Publishing a on the future of public service inspection, NLGN warns that wholesale abolition of assessment regimes could risk “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and instead suggests that inspections of key services should move to a ‘risk-based’ weighted approach that would offer intensive support to underperforming councils but much more infrequent and lighter inspection to those performing well.

Having only been in place since 2009, CAA has been criticised for being too expensive and overly burdensome. A number of local authorities have publicly announced that they will limit the amount of time afforded to collating data for the inspectorate. Government plans to scrap CAA may lead to local authorities only being held to account through elections and through more transparent listing of their spending and decision making.

Under NLGN’s model, citizens would be encouraged to take a greater role in service provision and in holding their public services to account. They would be able to petition the LGA if they feel that the quality of a specific local service is declining or is not up-to-standards and if the internal procedure of the council or service is not satisfactory. Citizens would also be given access to more transparent information on how council money is spent, as a means of strengthening local democracy, and be invited to act as “bare-foot” assessors of local services.

The report also points towards a redefined role for the Audit Commission, which would focus more on financial auditing functions and on being a gate-keeper for other inspectorates such as OFSTED and the Care Quality Commission.

The local government family, led by the LGA, would take on a greater role in supporting underperforming councils and providing peer-led reviews.

Author of the report and NLGN Researcher Olivier Roth said:

“Each year local authorities spend around £150 billion of public money and it is therefore fundamental how we assess our public services and allow citizens a fair voice in monitoring them. We should enhance the role that citizens can play in holding their local public services to account through transparency and increased citizen engagement. Transparency and clear accountability must sit at the heart of the response, so that citizens have the necessary tools with which to hold elected politicians and officials to account. Effective assessment can underpin local democracy.

“One of the lessons of CAA is that adversarial and external inspections can only take improvement so far. For improvement to be real and lasting, it has to be embraced by the organisation attempting to improve. It is local government that possesses the experience, the skills and the mindset to identify possible improvements, and to find the right solutions to enable them. The assessment process should be owned by the local government family, as it possesses the required democratic legitimacy, buy in, and know-how needed to implement real and substantial changes.”

At the report launch, Cllr David Parsons praised the report as “a timely contribution to the debate on the future of audit and inspection.” Gareth Davies affirmed the report’s thesis that “independent local audit is fundamentally important” and Dr. Ita O’Donovan declared that we need to be “much more imaginative at the local level” as we decide upon the future of audit and assessment.

NLGN’s latest paper, Making Sense of Entitlement, argues that the use of entitlements and guarantees to citizens replicates many of the problems of traditional performance targets and restricts the ability of services to focus on the needs of their local communities. It concludes that users would benefit and better outcomes could be achieved more efficiently if public services were subject to less central instruction, as long as the necessary safeguards of transparency, scrutiny and accountability to local citizens are in place.

Entitlements offering public service users a number of guaranteed commitments from public services were a prominent feature of policy under the previous government. They included:

• Maximum waiting times in the NHS
  
• Free care at home for older people and the disabled
  
• ‘September Guarantee’ offering all 16 and 17 year old school leavers a guaranteed place in education or training
  
• One-to-one tuition for all school children falling behind in English and Maths

NLGN’s report highlights the considerable evidence that uniform entitlements distort the priorities of frontline staff away from providing the best possible service, towards fulfilling specific entitlements at the behest of civil servants in Whitehall. Entitlements such as the NHS waiting times are also vulnerable to manipulation, for example holding A&E patients in ambulances so as to process them within the four hour maximum wait.

As such NLGN recommends that:

1. 1) Priorities and policy aims should be formulated on the basis of a negotiated agreement between central government and the local authority based on policy objectives and the needs of the local community. Drawing on the findings from the Total Place pilots, NLGN proposes that such a ‘Place Agreement’ should define clear service outcomes to be achieved locally and include additional devolution of funding and powers to meet these objectives.

2. 2) To provide the necessary safeguards, both central and local government should ensure that public service outcomes are clearly transparent and accountable to citizens. This should be done through a series of measures including e-transparency, an assessment system focused fundamentally on the citizen, and greater scrutiny from the local government family. Such a system will be the focus of NLGN’s forthcoming report in July 2010 on the ‘Future of Assessment’.

3. 3) Where the Coalition Government chooses to maintain or introduce future entitlements, that these should be broad and outcome-focused, rather than narrow and procedural, to allow local bodies flexibility to meet the needs of their community. The Policing pledge commitment to spending time on the beat working to agreed neighbourhood priorities is a positive example.

4. 4) Local authorities should be given greater responsibility for services such as healthcare and policing – strengthening joined up working and giving a cohesive democratic mandate to locally-responsive priorities.

Luke Hildyard, the report author said:

‘Fears of public services suffering as a result of the abandonment of entitlements are unfounded. Equivalently resourced services ought to be capable of producing better outcomes if they are subject to less central instruction, not worse. Provided the necessary safeguards of transparency, scrutiny and accountability to citizens are in place, public service users will benefit if the coalition’s move towards a more devolved, locally-focused system of public service management leads to the scaling down of uniform national guarantees’

In one of the most detailed studies so far on Total Place, the research finds that whilst billions of savings could be achieved at the local level by better joined-up services, a lack of coherence between Government departments and a historic reluctance to devolve threatens to derail the project. The report is timed to inform the debate around the future of Total Place before further announcements are made in the Budget.

NLGN’s report argues that major change is needed at the centre to break existing top-down models and cultures of accountability and service delivery, which lead to significant inefficiency and wastage in public services. For instance, one local pilot uncovered as many as 50 different benefits each with their own form, rules and administrative machinery; another has calculated that it costs as much as £135m to spend £176m on economic development projects. NLGN’s analysis shows that major benefits can be unlocked by a more collaborative approach to public sector assets and building services around the citizen at a local level.

The report advocates the setting up of a new Department for Devolved Government to subsume CLG and the Cabinet Office and the Scottish and Welsh offices to drive devolution across Whitehall and release greater freedoms and powers for locally elected politicians to coordinate activity and decide how and where services are delivered. As part of this, accountability for public health budgets and local policing should be devolved immediately to all local authorities.

It also argues that localities and national government should come to a new series of deals on devolving public money and delivery responsibilities across a wider range of services such as employment and skills. These Place Proposition Agreements would allow local areas to set out how they could provide improved services for less money as a response to the expected cuts in public sector budgets.

Further recommendations in the NLGN report include:

• Allowing councils full discretion over spend across regeneration, transport and housing in a single capital pot;
  
• Establishing a new Joint Parliamentary and Local Government ‘Total Place Progress Committee’ comprised of MPs and local council leaders to scrutinise cross-government activity;
  
• Strengthening existing Local Strategic Partnership arrangements and moving towards more statutory, incorporated and focused Public Service Boards;
  
• Undertaking total counts of public resources and asset mapping across all local areas as a catalyst for collaborative approaches;
  
• Setting up a Collaborative Leadership Academy to develop leadership across the public sector.

‘The concept of aligning all public resources in an area around the needs of its community is simple and commonsense. Putting it into practice, however, remains a major challenge not just for local areas but also for Whitehall. The changes needed go way beyond merely removing a few ring-fenced budgets or performance targets. Our cultures of governing and our current systems of funding and accountability cut through and undermine our focus on what the citizen needs.

‘With public sector budgets under pressure, it is more important now than ever that we seek to institute reforms that can ensure the most targeted and efficient responses to our local communities. This must include greater freedoms, responsibilities and resources at the local level.’

NLGN’s report was undertaken with support from Cap Gemini, Grant Thornton, Leadership Centre for Local Government and London Councils.

National rail services are currently managed by the Department for Transport through a series of franchise agreements, which generally last for between seven and ten years. Under the scheme, groups of sub-regional local authorities could be able to trigger a contract refresh or reconsideration if certain local targets or levels of satisfaction with trains’ services are not achieved. This would give a greater voice to local people in areas that suffer delays, poor services, overcrowding or unreasonable fares policies.

The recall would work by giving new powers to sub-regional authorities to demand that the Secretary of State reconsiders the terms of a franchise agreement where it can be shown that train services are not meeting satisfaction levels or responding to local needs. All franchise agreements would have additional clauses inserted allowing for councils to represent the needs of local commuters in this way.

On the Right Track: New models for integrated transport also proposes a range of new powers and initiatives to integrate transport. Measures include a regional ‘Oyster’ system for rail and bus services which would allow sub-regional authorities to offer cheaper and more convenient travel options throughout their region. Such a scheme would also provide a capital pot to allow authorities to invest in better public transport. According to the report, the scheme could raise a floating loan of almost £50m for the Leeds city-region and almost £45m for the Manchester city-region. The scheme could also allow users to register “land miles”, a reward for using public transport.

To help cut congestion and tackle climate change, the report also urges local authorities to offer financial incentives for local residents to reduce their car usage. One suggestion is for councils to offer forms of car insurance that reward drivers who only use their car sparingly, for example to do the weekly shopping. The scheme could benefit drivers who use public transport to go to work or take their children to school rather than using a car.

Author of the report, Nigel Keohane argues that the new transport Secretary of State should make integrated transport a priority:

“Transport affects all aspects of our lives: whether getting to work, travelling to school or college, accessing hospitals or visiting family and friends. At a strategic level, mobility is an enabler for economic growth, social inclusion and will determine the health of our environment.

“However, transport still remains too disjointed – in terms of how we buy tickets, receive information, make connections and exercise our choice of travel. Without new approaches, congestion is likely to stall economic recovery, we will struggle to meet our climate change aspirations and passengers will be left frustrated and unconvinced by what public transport has to offer.”

NLGN is today (Wed) publishing new proposals to accelerate sub-regional economic collaboration across England to help areas weather the economic storm and emerge strong from the downturn.

In a major report to be launched at the LGA conference, NLGN warns that if central government fails to incentivise deeper sub-regional working by putting greater powers “on the table” important opportunities for economic development will be missed. In particular concern is voiced that the city-region forerunners announced at The Budget and the Economic Prosperity Boards (EPBs) currently being legislated for in Parliament will not be granted the powers they need.

Author Nick Hope sets out eight proposals for reform:

1. Accelerated Development Zone (ADZ) status should be made widely available to sub-regions at the earliest opportunity to ensure large infrastructure schemes do not become unviable

2. Sub-regional partnerships should be granted additional latitude for Supplementary Business Rates or Business Rate discounts within their functional economic area to match economic activity
3. Sub-regional partnerships should be able to receive longer-term funding commitments from Government, in turn leveraging benefits from this greater financial certainty
4. A new three year statutory financial balance for local authorities in sub-regional partnerships should be offered in order to expand the policy choices available to them
5. A single capital pot for economic development and regeneration would allow spend to vary between themes and projects in a more responsive way and support a more integrated approach
6. All skills and worklessness commissioning powers should be available to sub-regions at the earliest possible opportunity to help improve educational attainment and tackle unemployment
7. Multi-Area Agreements and sub-regional partnerships should have their cooperative efforts rewarded with a new ability to appeal to the Secretary of State against NDPB and Executive Agency decisions it feels may hamper their strategy
8. The concept of ‘Total Place’ should be extended to incentivise multi-area agreements and sub regions to pool efforts and create new efficiencies across a wider area – the notion of ‘Total MAAs’

In addition to incentivising collaboration with new powers, the report argues that there should be greater support for sub-regional working with:

• The creation of a new ‘sub-regional catalyst fund’, where central government ‘match funds’ the cost of the additional spending and resources needed to establish and strengthen sub-regional partnerships. This money would be paid back by the sub-regional partnership over an agreed period from the efficiency savings that sub-regional collaboration brings.

• Improvements to the interface with Whitehall should be improved, particularly in the current climate, by strengthening the MAA Team to reflect the growing number of sub-regions that are emerging, looking to develop, and wishing to expand their role.
• A more flexible, simpler and inclusive approach from government under the MAA umbrella, so that they cover a far wider variety of partnership arrangements, harnessing the economic potential of a wider spectrum of sub-regions.

Nick Hope urged the Government to be bolder in its approach to sub-regions, arguing:

‘“If Whitehall fails to match the ambition of sub-regions with greater ambition itself very few areas will go down this more formal statutory route.

There is a real opportunity for robust governance arrangements at the sub-regional tier, which provide the leadership and drive for important strategic economic decision-making and interventions to take place, but these collaborative partnerships need new tools and flexibilities if they are to be effective.

Both local and central government need to prioritise economic needs over institutional self-interest or they will fail future generations. It will take more than “business as usual” to deliver the infrastructure and inward investment needed for prosperity.”

Written in conjunction with our MAA Forum, the essay collection brings together some of the leading thinkers from across the country on the sub-regional agenda. The collection argues that collaboration between councils is continuing to go from strength-to strength but, as the policy frontiers are pushed, the debate about the future direction for the sub-regional agenda – or, perhaps more accurately, sub-regional agendas – is heating up.

In his foreword, new Housing Minister Hon John Healey said the essays provided some “sharp perspectives on the debate about further devolution to sub-regions”. In these economic circumstances, he argues that “we need active government and we need flexible government, willing to prioritise economic needs over any dogmatic commitment to old ideas or institutional self-interest”. He defends Regional Development agencies and argues that “We will extend the scope for sub-regions, but we must do so both with local authorities as the base and within a wider regional policy”.

In contrast the Shadow Local Government Minister, Bob Neill MP, adopts a far more critical stance on RDAs but states that a Conservative Government will “give local authorities the power to come together to establish new enterprise partnerships that truly reflect natural economic divisions, and to take over from their RDAs the responsibility for economic development within those areas”. Importantly he suggests that the Conservatives are “certainly open to encouraging building on existing partnership arrangements where appropriate”.

Professor Alan Harding and James Harding, from the Institute of Political and Economic Governance, argue that the repercussions of the Multi-Area Agreement (MAA) experience could be profound, representing “an early step on the road to what might ultimately be a radically different approach to the way central-local government relationships have operated in the past.

Simon Murphy and David Howl, from the Birmingham, Coventry and Black Country City-Region partnership, make the case for Accelerated Development Zones (ADZs). Neil Darwin, from the Regional Cities East partnership, makes a compelling case for a more flexible and inclusive approach to MAAs and sub-regionalism from central government. He warns central government against an exclusive focus on the traditional larger city-region model and calls for greater recognition of diversity and more control for smaller cities in England.

James Flanagan provides reflections from Leeds City Region, one of only two forerunner city-region pilots in the country. John Jory, Chief Executive at Mid Sussex District Council, argues that a business led partnership of public and private organisations working in collaboration that the shared aims and objectives of the sub-region can be delivered. Kieran Curran, form Lancashire County Council, provides an insightful comparison with the United States and the approach the Obama administration is adopting of allowing new ideas to be tested, whilst maintaining partnership between the federal states and Washington.

Nick Hope, editor of the essay collection and NLGN researcher said:

“This essay collection illustrates that there is no shortage of ideas about where the sub-regional agenda should go next. But collaboration across policy strands and administrative boundaries requires a change of mindset and new ways of working in both central and local government.

The key question, whichever political party is in Government, is whether they recognise the wealth of untapped economic potential out there and are willing to provide the leadership in central government to unlock the powers that local authorities need to harness it”.

In this report NLGN argues that the traditional centralised provision of services often disregards the specific needs of individuals, leads to massive wastage and fails to meet the rising expectations of citizens. Instead, the next stage of public service reform should see citizens making their own choices – with greater individual control of resources – and communities empowered to generate their own revenue and invest in services that meet the needs of their local neighbourhoods.

But, it concludes, current efforts to drive this agenda from the centre looks set to fail. Centralised investment, decision-making and performance management has made few inroads. ‘Personalising’ a service requires in-depth knowledge of consumer demand, of how markets can best provide for this demand, and how to involve citizens in designing and even running these services. It is only elected local government that is best placed to intervene and tailor responses to individuals who are out of work, homeless or in receipt of care.

The research identifies 26 practical ways in which individuals and communities can be given greater control and influence over the services they receive. It calls for new freedoms to allow funding to follow individuals and wrap around their needs and for Whitehall to step back and let citizens evaluate how services should be improved.

The report concludes by setting out new reforms to bring personalisation about:

• councils should provide leisure and recreation vouchers and allow young people to choose how to spend these on sports services (such as leisure centres or renting football pitches) or recreation (such as hiring a recording studio);

• there are increasing moves to provide convenient access to information and ticket sales across the national rail network, but this concept should be developed to bring about a National Oyster Card that would allow easy access for commuters and travellers across localities, regions and the country;

• current contractual arrangements in dental health mean that millions are going without treatment with the most significant reason remains lack of NHS dentist capacity. As a driver for wider choice, access must be opened up and the Government should, as part of its ongoing review, consider obliging those dentists who receive NHS training to conduct a minimum proportion of their work under NHS terms;

• lessons should be learned from market leaders such as the Tesco Clubcard and Amazon, with councils providing residents with local swipe cards to access services that can be credited with rewards and topped-up, and in turn provide evidence for shaping services based on customer usage and preferences;

• under a system of electronic patient records, the days should be over when commuters are forced to take a day off work to visit their GP

• individuals should be allowed access any GP, whether near their workplace, friends or family – to provide convenience and prevent wasted time;

• revenue from parking charges, environmental fines and infrastructure charges from utility companies should be devolved to the street level, where this money could be invested to make roads safer, hire a community hall or enhance the local environment.

The report assesses the ‘spatial awareness’ of Whitehall departments and proposes sweeping reforms to the way it operates sub-nationally. Its recommendations include introducing a new “duty to devolve” on central government, reform of Public Service Agreements and departmental Capability Reviews, merging the Audit Commission and National Audit Office into a new single auditor and converting regional Government Offices explicitly into ‘Offices of the Regional Ministers’.

Authored by NLGN Director Chris Leslie and Nick Hope, the report argues that Whitehall departments need to adapt to the challenges of delivering modern public services and should develop a more strategic, less interventionist role. The report also encourages reform of the civil service recruitment process including the establishment of a new National Public Service Fast Stream scheme for graduates and insisting that senior civil servants have some experience of working within local government.

The report maintains that while local authorities are expected to comply with a number of formal duties, central Government should mirror this process by introducing a new “duty to devolve” on Whitehall departments. This duty could become a ‘devolutionary test’ in the parliamentary and legislative process.

It also suggests enhancing the role of Regional Ministers by appointing full time Ministers of State for each region, supported by the adaptation of Government Offices into explicitly ‘Offices of the Regional Ministers’.

In the report, Chris Leslie says:

“We believe that these reforms would build on progress already made and deliver a step-change in the quality of local service delivery. They would strengthen Whitehall’s “spatial awareness”, raise the consciousness of its own limitations, encourage a more cross-cutting approach to policy and increase its understanding of variation between and within regions and localities. Such reforms would better ensure that decision-making is

properly integrated throughout sub-national structures and take place at the most appropriate spatial level. Crucially, they would help transform the way communities and citizens are served.”

• Unease that national indicators are too ill-defined and top-down
  
• Call for Whitehall to step back and give councils greater control
  
• But survey finds local partnerships working well

In an evaluation of the latest wave of Local Area Agreements, NLGN highlights significant achievements through the process, including a more joined-up policy framework, but warns that significant logjams are preventing the system working more effectively. Publishing the research today, NLGN argues that:

• National indicators remain too ill-defined and top-down to support Local Area Agreements that are truly locally relevant and evidence-based;
  
• Some Government departments have not offered sufficient flexibility to their local arms to allow them to play a significant role in Local Area Agreement delivery;
  
• The current consultation on CAAs leaves too many questions unanswered;
  
• Without significant and transparent incentives or penalties accountability for LAA success is obscure;

• Whitehall departments should commit to the primacy of the LAA. Where central mandates and regulations interfere with LAA delivery, the Local Area Agreement should take priority;
  
• Statutory Local Area Agreement partners should be expected to increase the amount of funding they pool by 0.5% each year, with a ‘bonus’ to those areas showing the greatest commitment to, and use of, pooled funding;
  
• Councillors should play a new championing role for Local Area Agreements, either on a ward by ward, or individual indicator basis;
  
• Resource and reward systems should be reformed to support the LAA with LAA outcomes linked to individual performance reward grants increased use of cross-agency secondments, and LSP involvement in senior appointments;
  
• Where local areas are successful in delivering their priority outcomes, they should be rewarded with greater flexibility over local funding, including further reductions in ring-fencing and access to other appropriate revenue streams.

There was similar optimism about the direction of Local Area Agreements, with the majority of councils favourable when asked how ‘fully formed’ their Local Area Agreement framework is.

Local Government Minister, John Healey MP has welcomed the report and writes in its foreword:

“[The process of] Agreeing LAAs has been a good start. But the real prize is translating LAA priorities into effective delivery of improvements for citizens over the next three years. In Government we need to build on the progress made during negotiations and ensure sensitivity to local priorities remains central to our policy decisions. This report rightly talks of the need to ensure local agencies and arms of Government unite behind the common LAA vision. I will be looking at this closely with colleagues across Government”.

Chris Leslie, Director, NLGN said:

“There is a great deal of goodwill across local authorities who are keen to make the LAA process work. The real challenge will be moving from deciding the priorities and how to measure progress, to actually managing delivery. This autumn’s “refresh” of the LAA process will be a critical test, especially when the economic context is changing so rapidly. Whitehall in particular will need to double its resolve to stick to its end of the bargain and not shelve these agreements because of financial pressures.”

NLGN is also today launching a new LAA Peer Matching Tool on its website to an area to see which of its peers have chosen an indicator set that most closely mirrors their own. The analysis will then allow authorities to see which indicators they have in common with other areas. It can be downloaded at www.nlgn.org.uk/public/laas/local-area-agreements.

Leslie argues there are four core pillars of modern public service management that are not yet fully appreciated across the public sector:

“First, the factors that drive improvement differ from service to service, and new methods must now go beyond the ‘choice’ and ‘contestability’ models. Other factors can be equally important, such as citizen and political power, professional influence and the public service ethos, and the power of new substitute technologies and products replacing existing activities. Government must analyse each line of public service activity and recognise that sometimes greater consumer choice will be needed, but in other cases tapping into professional goodwill might be a better means of achieving improvement.

“Second, we are entering a new era of networked governance and decision-making by partnerships, yet the skills to build productive alliances are not recognised or rewarded adequately.

“Third, a fresh approach to risk management is needed to encourage creativity – and stronger messages about understanding risk and boldness need to be sent from the top.

“Fourth, greater advantage needs to be taken from new commissioning approaches, whether analysing public need more acutely, prioritising resources more effectively or contracting more cleverly on behalf of the taxpayer.

“The civil service has rested on withered laurels for too long. Defending closed procedures for those employed in senior positions and artificially insisting on outdated lines of vertical accountability are practices that have had their day. What is required is a different model that drives performance and delivery with the same power that bureaucracy drove delivery in the industrial era.”

The pamphlet, with a foreword by the LSE’s Tony Travers and supported by Mouchel Business Services, recommends a revived role for localism and local governance, constitutional reform to support new ways of working, and a Whitehall based on project working rather than departmental silos.