WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
COUNTY DURHAM
PARTNERSHIP (LOCO 55)
LOCALISM INQUIRY
Within County Durham there is a clear recognition
that localism, where decisions are made as close as possible to
the communities affected and where local people can work together
to decide how their needs should be met, can not only work but
can improve satisfaction and enhance quality of life. Localism
certainly provides a vehicle for ensuring that individual public
services can respond to the specific needs of local areas and
local people. In County Durham we also recognise that one size
does not fit all and since becoming a unitary authority in 2009
we have developed strong, coherent and efficient structures through
which resources can effectively be deployed at a local level.
This has taken place through robust two way mechanisms in order
to ensure true community involvement and engagement.
However, achieving strong and effective localism
requires robust and coherent foundations and supporting structures.
We believe that we have developed these in County Durham through
the following:
¾ Strong
and effective political leadership and democratic engagement and
accountability at all levels.
¾ A strong
but flexible partnership framework that ensures a whole County
approach, ensures that issues of importance to local people influence
the strategic decisions regarding the County as a whole and involves
14 Area Action Partnerships that are able to commit resources
to meet local needs and priorities.
¾ A long
term plan for the County which clearly sets out the outcomes that
local communities and all partners want to achieve.
¾ Strong
and effectively engaged Local Councils and voluntary and community
sector, with established arrangements for devolving services and
local activities.
¾ Mechanism
to engage and involve those communities who are often overlooked.
¾ Dedicated
staff who are willing to go the extra mile to make this work.
We believe that our inclusive model provides the
strong foundation for further innovative service devolution and
decentralisation from central government.
In County Durham we also recognise there is a need
to achieve a balance between those issues that are purely place
focused and those that are less so. For example delivering improvements
in alcohol related services can be effectively dealt with on a
larger scale.
The extent to which decentralisation leads to
more effective public service delivery; and what the limits are,
or should be, of localism
There is no doubt that decentralisation can lead
to more effective public services when implemented appropriately.
Also, communities will take ownership of services if they have
been involved in their development. An example is around the changes
to the way health services are delivered and managed, this offers
a positive opportunity for engagement across all sectors and with
local communities.
There are some key issues that must be addressed
for this to be successful:
¾ Support—Successful
localism does not just happen. It needs support in order to build
capacity and to help those taking on public services to understand
the issues and pitfall involved. The voluntary and community sector,
particularly, need resources to be able to turn the concept of
localism into a reality.
¾ Resources—For
Localism to work government must handover appropriate resources
with the levers it is offering. Without this localism will be
seen as a cynical attempt by Government to cut budgets and blame
localities for reduced services.
¾ Capacity—Often
capacity needs to be built before service delivery can be devolved.
It is also essential that those organisations or groups taking
on local service delivery are mindful of what they do and how
they do it and have sufficient resources to consider and implement
the necessary safeguards.
¾ Clarity—Bureaucratic
arrangements are not necessary but simple and clear guidelines,
entitlements and arrangements are needed to ensure that those
taking on services are clear about what they can and can't do
and those receiving services know what they can expect.
¾ Quality—Maintaining
the quality of services whilst seeking a localism or a more decentralised
way of working will be critical. Particularly when services are
to be delivered by commercial or third sector delivery partners
and when these arrangements and partnerships are in their infancy.
¾ Equalities—It
is vital that we do not run the risk of further exacerbating patterns
of inequalities by shifting towards more unequal forms of public
service delivery. We are aware that some groups working with the
most vulnerable people within our communities are concerned that,
if changes are not implemented in an informed and considered way,
there may be a cost in terms of equality and social inclusion.
We must ensure that decisions that are made locally do not disproportionately
or unfairly impact on disadvantaged groups. Localism must not
be allowed to lead to a reduced focus on outcomes for those groups
that rely on public services most heavily.
¾ Structure—mechanism
such as Durham's Area Action Partnerships are needed to facilitate
a clear and business-like approach.
Area Action Partnerships provide an effective model
for engaging and empowering communities that since their establishment
in May 2009 have proven that a large unitary council can enthuse
thousands of local people to become involved in improving their
communities. As a result, the number of people who feel they can
influence the decisions of local agencies has seem a dramatic
increase in the County.
The first step in achieving this change was to ensure
the boundaries of the AAPs aligned to local communities. This
took an immense amount of work but resulted in a wide range of
population sizes (from 8,000 to 93,000) that reflected the rural/urban
mix of the County. Having created this sense of ownership, the
Council has taken a clear line that each partnership should have
three core attributes (attributes that came out of the consultation
prior top their establishment), namely:
¾ ¾ They
need to be balanced and not dominated by a single partner.
¾ ¾ They
should lead to demonstrable action.
¾ ¾ They
should have open and transparent decision making.
By sticking to these values, the partnerships have
made some significant achievements. The numbers signing up to
be involved in their work has grown from 1,500 to 3,200. Over
500 community lead projects have been developed across the County
that have levered in over £8 million of additional resources
and critically, members of the public take the time to attend
the partnerships and get involved in their work.
By building on the opportunity of change through
local government reorganisation, AAPs have successfully transformed
the image of the Council to one where thousands of local people
take the time to become involved in local decisions. The balanced
model is one we feel could contribute to an increased role for
localism.
In addition it is important that the government understands
the different roles that local communities or local people wish
to play. In many cases people want to be engaged and involved
in the shaping and delivery of services but do not want responsibility
for overall delivery and all that this encompasses.
Localism and decentralisation are opportunities to
use resources more effectively and efficiently but they are not
major cost saving initiatives. Particularly in the early stages
of development, greater resources are often needed to prevent
waste, duplication and poor standards of delivery. For example,
asset transfer may present a significant opportunity for localism
and growth of local enterprise, however, assets cannot be transferred
without significant transition costs needed to cover improvements
to the asset, to ensure that it will not be a drain on resources
once transferred and capacity building to ensure that it does
not become a burden that cannot be sustained.
The lessons for decentralisation from Total Place,
and the potential to build on the work done under that initiative,
particularly through place-based budgeting
We need to understand the scale and the definition
of "place"—is this the local authority area or
local area. Are the lessons to be used to inform community led
planning and participatory budgeting or to inform devolution from
central to local government.
County Durham was one of the Total Place pilots and
therefore the Council has a good understanding of this initiative
and how it can identify where improvements can be made. However,
a Total Place approach will need a strong role to be played by
government in removing or addressing national barriers. There
is also a tension between Total Place and locality budgeting which
both start from very different perspectives. Rewards and savings
can however fall disproportionately, for example, one partner
may need to invest for others to make savings. All agencies, nationally
and locally, need to recognise that this can sometimes offer challenges.
Echoing comments made by the Local Government Association
around rolling out place-based budgets, where all funding for
services delivered by the public sector in an area is pooled and
controlled by councils, we believe this would help to achieve
efficiency savings, while ensuring that local priorities were
addressed. A key benefit of area-based budgets would be a reduction
in bureaucracy as well as improving the accountability at a local
level.
The role of local government in a decentralised
model of local public service delivery, and the extent to which
localism can and should extend to other local agents
This proposal raises a number of concerns which would
need to be considered. There is no reason why some services should
not be devolved to other local agents such as the Voluntary and
Community Sector or Town and Parish Councils which could include
aspects of service delivery of specified services as well as community
engagement. Durham County Council has already established clear
mechanisms to facilitate this. However, these mechanisms have
taken time to develop and implement and are continuously evolving.
This proposal also presents the risk of increasing
the cost of services if economies of scale are lost. All public
sector agencies will see the impact of Localism and will need
to ensure that economic issues are taken into account when looking
at alternative ways of delivery as well as devolving services.
The action which will be necessary on the part
of Whitehall departments to achieve effective decentralised public
service delivery
In the past the pursuit of localism has been hampered
by an apparent reluctance on the part of Whitehall departments
to genuinely devolve decision making.
Effective localism will only be achieved if Whitehall
trusts the public sector and local communities to deliver effective
services that are most appropriate for their area. A barrier to
this could be if guidelines and regulations which potentially
undermine this are continued by Central Government. On occasion
messages coming to localities from the centre can be blurred eg
the frequency of bin collections and this could have an adverse
effect on delivery.
The impact of decentralisation on the achievement
of savings in the cost of local public services and the effective
targeting of cuts to those services
Decentralisation and less bureaucracy can be a means
to achieve efficiencies and cost savings but initially this may
not be the case and to achieve positive change there needs to
be investment in local structures. Resources to invest in up front
development work will inevitably be limited in the future. Implementation
of mechanisms and building the capacity to successfully achieve
change needs careful management otherwise it could prove to be
extremely expensive and inefficient. There are many issues that
need to be taken into account including capacity, loss of economies
of scale, health and safety, impact on low paid employment and
inequalities.
What, if any, arrangements for the oversight of
local authority performance will be necessary to ensure effective
local public service delivery
There needs to be appropriate systems of performance
management to show direction of improvements made by Local Authorities
but also recognition that Central Government Departments can help
Local Authorities in this role. Local people need to be given
the power to hold local services to account, whether that's for
money allocated or agreed outcomes. In Durham the Area Action
Partnerships, previously highlighted, offer a mechanism to hold
the Local Authority and its partners to account.
Equality and quality are the two biggest issues.
Openness and transparency, alongside local performance monitoring,
which includes considering equality impact of change, will be
essential.
How effective and appropriate accountability can
be achieved for expenditure on the delivery of local services,
especially for that voted by Parliament rather than raised locally
All local authorities should have effective performance
management arrangements in place which ensure that local performance
is achieving the desired outcomes and is meaningful locally.
Government should provide a national steer on specific
minimum standards that people should expect and implement a clear
system of redress to allow local people to challenge local service
delivery.
OCTOBER 2010
| 
