1 Introduction
1. Community Budgets are the most recent in a
series of initiatives aimed at producing more effective services
in response to rising demand and reducing funding in the public
sector. They are designed to integrate and improve service provision,
reduce duplication and ultimately to save taxpayers' money.[2]
Neither the objectives driving Community Budgets nor the concept
behind them are new. Similar initiatives have been piloted under
the last Government which, despite some local successes, failed
to initiate wide-scale change.[3]
2. Since 2010 three distinct strands of work
have started:
- Whole Place Community Budget (WPCB) pilots designed
to cut red tape, improve policy making through involving local
partners and to achieve savings;[4]
- Neighbourhood Community Budget (NCB) pilots designed
to give local residents a "micro-local level say over the
services they want and use";[5]
and
- the Troubled Families Programme (TFP), designed
to 'turn around' the lives of 120,000 troubled families by the
end of the Parliament.[6]
The WPCB and NCB pilots are now entering the implementation
phase and the TFP released its first year results in March 2013.
3. The first 16 Community Budget pilots—the
precursors of WPCB and NCB pilots—were announced in October
2010 and launched in April 2011.[7]
A key objective was to improve services for families with complex
needs by better co-ordinating the way agencies interacted with
them.[8] Some 120,000 of
these families were identified as costing around £8 billion
a year, largely from emergency interventions by the police, social
services and judiciary.[9]
The riots which took place in the summer of 2011 sparked calls
for the Government to tackle antisocial behaviour among families
with multiple social and economic problems. Subsequently, from
2011 the primary emphasis of work with such families moved away
from improving services towards saving money through integrating
services and early interventions designed to address antisocial
behaviour, which the Government identified as a priority. This
work became a separate programme, TFP, and shifted from being
a locally-driven community budget approach into the newly formed
Troubled Families Unit headed by Louise Casey CB. This central
unit run from Department for Communities and Local Government
(DCLG) was set up to help local authorities "turn around"[10]
the lives of 120,000 families by 2015. Each of the 152 participating
authorities used centrally defined as well as local criteria to
identify troubled families in their area. The authorities then
agreed to work with a specified number of those families by the
end of the first year of the programme in March 2013. In return
authorities receive 40 per cent of the cost of helping each family
that they successfully turn around.
4. Separately, in the Autumn of 2011 four WPCBs
pilots were launched.[11]
These new pilots include work with families with complex needs
as well as on a broader set of public services. Also announced
were 10 NCB pilots designed to operate on a local neighbourhood
level and to improve services through joint working between local
partners and the community.[12]
Both the WPCB and NCB pilots differ from the TFP as they are locally
led and not subject to centrally set criteria linked to funding.
The inquiry
5. Following the announcement of the WPCB and
NCB pilots in October 2011 we held a short inquiry to identify
the key issues and objectives of Community Budgets as well as
the TFP. Our report, Taking Forward Community Budgets,
raised several questions about how each initiative would work.
Because the pilots were at an early stage we decided that we would
return later in the Parliament to examine these questions. We
announced our further inquiry into Community Budgets in March
2013 and included questions from our earlier inquiry in our call
for evidence.[13] We
received 13 written submissions and held four oral evidence sessions.
Three of the four WPCB pilots, Essex, Cheshire West and Chester
and Manchester City Council gave oral evidence.[14]
In addition two NCB pilot areas, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
and Birmingham City Council gave evidence as did Newcastle City
Council and Leeds City Council both of which provided oral evidence
in relation to the TFP. We are grateful to all those who provided
written and oral evidence and to our specialist adviser, Dr Michael
Grady of the Institute of Health Equity, University College London.[15]
ISSUES ARISING FROM THE EVIDENCE
6. The key issues identified by witnesses to
this inquiry were:
- the extent to which the WPCB
and NCB pilots have demonstrated significant potential to improve
services and create savings;
- the extent to which community budget pilots have
improved on previous initiatives because of better data collection
and a stronger evidence base to demonstrate their impact. This
issue raises questions of resources and data protection;
- whether more work is needed at the local level
on structures for developing local agreements between partners
and making arrangements for pooled budgets;
- the operation of the funding model for Community
Budgets and the need for financial certainty for local government
in the medium to long term to encourage buy-in from local partners;
- the availability of support from central departments
for Community Budgets; and
- the extent to which TFP has the potential to
improve the lives of families but whether its centralised approach
risks creating fresh silos and setting back locally-led Community
Budgets.
7. We explore each of these issues in our report.
Those that concern Community Budgets we examine in chapters 2
and 3, which cover respectively an examination of the benefits
of the Community Budgets and the monitoring and accountability
of Community Budgets. Because work with troubled families through
the TFP is distinct from Community Budgets it will be dealt with
separately in chapter 4. Throughout the report the term 'Community
Budget' refers to both WPCBs and NCBs unless otherwise indicated.
We have italicised our key conclusions and recommendations.
2 Local Government Association and HM Government, Local
Public Service Transformation: A Guide to Whole Place Community
Budgets, March 2013, p 5 Back
3
Including local area agreements (LAAs) and multi area agreements
(MAAs) and the Total Place initiative which experimented with
delivering joined-up public services within an area. HM Treasury,
Total place: a whole area approach to public services, March
2010 Back
4
HC Deb, 10 January 2012, col 1WS Back
5
As above. Back
6
DCLG website, www.gov.uk/government/speeches/troubled-families-programme--2,
10 September 2010 Back
7
"16 areas get 'community budgets' to help the vulnerable",
DCLG press notice, 22 October 2010 Back
8
HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010, and HM Treasury,
Total place: a whole area approach to public services, March
2010 Back
9
"16 areas get 'community budgets' to help the vulnerable",
DCLG press notice, 22 October 2010 Back
10
DCLG website, www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around,
12 February 2013 Back
11
The Whole Place pilot areas launched in December 2011 and due
to run until March 2013 were Greater Manchester, Cheshire West
and Chester, Essex County Council and the West London Tri-borough
area. Back
12
The Neighbourhood pilot areas were White City, Kingston, Poplar,
Westminster, Newcastle, Ilfracombe, Bradford Trident, Sherwood,
Haverhill and three areas within Birmingham: Castle Vale, Shard
End and Basall Heath. Back
13
Communities and Local Government Committee website, 'Call
for evidence', www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news/community-budgets/,
4 March 2013 Back
14
The fourth Whole Place pilot area which did not provide evidence
to this inquiry is the West London Tri-borough area. Back
15
Dr Grady had no interests to declare. Back
| 
