Localism

Memorandum from the Women’s Resource Centre (LOCO 40)

Summary of recommendations

1. As central government devolves power to local communities the transfer of responsibility must be paired with accountability. In instances where power is decentralised it is vital that there is an effective regulatory body which oversees the actions of local authorities and holds them to account.

2. Local authorities should be regularly audited by a regulator to ensure their compliance with existing equalities legislation. Providing guidance and promoting best practice has been proven to be insufficient, a regulatory mechanism which monitors local authorities is essential.

3. Arguments in favour of decentralisation are founded on the assumption that local government has greatest unders tanding of local needs. R esearch however shows that many local authorities fail to comply with the Public S ector Duty to I nvolve. To ensure that local authorities meet the d iverse needs of communities central government must make sure local authorities working inclusively and engage a diverse range of groups in local decision-making .

4. Decentralisation is not appropriate in all instances and can lead to inconsistency in local services, ineffective communication and duplication. Local provision is unacceptable on issues such as violence against women services where the consequences of these problems are life threatening.

5. We urge the Select Committee to acknowledge the benefits of cross locality working and promote its role in creating efficiency savings. Where decentralisation is deemed appropriate central government must make sure the aforementioned regulatory frameworks are in place.

6. Where appropriate voluntary and community organisations should be given the opportunity to decide if they wish to bid to provide public

services. Where they do provide services they should receive

adequate support from central government to assist them to do so.

Limitations of Localism

Case study: Violence against Women

7. Efforts to empower local communities s hould be linked with discussion

of how local authorities can work together to tackle the issues affecting citizen’s lives. Allowing local authorities to set their own policies on important topics can lead to inconsistency in local services, ineffective communication and duplication. Working across boroughs, however, can provide strong and cost effective public services across cities.

8. Violence against women services provide a clear illustration of where partnership working between authorities creates cost savings and ensures comprehensive service provision. Violence against women holds no boundaries. As women flee their homes and seek sanctuary in other areas, anonymity assists them and their families to rebuild their lives and escape abusive partners. Variability of local funding is insufficient on this topic as it subjects women to a postcode lottery for access to life saving services.

9. When women seek VAW support they should be able to choose where

and how they access services, according to their specific and complex needs. Due to regional geography, home, work and school for survivors may all be in different boroughs and borough boundaries are not the same as the boundaries of social relationships. Unlike the often disjointed statutory services characteristic of the borough system; cross locality funding provides women with choice.

10. Cross locality funding provides boroughs with a much wider pool of

expertise than they could ever hope to fund locally and enhances the

quality of services provided to women from their area. It is not cost

effective to have separate provision of the same service in each area

and cross locality funding ensures efficiency as well as a coordinated

and comprehensive support.

11. Cross locality funding can have a significant impact on delivering VAW

strategies at national, regional and local level. It contributes to

consistent service provision across the UK and helps to harmonise

local and central government actions.

12. Cross locality funding offers an opportunity to holistically address the

causes of VAW and can facilitate partnership working to increase

effectiveness. For example, VAW organisations can work across

sectors with drug and alcohol organisations to tackle the causes and

consequences of both social problems.

13. The Women Together Against Abuse Partnership, a ground-breaking

multi-agency response to domestic violence in London, would not have

been possible without London Councils funding ( a pan-regional fund

for the capital) as these organisations are based in a number of

different boroughs. VAW services are stronger when boroughs act

together and synchronisation creates greater impact.

Limitations of Localism: the importance of equalities

14. As funding contracts in the economic downturn local councils cannot be relied up on to fund key women’s services. Already in the infancy of public sector spending cuts some local authorities have cut Domestic Coordinator posts due to the need to create efficiency savings.

15. Funding violence against women’s services is discretionary and as such local councils are not required to fund essential VAW services. Increased dependency on local funding will compromise the sustainability of women’s services and subject organisations to short term funding cycles and further financial struggles. We are concerned that adequate funding will not be a priority for local boroughs; this view i s supported by the fact that only two local authorities in London (the UK ’s largest city) have chosen domestic and/or sexual violence indicators for their Local Area Agreement targets .

16. There is an active risk that equalities will be marginalised in the recession as councils seek to focus on financial ‘priorities’. There is a likelihood equalities may be misinterpreted as an issue that is ‘frivolous’ at a time when councils are seeking financial survival . As opposed to being acknowledged as a vital way to effectively meet the diverse needs of communities.

17. Regional and government funding transcends the politics of local decision-making and secures funding for ‘less’ popular groups such as LGBT people and women with no recourse to public funds. Local authorities do not have a strong record on commissioning specialist services and central government funding helps to provide funding where there is most need. As local authorities are placed under pressure to make their money go further whilst reducing council tax, it is likely that funding for specialist services will be reduced in the economic downturn . Reliance on local funding would jeopardise diverse services, as the arguments around funding priorities can be dictated by local politics rather than actual need.

18. Arguments in favour of decentralisation are often founded on the assumption that local government has greatest understanding of local needs. However, research shows limited progress on equalities and a lack of sustained and meaningful engageme nt with voluntary community organisations ( VCOs) .

19. Voluntary organisations are embedded within communities and have a comprehensive understanding of the issues occurring at grass roots level. Organisations that are led ‘by and for’ minority groups are operated by those who have greatest understanding of their communities’ needs.

20. Equality and diversity provide the key to effective service delivery and to effectively meet the diverse needs of communities local authorities must work with equalities voluntary and community organisations.

21. Women’s organisations have a unique reach in communities and work with some of the most marginalised and vulnerable women in society. However, ‘ despite accounting for 7% of the voluntary and community sector (VCS), women’s organisations represent just 2% of VCS representatives on Local Strategic Partnerships ’ [1] .

22. Women’s organisations provide a vital opportunity for politicians to connect with the needs of women and as the government seeks to empower communities by devolving powers to local areas, it is essential that women’s organisations expertise is harnessed and they are integrated into decision-making processes. With over 30,000 women’s organisations in the UK , their exclusion has hugely negative implications on issues of equality, effective service delivery and community empowerment.  

23. The recent Women’s Resource Centre report ‘Power and Prejudice: combating gender inequality through women’s organisations’ highlights the barriers to women’s organisations engagement in local-decision-making. The publication’s findings are essential reading for select committee members and show that many local authorities do not deem gender equality to be a priority and fail to meet their legal obligations under the Gender Equality Duty and Duty to Involve.

24. Misapplication of the Gender Equality Duty is common and there is a lack of understanding amongst local councils about the conditions needed to achieve women’s equality or the differing needs between women/girls and men/boys. Due to a myth of gender equality authorities often pursue gender neutral policies or misinterpret gender equality to mean treating men and women the same. These problems contribute to the under valuation of the importance of women-only services and increases authorities reluctance to engage with women’s voluntary and community organisations. This in turn limits local authorities’ capacity to ensure that the needs of the women within their communities are effectively met.

A model for Localism

25. As power is devolved to local authorities it is essential that a strong

equalities framework is embedded at a local level. Local authorities’ legal obligations under equalities legislation must be nationally recognised. Issues such as VAW should be made a priority and authorities must link equalities to performance management and strategic planning processes.

26. The aforementioned actions are imperative as we are concerned that changes to the Equality Act will further contribute to the de-prioritsation of gender. Under the proposed Public Sector Duties local authorities will no longer be required to prepare Gender Equality Schemes.

27. Gender Equality Schemes are an important mechanism through which councils outline their equality objectives and demonstrate how they have taken into account how their policies and practices affect gender equality. Most importantly, they provide an action plan that sets out timelines and measurable targets to address gender inequality in their local area and provide a mechanism through which local councils can be held to account.

28. Arrangements for oversight of local authority performance are vital.

To be effective an equalities framework must be reinforced by the introduction of a regulator that audits and oversees the actions of local government.

29. Providing guidance and promoting best practice has been proven to be

insufficient in encouraging local authorities to promote equalities and engage with voluntary and community organisations.

30. Devolution of power to local communities should be contingent on local

authorities working inclusively and engaging with a diverse range of equalities organisations. The decentralisation agenda centres on the premise of empowering communities but without active engagement with equalities VCOs there is limited likelihood that the voices of marginalised groups will be represented.

31. Local authorities must work in partnership with equalities organisations and integrate them into local-decision-making to ensure equalities strands are addressed. Their expertise will assist local authorities in meeting the diverse needs of communities.

32. Where appropriate voluntary and community organisations should be

given the opportunity to decide if they wish to bid to provide public

services. Where they do provide services they should receive

adequate support from central government to help them do so.

33. Where local government subcontracts to the voluntary sector it should

promote consortia bids from equalities organisations from all equality strands as a way of ensuring the needs of whole communities are met.

October 2010