Next steps for reputation

A fascinating discussion about whether reputation still matters in a world of cuts at the LGA last night. Chaired by Cllr David Pugh, from the Isle of Wight, around 40 councillors and officers debated the issues around the way we retain trust and confidence in local public services.

The context for the discussion was the increasing sense of fatigue about whether councils can or should do anything to manage their reputation and whether this will simply be seen as wasting money.

One of the most compelling arguments made during the course of the evening was that the goal of reputation management should improve the efficiency of the organisation. This means that effective communications should be used to move people online to reduce costs; streamline the way we interact with the public and help make services accessible in a way that reduces beaucracy and increases satisfaction with the service.

There were no supporters of the idea of communications as simply a process of broadcasting press releases, publishing magazines or even tweeting information. Effective reputation management must be seen as an integrated part of the business to enable the authority to change behaviour for the public good; improve efficiency; enhance customer service and develop trust between communities through intelligence.

However, the fact is that together councils spend around £150million a year on corporate communications and there is still too much ‘SOS communications’ which stands for ‘Sending Out Stuff’ which is not related to business objectives, it mot measurable in its impact and in some cases is not understandable. Thousands of press releases, hundreds of leaflets and too many web pages don’t offer value to people. This needs to change.

Some hope for the reputation of councils was offered from the latest Populus/LGInsight poll which shows that in the absence of any substantial criticism in the media or Government the reputation of local government is strengthening. Two thirds (64%) of British adults think that their local council has received either positive or neutral coverage from the media in the last few months, up from 61% in June 2011.  Perceptions of pos/neutral coverage of local councils across the country have gone from 41% to 49% at the same time.  Overall satisfaction with councils stands at 72%, up from 62% at the start of the year.

The LGA debate also highlighted an emerging view that the ‘ban on publications’ is being noted, but councils are adopting a localist approach. One authority said that it had specifically written to the Secretary of State to say that it would produce more than more editions of its publication every year. Others said that while they would “have regard to” to the code, they intended to produce whatever material they believed their residents wished to receive, normally more than four publications a year.

There was also a light hearted discussion about whether councils should generally address local people as “residents” or “citizens” or “customers” or even “crown subjects”. The consensus was that the idea of people as ‘customers’ was inaccurate and outmoded as a term of address and the straightforward term of ‘residents’ accurately reflects the local fact. 

  

Across local government we need a more thoughtful to communications. The cutbacks to services, the reduced size of communication teams and public scepticism about ‘corporate’ spending mean that we need to be more focused in what we do. But if Chief Executive’s can utilise communication tools for the benefit of the authority, and stamp out any remaining vanity publishing, we’d be better off and improve our collective reputations. 

Are the storm clouds forming around the reputation of local government?

A new national poll shows that in the absence of any substantial criticism in the media or Government the reputation of local government appears strong.

The Populus/LGInisght poll conducted during late August shows that seventy percent of British adults think that their local council has received either positive or neutral coverage from the media in the last few months, up nine points from 61% in June 2011.  Perceptions of pos/neutral coverage of local councils across the country have gone from 41% to 53% at the same time.  The polling highlights how councils are engaging with residents and continuing to deliver high quality services. But, as we approach the end of the year there are indications that this could be the calm before the storm.

In January 2011 underneath a mound of snow and ice the reputation of local government fell.  Satisfaction with how they were running local areas fell to 62% as services such as refuse collection suffered. By August reputation has rebuilt to 70% satisfaction, in line with the previous month, built on satisfaction with refuse collection increasing from 73% to 84% and street cleansing from 67% to 76%. Throughout this period the proportion of people feeling informed about the services and benefits provided by their council has gone from 54% to 59%.  This shows that despite the new local government publicity code councils are still able to communicate with their residents and drive an improved reputation. 

As people have talked with their councils and learned about the tough decisions being made the proportion feel their council takes account of residents’ views has gone from 42% at the start of the year to 48% now.  At the same time value for money ratings have gone from 42% to 50%. 

It would be easy for councils to now take the foot off the pedal and consider the job done. Government has gone quiet in its criticism of local government. A freeze in council tax has taken much of the sting out of a much hated tax. Councils are finding that people will have sensible conversations over their budget and the services they need to deliver and how.

But not everything is working out for councils. There are still incredibly tough and controversial decisions being taken on issues such as adult and children social care. Despite only impacting on a small group of residents nine in ten (90%) Britons offer an opinion on how good support for vulnerable adults is in their local area (47% rate it well). Will this improve as consultations start to end and final decisions on the future of services are made? For years councils have been reluctant to communicate the good work they are doing with vulnerable groups through case studies as they have been concerned about confidentiality.  Do we think that vulnerable adults or their carers will be as considerate in return when services are being taken away and the TV cameras turn up? Councils will still continue to support vulnerable adults, but all that will be shown to many are cuts and the taking away of services.

And then there are the roads.  Half (49%) of British adults are dissatisfied with road maintenance. No other major service comes close in getting this level of dissatisfaction. It is an easy area for a council to hold off spending on for another year, increasing the accepted size of potholes or lengthening maintenance schedules. This is likely to be a mistake. Which organisation in their right mind would neglect a service that leads to their customers’ cars being damaged? 

Local government rarely escapes criticism for long.  There are over 400 local councils meaning that there will always be one mad enough to do something the media will lap up to damn the sector. Yet with a strong enough performance from the majority of councils this can be dismissed as an irritant rather than anything substantial. Of more concern is that the council decisions will now start to bite.  Libraries will close. Vulnerable people will complain. Car mechanics will do a roaring trade. Councils will be held to blame. Then in March 2012 council tax bills will go up as the subsidy from central government to freeze the bills was only for one year. A tax rise could consolidate what by then will look like a very lean feast from your local council.

Good communications will help ensure that councils are being open and honest with their residents by explaining and engaging with them about what is going on. With any luck councils are making the right tough decisions and finding that change is possible that drives down costs but also improves the quality of services. The mistake will be to look at these latest polling findings, or observe that media criticism has lessened, and think that the argument has been won. In reality the storm of criticism is likely to start again very soon the question is whether councils are ready for it.

Reasons to be cheerful – local government reputation is improving

Perhaps we are doing some things right. A new poll shows that residents are more positive about their local council than they were at the start of the year.  Seven in ten (71%) GB adults are satisfied with the way their council runs things and half (50%) think their council provides local people with good value for money. 

The findings come from the latest poll from LGinsight/Populus which has been tracking perceptions of local councils since October 2010.  They show that as councils have engaged more with their residents, services have improved and negative media is relatively easing off, so the reputation of local government grows stronger. Populus are probably best known as Pollsters to the Times newspaper, while LGInsight are a group of council officers with an interest in improving the quality of research in local government.

According to the pollsters, the low point for council reputation was January 2011. In the face of an avalanche of snow, ice, Eric Pickles and the Daily Mail, satisfaction with local authorities fell from 69% in October 2010 to 62% in January. At the same time perceptions of value for money also fell (51% to 42%).  Whatever we might think about how well we did in atrocious conditions, the public verdict was damning. Seven in ten (70%) Britons said they were dissatisfied with the way their council had cleared ice and snow from pavements, with nearly a quarter dissatisfied with refuse collection (22%) and street cleaning (23%). The day before fieldwork on the January survey started the Communities Secretary Eric Pickles was quoted in the Daily Mail discussing his opposition to fortnightly bin collections; ‘If we don’t sort this issue, we will set the cause of localism back by a generation, by creating an army of residents who view their council with resentment rather than respect.’  This was after a month of stories attacking councils for wasteful spending, high senior salaries and missed bin collections.

In hindsight the fact that three in five (62%) of residents were still satisfied with the way their council ran things in January might have been more of a surprise.  By June it had bounced up five percentage points (67%).  This trend has continued into July with findings much more in line with that of October 2010.  The June study was carried out in conjunction with the LGA and many more questions were asked probing on the reasons why people felt the way they did.  The conclusion was that “if someone loathes their council it is probably because they have personally had a poor service, have experienced a council activity they think is wasteful, or think their council hasn’t listened to them.” Although negative media was seen to have some impact it was more to reinforce existing views than formulate new ones. The overall conclusion was that the reputation of local government was more resilient than those working in the sector might have thought.  The improvements to service delivery over the previous decade and the work of the LGA Reputation Campaign had worked in encouraging at least some residents to appreciate the job their local authority does.

Comparing January to July satisfaction with refuse collection has gone from 73% to 80%, with only 15% of residents now saying that they are dissatisfied with the service. The real issue for the public is road maintenance with over half (55%) dissatisfied with the quality of this service. The July poll shows for the first time national benchmarks on satisfaction with a range of other services from libraries (67%), pavement maintenance (52%) to services and support for vulnerable children and young people (51%) and adults (43%).  These are all services which are not only important to understanding how people feel about their council, they are the most likely to feel the impact of any cuts to spending.  Considering the relatively small proportion of residents in a local area that is likely to use services for vulnerable people it is worth noting that the majority of the population give a view.  Only around one in five say they “don’t know” in terms of rating these services.

One of the most dramatic changes between June and July 2011 is the increase from 29% to 37% in the number of people saying that they have been kept well informed about their council’s plans to deal with any proposed reductions to their budget. At the same time the number of people saying that their council takes account of residents’ views when making decisions has gone from 40% to 47%. This shows that councils are engaging more with their residents about the tough decisions they are making, at the same time as their reputation is improving.  Could it be that as more people become aware of what their local authority provides they are more favourable towards them? Certainly among those who feel informed about these budget plans nearly nine in ten (87%) say they are satisfied with their council, compared to only six in ten (59%) being satisfied among those who don’t feel informed.

The media is increasingly being perceived as more favourable towards local councils - although not too gushing in its praise.  Back in June just 9% of Britons felt that the media had viewed local councils across the country positively.  This has nearly doubled to 17%. Similarly just one in six (16%) residents thought the media had been positive to their local council or the government.  Perceptions of positive media coverage has remained relatively the same for the government (18%), but has nearly doubled to 30% for residents’ own local council.  There are now more people feeling that the media has viewed their local council positively (30%) than negatively (25%) in the last few months.  The rest feel coverage is neutral or say they don’t know.

Seven in ten (69%) of those who think that coverage of councils across the country has been negative say they are satisfied with their council. Just under six in ten (56%) of those who think national or local coverage of their local council has been negative feel likewise. The public can distinguish between the two and consider information about their council more important than councils in general.  Councils therefore have to ensure that they are not distracted by whatever storms are brewing nationally so that they can engage with their own residents about what they are doing to steer a safe course locally.

There are tough times ahead, but this poll does indicate that we can influence our own destiny if we get the services right, publicise progress and involve in the public in decision making. Surely that can’t be too difficult, and would help secure the localist prize.

A Chief Executive's Guide to Reputation

It seems that SOLACE have woken up to the reputation challenge facing local government. Their Co-Managing Director writes in response to Ben Page in the MJ about the Chief Executives plan for restoring local government reputation.

Essentially it is three steps. First, build on an apparently successful meeting at the LGA conference. Second, utilise social media to promote the sector using some leading figures. Third, develop a wider case for improving reputation through a 'SOLACE communique'. This is a solid start, but we need to be much more strategic and radical if we are to meet the four main reputational challenges facing the sector. This is the challenge of reassuring government that we are ready for localism; demonstrate to residents that we can meet the challenge of austerity; provide visible leadership to staff and show community leaders how we will really empower them to develop a ‘Big’ or ‘Civic’ society.

Put simply, reputation is what someone says about you when you leave the room. It can evoke respect even if you don't like someone. It can mean not having confidence in a person or body, even if they are well meaning. But the point is that it is about what people think about you. The SOLACE prescription is all about what we think about ourselves.

My advice to SOLACE is to think through the hard issues about how you tackle reputation in austere times, with a sceptical public and staff uncertain about the future. I'd advise them as follows.

First, test the evidence. The good news is that there has been a marginal improvement in the reputation of local government over the summer. A new poll by Populus shows that net satisfaction with the local council is up to 55% - a 15% increase since the great snow crisis in January. It is also noteworthy that this improvement appears to be underpinned by the fact that local authorities are beginning to get the communications right, demonstrated by a significant increase in public understanding of budget proposals over the last six months.

Second, if reputation is the sum of our actions the whole sector has to focus on doing the right thing by our communities. Councils have an unenviable and sometimes undeserved reputation for doing silly things, but sense checking service decisions is essential to restoring reputation. Looking at recent news, no chief executive would agree to a ‘keep off the grass’ sign on three square feet of turf; or build a fence through a football goal or paint yellow lines around parked cars. They can’t deal with every service issue but should be clear about setting a general instruction to managers to apply common sense in service delivery and consider the reputational consequences of individual actions.

Third, value for money has to be central to everything we do. The simple rule should be “would we spend this cash if it were our own money?” Demonstrating value for money to the public should be the daily mission of every Director and each communications team. From the autumn we will start the process of setting the budget for 2012-13, so every council needs to be thinking through how it will work with communities to do this. The MJ’s Council of the Year - Harrow - offers a model here with their Let’s Talk campaign http://www.harrow.gov.uk/letstalk

Fourth, there needs to be some passion; a fight against injustice. Councils that can show how they are determined to reduce poverty, end illiteracy and fight disease will garner public support more quickly than campaigning against cuts, because they will be demonstrating leadership, and people respond to that from good local government. We are all part of a noble cause; building local public service to improve lives. Why then do we disguise this in 80 page committee reports, unreadable mission statements and statutes providing rather than enabling. We should release our inner community activist to show how we are on the side of people and can do a lot of good by devolving power, ending restrictions and funding worth projects.

Finally, after evidence, services, outcomes and leadership comes communication, which does have a significant impact on reputation if the former elements are in place. Effective communications means putting yourself in the shoes of the audience and tailoring PR around them. It means using all the tools in the box, press, social media and marketing to reinforce core messages. It means funding evaluation and presenting to cabinet a monthly reputation report.

Reputation should build trust in public services and support service delivery. It should not be about promoting politicians or chief officers. You should be able to say that you build a positive reputation because service delivery improved because of the challenge of sustaining reputation and effective communication increased access to public services.

Time to nudge, smack, hug or shove - whatever works

It appears that the government campaign to spread the use positive incentives to change behaviour for the better – to nudge – may be running into the sand.

First the Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin told the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Committee that the £500,000 civil service team established to promote the use of behavioural economics tools might not justify the investment. He admitted that "It is of course open to question whether any of this will have any effect whatsoever”.

Now the committee has reported and concluded that nudging is not enough. It argues that the use of positive incentives to change behaviour – such as putting healthy foods prominently in the shop window or rewarding students who attend all their lessons will not achieve everything its advocates claim for the approach. In the words of committee Chairman Baroness Neuberger: “The government can't rely on ‘nudging’ to do all the work, particularly with a complicated and deep-rooted problem like obesity.”

This is of course true, positive reward for positive behaviour will only get you so far. But the debate should make councils and other local public services reflect on the whole range of tools, old and new, that can be used to influence and change behaviour and consider whether they are using the right ones across all fields of policy and service delivery.

Most people in focus groups, when asked how they imagine a typical local government officer to behave, will say that they are like old style bank managers. They are stickler for the rules, slow to respond and wary of new technology. People assume that like the bank manager we only know how to influence through a heavy handed application of the rules.

Of course, as upholders of the rule of law, this ability to ‘shove’ people to behave in the right way, for example through licensing laws, is critical. But the ability to ‘nudge’ should also be used alongside the ability to ‘hug’ – to reward citizens for doing the right things – council tax discount for community work and where necessary to ‘smack’ – the bailiffs will arrive if you don’t pay your council tax. 

But the strategic message of  the ‘nudge’ debate remains valid – we should set public policy in a way that goes with the grain of human behaviour, accepts that people are not entirely rational and motivated by love, fear, prejudice and custom. We should then design policies that work with, not against human nature, which in turn will generate better results.

This week the CLG have been lauding the success of three of the Big Society ‘Vanguard authorities’. They say that Eden Valley, Windsor and Maidenhead and the London Borough of Sutton, have seen community initiatives come to fruition citing a Citizen’s University, Care Bank Scheme and Community Housing Development as proof of the concept.

This is ‘nudging’ on a grand scale with government seeking to show the benefits of the Big Society to incentivise other authorities to get on board. But central government needs to be clear that a key part of behavioural economics is the ability to introduce the concept of reward, and councils and people need to be clear about the rewards they will get from participating in any scheme.    

Professor Geoff French, a leading expert in social marketing has highlighted the things that make ‘nudges’ appealing – that they are low cost, relatively easy choices for people, but also limited in their effectiveness.  We need to use the whole range of behavioural tools to change behaviour for the public good, and Baroness Neuberger’s report should be a start of a more informed debate in this area. 

Sustaining the reputation of local government in difficult times

The LGA have voted unanimously to make ‘reputation’ a priority for the year ahead. This chimes with Sir Merrick Cockell’s manifesto pledge and recognises the need to repair public trust at a time when changes in services mean that individuals, families and communities may feel that they are getting less from their local authority.

David Pugh, Leader of the Isle of Wight Council moved the motion. He told the conference that it was time for “the LGA to step up a gear and support its member authorities, up and down the country, in taking pro-active action to restore and enhance their standing within their individual communities.”

Cllr Pugh was careful to say that this should not involve “propaganda or promotional campaigns at the expense of the taxpayer”. Instead he focused on “supporting and enabling local authorities – at all levels – from councillors to officers – to effectively explain and articulate what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what services are available to residents.”

This is the right approach to such a campaign. The LGA’s Strategic Advisor, Joe Simpson, has long argued that communication should be about enabling conversations with communities – which means listening and delivering a tangible response to public views, rather than the traditional “broadcast model” of press release plus council magazine. 

There is plenty of good material from which any council can review their communications to sustain and improve communications and trust with the public, and community leaders. The LGA’s reputation project, material from professional groups such as LGInsight on public attitudes and LGcommunications and the CIPR Public Services Group on media and marketing all offer the foundations stones for the strategy and plans for delivery.

But if Cllr Pugh’s wish that we should use communication to “explain and articulate” what councils are doing and “why they are doing it” is to work it requires leading councillors and the senior management of every authority to do three things.

First, they need a strong and coherent core story to tell to explain why we do things. This is not the rubbish corporate strategies of yesteryear. This should be a short and pithy statement of priorities that would pass a “pub test” in terms of a councillor or officer being able to explain in a social setting what the council is trying to do. Nottingham City Council’s “Pride” narrative is one example.

Second, stupidity must stop. Our collective credibility is undermined by the unthinking, mismanaged actions of councils that implement policies that waste money and put local government in the box labelled “bureaucrats” rather than being seen on the side of people. Chief Executives should sense check every policy and cabinet members should enquire and test proposed delivery. Both should put “common sense” top of the guiding principles for staff in delivering the services. How else can we stop a farce like the recent action of York Council contractors in building a metal fence through a football goal making the pitch unusable? 

Third, we must learn to consult and feedback rather than just ask and then forget the audience. Too many central and local consultations have no formal or informal feedback to those who contributed and the wider community to show what changed as a result of the consultation exercise. Sutton Council consulted on the tricky issue of waste collection last year, initiated a debate, were criticised locally but listened and changed policies as a result and told people what they were doing. Their satisfaction scores are increasing, because people see that they listen.

Cllr Pugh said in his speech that the Isle of Wight has “a strong sense of community identity, and proudly so. Our residents care about the communities in which they live, and take a keen interest in local matters, such as frontline services.” I know that this is particularly true of the Island, but it is a fair description of many communities. We must utilise this innate goodwill in every town and village if we are to sustain the reputation of local government in difficult times.  

A new strategy for handling councils?

Local government was described as "brilliant" and "efficient" and praised for taking "really difficult decisions" by the Prime Minister in Birmingham this afternoon.

LGA delegates were appreciative but may have been a little sceptical after the perceived avalanche of criticism that has been heaped on councils these last twelve months.

Still the PM continued talking up local government heralding the new era of "council power" which he saw as the conclusion of the government's radical agenda which was ending bureaucracy, abolishing quangos, "phasing out ring fencing" and "rooting out red tape".

He highlighted the new authority that the General Power of Competence would grant local authorities to "run new services". He challenged councils to use Health and Wellbeing Boards to shape health policy and he praised Labour Islington public services for pooling £6million of funding to target resources at the most hard to reach families.

He also accepted that this new relationship would require robust debate. He said that he would be "happy for you to tell us if we had got the wrong priorities", though he pointed out this worked both ways and singled out Chief Executive pay as an area where he thought the sector should show more restraint.

This show of respect, listing of new powers and offer of a serious discussion about future direction paved the way for tough words on public sector pensions. Here he stressed the need for a settlement which was "fair" to taxpayers and workers.

Judging by the conference 'clap-o-meter' Mr Cameron's words worked. But after the LGA event local leaders will look for proof of this appreciation of town hall efforts. Still, he also praised the new LGA Chairman, Sir Merrick Cockell, to whom it will fall to lead the task of making this relationship work.

It is true that the localism agenda, expressed in the current Bill, but pioneered by the last Labour government and championed by Liberal Democrats is radical. But it is also true that there are still plenty of people in government who are reluctant to let go and are circumscribing the new powers. And the PM's challenge to us to "take people power to the next level" by devolving services to the community, has to be set against the reality of public indifference and declining budgets. It would also be interesting to see how the call to "tell us" if central government is wrong sits with the CLG's new Code of Conduct on publicity, perhaps, tell us if we are wrong, but only politely.

Overall the Prime Minister probably made friends and influenced people in Birmingham. He is the first serving PM to address the conference and saying that councils are "doing a brilliant job in challenging circumstances" is a positive endorsement. So, if this is the start of a beautiful new relationship, that is a reason to be cheerful during a difficult week for public service.

A new era for police accountability

London Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse was in robust form at a Westminster Council 'Ideas Exchange' event this week. He made a strong case that local authorities must be much more pro-active in scrutinising the performance of their police forces while reforms and financial necessity can deliver more effective partnerships. 

Malthouse argued that communities don’t particularly want to be involved in setting priorities; they want action and for particular streets to be free of crime – which is often the top priority when asked what they want their local council to do. He said that:  “People are thirsting for someone to take responsibility for crime” and said that when the post of deputy mayor with responsibility for policing was created the GLA’s postbag became overwhelmed with spontaneous correspondence from the public – illustrating how long people have been looking for someone to take on this role.  Not to be involved in the detail of the decisions, but to ensure that someone is listening to their views and can be held responsible for delivery.  

He went on to say that the police, and other public bodies, have a habit of creating a language about what they do that disempowers people.  The analogy used was taking your car to a garage. You trust the mechanic to mend the car, but you have no idea really what they have done or whether it was genuinely needed, plus you will probably get a larger bill at the end without understanding why.  Just as the mechanic can’t be questioned, it is difficult to question the police.  This means that decisions on priorities cannot be properly scrutinised and even local councils can feel excluded from the process.

He mounted a strong defence of proposals for Police Commissioners, pointing out that only 8% of the population knows about Police Authorities so they won’t be missed. Malthouse argued that this will help ensure a “democratic alignment of priorities” and “give local authorities the chance to assert themselves”.  In particular anyone who is elected needs friends to support them in their work, so they will need to work with local authorities and other partners.

Budgets are as for everyone else an issue. Senior officers have grown up in a time of plenty and will have to deal with change.  In London this has meant, a shift in how police cars respond to calls.  Previously any car near any incident would turn up, so you might get a dozen cars responding to a small incident.  Now a central system allocates proportional to the incident.  This sort of streamlining will be required across the service to allow resources to be focused on the frontline.

If Malthouse’s analysis is right this creates opportunities for local authorities in terms of co-location of services, greater partnership working and asserting themselves in the alignment of priorities. The police will not have the resource to go it alone anymore, or the hiding place to avoid scrutiny.  It also creates opportunities for residents in ensuring that they can clearly understand who is responsible for policing priorities, can participate if they want, and be assured that their most important issues are being dealt with. The police themselves have to respond by being more transparent and by accepting new ways of working, on the basis that the front line must be protected and be able to respond effectively to genuine local priorities.

In a previous role, as Deputy Leader of Westminster Council Mr Malthouse looked at the case for a Westminster Police Force, to match the City of London force. While this was never likely to happen it is an interesting argument - large cities with their own dedicated local forces with larger city region units focusing on crime that crosses boundaries.

There is plenty of scepticism and indeed outright opposition outside of London to the idea of elected commissioners. The potential for conflict between council leaders and commissioners is clear. But no one can argue against greater openness and accountability of the police. Perhaps there is an argument just give greater police powers to local leaders - to use the present democratic mandate and work out a system?

This is a healthy debate that needs to happen and local government needs to ensure its voice is heard – policing is hugely important area to influence.   

How to improve the Localism Bill

As the Localism Bill starts its scrutiny in the House of Lords and the government promises a ‘Big Society’ Bill, councils are in the frontline of the coalition’s fight to deliver more effective public services.

In return for scaling back budgets there needs to be the potential for a much stronger and independent position for councils in the future.

The Localism Bill is a welcome piece of legislation but there are, however, a number of areas that we and our colleagues at Hammersmith and Fulham, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea would like to see amended or changed.

In particular:

A new community right to challenge and buy should be granted to councils. Local authorities should be empowered to challenge quangos or other public agencies over the right to run services in their area.

On referendums, the threshold whereby residents having signed a petition can trigger a referendum should be 10%. Similarly, a minimum turnout of 25% of an area for the outcome of the referendum to be valid should be put in place.

Councils should be given greater freedoms around the setting of fines for breaches of planning enforcement while the requirement to list all planning applications in newspapers should be removed. Councils could make sizable savings if they were allowed to advertise online.

On housing, councils should be empowered to prevent homelessness in the first place while there should also be greater freedoms around rent setting and a more consistent approach to the issuing of social housing tenancies.

Finally Westminster Council is seeking separate clarification on the use of the general power of competence – in particular whether local authorities will be permitted to issue derivatives under this new power.

There is much to welcome in the localism bill and local government will need to take on the new freedoms with imagination and competence.

Along with our neighbouring councils, and for the benefit of the whole of local government we hope that ministers will take on board and act on our concerns.

We believe our amends our necessary if government is serious about handing over power to councils who are best placed to act in the interests of their local communities.

It will be interesting to see how the debate goes over the next few weeks.

Whitehall needs to get grips with community based budgets

Needless red tape costs Westminster Council almost £1million a year - enough to cover the salaries of 26 teachers, 28 social workers or 44 street cleaners.

We also have to provide Whitehall with more than 2,500 separate pieces of data covering everything from noise, planning and pollution to food safety, rubbish collection and parking.

We now have an administration in place that says it knows that big centralised government is not necessarily good government and is committed to devolving power.

However, the coalition needs to go further and faster and really get to grips with the trail of audits, inspections and bureaucratic assessments that are stifling genuine innovation in local government and in particular stalling work around community budgets.

To take my own council as an example, Westminster is one of the government’s 16 pilots that are trialling the new community budgets finance scheme.

Our groundbreaking family recovery programme, which is designed to tackle issues around family breakdown, is at the heart of this new model. The service helps families with complex problems by pooling resources with organisations like the NHS and the Police.

We know that this programme works - it has resulted in reduced offending and incidents of anti-social behaviour, reduced numbers with rent arrears and improved health.

It also delivers savings to the public purse. The cost of taking 63 families through the programme in 2011/12 will be approximately £1 million. Based on an evaluation of the first 50 families who entered the programme, the total cost avoided that would otherwise spent, is £2.6 million.

However, the financial investment we make and the reward we get back from government for doing so are misaligned. We end up investing and while Whitehall benefits it does not contribute to the running costs of the programme.

The key issue, therefore, is the coalition’s apparent lack of willingness to pool budgets which means that Whitehall commissions in silos and leaves the local authority and its partners to make the joins.

Because of these factors we are restricted in the number of families we can assist. For Westminster, this means a reduction in the number of families with complex needs assisted in 2011/12.

We believe the way to solve this impasse is for Whitehall to have a single ‘owner’ to tackle issues such as family breakdown. If implemented we would then become the lead commissioner and responsible for all funding that is currently spent on family breakdown in the borough

Equally, while government can specify the outcome, it should be up to us to commission the right services to tackle ‘problem’ families in our area. This in turn would enable us to assist all families with complex needs rather than just a proportion which is what we are restricted to doing at present.

We are working with central government to lift bureaucratic restrictions that delay or build in cost but they now need to play their part and move forward speedily with their community based budget scheme so we can better meet the needs of our local communities.

Currently progress is slow, and Greg Clark’s promised report on the progress of localism across government  looks like being a depressing read unless together we can start delivering real pooled budgets.

No longer a world for "no comment"

I am still bothered by the BBC 10 o'clock news last Thursday night. A lengthy item on Birmingham Council's plans to outsource IT jobs to India, and the council refused to comment which the reporter made a point of saying on air. Obviously critics and unions were quoted extensively.

The council has now issued a statement, which appears to have happened after millions had watched the BBC piece. The council explained that up to 60 vacant and temporary jobs might be outsourced to India. This differs substantially from the “up to 100” quoted by the BBC.

Birmingham is a good council facing major challenges and its actions are hugely important for the local government community. We have to understand that in a 24/7 news, communicated, wired, tweeted world people expect communication and more than that they demand a conversation with the people who make decisions. 

No comment was always a last resort that had to be used sparingly as a response to enquiries from journalists where the answer would reveal legal facts, compromise safeguarding responsibilities or divulge other sensitive personal information. It will usually lead the viewer or reader of such a comment from a public authority to conclude that the organisation has something to hide and thereby damage trust in the organisation.

Surely Birmingham could have provided some sort of speedy answer from “we are considering every way to protect jobs and secure value for money” to “we are engaged in a difficult programme of service cuts which require us to consider radical options to secure the best services for the people of Birmingham”.

The truth is probably that the press office wanted to comment and provide a spokesman but the approval process of the council, ground too slowly for the BBC news. And so another opportunity to explain to the public about the challenges we all face was lost. 

Waking up to evaluation

At this year’s LGcomms Academy it was decided for the first time in the event’s history to introduce a day focused on the work of new think tank LGinsight - launched as a sister organisation to LGcommunications – which included a series of partnership master classes on internal communications and evaluation.

Chaired by Neil Wholey, Head of Research and Consultation at Westminster City Council, the audience was told that ‘their heads would hurt with new ideas’ but was quickly brought up-to-speed on the full ‘wonders’ of research.

It was during these sessions that LGcomms National Chair, David Holdstock, stressed to delegates from across the UK that “if it doesn't make a difference, don't do it”. That key message was echoed throughout the day. Delegates learned the value of ‘proving their worth’ and heard that research also gives us early warnings, helps us manage customer expectations and prioritise service delivery needs.  

In an illuminating presentation from Keith Butterick, Director of the Centre for Communication Research at the University of Huddersfield, we learnt half of public sector communication teams have no formal evaluation methods and of those who do most simply collect press clippings and record how many press releases they send out. He rightly questioned how communicators we were proving the value of their work to the taxpayer when so many seem not to have woken up to importance of evaluation.

Over the last decade the golden rule for communicators has been that the more informed people are the more satisfied they will be. The LGinsight Academy marked the day when this was challenged. Discussions were held about causality – is it that more satisfied people seek out information and are better informed rather than vice versa?   

Emphasising this point, Ian Mills from SMSR (Social and Market Strategic Research) said: “I can be satisfied with a cup of tea on a train but it doesn’t mean it’s any good”. He said while it’s not easy, communicators would be better trying to understand public expectations.

The day generated a wide range of debate, with some clearly aware of the need to do more and others still finding it difficult to accept they needed to develop their skills, but overall it was a good introduction to research and positive step towards fully embedding it in the way public sector communications operates.

Time to Tweet, that’s where the audience is going

LGcomms is the professional body for council communicators and their annual ‘Academy’ is taking place in Nottingham this week. The event would hopefully pass the Pickles ‘value’ test with a £99 daily fee allowing 300 delegates to hear 60 speakers from organisations as diverse as the CLG and Global Radio over three days with an agenda covering public services, council communications and opinion research.

Star of the show to date has been the BBC’s Sophie Brendel who unmasked the mysteries of social media by explaining that “being social” means getting the tone, speed and siting of online communication correct. That means engaging in a way that is informal, fast and succinct; things that local government has not always shown an ability to deliver. There are some outstanding examples of councils engaging in social media – Coventry’s 15,000-strong Facebook site for example, but they are few and far between.

To really develop a credible presence in social media requires an acceptance that responses to tweeted criticisms of your authority should be delivered in around an hour. A real challenge when many councils take a day to sign off a press release. It means listening and monitoring and then responding in a language that connects with the audience and reassures the bloggers who are increasingly important opinion formers.

Unless we contribute to the online debate we will lose contact with our citizens. Earlier in the day, Martyn Lewis, the former TV presenter had pointed out that as few as five million were still watching daily network television news, while up to 30 million consumed news online. And tweeted rumour and half truths about government can take hold and become accepted fact and by the time online chatter becomes press and broadcast reports, it is too late to influence the story.   

Another take on the value of digital media was offered by Chris Quigley, from Delib, who ran the government’s impressive online “Your Freedom” initiative last summer to generate public ideas for legislation and the “Spending challenge” allowing citizens to submit ways that government could reduce waste. Quigley reports that each website had around 500,000 visitors, but the Spending Challenge generated 43,000 ideas compared to only 15,000 proposals for ‘Your Freedom’.

The total cost of both projects was £25,000. Or around 45p per idea. The problem is that is appears that few ideas have been implemented and up to a million people might be wondering whether the government took their contribution seriously. There is simply no point in engaging people unless you can definitively show that their ideas have been considered, and acted upon, or rejected with good reason. As we approach local consultations which may well lead to service reductions, we need to remember to engage, but then report back with speed and honesty.   

Can the Local Government Association exist without Birmingham?

The news that Birmingham City Council has decided to give notice to the LGA should give all the contenders for the Chairmanship of the Association pause for thought.

Many of the councils who are set to leave are sensible, thoughtful authorities and represent all shades of political opinion. Their resignations could be an indication of the start of a significant number of withdrawals.

I think that the LGA faces two challenges. First, people don’t really know what it stands for. Second, it has not changed in the face of unprecedented political challenges.

The whole world of government has changed in the last twelve months; from an era of plenty to one of austerity and from a philosophy of Big Government to Big Society. From one party to coalition government. And no one can be sure yet how communities, families and individuals as the full impact of these changes settles in the year ahead. The perceived failure of the LGA to move quickly and nimbly to support authorities well and lobby government effectively over this period is behind much of the member disillusion. Despite the much quoted line that local government is the ‘most efficient in the public sector’ the public believe that councils are making a meal of the cuts, and could provide better value for money.

In response to this, there are some indications that the LGA recognises that this will have to be a summer of change. The election of chairman, expected appointment of a new Chief Executive and national conference at the end of June represent a series of real tests for the Association, or LG Group as it now styles itself.

There have been practical moves such as the significant reduction in subscriptions. There are, at Smith Square redundancies and cuts that have rationalised the organisation, though not before time.  But the real test will come next month when I would hope to see the LGA promising to do less, better with a few clear priorities rather than the dozen old and meandering goals set out in 2010. 

The choice of Chief Executive is also critical. Another local government Chief Executive is not the answer. Look at membership organizations that have flourished in this decade. Matthew Taylor revitalising the RSA for example. Local government needs figures who provide the inspiration and example to make people think differently,

The new offer should be as sharp and credible as that offered by any significant organisation. It should put great service and value for money at the heart of everything the LGA and local authorities do. It must champion best practice and where necessary censure poor delivery. And it should be a group that people want to join. Changing the rules from a notice period of one year to a notice of three months, as a sign that a confident LGA will be judged by how well it performs, rather than whether it can hang onto memberships for 12 months in the hope that something, like an election changes minds.   

The alternative to the LGA is probably even worse and will would mean reverting revert back to warfare between counties, districts, mets with govt just dividing and ruling. Govt itself would recognise that there is role for a united body that provided constructive opposition when and where appropriate.

Finally, There is also an onus on all of the political parties to put forward the best and brightest to serve - not just those given it to keep them happy and for a trip to London. A local government group cannot exist without Birmingham, but it is time for people to come to the aid of the cause of representing local government.

More needs to be done to slash local government red tape

We’ve heard plenty from government about their desire to slash costs and their hatred of unnecessary process. Everyone on the frontline knows that this is the case. We estimate that needless bureaucracy and red tape costs Westminster Council almost £1million a year – enough to cover the salaries of 26 teachers, 28 social workers or 44 street cleaners.

Successive governments have imposed centralised targets and endless guidance. We have to provide Whitehall with more than 2,500 separate pieces of data on everything from noise, planning and pollution to food safety, rubbish collection and parking

While the coalition government has made some important strides in abolishing quangos and freeing local government from Whitehall diktats it needs to go further and faster to improve the delivery of local services and free councils from centralised control.

For example, our submission to the Localism Bill noted that we currently have to provide 156 returns to central government (19 of which are new), supported by 466 specific indicators.  This doesn’t include measures or returns requirement by governmental sub-contractors, third party agents, quangos or voluntary sector providers.

While local authorities need to do their part and reduce the burdens they impose on individuals, families and communities, we would like to see real tangible action from the government in freeing councils from red tape.

These are ten regulations that we think should be reformed or scrapped:

1) The requirement for individual councillors to register as “data controllers” is unnecessary and costs money - £35 fee per councillor.

2) The requirement to publish public notices in local newspapers. For example, this costs Westminster £100,000 per year despite the fact that our local papers are read by a tiny fraction of our residents. The notices could more cost effectively be placed on the internet

3) Regulations for dismissing employees are excessively bureaucratic. Councils are faced with an excessive number of claims for unfair dismissal in employment tribunals – often in situations where the ex-employee’s performance or behaviour was clearly below the standard required.

4) The entire FOI process needs to be removed. While it right that we are open and transparent it also requires massive resources to administer to the timescales and requirements as set out by legislation.

5) Personal Health Social Economic Education should be taken off the national curriculum. This should be left to schools to decide.

6) The “School Workforce Census” return is a statutory requirement focusing on staff data for teachers and support staff with contracts or Service Agreements of one month or greater.  We believe this census should be scrapped.

7) The requirement in the Local Government (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 prevents cabinet members discussing a key decision with officers present within 28 days of that decision being taken. This causes unnecessary delays and serves no useful purpose.

8) Where a looked after child is placed with a long term foster carer on the presumption that it is a permanent arrangement, the government should end the requirement for annual inspections. There should only be an inspection if there is some evidence of difficulty.

9) Councils are required to meet the social care needs of people with no recourse to public funds, such as failed asylum seekers and failed habitual residents.  This requirement shouldn’t be placed on local authority adult social care services but should be dealt with at a national level.

10) The duty to secure that each children’s centre is within the remit of an advisory board is overly prescriptive.  Governance arrangements for children’s centres should be a matter for local determination.