Monthly Archives: March 2016

Many local authorities are thinking about or implementing new models of place-based working. In essence, these are person-centred, bottom up approaches to meet the needs of people in a given location – with residents and Local Authorities working together to use the best available resources to generate positive outcomes. So what place based models are emerging…and what possibilities and pitfalls do they bring? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Government is seeking to create places where people want to live and work, and to give more power to local people to shape what happens in their area. Taking a more place based approach is finding its way in policy, from The Social Value Act (2012) which requires all public bodies to consider how the services they commission and procure might improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of communities; to The Care Act (2014) which broadens the duty upon the care system to consider an individual’s welfare as opposed to need, impairment or illness as the basis upon which support is provided.

Alongside this legislature Government and Local Authorities anticipate further cuts over the current parliament. If services are to continue Local Authorities have three main options: (1) increasing the size of services to meet increasing demand; (2) managing current and future demand by tightening eligibility criteria; and/or (3) identifying and implementing sustainable, local, community led approaches. It is this third option that has led to interest in place based approaches. Put simply, place based approaches are when local people engage in a collaborative process to address issues they are experiencing within a geographic space; be it a town, village, neighbourhood or street.

There are three broad and overlapping approaches that are gaining currency: Local Area Coordination, Whole Place and Asset Based Community Development.

Local Area Coordination (LAC) developed in Western Australia in 1988 as an approach to support people with learning difficulties and their families or carers to build non-service solutions and possibilities. It has since been taken up more broadly to make public services more personal, local, flexible and accountable. It has been influential in Scotland and is now beginning in England and Wales (with implementation in Derby and Thurrock).

LAC looks for solutions that help people sustain themselves in full community life before they come into contact with services. The overall aim to empower residents to find community based solutions rather than relying on traditional services. It does this by embedding a local area coordinator within the community. The coordinator forms relationships with people, integrates a range of roles that have often been kept separate; and seeks to build community capacity.

An evaluation of Derby’s LAC by the University of Derby found in the first 10-12 months (2012-2013) the approach diverted or saved costs of between £800,000 and £880,000 whilst working at 40% capacity (i.e., with coordinators new in post and building community relationships). Thurrock Council and Derby City Council are working together to quantify how LAC can decrease reliance on traditional services in the longer term – including forecast Social Return on Investment which suggests £3.68-£4.28 for every £1.00 invested could be generated by 2019.

Whole-place’ is borne out of the funding black holes faced by health and social care amid increasing demand from people with multiple needs and long term conditions. In health the approach can be traced back to 2009, with ‘Total Place’ (13 pilot areas to test new freedoms and co-design public services to reduce costly duplication) and ‘Troubled Families’ (initially 16 Local Authority pilot areas for families with complex needs, rolled out in 2013). It has been further developed through the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Care Act 2014.

In local government the approach originated in ‘Community Budgets’ (14 pilots pooling funding across agencies to provide more joined-up services); the ‘Our Place programme’ and in a Scottish context the 2011 Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services.

Both health focused and local government focused approaches are concerned with addressing inflexible and fragmented public services; reducing pressure on the public purse and delivering better outcomes for lower cost. In 2015, the NLGN Network began examining different place-based models in Birmingham, Suffolk, Sunderland and Sutton. The Commission is exploring four questions: (i) How can we put the individual at the heart of a place-based health system? (ii) Who or what should lead the shift towards place-based health? (iii) How can we develop evidence of the benefits of place-based health? (iv) How can we create more collaboration between Local Authority and health players?

Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) begins by acknowledging the things that communities have rather than the things they may lack. In England it can be traced back to the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) developed in the 1990s by the Department for International Development, and through the publication of the Quirk Review in 2007. This has taken up international best practice such as that championed by the Coady Institute in Nova Scotia (Canada) and Appreciative Inquiry in Cleveland (United States). While the initial focus was on the development of land and buildings (‘tangible assets’), the approach has evolved to also regard people as the core asset of communities, with skills to accomplish projects and abilities to see opportunities where before all seemed lost (‘intangible assets’).

ABCD is not seen as able to solve inequality within and between communities – rather to assist communities to develop greater confidence and a stronger political voice with which to engage the political system. Building connections between people and place is a fundamental part of ABCD – including helping rediscovering what is special about their place. For example, in Croydon an ABCD Pilot Project covered three wards (Broad Green, Slehurst and Thornton Heath). Delivered by Croydon Voluntary Action, Asian Resource Centre Croydon and Gingerbread Corner; more than 300 local people got involved in starting new activities or participating in visioning exercises. 77 ‘connectors’ were identified and 77 new community projects started. 244 groups, clubs and associations volunteering their time to support community projects.

Strategically, LAC, whole place and ABCD involves:

*Moving away from vocabulary such as ‘need’, ‘dependency’ and ‘cost’ to self-reliance, active contribution and strength.

*Taking a holistic approach with a requirement on all agencies and services to prevent, avoid and delay the need for support – so called ‘demand management’ where local people avoid unnecessary statutory services in the first place and seen as a win-win for the local community and the taxpayer.

*Changing approach without significant investment and at the same time as producing short term efficiencies and funding reductions. However, the lack of resources is also seen as beneficial in driving change from the bottom up and placing more emphasis on creativity and innovation.

Operationally, these approaches function at three levels:

1) Individual – they are person centred: concerned with what an individual has (assets), can do or ‘put back’ (volunteering). These approaches are seeking to help people sustain themselves in community life before they come into contact with services – (a) what can I do using my skills and experience? (b) What can my friends; family and community do to help? (c) What role is there for services?

2) Organisational – they require a ‘coordinator’, health professional or ‘connector’ to support an individual to navigate resources from community, voluntary, public and private groups leading to a long term solution. Staff build trust and confidence between citizens and Local Authorities/health bodies. These approaches are intended to lead to the refinement and efficiency of existing services, policies, practices and processes. Ultimately they are intended to reduce demand for services (as well as associated costs) – with services becoming more personal, local and flexible.

3) Structural – a view that over many years the public sector system has become focused predominantly on services and money for solutions. In contrast, these approaches focus upon identifying and utilising pre-existing community based support as well as other local strengths and assets. There is a belief therefore that these approaches can promote non service responses to need and drive wider reform, accountability and efficiency in the system which is itself is having to continue to make savings.

But there are a range of significant challenges and issues that those adopting these place based approaches need to consider. These include:

Being transformative within a complex traditional system – these approaches are being implemented within a traditional service approach. Are they a process response to a structural issue? For example: are we overlaying a set of processes in separate services rather than redesigning the structure as well? How are place based initiatives interacting with formal governance and service delivery functions of local government (especially as they continue to become more autonomous themselves)?

[Already] established approaches – These approaches are not new and can be traced back to Total Place Pilots in 2009 (whole place) a disability service in Western Australia in 1988 (LAC) and DFID sustainable livelihoods framework in 1998 (ABCD). In some instances austerity has led to their development and implementation and/or become regarded as an opportunity to do things differently.

Moving from crisis to prevention – underpinning these approaches is the hypothesis that moving towards prevention and low level interventions through community working will produce reductions in demand for more intensive and costly crisis intervention. These approaches are concerned with not allowing or reducing dependency on services to develop and not the direct delivery of services per se. Can these approaches deliver the scale of savings required from public services in the short time required? Or is the fulfilment of this hypothesis likely to take place over a much longer time span?

Evidence and data collection – much of the evidence that these approaches can deliver better outcomes and improved value for money is undeveloped. Within health this has led to discussions that such approaches (by their very nature of being local level community focused) are not written up for peer reviewed articles or comply with the data collection processes used in medicine. How can we develop the evidence base for each of these approaches? How can this evidence base be used by Local Authorities and other public sector bodies as a reliable foundation on which they can make funding and resource decisions going forward? If individual/community responsibility for quality of life, health and care are key themes, what are the key determinants of behaviour change?

Consistency of implementation – Is there leadership, capacity and confidence within Local Authorities to drive change on the scale described above? Are these approaches being implemented across whole Local Authorities (e.g. central/core business service, planning, highways, housing, children’s services etc.) or are we cherry picking parts of the approach using discretionary budgets? Currently these approaches tend to emerge in places where there is community enthusiasm and/or around specific themes (e.g. health, employment, environment etc.)

Councillors and community members – Councillors work in every ward and every community in the country. In these approaches Councillors become community facilitators and often have to manage competing interests whilst ensuring inclusivity and accountability. While some Councillors will welcome this, others may not have the time, skills or resources to support this agenda. Similarly, how can we prevent the ‘usual suspects’ within a community dominating the engagement? Here the boundaries between ‘representation’ and ‘participation’ are opening up. What should the Council [elected Members] do and what should the community lead?

Relationships across organisational boundaries – Not all services that are planned and delivered are coterminous with Local Authority boundaries. This could make it difficult for some place based solutions to work. How can we create more collaboration between Local Authorities and other public sector bodies? This becomes important where these approaches are being implemented by Local Authorities but delivering preventative outcomes that benefit and reduce demand on health services (and vice versa). How are these approaches situated within a network of other complimentary (perhaps preventative) initiatives?

Space – what is the most appropriate spatial unit within which a place based approach should sit? When is it appropriate to operate at county, district, town, village, ward, neighbourhood or street level?

Place based approaches continue to attract interest from policy-makers, practitioners and communities. Around public service delivery these approaches are being heralded as a means to achieve better outcomes for local people at a lower cost. Yet for me there are still some major areas of uncertainty about what place-based approaches can deliver – for while we can forecast and calculate potential savings, actually achieving them – and taking communities and organisations with us – is quite another matter.

*          *          *

Following a recent article on volunteering, many of you have been in touch describing how volunteers benefit your local community.‘Our Plymouth’is a set of initiatives led by Plymouth City Council to find new and innovative ways to harness the power of volunteers to address things that matter locally. Initiatives include ‘Pledge Plymouth’, a micro volunteering scheme where residents can volunteer for 15 minutes; and ‘Right to Read’, with 50 volunteers going into 10 schools to hear children read. With thanks to Darin Halifax (Cities of Service Chief Officer at Plymouth City Council) for highlighting this work.

A new way of learning for 14 -19 year olds that develops the professional and technical skills needed for the world of work is the City & Guilds TechBac. It helps develop, recognise and showcase the soft skills that are not covered by qualifications alone, or aren’t accredited under a current programme of study. Youth Focus North East is working with a steering group of young people to establish a young evaluators badge. On 24 January the mayor of Barnard Castle, Sandra Moorhouse, hosted a community celebration event “to acknowledge the valuable role that volunteers play in the life of the town and its residents”.

The event was held at St Mary’s Parish Church, in Barnard Castle, and had two parts. The first part included a service of celebration – telling the story through music, narration and fun of how volunteers contribute to the town and dale and thanking them for all their hard work. The second part enabled volunteers to meet and talk to each other over refreshments. With thanks to Caroline Peacock for highlighting this celebration and the work of volunteering in the Dales.

Finally, the National Rural Touring Forum is a member led organisation that works with partners to develop work and deliver high quality art experiences in rural communities. While organisations that deliver a rural touring programme may vary in terms of the geographic area covered and legal or constitutional status, at the heart of their success are the local voluntary promoters who choose, promote and run their events for their local community. The last NRTF Audit revealed approximately £1.1 million worth of volunteering time was being invested across England and Wales by volunteers. With thanks to John Laidlaw (Chair of the National Rural Touring Forum and Live & Local) for highlighting this contribution.

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. She recently completed a European project on ‘volunteering into employment’ and is currently helping Local Authorities, LEPs and charities to measure social value. Jessica’s public services work includes research for Defra on alternative service delivery and local level rural proofing. She is also involved in projects to help older people remain independent and in their homes for as long as possible. In her spare time she volunteers for a farming charity. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen