Big Society public services - local government in the Big Society
On 2 August, as part of our Big Society Public Services series, the Institute for Government, in collaboration with NESTA and the Design Council, hosted a seminar on local government in the Big Society. This page contains an overview of the discussion.
The panel
- Lord Bichard - Executive Director, Institute for Government
- Barry Quirk - Chief Executive, Lewisham Borough Council
- John Sinnott - Chief Executive, Leicestershire County Council
- Rob Whiteman - Managing Director, Local Government Improvement and Development
The need for a Big Society
There are three aims of the Big Society:
- to ensure that all available resources in a local area are used for the benefit of society
- to increase involvement in communities
- to enable people to better shape their communities.
It was suggested these are becoming more widely understood.
Big Society enthusiasts claim that in seeking to achieve community involvement, we have been starting from the wrong place as a society.
It does not necessarily take public money for communities to flourish. Indeed, most of the time people solve their own problems - or solve them as a group - with common concerns and identities. It is only when help in the community does not occur that people then turn to the state.
The argument was made that for too long the primary focus has been on how the state can help, focusing on delivering services and regulating public goods.
As a result, nurturing healthy communities and developing civic society have been overlooked.
BackThe changing role of local government
Placing power in community hands
The primary focus on state action has meant that too often community groups spend their time and energy lobbying councils in frustration that they are prevented from doing things for themselves.
In order to enable groups to solve their own problems, local government will need to devolve some of its power to the local community. The panel highlighted the potential tension between devolving power to communities and seeking to strengthen local democracy.
Nevertheless, there are many examples of local government already placing power in the hands of community groups - through channels like community forums which hold their own budgets.
Building links between communities
The panel highlighted the danger that even if power is devolved to communities, community groups may not emerge in some places.
There is a need to seriously consider the capacity of local groups and institutions to take on greater responsibility.
Further, there is a danger that Small Societies are built which are linked by their common identity but which have limited mutual reciprocity with other groups.
Local governments and institutions will therefore need to build the blocks of civil society in cases where community groups cannot take on more responsibility, and linking capital does not flourish independently.
Concerns were raised that in attempting to build civil society, local governments may make investment and commissioning decisions without fully understanding the priorities of communities.
An overly dictatorial local government does not sit comfortably within the Big Society. The panel were aware that communities are currently more enthusiastic about some issues.
For example, libraries, heritage and elderly care can foster more engagement from the public than mental health services. If local governments are not aware of the priorities of communities, they may pull out of services without the gap being filled by community participation.
The panel suggested therefore that local governments should engage in open debate with local citizens. This debate would focus on the priorities for state provision and the areas where community resources would be best utilised.
The belief was that if communities become engaged in issues they feel passionately about, the residual role for state and statutory institutions in a local area will become more apparent.
In order to make investments and commission services that reflect local priorities and foster civil society, local governments need control over local resources so that money can be moved to areas where it would be best utilised.
Supporting voluntary institutions
The point was made that local governments should be supporting local voluntary organisations. To provide more support the expertise of the voluntary sector needs greater recognition.
Historically, voluntary agencies have won contracts and worked successfully in partnership with statutory agencies. However, whilst the voluntary sector is represented within the delivery landscape, too often policies are developed without its input.
The divide between professional groups and voluntary sector experts who do not necessarily have professional qualifications may account for this lack of representation. A more mature relationship between the sectors is therefore needed if voluntary sector expertise is to be represented in the policy making process.
The trend for cross-council contracting may be a challenge for local voluntary organisations and community groups. To not get crowded out of the market, organisations will require skills and capabilities to be able to deal with the complexity of the supply chain and competition from other delivery organisations.
Local institutions may have to help equip community groups with the skills necessary to survive in these conditions.
Support volunteering
In addition to supporting voluntary organisations, the panel suggested that local government could do more to support volunteering - amongst its staff and the community more widely.
Within government, volunteering is not always valued as a means of personal development and promotion. Local governments could lead by example by putting more emphasis on staff community engagement.
Local authorities could also encourage more members of the community to become involved in statutory activities. Currently professional qualifications can act as a barrier to volunteer involvement.
The pattern across sectors is not consistent and volunteering is welcomed in some sectors more than others - but interestingly not in relation to the amount of risk. For example, in health and social care, there is a lot of risk surrounding volunteering yet there are a large number of volunteers within the sector.
Nevertheless, if local governments could find a way to reduce the risk aversion surrounding volunteering and high levels of safeguarding, they could potentially better harness mutual support.
The changing role for central government
The local community, local government and the voluntary sector, which best understand local needs, should be the creators of civil society.
However, in cases where the Big Society is slow to develop - or in cases of failure - concern was raised that central government may try and bypass local institutions and use central levers to create the Big Society. Therefore ways to minimise central government intervention need to be developed.
The panel was aware that encouraging community engagement will be difficult if local governments have to also spend time piecing together conflicting messages from central government departments. There was a call for coherent messages from central government.
