Relationships between citizens, their communities and local authorities are changing. In part, this is a result of the unprecedented cuts in public expenditure and local public services. However, it is also both a consequence of the combination of demographic changes and a growing demand for traditional public services, and a result of an evolving, less deferential attitude and ‘a desire for more self-control’ among much of the public.
It is increasingly likely that some public services which have traditionally been funded and organised by local authorities and the wider public sector will simply be withdrawn (or, at the very least, partly withdrawn) from certain user groups, or changed in very radical ways.
Individuals, households and communities may be expected to co-design and co-produce services with their local authority, and in some cases, offered the opportunity to take over the running of services which otherwise will cease to exist. And voluntary and community sector groups will be offered the same opportunities, sometimes with public financial support and often without. Sometimes the relationship will be based on competitive procurement and a contract.
These scenarios may not be what many of us would want to see to be dominant, but unless and until there is a major seismic shift in national economic and social policy, they are going to become ever more normal. And even if the financial pressures were not so prevalent for some services currently organised by the public sector, there is in fact a strong case for transferring responsibility with some resources to communities willing to take them over, for the truth is that local design and delivery of some (not all) services generally makes sense in terms of cost effectiveness, responsiveness and accountability.
Local authorities have to recognise these changes openly and engage their local citizens and community organisations in a serious dialogue about what this means for their particular place and its residents; and with the local voluntary and community sector, as well as with local businesses.
This dialogue has to be very carefully scripted and focused. It has to be based on a very clear narrative which in turn reflects the values and policies of: local political leaders and administrations; local and community needs; and the voluntary and community sector capacity. This dialogue has to be a genuine conversation where there is both honesty and accurate information around the various options. And the dialogue has to be two way – not the local authority telling people and communities what it intends them to do – with the local authority being willing to alter its proposed actions as a result of these conversations. Community leadership has to be more about listening than telling.
There are many examples of individuals and households changing their behaviours in response to public policy and sometimes peer pressure – for example, in sorting waste for recycling. There are also many excellent examples of communities successfully taking over public services that might otherwise have been closed. These examples range from public libraries to parks to children’s centres. These forms of community ownership and provision often work best where there is a planned transfer over time, the public body continues to provide specialist advice or resources (e.g. books, premises and ICT for libraries) and some revenue support (for a transition period and often beyond).
Rushing into these kind of arrangements is likely to be disastrous. They need to be underpinned by a clear political narrative and they need to be developed in partnership with communities and the local community voluntary sector, faith groups and other stakeholders including businesses.
When local authorities and indeed other public bodies are considering such changes, they must ensure that they:
- are doing so in accordance with their values base
- ensure equity and access to services
- are willing to support transitional arrangements and fund capacity building, as well as service provision
- are realistic about potential financial savings and the impact on the quality of services
- recognise that it will be different for different services and different communities; and celebrate and learn from diversity
Such approaches should be co-ordinated across local agencies to avoid conflicts and possibly too much being expected of the same community.
It is better to encourage communities, neighbourhoods and voluntary organisations to volunteer rather than either be ‘press-ganged’ or offered a ‘Hobson’s choice’. This implies that the process is likely to take time and will require patience. For too many local authorities, while it may feel that there is no time for proceeding cautiously, I believe that many will regret not doing so.
Local authorities and their partners may be considering targeting services and withdrawing what has hitherto been a universal provision. This may be counter-productive for a variety of reasons, not least that it may dis-incentivise some communities from responding positively and sometimes even undermine the principles of public services.
There is a strong case to be made for some services, and indeed some power and resources, to be devolved from local authorities and other public bodies to communities and community groups; to transfer community assets; and to adopt what is often described as ‘double devolution’ if Whitehall is prepared to devolve more to councils.
Local authorities and the wider public sector have to align their strategic commissioning, standing orders and procurement practices with a devolution and community empowerment policy. All too often these processes can be bureaucratic barriers to progress. Wherever possible they should co-commission with communities and community groups or devolve the commissioning role too. They should seek to avoid competitive tendering wherever legally possible.
Parish, town and community councils can bring a democratic dimension to this approach. The voluntary and community sector has an important role to play too as the voice of communities and alternative service providers. Local businesses can also play a constructive role as corporate citizens and community resources.
In summary, given the current financial and social environment, local political leaders have to be ready to listen, to let go and to support communities and local groups. Equally they have to be ready and willing to change their minds in the face of local opposition and/or clear evidence that their ideas will not be sustainable. They need a clear narrative and politically determined but transparent criteria by which to judge and agree what might be devolved, transferred or even just stopped and on what basis.
If councils and council leaders get this wrong, it could lead to social and economic disaster. But if they get it right, it can liberate and embolden communities and might be able to sustain some critical services in spite of austerity.