Search Results for: flexible working

Home Working

Is remote and flexible working the ‘new normal’?

Coronavirus lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 saw many employees compelled to work from home. While employers have had different perspectives on employees returning to their offices and places of work since then, the pandemic has accelerated discussion around more flexible working. What do these new and emerging work patterns mean for the future of work in rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is flexible working? Flexible working refers to any type of working pattern that is different from the usual one. It is intended to give employees a degree of flexibility over where, when and how they work. There are different types of flexible working – from working from home, through to a combination of office-remote (hybrid) arrangements, or having flexible start and finishing times. 

Who can request to work flexibly? Under existing UK legislation, employees do not have a statutory right to flexible working, only to make a request. Part 8A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that employees can only request to work flexibly after 26 weeks of employment with the same employer, with a limit of one request every 12-months. Under sections 47E and 104C employees are protected from suffering a detriment or from being dismissed if they have made a flexible working request. The legal right to request flexible working initially only applied to limited categories of employees with parental or caring responsibilities until it was extended to all employees under Part 9 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Under current regulations, any employee has the legal right to request flexible working through making a statutory application.  

In 2018 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) established a Flexible Working Taskforce. Co-chaired by BEIS officials and the CIPD, the Taskforce was established to clarify the benefits of flexible working, investigate the barriers that prevent employers from offering (or employees taking up) flexible working, and to increase the number of flexible working opportunities available. 

While flexible working has been of policy interest for a number of years, the COVID-19 pandemic brought it to the fore of public attention. The pandemic led the Government to introduce statutory guidance instructing people to ‘work from home’ where and when possible. This was supplemented by a range of COVID-19 guidance covering the workplace that was updated by the Government as its response to COVID-19 evolved. 

During the first national lockdown (March to June 2020), all non-essential high street businesses were required to close and people were ordered to stay at home, and permitted only to leave for essential purposes such as buying food or for medical appointments. Although most lockdown restrictions were lifted on 4 July 2020, the Government recommended people avoided gatherings larger than six. 

On 14 September 2020, tighter restrictions came into force in England with the rule of six applying indoors and outdoors; and from 25 September bars, pubs and restaurants were ordered to shut between 10.00pm and 6.00am. On 14 October 2020, the Government introduced a ‘three tier system’ with most areas placed in the least restrictive tier one. On 5 November 2020, national restrictions were reintroduced in England. Under this second national lockdown non-essential high street businesses were required to close once again and people were prohibited from meeting those not in their ‘support bubble’ inside. 

On 2 December 2020, the Government reintroduced the tier system – with a fourth tier added on 19 December following concerns about a new variant of COVID-19 circulating. On 4 January 2021 the third national lockdown began. Similar to the rules in place during the first lockdown, people were once again told to stay at home. 

On 8 March 2021, England began a phased exit from lockdown – with the whole country moving through a roadmap.  On 15 September 2021, Parliament approved the revocation amendments meaning there are no lockdown laws currently in force in England. 

During national lockdown periods people needed a reasonable excuse to leave their home and were prevented from travelling outside their local area and/or from travelling between areas with different restrictions in place. Certain businesses were required to close, and others were required to operate restricted opening hours. 

In February 2021, BEIS reconvened the Flexible Working Taskforce to understand emerging ways of working resulting from the pandemic. In December 2021, the Taskforce published guidance on effective hybrid working. The guidance included information on how organisations should: 

  • Provide training to managers on how to manage and support hybrid teams. 
  • Review HR processes and procedures – enabling inclusion and wellbeing. 
  • Undertake a listening activity with employees, managers and employee representatives to understand whether hybrid working is delivering benefits. 
  • Keep hybrid working policies and principles under ongoing review – addressing any negative or unintended outcomes. 

In April 2021, the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) published an article on remote and flexible working arrangements. This described the benefits of flexible working around increased wellbeing and productivity, but highlighted how these benefits are not equally distributed throughout the working population leading to increasing inequality. 

In September 2021, the Government published a consultation document setting out proposals to make the right to work flexibly an entitlement from day one, for all employees. The document outlined the Government’s intentions to reform the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 as well as wider proposals to encourage and support flexible working – in sum, this would make flexible working the default position. The Government also launched a ‘call for evidence’ looking at the need for ‘ad hoc’ and informal flexibility and how this can be supported in the workplace. 

What are the trends in flexible working? The Office for National Statistics (ONS) uses data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and Annual Population Survey (APS) to estimate homeworking. Between January and December 2019, of 32.6 million people in employment, 4 million people (around 12% of the total workforce) had worked at home at some point in the week prior to being interviewed. Approximately 1.7 million people (5% of the total workforce) reported working mainly from home – an increase from 4.3% compared to January to December 2015. Data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) found in January-February 2020, approximately 27% of people worked from home at least some of the time, and 6% worked wholly from home.

As expected, all of these figures increased during COVID-19 lockdown periods. The UKHLS COVID-19 dataset includes workers in paid employment and excludes those who are self-employed or were furloughed. The figures reveal, in April 2020 [the first lockdown period], 55% of people in employment worked at home ‘sometimes’ and 40% worked solely at home. In March 2021 [during the third national lockdown], 49% of people worked at home ‘sometimes’ and 31% solely at home. 

The ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPS) covers all workers, including people who are self-employed and/or were furloughed. OPS figures indicate that home working peaked in June 2020 when 38% of people worked from home exclusively and 11% of the workforce worked at home at least one day a week. 

UKHLS COVID-19 data suggests the majority of workers in paid employment in January 2021 (88%) wanted to work from home at least some of the time once lockdown restrictions were lifted. In February 2022, ONS OPN found 84% of workers that had to work from home during the pandemic planned to carry on with a mix of home and office working. The proportion of workers planning to return to their place of work full-time declined too – from 11% in April 2021 to 8% in February 2022. 

  • UKHLS data from January-February 2020 found working remotely was higher for employees in the information and communication sector, the professional and scientific sector and the financial and insurance sector; and lower in the wholesale and retail sector, agriculture and manufacturing, and human health and social work. During the pandemic this trend became more pronounced, with the UKHLS COVID-19 study showing that in January 2021, more than 70% of people working in information and communication, professional and scientific and financial and insurance sectors were working at home compared to 39% in health and social care and 30% in manufacturing sectors. 
  • People with more responsibility and seniority were more likely to work from home. In January-February 2020, the UKHLS found 46% of managers worked from home in some capacity in comparison to 19% of non-managers. In January 2021, 52% of managers were likely to work from home compared to 30% of non-managers. Similarly, people with no qualifications were more likely to be at their place of work compared to graduates (with 86% of people without qualifications at their place of work in June 2020 compared to 21% of people with a degree). 
  • People with higher earnings tend to be in jobs with scope for home working – with UKHLS COVID-19 data revealing how employees working from home ‘sometimes’ reported higher annual earnings than those who ‘never’ work from home. 
  • People who are self-employed tend to work from home compared to employees. The UKHLS COVID-19 data found in January-February 2020, 24% of self-employed workers reported ‘always’ working from home compared to 3% of employees. 
  • In January 2021, UKHLS COVID-19 data showed 58% of employees with children worked at home ‘sometimes’ compared to 48% of people without children. 
  • LFS data on homeworking in January-March 2022 found the regions with the highest percentage of homeworkers were London (37% in January-March 2022), the South East (36.9%) and East of England (31.1%). Regions with a lower proportion of homeworkers included the North East (22.4%) and Yorkshire & Humber (26.2%).   

OPN data in September 2022 found 22% of the workforce working from home at least one day a week and 13% working from home exclusively.  

Data from the Business Insights and Conditions Survey (BICS) indicates how, in June 2021, 24% of businesses said they intended to use increased homeworking as a permanent business model going forward, while 28% were not sure. However, in June 2022 the CIPD undertook a survey of 2,000 employers. 63% of those surveyed said they planned to introduce or expand the use of hybrid working. 

To date, academic research on flexible working during the pandemic has found both benefits and disadvantages, depending on the circumstances of employers and employees. In April 2022 the Pissarides Review was launched. A collaboration between the Institute for the Future of Work, Imperial College London and Warwick Business School, is researching the impacts of automation on work and wellbeing and how they are differently distributed between socio-demographic groups and geographical communities in the UK. The review is supported by an expert Steering Group, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, and expected to run until 2024. 

While there are variations in the trends in flexible working by sector, occupation, qualifications, earnings and geography; what the datasets clearly highlight is how all forms of flexible working increased during COVID-19 and how many employees and employers want flexible working to continue in some form. 

What does flexible working mean for rural areas? According to the Statistical Digest of Rural England, in 2020 there were 1,166,000 home workers in rural areas, accounting for 25% of all workers living in rural areas. This compares to 3,712,000 home workers in urban areas (16% of all workers living in urban areas). While the rate of home working increased across all areas between 2006 and 2020, the highest increase was in rural hamlets and dispersed areas (at 6.1%) and the lowest increase in urban areas (at 5.2%). There are some sectoral differences – with rural areas having higher proportions of home workers in agriculture, forestry and fishing (7.3% difference in favour of rural areas). What factors influence an employees or employers ability to work flexibly in rural areas? I offer two points. 

Firstly, connectivity. According to the Statistical Digest, in 2020 the average broadband speeds in rural areas was 54 Mbit/s compared with 81 Mbit/s in predominantly urban areas. This variation is because there is less superfast broadband in rural areas and because rural businesses are typically further away from cabinets, with long copper line connections, leading to slower performance. In 2020, 0.9% of premises in predominantly rural areas were not able to access a broadband service with a download speed of 10 Mbit/s and upload speed of at least 1 Mbit/s compared to 0.3% of premises in predominantly urban areas. Superfast broadband is available for 92% of premises in predominantly rural areas compared to 97% in predominantly urban areas.

Ofcom found the demand for data continues to grow – with average monthly data volumes across fixed and mobile connections increasing in 2021. The average consumption per data user on mobile increased by 24% to 5.6GB per month. While mobile phone take up is close to universal [with 98% of homes reporting having one or more mobile phone devices], 61.8% of premises in mainly rural areas had indoor 4G coverage from all operators, while 2.4% had no coverage. The Government has set two targets for increasing mobile coverage by 2030: that 4G mobile coverage is available nationwide, and that the majority of the public has access to a 5G signal. The Shared Rural Network (SRN) is an agreement between Government and the mobile industry to improve rural mobile coverage to 2025 – with a focus on filling ‘partial not spots’ and investing in new masts in ‘total not spots’.     

A study in the United States found that spreading broadband to rural counties encouraged the formation of new local businesses—but only for the least remote areas. Proximity to a city was still a vital driver of company formation, even where new technology to facilitate remote working was present. Similarly, a UK study found that broadband did more to stimulate urban economies than rural ones, when all other factors were accounted for — leading researchers to suggest that digital contacts do not fully replace real-life ones. More positively, there is evidence that expanding broadband into a location has a positive impact on women’s participation in the labour market. And crucially, there is evidence from some studies that providing broadband to a local area might encourage suitably skilled people to move to it. 

While the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the Rural Powerhouse continues to caution how slow broadband connectivity and poor 4G and 5G mobile infrastructure is holding rural areas back; and despite various public and community initiatives underway to connect more rural communities; delivering digital connectivity is vital for people living in rural areas to work flexibly.     

Secondly, distance. According to the Statistical Digest, the distance travelled by car decreased by 5% (or 462 miles)  per person, per year, in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings between 2010/2011 and 2018/2019. This was followed by a further decrease of 3,265 miles per person per year in 2020. There have also been decreases in the average trip length for all areas between 2010/2011 and 2020: rural village, hamlet and isolated dwelling saw a 27% decrease (from 10.1 miles to 7.9 miles); while rural town and fringe saw a 29% decrease (from 8.5 miles to 6.6 miles). This compares to a 17% decrease in urban with city and town (from 6.8 miles to 5.8 miles). In 2020 those living in rural areas travelled more miles for all purposes compared to their urban counterparts. However, the differences in commuting between rural and urban areas appeared minor: with 19% of travel attributed to commuting in urban areas and 18% in rural areas. In 2019, for people living in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting, average minimum car journey times to places with 5,000 or more jobs was 50 minutes and some rural residents did not have access to centres of employment with over 5,000 jobs within an hour’s travel by car.

More recently, road traffic estimates published by the Department for Transport suggest traffic in 2021 was 12.1% lower compared to 2019 pre-pandemic levels. However, 297.6 billion vehicle miles were driven on Great Britain’s roads in 2021, an increase of 11.9% compared to 2020. Between 2019 and 2021 the reduction in road traffic for rural roads was higher than for urban roads (-12.9% reduction in rural areas compared to -10.9% in urban areas). The growth in road traffic in 2020-2021 has also been higher in rural areas compared to urban areas – with 184.5 billion vehicle miles on rural roads in 2021 (an increase of 12.8%) compared to 113.0% (or 10.5%) on urban roads. 

It is clear that some employees want the ability to work flexibly going forward – and one that allows them to spend part of their week working remotely and part in the office. Academic studies have found that people working from home in rural areas, on average, accept 5% longer commuting times; and that for every additional 8 hours of working from home there is a 3.5% increase in commuting time. 

Other researchers have found residents living in a village with more accessible markets, higher roads, and higher building density travel a shorter distance and emit less CO2. Meanwhile, residents living in the village with centralised living style and higher transit and destination accessibility travel less frequently but emit more CO2. According to transport and environment statistics from the DfT, CO2 emissions from transport are unevenly distributed throughout the UK. While average transport emissions for a UK local authority in 2020 were 281 kilotonnnes of CO2, high levels of emissions from transport were seen in urban areas such as Leeds and Birmingham (similar to pre-pandemic trends, despite 17% and 18% declines in transport emissions respectively), as well as rural areas like Cornwall.  

 A report on the spatial implications of remote working in Wales recommended that in locations where the density of remote workers is low, and the distance to workspaces longer, ‘pop up coworking and information coworking groups could be a means to support the development of a community of professional coworkers’. However, a European study on rural coworking spaces has suggested they are mainly used for networking, socialising and education and less for traditional distance work to avoid commuting. More recently, an economic impact study by IWG and Arup highlighted how rural and suburban areas in the UK could benefits from some £327 million a year as a result of investment in flexible office and coworking spaces for hybrid workers. They also estimate that 4,000 new jobs could be created for people to run these rural workspaces. In the United States, research suggests rural areas with a good mix of amenities and low cost of living, even if far from an urban area, stand to benefit from the spread of remote and hybrid work arrangements.  

For flexible workers in rural areas, we need to ensure travel is practical, affordable and sustainable – alongside greater consideration of work spaces and the creation of rural-rural and rural-urban connections.  

Since COVID-19 there has been a debate around whether the rapid rise in flexible working would affect where people live. Some argued that these effects would be temporary and localised, while others that these work patterns would have significant long-term effects. While some indicators show that demand for flexible working remains high, there is also emerging evidence on the vulnerability of flexible and hybrid workers amid an economic downturn and recession. For example, in the United States, Lyft (a ride-sharing app) made 13% of its workforce (some 683 people) redundant. 298 of these workers volunteered their working patterns to Layoffs – 138 listed remote working and 135 listed hybrid working as their preferred way of working. Will we see a reversal in the trend of flexible working and people returning to the workplace? However, at the current time, with a series of strikes and industrial action affecting multiple sectors of the economy continuing, the CIPD has listed alternative arrangements for employees unable to travel into the workplace – including homeworking, hybrid working and flexible working. If the ‘right to have’ flexible working becomes the default position in the UK, what future opportunities and challenges does this present for rural areas? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a support programme for patients waiting to receive NHS and local government services, a Warm Hubs scheme and the creation of a new community orchard. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

When five becomes four – does a shorter working week benefit rural areas? 

When five becomes four – does a shorter working week benefit rural areas? 

Back in 2018 Autonomy, a research organisation, began working with charities, businesses and public organisations to deliver working time reduction pilots. Over the last five years, for many the prospect of a four-day week has been enticing. In 2022 4 Day Week Global published the results from a pilot with 33 companies across the United States and Ireland. Meanwhile, the results of the world’s biggest ever four-day working week pilot which took place in the UK were published in February 2023. People in the UK work some of the longest hours in Europe and yet our productivity lags behind. With the four-day week gaining traction, what does it mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.   ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The five-day working week has been the norm in the United Kingdom (UK) since the first half of the twentieth century. While the Government introduced legislation to reduce working hours in factories and prescribed regular breaks; it was the result of a number of campaigns (by trade unions, employees, employers, religious bodies) from the 1840s onwards that created a groundswell for a more formalised break from the working week. Initially, this saw a shift from ‘Saint Monday’, where skilled artisan workers worked Tuesday-Saturday, to ‘rational recreation’, with people encouraged to undertake leisure activities on a Saturday afternoon (e.g. going to football matches, for countryside walks). With the adoption of the weekend left to individual employers, it took a further 50-years for it to gain widespread traction. By the end of the 19th century there was a concerted effort to marking out Saturday afternoon and Sunday as the weekend – and this subsequently led to all-day Saturday and Sunday becoming a break for many employed workers. Much more recently, the introduction of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (in England, Scotland and Wales), means that an employee cannot work more than 48 hours a week on average – normally averaged over 17 weeks – unless they opt out or work in an area with exceptions (e.g. armed forces, emergency services).

Since then COVID-19 has led to significant changes to the way some people work, leading researchers at the New Economics Foundation and other commentators to call for shorter working time to be at the heart of post-pandemic recovery. Other drivers include artificial intelligence (AI) – with a study by Autonomy suggesting a four-day week (32 hours as full-time equivalent) could be achieved by 2033 for 8.8 million workers (28% of the workforce in Great Britain) – and climate change, with one study showing that a 10% reduction in hours is associated with an 8.6% fall in carbon footprint. What is a four-day week, and what does it mean for rural areas?   

What is the four-day week? There is no one-size-fits-all approach to the four-day week. Models include a ‘condensed work week’ where organisations continue with their current 40-hour week and spread this over four-days with a 10-hour shift per day; or a ‘reduced work week’ where organisations reduce the week to 32 hours comprising 8 hour shifts per day over four-days. 4 Day Week Global, for example, calls for a ‘100-80-100’ model where workers receive 100% of their current pay, work 80% of their existing hours, and maintain 100% of their current productivity. Some organisations implement a ‘universal day off’ where the entire business suspends operations, while others have a ‘distributed day off’ where employees stagger their additional work day off. The four-day week is different from flexible working which is a way of working that suits an employee’s needs (e.g. having flexible start and finish times, or working from home).  

There have been a number of reduced work week pilots running across the world in recent years – with 17 countries participating including Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, United States and here in the UK. In addition to Government sponsored tests, many companies or municipalities have undertaken pilots of their own. These pilots are all at different stages, with some at the planning stage, some underway, and others being made permanent. What are some of the benefits and disadvantages of introducing a four-day week? 

What are the benefits? Iceland was one of the first countries to trial a four-day week back in 2015. Participants included Reykjavík City Council and the national government (more than 2,500 workers, equating to 1% of Iceland’s working population); as well as preschools, offices, social service providers, and hospitals. Employees moved from a 40 hour week to a 35 or 36 hour week. Between 2015 and 2019 data shows that productivity remained the same or improved. Since then 86% of Iceland’s workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to do so. 

Back in July 2019 in Japan, Microsoft announced a four-day week trial. Staff were encouraged to work more efficiently in shorter hours by (i) reducing their standard meetings to 30 minutes; (ii) reducing the number of participants in a meeting to a maximum of 5 people; and/or (iii) using Microsoft Teams for collaboration in the first instance. While employees productivity increased by 40% it is unclear if the company will replicate the trial in other locations. 

Between December 2020 and June 2022 New Zealand trialled a four-day week. This saw 80 employees at Unilever participate in a 100:80:100 model. Absenteeism dropped by 34%, employee stress levels reduced by 33% and work life conflict fell by 67%. In November 2023 Unilever announced it would be continuing the experiment in New Zealand and extending the trial to Australia. In Australia, a larger pilot involving 20 companies began in August 2022 and lasted six months. Employees worked 80% of their usual hours with no pay reduction. 64% of employees experienced reductions in burnout and 38% felt less stressed with the four-day week. Time spent commuting reduced by 36 minutes per person during the trial.

In February 2023 the results of the UK pilot were published. This involved 61 companies and 2,900 workers trialling a four-day working week between June and December 2022. The companies included those in the marketing/advertising sector (18%), followed by professional services (16%) and charities/not-for-profits (11%). Companies applied one of five models: (1) fifth day stoppage – where the company shut down operations for one additional day a week; (2) Staggered – where staff take alternating days off; (3) decentralised – where different departments operate different work patterns; (4) annualised – where staff work a 32-hour average working week calculated on the scale of a year; or (5) conditional – staff entitlement to the four-day week is tied to ongoing performance monitoring. 

The findings of the UK pilot include:  

  • 71% of employees participating reported lower levels of burnout, and 39% said they were less stressed, compared to at the start of the trial. Levels of anxiety, fatigue and sleep issues decreased, and mental and physical health improved. 
  • When employees were asked how they used their additional time off, the most popular response was ‘life admin’ (i.e., tasks such as shopping or household chores). Employees described how this allowed them to have a proper break for leisure activities on Saturdays and Sundays. Some parents with young children highlighted a reduction in childcare expenses. All reported being able to do more of the activities they enjoyed during the pilot – with some developing new hobbies and interests.      
  • 54% of employees said they felt increasingly able to combine paid work with caring responsibilities, and 62% reported it easier to combine work with social life. 
  • Researchers found a 65% reduction in sick days, and a 57% drop in the number of staff leaving when comparing the trial period with the same period in the previous year. 
  • Company revenue barely changed – and increased by an average of 1.4% for the 23 organisations able to provide data. 
  • 15% of employees said that no amount of money would induce them to accept a five-day schedule over a four-day week. 
  • 56 of the 61 companies said they intended to continue the four-day working week, with 18 companies confirming they had made the change permanent. 

In Canada researchers looked at data from July 2022 to June 2023 for 30 companies employing 3,500 workers. Each company applied a four-day 32-hour work week, or a 40-hour work week over four-days, and workers did not get a pay reduction under either model. 90% of workers said their productivity had either increased or stayed the same, and 93% wanted to continue with their shortened and compressed work schedules indefinitely.  

In May 2023, Ireland commenced its second four-day week pilot, based on the 100-80-100 model. It follows an initial pilot with 12 companies in 2022 none of whom returned to a five-day working week. 

Across all these countries, 4-Day Week Global have highlighted some of the overarching benefits of a four-day week for employees and employers: 

  • Employees involved in pilots report a reduction in burnout. 
  • Employees report an increase in work ability. 
  • Employers find it easier to recruit staff. 
  • Employee resignations decline.  
  • Some companies see an increase in revenue compared to the same period before the pilot began. 

What are the costs? Not every employee or employer has embraced a four-day week, citing concerns around how it is: 

  • Too rigid an approach when greater flexibility is required in the workplace.
  • Not suitable for all workers in all sectors (e.g. some roles in health, care, defence, banking or criminal justice).   
  • Exacerbating some of the challenges employees who are already stretched with their existing workload face. 
  • Leaving companies with less time to work on organisational development or strategic planning as they focus on day-to-day operations.   

Some of this is borne out of evidence in the UK. The four-day week trial did not work for every business – with some firms exiting the trial early and others yet to move all their operations to the format full-time. For example, Allcap, an engineering and industrial supplies company, participated in the pilot because they wanted to give 40 employees across 5 sites extra rest days. A full order book and reduced headcount meant all employees were offered one work day off every fortnight instead of a four-day week. Allcap found employees experienced 9 extreme days as opposed to 10 normal workdays and finding cover for employees on rest days was also a struggle. This led Allcap to suspend the trial at 3 of its 5 sites 2-months early. Similarly, Waterwise found staff experienced more stress trying to fit work into fewer days in order to have a longer weekend, and the charity had to focus on doing daily tasks rather than longer-term projects or strategic work. Citizens Advice Gateshead appointed the equivalent of 3 additional full-time employees so 45 contact centre staff could participate in a trial. As the busiest days at the contact centre tend to be Mondays and Fridays it only left staff with three week days to take their day off. While the pilot exceeded expectations in terms of its benefit to other staff at Citizens Advice Gateshead, if the four-day week cannot work across the whole charity, including the contact centre team, it is unlikely to become permanent and the trial is being extended in the meantime before a permanent decision is made.

More recently, the supermarket chain Morrisons made changes to its four-day week for head office staff. Originally implemented in 2020, staff were scheduled to work 13 Saturdays per year (one Saturday every 4-weeks) but following feedback from staff the supermarket will spread their 37.5 hours over four-and-a-half days a week, dropping the weekend working.  

Legally, most employment legislation is concentrated around a five-day working week. While employers involved in pilots have made operational changes to staff terms and conditions, not all have made changes to employee contracts. This not only has implications for employees terms and conditions, but also to their pension arrangements and the accrual of leave. 

In October 2023 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published guidance for Local Authorities in England to consider in adopting a four-day week where staff have their working hours reduced by 20% but retain 100% of their pay. While the Government supports an individual’s right to request flexible working, it does not support a four-day working week in Local Authorities because it does not believe that it delivers local taxpayers’ value-for-money.         

What does it mean for rural communities? There is no evidence base documenting how widespread the four-day week is in rural areas in England. There are examples of rural organisations piloting a four-day week. For example, South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) has been trialling a four-day week since January 2023 to help them attract and keep colleagues, to fill vacant posts rather than relying on more expensive agency staff, and to reduce costs. The Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge independently reviewed the trial after 3-months. Researchers looked at different service areas such as planning, housing, corporate services and finance. They found 9 out of the 16 service areas showed substantial improvement, and the remaining 7 areas were either at similar levels or saw a slight decline. 

There are calls from other sectors to implement a four-day week to boost workforce recruitment and retention, particularly in rural areas (e.g. health, hospitality and catering, logistics). Indeed Agricultural Recruitment Specialists have looked at whether the four-day week is beneficial for the farming industry. While noting that farming is different from corporate jobs (e.g. dependency on nature/weather, livestock and crops need looking after 365 days a year), technological advancements, automation and drones are reducing the amount of manual labour needed on farms. With many farmers working an average of 65 hours a week, and 40% of farmers surveyed by Farmers Weekly wanting to know how to improve their work-life balance, Agricultural Recruitment Specialists suggest the four-day week could be an asset to the farming world. 

Information from other countries suggests the four-day week is being adopted in rural municipalities. In Canada for example, Ontario municipalities that have permanently moved to a ‘compressed’ work week (10 hour days four-days a week to recruit and retain staff) include Aylmer, Zorra, Springwater and French River. Four-day work week trials have also taken place in Merritt (British Columbia), Saint John (New Brunswick) and in the District of Guysborough in Nova Scotia. 

In the United States 2,100 rural schools in 26 states are taking Mondays or Fridays off to help recruit more teachers, save money and boost pupil attendance. Some schools have reported that teacher applications have increased four-fold and overhead costs decreased since the four-day week began while others are monitoring what impact this is having on pupil attainment – with some studies indicating that high achievers are more affected by changing school schedules than lower-achieving pupils; and other studies suggesting that a four-day week is not compromising academic performance. Research has also shown that parents with younger school age children, with children who are receiving special educational needs provision or free school meals were less supportive of a four-day week compared to other cohorts of parents/carers.      

Back in the UK, in December 2023 civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), with support from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), submitted a petition calling for a four-day week pilot scheme for 21,000 employees. In response, and echoing guidance issued by DLUHC, a Government spokesperson confirmed how “there are no plans for this. Value-for-money should be provided to the taxpayer”.  

Where next? In February 2022 the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales published a report on the four-day week from Autonomy. This considered the arguments for and against a shorter working week, the potential barriers the Welsh Government might face and an implementation strategy. There are calls for a pilot to be developed in the devolved public sector and the Welsh Government is working with the Workforce Partnership Council (WPC) and trade unions to look at the issue in more detail. In Scotland the Government formally launched its 4-day week pilot in January 2024 – with around 140 staff at South of Scotland enterprise doing a 32-hour week without loss of pay. In Northern Ireland a study by Hays found 43% of employers would be more likely to consider offering a four-day week if staff spent all of their work days in the office rather than on a hybrid basis. 

The key question is whether people who move to a four-day week can achieve what they were doing over five-days with fewer hours and less time? The results of the pilots are in and they suggest a four-day week is coming (in Wales), starting (in Scotland) and here to stay (in England). Are four-day weeks a good or a bad thing? And how doable are they in rural areas? The evidence so far suggests it may work well for some and never work for others. Watch this space…  

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

‘Working at scale’ – what do Primary Care Networks mean for rural communities?

‘Working at scale’ – what do Primary Care Networks mean for rural communities?

Primary care services ‘provide the first point of contact in the healthcare system, acting as the front door of the NHS.’ It includes general practice, community pharmacy, dental and optometry services. It is also the route by which we most commonly access secondary parts of the NHS (e.g. planned hospital care, rehabilitative care, urgent/emergency care, out-of-hours/NHS 111, community health services, mental health services and learning disability services) as well as tertiary care (e.g. specialised treatment such as neurosurgery, transplants, forensic mental health services). Primary care has a pivotal role to play in Government ambitions for safe, personalised, proactive out-of-hospital care for all. This includes the establishment of Primary Care Networks (PCNs). Since April 2019 individual GP practices have been able to establish or join PCNs covering populations of between 30,000 and 50,000. What are PCNs and what do they mean for rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.  ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What are Primary Care Networks (PCNs)? While GP practices have been finding different way of working collaboratively for many years, the NHS Long Term Plan and NHS GP contact have placed a more formal structure around some of these ways of working. 

According to NHS England, experience from around the country has shown that practices working collaboratively and more formally together at scale become more resilient, improve work-life balance for staff by deploying a wider team and are more effective at meeting the holistic needs of their patients and populations. 

PCNs involve staff from practices and other local health and social care providers working in close partnership, as one team. They operate as a network, designing and delivering services collectively that best meet the needs of their local communities. The majority of care will continue to be based around general practice and GP surgeries – but PCNs provide a means of offering additional services that are either too big to be in every practice and/or that do not need to be delivered in a hospital setting. 

The core characteristics of PCNs include: 

  • Practices working together and with local health and care providers ‘around natural local communities that make sense geographically, to provide coordinated care through integrated teams.’ 
  • Providing care in different ways to match different people’s needs – including flexible advice and support and multidisciplinary care for people with complex conditions. 
  • Focus on prevention, patient choice and self-care – supporting patients to make choices about their care and connecting them with statutory and voluntary services. 
  • Use of data and technology – to assess population health needs and inequalities, and to inform the design and delivery of different care models. 
  • Making best use of collective resources across practices – leading to greater resilience, more sustainable workloads and access to a larger range of professional groups. 

PCNs are intended to be small enough to maintain the strengths of general practice (e.g. continuity of care) but large enough to support the development of integrated teams made up of several professional groups. 

The diagram below illustrates the difference between the current way primary care operates and how it will do so under PCNS. 

The exact size of PCNs is determined locally. PCNs can be structured in a number of ways, with the decision on how a network operates down to an agreement between the general practices in membership.  

PCNs are intended to build upon ‘primary care home’ (PCH). This is a model developed by the National Association of Primary Care (NAPC) to bring together a range of health and social care providers to work together to provide enhanced personalised and  preventive care for local communities. PCH initiatives have been running for three years. NAPC has been supporting the development of PCNs, through both organisational development and offering a Diploma in Advance Primary Care Management to support staff to manage primary care at scale. 

Why have they been set up? The NHS Long Term Plan contained proposals to establish PCNs to ‘provide flexible options for GPs, and wider primary care teams’ as part of an extra £4.5 billion of investment to fund community multidisciplinary teams. As part of a set of multi-year contract changes, individual practices in a local area will enter into a network contract – as an extension of their current contract – and have a designated single fund through which all network resources will flow. Most Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have local contracts for enhanced services and these will normally be added to the PCN contract. Expanded neighbourhood teams will include staff such as GPs, pharmacists, district nurses, community geriatricians, dementia workers and Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) e.g. physiotherapists and podiatrists/chiropodists, who will be joined by social care and the voluntary sector providers. Within the Long Term Plan, PCNs are to be offered a new ‘shared savings’ scheme so that practices benefit from reductions in avoidable A&E attendance, admissions and delayed discharge, and the streamlining of patient pathways to reduce avoidable outpatient visits and over-medication. The Long Term Plan also sets out a desire for stronger links between PCNs and local care homes, emergency services, local community services (e.g. frailty services) and social prescribing (providing patients with links to local groups and activities). PCNs are also expected to support early diagnosis, as well as to find and treat people with high risk conditions. 

PCNs also build upon the findings of the GP partnership review. In recognising how the average size of individual practices is increasing, the number of salaried (employed) GPs is increasing and the move towards more part-time and flexible working; the review made seven recommendations. They were: (1) reducing the personal risk and unlimited liability currently associated with GP partnerships; (2) increasing roles and funding for General Practitioners; (3) increasing the range and number of healthcare professionals to support patients in the community; (4) increasing the time medical students spend in general practice through primary care partnerships; (5) ensuring practice are more sustainable through the establishment of PCNs; (6) ensuring general practice has a representative voice at a system level; and (7) enabling practices to be more efficient through IT and innovative digital services.   

NHS England and the British Medical Association’s (BMA) General Practitioners Committee (GPC) have agreed a five-year GP (General Medical Services) contract framework from 2019-2020. The contract increases general practice funding by £978 million per year by 2023-2024 and introduces a PCN contact from 1 July 2019 as a Direct Enhanced Service (DES). The 2019-2020 Contract Agreement includes additional funding for general practices to engage and participate in a PCN. Should a practice not wish to engage in the DES, the respective practice will not qualify for the additional monies and the rest of the network will take responsibility for the provision of network level services to that practice’s patients. The DES is being phased in over the next five years and will eventually cover seven service areas (medication, health in care homes, anticipatory care, personalised care, early cancer diagnosis, cardiovascular disease and inequalities).  

Also referred to as the Primary Care Network Contract, the Direct Enhanced Service (DES) is designed to support practices to develop and implement PCNs by working with neighbouring practices in their areas. The DES consists of a network agreement specifying the governance and financial structure of the PCN along with details of funding, workforce and a timetable. In signing up to a DES, PCNs will need to make a submission to their Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)  including details of member practices, the PCN list size, a map showing the PCN area, a single practice that will receive funding on behalf of the PCN and a named Clinical Lead. The deadline for submissions was 15 May 2019. 

According to The King’s Fund, PCNs are being established to respond to three challenges facing the NHS: (i) to address workforce recruitment and retention – by targeting specific professions including pharmacists and physiotherapists to start with; (ii) to properly ensure the voice of general practice is part of, and fully integrated with, community and other services; and (iii) to improve population health – covering a whole range of issues from preventing coronary heart disease to tackling neighbourhood health inequalities. 

In the meantime, NHS England has produced a Reference Guide, frequently asked questions (FAQs) podcasts and details about events and webinars for health and care professionals to find out more. 

From a patient perspective, people should experience more joined up services, access to a wider range of professionals and diagnostics in the community, different ways of getting advice and treatment (e.g. digital and face-to-face services), shorter waiting times and greater involvement in decisions about their care within a PCN. Within local communities, PCNs are intended to increase the focus on prevention and helping people to take charge of their own health. 

From a general practice perspective, clinicians should experience more efficient use of resource leading to greater resilience (staff, buildings); a more sustainable work-life balance; a more satisfying workload; greater influence on decisions made elsewhere in the health system; and the ability to provide better and more timely treatment to patients. 

For other health and care partners, including Local Authorities, PCNSs are expected to lead to greater cooperation across organisational boundaries and a wider range of services being made available in local communities so patients do not have to default to the acute [hospital] sector.  

How do they work? NHS England has developed a ‘maturity matrix’ for PCNs as part of a recognition that networks will progress at different rates. The matrix covers: 

  • Foundations for transformation: develop a plan, engage with primary care leaders and other stakeholders, provide headroom to make change and ensure you have the people skills and financial commitment to fulfil primary care transformation. 
  • Step 1: identify PCN partners, analyse outcomes and resource use between practices, understand population groups and their resource use, integrate primary care teams with social care and the voluntary sector, standardised state models of care, take steps to ensure operational efficiency, and ensure primary care has a seat at the table for system strategic decision making. 
  • Step 2: have a defined future business model, function interoperability within the network, ensure shared access to information and decision making, new models of care in place for most population segments, networks can see their impact on system performance, and play an active role in system operational decision making. 
  • Step 3: the business model is fully operational, IT / workforce / estates fully interoperable, systematic population health analysis, new models of care in place for all population segments, collective responsibility for available funding, and providers are full decision makers of Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) and working in tandem with other partners allocating health and care resources. 

The primary care model being developed by each network fits with Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) and Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) in operating at three system levels: (1) neighbourhoods – with PCNs providing multidisciplinary care; (2) places – with PCNs integrating care between hospitals and Local Authorities; and (3) systems – with PCNs participating as an equal partner in decision making.  STPs/ICSs must include a primary care strategy – they will be developing their strategies in autumn 2019 in response to the Long Term Plan. 

The PCH has produced some examples, NHS England published some case studies and the BMA a handbook all illustrating what a PCN may look like in practice.  

What do they mean for rural areas? PCNs, by their very voluntary nature, suggest a mixed approach to their formation and delivery will emerge.  So what might PCNs mean for rural residents? I offer three points. 

Firstly, the term ‘working at scale across practices’ which can be traced back to the General Practice Forward View,  takes on renewed significance with PCNs as NHS England is committed to 100% geographical coverage of the Network Contract DES by 1 July 2019. It is NHS England’s intention is for practices to work together ‘around natural local communities that geographically make sense, to provide coordinated care through integrated teams.’ NHS England anticipates that practices will work together in ‘geographically coterminous areas, rather than because of historic performance.’ PCNs are intended to have a defined patient population of at least 30,000 and not to exceed 50,000. The Long Term Plan suggestion of 30,000-50,000 registered patients as the desired size originates from the findings of the PCH model. According to the BMA handbook, ‘while there is no maximum size of a PCN, and commissioners can sign off on PCN proposals that go over 50,000, it is at around this size that networks will best keep the features of traditional community-based general practice, combined with the benefits of integrated working across a locality…Only in exceptional circumstances will networks be allowed to cover a population smaller than 30,000; for example, in rural areas where reaching a 30,000+ population causes geographic problems.’ It is not anticipated that PCNs will cross CCG boundaries. 

It is expected that funding will vary by the population covered by the PCN (BMA handbook page 16): 

Research by Nuffield in January 2019 found evidence of the additional and unavoidable costs of delivering health care in rural settings and highlighted the implications of this ‘funding gap’ on wider quality and sustainability issues. 

The way the NHS funding model currently works is based upon economies of scale. While providing all patients with equal access to its services at the same level of quality; how will PCNs take account of different types of rural and coastal populations and places?  What does ‘traditional community based practice’ look like in rural areas – and how can PCNs support it? Where are there gaps in coverage and why? 

Secondly, will PCNs lead to better recruitment and retention of the health and care workforce in rural places?  All PCNs must have a named clinical director – but how that post is filled is determined by each PCN. Their role is to provide appropriate leadership to establish and develop a successful network. The DES provides workforce reimbursement for the network covering a number of specified health professions and is designed to allow the PCN to build up an expanded primary care team. In year 1 this will include funding for a clinical pharmacist (funded 70% by NHS England and 30% by the PCN) and a social prescriber (funded 100% by NHS England). The majority of the workforce that will be introduced into PCNs over the next five years will normally be set at a 70/30 NHS England / PCN funding split. This could include roles such as physician associates, physios and community paramedics. 

PCNs are expected to form the basis of people themselves being the best navigators of their care. The personalised care operating model sets out the infrastructure role of PCNs in supporting local social prescribing schemes, with every GP practice having access to a link worker – which will see the recruitment of 1,000 social prescribers by 2020-2021 and up to 900,000 people benefiting from the support they provide by 2023-2024.  

PCNs will also be expected to work alongside other voluntary and community sector organisations to help alleviate workload pressures on practices and allow GPs to concentrate on the most complex patient cases. 

In October 2018, the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) published the findings of a study into rural workforce issues in health and care.  While securing staff to deliver high quality health and care in rural areas (now and in the future) is crucial, the research revealed 9 challenges affecting the recruitment and retention of staff: 

  1. Rural areas are characterised by the disproportionate out-migration of young adults and in-migration of families and older adults.
  2. This means that the population is older than average in rural areas – this has implications for demand on health and care services and for labour supply.
  3. Relatively high employment rates and low rates of unemployment and economic inactivity mean that the labour market in rural areas is relatively tight. 
  4. There are fewer NHS staff per head in rural areas than in urban areas. 
  5. A rural component in workforce planning is lacking. 
  6. The universalism at the heart of the NHS can have negative implications for provision of adequate, but different, services in rural areas. 
  7. The conventional health service delivery model is one of a pyramid of services with fully-staffed specialist services in central (generally urban) locations – which are particularly attractive to workers who wish to specialise and advance their careers. 
  8. Rural residents need access to general services locally and to specialist services in central locations to provide the best health and care outcomes. 
  9. Examples of innovation and good practice are not routinely mapped and analysed which hinders sharing and learning across rural (and urban) areas. 

For me, the research highlighted the lack of a spatial component in workforce planning. The research analysed 10 STP plans in detail – with these areas chosen because they have at least double the share of rural population than England as a whole. Across these 10 plans there are fewer than 50 references to ‘rural’. None of the plans makes a clear link between the rural area they cover and the workforce challenges that they face. While RSN members recognise and champion the heterogeneity of rural areas– geographically and socioeconomically – this spatial component is not always taken into account in health workforce planning.

In May 2019, the Nuffield Trust, assessed the number of GPs compared to the size of the UK population over time. The analysis revealed how the number of GPs relative to the size of the population has fallen in a sustained way for the first time since the 1960s. For the overall number of GPs to have kept pace with the number of the people in the UK since 2014 we would have needed some 3,400 more GPs.  

Will PCNs provide a way of addressing existing recruitment and retention challenges in primary care? Or will they find it difficult to do so as they are already running and trying to change / reorganise whilst getting on with the demanding day job? How can (and will) PCNs address some of these rural issues they face, particularly through working with the voluntary and community sector and local groups in the design and delivery of primary care services? For rural residents, in theory, PCNs offer the potential to provide a mix of proactive and preventative support, emergency and rapid support and ongoing support (for complex conditions) but this will only happen if existing and new staff can be both attracted and retained.  

Thirdly, will PCNs provide a better means for ensuring the voices of rural communities and clinicians are heard and acted upon at a system level? NHS England wants patients and the public to be involved in the work of PCNs in a meaningful way. It’s guidance on patient and public engagement sets out web based resources and best practice for both greater shared decision making between patients and clinicians and for engaging the public in a discussion about services. Healthy Conversation 2019, for example, precedes PCNs and is a discussion across Lincolnshire about what (and how) we need to change to ensure that our health, and health services are fit for the future. PCNs are expected to engage with STPs and ICSs to shape their strategic direction and align population care on a wider scale. PCNs are also expected to focus on prevention and personalised care – delivering a set of seven national service specifications. Five will start by April 2020: structured medication reviews, enhanced health in care homes, anticipatory care (with community services), personalised care and supporting early cancer diagnosis. The remaining two will start by 2021: cardiovascular disease case-finding and locally agreed action to tackle inequalities.

The health care system already collects an enormous amount of data and feedback from patients at local and national levels. Do PCNs provide new opportunities for the health system to think differently about how it listens and acts on insights from residents and patients? Where will their voices be, for example, in the development of local system plans? How can PCNs make this – and their work with voluntary and community sector organisations and local groups – essential to how they operate? Will there by capacity and capability in this new system to share learning and practice?  

Where next? The current model of health care has been focused on hospital-based care and treating diseases and illnesses. There is now widespread acceptance, within the system, that this model is not sustainable and that coordinated, integrated and multidisciplinary care at the local/neighbourhood level is needed to prevent ill-health.  PCNs offer a means of doing this. Practices have been meeting to discuss forming PCNs since January 2019 and the networks themselves are expected to go live in July 2019. Are we giving PCNs too much to do – and too soon – or do they provide an ambitious response to address the challenges that general practice faces, particularly in rural areas? Watch this space…

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Jessica is a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). The NCRHC is a Community Interest Company, national in scope and with a Headquarters in Lincolnshire, and focuses on four principal activities: data, research, technology and workforce. 

The NCRHC has joined with the Rural Services Network (RSN) to launch the affiliated Rural Health & Care Alliance – a membership organisation dedicated to providing news, information, innovation and best practice to those delivering and interested in rural health and care across England. More information about the RHCA – and how to join – can be found here: https://www.rsnonline.org.uk/page/about-the-rhca 

Jessica is also a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects.

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Childcare Rural Areas

High quality, affordable, convenient and flexible early years childcare in all rural areas?

We know the early years are a crucial time in every child’s life and that childcare provision can help close attainment and equality gaps and help to transform children’s lives. The Government is aiming to invest an additional £1 billion every year by 2019-2020 to expand early years provision. Will this funding deliver sustainable provision in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.

The Childcare Act 2016 contains provisions which are intended to secure an additional entitlement of childcare support for working parents. The Act seeks to ensure that parents are able to access information about free childcare and about other provision/services which may help them to meet their childcare needs. It also places a duty on Local Authorities to publish information about childcare and other services available for parents locally. The Government’s overarching intention is to make childcare more affordable for working parents; and to increase the use of formal childcare by parents. What does this mean for rural areas? I offer three points.

Firstly, why provide publicly funded childcare support and what type of provision is available?

Successive Governments [Labour, Coalition and Conservative administrations] have considered evidence about the impact access to nursery care can have on a child’s life chances: from studies identifying a ‘gap in potential’ between children from middle and low income families evident among babies of 22 months and slipping away further by aged 3; to research on the ‘home learning environment’ which distinguishes between parents of all social classes who read, talk and sing to their children and those who do not. This evidence suggests that access to quality pre-schooling from the age of two can be the critical factor on outcomes not just through childhood but on into adulthood too. Those children that may benefit most are not only those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds but from all social classes. The Government’s drive therefore has been to invest public funding into informal play-based nursery settings for children from the age of two years to help them with the transition into formal school life.

Yet much of the resultant policy and childcare provision has been targeted at working parents. This has opened up a series of debates around whether it should lie with parents to provide for their children (should childless couples fund other people’s offspring?) and the lack of similar public childcare support available to stay-at-home parents.

In March 2017 the Department for Education (DfE) published guidance for Local Authorities detailing how they should pay providers to deliver free entitlement places. Crucially the guidance specifies the outcomes the DfE is looking for: that all children are able to take up their free hours in a high quality setting; that fair and transparent funding supports a diverse range of providers to deliver free places on a sustainable basis; that parents are able to work because childcare places are available, accessible and affordable and are delivered flexibly in a range of high quality settings; and that high quality provision amongst providers is promoted.

The driver here and now is no longer concerned solely with early years education but with helping parents to work. A study by IPPR, for example, has shown how making affordable childcare more widely available could raise revenues in the form of increased maternal employment rates. IPPR’s analysis shows a 5% increase in the maternal employment rate could generate £750 million a year in benefit savings and tax revenue.

Bringing both of these strands together, the European Commission analysed cross-national evidence to conclude “access to universally available, high-quality inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services…not only helps children to unlock their potential but can also contribute to engaging parents and other family members with related measures to improve employment, job-related training, parent education, and leisure-time activities.”

In 2015 there were some 1.5 million children receiving publicly funded childcare from 105,000 providers – with the DfE contributing some £2.7 billion of funding towards this. Providers include facilities run by local authorities (maintained settings) and those run by private, voluntary or independent (PVI) organisations. Some provision is group based (e.g. nurseries) and others home-based (e.g. childminders, childcarers). Other options include crèches, children’s centres and playgroups.

While social and economic cases for early-years childcare are now well rehearsed, funding and delivering it remains a challenge.

Secondly, how is childcare provision funded?

All families in the UK can receive some help with childcare through early education entitlements. The Government website ‘childcare choices’ provides information for parents about getting help with childcare costs, including a childcare calculator. The Government offers various schemes for children under 16 years old (or under 17 for disabled children): (i) Working Tax Credits – where the childcare element means families can claim back up to 70% of their childcare costs, up to a cap. (ii) Universal Credit –where working families can claim back up to 85% of eligible childcare costs. (iii) 15 hours of free childcare for all three and four year olds and some qualifying two year olds for 38 weeks of the year, equivalent to 570 hours a year. Similar schemes exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. (iv) Since September 2017 working parents, subject to a means-test, of eligible three and four year olds in England are entitled to an additional 15 hours of free childcare, on top of the existing universal provision of 15 hours. (v) Other schemes exist to provide support for childcare costs while studying such as care to learn, discretionary learner support and childcare grant.

In the 2017-2018 financial year the DfE introduced a new early years funding formula. This stipulates how much funding each Local Authority will receive from the DfE in respect of free childcare for up to 30 hours for three and four year olds. It remains for Local Authorities to determine the actual funding rate that providers receive. The formula comprises three parts: (1) a base rate of funding for each child; (2) an additional needs factor (based on free school meals eligibility, having English as an additional language, being in receipt of Disability Living Allowance); and (3) an area cost adjustment (a general labour market measure based on business rates data). Supplements are available on top of this base rate, including “sparsity/rurality to support providers serving rural areas less likely to benefit from economies of scale.” Local Authorities are required to pass a minimum proportion of funding from DfE onto providers – 93% in 2017-2018 rising to 95% thereafter; with retained funding for Local Authorities central services constrained to 7% in 2017-2018 and falling to 5% thereafter. The national average hourly funding rate was set at £4.94 for 2017-2018, with an average rate of £4.30 paid to Local Authorities who in turn pay providers an average funding rate of £4.00 an hour.

This funding rate is interesting because back in November 2015 the DfE undertook an economic assessment of the early education and childcare market. The review considered the costs of childcare provision at provider level, the current demand for and supply of places for two, three and four year olds, how Government regulation and funding had shaped the market and future cost pressures facing the sector. The review revealed how costs varied according to staffing levels (statutory level or average level), the type of provider (private, voluntary or primary school), the age of the child (2 or 3-4 year olds), occupancy levels and the providers business model. The unit cost per hour of childcare was found to vary, for example, from £5.00-£5.87 for two year olds to £3.56-£4.25 for three and four year olds. The review suggested scope for efficiencies in the staffing model (staff to child ratios) which could save a typical provider in a private setting 15% of its unit delivery costs by staffing within the statutory requirements. The review also suggested providers would benefit from using spare capacity within their premises to care for other age groups of children and/or sharing back-office functions with other providers. In October 2017 the Department published insights from successful providers on business sustainability (e.g. understanding the local market, managing occupancy levels, diversification). How have some providers taken up the findings of the review to fit with the average hourly rate of £4.00 that many will receive?

Local Authorities are responsible for ensuring sufficient places for the funded hours and allocating money to providers. They are legally required to provide information to help parents find an appropriate place for their child, and should give support and training to providers to ensure childcare in their area is high quality.

As per the DfE guidance, the actual funding distributed to providers is set by Local Authorities so the choices they make and other factors such as demography and geography means they may pay different base rates to different types of providers and can make supplementary payments for quality, flexibility, deprivation and rurality. A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found large variations in funding allocations. For example, the rate for two year olds varied from £2.75 in Torbay to £9.06 in Camden.

In April 2016 the DfE called for expressions of interest from Local Authorities looking to work with local childcare providers to bid for capital funding to expand childcare provision in their area. The funding is administered by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and is aimed at allocating to projects in areas most in need of capital funding to deliver the additional 30 hour places needed to meet local sufficiency need. Funding is available for new-build nurseries; and extensions, conversions or refurbishments of existing buildings including the creation of kitchen facilities. The first projects approved under the bidding round were announced in January 2017; with the results of a second bidding round announced in April 2017.

If families can receive support for childcare, are also paying themselves for childcare and Government is investing £ 1 billion+ a year in early years entitlements, why isn’t childcare provision affordable, flexible and sustainable?

From a Local Authority perspective, the Family and Childcare Trust 2017 Childcare Survey found, on average, the price of 25 hours of childcare per week for a child under 2 years was £116 for a nursery place or £110 for a childminder. There are significant regional variations, with London and the South East the most expensive areas. It is more difficult to estimate the costs for parents of three and four year olds because of the universal free early education entitlements which is operated differently by providers and measured differently by Local Authorities. Parents of primary-school age children will pay an average of £53 a week for an after-school club and £67 for afternoon care from a childminder. Some parents are spending up to 45% of their disposable income on average childcare costs. The majority of Local Authorities in England reported they did not have enough care in their area available for two year olds entitled to free childcare, for after-school care, for disabled children and for the children of parents who work non-typical hours such as shift workers. Since September 2017 some working parents have been entitled to 30 hours a week free childcare for three and four year olds: only one-third of Local Authorities believe they have enough childcare in their area for eligible families.

From a parent perspective, analysis by Save the Children found over 450,000 mothers with children under five in England are looking for work/would like to increase their hours but are unable to do so because they cannot find convenient childcare – with the average mother losing £3,400-£11,400 a year because they are not able to work more.

From a provider perspective, according to the NDNA the majority of nurseries admitted being concerned about whether they could afford to extend the number of state-funded hours they offer, with the current 15 hours a week resulting in an average annual loss of £34,000 per nursery. Providers suggest the Government does not fund them enough to pay higher wages and keep childcare costs down. A study carried out by the Family and Childcare Trust found nurseries and pre-schools awarded a rating of ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted paid their staff an average of £8.37 an hour compared to £7.44 in nurseries achieving a ‘good’ rating and £6.92 in providers receiving a ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ ratings.

From a childcare professional perspective, research on the provision and use of preschool childcare in Britain by UCL in 2015 collated data from the Labour Force Survey and Ofsted registration statistics identified trends around declining workforce (a decrease of 5% for the childcare workforce between 2005 and 2015 and 7% in childminders over the same time period); the average age of the workforce is 36 years but 27% of the workforce are 25 years of age or younger; while qualification levels are rising (with a 12% increase in NVQ Level 3+ qualifications between 2005 and 2014) as the figures above show some are persistently low paid.

Thirdly, what does this all mean for childcare provision in rural areas?

Data on childcare provision in the Statistical Digest of Rural England reveals in August 2016 there were just over 8,000 Early Year Register (EYR) providers, comprising 4,700 childminders and 3,300 childcare providers – together offering over 152,000 places. Between March and August 2016 there was a 7% fall in the combined number of EYR childminders and childcare providers in rural areas, compared with a 2% fall in urban areas.

In 2016 the Family and Childcare Trust asked Local Authorities to use their childcare sufficiency data to estimate if they had enough childcare for different groups of children. This revealed 45% of authorities reported they had enough childcare for working parents, but just 14 Local Authorities in England (4 in Scotland and none in Wales) reported having enough childcare in rural areas compared to 23 Local Authorities in 2015.

An evaluation of the rollout of 30 hours free childcare in August 2017 found Local Authorities were paying higher rates to encourage childminders to participate in rural areas where there was concern about sufficiency; and because of a lower proportion of registered providers delivering extended hours in rural areas. In some instances early years provision was being jointly delivered alongside after school clubs and other nursery/education settings.

Amid this decline in providers and lack of sufficiency, we’ve heard first-hand from RSN members about some of the challenges you face in accessing childcare in rural areas. This is often exacerbated by the lack of affordable transport, access to other services and low incomes. From a provider perspective we’ve heard concerns about infrastructure (facilities), sustainability (smaller numbers), transport and workforce. We also recognise how alongside and outside of publicly funded and inspected provision a lot of informal care takes place (e.g. with parents/carers relying on grandparents, other relatives, friends or neighbours). While it is estimated that one-third of all childcare usage is from grandparents there is no national data collected on the type, volume and frequency of informal childcare. All of this suggests models of childcare provision are needed which fit rurality, involve working in partnership with others (e.g. health visitors, schools), and build capacity, capability and ties to local communities. What is currently missing is a comprehensive picture of the state of early years provision in rural areas.

In January 2018 the Treasury Select Committee launched an inquiry into the role high quality, accessible, flexible and affordable childcare can play in supporting labour productivity. The Committee is considering the effectiveness of the package of Government initiatives (are they delivering adequate provision that facilitates parental employment?) alongside the processes within which childcare schemes are delivered. Will the inquiry ‘think rural’ in helping children unlock their potential as well as improving the employment prospects of their parents? I certainly hope so…

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

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. Her current work includes supporting a Lottery programme to help people into paid work; research for the NHS on rural workforce issues and a project looking to deliver higher level technical education and skills in rural areas. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Where next for Place-based working?

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

What does the future public service workforce look like?

What does the future public service workforce look like?

Back in July 2022 the House of Lords Public Services Committee published its report ‘Fit for the future? Rethinking the public services workforce’. This identified how public sector staffing was “facing a crisis” due to a “vicious circle” of increasing demand, staff shortages, low morale and recruitment issues. What does this crisis mean for rural areas, and what can be done to secure a public services workforce for the future? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

How many people work in the public sector? 

According to the Institute for Government (IfG), the public sector ‘consists of all workers employed by the state – whether UK Government departments, devolved Governments, Local Authorities or other Government agencies and public bodies’. The Census collects data on public sector personnel. This comprises people employed in central and local government, and public corporations, including people with second jobs in the public sector. The House of Lords Select Committee on Public Services, however, considers public services in a broader sense – including the role of community-level initiatives and private, voluntary and charitable sectors. All of these definitions exclude organisations such as museums or universities – which despite receiving taxpayer funding in some instances – are defined as private sector organisations. Indeed, some private sector bodies have found themselves reclassified as public sector bodies and vice versa. For example: Royal Bank of Scotland (included as a public sector body since Q4 2008), further education and sixth form college corporations (private sector since Q1 2012); Royal Mail (private since Q3 2013) and English Housing Associations (private since Q4 2017). 

A statistical bulletin published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in December 2022 estimated that there 5.77 million employees were working in the public sector in September 2022 – 28,000 (or 0.5%) more than in June 2022 and 73,000 (1.3%) more compared to September 2021. It attributes the increase to the impact of COVID-19 on the NHS and Civil Service, and to Local Authority schools becoming academies:  

  • Employment in Central Government was estimated at 3.57 million in September 2022, a rise of 22,000 (0.6%) compared with June 2022, and 74,000 (2.1%) compared with September 2021.   
  • The NHS employed an estimated 1.90 million people in September 2022, an increase of 12,000 (0.6%) compared with June 2022 and an increase of 47,000 (2.5%) compared with September 2021. 
  • Employment in Local Government was estimated at 2.00 million in September 2022, an increase of 3,000 (0.2%) since June 2022, but a decrease of 3,000 (0.1%) since September 2021. 
  • There were 513,000 employees in the Civil Service in September 2022, up 1,000 (0.2%) compared with June 2022, and up 8,000 (1.6%) compared with September 2021.
  • Private sector employment was at estimated at 27.00 million in September 2022, slightly lower than for June 2022 (by 1,000) but higher than in September 2021 (by 117,000).

According to its definition, the IfG estimates 5.6 million people were employed by the public sector in Q1 2022. While the number of people employed by the public sector reduced between 2009 and 2016, the impact of Brexit and COVID-19 have seen numbers increase – there are now just 1% fewer employees in 2022 compared to 2009. It is estimated that the public sector now makes up 17.5% of total employment. 

What skills do we need (now and in the future) in the public sector? 

In 2021, the OECD published its report on the future of public services. This looked at the factors affecting the work of civil service leaders from OECD countries, and the employment policies needed to support their work. The report highlights how: ‘in the short to medium term, public servants will be called upon not only to help manage the health, social and economic impacts of the [COVID-19] crisis, but to also find innovative solutions to help rebalance budget deficits in the immediate aftermath of recessions. The opportunity and policy challenge is to find a way to use budgetary pressure and high expectations from citizens to spark transformation in the public sector rather than making short-term cuts that freeze renewal and stunt progress, as was often the experience resulting from the 2008 financial crisis’. Leaders participating in the study generally agreed that: 

  • The promise of new technology to improve government service delivery will only be achieved with a commensurate investment in the capabilities of civil servants.
  • Change is not new but is happening at a pace that requires constant reconsideration of what civil servants know, and how they learn and acquire new knowledge.
  • Civil services need to become more flexible, agile and responsive in the way they organise, reward and employ.
  • There are important new possibilities to focus people management on the experience of work, public service values, mission and the public good to attract and retain diverse employees.

In reflecting on the public service workforce that is needed to deliver post-pandemic policies today, and into the future to respond to the next set of crises, three overarching reflections were offered: 

  1. A forward-looking public service is one that is able to identify the emerging technical skills and competencies needed to ensure resilience in an increasingly uncertain future. This will require workforce planning methods that recognise uncertainty and prepare for the next shock.
  2. A flexible public service in the future will be one where different kinds of people work from more locations at different times, contributing their skills and experience to projects, across multi-disciplinary teams, and learning as they go. This will require flexibility, a culture of learning, better risk management and experimentation.
  3. The public service of the future will attract, retain and optimise the use of the skills it needs by providing fulfilling work experience to an increasingly diverse range of employees. This will require improved job design to increase autonomy and recognise employees as individuals.

In January 2022, the House of Lords Public Services Committee launched an inquiry on designing a public services workforce fit for the future. The Committee published its report in July 2022. This set out how the public services workforce was ‘facing a crisis’ and that employers were ‘not doing enough to make public service careers attractive to prospective staff’ leading to recruitment difficulties: 

‘The inescapable demographic fact is that demand for services will rise far faster than the working-age population. The proportion of the population with multiple and complex needs will rise further, even as the labour market available will be smaller. The challenge is substantial: the public sector will have to deliver the same or better outcomes with less labour available’ (page 3). 

The report contained five key findings: 

  1. Many public service workers face “intense pressure” and “suffering”, as well as unacceptable levels of discrimination. 
  2. The potential of many staff to deliver services is largely untapped, with a need to think imaginatively about how and where they could be better deployed.
  3. There are simple ways to enhance the “offer” of public service careers that should be taken.
  4. Traditional routes into public service careers are limiting and action must be taken to make them more accessible.
  5. The public sector needs to “train to retain” and must rethink its training and development offer to allow staff to meet their full potential. 

The Committee used the report to develop to develop an action strategy. The strategy includes taking steps to: 

  • Understand the problem by collecting and sharing workforce data. 
  • Get the most out of the workforce by empowering them and thinking imaginatively about where they could be deployed. 
  • Make services work for users through meaningful consultation. 
  • Use technology in the most productive and informative ways. 
  • Prioritise preventative services. 
  • End the culture problems driving people to leave. 
  • Make the offer of public service careers more attractive by fixing pensions and offering flexible working. 
  • Fix the broken brand of public service careers, and get an appealing message out. 
  • Create new and accessible entry routes, and properly use those that already exist. 
  • Train to retain: rethink development so that skills can be recognised and used more effectively across broad careers. 

In May 2022, the Local Government Association (LGA) published the Local Government Workforce Survey 2022. All heads of human resources [or in an equivalent position] in England were asked to complete an online survey between March and May 2022. Of the119 Councils that responded: 

  • 94% said they were experiencing recruitment and retention difficulties. In response to these difficulties, 81% said they provided market supplements for some posts – with 48% providing market supplements for children’s social workers, just over 25% for planning officers, and 18% for building control officers. 
  • Of those undertaking actions to help with recruitment and retention, over a quarter said they considered flexible working to be the most effective one. 
  • 62% said they were considering increasing apprenticeships in 2022-2023. 

In July 2022, the Government Skills and Curriculum Unit and Leadership College for Government published research looking at the future issues facing public service leaders. This identified future pressures around: (1) moving public services online; (2) the changing role of the state; (3) rising complexity; and (4) new expectations of leaders. There was agreement on the central importance of collaboration – including the need for a holistic systems approach that reaches across traditional sectors of public services. 

In November 2022 the Government responded to the House of Lords Public Services Committee’s report. It cited several areas where positive progress had been made. These include: the introduction of a public sector apprenticeship target to boost starts across the public sector; a commitment of £500 million to improve the recruitment, retention, progression and staff wellbeing of the adult social care workforce; issuing digital and data guidance setting out the required capabilities for all senior civil servants; and running a supporting families programme.  

In terms of horizon scanning, Deloitte describes the Government worker of 2035: 

‘The government workforce will likely consist of technologically advanced generations with different employment expectations. These new workers may be less attached to “career tenure” and will expect to work on short-term, specialized projects where they can apply their innovative technology skills. Future public service workers will likely be interested in performing meaningful work with tangible evidence of social responsibility and impact, and leaders should be prepared to respond’. 

In a context of increased uncertainty and disruption; how can we ensure we have a good grasp of the current workforce (and gaps), and that we can attract, retain and develop the public sector employees we need for the future?  

Navigating the transition 

To make public sector careers attractive and ensure there is a sustainable workforce for the future, the House of Lords Public Services Committee identified how action is needed around:

  • Workforce experience: a need to end the culture problems driving people to leave and ensuring the experiences of staff are broadly positive. 
  • Workforce development: a need to get the most out of staff by empowering them to think about where they could be deployed. 
  • Workforce recruitment: a need to fix the broken brand of public service careers by looking at the ‘offer’, including fixing pensions and offering flexible working. 
  • Routes into careers: a need to create new and accessible entry routes, including apprenticeships and local talent pools – including those who may not be able to afford to do a degree. 
  • Training: public sector employers must train to retrain and rethink development so that their skills can be used and recognised across broad careers. 

The Committee Chair, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top said: “We need to reshape – and rebrand – public services to make then an attractive career choice. We can do that by empowering people, and providing innovative training with personal and professional development, so they feel valued and want to remain in these important careers. In addition, consultation with service users and those with lived experience will allow their input to be a real part of redesigning services to deliver exactly what is needed, when it is needed”. 

 Deloitte also highlighted mitigation strategies to support the transition to a sustainable workforce: 

  • Prepare an inventory of the regulatory changes needed to accommodate a largely “non-career” employee model. 
  • Conduct annual public service planning exercises using a more forward-looking approach comprised of employee predictive scenarios, and labour markets and technology trends as a way of mitigating a radical, disruptive shift to a new workforce model.
  • Rethink current staff performance management practices to enhance the focus on individual accountability for results and career mobility.
  • Collect and review success stories of interagency collaboration and public innovation projects.
  • Increase virtual collaboration and use of digital technologies.
  • Conduct periodic workforce studies and employee surveys to understand and map the expectations and preferences of a younger workforce.

More workers are economically inactivity now than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Labour market data has shown that older workers and those without a higher education continue to drive the increase in inactivity. However, increased retirement is a more important reason for their increase in movements from employment to inactivity rather than necessarily increases in ill health. At the same time, the number of people moving into low-paying occupations from inactivity has also fallen. Evidence also shows as inactivity has risen, existing recruitment difficulties have been exacerbated. The Government is currently exploring a range of options and reforms to encourage people back into the workforce – from changes to sickness and disability benefit legislation to a bigger tax allowance for people aged over 50. Alongside the Government’s approach to employment support, such as DWP’s network of 50PLUS champions, the Centre for Ageing Better is calling for a national programme aimed at those aged 50 plus, and bringing forward by a year the People and Skills element of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to deliver place-based and responsive support. In a rural context, for example, limited access to affordable and accessible transport and/or childcare prevents some employees from taking on additional hours or accessing the wider labour market. 

What more can be done to support workers to return to fill labour and skills shortages in the public sector short term – and will the actions and mitigations outlined above encourage others to enter it?   

How many public sector employees work in rural? 

While data is available on people employed in central and local government, including regional and diversity analyses, it is not possible to determine how many employees are involved in supporting rural communities. For example, as of September 2022, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had a headcount of 12,790 employees, comprising 10,630 full-time staff and 2,160 part-time staff (table 8). While Defra provides a breakdown of resources allocated to different priority outcomes in its delivery plan, it is not possible to determine how many employees have rural communities as all or part of their remit. Indeed, Defra works with colleagues in other Government departments to ensure that the needs and opportunities presented by rural communities and businesses are reflected in Government priorities.  

In terms of sectors, staffing is a make or break issue for the NHS in England. Workforce recruitment and retention difficulties have a direct impact on patient care and staff experience. The Parliamentary Inquiry into Rural Health and Care and numerous other reports have all highlighted the unmet and growing health and care needs of people living in rural areas alongside growing staff shortages. In a rural context, the Parliamentary Inquiry identified how: 

  • There are workforce challenges due to high demand but low supply, with overall fewer NHS staff per head in rural areas compared to urban areas. 
  • High employment rates and lower rates of economic inactivity means rural labour markets are relatively tight. 
  • Individuals often develop their clinical career where they train and there is a need to enhance training and development opportunities in rural areas.  
  • There is a need to create more specialist generalists and other fluid and adaptable workforce positions in rural areas. 
  • The variety of roles and career development opportunities available in rural areas needs to be better promoted.  

The National Rural Crime Network (NRCN) has looked at the complex and varied demands on police officers and budgets in rural areas. Research commissioned from the University of Plymouth found: 

  • Fixed, non-staff costs are higher amongst rural forces which cannot benefit from economies of scale due to the need to serve more dispersed, low density populations. For example, this equates to £32.1 million across the 10 smallest forces (by population), the equivalent of over 600 officers. Given that rural forces generally have smaller workforces than urban forces, this has implications for service delivery.
  • Significantly higher round-trip distances are found in forces serving low-density populations, increasing costs. As rural forces have lower officer numbers, the burden per officer is also higher by up to 65%.
  • All forces experience seasonal variations, but the minimum-relative-to-maximum variation, especially for daily crime and Anti-Social Behaviour is far greater in rural forces, especially those with National Parks and coastal areas attracting holiday-makers.

While workforce issues are everywhere, these examples illustrate how they can be more pronounced in rural areas. Rural residents often have different (and greater) needs, are spatially dispersed, and require services from staff with different skillsets. This is not always reflected in Government funding support or in workforce planning and development.     

If we are to address rural workforce challenges now and into the future, there are three important questions we need to respond to: (1) how can we reduce demand? (2) How can we deliver services in a way that means we have a more sustainable workforce? (3) How can we ensure the current and future workforce are in tune with rural needs, circumstances and opportunities? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a support programme for patients waiting to receive NHS and local government services; and a Warm Hubs scheme. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Taking a longer-term view: do we need a new intergenerational contract?

Taking a longer-term view: do we need a new intergenerational contract?

Back in May 2018 the House of Lords appointed a Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision. The Committee, which published its report in April 2019, found that while the relationship between older and younger generations was defined by mutual support and affection; an ageing population, the global financial crisis and successive Government policies had failed to fully consider generational issues. More recently, a number of debates and discussions on intergenerational fairness have taken place to try to better understand what impact COVID-19 is having on and between generations. If the pandemic is leading us to think much more about our obligations to each other, how can we keep society together and not favour one generation at the expense of another? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is intergenerational (un)fairness? In May 2018, the House of Lords launched a Select Committee to consider the long-term implications of Government policy on intergenerational fairness and provision. It was established in response to a concern that intergenerational unfairness was growing as a result of the millennial generation appearing worse off than the baby boomer generation. The Committee’s work was intended to build upon earlier Lords reports on demographic change and social mobility and a debate on intergenerational fairness; as well as a House of Commons report on intergenerational fairness.   

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee report published prior to the Committee’s work in November 2016 described how intergenerational fairness is ‘not simply a matter of comparing the circumstances of different age groups at a given point of time, but instead the economic experiences of generations over the course of their lifetimes – but it should not be confused with valid concerns about inequality within generations.  The report centred on an implicit social contract between generations and how this underpins the welfare state – with the older population funded by the taxes of the working population who, in return, expect to receive similar benefits when they are ready to retire. 

In 2019, the House of Lords Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision took a broad definition of generations; grouping together people by their current stage of life and their common lived experience rather than by their year of birth. The Committee defined intergenerational fairness as ‘the idea that each cohort should retain a fair expectation of social improvement and can have a fulfilling life without being unduly harmed by the actions of a previous or subsequent cohort’. The Committee suggested this sense of fairness extend to generations just born, or about to be born, that have no voice to advocate for them. The Committee’s view was that ‘unfairness results from not providing appropriate support to people at different stages of the life course’. 

Similarly, according to the Intergenerational Foundation (IF), intergenerational fairness is ‘the idea of fairness between different generations alive today as well as those generations yet to be born….younger generations should have the same standard of living as generations who have gone before’. 

What unites these definitions is their focus on the need to provide support to people at different stages of the ‘life course’ – highlighting the bond between younger and older generations. The ‘fairness’ dimension becomes apparent when they compare the situations of different generations (their economic and lived experiences). 

How much of a problem is it?The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee report back in 2016 highlighted how the State Pension triple lock [which was introduced in 2012 and annually uprates the state pension by whichever of price inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5% is highest] is leading to the state pension expenditure to account for a greater share of national income at a time when public finances are fragile. Combined with increases in the state pension age, this was seen as disproportionately affecting young people and those socio-economic groups with lower life expectancies in retirement. The report therefore recommended benchmarking the new state pension and basic state pension at levels relative to average full-time earnings they reach in 2020 – with the triple lock replaced by a smoothed earnings link ‘that is more fiscally sustainable and more intergenerationally fair’. In response to COVID-19, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) fiscal outlook forecasts how the triple lock will deliver a cumulative increase of 19.3% over the six-year forecast period between 2020-2021 and 2025-2026, compared with 15.2% cumulative growth in average earnings and 9.6% cumulative increase in CPI inflation over the same period.

The Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision’s report in 2019 highlighted particular problems and perceptions of younger people. Examples included the student loans system and cost of a university education to students, which were cited as a “fiscal illusion” with many student loans not paid off in full within a 30-year period leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill. Expecting future taxpayers to bear the brunt for funding today’s students was regarded as unfair. According to the Committee, the system also risks perpetuating unfairness within a generation – between those who can access Higher Education and those who cannot. Other examples concerning young people cited in the report included difficulties in finding employment that is secure and well paid, and access to affordable housing. The Committee also collected evidence which highlighted how some Local Authorities charge a lower rate of Council Tax on second properties. This was also viewed as an unfairness that should be redesigned so the rate is related to the size and capital value of the property alongside additional protections for people who are asset-rich but income poor through a system of delayed payments. The Committee reached six main conclusions that had led to unfairness: 

  1. Accounting for the future: policy data is not published on generational differences in income and wealth, nor on the potential effects of policy on different generations at the time the policy is being considered.  
  2. The housing challenge: an insufficient supply of affordable homes to buy and rent by younger people. 
  3. Educating generations: the education and training system is ill equipped for the needs of a rapidly changing labour market. Post-16 vocational education is underfunded and poorly managed. Options to retain and reskill in later life are incoherent and underfunded.  
  4. Working: younger generations are more likely to experience slower pay progression and find themselves in insecure employment. They are also unlikely to enjoy the same generation-on-generation income gain that their predecessors received. 
  5. All-age communities: communities and a strong sense of place strengthen intergenerational bonds by bringing generations together and sustaining shared loyalties. Communities may also help to tackle skills, care and housing shortages through innovative local initiatives. 
  6. Intergenerational taxation: the failure to make proper provision for the costs of social care in the older age category, particularly for people now entering a lengthy retirement who will rely on smaller, younger generations to pay for them. Retired people were found to have higher incomes, on average, than younger working age groups. 

These examples often focus on the barriers and obstacles people in the younger age groups face – although many of the issues highlighted also affect older age groups. They also place an emphasis on central Government to update and revise policies to meet the challenges not only faced by young people but also by people across the life course (e.g. pensions, social care). 

Generations apart – how much of an issue is it in rural areas? There is little work exploring intergenerational fairness in the countryside. Papers and studies that do reference rural focus on ‘age segregation’; that is, the outmigration of young people and older people moving to (and wanting to remain in rural places) – and the increasing divide this leads to (i.e., how some rural places have no children or young people living in them). Research carried out by the IF, for example, found rural areas have aged nearly twice as rapidly as urban ones over the past 25 years and for the typical child in the 25 largest cities, only 5% of their neighbours are now over 65 years of age. The pattern that emerges is one where urban areas are seen as more youthful than rural areas.  

The Select Committee took evidence from Professor Elspeth Graham (University of St Andrews), who suggested, at the extreme, that segregation could threaten social cohesion, because people might vote for different self-interests, or age-related interests. David Kingman (IF), added that a political system based on age-segregated geographical representation would be likely to contribute towards political polarisation, given that age is now the most accurate demographic predictor of which way someone will vote. The Committee also referenced the work of the Pub is the Hub campaign. 

Outside of the Committee’s work, literature on age segregation often cites a lack of affordable and appropriate housing options; the role of connectivity and technology; and access to public transport – and while these issues may resonate with younger people they can affect rural residents of all ages and abilities.  

What has been done to tackle unfairness? The House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee report back in 2016 recommended Government collate and make available reliable and comprehensive information about the intergenerational distribution of public and private resources to estimate the balance of fiscal contributions and withdrawals by different generations over their entire lifetimes. The House of Lords select committee in 2019 extended this view in calling for: 

  • A new fiscal rule focused on the Government’s generational balance of debt and assets and a more transparent spending review process. This should draw out a sense of equivalence and fairness about what is contributed over a lifetime and what is received by successive generations. 
  • Giving Local Authorities stronger powers to develop housing on publicly owned land and borrow to fund house building. 
  • More investment in vocational education and lifelong learning to prepare younger generations for a 100-year life. 
  • Further consideration of employment rights by ensuring worker status is the default position; and consider initiatives such as flexible working, mid-life career reviews and tackling ageism in the workplace. 
  • Changes are needed to age-related benefits and the taxation system to make proper provision for the costs of social care.  

The Government responded to these recommendations in July 2019: 

  • Accounting for the future: The Government agreed that “fully considering the long-term implications of policies is important”. It argued this was evidenced by its fiscal rules, which aimed to ensure “sustainable public finances which lessen the debt interest burden on future generations”. The Government added that it had already “committed to requiring departments to show how their bids deliver long-term” following a National Audit Office report that made recommendations in this area. It also said HM Treasury’s guidance on appraisal and evaluation for programmes, policies and projects (contained in the Green Book) already recommended steps be taken in the preparation of business cases to “ensure that the impacts of an intervention on future generations are fully captured and appraised”.
  • Housing: The Government said it was committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing and outlined policy responses designed to increase the supply of homes, including allowing Local Authorities to borrow more to build council homes; releasing Government-held land for home building; and making changes to the planning framework.
  • Education: The Government said it was aiming to improve the quality of education provision, particularly in relation to apprenticeships and further and technical education. It added that it was also engaged in testing various retraining and life-long learning programmes for effectiveness.
  • Work: The Government said it had committed to a “wide range of policy and legislative changes to ensure that all workers can access fair and decent work, that both employers and workers have the clarity they need to understand their employment relationships, and that the enforcement system is “fair and fit for purpose”. It said it supported flexible working and highlighted that it was now standard practice for all civil service roles to be advertised as available for flexible working unless there was a strong business case otherwise.
  • Communities: The Government said it was “committed to bringing people together and enabling communities to influence and act” and outlined different funding streams available to support community organisations and wider civil society in local areas.
  • Taxation: The Government disagreed with the committee’s recommendation that the triple lock for the state pension should be removed. The Government said it was “committed to ensuring economic security for people at every stage of their life, including when they reach retirement”. 

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) also responded to the Select Committee, confirming that the body was “already in the process” of taking forward specific aspects of the Committee’s recommendation, including a generational breakdown of the effects of tax and benefits on household income data set and backdating this to the extent that the data allowed.

What has been the impact of COVID-19? Public Health England (PHE) carried out a review of data into disparities in the risk and outcomes from COVID-19. The largest disparity found was by age. Among people already diagnosed with COVID-19; people who were 80 years or older were seventy times more likely to die than those under 40 years of age. Risk of dying among those diagnosed with COVID-19 was also higher in males than females; higher in those living in the more deprived areas than those living in the least deprived; and higher in those in Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups than in White ethnic groups. These inequalities largely replicate existing inequalities in mortality rates in previous years, except for BAME groups, as mortality was previously higher in White ethnic groups. Several studies, although measuring the different outcomes from COVID-19, report an increased risk of adverse outcomes in obese or morbidly obese people. 

A publication from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), examined how living standards – most commonly measured by household incomes – were changing in the UK up to the eve of COVID-19. The report found the COVID-19 crisis had hit at a time when income growth had already been extremely disappointing for some years. Median (middle) household income was revealed to be the same in 2018−2019 (the latest data) as in 2015−2016. For people aged 60 years or over, median income was 12% higher in 2018−2019 than before the previous recession in 2007−2008, and amongst the rest of the population it was only 3% higher. Trends among lower-income households had been worse still – they had experienced five years of real income stagnation between 2013−2014 and 2018−2019. Workers whose livelihoods look most at risk during COVID-19 already tended to have relatively low incomes, and were relatively likely to be in poverty, prior to the onset of the crisis. Employees working in ‘shut-down sectors’, such as hospitality, for example, were already almost twice as likely to be in poverty as other employees, and poverty rates were higher still for self-employed people working in these sectors. Cleaners and hairdressers were highlighted as groups with higher poverty rates than other workers who are unlikely to be able to work from home. Despite temporary increases in benefits announced in response to the pandemic, the benefits system in 2020 was found to provide less support to out-of-work households compared to 2011. Average benefit entitlement among workless households is 10% lower in 2020 than it would have been without any policy changes since 2011, and among workless households with children it is 12% lower.

The IF’s index of young adults’ wellbeing 2020 found average wellbeing declined by 8% in people aged 18-26 years between 1991 and 2017-2018. While overall wellbeing began improving between 1991 and 1999, it worsened (by 19%) at the height of the financial crisis and economic downturn and has not recovered since. Another variable which measures the closeness of relationships between family members has also declined significantly: the proportion of young adults who say that one of their three closest friends is also a relative has fallen from 34% in 1991 to 16% in the most recent year for which data was available. Physical and Mental Wellbeing measures subjective changes in young adults’ physical and mental health. The indicator which measures mental wellbeing suggests that one in five young adults reports suffering from symptoms of moderate mental distress. Economic Wellbeing has improved by a small amount since 1991, but the average working member of this age group is earning only 1% more in real terms than their counterpart in 1991 was, despite being much more likely to have a university degree. The average income of a worker in this age group remains 11% below the pre-2008 level in real terms. Overall, the results of the IF Index suggest that today’s young adults were already falling behind the level of wellbeing which previous generations enjoyed when they were at the same stage in life, and this was before the COVID-19 which may reduce their standard of living yet further.

The Resolution Foundation and Nuffield Foundation published an intergenerational audit in October 2020 to examine the impact of the initial phase of COVID-19 for different generations in Britain. There were four key findings. Firstly, COVID-19 has had profound physical health risks for older adults, and there is a clear distinction between the experiences of older people and working-age families during lockdown. Secondly, the labour market has hit a U shape, affecting the youngest and oldest workers most – although actual incomes fell most during lockdown for those in their late 40s. Thirdly, consumer debt usage accelerated for 35-44 year olds and falling equity prices have dented the wealth of people in their 50s. Fourthly, post-lockdown impacts may be more clearly tilted towards the bottom of the age range. By July 2020, younger adults had become the most likely to fall behind with housing payments; young people risk long-term employment and pay ‘scarring’ effects from starting careers in a downturn; the prospects for a post-coronavirus home ownership increase among aspirant buyers appear limited; and any removal of temporary welfare boosts look set to provide a major drag on the incomes of younger generations.  

Debates have also taken place in the Lords and Commons since the start of the pandemic that have picked up the issues covered in the Select Committee’s 2019 report. This includes a debate in March 2020 which highlighted the importance of intergenerational thinking: “the best old people are those who remember that they were once young, because it is that idealism, vision and hope young people have which carry us to do our best things at all ages. Of course, younger people are only older people in waiting. We all have a common intergenerational interest” (Lord True, chair of the Select Committee). In a debate on COVID-19 recovery strategies in June 2020, Baroness Hayman indicated that “we need fairness between generations, between regions and between industries’; with Lord Tunnicliffee noting that “doing this will require new policies rooted in a new consensus. We need to change, from how we engage with businesses and citizens to how we restructure central Government…the scale of the challenge we face is significant. Very little will come out of COVID-19, but acceptance of the need to reshape our economy could be one glimmer of hope”. Lord Robathan highlighted how “young people in this crisis have seen their education trashed, schools and universities closed, and exams missed. When lockdown is lifted, unemployment will shoot up; it will not be a good time to look for a job. We are facing a deep recession, possibly a global depression…Our prosperity and quality of life will be severely lessened and healthcare will suffer. If we older people are “all right, Jack”, and while our futures are largely behind us, we have mortgaged our country’s future and our children’s future”. Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick concurred in highlighting the number of companies cancelling graduate placements and internship opportunities. Lord Ravensdale called for an evidence-based plan for recovery that fits regions and provide a key reference point linked to the Government’s levelling up agenda. In an economy debate in November 2020 Lord Agnew of Oulton posited that “intergenerational solidarity is vital as we come through this crisis. I worry about the cliff edge of debt that we are generating”. A written statement made by Lord Greenhalgh (Minister of State for Building Safety and Communities) in December 2020 described how the Government ‘want to build more homes as a matter of social justice, of inter-generational fairness and as one of the best proven ways of creating jobs and economic growth’. 

While still at an early stage, all of this work highlights the impact of COVID-19 on different generations – illuminating the disproportionate effects so far on younger and older generations. ‘Unfairness’ has been laid bare during the pandemic in its disproportionate (health, economic, societal) impacts on some people more than others. This is leading to debates about whether fairness should be a core principle in our evidence base, policy making and delivery interventions post COVID-19.  

What more can be done to address unfairness? In March 2020, the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill was introduced into the House of Commons for its first reading. If it becomes law – and it is not currently supported by the Government – the Bill will require public bodies to act in a way that accords with the ‘future generations principle’ i.e., balancing short-term needs with safeguarding long-term needs, deploying resources to prevent problems occurring or getting worse, forecasting and managing emerging risks. Public bodies would be required to publish future generations impact assessments and a new Commissioner for Future Generations would be appointed to oversee the implementation of the Act. It would also lead to the establishment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Future Generations. The bill would build upon the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in making provisions for the principle to apply across the UK.  

A briefing paper from the Social Market Foundation (SMF) in April 2020 discussed the need for the economic costs of responding to the pandemic to be shared fairly across the generations. The paper suggests the economic costs of tackling COVID-19 will fall heavily on those of working age, especially in terms of redundancies and lost income – and how the lockdown has been aimed at saving the lives of those at greatest risk (a group that is largely, though not exclusively, made up of older people). While the economic sacrifice is the right things to do, the report argues as we emerge from the crisis ‘older generations must uphold their part of the [social] contract by bearing a fair proportion of future tax rises and welfare reforms’. Echoing other research, the SMF has also called for the replacement of the triple lock with a double lock, whereby the basic state pension is tied to increases to earnings or inflation (whichever is higher). This could contribute £20 billion to deficit reduction over the next five-years. Pensions would still rise, but more slowly, reducing the fiscal burden of the working-age population.  

In January 2021, the House of Lords held a debate on tackling intergenerational unfairness. Contributors raised issues around loneliness, wage levels, debt, the unaffordability of house prices, a low-wage poor-health equilibrium, the state of the welfare safety net, the importance of having a good state pension, the gig economy and the role of churches and faith communities. According to Viscount Chandos “although COVID-19 has posed a far greater direct threat to the health of older people, the broader social and economic impact of the measures taken to control the spread of the virus has affected every generation, and in many respects, particularly the younger ones…that the greatest poverty and unfairness now lies with younger working-age people, is likely to be emphasised by the effects of the pandemic-combating policies of the past year and the months still to come”. As a state and a society the Lords were clear that we need to do more in real-time to get to grips with some of the extraordinary policy challenges that have arisen as a result of the pandemic. 

COVID-19 has brought the Select Committee’s report into renewed sharpness. For the pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated existing intergenerational economic and social inequalities and tensions. On the one hand, research has explored the differential impacts of COVID-19 on different generations. On the other hand, illuminating what different generations have in common and the mutual self-support and aid provided have also been highlighted. Where the ‘intergenerational contract’ fits in a policy context and how plays out in practice [perhaps through the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill] as we recover from the pandemic is now in focus. 

Whatever we do, and whatever the future holds, this implicit contract between generations lies at the heart of our society. While we are all in this, clearly we have not all been in it together. Whether it’s housing, wages, social care, the environment, or the welfare system, all require some reform so we can create a fairer and better society for all. Importantly, this requires thinking about generational relationships through a rural lens – where the generation gap between young and older is more pronounced. What are the lived and economic experiences of different rural residents? How can we improve data collection to better understand generational similarities and differences in rural areas? And what more can we do to ensure all generations can enjoy healthy and fulfilling lives in rural areas?  

Finally, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Future Generations is carrying out an inquiry into long-termism into policymaking. The inquiry is covering four main questions: (i) to what extent is a lack of long-term thinking a challenge in policymaking – and why is long-term thinking important? (ii) What are the root causes of failures in long-term thinking? (iii) What are some of the success stories – and what are some examples of poor long-term planning? (iv) How can we better incorporate long-term thinking in the policy making process? If the situation we face cannot be solved with short term election cycles or economic production and growth measures such as GDP; will the current inquiry help shift our thinking to address intergenerational challenges? In May 2018, the Wales Audit Office published its assessment of how public bodies in Wales have responded to the 2015 welsh Act. This found public bodies supported the principles of the Act and were taking steps to change how they work (e.g. undertaking wellbeing impact assessments); but inserting change into planning and decision-making processes is a gradual process. Will the Bill and the work of the inquiry help to embed longer-term thinking? And what could it mean for rural places? Watch this space.  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; and evaluating two employability programmes helping people furthest from the labour market. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older and vulnerable people. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Are more people looking to escape to the countryside?

Are more people looking to escape to the countryside?

Living through lockdown has left many of us rethinking our homes, and where we live, in ways we may never have imagined. When your entire life takes place within the confine of the walls of your home, how much space you have and what that space looks like takes on new meaning. During lockdown some people have missed their home – or rather coming home – as it’s been turned into a workplace or school rather than a place of calm and relaxation. As we look to a new normal how will we incorporate our new habits, hobbies, working patterns and lifestyles into our homes? For some, COVID has triggered a reappraisal of city dwelling. How will our experiences of lockdown influence future living – and what might this mean for rural places? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is compiling data on the social impacts of COVID-19. This adapts the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN) from a monthly omnibus survey to a weekly survey to collect data on the impact of the pandemic on day-to-day life in Great Britain. During the period 18-21 June 2020 2,500 individuals were sampled, with a response rate of 1,920 (or 77%). The results were then weighted to provide a nationally representative sample for Great Britain. The analysis shows that 28% of adults are planning changes to their relationship, job or home after we have recovered from COVID-19. Of these, 42% want to make a change to their work, 38% a change to a relationship; and 35% to move home. The analysis further reveals how 4 in 10 adults feel some parts of their lives have changed for the better since the pandemic – and of those reporting positive lifestyle changes 56% said they were able to spend more quality time with their loved ones with whom they share a home. Of these, 86% said they wanted this to continue after the pandemic. What do these findings mean for rural places? I offer four points. 

Firstly, we know more people have been searching for, and looking at, rural properties online. Research by Rightmove compared people phoning or emailing estate agents about homes for sale during two weeks in mid-June with the first two-weeks in March before lockdown, finding agents experienced a 32% increase in enquiries, with people typically wanting family homes of three or four bedrooms and being prepared to pay 98% of the asking price. With Hereford seeing a 77% increase in online searches, Steven Thomas from Watkins Thomas, described how “our market [in Hereford] has been very busy since we were able to reopen in May. There’s been a shift in the type of buyer since before lockdown. We were dealing with a lot of first-time buyers with limited deposits in March, but now it’s families looking for more space. It’s a bit like what we see in January – families spend Christmas sitting down and talking about their next move and they get going in January. We’re now seeing people, having sat down during lockdown and reviewed what they’re looking for, jumping into action in June.” A survey of buyers and sellers registered with Savills in May 2020 found 51% of people in London were considering a move outside the city [compared to 42% for the same period of 2019] and 30% were more likely to consider a village or countryside location for their next move. Half of the respondents said having a garden or outdoor space had become more important to them – and if compromises were needed they would forgo another bedroom for an outside area.  

Financially, some people are starting to view countryside properties as offering better or good value-for-money compared to flats and houses in city locations. According to Savills the average property bought by a first time buyer in London costs approximately £446,815 and requires a deposit of £142,464 against an average salary of £83,245. Compare this to the North East where average house prices are amongst the lowest in the country at £157,291 and the average salary £30,660. For many first time buyers the data highlights how without high earnings, help from parents/friends for a deposit and/or combining savings with a partner many people find it difficult to get on the property ladder. 

To lift some of these barriers and unlock the housing market, between 8 July 2020 and 31 March 2021 the Government has introduced a stamp duty holiday in England and Northern Ireland. This means the threshold at which you need to pay tax has increased from £125,000 to £500,000. Analysis by Savills shows if you were buying the average home in England, worth £248,000, you would pay no stamp duty at all saving £2,460; and if you were buying a £500,000 property you would save the maximum of £15,000. Regional data suggests this will lift an additional 86% of home movers in the South West out of stamp duty; in the East of England the proportion of tax free sales is expected to rise from 4% to 87%, in the North East the rise will be from 41% to 98% and in London the rise will be 55% [NB: the percentage rise is lower for London because property sales will remain above the new threshold]. However, while it has been suggested this policy intervention will help those who want to upsize, buy a second home, or a property to let i.e., the people viewing countryside properties online; there is a recognition that access to mortgage finance remains a significant barrier, particularly for first time buyers.  Indeed some economists expect consumer confidence to plunge from October when the furlough scheme ends and amid uncertainty of a transition deal or no-Brexit in December.  

Interestingly, the urban property market has already started to respond. Data from Hamptons International and Countrywide reveals how landlords in London reduced current tenants’ rents in March-April and have dropped prices for newly let properties since then. Renters in London, for example, saw the biggest drop in rent, down 2.2% year-on-year to an average of £1,656 a month; with rent on a 3-bedroom apartment on Marylebone Lane in London, for example, falling from £3,250 per month pre-COVID to £2,600 now. This is being driven by an increase in the stock of rental properties and declining demand (e.g. international students have left, corporate lets have been cancelled, people are finding themselves unemployed, and non-UK visitors are staying away). In comparison, homes for rent in the suburbs have increased in their rental value. Figures from the OME show the initial cost of renting is down by 2% (£90 across England) – however it is up in some places, including in the Vale of the White Horse (by 11%). Taken as a collective, this data reveals increasing interest in rural living and some evidence of falling property prices in urban locations.   

Secondly, more people are working differently and thinking about how and where they work. According to ONS, in March 2019 just 5% of us worked mainly from home.  Pinterest found searches on ‘how to create a home office’ increased by 424% in May 2020. Now the lockdown has shown for many people that working from home is possible. According to Working Families, during lockdown 85% of parents worked flexibly, a shift from before COVID-19 when one-third of parents were not given the option to do so. Twenty-six major employers [including companies such as TSB, British Gas, Centrica, Zurich and Network Rail] have called for improvements to flexible working. In practice, this may lead people to live further away from the office and outside of expensive postcodes. A survey for the Business Clean Air Taskforce found nine out of ten respondents to a survey who had worked at home during the lockdown would in part like to continue to do so. Respondents described “reductions in stress, avoiding rush hour commuting, and more time with loved ones.” Yet in recent weeks the Prime Minister has been urging people working from home to go back to work if they can – and wants us all to start using shops and restaurants again. Will this lead to more people wanting to move to the countryside and spend one or two days a week commuting into the office? 

If COVID-19 has led people to reassess and reduce the frequency and time they spend commuting, will this lead more people to want to work from home? If so, what are the implications for connectivity (broadband, mobile), work spaces and remote working in rural areas?

Thirdly, will we see greener and more energy efficient homes in the countryside? With the Government seeking to secure a “green recovery”, it intends to launch a £2 billion Green Homes Grant Scheme in September 2020 where vouchers [up to a maximum of £5,000] will be awarded to home owners in England to make energy efficiency improvements such as installing loft, floor and/or wall insulation or double-glazing.  Research by MoneySuperMarket has found 51% of households are planning to apply to the scheme when it opens, with a further 26% considering doing so. According to data analysed by the BBC in March 2020, two-thirds of UK homes failed to meet long-term energy efficiency targets; with some 12 million homes falling below Grade C on Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) graded from A-G where A is the most efficient and G is the least efficient. Similarly, the Energy Saving Trust found one-third of 19.4 million homes with cavity walls to lack insulation, with one-third of the stock with less than 150mm of loft insulation. In practice this means householders have to spend more on their energy bills and leads to higher CO2 emissions. The Government had set a target of upgrading as many homes as possible to Grade C by 2035 and for fuel poor households and rented homes to reach the same standard by 2030. The analysis of average CO2 emissions per property per year by Local Authority District shows an urban rural split:  with the highest emissions in Eden (7.39 tonnes), followed by Ceredigion (6.29 tonnes), Ryedale (6.53 tonnes), Powys (6.29 tonnes), Gwynedd (6.22 tonnes), West Somerset (6.17 tonnes), Richmondshire (6.14 tonnes), Carmarthenshire (6.13 tonnes), West Devon (6.04 tonnes) and the Derbyshire Dales (5.85 tonnes). This tends to be because homes in rural areas are not all connected to the gas grid, use fuels like LPG or solid fuels and are older stock compared to urban areas. Will the Government’s new scheme identify and support rural fuel poor households and ‘hard to treat’ rural properties? Is an area-based, rural-only approach, required within the scheme? 

Fourthly, will we see more homes being built in the countryside? The Government has established project speed to deliver public investment projects more strategically and efficiently. The Government is due to release a policy paper shortly, setting out proposals for reforming the planning system in England. The paper will sit alongside existing measures such as a £12 billion affordable homes programme to build up to 180,000 homes (for ownership and rent) over the next eight years. Project speed is considering proposals for developments of 1,000 homes or more to require fewer consents; reducing the public consultation period from 6 months to 4 months. The last session of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Rural Health and Care explored housing in rural areas. Evidence from  the Rural Housing Alliance (RHA), Shelter, Cornwall Rural Housing Association (CRHA) and the National Community Land Trust (CLT) Network covered issues around demography (rural areas having an ageing demographic), connectivity (broadband), adaptability (future proofing homes so people can get in, out and around their homes) and the desirability versus reality of living in the countryside. The session highlighted the implications of COVID-19 and the role housing plays in preventing admittance to hospital or supporting discharge [requiring step up and step down homes in rural areas], affordability [and how living in an affordable home provides a buffer against income shocks such as the economic impact of COVID-19], and the need for a wider housing offer in rural areas [different tenures and types including affordable, supported, shared ownership and social rent]. How much new housing does rural England need and how can we ensure the investment and commitment is there so we build the right homes in the right places?    

Pre COVID-19 many people thought they would love nothing more than being able to spend all of their time in their homes with loved ones. Now some are realising that to fully appreciate their family they either need to leave them (preferably for 8 hours a day!), remodel or look for somewhere else (bigger, with outdoor space) to live. During COVID-19 the countryside has been seen as a haven and people have loosened their focus on cities. Will this interest in rural living stick as we emerge from lockdown? Watch this space.  

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Rural words will now be appearing bimonthly on the RSN website, with the next issue due in September. In the meantime, all of the updates are available on the Rural Words website: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; working with 8 farm support groups across England on a Defra funded resilience programme; and helping Local Authorities to measure social value. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older and vulnerable people. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

How to make ‘rural data’ count

How to make ‘rural data’ count

Rural-relevant data and statistics are scattered across different websites, in different formats, with different indicators. Data is often collected by (or on behalf of) a given organisation for a specific purpose without thinking about its wider applicability and significance. How can we bring together these scattered pieces of anomalous evidence and use them to make a stronger case for rural? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Data, defined as facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis, can be qualitative or quantitative; raw, experimental or processed; primary or secondary. Data can be collected by (or for) scientific research, Government, Local Authorities, businesses and voluntary and community organisations; with analyses often presented using graphs, charts or infographics.

The first major attempt at organised data collection on a national basis can be traced back to an annual summary of births, deaths and causes of deaths in England and Wales in the 19th century.

Prior to this, John Gaunt prepared ‘Bills of Mortality’. The Bills monitored deaths from the plague from the 1660s until the 1830s – and included ‘life tables’ showing population, mortality and survivorship statistics. The ‘information explosion’ between the 1940s and 1960s saw a rapid increase in the amount of published information.

‘Data science’ or ‘datalogy’ introduced as a substitute for computer science by Peter Naur in 1960 and latterly by William Cleveland as an independent discipline. In the 1990s the term ‘big data’ emerged to describe the analysis of large data sets.

Since 2000 researchers at the University of California have sought to measure how much information is produced in the world each year. With such a huge array of data out there, what rural data is available and is it measuring what matters most for rural communities?

Back in June 2015, the then Environment Secretary Liz Truss announced virtually all the data Defra holds would be made freely available to the public: “Defra is the most data-rich department in Whitehall, though much of it—millions and millions of files—is hidden away.

It is worth billions of pounds to British people, businesses and our rural economy…It’s time to realise that value and tap into the aspiration at the heart of our rural communities to drive up productivity.”

So far, Defra and its agencies have released more than 13,000 datasets which are available on the www.data.gov.uk platform, with the Department’s digital blog setting out how it is making this happen and next steps.

RSN members will be familiar with the Rural Urban Classification, an official statistic used to distinguish rural and urban areas. The Classification defines areas as rural if they are outside settlements with more than 10,000 resident population.

The University of Sheffield carried out further analysis to identify hub towns, ‘settlements of between 10,000 and 30,000 resident population that have an enduring though not unchanging role as a service hub of some sort for their rural hinterland’.

A previous set of rural words considered the history of the classification and how many people live in rural areas. The Classification is used by Defra to produce data on rural living, rural economy and rural services.

The Classification is also used across Government, from education statistics, to innovation and health. The RSN has an Observatory providing a statistical view of rural life.

In May 2016, the Government published its third National Action Plan (2016-2018) which aims to ‘open up better quality data to strengthen accountability, drive reform and spur innovation’.

While providing access, use and reuse of data is intended to get citizens more engaged in decision-making, following the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into big data, Government announced in August 2016 that it intends to develop an “ethical framework for government data science… details of which will be published in the next few months… and a Council of Data Science Ethics.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has also published a consultation on proposals to update the Local Government Transparency Code.

The consultation document sets out how Government would like to change the way that Local Authorities record details of their land and property assets, and publish information about their procurement, contracts and delivery of some services: “The government believes not only that transparency is the foundation of local accountability, the key that gives people the tools they need to hold their councils to account, but also that the availability and format of certain data can provide new opportunities for analysis of public spending and the management of public assets” (page 7).

Many Local Authorities already publish data on their websites and/or through the Local Government Association’s Open Data Portal. Back in October 2013, Localis and Civica distributed a report probing the views of Council leaders from across the UK on how technology was being used to design and deliver services.

Local Authority leaders suggested data could be used to understand resident needs and better pinpoint resources in ways similar to the methods used by companies like Amazon who tailor their response according to customer data. The report highlighted challenges around what can and cannot be shared and a lack of understanding about data transparency.

Nesta’s Local Datavores research programme is considering where, how and to what extent better data can be used to help Local Authorities achieve their strategic objectives. The discussion paper, circulated in July 2016, demonstrates how the collection and use of data (big and small) is changing

Local Authorities sit in the middle of a web of information – where data is sometimes garbled, hard to analyse, or personal and sensitive but potentially hugely beneficial in helping them to allocate resources where they will have the biggest impact.

The report sets out seven things Local Authorities can do to get more from their data: from creating a data orientated culture by senior Officers and Members asking for data and analysis as part of decision-making process; to investing in skills so Officers are able to analyse and integrate data; and providing hard and soft infrastructure (e.g. broadband, data storage, software).

The Office for National Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics page provides a facility to search for data at Local Authority, Middle Layer Super Output Area, Lower Super Output Area and Ward level [NB: the site is being updated] and NOMIS provides area profiles showing data on population, employment, unemployment, qualifications, earnings, benefit claimants and businesses.

Taken as a collective, at national and local levels the role of data is changing – with more information being made publicly available (in an open and online format but not necessarily in a standardised format); and the use of data changing from demonstrating how centrally determined targets have been met to something that has the applicability to offer real world insights. While there’s no shortage of data out there, what does it mean for rural? I offer four points.

Firstly, is useful and applicable rural data available? Are we interpreting and interrogating data through a rural lens? Back in 2011 the Scottish Government, Local Authorities and Community Planning Partnerships published a position statement to improve the identification of poverty, income inequality and deprivation in rural Scotland.

Under the heading ‘our rural numbers are not enough’, the statement called for an exploration of differences within rural Scotland rather than risk oversimplification by only providing rural data for Scotland as a whole; the inadequacy of sample size or sampling approaches which means a representative Scottish rural sample is not always attainable, a wider issue around using data as a proxy for rural need and the under-utilisation of what we already have.

In England, a ‘rural’ keyword search on the Data.Gov.UK platform generates 6,301 results. For me, using data means considering the purpose of its collection, who it is for, how and when the information was collected, who the target population/beneficiaries are and what if any rural classification/definition has been or could be applied.

This highlights issues around (a) the importance of Government, Local Authorities, charities, businesses and voluntary and community groups having robust systems and processes in place to gather and record data (ensuring its quality); (b) issues around confidentiality and sensitivity (e.g. data security, sharing information); (c) having the skills to interpret and analyse the information; and (d) thinking about what and how the data will be used.

Secondly, it is worth recognising that data will only take you so far. I read a book with the rather unfortunate title ‘useless arithmetic’ which looks at the use of mathematical models by policy and decision makers.

From fisheries management to nuclear waste disposal, and from beach erosion to climate change, scientists recognise how quantitative models represent the best we can do at the current time and are an evolving working consensus – whereas policy and decision makers want to use the information to predict an outcome decades to thousands of years in the future.

Indeed, in the UK, Local Authorities and other bodies are often asked to specify geography and compile a statistical profile for it based upon administrative boundaries or population size rather than rurality. Data may suggest that rural and urban areas are very similar (sectorally) yet do not take account of rural context or how a cluster of rural places work together.

Thirdly, whether you’re an enthusiast of numbers or not, data (however perfect or imperfect) and what we do with it matters. People sit on lots of data without ever knowing how to use it or just without using it; yet data can be presented in support of a funding application or investment plan for a rural place or to change the way local services are delivered there.

For me, disseminating data analysis and understanding technical data needs to be overcome if communities, funders, and policy and decision-makers are to use them. In a rural context, data needs to be viewed as something that can provide pertinent and timely information about rural communities and places.

Finally, to the United States where 72% of the land area belongs to rural counties and in 2014 46.2 million people (approximately 15% of the total population) lived in these areas. The Rural Health Information Hub has an ‘Am I Rural?’ tool; the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) publishes an Atlas of Rural and Small Town America presenting data covering demography, jobs and the urban-rural continuum at county, State, region or country level.

And the Housing Assistance Council has a Rural Data Portal which contains information on economy and housing. These sites and the data they provide are accessible to users – helping residents look at data about their rural place or county and how this compares to other rural and urban areas.

The OECD Rural Policy Review found England had adopted ‘evidence based policy making’ where quantitative data was favoured but not readily available at a local level for rural communities to use. How can we improve rural data collection and its use to encourage “thinking rurally” among policy and decision-makers? And how can we support rural communities to find, interpret and use data?

Many thanks to everyone who has been in touch and commented on my rural words covering philanthropy and unemployment.

Particular thanks to Sue Place at the Balsam Centre for emphasising how local philanthropists understand the needs of rural communities and play an ‘enabling role’ in helping local groups to access funding and resources – and how the role of local philanthropists is becoming increasingly important amid ongoing cuts in the public sector.

Thank you to Sam Windett at the Employment Related Services Association (ERSA) for highlighting the role of organisations involved in the delivery of employment services, what support is currently available for those furthest away from the jobs market and emerging thinking around employability provision post-April 2017. And to Helen Chadwick for underlining how not being able to drive/access a car in a rural area is a huge barrier to work as well as people needing jobs with flexible working conditions.

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 likes numbers and has used data to provide evidence bases for Local Authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships and governing bodies of designated landscapes. Jessica recently prepared two Community Led Local Development applications and completed a European project on the social value of volunteering into employment.

Jessica’s public services work includes research for Defra on alternative service delivery and local level rural proofing. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.”>http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk. Twitter: @RoseRegen

What role for local authorities managing the natural environment?

The natural environment includes a range of landscapes – from uplands to urban fringe and coastline – with many people appreciating local distinctiveness: from the historic (physical remains from the interaction between people and places through time) to the cultural (expressions of visual and spatial relationships such as public gardens, farmland and industrial sites). Yet these ever changing views and backdrops to our daily lives remain contested: are landscapes something worthy of preservation in their current form (emphasising their aesthetic value and the ugliness of the activities being ‘imposed’ upon them), are they living working landscapes integral to economic growth and/or something else? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Land is one of our greatest assets yet it is a finite resource under increasing pressure – be it from housing/development pressure, climate change, new technologies or societal preferences. Across Government, departments are seeking to “protect our environment by reducing pollution, decreasing the amount of waste sent to landfill, protecting areas of parkland, wildlife reserves and marine biodiversity, and enforcing regulations that keep our water and air clean.

Government also helps communities avoid or recover from flooding and other weather-related hazards”. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), for example, has some 15 policies around the topic of the environment – from simplifying farming regulations and improving water quality to protecting biodiversity and ecosystems at home and abroad.

Defra is supported by 36 other agencies and public bodies including the Environment Agency, Natural England, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Forestry Commission.

Some of our landscapes are protected through legislation and regulations (e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks, public rights of way, common land) while other landscapes are managed through voluntary codes and frameworks (e.g. Local Nature Partnerships). Many sites are in private ownership and in some circumstances; Government supports landowners meet the costs of restoring or managing landscapes (e.g. Environmental Stewardship schemes).

Back in June 2011, the Government published ‘the natural choice’, the first Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) in 20 years. The blueprint described how: “we must properly value the economic and social benefits of a healthy natural environment while continuing to recognise nature’s intrinsic value. The Government wants this to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than it inherited.

To achieve so much means taking action across sectors rather than treating environmental concerns in isolation. It requires us all to put the value of nature at the heart of our decision-making – in Government, local communities and businesses. In this way we will improve the quality and increase the value of the natural environment across England”.

The White Paper was followed by a series of measures and activities –from designating 12 Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs) to biodiversity offsetting pilots, Green Infrastructure and Local Nature Partnerships (LNP). All of these initiatives share in common four key words ‘more, bigger, better and joined’. Taken as a collective, these initiatives are seen to be highlighting how economic growth and the health of natural resources can sustain each other, markets and businesses.

The White paper described how local authorities need “to work through partnerships, linking national environmental priorities to local circumstances”. The Paper also contained a call for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission to deliver joined up advice and engagement to local areas – acting as a source of advice on duties as well as providing Local Authorities with freedom and flexibility.

At a local level, many service areas and functions undertaken by Local Authorities have a vital role to play in landscape – from fulfilling statutory obligations such as the protection and enhancement of biodiversity within the planning system, through to incorporating landscape into relevant strategies, working in partnership to promote beneficial land management, and the delivery of services (e.g. health, recreation, community development and social care).

In addition, Defra provides guidance for local authorities on a range of ‘local environmental quality‘ matters – from litter and fly tipping to nuisance from noise, light and insects. If the Government’s White Paper established the need for a more integrated, landscape approach to management of the natural environment, what role are Local Authorities subsequently playing in these deliberations? I offer three points.

Firstly, Local Authorities manage diverse property and assets spanning historic buildings, farms, country parks and woodland, making the best possible use of them so they are managed for the benefit of residents. A Value-for-Money report published by the Audit Commission in June 2014 looked at how Local Authorities were using and managing assets.

The report found between 2004/2005 and 2012/2013 the value of the local government estate fell by 31% (from £244.5 billion to £169.8 billion); with operational properties accounted for 95% of the value of the estate in 2012/2013. The document called on Local Authorities to manage their property so as to “extract maximum value without having an adverse effect on services or their statutory objectives”.

The good practice suggestions included: treating land and buildings as a strategic resource to support wider objectives; selling or transferring property that is no longer required; using space more efficiently by: (a) promoting digital ‘self-service’ access to services, (b) encouraging staff to work flexibly using smart technology and (c) sharing space with other organisations through co-location. The document also suggested Local Authorities consider renting or disposing of the 5% of their estate not required for operational purposes.

A number of Local Authorities have been participating in shared services partnerships, using space more efficiently (e.g. through co-location), providing community asset transfer support for some time and under some circumstances setting up new delivery vehicles such as the creation of wholly owned council companies. According the Cabinet Office, as of March 2013, £1 billion had been saved since May 2010 through effective asset management and estate rationalisation.

In June 2013, the Government’s Estate Strategy set out a new vision to create efficient, fit-for-purpose public sector estates that deliver value for money and facilitate modern, flexible working, with asset management at the core of this. Yet what these reports and strategies often omit are the challenging and difficult decisions being faced by Local Authorities on-the-ground – leading to a series of debates around whether (and how) Local Authorities should sell off farms, parks, meadows and green spaces – for housing development, to raise money, taking a short term or longer term view?

With the National Planning Policy Framework stating that planning policies should ‘identify and map ecological networks and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration and creation’, is there scope to use Section 106/Community Infrastructure Levy funding for landscape improvements? And/or is this not all leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where some people are out priced and excluded from the countryside?

Secondly, Local Authorities shape the management of landscapes beyond their estate portfolio. Local Authorities participate in a plethora of external initiatives and programmes. They provide leadership, often servings as a vital link between local economic interests and conservation interests.

Many Local Authorities help to coordinate data, statistics as well as providing countryside management advice. Some local initiatives being driven by Local Authorities are in receipt of national funding (e.g. NIA, SSSIs) whereas other activities are in direct receipt of local government funding and resources (e.g. with some Local Authorities providing monies and staffing to bodies such as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

Other initiatives such as those around sustainable growth are being delivered alongside other bodies such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (e.g. Local Environment and Economic Development Toolkit).

What is often missing here is the absence of a specific remit or mandate: is the activity part of statutory or non-statutory Local Authority provision? Delivered through legal frameworks or voluntary agreements? How does it align with other Local Authority activities? What are the funding and resource requirements and who is providing these, now and in the longer term? What are the factors of success?

Thirdly, how can we make the case for investment when there are so many competing demands for Local Authority resources? Terms such as ‘natural capital‘ and ‘ecosystem services‘ are often used to describe a ‘stock’ of resources and ‘flow’ of return from the stock to be maintained or grown over time (in much the same way as financial capital can appreciate or depreciated in value depending on its use). Here investing in landscape is seen to derive benefits utilised by local communities and businesses.

This also creates opportunities to link initiatives undertaken at a local level to national priorities around economic growth and employment creation. Importantly, establishing the link between a landscape and its benefits/beneficiaries and evaluating the impacts arising from investment can address the links between environment and economy. For example, Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment (MEBIE) produced by Natural England since 2012 is a guide for Local Authorities and LEPs on the benefits of investment in the natural environment.

Similarly, applying Social Return On Investment (SROI) analysis to a project which recreated three natural bog environments in the Lake District led to a Social Return of £3.97 for every £1.00 invested in the project. Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils, Wild Anglia Local Nature Partnership and New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership tested the Local Environment and Economic Development Toolkit to help them meet economic growth targets by realising the role the environment can play.

While these local initiatives are working well, what is often missing is a focus on supporting landscape level activities rather than specific elements of the environment (e.g. water, forestry). Achieving buy-in and producing concrete local examples is key to communicating landscape benefits to landowners and stakeholders. As well as understanding the economic value of the benefits delivered by a particular landscape, what is also often missing is an understanding of what the public’s willingness to pay for any management might be.

If the landscape and rural economies are seen to reinforce each other, will it be growth (at any cost), preservation (based on what a given landscape looks like now, a museum artefact or projecting into the future) or something else?

Many RSN members are concerned that landscapes are under increasing pressure and not being properly looked after for future generations –from changing farmland management through to fly tipping and housing developments – perhaps we need to find ways of claiming landscape back and making it more visible amid these competing demands?

Finally, it is worth noting in September 2014 the Government was awarded a red card for its efforts to reduce air pollution, protect biodiversity and prevent flooding by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. What happened to “the greenest government ever” and the commitments set out in the White Paper? Indeed many of the measures contained in the Paper such as ‘ThinkBIG‘ –which suggested ways in which local authorities, communities, businesses, landowners, farmers and government could assist ecological restoration at a landscape scale – appear to be archived.

Landscapes will continue to evolve and change, how can we ensure their diversity, coherence and identity are maintained? And what role should Local Authorities be playing?

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 has undertaken a variety of projects on the natural environment and countryside management. These include: Preparing the Yorkshire Dales Local Food Map (celebrating the distinctiveness of the Dales landscape); considering how the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) can be reformed to benefit rural communities; and supporting community groups in understanding natural resource management. More recently, Jessica has been working with Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnerships and National Park Authorities on the economic value and contribution of protected landscape. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk; Twitter: @RoseRegen

Load More