Employment

Rural NHS

How can we build a rural health and care workforce?

The NHS tuned 70 on 5 July 2018. This year has seen celebrations and appreciation of the vital role that the service plays. As the NHS ages the pressures and demands it faces are very different to those of 1948 – with the workforce under considerable strain to provide services. How can we plan, fund, recruit, train and retain health and care workers in rural areas that meet people’s (clinical and wellbeing) needs and the (professional/lifestyle) aspirations of staff? Jessica Sellick investigates.

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

NHS England employs some 1.2 million people – in more than 350 different roles: from 140,000 doctors and 300,000 nurses and midwives through to physiotherapists and dieticians. Despite these numbers it is apparent to all that the NHS just doesn’t have enough staff. There are some 50,000 vacancies in different clinical areas, with a 5.9% shortfall between the staff needed and the staff in post. 

In November 2018 the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) prepared a report for the Cavendish Coalition on the health and social care workforce (H&SC) in all parts of the UK – highlighting trends over time and across regions and job roles – and providing a number of simulations on the workforce in the next few years. By examining the pattern of leavers and joiners to the NHS over the year prior to June 2016 and the year post June 2016 the model suggests the UK may have an additional shortage of around 2,700 nurses. Projecting this shortfall over the remaining period of Brexit transition to 2021 suggest there may be a shortfall of 5,000-10,000 nurses in addition to current vacancies. While challenges around developing a sufficient workforce supply pre-date the Brexit referendum, and Government reforms to education and training routes, the report calls on Governments to urgently review their workforce planning approach.

What do these shortages mean for rural health and care staffing?

In July 2018 I was part of a research team commissioned by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (ULHT), funded by Health Education England (HEE), to apply a rural lens to the workforce challenges facing the NHS in England.  The research involved: 

  • Applying the Rural Urban Classification – an official statistic used by Government to distinguish rural and urban areas – to the different units that health and care as a system is organised into.    
  • Analysis of economic and labour market data: using the Rural Urban Classification to produce a demographic profile for different rural areas, their trends in employment and unemployment, qualifications, occupations and earnings data.
  • An evidence review of academic, health and care charities, national and professional bodies that made reference(s) to rural health and care workforce matters.
  • Analysis of a survey about adult social care involving 13 rural first tier Local Authorities commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Rural Services.
  • A series of one-to-one interviews and focus groups with 20+ NHS staff in Cumbria, Northumberland, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Kent and Cornwall.

The findings of the research were triangulated with a reference group. The group comprised individuals with different perspectives on workforce development at local, regional and national levels (e.g. representatives from rural general practice, acute care, clinical commissioning groups, professional clinical bodies, Local Authorities, charities and community groups). 

The golden thread running through the research is that securing staff to deliver high quality health and care in rural areas (now and in the future) is crucial.  The research identified the following 9 challenges around recruiting and retaining staff in rural areas:

  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.

The research also identified 9 opportunities to maximise the supply of staff in rural areas: 

  1. Realising the status and attractiveness of the NHS as a large employer in rural areas (especially in areas where there are few other large employers). 
  2. This means highlighting the varied job roles, opportunities for career development and need for generalist clinical skills in rural areas. 
  3. This means developing ‘centres of excellence’ in particular specialities or ways of working in rural areas that are attractive to workers.
  4. This requires developing innovative solutions to service delivery and staff recruitment and retention. 
  5. This may provide opportunities for people who need or want a ‘second chance’ – perhaps because the educational system has failed them, or because they want to change direction; their ‘life experiences’ should be seen as an asset.
  6. Finding new ways to inspire young people about possible job roles and careers in health and care.
  7. Drawing on the voluntary and community sector, including local community groups, to play a role in the design and delivery of services.
  8. Promoting local solutions to foster prevention and early intervention.
  9. Using technology so face-to-face staff resources are concentrated where they are most effective and needed.

Inherent in addressing these challenges and realising these opportunities are a number of trade-offs. These concern balancing centralisation and localisation (in the way health and care are organised); balancing the flexibility that the workforce desires with filling rotas (to meet required safety standards); balancing the number of clinical specialists with expert generalists; and balancing the use of technology with face-to-face provision.

The research report was published in October 2018. A copy of the report is available from the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) here.  There are three overarching points emerging from the research that may be of particular interest to RSN members: (1) spatial component, (2) staffing and (3) funding.

Firstly, the research highlights the lack of a spatial component in workforce planning. In 2016 the NHS and Local Authorities came together in 44 areas covering all of England to develop proposals to improve health and care. Called ‘Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships ‘(STPs) they have been set up to run services in a more coordinated way, agree system-wide priorities, and to plan collectively how to improve residents’ day-to-day health. NHS Shared Planning Guidance led to the publication of a document setting out how these 44 STP footprints should be formed. This highlighted five factors: (i) geography, (ii) scale, (iii) fit with existing footprints of change programmes, (iv) the financial sustainability of organisations in the area, and (v) leadership capacity and capability to support change. Since 2016 STPs have been publishing plans setting out proposals for how they will achieve these aims – with some STPs evolving into Integrated Care Systems (ICS).

The rural workforce research found 22 of the 44 STPs have a population share equal to, or greater than, the England average (of 17%). 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. That said, some of the plans do highlight how rurality impacts more generically on service delivery (e.g. time, cost and distance) – but these tend to be introductory and contextual remarks rather than integral to the documents. 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.

Secondly, the research highlights how there are fewer NHS workers per head of population in rural areas compared to urban areas. NHS Workforce Statistics publish monthly numbers of NHS Hospital and Community Service (HCHS) staff groups working in Trusts and CCGs in England (excluding primary care staff). This data on headcounts is compiled and published by NHS Digital. The research looked at the statistical bulletin published in April 2018 which included monthly headcount figures from January 2018. The headline figures show: 

  • The headcount was 1,205,949 in January 2018. This is 7,711 (0.6 per cent) more than the previous month (1,198,238) and 21,068 (1.8 per cent) more than in January 2017 (1,184,881).
  • The full time equivalent (FTE) total was 1,064,810 in January 2018. This is 6,910 (0.7 per cent) more than the previous month (1,057,900) and 19,252 (1.8 per cent) more than in January 2017 (1,045,559).
  • Professionally qualified staff make up over half (54.0 per cent) of the HCHS workforce (based on FTE).

Analysis of this data reveals an overall difference in the ratio of NHS staff per head of population (excluding regional ambulance services) in the 11 most rural STP areas compared to England as a whole of 45%. This means compared to the national average rural areas have 45% fewer workers per head of population. And this picture does not appear to be improving despite the increase in headcount in some staff groups. In rural areas there are 10 key staff groups with shortages. They are: professionally qualified clinical staff, doctors, consultants (including Directors of Public Health), staff grade, specialty registrar, core training, foundation doctor year 1, midwives, scientific/technical and property/estates.

The research found recruitment poses a greater challenge than retention in many (but not all) rural areas. Achieving an optimal balance between mobility and immobility is important – some churn is valuable in stimulating new ideas, but too much churn is problematic. A segmented approach to recruitment is needed to focus on what makes rural areas attractive to different staff groups.

The research also highlights the need (in rural and urban areas) to think of workforce development in terms of an employment pathway: get in, get on and go further. For rural areas this could mean “grow your own”, i.e., finding ways to recruit, develop, cultivate and retain individuals from the local community to enter healthcare careers to help provide a long-term solution to addressing workforce challenges. For rural areas it could also mean thinking about health and care careers in terms of a ‘climbing frame’ rather than a ‘ladder’ because a career could include side-steps, changes in direction, entry into related or new specialisms and/or working for longer. For rural areas it could mean developing more innovative health and care service delivery models. For example, The Buurtzorg Nederland (home care provider) Model is based on small, self-managing teams of community nurses who have access to coaches for ongoing support and spend at least 60% of their time with patients – could a similar approach work in rural England? 

Thirdly, health and care funding formulas do not take into account the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas. From speaking with clinical and non-clinical staff the research identified additional costs associated with: staff joining towards the end of their clinical career rather than towards the start or middle (leading to higher wage bills); a lack of nearby acute centres to divert patients to if your own centre is full;  staff distance from training and continuing professional development and higher education opportunities; and poor road network (affecting ambulance response times, staff travel time).  In October 2018 The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC) commissioned the Nuffield Trust to carry out ‘a rapid review of the impact of rurality on the costs of delivering healthcare’.  The review is considering how the NHS takes account of rurality in its funding allocations (e.g. unavoidable smallness due to remoteness). The Nuffield funding review will be available on the NCRHC website in December 2018. Given the announcement of an extra £2 billion for mental health services and £650 million grant for Local Authorities struggling to cope with rising care bills for 2019/2020 contained in Budget 2018 [NB: the budget for day-to-day running costs for NHS England is £114.6 billion for 2018-19]; it will be interesting to consider how the findings of the workforce research and the Nuffield review can be harnessed to inform future funding allocations to improve the ‘provider to population’ ratio?

Perhaps what this research reveals is the need for rural proofing in the funding, planning and delivery of health and care services. I am aware that Defra is looking at the guidance it provides to policymakers. There is also interest in rural proofing health and care policies in Northern Ireland and Wales. This also means understanding, in some detail, the character of rural populations and the health issues facing them (which are often masked by official statistics); and thinking through how we promote rural [as offering professionally fulfilling and rewarding careers with high quality of life] to health and care professionals. Can we do this? 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 is providing the secretariat for a new Parliamentary Inquiry into Rural Health and Care.  The Inquiry is being led by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Health and Social care and is co-chaired by Ann Marie Morris MP and The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally. Eight key issues will be considered by the Inquiry over the next two years:

1) What are the needs of rural communities and how are they different from their urban counterparts?

2) How are rural health and social care needs currently met?

3) What is not working in rural communities and why?

4) Workforce challenges and opportunities

5) Education and training challenges and opportunities

6) Structural challenges of fitting current delivery models into a rural setting with different needs and challenges

7) Technology opportunities and challenges

8) Integration opportunities and threats

The first key issue was considered at a session on 30 October 2018 held in the House of Commons. Updates on the Inquiry and how to participate will be available on the NCRHC website and/or by emailing the Operations Director for the NCRHC Ivan Annibal via enquiries@ncrhc.org    

When Jessica’s not working at the NCRHC she is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a hospital avoidance service; and undertaking a piece of work on migration.

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

Quality work rural area

From quantity to quality – what does ‘good work’ look like in rural areas?

With the age of retirement going up, many people will spend 50+ years in employment. Government policy is seeking ‘to boost the number of jobs and create a flexible labour market…modernising employment law while protecting employee rights…to increase the number of people in employment.’ While the number of jobs available has increased, more recent attention has turned to the quality of that work. In July 2017 Matthew Taylor published his independent review of modern working practices for Government. Titled ‘good work’, the single overriding ambition of the Review was that “all work should be fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment”. In February 2018 Government published its response to the review, including a Good Work Plan for taking forward recommendations on employment policy and legislation. What does good work look like in rural England, why does it matter, and what more can be done to bring it about? Jessica Sellick investigates.

What is good work? The concept can be traced back to the work of Ernst Schumacher in the 1970s – compiled from a series of lectures in the United States delivered to some 60,000 people and culminating in a meeting at The White House with President Carter. For Schumacher the purpose of work was threefold: (i) to produce necessary and useful goods and services; (ii) to enable us to use and perfect our gifts and skills; and (iii) to collaborate with other people so as to liberate ourselves from our inborn egocentricity. A job in which there was no personal satisfaction was said to destroy the soul.

In the UK, in October 2016, the Prime Minister commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out ‘an Independent Review of Employment Practices in the Modern Economy.’ The Review was tasked with focusing on six main areas: (i) security, pay and rights; (ii) progression and training; (iii) the balance of rights and responsibilities; (iv) representation; (v) opportunities for under-represented groups; and (vi) new business models. Alongside this, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) GoodWorkIs campaign sought to test the depth of public commitment to better work.

Supported by a panel of experts, Taylor’s Review was published in July 2017 and called on the Government “to adopt the ambition that all work should be fair and decent with scope for fulfilment and development”. The Review set out seven steps for achieving good quality work for all. Under a strapline ‘think like a system, act like an entrepreneur’, the steps were: 1. Creating a national strategy for work – the British way – that should be explicitly directed towards the goal of good work. 2. Platform based working provides opportunities for those who may not be able to work in conventional ways but fairness must be ensured for those who work through these platforms. 3. The law should help firms make the right choices and individuals to know and exercise their rights. 4. Companies must be seen to take good work seriously, be open about their practices, and ensure all workers are able to be engaged and heard. 5. Workers must feel they have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects. 6. A more proactive approach to workplace health is needed. 7. Ensuring that people – particularly in low paid sectors – are not stuck at the living wage minimum or facing insecurity but can progress in their current and future work. The recommendations made by the Review focused on three broad challenges: (1) tackling exploitation or the potential for exploitation at work; (2) increasing clarity in the law to help people know and exercise their rights; and (3) aligning the labour market with the Industrial Strategy and broader national objectives.

In February 2018 the Government published its response to the Review. It acknowledged the overarching ambition of the Review and accepted all but one of the recommendations [changes to National Insurance Contributions for self-employed workers]. In now taking the Review forward, the Government proposes providing millions of workers with new rights under its Good Work Plan – from taking further action to ensure unpaid interns are not doing the job of paid workers through to asking the Low Pay Commission to consider the impact of a higher minimum wage for workers on zero hour contracts.

The response builds on Government’s previous support of good work outlined in the Industrial Strategy which included a commitment to ‘promote the delivery of better jobs’. The Industrial Strategy contains five principles which Government believes underpins the quality of work: worker satisfaction; good pay; participation and progression; wellbeing, safety and security; and voice and autonomy.

Following Taylor’s Review, the Work and Pensions and Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Committees produced a framework for modern employment. This has led to consultations on the enforcement of employment rights, employment status, increasing transparency in the labour market, and protecting agency workers.

Who does (and does not) enjoy good work? Recent interest in ‘good work’ stems from the rise of in-work poverty or the working poor (these are people in employment but finding it hard to make ends meet), poor employment practices (which undermine individual dignity and autonomy) as well as challenges to future work (e.g. poor real wage growth, poor productivity, getting the skills to match the jobs, new business models and automation).

RSA analysis has found gaps in good work around the pay squeeze (including how many people earn below the Voluntary Living Wage); the time spent on work-related training dropping; the overemployment of workers and/or examples of them carrying out unpaid overtime; an increase in work related stress; a decline in the proportion of workers saying they feel they have a say over changes in their workplace; and the amount of workers struggling persistently with low pay and lack of job security.

The RSA published research in January 2018 containing seven portraits of modern work. Whether a worker is ‘thriving, striving or just about surviving’ depends on a number of variables including their household circumstances (income level and stability of income), job security (the extent to which they feel safeguarded from job loss), levels of personal debt, savings and assets (their ability to meet ends meet), agency (the extent to which they feel able to enter or exit the labour market) and their social support network. Workers identified a ‘job that is interesting’ to be of primary importance, with job security the second most valued aspect, followed by high income, flexibility and autonomy. For those who have yet to build up a high level of economic security they value aspects of a job that can help them feel more secure (e.g. security of their position, wage level).

The RSA and Populus carried out a survey to find out whether what workers value in a good job aligned to their actual experiences of work. The survey found economic worries across four self-defined income groups: (i) those not managing to get by, (ii) those just managing to get by, (iii) those just managing to save and (iv)those comfortably saving. From the 2,083 adults interviewed, four-fifths were worried inflation would outstrip their pay; a third of those ‘just about managing’ had a household income of more than the national average (£34,000); high housing costs were the biggest concern of those not managing; and personal debt worried two-thirds of respondents.

With these findings the RSA is calling for public policy to focus on ‘economic security’ – ‘the degree of confidence that a person can have in maintaining a decent quality of life, now and in the future, given their economic and financial circumstances’. The RSA is asking Government to overhaul health, housing and welfare to fuse economic policy and public services together around economic security.

More recently, WikiJob published an article on the 15 technical skills employers are looking for. Employees with these skills are often better at multitasking in challenging and complex roles and receive higher pay. The article contains job seekers hints and tips on how to give technical skills prominence on CVs and at interview.

For me, two strands of good work analysis missing in this analysis and policy attention. Firstly, detailed mapping to understand which geographies, sectors and job types enjoy good work and which enjoy less good work – and why this is. Secondly, how does the vision of good work (the seven steps) fit with the everyday reality of the workplace – and how might these two aspects be reconciled by employees and employers?

What are the rural dimensions of good work? Rural/urban classifications used for Government statistics indicate the heterogeneity (geographically, socially, economically) of rural areas. There are variations in the relative accessibility/ remoteness of rural areas – with remoter (and especially peripheral/ coastal) rural areas more likely to suffer particular issues concerning connectivity in terms of travel-to-work, travel-to-train and accessibility to other services when compared to more accessible rural areas. There are also variations in the economic position of individuals, in-work poverty, housing affordability, health, etc. The relatively high levels of deprivation in some rural areas tend not to be captured by standard deprivation indices (e.g. English Indices of Deprivation 2015).

From a workforce perspective, rural areas tend to be characterised by an older than average workforce. This has implications for so-called ‘replacement demand’ (i.e. job openings resulting from retirement) and for recruitment strategies and job design. The out-migration of young people to larger urban areas reduces the number of qualified young people for recruitment. The quantity, breadth and depth of different job roles are likely to be greater in urban areas than in rural areas. There are a higher proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), lower than average levels of training, less emphasis on formal qualifications and more emphasis on informal training in rural areas. There are more informal labour market mechanisms operating in rural areas. For example: the number of self-employed people who are barely scrapping a living or workers accepting lower wages or working fewer hours; ‘Job jugglers’: people who have more than one job, some if it seasonal, temporary or part time and low paid; or people out of work and trying to get by not accessing support from [or often on the radar of] Jobcentre Plus and DWP.

The Taylor Review acknowledged how the labour market is changing, self-employment rising and innovative forms of working emerging that current policy and legislative frameworks do not always accommodate. For me, full time employment remains the norm in public policy and the Review fails to fully acknowledge these characteristics of employment in rural areas.

Where next? While studies on the quality of work have been undertaken there is no single, agreed upon metrics for informing national policy (i.e., good work indicators broken down by geography, sector, demography). The Carnegie UK Trust and the RSA are developing metrics for measuring ‘job quality’ while CIPD and the Warwick Institute of Employment Research (IER) have developed an index of job quality.

The seven steps to good work apply to three types of individual in the workplace (employees, workers and those who are self-employed) and the Taylor Review has perhaps less to say on what it means for employers – particularly around issues such as how they might further support career development and progression, or help tackle in-work poverty and low pay. If good work is to be available to all the employer voice is important in achieving this.

Finally, talent for care aims to help people Get Ready, Get In, Get On and Go Further in their careers in the NHS. Developed by Health Education England (HEE) the strategic framework underpinning this employment pathway focuses on providing opportunities for people to start their career in a support role; supporting them to be the best they can be in the job they do; and providing opportunities for career progression. Within the pathway, development and progression are based upon an individual’s merit, ability and motivation and not their social background or social networks. For me, it speaks to some of the means of achieving good work, namely ensuring workers have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects and ensuring workers can progress in work. How could this approach to workforce development (from entry to in-work progression) and the seven steps to achieving good work apply in rural areas?

What kinds of jobs do we want in rural areas and how can we ensure that these jobs are fair and decent with scope for fulfilment and development for employees in ways that are practical for employers? How can we make sure good work reflects rural labour markets and the ways in which people actually live their working lives?

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

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. Her current work includes helping public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a mental health project supporting young people; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. 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

Rural Industrial Strategy in the UK

What’s [rural] in the Industrial Strategy?

In her leadership speech Theresa May set out her aspirations “to get the whole economy firing”. One of her first actions as Prime Minister was to begin the development of an Industrial Strategy. In November 2017 the Government published this much awaited document. Heralded as a new approach to how Government and business can work together to shape a stronger, fairer economy – under the strap line “building a Britain fit for the future” – what might it mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.

A speech by Greg Clark back in July 2016 suggested the Industrial Strategy should be a number of things: from providing a long term, predictable and sustained approach to policy making, through to creating an environment in which businesses can be founded, expand and prosper; and where connections are made between Government policy and business decisions, industries and places, research and practice.

The resultant Industrial Strategy, published in November 2017, sets out five foundations of economic policy: (1) ideas – research and development, innovation; (2) people – skills and education; (3) infrastructure – broadband, energy and transport; (4) business environment – support for Small and Medium Enterprises and specific sectors; and (5) places – tackling regional disparities. Improving the foundations, the Strategy argues, will help tackle four challenges: (a) how to embed and maximise the advantages of AI and data; (b) the adoption of low carbon technologies across the economy; (c) automation and infrastructure; and (d) healthcare and labour market challenges amid an ageing society.

The Strategy highlights four sectors where Government will agree deals to drive transformation in investment and productivity across the economy: life sciences, construction, artificial intelligence and automotive. The Government has also proposed the creation of an Industrial Strategy Council – formed of businesspeople, economists and academics from across the UK – to assess and evaluate the Strategy and make recommendations to Government.

In a set of rural words back in September 2016 I described what we might learn from previous Industrial Strategies – exploring the meaning of the term, the kind of Strategy that was emerging and what it could mean for rural areas. Writing back then I suggested the Strategy might have three areas of focus for rural communities: sectors, place and governance. With the Industrial Strategy now published, does it cover these three areas of focus and/or what impact might it have on rural areas? I offer three points.

In terms of sectors, Defra published its latest edition of the Statistical Digest of Rural England in November 2017. While ‘agriculture, forestry and fishing’ accounted for 3.9% of local units of registered businesses in England, they are dominant sectors in rural hamlets and rural villages – in a sparse setting more than half the registered businesses are in these industries. This sector accounts for 15.3% of local units of registered businesses in rural areas overall. Other important sectors in rural areas include ‘professional, scientific and technical services’ (14.9% of businesses), ‘wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles’ (13.2% of businesses) and ‘construction’ (11.3% of businesses). These sectors are taken up in the Industrial Strategy.

Agriculture is referenced in the application of artificial intelligence and data analytics technologies to enable the more efficient use of energy and resources (page 41); as part of a shift to clean growth and fulfilling commitments made during the Paris Agreement (page 42); as part of a need to build on our capability in precision agriculture (pages 43 and 75); and as an attempt to put the UK at the forefront of the global move to high efficiency agriculture (page 47). The Industrial Strategy also references a new Industrial Strategy Programme in agriculture: ‘transforming food production, from farm to fork’ (pages 144 and 148); and, amid Brexit, a commitment to establishing a new partnership between Government and the whole food chain (page 188).

Scientific and technical services are referenced in the application of innovation (page 59); and in the Strategy’s vision “for a knowledge-led economy…underpinned by world-class facilities and international collaborations that push scientific frontiers” (page 67). The Industrial Strategy outlines a number of initiatives including 5G test beds (page 153) and the development of regional Digital Innovation Hubs (page 196). The Strategy specifically focuses on Artificial Intelligence (AI) (pages 32, 33, 36-41) and data (pages 28 -29, 36-41).

The strengths of the motor/automotive industry are referred to i.e., how we’ve successfully rebuilt the UK automotive industry by deliberately attracting investment from abroad (page 20); alongside commitments to increase the automotive share of the global market as it shifts to clean energy sources and efficient new materials (page 43); develop new mobility solutions (page 49); and use leading edge research and development (page 60). The document further highlights the importance of collaboration (page 166) and outlines an ‘Automotive Sector Deal’ (pages 183, 201-202).

References to construction are littered throughout the Strategy: from setting out the UK’s credentials (page 43) to increasing construction’s share of the global market as it shifts to clean energy sources and efficient new materials (page 43). The document sets out a number of initiatives, including (1) The establishment of an ‘Office for AI’ which will work with six priority business sectors including construction (page 40); (2) a Transforming Construction Programme with up to £170 million available to take advantage of new technologies to provide safer, healthier and more affordable places to live and work (pages 45-46, 74); (3) the creation of a new technical education route known as ‘T levels’ (page 102); (4) a National Retraining Scheme to fill skills and shortages in construction and digital (page 117) – including an extra £34 million to expand innovative construction training programmes across the country (page 119); and (5) a ‘Construction Sector Deal’ (pages 197-198).

Compared to other sectors identified by the Statistical Digest the Strategy contains fewer references to retail: although it is identified as a sector the Government wants to work closely with on the foundations of productivity so as to drive up the earnings of people employed and enhance national productivity (page 171). It also contains a case study of the Monster Group, an online retailer (page 185).

Since the Strategy was published further information about the Sector Deals, a Food and Drink Sector Council and Challenge Fund (ISCF) – including calls for Research Hubs and Batteries Research Institute – have been announced.

However interconnected issues such as workforce, how it will lead to jobs being in places where people need them and partnership working with the private sector has not been full taken-up. A report from the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) on the Skills and Demand in industry, for example, found nearly two-thirds (61%) of the engineering and technical workforce considers the recruitment of staff with the right skills as a barrier to meeting their business objectives over the next three years. 75% agree that tackling the skills problem is fundamental to making the Government’s Industrial Strategy viable.

While the sectors identified in the Industrial Strategy are aligned with those in rural areas, what this new sectoral approach will mean for rural areas – and how it fits with interconnected issues – remains unclear.

According to the Statistical Digest of Rural England, in 2015-2016 there were 537,000 businesses registered in rural areas, accounting for 24% of all registered businesses in England and employing some 3.5 million people. The Digest reveals how there are proportionately more registered businesses per head of population in predominantly rural areas compared to predominantly urban areas (excluding London). It further highlights the significance of smaller businesses – with 28.6% of people employed in registered businesses with up to 9 employees compared to 18.7% of people in urban areas. In urban areas 28.9% of people are employed in registered businesses of 250 employees or more whereas in rural areas this figure is much lower at 15.8%.

The Industrial Strategy makes sixteen direct references to smaller businesses: from boosting the digital economy by working with Ordnance Survey to open up freely OS MasterMap data (page 159) to giving attention ‘to ambitious, high potential small and medium sized businesses that are critical to jobs and productivity’ (page 172); and the establishment of a Small Business Commissioner to help small businesses on payment issues, dispute resolution and sourcing advice (page 176).

Back in 2003 Professor Michael Winter undertook a literature review of the English rural economy. This examined how rural labour markets functioned, the degree of interaction between different sectors, geographical constraints, linkages to the urban/regional/national economy and the impact of public policy on rural economies. The review took up the notion of ‘embeddedness’ to describe local social relations of production and consumption based on trust relations. In the words of Kippner “congealed into every market exchange is a history of struggle and contestation that has produced actors with certain understandings of themselves and the world that predispose them to exchange under a certain set of social rules and not another” (see page 34).

More recently, Professor Tim Jackson has published work on achieving prosperity not based on growth. He emphasises meaningful work rather than simply making an income; where businesses are not about making more stuff rather delivering services that improve lives; and where taken together work, enterprise, investment and money are not about accumulating wealth for the few at the top of the food chain but in ways that better serves communities and create lasting prosperity.

The Industrial Strategy is high-level in seeking to provide connections between Government and business. How will this translate into effective and targeted policies that recognise the embeddedness of rural businesses and lead to the prosperity of rural communities?

In terms of place, in the speech Greg Clark delivered back in August 2016 he described how “every business is located in a particular place”. During its development, there were calls to make sure the Industrial Strategy made the most of cities and city regions. The resultant Strategy references ‘rural’ fourteen times: around devolution (pages 27 and 219), as part of a recognition that different policies will be needed in different local economies (page 217), as part of a commitment to invest in places across the UK (pages 132 and 216), including in transport (page 132) and 5G (pages 151 and 154). The Strategy also contains a case study of the Smart Islands Programme on the Isles of Scilly (page 146) and the example of the South West Rural Productivity Commission as part of attempts to ensure rural areas are able to contribute to and benefit from economic growth (page 225).

The Strategy is accompanied by a series of spreadsheets containing maps showing the location of industrial clusters for fifteen sectors. Drawing on research that shows businesses in clusters benefit from agglomeration externalities such as knowledge spillovers, better access to relevant skills and reduced costs due to supply chain integration; the spreadsheets and maps seek to provide evidence for the location of sector strengths across the UK. In technical terms, the methodology used combines the Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) and Kernel Density Estimation (KDE). For each of the fifteen sectors three maps have been produced showing: (i) the clusters produced by DBSCAN, (ii) overlaying the KDE with the DBSCAN cluster shapes, and (iii) an employment growth map. While the data is listed and mapped, there is not accompanying spatial description of what is presented nor how to interpret what is displayed.

All of this opens up debates around what is the ‘right’ economic geography – what is the most appropriate spatial unit(s) within which the Strategy should sit and how can we ensure the resultant policies consider rural areas?

For me, the Strategy needs to lead to a territorial approach that benefits rural places in ways that help people find a job where they live, improves their access to services and advances mobile and broadband connectivity. In a previous set of rural words I explored how rural England was becoming a white space in the devolution agenda. How can we make sure rural areas are not forgotten in the Industrial Strategy?

In terms of governance, a new Industrial Strategy Council is to be established, comprising representatives from academia, investors and economists. Dr Craig Berry, from the University of Sheffield – who was one of the Commissioners who shaped the Strategy – has described how “the proposed advisory council falls short of the OBR-style monitoring body required to embed industrial strategy into the routine agendas of future Governments.” A further point was made around the need for HM Treasury and the business department (BEIS) to work together in the implementation of the Strategy. How do we know what success looks like and how will its impact be measured? Will the Council include a representative(s) with an interest in rural matters?

The Industrial Strategy has been heralded as a ‘blended approach’; combining horizontal policies (in seeking to address market wide issues), sectoral policies (through the Sector Deals) and being mission based (through the Grand Challenges). IPPR’s discussion paper on the Strategy suggests its scope might also focus on the ‘everyday economy of ordinary firms where most people are employed’ (page 3). If this is to happen we need to ensure rural is on the Government’s radar.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

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 supporting a community rail partnership. 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

Agricultural Innovation

How (agriculturally) innovative are rural places?

There are now a number of Government and industry initiatives and funding streams to support agricultural innovation in the UK. This is part of a commitment from Government to create more jobs and promote growth through its Industrial Strategy; as well as a commitment from industry to take ideas ‘from the lab to the market place’ to bring commercial rewards for farmers whilst delivering environmental benefits. What is agricultural innovation and what does it mean for rural places? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Back in July 2013, the Government published ‘A UK Strategy for Agricultural Technologies’. It was the first time the Government, scientists and the food and farming industry had come together to identify and develop the opportunities and strengths of the UK agricultural technologies (agri-tech) sector as a whole. Overseen by the Agri-Tech Leadership Council, and with a budget of some £160 million, the this strategy set out a vision for agri-tech, namely: “That the UK becomes a world leader in agricultural technology, innovation and sustainability; exploits opportunities to develop and adopt new and existing technologies, products and services to increase productivity; and thereby contributes to global food security and international development”. The strategy was intended to unlock a new phase of global leadership in agricultural innovation. As its starting point it identified three strengths vital to supporting growth in the sector: (1) institutes and universities at the forefront of research; (2) innovative and dynamic farmers, food manufacturers and retailers; and (3) accessing global markets through exports of products, science and farming practices. The purpose of the strategy was to harness an infrastructure to support agriculture’s growth. Since then, what have Government and industry done to lead, participate and co-invest in agri-tech? And what does it mean for rural economies and places? I offer three points.

Firstly, Government is investing public funding in building the capacity and capability of the UK agri-tech sector. After the Strategy was published Innovate UK was tasked with improving the translation of research into practice. Innovate UK has put £70 million into an Agri-Tech Catalyst – this is a single funding stream for projects (from laboratory to market place). So far, 120 Agri-Tech Catalyst projects have been supported. These have included projects related to (a) primary crop and livestock production, including aquaculture; (b) non-food uses of crops; (c) food security and nutritional challenges in international development; and (d) challenges in downstream food processing linked to primary production. Individual projects range from harnessing friendly fungi to protect grain from insect pests through to ensuring improved animal welfare for chickens. The current – sixth round – of funding is aimed at projects that will increase the pace and scale of uptake of agricultural innovation by farmers in developing countries. The round closed on 1 February 2017 with decisions expected by 31 March.

Innovate UK has also been tasked with an £80 million fund from Government to establish Centres for Agricultural Innovation to test and develop new agricultural technology and products. There are three new centres: (1) the Centre for Crop Health and Protection (CHAP), a £21.3 million investment to revolutionise how farmers manage crop threats and diseases; (2) Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock (CIEL), a £29.1 million investment to create new livestock technology and products to boost productivity; and (3) Agricultural Engineering Precision Innovation Centre (Agri-EPI), a £17.7 million investment in precision agriculture. CHAP and CIEL are headquartered in York at the National Agri-food Innovation Campus at Sand Hutton; whereas Agri-EPI has hubs in Edinburgh, Harper Adams University and Cranfield University. These three new centres are intended to work alongside Agrimetrics, the Government’s first centre for agricultural innovation (a not-for-profit centre that gathers ‘big data’) which was launched in October 2015.

From an industry perspective, agri-tech is about more than Government policy or global factors. Consumers are also important – particularly as they expect quality food produced to high social, environmental and ethical standards. At the interface between the food and farming industry and consumers, retailers have a key role to play in connecting scientists, farmers, producers and manufacturers to the markets they serve. Central to this is a discussion around sustainable intensification: how can we manage farmland to increase farm output and competitiveness whilst protecting the countryside?

Over the last 4-5 years, this Government-industry approach to agri-tech has focused on building new networks and collaborations between all supply chain members to find better ways of producing the food we need and exporting expertise, products and services globally. Following Brexit, this policy approach of seeking to enhance the sustainable productivity of UK agriculture and to put UK farming in a strong position to be internationally competitive is gaining renewed prominence.

For me, the gap that now needs to be filled is around how ideas can be taken ‘from the laboratory to the farm’: how can we build a stronger skills base to attract and retain an agricultural workforce that thinks innovation and applies innovative technologies on farm? How can we ensure the adoption of good practice across farming systems and supply chains rather than innovation being adopted in a fragmented way by individual or small groups of farmers who can see how it will benefit the profitability and sustainability of their farm business? How will this policy backdrop and funding translate existing (and future) research and scientific know-how to the farming community? With this in mind there are already examples of groups of farmers coming together to carry out “on-farm” trials and tests – from Innovative Farmers, to the Farmer Scientist Network and monitor farms.

Secondly, is there a (rural) spatial geography to agri-tech? A blog by Innovate UK on a ‘rural powerhouse’ describes how physical geography (land types) fits into specific clusters. For example: there is an abundance of grade A agricultural land in the East of England, an N8 universities agrifood initiative in the North East, a golden research triangle in the East Midlands aligned to Norwich science park, pasture based livestock production in the West of England and the headquarters of large brands and retailers in Greater London. This builds on existing work by the Centre for Cities and McKinsey & Company for The Gatesby Foundation which identified the most economically significant clusters in the United Kingdom. From “cottonopolis” to “motorsport valley”, the report traces the geographical origins of clusters that have long been part of the British industrial landscape. It identified thirty-one economically significant clusters – from financial services in London to the chemicals industry around Hull. From a geographic perspective, the findings reveal how clusters are evenly spread across the country – and how outside of London, the clusters tend to be attributable to production-led clusters. What is the most appropriate spatial unit(s) within which agri-tech should sit and how can we ensure its geographical emphasis considers rural places more broadly?

Defra’s statistical digest of rural England 2016 presents BIS data on businesses engaged in innovation. This reveals 47% of rural businesses and 49% of urban businesses surveyed between 2010 and 2012 had undertaken innovation activities (e.g. they may have introduced or significantly improved a product, good, service or practice; or were engaged in an innovation project; or undertaking research, development and equipment linked to innovation activities). This suggests that being located in a rural or urban area has little effect on the innovation practices of businesses. However, the percentage of ‘broader innovators’ was found to be lower in rural settlements in a sparse setting compared to those not in a sparse setting. Is this attributable to issues such as remoteness, investment and the application of (urban) policies experienced by some RSN members? How can Government and industry take a territorial approach to agri-tech – a more place-based approach?

Thirdly, and finally, there are discussions around how a focus on agri-tech can unlock broader economic growth in rural areas. On the one hand, this relates to calls for CAP funding and powers post-Brexit to be used to support a strategic farming policy that is better connected to the local economy. ‘Forgotten opportunities’, a report by IPPR North, for example, highlights how Britain’s rural economy contributes 16.6% of GVA. While this is derived from traditional sectors such as agriculture and tourism it also encompasses newer and emerging sectors including agri-tech and energy generation. IPPR North recommends ‘rural devolution deals’ in which Government sets ‘minimum obligations’ which local areas with a substantial rural component must meet – with these relating to food production and sustainability, environmental protection, participation in the Government’s Industrial Strategy and capital spending to support infrastructure and economic development. According to the report, Local and Combined Authorities should work with Local Enterprise Partnerships to demonstrate how they will use devolved budgets to meet their obligations and add value. On the other hand, initiatives are already underway to link the benefits of agri-tech to the wider rural economy. Cheshire East Borough Council, for example, has set up The Skills and Growth Company – with the Council seeking to expand on Cheshire East as a hub for agri-tech, supported by a £50 million capital investment in forestry and farming programmes at Reaseheath College; and following a partnership between the Council and College to pilot a new Food Enterprise Zone (FEZ). How can we ensure rural businesses (of all sizes and sectors) are taken into account by the agri-tech investment?

Much of the policy and practice discussions around agri-tech since 2013 have focused on investment, increasing the uptake of innovative practices and clusters. With the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee taking evidence from industry representatives, academics and Government as part of an investigation into the implications of Brexit for UK agriculture and food; and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee accepting written submissions as part of its inquiry into challenges to the food supply chain from shortages of workers; there are new opportunities to think about agri-tech. How successful has the Government- industry approach to co-investing in agri-tech been since the publication of the Strategy in 2013? What steps need to be taken to ensure that UK farmers are competitive in the global market post-Brexit? And how can we link these steps to the wider rural economy?

Avoiding the rural unemployment cliff

Avoiding the rural unemployment cliff

Unemployment is falling, but many people are struggling. What can we do to help those people missing out on employment opportunities? And how can we make sure no one is left behind? Jessica Sellick investigates.

The ‘employment rate’ is measured using the Labour Force Survey and is defined as the proportion of people aged 16-64 years in work.

‘Unemployed people’ are defined as those without a job who have been actively seeking work in the past four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks.

This definition also includes people who are out of work but have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks.

Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show the UK’s unemployment rate fell to 4.9% in the three months to the end of June, marking the lowest it has been since September 2005.

According to the statistics there were 1.64 million people out of work – 52,000 fewer than in the previous quarter and 207,000 fewer year-on-year; with 31.8 million in work, 172,000 more than from January until March this year. Over the same April to June 2016 period, the rate of total pay increased by 2.4%.

While many view these figures as encouraging, others wonder if they mask increases in the number of self-employed people who are barely scrapping a living or workers accepting lower wages or working fewer hours.

The figures alone do not describe the changing structure of unemployment – with unemployment up to mid-2009 accounted for by the growth in short spells compared to more recent times where the long term unemployed [defined as 12 months or more with a continuous claim] account for nearly one-in-five of all unemployed persons.

In a rural context, the figures do not always take account of ‘job jugglers’, people who have more than one work (some if it seasonal, temporary or part time leading to low pay) or people out of work and trying to get by without seeking support from Jobcentre Plus and DWP.

The Government’s drive to tackle joblessness has been characterised by labour market policies that offer training and work placements to help unemployed people re-enter the workplace. Most recently this has been through the Work Programme, a payments-for-results welfare-to-work programme that launched in June 2011.

Replacing previous initiatives such as New Deals and Employment Zones, the Work Programme was seen to represent a long term investment by Government to help more people into lasting work.

It hasn’t always gone quite to plan with underperformance highlighted around not delivering for those who need the help most, for not taking into account local labour market conditions, and for failing to align with other, more local delivery of public services.

According to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO), after a poor start the performance of the Work Programme is at similar levels to previous programmes – with 27% of people completing the programme moving into employment lasting 6 months or longer.

However, the NAO found performance for harder-to-help groups showed no improvement compared to previous schemes with ‘prime contractors’ reducing what they planned to spend on the hardest-to-help, and with overall support for these participants lower than for those with better employment prospects.

The Work and Pensions Commons Select Committee inquiry into the Work Programme describes how “DWP deserves credit for implementing a programme which, in general, produces results at least as good as before, for a greatly reduced cost per participant.

But we must not forget that nearly 70% of participants are completing the Work Programme without finding sustained employment. We must do much better.

Our recommendations aim to create an employment support system which is equipped to help into work people facing serious problems that have been distant from the labour market, and inadequately supported, for far too long.”

The Committee has called upon the Government to focus welfare-to-work post 2016 on unemployed people with challenging problems such as drug and alcohol addiction, illiteracy and innumeracy, homelessness and very weak employment histories.

From April 2017, the Work Programme and Work Choice will be replaced by the Work and Health Programme (WHP).

While the details are being finalised, it seems WHP will have a reduced budget (£130 million per year compared to the £2 billion invested over the last parliament) and a different focus (supporting people who have been unemployed for over two years and/or are facing health barriers to work).

The WHP includes a Work and health Unit which will publish a Green Paper later this year looking at how to improve support for people with disabilities and long term health conditions.

This means from April 2017 there will be no national employability support programme for those who have been unemployed for less than two years – instead this cohort will be supported by staff at Jobcentre Plus rather than referred into the programme.

Concerns have already been raised around the referral process – with Government wanting to halve the disability employment gap (which currently stands at around 33% and means a million people with a disability must be supported into employment), not everybody with a disability will be able to be referred to the new provision – will this mean only jobseekers with a reasonable chance of moving into work will be referred?

Will the assessment criteria for referral be based on the benefit they claim and/or their individual support needs?

How can the WHP and the broader work of Jobcentre Plus help prevent issues from becoming deeply entrenched? Or are we going to end up with ‘creaming and parking’ – an approach where those facing the biggest barriers are left behind and those closer to achieving the desired outcome are prioritised?

Alongside these existing and emerging national programmes, research by NISER and the Local Government Association (LGA) highlights skills and employability programmes being run by Local Authorities.

Nine Local Authorities participated in the research: Bradford, North Tyneside, Surrey, Gateshead, Haringey, Southampton, Bury, Liverpool and Cornwall.

What sets these local programmes apart is the way in which Local Authorities went beyond immediate preparation for training and employment to take account of the wider needs of individuals including their health, housing and other issues which affect their progress into work.

Local Authorities leadership and localised knowledge enabled them to map provision and identify and fill local needs and gaps. Local Authorities allocated each person they worked with a case worker to given them personalised and continues help where needed.

With many local areas drawing up devolution deals with Government, Local Authorities may play a leading role in reviewing, designing and commissioning support for people furthest from the labour market.

A group of 22 Local Authorities has called upon the Government to devolve its back-to-work programme to local levels.

In their report, the Cooperative Council Innovation Network’s Policy Commission on Community Resilience, Jobs and Growth, argues that devolving adult skills budget and employment support will help Authorities provide harder-to-help claimants – often those with disabilities and mental health issues – into work.

For me, these national and local backdrops raise three issues.

First, what can be done to address the long-term unemployment trap: the reality that once you’ve been out of work for six months or more your ability to find work becomes more difficult? Beveridge curve analysis maps unemployment and vacancy rates against each other.

The more job openings there are the less unemployment there should be. In the UK from September 2008 to May 2009 the vacancy rate fell and unemployment increased – with the labour market remaining at this state for a further three years before vacancies started to increase from mid-2013.

While this is encouraging, in the US further research by Rand Ghayad and William Dickens at Northeastern University found the Curve shifts if you haven’t worked for more than six months. Ghayad and Dickens study showed that age, ethnicity and education didn’t matter in moving out of unemployment and into employment, what mattered above all is how long you’d been out of work.

To illustrate their findings, Ghayad sent out 3,500 fictitious CVs for employed and unemployed people to apply for job openings. Ghayad found people with relevant experience who had been out of work for six months or longer received fewer responses than people without relevant experience who’d been out of work for a shorter period.

Another study – also in the US – by Liberty Street Economics found the ‘job-finding rate’ declines by 50% within eight months. They found some workers’ resumes were being dismissed even though they would have been hired if given the opportunity to interview.

How will the WHP work alongside employers to address some of these perceptions? Will the cohort of people who have been unemployed for 6, 8 or 12 months that will not be referred into the WHP be helped to avoid them becoming long term unemployed? How can we ensure the WHP delivers for rural people and places?

What is clear is how many employers consider the duration of unemployment more than the duration of employment or the relevant experience.

Yet the reality is many people who have been/are out of work really want and appreciate a job (they’re likely to be hard working and enthusiastic) and they’re likely to be loyal and stay with the company that gave them an opportunity.

Second, there is increasing currency around the concept of ‘inclusive growth’. The European Commission has been using the term since 2010 and it forms part of ‘Europe 2020’, the European Union’s ten-year growth strategy.

This contains two flagship initiatives: (1) an agenda to help people acquire new skills and jobs; and (2) an agenda to tackle poverty and help people live with dignity and integrate in the communities where they live.

The OECD uses inclusive growth in its call for economic growth to go beyond traditional monetary indicators and include people’s wellbeing. The RSA has set up an Inclusive Growth Commission to identify practical ways to make local economies across the UK more economically inclusive and prosperous.

And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has developed an inclusive growth monitor tool to measure the relationship between prosperity and poverty. At Rose Regeneration we’re interested in how/can inclusive growth generate more and better jobs?

In a rural context, how can inclusive growth help people find a job where they live – retaining younger people rather than losing them? Providing training and skills development locally? What kinds of jobs do we want in rural communities?

Thirdly, amid all the figures, curves and programmes, we must not forget the individual and their experiences of unemployment. At Rose Regeneration we’ve been hearing first-hand from people who are long term (and less long term) unemployed.

While they discuss structural, organisational and generational issues, you can also hear their frustration and despair. And you can see the damaging effects unemployment is having on their physical and mental health, family and community.

You can see clearly too how their lack of employment connects to housing, regeneration and leisure. Their ‘hidden’ voices are often not present in ‘official’ discussions and debates. If we are to support every unemployed person nearer to or back into work then what we do (our initiatives, programmes, interventions) need to be person centred.

What we need to do is help anyone who is unemployed and above all ensure no one becomes unemployable.

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 is currently preparing two Community Led Local Development applications and working with a NHS Trust around the provision of rural health and care.

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: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen

Boosting support for rural jobs and growth

With the requirements and expectations for the next programming period (2014 to 2020) now being set, will the new round of LEADER funding deliver projects that address local priorities or will people be stifled by regulatory and operational requirements coming down from the EU? Jessica Sellick investigates.

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a system of agricultural subsidies and programmes. It covers farming, environmental measures and rural development and is the EU’s single largest common policy; accounting for more than 40% of the EU budget. There are 2 ‘pillars’: Pillar 1 provides direct payments to farmers and market control measures and Pillar 2 promotes rural development. Under Pillar 2, a minimum of 5% of each member state’s rural development programmes are expected to be used to support the LEADER approach.

Launched in 1991, LEADER is an established approach for delivering Rural Development Programme (RDP) funding at a local level. It is underpinned by seven key features which must all come together for LEADER to be successful: (i) area based Local Development Strategies, (ii) bottom-up elaboration and implementation strategies, (iii) local public-private partnerships/Local Action Groups, (iv) integrated/multi-sectoral actions, (v) innovation, (vi) cooperation, and (vii) networking. Over the last 23 years LEADER has evolved under each programme cycle – at the outset (1991-1993) the Programme involved 217 European regions and was limited to disadvantaged rural areas. It has subsequently been expanded to cover all types of rural areas. In its fourth programming period (2007-2013), it encompassed some 2,200 rural territories in 27 Member States; providing funding towards business support, tourism, training and skills, community facilities and agricultural diversification. Taken as a collective, LEADER is viewed as an approach which mobilises local resources in ways that do not happen with traditional ‘top down’ approaches – with people using LEADER funding to make the best of their assets and development opportunities.

On 11 April 2014, Defra published ‘A National Delivery Framework (NDF) for LEADER 2014-2020‘. This document sets out the requirements and expectations for the next programming period and includes: (a) information about how to prepare a LEADER application and what the selection process will involve, (b) the roles and responsibilities of those involved with LEADER and (c) relevant regulatory and operational requirements. The NDF also explains the policy priorities and measures that Local Development Strategies (LDS) are expected to meet along with some project examples. A LDS is a document created by a Local Action Group (LAG) and wider partnership that describes what LEADER aims to achieve in a given area. It is the LDS which Defra will assess as part of the competitive application process to receive the next round of LEADER. What does the NDF tell us about how the next LEADER Programme will be implemented? I offer three points.

Firstly, projects funded under the new LEADER Programme (2014-2020) will need to focus on delivering jobs and growth. In terms of overall expenditure, Defra expects 70% of all projects funded under LEADER will directly support the rural economy (e.g. through creating and developing micro and small sized rural businesses). The remaining 30% of projects will also need to demonstrate that they are contributing to improving the rural economy. There are 6 overarching priorities that the new Programme is intended to support, they are: (1) increasing farm productivity, (2) micro and small enterprise and farm diversification, (3) rural tourism, (4) rural services, (5) cultural and heritage activity, and (6) forestry productivity.

Under the previous Programme cycle (between 2007 and January 2013), 3,834 projects were supported across 64 LAG areas. These projects varied from community growing and village furniture reuse schemes to new tourism actions and micro-business support. In many instances LEADER made a real difference to local economies. For example, Cumbria Woodlands received support from Solway, Border & Eden and Cumbria Fells & Dales LAGs and delivered 37.5 full time equivalent jobs, generated £694,270 GVA directly and agglomeration and wider community benefits around woodland management. However, in other LEADER areas LAGs were only able to fund social and community projects (e.g. village renewal schemes, conservation of rural heritage).

For the new Programme, this means LAGs that have already funded rural economy activities will have to think carefully about how to continue to provide support to micro and small enterprises (where are the gaps? How can you build upon learning and good practice from 2007-2013?); and for other LAGs which have not had an economic focus before, how can they deliver outputs and outcomes such as jobs and business support?

With this overall focus on jobs and growth all LAGs will need to consider how their activities align to those of other bodies such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP), Local Authorities, Rural Growth Network Pilot areas, Rural and Farming Networks etc. Indeed, the NDF calls for all LDS’s to complement the activities of the relevant LEP/s and for the LEP/s to endorse LEADER applications in the form of a supporting letter. LEADER partnerships are also being encouraged to seek expert advice and support from local Forestry Commission staff and NFU county advisors. Additionally, the NDF expects the contents of LDS’s to align with related EU schemes including the European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF) Growth Programme and the Farming & Forestry Productivity Scheme (FFPS).

Will the new Programme provide a basis on which to think again about economic policy in rural areas or will LEADER funding be seen as inconsequential and sidelined by these other bodies and activities?

With the focus now on growth, will the next round of LEADER be responsive? Under the 2007-2013 Programme, in Cumbria LEADER funding supported the ‘Flood Debris Recovery Grant Scheme’. The Scheme provided grants to farmers affected by the November 2009 flood event in Cockermouth, enabling them to pay to remove debris from their land so as to bring it back into agricultural production.

More recently, it has been suggested that support could be made available to establish a large-scale storage depot to hold feed, bedding and supplies and handle distribution for farmers affected by the floods in the south of England in 2013/2014; building upon successful initiatives such as Forage Aid.

Secondly, it is expected that the new Programme should cover all of (or more of) rural England – thereby increasing coverage from 52.5% under the 2007-2013 Programme. In practice, this means increasing LEADER population thresholds and/or increasing the number of LAGs. The NDF sets out how prospective LEADER groups should define their geographical coverage –based upon Census Output Areas and having a population of 10,000 to 150,000 inhabitants.

Defining a LEADER area will need to take account of: (i) research being undertaken by the University of Sheffield to identify ‘rural hub towns’; these are settlements with a population of over 10,000 which may be eligible for inclusion in a LEADER area. It is likely that these hub towns can be included and referenced in a LDS but their population not counted in the overall population coverage figure for a given area, thus reducing the likelihood of LEADER areas including towns and built up areas for the sake of getting to the 150,000 threshold. Defra will be publishing the findings of this research at the end of April/beginning of May 2014. (ii) To achieve coherent LEADER areas where population density is an issue – and to make administrative savings – Defra is seeking permission from the European Commission to actually increase the upper limit from 150,000 to 200,000 inhabitants. Again, Defra will inform LEADER groups of the Commission’s decision as soon as it has been made.

On 17 April Defra released a guide explaining how to use NOMIS to determine the rural-urban classification and population for Output Areas for potential LEADER areas. The step-by-step guide is intended to show how defining your LEADER area can be easily done, without any specific mapping or statistical expertise. For example, using the ‘usual resident population’ measure in NOMIS allows you to view a map of the area by selecting a local authority district from a drop down list. However, if a potential LEADER area straddles local authority boundaries you need to do this separately for each local authority covered. You then have to click on a map to zoom in and select areas –distinguishing them from lots of areas and finding their code. For some LEADER groups this is further complicated by changing ward and Local Authority boundaries.

While 15% of the funding available will be allocated on a per rural head basis, 85% will be adjusted according to population density, sparsity and productivity using Gross Value Added (GVA) data. It is not clear from the NDF if an area defined as sparse with low GVA will receive a higher funding allocation compared to an area that is less sparse and with greater opportunities for delivering jobs and growth.

If more rural areas are covered under the new Programme and less money overall is available to allocate to each area – and amid looking at lots of squiddles on a map to define a given LEADER area – how can we make sure LEADER groups have adequate financial resources? Prospective LEADER groups are required to define their area and submit a map and Excel sheet to Defra on or before Friday 23 May.

Thirdly, how will the new Programme be administered? Under the 2007-2013 Programme cycle many LAG members, programme staff and project applicants found the administration to be unduly burdensome and complex. Whether the application was a £3,000 community project or £300,000 business project, the same procedures had to be followed regardless of how low/high risk the project actually was. Some applicants struggled to cash flow their projects as LEADER funding is paid in arrears, whilst others experienced difficulties seeking match funding and/or completing the claims paperwork.

The NDF indicates how Defra is considering the use of simplified cost options for small projects. This includes a desire to work with individual LEADER groups to further scope ideas for a small scale grant or ‘umbrella project’ type proposals. The NDF also explains how each LDS will need to identify an Accountable Body and a LAG and what their respective roles and functions are as well as the role the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) in administering payments, inspecting and auditing accounts. The NDF further contains a ‘behavioural code of conduct’ which all successful LEADER groups are expected to adhere to.

The European regulation underpinning LEADER allows up to 25% of a LAG’s funds to be spent on Management and Administration (M&A) costs. M&A includes project animation and development activity – with the amount of support provided to potential applicants often correlated to the delivery of high quality projects. Yet Defra will not consider LEADER applications asking for more than 18% for M&A; suggesting this cap will enable a greater proportion of LEADER funds to reach projects.

The pressures placed upon LEADER groups under the 2007-2013 Programme to focus upon spend and targets rather than outcomes undoubtedly affected the projects which came forward and received funding. The NDF provides an anticipated financial profile for 2014-2020. Here, expenditure is more evenly spread across the Programme; with Defra recommending LEADER groups identify projects early on so as ‘to get off to a good start if your LDS is approved’. Will the next Programme be less about spend and more about funding projects at the appropriate time for them? How does Defra’s expenditure profile link to the activities of other bodies such as LEPs?

From focusing on jobs on growth to defining a LEADER area and developing a LDS; the points above open up discussions around what rural development is and what European funding should be used for. We are at a critical juncture for LEADER with the publication of the NDF published and more guidance emerging. Prospective LEADER groups have until 23 May to define their geographic coverage and 5 September to submit a full LDS – watch this space.
A National Delivery Framework for LEADER 2014-2020
Using NOMIS to determine Rural-Urban Classification and Population for Output Areas for potential LEADER areas

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 was part of the team that undertook a National Review of LEADER for Defra, has independently evaluated 11 LEADER Programmes (8 in England, 2 in Scotland and 1 in Wales) and was a member of Defra’s CAP Stakeholder Reform Group. Jessica is currently supporting 6 existing LEADER partnerships and 2 new groups during Transition. She is also providing Local Authorities with resources to measure their ‘Social Return on Investment’ and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) with rural data and evidence. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk Twitter: @RoseRegen

Making rural places to live and work

What makes a community sustainable? It is a question that sits at the heart of government policy and practitioner debates – the responses of which have very real consequences for rural residents and places. Jessica Sellick investigates.

The notion of sustainable communities leaves much for decision makers and communities to think about. But ‘what makes a community sustainable’ and ‘can a Social Return on Investment analysis act as a catalyst for [rural community] action and investment’?
What is a sustainable community? The concept of a ‘sustainable community’ was first articulated by Government in 2003 by the then deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. In ‘Building for the future‘ – a £38 billion plan for economic, social and community development – the Labour administration set out how it intended to tackle the need for more affordable housing and improve the quality of life in communities by increasing prosperity, better public services, health and education. Here, communities were regarded as sustainable if they were ‘standing on their own feet and adapting to the changing demands of modern life. Places where people want to live and will continue to want to live’ (page 5).

Subsequently, in 2004, Sir John Egan posited that sustainable communities should meet ‘the diverse needs of existing and future residents, their children and other users by offering choice’. He suggested that to be sustainable, communities must: (i) make effective use of natural resources, (ii) enhance the environment, (iii) promote social cohesion and inclusion, and (iv) strengthen economic prosperity. Egan set out his framework for sustainability in a wheel:

 

The Egan WheelEganWheel

Source: John Widdowson, Geographical Association.

 

This policy work was taken up at a European level in 2005/2006, with The Bristol Accorddescribing a common European approach to sustainable communities comprised of 8 characteristics and a commitment to develop a bank of good practice case studies.
Between 2007 and 2009 the now defunct Sustainable Development Commission‘s (SDC) redefining prosperity project considered the connections and conflicts between sustainability, well-being and growth. This led to the publication of a report by Tim Jackson, ‘Prosperity without Growth? The transition to a low carbon economy‘. Here, Jackson acknowledged economic recovery was vital and protecting/creating jobs essential, but that this should be accompanied by a renewed sense of shared prosperity and a commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world. Jackson’s vision, therefore, was for a more local, less consumption driven approach to economic development whereby communities would in turn become more resilient.

Yet ‘Mind the Skills Gap‘, a report from the Academy for Sustainable Communities identified a shortage of qualified professionals with the necessary skills to actually deliver the previous Government’s agenda for sustainable communities.
In 2010, the Rural Coalition, which is supported and advised by the RSN, published ‘The Rural Challenge‘. This document presented a shared policy agenda for achieving sustainable rural communities, with the concept framed around ‘meeting the challenges of the environment, climate change and community cohesion’.
The Coalition Government’s Rural Statement 2012 called for businesses to make a ‘sustainable contribution to national growth’ and for ‘communities to access public services’ and to ‘be actively engaged in shaping the places where they live’. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is tasked with leading the drive to transfer power so people can make more decisions locally, solve problems and create thriving neighbourhoods – from exercising rights to ‘bid, challenge and build’ to preparing neighbourhood plans. Defra, on the other hand, in tune with the Government’s top priority of driving economic growth, is undertaking a broad range of activities – from the establishment of five rural growth network pilots, to a Rural Broadband Programme and Mobile Infrastructure Project.
This timeline of ‘sustainable communities’ from 2003 to the present day is important for three reasons. Firstly, it illuminates the lack of a common understanding of sustainable communities. Whilst the foundations were created in 2003, these are now somewhat shaky, with sustainable communities subsumed into a drive for economic growth and thriving neighbourhoods. Secondly, is there a lack of technical skills and community capacity to develop this understanding? Community development, economic development and environmental officer roles have all been impacted by public sector funding reductions. Equally, enabling people to participate in their community and learn from their experiences requires time, money and skills on the part of rural residents, the organisations that support them and in the delivery of services. Thirdly, is the clock now ticking in terms of delivery? In the words of Matthew Taylor, is much of the countryside becoming part dormitory, part theme park and part retirement home? And if so, what can be done to reverse this trend?
This plethora of information on sustainable communities demonstrates that are many things we value that cannot easily be captured in economic terms. Can Social Return on Investment (SROI) act as a catalyst for [rural community] action and investment? SROI is a tool for measuring and accounting for social, economic and environmental factors beyond simple costs and price. There are six stages in a SROI process:

1. Establishing scope and identifying key stakeholders to identify impacts.

2. Mapping project outcomes with stakeholders.

3. Evidencing project outcomes and giving them a financial value.

4. Establishing project impact – accounting for deadweight and displacement.

5. Calculating the SROI.

6, Reporting the findings from the assessment process.

Taking the principles of the Egan Wheel as a starting point, it is possible to use SROI methodology to understand and maximise the social value an activity creates.

At a practical level, this approach has been used by Rose Regeneration to ascribe value to the wider social impacts of Farmer Networks, demonstrating how a return of £4.78 was generated for every £1.00 invested in the Hill Farming Succession Scheme in Cumbria, an initiative to help engage young people in agriculture.

This illustrates how farmer networks make both farmers and communities more sustainable; delivering significant returns to both their members/participants in the scheme (e.g. providing them with extracurricular activities linked to their package of training; gaining employment upon completion of the scheme) and the public purse (i.e., increased involvement of local people in volunteering, sustaining and developing farm businesses).

Understandings of sustainable communities and the use of SROI both bring to the fore the importance of measuring the impact and value of policy decisions. For how aspirations are interpreted and then find their way into concrete initiatives, with targets set and resources allocated, affects whether we are making rural communities truly sustainable or merely turning them into ghost settlements.

To explore the issues raised here further, the RSN is holding an event on sustainable communities on 10 September at Bishop Lloyd’s Palace Chester. The day will include presentations from Mick Duggan (DCLG Decentralisation and Neighbourhood Planning Team) on ‘Progress to Date with Neighbourhood Planning’ and Roy Alexander (University of Chester) considering ‘how rural parishes can go carbon neutral’. Four interactive workshop sessions will be running over the course of the event: (1) rural proofing, (2) localism for Town and Parish Councils, (3) alternative service delivery and (4) community asset mapping. The event is free but places are limited. For more information and/or to book your place please contact Wendy by email wendy.cooper@sparse.gov.uk.

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 is currently providing Defra with examples of where ‘Big Society’ initiatives are working well and undertaking Leader programme evaluations in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Scotland. Jessica recently completed a piece of research for Oxfam on farm poverty, a National Review of Leader for Defra and prepared a Rural Economy Planning Toolkit for Leicestershire Rural Partnership. Jessica is experienced in a range of economic evaluation tools – including Benefit Cost Analysis, Economic Impact Analysis, Financial Analysis/Feasibility, Value-for-Money and Social Return On Investment. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen