Uncategorized

Universities and local authorities – working together for “rural” people and places?

Through their teaching and research, universities are now seen as critical in driving economic growth, prosperity and innovation. They combine global reach with local rootedness – offering well-paid employment to large numbers of people (with their staff and students adding substantially to consumer expenditure).

Local Authorities also play a pivotal role in creating the conditions for economic growth as well as meeting the needs of residents and making places attractive to live and work in. How are universities and local authorities working together – and is this benefiting rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.

Universities have a long history – as the oldest university in the English speaking world, teaching existed at Oxford in some form in 1096 and developed rapidly from 1167; with Cambridge University founded in 1209.

From the 19th century the University of London was created (1836) with institutions – in what became known as ‘red brick institutions’ – emerging in other cities including Durham (1832), Exeter (1855), Bristol (1876), Birmingham (1900) and Sheffield (in 1905).

The Robbins Report of 1963 reviewed the pattern of full-time higher education and recommended that more universities be built. These new universities – what became known as ‘plate glass universities’ were often located on campuses outside of towns and cities where they would have plenty of room for expansion (eg East Anglia in 1963, Kent in 1965, Lancaster in 1964 and Aston in 1966).

With the passing of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, polytechnics or colleges of higher education were given the name ‘university’ and ‘HE colleges’ became known as ‘university colleges’ (e.g. Leicester Polytechnic became De Montfort University; Newcastle Polytechnic became the University of Northumbria; and Polytechnic South West became the University of Plymouth). As of December 2015, there were 106 universities and university colleges in England recognised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) out of a total of 130 in the UK.

These figures do not include overseas universities with campuses in the UK (e.g. American University in London, Fairleigh Dickinson University in Oxfordshire) or institutions with ‘University College’ in their title but which are not university colleges by statute.

In June 2015, Universities UK published a report setting out the economic role of UK universities. Between 2011 and 2012 the higher education sector generated over £73 billion of output (both direct and indirect effects); contributed 2.8% of UK GDP (up from 2.3% in 2007); made up 2.7% of all UK employment (up from 2.6% in 2007); and for every 100 full time jobs at universities another 117 full time jobs were established in other sectors of the economy. Alongside this, a review of the financial health of higher education institutions published by HEFCE in November 2015 concluded that future projected surplus levels were not sufficient to sustain the HE sector in England.

Indeed the £150 million funding reduction announced by HEFCE in July 2015 had not been reflected in institutional projections and a 5% per year reduction in public sector funding could see the sector in a deficit position by 2017-2018. The review also revealed significant variation in the financial performance and capital investment plans of individual institutions.

The current structure of local government has its origins in the municipal reform of the 19th century. During the 20th century, the structure of local government was reformed and rationalised, with local government areas becoming fewer and larger.

The structure, functions, funding and powers of Local Government have been subject to reform ever since. Today, Councils are funded by a combination of central government grants, council tax, business rates and charges for some services (e.g. parking).

And they continue to face cuts with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) settlement from Spending Review 2015 reducing Local Authority spending by some 6.7% in real terms between 2016 and 2020, with the bulk of these (the latest in ongoing rounds of cuts) frontloaded in the first two-years.

As the money Local Authorities receive from Government shrinks, it is the intention they become reliant on funds raised locally though council tax and business rates.

While Government has sought to protect grants aimed at helping Local Authorities with the additional costs of delivering services in sparsely populated areas, some RSN members have said more/continuing cuts will undoubtedly increase the pressure on the already stretched services they commission or deliver.

With Local Authorities facing ongoing austerity (and pressures such as demographic change, social care) and universities having to cut costs (while investing in infrastructure, teaching and career support so as to recruit students); are Local Authorities and universities working together to harness their resources or do they lack the means to engage with each other on a scale that benefits them both?

In a review of business university collaboration back in 2012, Professor Sir Tim Wilson described how “the diversity of universities in this country provides a rich supply chain of high level skills and innovation capability to companies; yet it is not apparent that UK universities are the magnet for inward investment in a manner that meets their potential.

Some places, notably Cambridge, can claim such a status, but this phenomenon does not appear to have been created through strategic policy, rather through the initiative and activities of entrepreneurial individuals, supported by the civic authorities at that time.”

In his report ‘no stone unturned in the pursuit of growth’, Lord Heseltine called for Government to develop stronger links with researchers, universities and businesses to develop and maintain the UK’s knowledge base. The policy framework to achieve this is being developed through Innovate UK and the National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB).

The policy framework for Local Authorities to engage with education that many RSN members are familiar with is set at the level of schools: from sorting out places and providing home to school transport through to allocating finance and implementing legislation from Government.

At present, there is much discussion around the shifting responsibilities of local authorities in education (e.g. places, standards, supporting vulnerable children, academies) – with Councils now enabling schools to lead their own improvement.

But how are – or how can – Local Authorities engage with Higher Education (HE)?

I offer five points: –

First, universities undertake research that could be shaped and used by Local Authorities. The UK Research Councils Rural Economy and Land Use programme (Relu) ran between 2004 and 2013 to advance understanding of the social, economic, environmental and technological challenges being faced by rural communities.

The programme worked with local government and produced a range of policy and practice notes (e.g. economic growth, flooding, farm diversification, energy production, food, Nature Improvement Areas). The “Care Life Cycle” research programme ran from 2010 to 2015.

]Based at the University of Southampton, the programme looked at measuring unmet need for social care amongst older people. Living With Environmental Change (LWEC) was established in 2007 by a partnership of 22 universities, government departments and agencies. It aims to enable funders to coordinate their resources to avoid duplication, bring together different disciplines and take a UK wide perspective.

In Scotland, the University of Edinburgh worked with six local authority social work departments as part of ‘Engaging with Scottish Local Authorities (ESLA)’ project. This involved academics, social workers and involuntary users (i.e., offenders, those with mental health problems or disabilities and families involved in child protection cases) to produce a good practice guide to help build positive working relationships.

At a local level, Camden Council is working with Central St Martin’s to create a Public Collaboration Lab. The lab brings residents, higher education and local government together to add value to a number of projects including libraries, local planning and youth centres.

The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has pushed for better focused research impact in and for local government. The Local Government Knowledge Navigator (LGKN), funded by the ESRC, was launched in January 2013 to help local government to make better use of existing national investment in research and to influence future research agendas. A LGKN Evidence Review identified some of the factors that make for successful collaboration between local government and the research community.

These include: a focus on issues relevant to local government action; joint applications from academics and local government; university departments working on programmes directly relevant to local authority decision making; universities working on relevant ‘burning issues’; building long term relationships through postgraduate placements; and leadership from the university – support from the Vice Chancellor to ensure the importance of the projects is recognised and academics time made available.

The final report, published in May 2015, recommended local government and the research community challenge existing cultures and mind-sets; stimulate demonstration projects; establish a web-enabled platform to better connect government and research; and support strategic and scalable research interventions which are likely to have reach and impact in areas such as public health and social care.

How can Local Authorities influence research agendas? And how can higher education research help Councils do more with less?

Second, universities have teaching programmes that benefit rural communities (e.g. medicine, business, agriculture). The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) is funded by HEFCE, Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust. The Centre aims to build effective partnerships to encourage partners to embed public engagement in their work. Research in Ireland looked at the role of local access programmes in increasing higher education participation rates.

The study found residents in relatively disadvantaged areas of Dublin were more likely to go onto further or higher education if they lived close by a college. Some HE institutions market their rural location with quality of life and community feel to attract students (e.g. Falmouth University, Hadlow College, Highlands & Islands).

The University of Cambridge has a ‘Community Knowledge Exchange’ which brokers partnerships between community organisations with research questions and students carrying out research in fulfilment of their degree programmes. The National Graduate Development Programme (ngdp) is a two-year graduate management development programme run by the Local Government Association.

Graduates are provided with a series of placements to engage them in the core work of Councils. Participating authorities for 2016 placements include Cheshire West and Chester, Cornwall Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cotswold District Council, Gloucestershire County Council, North Lincolnshire Council and Nottinghamshire County Council

How can Local Authorities work with students while they are still at university?

Third, universities have building assets and land. The HE sector has significant funds for leverage – from developing disused land, to jointly investing with the public and private sector to provide office and living space. For example, the Lincoln campus of the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside opened in 1996, bringing large scale HE activity to Lincolnshire for the first time.

With just 4,000 students the campus was located on a formerly derelict area near the city centre – £60 million was spent to create at the time to create what was Britain’s largest free standing new campus area. Today the University of Lincoln has 1,000 acres of farmland, a business incubation centre which has supported 300 new and growing companies, a centre for food manufacturing, delivers work based learning for the Ministry of Defence and recently completed a Science and Innovation Park (in collaboration with Lincolnshire Co-operative).

The University of Plymouth worked with SERCO and Plymouth City Council on a shared services project (HELASS). This explored opportunities for co-working, joint procurement and rationalisation of ICT in the delivery of back office and front end facilities.

How can Local Authorities and universities work within their localities to develop joint plans to share/develop land and buildings for other uses – especially at a time when Local Authorities have been tasked with releasing ‘excess’ land and property.

Fourth, universities are seen as a key partner in driving growth through their education exports, commercialisation of research and innovation developed through business-university collaboration. Universities are seen as a key sector in the Government’s Industrial Strategy; and as having a role to play as ‘place shapers’ in informing local economic strategies (e.g. LEPs, City Deals). The RSA City Growth Commission, for example, made a series of policy recommendations to universities and urban authorities.

The Commission highlighted the role of universities in ‘metro growth’ in calling for authorities to produce graduates on their doorsteps rather than attracting them once they’ve graduated – including having a ‘ReFreshers week’ where local authorities run a concentrated campaign with universities to help focus graduates on extending their roots in their place of study in the key weeks and months before and after graduation – and establishing Metro Investment Funds for Higher Education (MIFHE) to fund research and teaching which will deliver local growth. The Commission further suggested universities co-invest with Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) to provide start-up incubation and acceleration space.

The Commission described how “in a brave new world, areas shape their competitive advantage…[universities] therefore need to be ‘for’ something different in different places”. From the Midlands Engine to the Northern Powerhouse universities are beginning to respond to the devolution agenda: the Institute for Local Governance (ILG) is a partnership of the North East’s universities, Local Authorities, police forces and fire & rescue services to source research for the public sector.

The University of Manchester has established a new research centre for advanced manufacturing and the University of Sheffield for advanced nuclear materials.

Is devolution fostering closer links between universities and Local Authorities in places?

Fifth, it may be useful for Local Authority representatives to sit on management boards and advisory committees. This enables academics, officers and Members to discuss issues of common interest and exchange ideas. The majority of LEPs already have HE representation on their boards – as part of a move to encourage universities to focus on localities as part of their mission.

At the recent RSN economic development meeting Local Authority officers indicated the benefits have a universities in their localities brings. Yet in many instances opportunities for authorities to work with academics was based on existing links with entrepreneurial individuals and departments rather than something taking place at institutional and systematic levels.

Local Authorities need to tap into HE – influencing research agendas, becoming a greater beneficiary of HE activities, and using this to aid service design and delivery. But this also means universities (in all their guises of size, location, priorities, mission and commitment to the wider public) identifying local government’s needs and what they can do to help meet these needs.

While there are many examples of Local Authorities working with HE to harness expertise and resources, all too often this remains on an ad-hoc or informal basis. And this picture is further complicated for many rural Local Authorities who may have three or four universities within or surrounding their locality.

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 Community Led Local Development application; supporting the Big Lottery Fund to deliver Village SOS; involved in projects to help older people remain independent and in their homes for as long as possible; and completing a European project on ‘social value’. 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

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

Breaking the silence on mental health

According to Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England, if you live in the countryside your life expectancy increases and you are less likely to die prematurely from cancer, stroke or coronary heart disease. On average, people born in very rural areas will live up to two years longer than those in major urban area.

While that’s great news for your physical health; far from being idyllic many people living in rural areas have lower overall accessibility to key services (including GPS, hospitals) and experience poverty, isolation and mental illness. With NHS England setting up a new taskforce and Mental Health Awareness Week (MHAW) taking place 11-17 May 2015, what can we do to reduce both the stigma and inequalities facing people experiencing mental distress in the countryside? Jessica Sellick investigates.

While there is a wealth of data about the number of people coming into contact with mental health services (1,746,698 in 2013-2014 – higher than the 1,590,332 in 2012-2013) or the number of people spending time as an inpatient; there is less research into rural mental health. Evidence that does exist seems to suggest mental health is probably better in rural areas.

However, the literature also finds: (1) there are a number of factors specific to rural areas such as demography, access to services, social exclusion and deprivation that may contribute to stress, anxiety and depression; (2) some rural occupations – including farming – have high suicide rates; and (3) those that develop mental illness in rural areas seem less likely to seek treatment compared to their urban counterparts. How, then, can we put mental health issues at the forefront of rural communities? I offer three points.

Firstly, what is the provision of mental health services in rural England like – and is there a ‘treatment gap’ (perceived or actual) in accessing them? Mental health services in England deal with a wide range of issues – from depression and psychosis conditions to drug and alcohol services and dementia.

Often divided into separate areas (e.g. adult, child, older adults, substance misuse etc.), these services and the mental health pathways for accessing them are organised at a local level meaning they can differ depending on where you live. Back in 2010, ONS analysed area based mental health data which revealed specialist adult mental health service usage varies dramatically by age and local authority.

In addition to provision being a ‘post code lottery’, research in Scotland has found common mental health problems are not recognised by people in rural areas as something that requires treatment and practical support. There can be a culture of self-reliance and stoicism towards mental health problems which prevents rural dwellers seeking medical help.

In September 2014, the University of South Wales published a report for the Welsh Government exploring the options for high quality and sustainable healthcare in Mid Wales – taking account of rural needs and cross-boundary/area challenges. The study found a good range of primary mental health support services for those with less complex problems, crisis support services in the community (reducing the need for hospital admission), and support for people in the earlier and middle stages of dementia.

But significant problems remain, including access to inpatient facilities for acutely ill patients, nursing home and other provision for people with dementia, and access to crisis support in some parts of the region. What will be the impact of an ageing population on service design and delivery?

To ensure or reduce a ‘treatment gap’ in England health policies and practice should be ‘rural proofed’ to avoid any inequitable distribution of resources. Indeed this is important as mental health service policy and service provision has been characterised by a shift towards more community based care. So how can we balance the ‘quality of mental health service’ with ‘distance of travel to access these services’?

Addressing any gap comes at a time when the current health care delivery system is under pressure like never before.

In response to a parliamentary question, NHS England disclosed children’s mental health services in England has fallen by more than 6% since 2010 (some £50 million); and the Royal College of Nursing suggest mental health nursing has suffered heavy workforce cuts compared to other areas of medicine: compared to 2010, there are approximately 3,300 fewer posts in mental health nursing and 1,500 fewer beds.

Yet over the same period demand for services has risen by 30%. Alongside this, London School of Economics and Political Science has found 75% of people with depression and anxiety receive no treatment and the extra physical health care caused by mental illness costs the NHS at least £10 billion each year.

In March 2015, NHS England announced it was setting up a taskforce to identify the best ways to provide people and communities with the information and support they need to develop good mental health and resilience. The taskforce intends to break down the barriers between mental and physical health as well as identify the best commissioning and provision of support so that people can expect the same standard of care regardless of where they live.

Secondly, what models of care work well in rural areas? Given the wide variation in need and local level pattern of services it is not appropriate to specify a model of care that should be provided in a given rural area. While rural mental health needs may not differ from those in urban areas; the planning, management and delivery of services will vary.

It is important to recognise how delivering successful mental health support in the community in rural locations is often supported or operated by the charities and the community and voluntary sector. At a national level charities such as ‘MIND’ – which seeks to address the challenges and stigma faced by those living in rural communities as part of its core activities – through to Farming Help (which runs a helpline and provides other support services for the farming community) provide support.

At a more local level there are a plethora of examples of good practice. There are groups that provide mutual support and advocacy – HUG represents the interests of users of mental health services across the Highlands of Scotland and ‘You Are Not Alone’ (YANA) provides a confidential helpline for those feeling isolated, depressed or unable to cope. In some rural areas mental health services are provided using custom-built vehicles (e.g. the Mindfulness Bus in Norfolk and Suffolk and Doris, the Vale of Clwyd Mind’s mobile outreach vehicle); and/or or using existing community venues (e.g. nurse and farmer health checks at auction mart; and Reading Well).

The Suicide Awareness Partnership Training (SAPT) project at RCC (Leicestershire & Rutland) aims to increase the awareness of good emotional health and mental well-being, and to reduce the stigma of suicide. While these mental health projects can be the key to crisis prevention, they are often without stable resources to make it happen; impacted by Local Authority budget reductions around social care, housing and health and/or inflexible procurement and commissioning processes, finance, time pressures and service fragmentation.

Thirdly, how can we improve rural mental health services? The King’s Fund suggests encouraging new providers to enter the market and for the government to disseminate innovative service models and good practice. It is worth remembering – and demonstrated by the examples above – that in rural parts of the UK we already provide innovative solutions.

What is often lacking in current debates is a discussion around the ‘quality’ of mental health services being delivered in the countryside and ‘how to measure’ this – whilst being mindful of costs/budgets we need to look at the difference our interventions are making to an individual as well as the broader outcomes for communities rather than focusing simply on performance frameworks and value-for-money tests.

Above all, we need to change perceptions (e.g. anti-stigma activities) to break the silence. For many of us mental health is not about statistics, models or innovation but how we can ‘prevent things from getting to the desperate stage’.

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 about to undertake a review of a Lottery funded project focusing on how to conserve and improve a town’s assets for future generations as well as completing a European project on ‘social value’.

Jessica’s public services work includes research for Defra on alternative service delivery and local level rural proofing. In her spare time Jessica volunteers for a farming charity that offers a 24/7 advice and support service for farmers, their families and the wider community with the purpose of ‘preventing things from getting to the desperate stage’.

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

On Thursday 11 June 2015 the Rural Services Network is organising a Rural Health Conference. “Challenging Times – A New Dimension?” is being hosted at the Health and Wellbeing Centre in Truro. Speakers include Lezli Boswell (former Clinical Lead for Remote and Rural Services NHS England), Duncan Selbie (chief executive, Public Health England) and Lord Cameron of Dillington, (chairman of the Cameron Report 2015). Further details including how to book your place can be found here.

More information about the RSN’s work on health services and the Rural Health Network can be found here.

A rural stake for our youngsters

Frozen out of getting a foot on the property ladder, the most economically active moving out, negative stereotyping and a lack of things to do and places to hang out – what does the future hold for young people? What support do they need to fulfil their potential? And what is the role of Government, communities, parents/carers and young people? Jessica Sellick investigates.

In the UK, there isn’t one law that defines the age of a child –under health and safety rules a child is anyone who has not reached the minimum school leaving age and a young person is anyone under 18 years. The Children Acts 1989 and 2004 and Children and Families Act 2014 combined this to define children and young people as up to the age of 18 years; with ‘vulnerable young people’ are entitled to support beyond 18 years. Guidance issued to child psychologists in 2013 recommended they raise the young person age range that they work with from 0-18 years to 0-25 years.

At an international level, the United Nations defines ‘youth’ as persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years – but distinguishes between ‘teenagers’ (those aged 13-19 years) and ‘young adults’ (those aged 20-24 years). And the World Health Organization defines young people as between 10 and 24 years of age and adolescence as between 10 and 19 years.

Taken as a collective, these definitions reveal there is no one understanding of young people shared by all agencies and communities; nor the broader context in which a young person moves from childhood to adulthood.

Government policy can be equally confusing and disjointed. Support for children and young people can be found within the Department for Education, Education Funding Agency, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, Department for Work and Pensions and Home Office. With the support offered ranging from careers guidance, health and wellbeing and post 16; to looked after children, school funding and data collection/analysis.

‘Positive for Youth’, published in 2010, was intended to bring together all the relevant Government departments for the first time to create a single plan for young people. Defining young people as those aged 13-19 years, the document described how “young people’s experiences outside of formal learning, at home and in their community are also crucial in enabling them to form and pursue their ambitions and prepare them for work and adult life” (page 1). The document contained a plethora of policies to support parents and carers, help young people to learn and find a job; help young people develop a sense of belonging; look out for vulnerable young people; and prevent crime. Many of these actions have now been subsumed into improving education, supporting more people to study (i.e., raising the participation age to 18 years) and providing wider opportunities. This includes involving young people in national and local decision making through the Youth Voice programme, which includes the UK Youth Parliament, Youth Select Committee, National Scrutiny Group, focus groups and support for local youth councils and young mayors.

Alongside this, the Government has set up a number of initiatives to help young people start enterprises – as part of its drive for ‘jobs and growth’ – from Start Up Loans scheme and Business in You campaigns to the provision of apprenticeships and vocational training. The CBI has put forward a set of practical policies that government and business could deliver for young people – a structured programme of preparation for work and where academic and vocational routes are equally valued.

Schemes led by other bodies include The Prince’s Trust which supports young people aged 13-30 years by providing financial, practical and skills support for work. Other innovative projects include vInspired which provides 14-25 year olds with volunteering opportunities and encourages young people to set up their own projects with funding from cashpoint (‘change the world with £500’). And Auto22, part of charity Catch22, provides young people with real life work experience in garages.

This has opened up a series of debates:

(i) whether the Government by protecting the schools budget has led to disproportionate funding reductions elsewhere, particularly the budget for post-18 education and support.

(ii) Whether careers guidance is now an afterthought following the transfer of responsibility passing from Local Authorities to individual schools, with many opting out of providing fully qualified careers advisors altogether. Is it left to teachers to help young people plot their route from education to work?

(iii) In December 2014, the Fabian Society published ‘out of sight’. The report highlights the reasons why we have stopped talking about NEETs (young people who are not in education, employment or training) and how official NEET numbers understate the scale of the problem at a local level. The report calls for Local Authorities to prioritise the issue and convene key partners – using their leadership and influence and rediscovering their appetite for leading local education and skills agenda. Whether the estimate that more than 50,000 people aged 16-18 years have gone ‘missing’ from the figures are accurate; the issues the report raises are particularly acute for young people in rural areas with limited choices and expensive travel challenges.

(iv) On the matter of ‘unpaid internships’, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Youth Affairs suggested placing a 3 month limit on placements if organisations cannot afford to pay the young person and for the young person to be given a contract in advance of the internship so all parties are aware of what is expected of them.

Yet what all the definitions, policies and debates miss – and some of the more innovative projects are trying to attend to – is that what many young people actually want is to have a stake in their local community.

Many young people want meaningful study and work engagement and job opportunities. Many young people want youth services and inspirational support. While some would argue that investing in young people is one of the most important investments societies can make, often young people are left feeling misrepresented and powerless. I offer three points.

Firstly, the strain of growing demand and underfunding means many youth centres are closing (or thriving thanks to volunteers). Youth clubs that act as ‘hubs’, housed in community buildings offering fun, structured activities, social space and support after school, on weekends and during school holidays provide young people with a focus and agencies with a coordination point to offer wider support.

Secondly, young people need a stronger voice in the provision of good services. This needs to go beyond formal consultation where young people often feel their views aren’t fully considered and/or where nothing ever happens as a result of their input. Linked to youth clubs/hubs there are increasing opportunities here around social media and online networking. Does Facebook, Twitter and developments in cloud based technologies enable us to find new and innovative ways of accessing and sharing information with young people and involving them more fully in decision making?

Thirdly, young people need a stronger voice in their local communities. While intergenerational activities can increase understanding and build shared experiences in local communities; do we also need more peer-led projects and young advisors? And a renewed focus on perspectives from young people living and growing up in rural areas?

What is clear is that current discussions are centred on finding new ways for young people to re-enter and re-engage in traditional ways in the fields of education, employment and training. However, this approach overlooks some ‘elephants in the room’, namely – from the perspective of the jobs and growth agenda – how vast numbers of young people may become over-qualified and under-employed despite their hard work.

And from the perspective of young people having a stake in their rural community, how accessing transport (private car or bus service), lack of affordable housing, a low wage (seasonal) economy are real challenges which can lead them to migrate. For those that want to, how can we support young people to have a stake and stay in the countryside?

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 undertaking a European project on ‘social value’as well as carrying out research for the Lottery on community businesses. In a personal capacity Jessica is the interim chair of Bristol Playbus. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk; Twitter: @RoseRegen

Are our rural economies really working?

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), there are 505,000 businesses in rural areas – around 28% of all businesses in England.

Rural businesses are just as diverse as those in urban areas and contribute more than £211 billion to the UK economy but many have untapped potential.

With ‘economic growth’ remaining a government top priority, how are rural areas contributing and benefitting from growth? Jessica Sellick investigates.

The rural economy is dominated by entrepreneurs, self-employed people, ‘job jugglers’, home businesses and small and micro enterprises. While many people think of land management industries (e.g. farming, food, forestry) and tourism; in practice the rural economy is multi-layered and multi-local – reaching far beyond this into arts and culture, manufacturing, retail, professional and business services.

The mix of business size, sectors and performance also varies – with some firms likely to be found close to rural towns and others found in sparser areas. All have an important role to play in creating and sustaining employment and safeguarding the future of rural communities. Central government has introduced a range of measures to stimulate rural economic growth – from the Rural Growth Network Pilots to broadband and mobile infrastructure projects and a tourism fund. But what kind(s) of growth are we driving for?

Not all growth is good and not all growth is bad, therefore we need to consider what kinds of potentially valuable growth we want in rural areas (and ‘valuable’ to whom). And are we offering rural residents better opportunities to work in their local communities in this drive for growth? I offer three points.

Firstly, there are a range of benefits to running a business in the countryside. At a recent ACRE conference ‘why rural matters – the case for investment’, businesses that had established and grown in the countryside or relocated there shared their positive experiences: from awe inspiring landscapes and improved quality of life through to realising being rural is a real asset, giving their brand’s exposure across the world.

This desire to ‘shout loud and proud’ about being in the countryside has led to ‘rockthecotswolds’, a business led initiative celebrating how cool the Cotswolds is and the companies that are there creating, designing and selling goods to a truly global market. At the same time, reductions in public spending have illuminated how rural communities are pioneers in providing local services, overcoming access and delivery difficulties to meet demand. Purple zebra is a social enterprise established by Rural Community Action Nottinghamshire (RCAN) which provides IT services to small and medium sized businesses.

Bedfordshire Rural Communities Charity (BRCC) has established a not-for-profit community vineyard to provide horticultural therapy as well as bringing Ridgmont Station on the Marston Vale line back into productive use as a heritage centre, café and office rental space. In all of these examples the RCC’s have recognised the social value of enterprise. These developments also fit with the emerging perspectives of funders – with the Big Lottery Fund’s ‘your voice, our vision’ consultation calling for residents to have a stake in their community.

Here rural dwellers are not viewed at a disadvantage and in need but are being asked what they want to ‘do’ and what skills they bring in making a funding application. This is part of an approach to move away from funding single interventions to instead forming integrated and collaborative partnerships to solve problems.

Secondly, amid these entrepreneurial businesses and communities there are challenges in living and working in a rural area when compared to locating in an urban area. For RSN readers these are well rehearsed and ongoing: the need to close the ‘digital divide’; where the debate is not just whether ‘speed’ should be prioritised over ‘access’ but finding out from BT (other providers or Local Authorities) where the final 10% are, implementing innovative local solutions to reach the final mile and addressing issues such as cost and affordability.

In practice, some rural businesses have told us that to remain in the countryside they have to spend £6,000-£8,000 a year for adequate connectivity. With the government committed to being ‘digital by default’, in November 2014 the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee launched an inquiry into broadband coverage and digital only services.

Other challenges include recruiting and retaining qualified staff, for even if you offer excellent pay and conditions your workforce also requires housing, access to services, transport, leisure and entertainment facilities. The availability of parking (for staff and clients); red tape and planning requirements have also been cited.

Thirdly, how do we prepare for the future? It seems all-too-often interventions do not keep up with the pace of change. How can we ‘rural proof’ and ‘future proof’ policy and decision making? Businesses and communities are clearly innovating and developing in the countryside in spite of or as well as any support that is available from government, Local Enterprise Partnerships or Local Authorities.

While there are many good examples of instances where LEPs, UKTI or other bodies have helped rural businesses (to upskill the workforce or export to new markets etc.), often what support is needed falls below their radars. Some businesses have suggested ‘one stop shops’ for start-ups and established firms to can come together around workspace, infrastructure, mentoring, grant funding or to speak to a marketing/HR/legal experts etc.

These are not intended to be ‘talking shops’ but mutually supportive for businesses wanting to thrive in the countryside. With ‘city deals’, combined authorities forming to cooperate in strategic areas such as transport and economic development and support in England for more powers to be devolved to local areas, where is ‘rural’ in some of these debates?

To explore these issues further, the RSN is organising a seminar on ‘local economies’ on 3 December 2014. Hosted by the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham, speakers include: Stewart Barr (University of Exeter), Helen Royall (Transition Stroud), Elizabeth Skinner (Society of Local Council Clerks) and a representative from Tewkesbury Borough Council.

Places are limited to 50 and there is a modest charge of £35 plus VAT to cover venue costs, lunch and materials. For more information and to book your place, please contact Bethan at the RSN by email bethan.aldridge@sparse.gov.uk or telephone 01822 813693.

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.Jessica has undertaken a variety of projects on local economies; including undertaking socio-economic research for the Cotswolds Conservation Board, preparing a rural economy evidence base for Leicester & Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership, and producing rural growth strategies for Mansfield & Ashfield, Gedling, and Breckland & South Holland Councils. More information about the RSN’s work on economy can be found here. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.ukor telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://www.roseregeneration.co.uk Twitter: @RoseRegen

Is the rural ‘Big Society’ delivering?

Back in 2010, the Prime Minister launched the ‘Big Society’, heralding a culture change where people in their everyday lives would no longer always turn to Local Authorities or central Government for answers to the problems they faced, instead helping themselves and their own communities. With the future of many rural services – shops, post offices, doctor’s surgeries, buses and schools – under threat; what ‘Big Society’ approaches to delivering rural services have emerged – and what can we learn? Jessica Sellick investigates.

The Government has been changing the way public services are delivered – with a reform agenda set in train in 2010 intended to give people more control over the services they receive and open up delivery to new providers from public, private and/or community and voluntary sectors. The ‘Big Society’ is at the heart of this vision, and aims to encourage organisations to develop innovative approaches to the delivery of rural services, best suited to local needs. How have these alternative approaches developed? What are the main successes and barriers to their implementation in rural areas? And, importantly, what lessons can be drawn from both successful and unsuccessful projects? I offer three points.

Firstly, what alternative approaches or models for delivering services in rural areas have emerged since 2010? The Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI) at the University of Gloucestershire (working with the Rural Services Network and Rose Regeneration) recently completed a research project for Defra on alternative service delivery models. They identified 11 models – some newer than others.

Many of the delivery models are not ‘new’. Social enterprises in England, for example, can be traced back to the 1970s. Others have been hybridised in their application. What has changed, however, is their application and use for service delivery. The research found that no one model was better than the others; with the model/s chosen selected according to local circumstances (e.g. local expertise, type of service, level of resource). However, in many instances a key driver for changing the service delivery approach has been the need to reduce costs. Unfortunately there is little evidence to suggest the alternative model options above are then considered systematically.

Secondly, what are the main successes and barriers to the implementation of these models in rural England? RSN Members have told us about community groups and voluntary organisations delivering all kinds of projects – from libraries and broadband, to shops, transport and woodland – encompassing all kinds of legal structures (e.g. Community Interest Company, Industrial and Provident Society, a charity, a Registered Social Landlord). Regardless of the model chose, for an alternative delivery model to work there needs to be community and user involvement; adequate financial, business and user needs planning; communication on the part of all parties – including openness to user involvement and support for change; and capacity and leadership. These characteristics speak to the importance of accountability and diversity – but how are these principles recognised where service provision is being delivered differently because of cuts? And are these principles interpreted differently if new services are being set up rather than previously sector run/funded services?

It is clear in some instances that a Big Society approach can give communities and Local Authorities the ability to tailor services to local circumstances – in ways that generate economic, social and environmental benefits.
Jubilee Park in Lincolnshire, for example, is being run by the Parish Council ‘for the community’ after a refurbishment and asset transfer package from East Lindsey District Council. The transfer has led to increased community involvement (1,500 volunteer hours donated each year), an improved “park offer” including the opening of a new cafe and events programme; and more efficient financial management of the Park through local marketing, reduced personnel overheads and management oversight by the Parish Council.

Avoiding a ‘one size fits all’ approach to services, alternative models enable a diverse range of projects to happen. The closure of the Fox and Hounds Pub in Ennerdale Bridge inspired the local community to take direct action to save this treasured asset. ‘More than a pub’, its reopening is just one step on a holistic journey of community led regeneration – it now provides outreach facilities for Citizens Advice, Groundwork and Wild Ennerdale, hosts a book drop/library for Cumbria County Council and has created 2 paid positions.

Equally there are barriers to innovation. Those identified by RSN Members include: inflexible procurement and commissioning processes, finance, time pressures, service fragmentation, a lack of local assets and lack of community capacity or appetite ‘to get involved’.

Thirdly, what lessons can be learnt, therefore, from both the successes and barriers of alternative service delivery models? For me, I think they open up (a) the need to think creatively in the face of budget reductions; and (b) the relationship between short term necessity and longer term planning. Tackling these issues requires building a shared understanding of the community’s needs, ambitions and capacity, reducing wasteful conflict by increasing transparency and appreciating the pressures that different organisations face in reducing operational costs/generating finance, and assembling the right individuals to lead and champion the process. Alternative service delivery models need to be considered viable long term solutions rather than an easy, quick-win to turnaround performance and reduce costs.

In practice, there may be geographical gaps in the take up of new delivery models (where existing services are not reaching rural places) or service gaps (where needs are not being tackled). Gap filling may be happening where community minded individuals are spotting gaps – or potential gaps – and devising clever projects to fill them. Similarly, what happens when something goes wrong? With public service delivery, users generally have someone to turn to and a process to apply. The question of accountability once a service has transferred to an alternative delivery model, or if it arises organically to fill a local void, requires further exploration. If improved understanding of the use and application of alternative models is to be developed there may be a need for a more structured sharing of knowledge and best practice.

To explore these issues further, the RSN is organising a seminar on ‘Approaches to Alternative Service Delivery’ on 14 January 2014. Hosted by Oxfordshire County Council, and run in partnership with Defra, speakers include: Professor Nigel Curry (University of Gloucestershire), Audrey Roy (Head of Rural Services, Rural Communities Policy Unit, Defra) Tracey Besant (Faith in Affordable Housing) and Alice Woudhuysen (Age UK). Places are limited to 50 and there is a modest charge of £35 plus VAT to cover venue costs, lunch and materials. For more information and to book your place, please contact Wendy at the RSN by email wendy.cooper@sparse.gov.uk

Finally, following a recent article on rural transport, many of you have been in touch – describing how transport is not working in your area and the local solutions you have developed. Rother Voluntary Action, in partnership with East Sussex County Council, for example, has published a Voluntary Car Scheme Toolkit; North Devon Public Transport Users (NDPTU) is considering how to join up different transport options into rural hubs; and the Mi Card in Barnsley provides young people with bus travel for 30p per journey. A number of RSN Members are also in dialogue with health services (e.g. local acute trusts, Clinical Commissioning Groups) to ensure rural residents will be able to access medical facilities.

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. Jessica has undertaken a variety of projects on services, including 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

A growing digital divide?

The internet is now an essential part of our everyday lives, with connectivity providing opportunities to reduce some of the issues facing rural communities. The demand for broadband services in rural areas often outstrips many urban places. Yet the task of connecting residents and businesses remains much greater in rural areas due to lower population densities and geography which combine to make the commercial case for investment more challenging. With the Government now providing subsidy for broadband infrastructure, are rural communities enjoying the benefits of digital technology or are they being left behind? Jessica Sellick investigates.

BROADBAND has been defined as ‘always-on internet access’ and is characterised by its bandwidth – the amount of data that can be transferred per second (measured in millions of bits per second, Mbps). Basic broadband services can be delivered using wireless, satellite or over copper telephone wires; although the distance of the household or premise will affect the speed, up to 20 Mbps can be available. This compares to dial-up modems which connected at 56 thousand bits per second (Kbps). Once a broadband service achieves a certain bandwidth – which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) currently sets at 24 Mbps– it is referred to as ‘superfast’. In Next Generation Access (NGA) networks, some or all of the copper in the network is being replaced with fibre. BT, for example, is investing £2.5 billion in upgrading the copper network using fibre-optic cable which is predicted to supply increased speeds of up to 80 Mbps to customers by 2014. What do these Mbps, NGA, BT investment and Government approach mean for rural communities? I offer three points.

Firstly, where does broadband fit and what is connectivity like in rural areas? For example: should having a broadband internet ‘service’ be treated as a basic ‘utility’ much like electricity, water or the traditional telephone? Should rural residents and businesses expect the same or comparable levels of connectivity as their urban counterparts, or is broadband a luxury item? Ofcom’s latest research on broadband performance to residential consumers was published in August 2013. On the one hand, this shows the average broadband speed reached 14.7 Mbits/s in May 2013, a rise in actual average speed of 64% (or 5.7 Mbits/s) since May 2012; with 19% of residential broadband customers receiving superfast connections. On the other hand, the gap between average download speeds in urban and rural areas has widened from 9.5 Mbits/s in May 2011 to 16.5 Mbit/s in May 2013. This is because of the lower availability of superfast broadband services in rural areas when compared to urban areas and because the average line from the home to the nearest telephone exchange is longer – you can check the broadband services available in your area here.

With BT and other commercial providers making superfast broadband available to approximately two-thirds of the population, in 2010 the Government decided to intervene and provide public subsidy for suppliers to invest in the ‘final third’ predominantly rural areas. The Government has allocated £530 million for a Rural Broadband Programme. The Programme is led by Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK), a unit with DCMS. BDUK gives grant funding to local authorities or groups of local authorities to procure ‘basic broadband’ (2 Mbps) to everyone and ‘superfast broadband’ (24+ Mbps) to at least 90% of their population. The role of local authorities, therefore, is not to deliver broadband schemes per se but to map need and procure delivery solutions. Central Government is working with 44 local authorities who are required to provide match funding to the central grant they receive. However, a recent report on the Rural Broadband Programme prepared by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee critiqued the design of the programme for failing to deliver competition for contracts and strengthening the role of BT in the marketplace. The Committee found that of the 26 local authorities that had let contracts to deliver rural broadband, all had been awarded to BT. Moreover, the report revealed that DCMS own forecasts show the programme overall will not complete until March 2017, nearly two years later than planned.

Amid the discussion around speed, the think tank Policy Exchange has called for an end to the broadband arms race. Their report, ‘The superfast and the furious‘, found the case for spending taxpayers’ money to subsidise very fast connectivity to be weak. In a poll of 2,000 people and 500 businesses by Ipsos MORI, one-third of people said price and reliability mattered as much as speed and two-thirds of respondents thought good basic broadband coverage for the whole country was more important than chasing very fast speeds in some areas at the expense of others. How do we know where and what demand is? Some local authorities, for example, have websites and off line methods where residents and businesses can register demand. And what is the relationship between demand and sustainability? For example, the number of subscribers may not increase but you still need to grow the digital infrastructure to meet community demands and expectations.

It is worth noting that mobile phone coverage is as much of an issue as broadband in many rural areas. The Government is looking to address this through its ‘Mobile Infrastructure Project‘ (MIP), a £160 million project also led by the DCMS and being implemented by Arqiva to improve existing mobile phone coverage and build additional masts in uncovered areas. In October 2013, DCMS organised a meeting with mobile operators and broadband providers to consider how they can work together to improve digital services.

Secondly, as well as the delivery infrastructure put together by the Government and local authorities, how can residents and businesses deliver broadband for their area? There are a plethora of examples of where communities have decided to ‘do it yourself’. Cybermoor is a community owned co-operative operating since 2001 that provides a Wi-Fi broadband network for Alston Moor and the surrounding areas. The project started when Alston Moor was chosen as one of 7 areas as a pilot for the UK Government’s Wired up Communities initiative – a £10 million initiative to connect homes in disadvantaged communities to the internet. Today, the superfast wireless broadband network has the highest penetration of broadband in any rural area in England. Other examples include Broadband 4 Rural North (B4RN) – a community fibre network offering fibre to every home in the Lancashire uplands, providing 1000 megabit (1 gigabit) future proof connection for £30 a month; and Fibre GarDen, a community broadband initiative formed by residents in Garsdale and Dentdale supported by both parish councils and now taking up Government funding available from BDUK to bring superfast broadband to both dales. Each project has faced many unexpected challenges along the way – from nesting lapwings to needing cash – and is now supporting other community organisations to tackle such pitfalls.

That is not to say that public and community ownership approaches are the only way to go, an important starting point is to find out what the community needs and the level of involvement it wants to have. However, a joint paper by the Plunkett Foundation and the Carnegie UK Trust suggests that a significant number of rural households, rural businesses and rural communities will not have access to good quality high speed broadband unless they take action themselves. Indeed INCA suggests there is a hierarchy of technologies and that all possibilities to have a network with ‘better’ technology should be exhausted before settling for a lesser one: with fibre at the top of the hierarchy because it can provide the highest speeds, has the greatest flexibility and can be upgraded in the future and satellite at the bottom where potential to upgrade becomes increasingly restrictive. How, then, can we encourage other rural communities to solve the connectivity conundrum that they are facing? Where and how can communities be supported to obtain access to finance, technical skills and infrastructure?

Thirdly, if by March 2017 rural places are wired and perhaps even fibred up, with residents and businesses provided with any digital skills that they might need, what are the potentialities of this digital revolution? Certainly it opens up alternative ways of delivering services. Cybermoor, for example, has been working with Cumbria NHS to lower the cost of providing services and improve patient care using telehealth and telemedicine. It also makes the ‘flipped classroom’ a possibility, thus giving schoolchildren video lectures to watch in their own time at home to then go to school for discussions and interaction with teachers and between pupils.

Finally, it is worth noting that broadband is not a catch-all solution to the issues facing rural communities – it needs to be joined up. Echoing the views of some RSN members once again here, it is important that we do not impose ‘online solutions’ to ‘offline issues’. While policy and decision makers have been providing a plethora of initiatives and funding pots since 2010, to what extent these will reduce the digital divide between town (leaders) and country (laggers) is open to debate. What will connectivity be like in 2017?

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. Jessica has undertaken a variety of projects on broadband and IT – from working with local authorities to look at the feasibility of delivering public services online in small rural settlement to, developing good practice case studies on digital technology. She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: www.roseregeneration.co.uk Twitter: @RoseRegen

Totally wired: A look at rural broadband

RURAL communities risk being left behind by next generation broadband, writes Jessica Sellick.

The ‘Digital Britain’ Report (2009), a Green Paper published by The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), made a number of recommendations with regard to broadband access, internet use and public service broadcasting. It included a proposal that every household in Britain should have access to a 2Mb broadband service by 2012 – possibly to be paid for by a levy on phone companies. The report builds upon two other policy documents: ‘New Industry, New Jobs’ and ‘Going for Growth’.

More recently, Communities and Local Government (CLG) produced a study on Next Generation Access (NGA) Risk (March 2010). The study identifies those areas most at risk of being left behind in the roll-out of NGA by 2012, 2015 and 2017 and characterises the nature of that risk. Interestingly, though an NGA coverage target of 90% by 2017 was stated in the Digital Britain report, the two supply side factors that contribute towards meeting or failing this target – distance and deprivation – are prevalent to rural areas. Specifically, the costs of roll-out in rural areas are higher because of the distances involved to reach properties and premises and deprived rural areas are less attractive to telecoms companies due to lower potential revenue.

The Guidance is accompanied by an ‘NGA data file’ that maps risk – from red (denotes an area considered a high priority for mitigating action) to green (denotes a watching brief is needed). The maps display this risk both spatially (at the level of Lower Super Output Areas) and alongside other datasets such as mobile network coverage or proximity to public services. Though CLG believes this data can assist government and stakeholders in formulating strategies, worryingly the maps show that in 2012 87% of the rural spatial units (representing 17% of UK households) will be classified as red; this figure will still be 65% by 2015.

Collectively, these policy documents illuminate the issue of digital exclusion and rurality. The Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) report ‘Mind the Gap’ found 60% of people living in areas most likely to see next generation broadband investments were almost exclusively in deeply urban areas. Similarly, research carried out by Ofcom found rural users were more likely than their urban counterparts to be dissatisfied with their overall broadband services and the speed of their service (14% compared with 8% respectively) – and these figures are based on existing landline infrastructure not NGA. Therefore, the RSN believes that the roll out of NGA and other digital infrastructure should not bypass rural areas in terms of implementation timetabling, speed, bandwidth or reliability. To illustrate the importance of connectivity to rural communities and the implications of continuing to open up the digital divide, I would like to make three points.

First, architecture. Where the market has deemed some (rural) areas non-viable to install broadband and NGA a number of community groups are developing unique strategies to overcome the digital divide. In terms of broadband, Northlew, a rural community on Dartmoor forgotten by mainstream broadband suppliers, has built its own broadband network with almost 200 subscribers. As a consequence of the project, BT is now providing a neighbouring village (Belstone) with broadband! In terms of NGA, I have visited a social enterprise called ‘Cybermoor’ in Alston Moor. ‘Cybermoor’ developed one of the first large scale broadband networks and though initially funded by a Government initiative called ‘wired up communities’ and the Northwest Regional Development Agency, it is now operating on a commercial basis. Cybermoor has provided many of the residents of Alston Moor with broadband, a PC, ICT training and support, a local television channel and a community website. Cybermoor is currently investigating opportunities around fibre-optic technologies.

Secondly, public services. The lack of access to digital technology and inadequate broadband leads to limited access to public services and the full range of social and economic benefits available (e.g. cheaper bills, access to NHS Direct online). I recently completed a project with West Devon, South Hams and Torridge Councils looking at the feasibility of using IT to deliver public services in smaller settlements across the three council areas. The project, The Village Hub – community access and information points, provided the Councils with costed and time bounded proposals setting out what an access and information point might look like, suggested locations where the facilities could be located and provided guidance on their implementation. The project drew upon thirteen examples from across England where IT had been used to deliver public services. These revealed that while IT can enhance existing service provision, any intervention requires community support (including a willing bank of local volunteers), needs to be located in the right places, involve multiple service providers working in partnership, and requires ongoing and sustainable technical, financial and service provider resources. The project also produced a Toolkit, providing practical guidance for local authorities, citizens and community and voluntary sector organisations interested in the Village Hub and looking to do something similar. Funding streams are now being investigated to move forward with a pilot and make the “village hub” a reality.

Thirdly, the digital divide and broadband/NGA requirements are not confined to the public sector (and the delivery of services) or community groups and citizens, but have real implications for the private sector, affecting the competiveness of rural businesses. In 2007, the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) launched a region-wide campaign aimed at improving and increasing business use of IT. Known as the “takeITon” campaign, the programme provides businesses with free practical support to help them with their IT, attendance at a series of workshops, produces ‘How-To’ videos, and provides them with access to a free consultation with a Business Link Advisor to give their business an ‘IT Health check’. Similarly, Warwickshire County Council’s “e-business programme” provides a series of events to guide businesses through the technology and marketing maze, an advisory service and one-to-one consultations to help businesses make the most of the technology it already has or introduce new systems. And yet these schemes, though welcome, do not address the shortcomings of the IT infrastructure needed to support their interventions. To overcome this, a new national broadband campaign ‘Final Third First’ (launched on 4 March), comprised of broadband organisations and wider community interests including Rural Community Broadband is lobbying the government to provide adequate and effective broadband access for the ‘final third’ of the UK which lacks this infrastructure. The campaign is aiming to address the 2Mb commitment set out in Digital Britain and lobby for NGA.

From the Government’s study of NGA Risk to community broadband schemes in Cumbria and Dartmoor; what is clear is that rural communities deserve equal access to these new technologies. And yet, without targeted programmes and resources, the roll out of these technologies will only serve to entrench existing (urban-rural) inequalities.

Finally, a cautionary note is needed here, because I believe broadband and NGA should not be viewed as ‘magic wands’. The digital future for rural communities is inextricably linked to issues around planning, economic development, agriculture, the environment, social care and so on. It is crucial that decision-makers do not impose online ‘solutions’ to offline ‘issues’ – ICT is a means rather than an end. While ICT can indeed deliver public goods in innovative ways, it should always be used to meet the needs and aspirations of rural communities.

Jessica Sellick is a rural consultant at Rose Regeneration. She can be contacted at jessica.sellick.roseregeneration.co.uk.