Think services, think spending, think ‘place’

August 11, 2009

Anna Turley
www.publicservice.co.uk

There aren’t many good things to have come out of the recession, but it must be said that Sir Michael Bichard’s Total Place just might be one of them.

It has taken an unprecedented economic crisis and the likelihood of a drastic squeeze on public spending to get central government to finally come round to our way of thinking – to realise that we need to think ‘place’ when it comes to delivering public services and shaping public spending.

Total Place will see 13 pilot areas look at how collaboration between central government and local agencies can ‘deliver service transformation to improve the experience of local residents, and deliver better value’.

In theory, Total Place ought to be a localist’s dream come true. We know that there is huge duplication in the way that money is spent at the front line; we know there is overlap between central and local spending, we understand the interdependence of spending between social care and health or unemployment and mental health; and we are well aware that it is often the inflexibility and restrictiveness of central spending or dictat that causes much of this.

Total Place should be the opportunity to demonstrate to central government just where the duplication lies, and how, if central government had more spatial awareness when making policy, and showed more willingness to dismantle those central barriers and obstacles to more flexible local services, we could have a real impact on the way we deliver services for the citizen, as well as save money through better designed services.

Indeed, this must be the order of priority. While it is no secret that it is the economic climate that is driving the urgency behind Total Place, the purpose of this exercise must not be to make a few savings round the edges. Local government made good progress in the light of Gershon, but this is insufficient in the current climate, and we would be doing our citizens a disservice if we tried to maintain business as usual with a few cut-backs. This would soon see greater cuts to more essential services as the climate worsens, and we know the local government community has been here before.

Moreover, citizen expectations are rising and show no signs of abating. They will not accept reductions in standards of service provision – the solution has to be that we change the way we deliver. Total Place is a golden opportunity to take a fundamental look at the entirety of the way we deliver public services to, and with, the citizen.

For Total Place to be a success, and for local areas to achieve this redesign in service delivery, it is vital that the agenda is truly led by local government. Central government is not currently designed to ‘think place’, so vertical and siloed are its departments.

It must be driven by the desire to put the citizen at the heart of public services, designing systems locally around the citizen’s need. And it must have a keen emphasis on prevention and early intervention. The real savings in our public services lie in making a shift away from crisis-led interventions that are costly and often too late to change lives, towards focused and targeted interventions that actually prevent problems from developing, and which support and shape citizen behaviour, rather than creating further costly dependency.

It must better engage citizens in finding the solutions and designing services. They understand their own needs, and are best placed to identify the wasted effort and duplication because they are on the receiving end of it, often navigating complex systems, and dealing with a variety of different individuals and agencies. All of this can best be done at local level.

Yet it is not apparent from any of the language coming from Whitehall that these issues are the priority. The emphasis is on ‘counting’ and ‘cultural’ change for local agencies. This must not become a centrally-driven exercise for government to identify how it feels local agencies should be spending its money, where it can cut back and then to attempt to apply these lessons across the board. If there is real commitment to a Total Place approach, this should mean accepting different approaches to efficiency across the board, and trusting and supporting local government to apply the learning.

Moreover, the proof of government’s commitment will be seen in its own response. If Total Place can demonstrate the rigidity of central departmental budgets, targets and programmes, and the impact these have on hindering local delivery, the onus will be on them to change their approach and untie the hands of local agencies. How realistic this ambition is remains to be seen, as manifestos, general elections, and potential new governments inevitably see politicians attempt to grip the levers of government machinery at the centre, and see departments jostle to demonstrate their ability to deliver.

Efforts could also be hampered by the recent London Authorities Mutual Limited (LAML) judgement. If local authorities want to use their well-being powers to respond to the learning from Total Place, they may find themselves coming up against this barrier, and unable to take the action required. This must be remedied as soon as possible.

However, we don’t know any of this unless we try. This is a golden opportunity for bold and ambitious local authorities to reshape the way we deliver public services locally. If the economic climate was good, this could be an interesting experiment for passionate localists. As it stands, a Total Place approach is an economic and social imperative.


Explore More