Council Tax Games

The old song asks ‘do you know the way to San Jose?’ but the real question is ‘do you know the way, San Jose?’ when it comes to engaging citizens in local authority budgets. The Californian city has come up with a unique way of targeting its population to improve democratic processes through an online ‘Innovation’ game. Councils in the UK and elsewhere are trying similar initiatives, but do they work?

An online, local authority version of Sim City, these games aim to capture imaginations while users learn about budgets by putting the responsibility of funding their city’s needs directly in their hands. Players begin the game by examining different areas of council spending and then make a choice over which services should see funding cut or increased. For example, they can choose to make cuts to children’s services in order to spend more on housing, spend less on maintaining roads and more on fire services or simply up council tax.

With around 80 per cent of UK residents now online, direct communication is easy and instantaneous with just a click of a button. While presenting information in a straight-forward and fun ‘game’ format may seem like a more effective way to encourage residents to really become engaged in crucial policy choices than the posting of information on a website, these council tax games may present skewed results.

One such UK version of the game from YouGov, which was developed with Redbridge and the LGA shows that on average, those who have played it have chosen to lower council tax by 13%. However, if we look at why particular choices were made over spending cuts it is clear that problems arise with the model.

Firstly, selections made in the game are influenced by the services those people completing it use themselves. This means that some important service cuts are made simply because the player has no personal need to use them.

Secondly, options that sound bureaucratic get cut dramatically, while those that immediately sound like front-line help, are saved. For example, if one option reads that the budget for “services for care of vulnerable people” is £80m; participants will choose to keep it. When more details are given and the option instead reads “services for care of vulnerable people is £70m and salary costs for adult services senior managers is £10m” - the £10m gets cut.

The best way to do budget consultation properly, if you wish to involve people in the detail rather than base it on known priorities, is to hold face-to-face workshops for a day. The morning is covered identifying priorities and the issues that bug residents, and an hour is spent explaining the budget. In the afternoon you go through the detail and as participants understand the complexities of the budget and the services provided their minds usually change from their initial thoughts.  Reports can then be written to help to guide the council on the decisions made

Since the credit crunch, councils have moved into heavily consulting residents over budgets in a variety of ways, however perfunctory budget consultations can harm credibility so it is essential that the methods used are effective.

An important part of communications is helping people understand that tough choices have to be made when it comes to budgets.  While it doesn’t take away from the need for local politicians to make final decisions, workshops can help produce agreed thinking between residents and the council.

Council tax games can be useful as tools of discussion, enabling residents to become more involved and informed in the working of the budget and while they can work, games around other issues or gaming experiences such as these which set people tasks, may be more practical.

Tackling the hoodies: it’s a family affair

“MUG a hoodie!” declared the Mail on Sunday recently as it set the scene for a get-tough speech by David Cameron on the prison system and offending. The reference is of course an inversion of “Hug a hoodie” – the famous headline attributed to the Prime Minister when, in 2006, he suggested a more understanding attitude to our troubled young people.

Mugging or hugging hoodies – both are sharp hooks which will get coverage. But as councils know, behind the headlines, criminal behaviour is generally the product of a complex pattern of local factors. Housing, school exclusion, employment, leisure facilities – all of these mesh to produce the tough estates and problem areas that all local authorities contend with.

Criminals do not enter the world fully formed; they are a product of their environment and upbringing. It’s therefore important to look at families as a whole in responding to criminality and cutting reoffending as the central government’s recent troubled families initiative acknowledges.

Westminster and the other Tri Borough authorities have their own share of deprivation and social challenges. So it was logical to put a focus on helping families at the centre of our Community Budget proposals. This started from the pioneering and often imitated Westminster Family Recovery Programme (FRP), launched in 2008. This has gone on to form the blueprint for family intervention work in many other local authorities and also influenced the national programme.

The FRP has the aim of supporting local families with complex needs and who might be at risk of reoffending by forming a team of specialists around the family to reflect each family’s circumstances. The programme isn’t cheap - each family on it costs about £19,500 a year - but we know it works. In a study of families where crime and disorder were a major concern, the average number of ‘suspected offences’ they were involved in fell from nine in the year before FRP intervention to just one and a half afterwards. The scheme has also resulted in reduced numbers of families with rent arrears, improved health and reduced incidents of anti-social behaviour. It has also arguably improved the quality of life for residents in the surrounding neighbourhood. What’s more, Westminster calculates that for every £1 it spends on a family in the scheme, £2.10 is saved from the public purse in the form of avoided costs.

The Community Budget proposal just submitted takes this on by developing the Westminster service into a Tri Borough model with a “Stronger Families” proposal which will set up a ‘triage’ and key worker arrangement for families who need help below the intensive level delivered by FRP. But to make this work it requires all the relevant central and local government agencies to pool funds to create the service and then benefit from the outcomes in terms of less crime, more people in work and fewer benefits paid.

We also make curbing adult reoffending one of the key proposals within the Community Budgets proposal. Under this part of the plan, we will channel more resources into the rehabilitation of offenders sentenced to short prison terms of less than 12 months, because both the national and local picture shows that short-term prisoners are disproportionately more likely to reoffend.

Troubled families and young people veering into criminality are problems for all councils. At Westminster we don’t claim to have a panacea, but we have hopefully made useful inroads into addressing this complex issue. We look forward to the response from government.

Power to the People

In the last few days, an uneasy fog has descended over London.

Whilst it is not yet freezing cold, that murkiness is set to spread into homes across the UK as we all start to turn up the heat and pay more on our bills, but without the guarantee that we are getting value for money.

Energy providers all make profit, yet bills seem to keep on rising year on year. To many consumers the numbers just don’t seem to add up and there is an eagerness to do something about it.

Local Government could be about to change things. In a time of austerity it is the simple things like, food, warmth and a roof over our heads that really matter and the coalition Government has begun to recognise this.

Just this week energy minister Ed Davey lent his support to a new scheme aimed at putting the power back into consumers’ hands.

Under the same murky skies of London at the Local Government Association, Mr Davey shared the stand with Cllr Arooj Shah, the leader of Oldham City Council, on Tuesday as they highlighted a new scheme to bring down the price of energy.

In what can only be described as a ‘Groupon-style’ project Oldham has devised a Collective Energy Scheme to chop energy bills by as much as £150 through bulk-buying.

People sign-up to register their interest in combining their purchasing power to bulk-buy and Oldham’s switching partner iChoosr will then run an online energy auction with UK providers to get a cheaper deal on gas and electricity

Just like a supermarket, the more you buy of a product, the cheaper the price – and the more people that opt in the more discount is achieved.

What is interesting is that this project is something that can be led at a very local level, by authorities who want to make a difference to resident’s lives this winter, and beyond.

It illustrates that working with the private sector is the way forward, to not only make the necessary savings in the public sector but to also provide higher quality services and pass on value for money to taxpayers.

"Can you show me the way to the housing department?"

“Do you know the way to the housing department?” The query from the two men who stopped me in Victoria Street in London could at first have seemed an innocuous one.

The two men, speaking with East European accents, asked directions to Westminster’s housing department – followed by Ealing and Camden’s. They explained that “if we go there, they will give us a house.”

The encounter was truly stunning. This was not a feverish immigrant-baiting story cooked up by a newspaper, but a real-life encounter. Clearly there is a belief among some arriving in the UK that there is a bonanza in free council properties: simply turn up in the reception of civic centre and you will get a ticket to instant accommodation.

My own council found itself recently splashed across the front page of the Daily Express on just this subject after a Bulgarian family of nine camped out in front of Westminster Cathedral and we carried out our legal duty to find temporary accommodation because children were involved (let me declare a personal interest here – my wife is the cabinet member responsible for children, young people and community protection).

I suspect the front counter staff of local authority housing departments across the country might recognise echoes of my Victoria Street meeting in their daily dealings with the public. It is not pandering to closet xenophobia to suggest that the middle England mantra of “soft touch benefits Britain” may contain an element of truth.

When residents on council estates read stories about migrants arriving in the country and being instantly given council or hostel accommodation, it makes their blood boil. Why bother to patiently play the waiting game, they might think, when you can play the system instead and get quicker results?

The task for councils is not easy, but it is clear. There are three things local authorities should do.

First, we need to explain to residents that councils have a legal duty in some cases – where children are involved, for example – to provide emergency housing. That is not politically correct favouritism towards any minority; it is the law of the land.

Second, if national rules mean we have this responsibility, councils need funding to meet it. In Westminster, we believe the 2011 census woefully underestimated our population to the point where we will lose up to £15 million a year in funding. There are 6,900 short-term migrants we know about in Westminster. How many more, like my two friends on Victoria Street, are pitching up, using services that cost the council but are not being funded by central Government?

Third, councils need to illustrate by example that, most of the time, houses do go to local families and individuals with a legitimate need. My council has 3,100 households on the waiting list and we do our level best with a shortage of stock and ever increasing demand to ensure the deserving get a roof over their heads. I am sure your council does the same.

Contrary to urban myth, councils do not hand out properties without demur to new arrivals in the UK without checks or challenge. Westminster has already used the new anti-squatting rules to recover a family home from someone who had illegally lived there for two months.

But councils need to be clear to central Government that our services are under colossal strain and this is being exaggerated by arrivals from EU and non-EU countries. This is a problem which needs a national focus. In parts of the country, not only housing departments but primary schools are buckling as they try to cope with ever bigger numbers. It is not overstating the case to suggest the end of this road is a breakdown in the social fabric unless we take careful action.

I have no idea what happened to the two people I met in Victoria Street. They may have been lost; but they pointed out a clear issue to me.

Will the return of local TV revive local reporting?

The news that media companies are showing a keen interest in acquiring licences to run local TV services in 21 towns and cities across the UK could not come at a more significant moment for the PR industry.

Consider that in 2011, more than 30 weekly papers shut and several well established dailies became telescoped into weekly editions – the Exeter Express and Echo and the Liverpool Post among them.

That trend continues relentlessly. Regional publishers which once regarded their provincial titles as classified advertising cash cows continue to retrench and amalgamate (Johnston Press has just announced it is cutting a further three weekly editors as I write this). Reporters work for ever increasing numbers of titles now often subbed in remote ‘hubs’ by editors who, however well meaning, may have little knowledge of the local issues involved.

The result is that the news ecology is now wildly out of kilter. As regional news groups progressively withdraw from local reporting, there are fewer journalists out there gathering news at the coal face. Television and radio – traditionally heavily reliant upon local papers for story leads - have fewer items to lift. News agencies based in provincial big cities – whose typical role is to do much of the leg work for London-based national newspapers – remain one of the few newsgathering operations with a regional presence.

So it is an intriguing development that major companies are bidding to work in the troubled world of local media. These are serious players with names like ITN, Press Association, the Evening Standard and STV throwing their hats in the ring.

The pill is sugared by the fact the Government will fund some of the infrastructure costs of setting these stations up (via the licence fee), but these commercial groups are interested because they see a return on their investment through local advertising.

The key issue for local Government is whether a new network of local TV operators will lead to a meaningful increase in grass roots newsgathering. The Evening Standard has already said it will use its 120 journalists to form the basis of a bid. But will the areas of the country where regional print journalism has effectively withered see an influx of local TV journalists digging up local scoops?

I hope that local television does create a meaningful platform for councils to speak to local people. While we are witnessing a seismic shift in how people consume media, the fact is that council communicators have the eternal task of explaining what their councils are doing and why. If local broadcasting can provide the medium, we’ll provide the message.

What can local government do to enhance happiness?

Probably bored of trying to count people correctly, given the myriad problems with the Census calculation, the ONS have moved into new territory – that of assessing ‘happiness’.

Their new and fascinating “First ONS Annual Experimental Subjective Well-being Results” report shows how happy, unhappy, anxious and fulfilled we feel.

The headline results are clear, three quarters of people are satisfied with their lives and 80% think that they lead worthwhile lives.  Around one in twenty reports been in a state of apparently permanent unhappiness. Londoners are the most anxious, with 44% reporting that they felt anxious yesterday.

It’s also worth noting that while the Welsh are apparently marginally more satisfied than the rest of the British Isles, there is really very little difference across the UK in satisfaction, happiness or anxiety scores.

But an analysis of the full results does reflect issues that we know are central to the business of local government. The survey reports that Black respondents to the survey reported lower life satisfaction. It says that health and disability reduce satisfaction and that life events such as divorce and unemployment all reduce people’s satisfaction.

The fact that middle aged men appear to be the least satisfied with their lives, compared to the higher satisfaction of the young and of pensioners under 80 years old, might ring true when we consider the sense of apathy demonstrated by some middle-aged middle tier council managers.

This is the first such survey though, but it would be interesting to consider how the numbers would have changed since ten years previously. We might consider that the benign early post-millennium years would have produced more positive results which could be compared with the 2011 figures.

This data should remind local authorities to consider these well being issues when they are developing policies and designing services. We need to be aware that people are anxious, that many of the people we serve do not work in the relatively comfortable environment of a council, nor have the sort of professional and managerial roles that provide greater personal satisfaction. 

Their insecurities and fears about the future need to be addressed by local government working to reassure them. We need to show that we are focused on getting the basics of service provision right on a daily basis, working hard to bring jobs and investment to our areas and avoid the convoluted and confusing language to ‘engagement’, of strategies and ‘commissioning’ in public conversation.

And data like this allows us to put people, and their concerns at the centre of our policy formulation rather than government guidance.    

Civic Olympic Legacy

Legacy is a word that has become synonymous with the build to up the 2012 Olympic Games, but what does this actually mean at local authority level?

As Westminster prepares to play the host to millions of visitors everyday this summer, many of our long term attentions are already turning to how we can use the this opportunity to utilise the games to benefit our residents.

Health and sport are the obvious agenda items for authorities across the UK – right here in London we are currently spending £300,000 to improve the historic Paddington athletics track where Roger Bannister trained for his famous four-minute mile.

But pride is a British spirit that should not be underestimated at a time like this. The Olympics, coupled with the Queen’s diamond jubilee, gives us all the inspiration to make the most of what our areas have to offer.

Right now, councils across the Olympic host sites, from Weymouth to Wembley, are engaged in a clean-up operation to get them looking better than ever before, and also concentrating on making sure all the arrangements, including road closures and parking changes are accurately and openly communicated to the public.

This is important.

But, once the razzmatazz is over, local authorities will only have a few months to capture the spirit that is enveloping the UK and use it to give communities and individuals a renewed sense of civic pride and participation in sport.

Each area will want to do this in their way.

In Westminster we’ll be working with neighbourhoods to improve their streets, running community awards and redoubling our efforts to promote sports through ‘Active Westminster’.

Right now Local Government has a golden, or maybe even a diamond, opportunity to help create a lasting environment similar to what we are seeing during this summer.

Authorities that haven’t yet established them should create annual events, in particular civic pride awards. They should reward those in the community who really make a difference to the lives of other people and the areas they frequent or inhabit.

The Olympics are coming, we are all prepared – but let’s use it to shape attitudes, help those that need it, and allow us all to take pride in our local areas. That should be the lasting legacy.

"Be bold, be brave, be pushy"

“Be bold, be brave, be pushy”. That was the invitation – or perhaps order – from Secretary of State Eric Pickles in his speech to last week’s Local Government Association conference.

For those who missed the speech, the Secretary of State told delegates that local authorities had indeed caught the wave of localism and were delivering services in innovative ways. He reeled off a number of noteworthy council initiatives, ranging from local authority lobbying to secure £200m of Chinese money for a new trade centre near Liverpool to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead’s move to award Nectar points to residents who pay their council tax electronically. He also cited the tri-borough initiative between Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham which is saving £40m a year by sharing services and cutting costs.

His conclusion on the council year? “You've adapted. You're starting to use the new powers and freedoms you now have. And you’ve delivered on the ground.”

Encouraging words indeed, and it will be interesting to see if they herald a move to warmer Whitehall mood music when it comes to local government.

Given that backdrop, now is the time for councils to show that, not only have they picked up the Pickles gauntlet, but that they have bolder and braver measures in mind.

Philippa Roe, the leader of Westminster City Council, used her LGA speech to put three challenges to the Government: the request for long term funding for partnership schemes in the vein of the Troubled Families programme; more access and sharing of data and the need for a “new type of public servant” to shatter the mould of public sector employee.

This last item is a radical one and represents an appeal for an end to the traditional system where residents are forced to fit into the established culture of council and public sector departments. Instead, we need versatile public sector employees who can assemble in teams around an issue or a problem – similar to those adverts where robot devices assemble around a chassis and a full blown car emerges. Common sense, you might think – but also a move that may raise the hackles of both unions and professional management.

It was noteworthy that Sir Richard Leese, the experienced and hard headed Leader of Manchester also called for a new approach to public service working and for local authorities to use community budgets as a “tool for reducing dependency”.

It was evident from the conference that many councils are adapting to the leading role to help negotiate austere times, but it is also true that that some still prefer simply to plead for more cash, an approach that seems doomed to fail.

One example of such leadership was shown by the big story that broke during the LGA conference week - the news of the Oldham gas blast that killed a child and led to the evacuation of 175 homes. Eric Pickles praised the response of Oldham Council, which took care of those made homeless and set up a hardship fund for them.

It was a reminder of the traditional leadership role of local authorities. While it is right that council communicators highlight trailblazing schemes on efficiency and innovation, it is also good to reassure residents that local authorities are ready to be bold and brave on their behalf when trouble strikes – both in handling the immediate incident and overseeing the sometimes long road to recovery.

Weathering the reputation storm

Throughout 2010 and 2011, local government sustained a prolonged aerial PR bombardment from many quarters which led many local government communicators to feel under siege. Town hall tali-bin snoopers, fat cat pay, tales of health and safety excess – the reputation of local authorities took a fearsome pounding.

The findings of the latest research on the reputation of local government from LGinsight/Populus, released at the LGComms conference in Birmingham, are therefore all the more heartening. The headline is that the reputation of local government is robust, despite what is often held to be a prevailing mood of public cynicism about councils. In May 2012, seven in ten (70%) Britons say they are satisfied with the way their council is running things – the same proportion we saw back in October 2010 when this series of polling started (69%). Remember, this is at the same time as YouGov show that approval of what the Government is doing has halved from 42% to 24% from May 2010 to now, and disapproval has increased from 22% to 62%.

So what are councils doing right? The basics, thankfully. Satisfaction with street cleansing has gone from 67% to 73% between January 2011 and now and refuse collection satisfaction has gone from 73% to 85% over the same period (and this from a slump in January 2011 when snow and ice hit services.)

Before mild euphoria sets in, there is however a warning sign ahead of this winter. Only 40% of the public believe the standards of our roads are satisfactory and pavements aren’t doing much better at 52%. Money spent on fixing potholes will continue to be money well spent.

On a general note, the media reporting of councils appears more benign. The proportion of those who believe media coverage of their council is positive or neutral has gone from 61% to 71% in just under a year. Why might this be? One reasonable assumption is that the candid discussions over cuts to council services played out in local newspapers, radio stations and television bulletins across the land have raised awareness of the full range of things that a council actually does. In a pre-credit crunch era, the public and local journalists might have been unaware that councils actually provided some of these services.

Local government communicators, who in many authorities have led consultation and engagement with residents over the future of services, might reasonably claim some credit for this. From October 2010 to June 2011 there was a fall in resident perceptions that local councils took account of residents’ views when making decisions (from 47% to 40%). That has now edged back up to 45%. This is an encouraging sign that residents feel they are being listened to, although there is much more to do.

The LGinsight/Populus poll underlines some eternal truths about reputation and how we maintain it. Reputation is underpinned by three things: keeping people informed; focusing on value for money; and on getting core service delivery right.

The public seem to have ignored some of the wilder excesses of council-bashing in the media and are giving us a considered hearing. They generally believe we do a good job.

All more important, then, that we seize on this residual goodwill to engage, explain - and above all deliver.

Better stories needed for new councils

The hustings are over, the results are in – and across the country, newly elected council administrations are waking up to the reality of being in office.

For local authority communicators, the challenges are more acute than ever. We live in an era in which public cynicism about local authority decision making is widespread and councils need to justify every penny of expenditure.

For communications heads across the country, the ‘morning after the election night before’ conversation with your new leader is a simple one. It covers the following three points.

First, Congratulations. Second, what do you want to be famous for? And third, how are you going to convey what you stand for in a form residents believe?

Question two is more immediate where your council has changed political colour and what the administration stands for is about to undergo a sea change.

But the task for all heads of communications is similar, even if there is no change at the top. And it’s also a question that Chief Executives need to address directly to retain political and public confidence. The priority is to establish what the story of the new administration is. In essence, what do you want to be famous for? Could you explain it in ten words or less to someone in the pub?

The answer does not lie in some vapid ‘mission statement’ but in a clear and succinct articulation of how you will improve the lives of residents and speak to their concerns. Round the country there are some powerful stories from Oldham and Lambeth’s co-operative council approach to “love Hackney” but there are also too many shocking, dull and incoherent ‘corporate visions’.

In Westminster, our approach is “Better City, Better Lives” – a programme to encourage jobs and business while at the same time offering ladders of opportunity through training and work with families to improve the lot of all. This forms the basis of our corporate narrative. It is what we stand for.

The delivery of this narrative needs to be conveyed through audience-focused campaigns which explain your story and provide tangible evidence of it at work.  The old maxim of the property world is that “people buy with their eyes”, and this is true of your residents’ experience of the council. Their every encounter with the council – from doorstep collections to the state of streets and schools – informs how they feel. There is absolutely no point in engaging in fruitless SoS (sending out stuff) communications claiming all is going swimmingly if that clashes with residents’ experience.

The much-touted phrase “doing more for less” now sounds a jaded refrain. With budgets squeezed, councils must show they are concentrating on core value-for-money services and activities which demonstrate they are on the side of residents. That, at the end of the day, is something we should all want to be famous for.