Localism: Is it Putting Children and Vulnerable Adults at Risk?

13th Jul 2015

Can localism work during a time of huge public sector funding cuts? It’s a question that goes to the heart of front line service delivery.

A few months ago Olly Martins, Bedfordshire’s Police & Crime Commissioner, devised what he thought was a practical way to fund 100 more police officers for front line duty in the county. He argued these additional services were required to deliver basic levels of policing in times of austerity and cuts.

He suggested holding a referendum asking council tax payers to support a £4.5 million increase in their bills. The resulting price increase would have meant 32p extra a week for a band A property and 48p for band D. Inevitably, it was rejected by 70% of the voters and the well meaning Martins was criticised for suggesting such costs in times of austerity.

I agree that the public has a right to the highest standards of front delivery and services, but the tax rise was significant. Indeed, it was a colossal 15.5%. Nevertheless, his concern to ensure front line services was correct.

I too am increasingly frustrated at where the ongoing cuts are falling and, more importantly, where they are not. I know from my work with police forces, local authorities, health providers and commissioners that most front line services have been reduced while some no longer exist at all.

Early interventions and preventions

You can’t deliver outcomes for children, vulnerable adults and families without social workers, school nurses and child abuse detectives. Likewise, you can’t hope to reduce public spending in the future unless you’re able to implement crucial early interventions and prevention. Preventative and therapeutic services are now hugely underfunded and in some areas non-existent.

This gets back to the question of localism. I have seen little evidence since the crash in 2007 of any change in the structures required to lead, manage and support our hard-pressed and reduced front line public services.

By way of example let’s consider my old service. I am still fiercely loyal of the work they do and the risks many police officers take every day. Nevertheless, we still have 43 police forces each with Chief Officer Groups and 43 Police and Crime Commissioners. Most have senior officer support teams, HR, IT and finance departments, policy teams, performance and monitoring units, marketing and media departments, and recruitment and procurement teams. Procurement of equipment and services is generally still locally delivered within each force area.

Some of these forces are much smaller than others and struggle to deliver the myriad of front line services required of them, particularly with ongoing funding cuts in budgets. It’s true there are cross force collaborations and the sharing of resources, mainly front line operational ones. But it’s clear all the collaboration agreements however effective have retained the identity and structures of individual locally-based organisations.

We need to clarify where and how we reduce funding while creating effective and efficient leadership across the police service and public sector.

Leadership for better outcomes

We regularly hear of outstanding levels of service by the thin front line of policing, social work, nursing and others. Effective and efficient organisations need quality management systems, support services and leadership to ensure the highest standards of service delivery and the best outcomes for customers and service users. They also need to be appropriately structured and of a sensible scale for greatest efficiency and effectiveness.

But the reliance on localism to retain public sector bodies, with all the replicated structural costs involved, is inappropriate at a time when the vast majority of public sector cuts have a huge impact on front line services.

Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards

A good example of this impact is Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards. These bring together councils, the police, health service, schools and other organisations to monitor and coordinate activity to keep children safe and oversee reviews of serious cases. But councils are increasingly footing the bill when partners fail to meet their obligations to contribute a fair share of resources. The original purpose of the boards to coordinate local safeguarding work and keep children safe has become confused by increasing expectations that are not matched by greater powers or resources.

Localists may point to Manchester as a success story, but what about Rotherham and Doncaster? Kent and Essex are rich Tory counties, but what about Thurrock and Thanet? Meanwhile, Labour councils like Newham in London boast of council tax freezes.

Surely it is time for a conversation that challenges our structures and many of the replicated functions within them with a view to redirecting funds to service delivery in our local communities.

Let’s start talking localism around the delivery of front line services that people want and not as an argument to retain the current and sometimes historic landscape and structures around them. Let’s seriously consider the savings we can make by changing structures and the wider organisational landscape. Front line service delivery needs funding appropriately and stabilising for the future or everyone suffers in the long term.

Before we look to raise more in tax or cut more at the front line of practice shouldn’t we look at the very structures we are all paying for and ensure they are designed for best effect and are affordable?