Last week, in advance of the Comprehensive Spending Review, I wrote a piece for the Public Finance blog contemplating whether it would rejuvenate Total Place. Post CSR, my blunt answer has to be ‘no’.
Community-based budgets are to be welcomed but they appear, in the absence of much detail, to be a disappointing alternative to Total Place. There is much to applaud in the freeing of local authorities from the constraints of ring-fenced grants and a prescriptive performance management regime centrally imposed. However, the benefit of community-based budgets would seem to be restricted to the fact that councils can have more control over local government monies and limited sums from other public sector budgets in order to address the challenges of families with complex needs.
I don’t doubt for a moment that there are significant social, economic and financial advantages to addressing these households in a holistic manner. Early prevention can lead to massive long-term savings and community gains in addition to the benefits for the families themselves. However, to be truly impactful, it will be essential for the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus benefits and wider expenditure to be included in the monies devolved to localities and, in particular, local authorities. Councils must be given total discretion over how they work with these households in order to develop and introduce truly innovative long-term sustainable solutions.
Sadly, there is no evidence as yet that this will be the case. Local authorities will have to work with the police, probation, fire, benefit and other services and the third sector to secure long-term results. Ideally, they should have the power to commission all the required services. Will this ever be the case?
Even if it is, as one must hope it will be, community-based budgets are only available to address the needs of families with complex needs – and thus the full potential of Total Place has been missed. One has to ask why. Has the Department for Communities and Local Government failed to convince other Whitehall departments of the benefits of localism based on democratic local government? Or is there some other reason?
Total Place had the potential to put into play for local control and decision-making a significant proportion of the total public expenditure in an area. This now seems to be ‘off the agenda’ for the immediate future.
Whatever the basis for what seems a short-sighted and flawed policy decision (which, by the way, actually undermines the government’s stated commitment to and enthusiasm for localism), nonetheless there remains a real opportunity for local government and its leaders to step up the plate. Place shaping and community leadership principles can still be applied.
Even without new legal powers local authorities can influence and persuade other agencies to pool and align budgets, commissioning to deliver ‘whole’ outcomes for communities and citizens. Without a full Total Place implementation this has to be best opportunity available given the severe budget constraints faced by every public sector agency.
My final plea to Whitehall departments and ministers is this – even if you are not willing to devolve budgets and decisions to localities and in particular local government, please send a very clear message to partner with the wider local public, private and third sectors, to share resources and jointly commission with or cede commissioning to their local authorities.
Meanwhile, local authorities should not wait to be given Whitehall’s permission or guidance. Proceed immediately to implement what is right for your communities until and if stopped. Ultimately, the accountability has to be local people - not Whitehall. This means that authorities have to be effective place shapers, negotiators, networkers, persuaders and, above all, leaders.
The CSR may not have let loose the full potential of Total Place, but it most surely has sounded the trumpet for strongly focused political leadership.
John Tizard is director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships (CPSP@LGiU)
