For localism to work in
empowering people, allowing them to play a role in shaping local
plans and holding their local authority to account, particularly
in meeting local housing need, a starting point must be the transparent
and robust collection, analysis and publication of comprehensive
data, that is comparable between local areas.
EVIDENCE
The extent to which decentralisation leads to
more effective public service delivery; and what the limits are,
or should be, of localism
1. Shelter accepts that in many instances
local authorities, working with local people, are best placed
to decide the ways in which public services should be delivered
in their community. The people closest to the challenges and opportunities
facing an area are often best placed to find the most effective
ways forward.
2. Decentralised services should aim
to prevent social problems, such as homelessness, from occurring
and escalating. This approach will not only prevent individual
households from experiencing a life-changing crisis, but also
deliver savings to the public purse by avoiding the knock-on costs
associated with such problems.
3. Shelter feels it is important that residents
in every local authority area are able to access a baseline level
of services that meet an agreed national minimum, particularly
with regards to preventative services. This will help to ensure
that all local authorities play a role in improving public service
efficiency by engaging in a preventative agenda.
4. Example—The 2002 Homelessness
Act
As a result of the 2002 Homelessness Act local authorities
have a legal duty to provide housing advice and prevent homelessness.
However local authorities are free to decide how they meet this
requirement.
Local authority housing advice is provided free of
charge to everyone in a local authority area. This is important
as struggling homeowners, for example, may be ineligible for legal
aid, but nonetheless need advice to help prevent repossession.
This preventative service helps at-risk people to
maintain their tenancies, thus reducing the number of homelessness
cases. This can offer significant savings to the taxpayer, as
homeless households often represent a significant cost, as a result
of increased reliance on public services.
Multiple housing problems, for instance, increase
children's risk of ill-health and disability by up to 25% during
childhood and early adulthood, whilst homeless children are three
to four times more likely to have mental health problems, even
one year after being rehoused.[7]
The costs of addressing these issues will ultimately
be met by the taxpayer, often at a national level, through spending
on welfare or the NHS. So preventing these problems from emerging
in the first place, by using local solutions, is a far more effective
means of delivering public services.
This is a clear example of local people being given
the freedom to decide what model works best in their area and
how best to deliver services, whilst ensuring that they contribute
to improving national public service efficiencies and save public
money.
5. Shelter believes that central government
should work with local authorities to ensure they deliver preventative
services that ultimately save money for the taxpayer.
Setting agreed national baseline level of services, to which all
vulnerable people are entitled, is an effective means of achieving
this.
6. By making sure that local authorities
work to deliver a minimum standard of provision the government
will help to ensure that decentralisation does not lead to a "postcode
lottery", with regards to vital base-level services, but
still allow innovation for add on ones.
7. Minimum standards are particularly important
in relation to provision for households who approach their local
authority with a homelessness application. Shelter believes that
in all local authority areas families who have been accepted as
"homeless" should be entitled to a statutory base level
of support from their local authority. This support should, for
instance, include local authorities being obligated to give reasonable
preference to homeless families in their social housing allocations
schemes.
8. Decentralisation has the potential
to allow greater flexibility to tailor services to better fit
local demographics. For example, if there is a greater concentration
of BME communities within an area, who require translation services,
local authorities would have more scope to provide this. Similarly,
adaptations could be made to accommodate particular needs that
may arise in areas with a higher concentration of older people
or young families.
The lessons for decentralisation from Total Place,
and the potential to build on the work done under that initiative,
particularly through place-based budgeting
9. Shelter feels it is important that, if
local authorities engage in greater pooling of budgets, sufficient
funding is made available for preventative services that help
save money in the long-term.
10. There is a risk that greater pooling could
lead to cuts to less popular and less obvious public services
that protect some of the most vulnerable people. Such cuts could
result in greater knock-on costs to other budgets. For example,
cuts to homeless prevention services will lead to homelessness,
destitution and increased levels of housing need, resulting in
greater costs to the wider economy.
11. In 2009-10, using dedicated homelessness
prevention funding, local authorities reported 165,200 cases of
homelessness prevention or relief.[8]
Shelter wants to see local authorities continuing to invest in
these vital services, as housing issues are likely to increase
as a result of the continuing economic downturn and proposed reforms
to housing benefit.
12. As an example of the savings possible through
tackling homelessness and bad housing, figures from the BRE
Trust show that Category 1 hazards, as defined by the Housing
Health and Safety Rating System, are costing the NHS in excess
of £600 million per year.[9]
If local authorities are better able to invest in preventative
services, perhaps by working with their local Primary Care Trust,
they would be well placed to not only improve the lives of local
residents but also tackle the significant costs to the NHS.
13. Example—Liverpool Primary Care Trust
As a result of the significant number of patients
who suffered ill-health due to their housing, in Liverpool the
local Primary Care Trust launched the "Healthy Homes Programme".
This involves staff visiting private rented properties in Liverpool,
starting in areas with the greatest health issues, where information
will be gathered about the occupants and their health needs, as
well as the condition of their homes. This will be used to help
tackle some of the factors that can lead to ill health, such as:
healthy eating, home safety and fuel poverty. The aim of the programme
is to tackle health inequalities, winter deaths, and increase
life expectancy.
This programme is an example of the local preventative
solutions that can be achieved by combining budgets of different
services across a local area.[10]
14. Shelter welcomes approaches that proactively
improve the lives of vulnerable people and provide long term savings
to the taxpayer. Initiatives such as the one outlined above, show
that pooled budgets and skills, offer the opportunity for local
councils to help coordinate an effective holistic approach to
preventative services.
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
15. Under the decentralised model of public services,
local authorities are set to play an increasingly important
role in shaping public service delivery. As ring-fences are
removed from many budgets to give greater freedom over spending,
local authorities will play the central role in deciding how many
frontline services are run.
16. Shelter feels that local authorities need
to play a leadership role locally, working with residents
to devise sustainable methods of service delivery that offer long-term
value for money. In doing so, they will have a vital role in ensuring
the well-being of their residents. Specifically, local authorities
should work with local people to look at means of protecting vulnerable
people from spending cuts.
17. As part of this leadership role local authorities
need to work with local people to devise the best means of delivering
services which are not always the first priority of all residents
in a local area. For instance, provision for homeless people,
such as hostel accommodation, occasionally encounter local opposition
as a result of myths and preconceptions about the impact such
services may have a on a local area. In such instances, the local
authority is well placed to work with local people and address
any concerns as early as possible.
18. As part of the localism agenda, local authorities
will also be taking an increasing responsibility for delivering
upon the need for affordable housing in their area. A recent study
compiled by Shelter found that 98% of local authorities in England
are failing to deliver enough affordable homes to meet the need
authorities themselves have identified. This crisis is having
serious negative impacts for millions of households across the
country, leaving families without access to homes they can afford
and increasing levels of poverty and overcrowding with associated
knock-on costs.
19. By taking steps to deliver greater numbers
of affordable homes local authorities will be working to avert
a worsening housing crisis, thus improving the lives of local
residents, by helping to tackle growing housing waiting lists
and overcrowding.
20. Furthermore, recent figures produced by Shelter
show that investment in housing can be a major stimulus to the
economy. A study looking at housing investment found that every
£1 of public investment in new housing is currently generating
£3.51 of economic output.[11]
The report goes on to show the wider economic benefits of investment
in housing, such as employment in construction sector.[12]
21. As local authorities are given greater control
over housing delivery, they will be well placed, in partnership
with local people, to kick-start affordable housing delivery in
their local area. As the figures above suggest this could have
a significant and positive impact on the local economy.
22. With a greater drive towards localism it
is important that there is sufficient clarity of role at a local
level and that agencies avoid duplication of work. The Homes and
Communities Agency (HCA), has played a central role in housing
delivery and their "single conversation" approach to
business processes has been a key element of their work. It is
important that the HCA is able to work closely with local authorities
to ensure that its "single conversation" process aligns
effectively with local authorities' increasingly strategic role
on housing delivery.
The action which will be necessary on the part
of Whitehall departments to achieve effective decentralised public
service delivery
23. Shelter feels that with greater devolution
of power and the removal of regional structures there is a need
for central government to create a policy environment which allows
for greater transparency at local level. This will enable
people to become more active and informed citizens, able to help
shape local plans and, where necessary, hold their local authority
to account.
24. A starting point for this must be central
government working with local authorities to ensure they provide
useful data on local need and performance to electors.
If local people are to be able to engage with plans for their
community they need robust data that is clear, comparable and
comprehensive.
25. Data collection on housing need at a local
level is an example of an area where clear central government
guidance could both promote greater accountability and save money.
26. In our view, there is a role for central
government in publishing clear guidance for local authorities
on the methodology for collecting housing need data, and its analysis.
This would save local authorities from having to incur the expense
of commissioning external consultants to arrive at individual
data collection methods, as is currently often the case. The National
Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) found that "the
original intention, as expressed in the CLG Practice Guidance
(2007), was that local authorities should be able to undertake
SHMAs themselves. However, less than 10 per cent of published
SHMAs have been done in house, with most of these using consultants
for some elements".[13]
Clearer guidance would help to address this issue.
27. Once this data has been collected it is
important that it is presented in a consistent manner across local
authorities. This would allow local electors to gain a clear
picture, for example, of how well their local authority is delivering
affordable housing, relative to others. Government departments
would be ideally placed to provide guidance on these formats.
28. Consistent methodology and presentation
would also make joint working between local authorities easier,
as they would have comparable data sets against which they could
assess their relative needs and future plans.
29. Whitehall departments can also play a very
useful role in coordinating local pilots of new services. This
would enable councils to establish arrangements for comparing
results across areas and generating economies of scale in procurement.
It would lesser the risk of pilots for individual councils and
ensure a better spread of best practice. With the removal of regional
structures, and bodies such as the Audit Commission, this coordinating
role for government departments will be increasingly important.
30. Whitehall departments are also well placed
to ensure that minimum standards for housing development are
agreed at a national level. Standards relating to areas like affordability,
design, economic and social standards and environmental impact
are of vital importance and central government is well placed
to ensure that these are put in place.
31. This approach would be in line with the direction
of the Conservative Party's Green Paper Open Source Planning
which states that there will be a National Planning Framework
setting out planning priorities and, as part of this, "a
reduced number of simplified guidance notes, setting out minimum
environmental, architectural, design, economic and social standards
for sustainable development".[14]
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
32. As discussed above, greater moves towards
decentralisation and concentration on local solutions does have
the potential to promote savings.
33. However, this is clearly dependent on the
ways in which local authorities choose to administer their budgets.
If preventative services are given sufficient support and budgets
are used to help vulnerable people avoid more negative outcomes
devolution of funding could be an effective means of cutting long
term costs to the taxpayer.
34. Housing advice and the role it plays in homelessness
prevention, provides an example of the savings that can be made.
Figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government
estimate that repossessing the home of a vulnerable household
can lead to housing benefit costs alone of £16,000 per case[15]—without
taking account of local authority time and expense in processing
a homelessness application or any other support that may be needed.
This could be as high as £34,000 in some cases, according
to the New Economics Foundation.[16]
In contrast, effective face to face, mortgage debt advice costs
the state as little as £229 per case,[17]
on average. Whilst recent Citizens Advice research found that
every £1 of legal aid spent on housing advice, potentially
saves the taxpayer £2.34.[18]
35. Decentralisation gives local authorities
greater freedom over how they commission service providers and
therefore the opportunity to use resources in a way that provides
the most effective services locally and the best value for money.
Shelter welcomes this aim, however there are concerns that if
effective preventative services are targeted for cuts in order
to provide short term savings, this will effectively represent
a false economy for local authorities, and the wider community,
as—for reasons outlined above—failure to tackle problems
at an early stage can result in mounting costs for the taxpayer.
36. Decentralisation also provides local authorities
with greater opportunities to cooperate with neighbouring authorities.
Shelter recognises that this could provide an opportunity for
the sharing of skills and costs across local authority areas,
which could lead to improvements in frontline services and savings,
by sharing costs, particularly in relation to back office and
administrative spending.
37. One potential area for joint working could
be to ensure proper enforcement of laws relating to tenants in
the private rented sector. Some adjoining councils are exploring
merging their housing enforcement teams to create joint services,
allowing them to build on their respective areas of strength and
to achieve greater economies of scale. A similar principle could
be applied to planning teams dealing with cross-council developments.
38. It is important to consider that peoples'
lifestyles, particularly in larger cities, mean that the services
they access, the areas in which they live and places that they
work or study can often be across numerous local authority boundaries.
As a result it is important that local authorities are able to
account for this in their plans for local service delivery.
What, if any, arrangements for the oversight of
local authority performance will be necessary to ensure effective
local public service delivery
39. As part of the localism agenda the role of
oversight of local authority performance will, to a large extent,
fall to local people. The Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government, Eric Pickles, recently outline plans to
"create an army of armchair auditors - local people able
to hold local bodies to account for the way their tax pounds are
spent and what that money is delivering".[19]
40. Shelter wants to see the localism agenda
deliver more engaged citizens, who are able to work with their
local authority to shape services and effectively hold them to
account. If this is to be achieved it is vital that local
people are given the necessary information. Good local data is
a key tool in ensuring the success of the localism agenda and
it needs to be collected via a robust, consistent methodology
and presented in a comparable format.
41. If central government works with local
authorities to arrive at a set methodology for assessing local
housing need, this will not only save money for local authorities,
as discussed above, but also empower
local people by giving them a clear picture of the
challenges and opportunities that face their local community.
It would also allow local authorities and local people to better
benchmark their performance against that of similar local authority
areas, enabling the most effective local authorities to give guidance
to those authorities that have been less successful.
42. Many local housing and planning authorities
are already very good at collecting and analysing local data on
housing need. However, there is still a long way to go to ensure
citizens are better able to play a more active and engaged role
in housing delivery. Shelter has identified some of the refinements
that could be made to the collection of presentation of housing
data below:
Strategic Market Assessments
43. SHMAs were introduced in 2006 and provide
the main evidence base required in local planning and housing
policy. The most recent guidance on SHMAs was published in 2007,
with robustness and transparency identified as key aims.
44. However, Shelter identified a range of problems
in citizens using SHMAs to hold councils to account. Most stem
from the fact that, despite the guidance, the methodology falls
short of being robust, transparent and user-friendly. This issue
was recently identified by the National Housing and Planning Advice
Unit, as discussed above.
45. One of the key reasons for this shortcoming
is that SHMAs vary so much in their methodology, which produces
very different results across local authorities. This variation
in results makes it difficult for the public to compare evidence
from their local authority with that of others and therefore effectively
hold them to account.
46. SHMAs have also proved to be costly to local
authorities. The original intention was for councils to undertake
SHMAs themselves, but fewer than 10 per cent have been produced
in this way, with most councils using consultants for some elements.
Recent Shelter estimates suggest that commissioned out SHMAs cost
between £80-150k.
National standards forms
47. Local homelessness statistics are a vital
measure of housing need. The use of a standard Local Authority
activity under homelessness provisions of the 1996 Housing Act
(P1E form) has helped in the 99% voluntary collection by councils
of consistent data on homelessness. This is a good example of
how central government can facilitate the collection of data locally
and efficiently.
48. However whilst useful, the P1E statistics
are flawed in their recording of homelessness because they exclude
large numbers of homeless people who approach the council for
assistance but do not make an application for assistance or are
not deemed to be in need of statutory assistance.
49. Shelter believes that everyone approaching
the council for assistance should have their case recorded, including
the reason for the loss of their last settled home and the council's
determination of their case. This will help to ensure that local
people have a clearer understanding of the housing situation in
their area and have the information necessary to play a useful
role in shaping local provision.
Comprehensive data on the local need and demand for
social housing
50. Local housing registers (often known as council
waiting lists) are an important indicator of the need and demand
for social housing and local authorities should ensure local people
understand the local allocation scheme and operation of the register.
51. Shelter urges councils to take an open approach
to registering applications, to continue to use "cumulative
preference" to determine priority, and to have objective
criteria for prioritising between applicants, so that banding
schemes reflect complex levels of need. Councils should ensure
their housing registers are regularly reviewed and updated and
publish statistics on the numbers of people within each band or
range of points, again helping to ensure that local people can
help shape a vision for housing in their area, with possession
of the full facts.
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.
52. Ultimately local authorities will be accountable
to the local electorate and decentralisation means that those
responsible for making spending decisions will stand for election,
based on their record, on a regular basis.
53. If this accountability is to be effective
then local people need an accurate picture of the success their
local authority has achieved in delivering local services and
how this compares to other local authority areas. As discussed
above, in relation to data on housing need and homelessness, the
collection and presentation of comparable data is vital to ensuring
that this is possible.
54. The consistent collection and presentation
of data would also help to ensure that it is possible for those
agencies spending money at a local level to be held to account
at a national level. If each local areas arrives at a method of
data collection that varies significantly it will be very difficult
for national stakeholders to have a clear picture of how well
expenditure voted for by parliament is being delivered.
55. Setting in place requirements for local authorities
to deliver a base line of services may also be effective means
of ensuring that local authorities deliver the services for which
they receive national funding.
October 2010
6 NEF Consulting / Law Centres
Federation, The socio-economic value of law centres, 2008,
Page 18 Back
7
Harker, L. Chance of a lifetime, Shelter 2006: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/39202/Chance_of_a_Lifetime.pdf Back
8
Department for Communities and Local Government: Homelessness
Prevention and Relief statistics, August 2010: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/homelessnessprevention200910 Back
9
M Davidson, M Roys, S Nicol,
D Ormandy and P Ambrose: The real cost of poor housing:
2010: Page 45 Back
10
More information on this scheme can be found at Liverpool City
Council's website: http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Environment/Environmental_health/healthyhomes/index.asp
& the Audit Commissions website:
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/AuditCommissionReports/NationalStudies/betterlivesliverpool.pdf Back
11
Shelter: Research Briefing: Housing Investment: Part 1:
Page 1 Back
12
Further information on the economic impact of housing investment
can be found at the following link: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/276668/Briefing_Housing_Investment_Part_1.pdf Back
13
National Housing and Planning Advice Unit: Understanding Housing
Markets: What are the issues? Is there scope for joint working
to produce a toolkit to improve SHMAs?, Conversation Paper, 2010,
Page 3 Back
14
Conservative Party: Open Source Planning: Green Paper 2010,
Page 3 Back
15
Department of Communities and Local Government, Homeowners
Support Package Impact Assessments, 2008, Page 17 Back
16
NEF Consulting / Law Centres Federation, The socio-economic
value of law centres, 2008, Page 18 Back
17
Shelter, Results and Recommendations: Outcomes of advice for struggling
homeowners, 2010, Page 2 Back
18
Citizen's Advice: Towards a business case for legal aid, July
2010, Page 2 Back
19
Department of Communities and Local Government, Press Release,
13 August 2010: http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1688109 Back
