barriers that stand in their way.
In some cases, those barriers are about perceptions and attitudes. When people are used to being told what they cannot do, they begin to doubt what they can do. There are other challenges, too, such as how to establish local renewable energy, share budgets across boundaries and make planning more locally responsive. Where new laws are essential to empower citizens or local authorities, central government is prepared to act.
Perhaps the single most important devolutionary measure of this parliamentary session is the Localism Bill. It includes proposals to give local communities a greater say in planning decisions and the opportunity to see more of the benefits arising from development in their area. It lays the ground for a community ‘right to buy’, strengthening the arm of local groups that want to take over local assets. It also creates a new general power of competence, so that local authorities can get on with their job without having to worry about vexatious challenges to their legal right to act.
So, what next? We are bringing forward the Localism Bill now, early in this first parliament, because this is one of the most important purposes of the coalition government. We will enable and encourage communities to take control; we will grant rights and create the conditions for people to exercise influence. I will be reporting to the prime minister on the progress made towards decentralisation in the summer of 2011.
At heart, centralists are a glum lot who are sceptical about the ability of local communities and authorities to make sound decisions. A localist approach, by contrast, is based on trust in people’s good sense, confidence in their generosity and respect for the power of local democracy. We will be listening and watching, but I am sure that the months to come will vindicate our trust.
The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP is minister of state at the Department for Communities and Local Government
2. The cooperative council
Steve Reed reveals how Lambeth Council is encouraging local residents to take a more proactive approach to meeting the needs of the community
After the Second World War, the objective of common ownership and control became identified with state ownership in a way it hadn’t been before. That centralised model remains largely intact, but people today have higher aspirations and demand more choice. During the last Labour government, confidence in many public services fell despite significant investment and externally assessed improvements. We need to find new models of public service delivery if we are to build public confidence.
The time has come to rethink the relationship between the citizen and the state so we can hand more power and control to communities and individuals. This is exciting because transferring power to the people is what progressive politics has always been about. Local government can no longer defend the status quo. We need to change, and we can use cooperative and mutual traditions to explore alternatives that create more responsive services by empowering users and communities to meet their own aspirations.
Instead of getting stuck in an outmoded argument about big versus small state, we need to find new ways to create an enabling state. We need policies that give communities the resources, support and tools they need to take control. There will always be a strong role for local government in making sure that everyone has a voice and that services are not taken over by narrow sectional interests that exclude other groups. The cooperative model is not a magic wand that will make cuts disappear, but it does offer a way to reduce the potential social fallout of significantly reduced public spending, while creating a new foundation for the future.Lambeth Council aims to become the country’s first truly cooperative council. We have launched a major consultation to engage residents in a debate about how the new model will work.
In the new year, we will launch a series of pilots across a wide range of services to test the model in practice and start an incremental expansion of cooperative approaches to service delivery. This builds on models and examples we already have in place. For instance, we helped parents set up a foundation that oversaw the opening of Britain’s first, and so far only, parent-promoted secondary school. The new school is part of the local authority family but became one of the most popular schools in the borough before even opening because of the credibility that the intimate involvement of local parents brought to its development.
Lambeth is home to the Coin Street housing cooperative on the South Bank. Cooperative housing offers various benefits, notably the fact that it gives more control to the people who live in it.
It also creates the opportunity for people on low or fixed incomes to meet their aspiration to become homeowners, but without the risk of being sucked into sub-prime lending that can lead to repossession or threaten the banking system.
Community-led commissioning – where local communities analyse their own needs before procuring services to meet them – offers a new way forward for youth services and adult care. While the delivery model differs in each service area, there is a common approach that involves building a much closer partnership with the community.
We are exploring the biggest move towards cooperative services ever seen in the country, and early polling indicates strong public support for what we’re doing. Since our new model will work better if it encompasses the full range of public services in the borough, not just those currently provided by the council, we need the coalition government to respond by agreeing a new ‘contract for place’, removing legal and other barriers to community-led commissioning, procurement, delivery and engagement.
The cooperative model will demand significant change from the council. We will require staff who can help the community to articulate and meet their own needs, as well as more entrepreneurs and innovators who are prepared to take risks. Meanwhile, fewer staff will need to be involved in direct service delivery or constant close monitoring. The role of councillors and council leaders will change as they become the point of democratic accountability, ensuring that all voices are heard and all needs are met within a more complex network of provision.
Lambeth’s new approach is not about de-professionalising services, it’s about giving citizens and service users more control over the services they use and the professionals who deliver them. The strength of the model is its potential to turn service users from passive recipients to active shapers of services. By redefining the settlement between the citizen and the state, I believe we can make services more responsive, relevant and efficient and, by doing so, protect their future.
Steve Reed FRSA is leader of Lambeth Council
3. Co-creating public services
Innovation in the public sector depends on the ability to look at services from a citizen’s perspective, says Christian Bason
Public organisations in most western countries are facing a prolonged period of economic austerity. The current UK spending cuts may be among the deepest, but from Spain to Ireland, and from Denmark to the US, public finances are bound to be tight for the foreseeable future. Progressive governments across the globe are therefore hoping to make services more cost-effective by piloting new models of co-production in public service delivery, with a more limited role for government and greater citizen and business participation. 
Recent cases indicate that such a relationship is possible. One UK-based example is the Love Lewisham website, which allows citizens to report environmental issues online, enabling the borough to deal with them effectively. In New Zealand, District Health Boards are empowering mental health patients to evaluate and participate in the design of their own services through their ‘Knowing the People Planning’ initiative. In Denmark’s Vejle hospital, the ‘jointcare’ approach to treating knee surgery patients in groups – allowing patients to support one another in the process – has led to 40% productivity gains and higher satisfaction ratings.
So what do these success stories have in common? All of the managers and leaders involved aim to develop new services and policies with rather than for people. Only by involving stakeholders in service design (co-creation) can we get people routinely involved in service delivery (co-production).
Co-creation is a prerequisite for identifying opportunities for co-production for several reasons. First, it gives bureaucracies an ‘outside-in’ perspective on current practices, opening public servants’ eyes to the experience of their users and promoting creativity. Second, it helps public servants to see how services could be made more valuable to the public, while benefiting from people’s own networks and resources. Third, it takes some of the risk out of the innovation process by designing and testing ideas that are based on genuine need.
One example of an agency that has taken this approach is the Danish Board of Industrial Injuries, which manages the cases of citizens who have a serious work injury and are eligible for an insurance settlement. Through co-creation, this agency has managed to engage stakeholders in new ways, getting faster and better outcomes at lower cost. Two aspects of its work may be instructive, not least in the context of the UK’s Big Society agenda.
The first aspect is the importance of seeing the consequences of every action or policy from the citizen’s perspective. For instance, the remark “You have to be healthy to manage a work injury case”, made to interviewers by an injured citizen, triggered real change at the Board of Industrial Injuries. The agency had conducted in-depth ethnographic field studies of citizens with a work injury, observing their meetings with state and local government officials, and conducting video interviews. The video footage inspired fresh ideas about how to reorganise service processes, speed up case management and improve communication.
The second aspect is the ability to respond to people’s needs. Once the citizens had given their input, the Board of Industrial Injuries wanted more. Its managers started asking new questions, such as: “Who do we need to engage with differently in order to improve case handling and citizens’ service experience?” One insight was that, while general practitioners were often the first point of contact for citizens, they rarely gave people the information they needed to understand the case process and their role in it. The agency investigated the possibility of providing doctors with web-based guides and information leaflets, improving the service from the outset. Building on proposals such as these, the Board of Industrial Injuries is creating an ‘alliance strategy’, looking at how it can engage general practitioners and other relevant stakeholders, such as hospitals, insurers, employers and local government. The aim is to empower citizens to take more responsibility for their own case management, creating more impact with less effort.
Only by placing citizens at the centre of the innovation process can we see things from the outside in and recognise that people are experts in dealing with their own problems. This kind of ‘professional empathy’ may be just what the Big Society needs.
Christian Bason is director of the Danish innovation unit MindLab. His book, Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-Creating for a Better Society, is published by The Policy Press.
4. Whole Person Recovery
Steve Broome and Rebecca Daddow explain why the RSA is putting former and current drug and alcohol users at the heart of the recovery process
Public-spending cuts mean that we need to find more efficient and effective ways of delivering services. Emerging plans linked with the government’s Big Society agenda suggest that we should engage and tap into a broader range of individuals and assets when addressing issues in our communities and supporting those who are socially and economically excluded.
This is true when it comes to tackling problematic drug and alcohol use. RSA research suggests that people’s ability to initiate and sustain recovery from the problems associated with drug and alcohol misuse depends on their access to ‘recovery capital’. This capital includes a range of personal attributes, such as self-esteem and certain skills required by employers, constructive social relationships, particularly with family and friends, and access to community assets, including effective treatment services and housing support. Access to such capital is key to helping problem drug users overcome the multiple problems they face, such as stigma from employers and in communities. Many users currently find themselves caught in a vicious circle, as they cannot afford to participate in recovery activities or travel to job interviews.
In the past year, the RSA has worked to understand the behaviour and experience of problem drug users. The Whole Person Recovery Project, which published its first major report in November following fieldwork in Bognor Regis and Crawley, took a user-centred approach, placing former and current drug and alcohol users at the heart of the project design and delivery. They helped us design survey tools and carry out primary research, enhance survey data with their own experiences and develop ideas.
The project has developed a Whole Person Recovery system: a model designed to help Drug and Alcohol Action Teams and their partners to commission the right services. The idea is that budget holders will pay for the results that activities achieve, rather than simply for the activities themselves. This means thinking carefully about the goal of recovery services: in this case, it may be not only to encourage abstinence from drug use but also to provide sustainable employment and housing.
Using this system, former and current users were able to identify gaps in existing individual and collective recovery capital, mainly in the post-treatment phase in which service providers sometimes struggle to help users make the transition into society. Project participants developed a range of proposals with the aim of plugging these gaps. These included piloting individual budgets and small grants for one-off needs; building mutual support networks; developing personalised ‘recovery toolkits’; creating a dedicated user radio station offering 24-hour support and information; training GPs; and setting up a user-led social enterprise with a drop-in centre for users, their families and the wider community. The RSA is now working to put these ideas into practice.
Crucially, the RSA’s user-centred approach has in itself strengthened relationships and increased levels of trust, helping to enhance individual and collective recovery capital. At each project site, we have developed a Recovery Alliance of public- and private-sector organisations, user groups, community members, criminal justice agencies, health specialists, groups of family members and friends, councillors and RSA Fellows. These groups will be instrumental in shaping what we hope will become the leading recovery community in the UK. They will help us to get initiatives off the ground, broker understanding and partnerships, and orient organisations and communities towards supporting recovery. As well as participating in Recovery Alliances, RSA Fellows have played a valued role as project advisors, helping us with the research, analysis and thinking, and developing practical innovations on the ground.
Throughout the project, we have aimed to tailor solutions to users’ needs and give them confidence in their ability to contribute to the recovery process. As a result, users are now more optimistic about their recovery prospects and belong to networks that provide a source of advice and support.
The collaborative approach that the RSA has taken throughout this project will prove a useful model for local and national government as drastic spending cuts serve to diminish the capacity of public services. While no one can yet be sure of what the impact of these cuts will be, our aim is to show a way of delivering more efficient services that capitalises on existing resources within individuals and communities. Our whole-person approach encourages providers to respond to a set of related needs rather than looking at each in isolation. The collective solutions we have proposed, which do not rely heavily on state investment and facilitation, reveal an opportunity to help make the coalition government’s Big Society a reality.
Steve Broome and Rebecca Daddow lead the Whole Person Recovery project at the RSA
Share