03 March 2010
Are SAAs the next big idea?
|
|
Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
diggFeatured Jobs
-
STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
Salford City Council
To £115,000 -
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Bexley Heritage Trust
c£65K - £70K -
HEAD OF FINANCE
North West Leicestershire District Council
£54k plus relocation -
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Liverpool City Council
Up to £197,500
Realising the potential of Total Place plans is, for the most part, still to come, says Robert Hill.
Total Place has, so far, promised more than it has delivered. That is not a criticism – more a statement of fact.
The pilot areas have, until now, mainly been in the business of understanding each other’s organisations, identifying priorities, mapping spending and service patterns, and developing alternative service models and scenarios.
This effort has yielded a lot of valuable and sometimes-surprising information, but realising the potential of Total Place plans is, for the most part, still to come. So, it may seem surprising that the policy debate is already moving on to how to extend the idea.
| "If there are still any public service leaders who think they can manage the combined impact of the impending public spending tsunami, the digital revolution and the trend towards a more personalised market-based system of public service delivery by sitting snugly in their own institutional bunkers, they need a crash course in strategic thinking." |
This effort has yielded a lot of valuable and sometimes-surprising information, but realising the potential of Total Place plans is, for the most part, still to come. So, it may seem surprising that the policy debate is already moving on to how to extend the idea.
How has Total Place gained so much traction without there yet being a solid evidence base of results?
Mostly, because it is such a no brainer in policy terms – particularly given the scale of public funding constraints. Assessing, prioritising and responding to the needs of a place on an integrated co-ordinated fashion is intrinsically rational and sensible. It explains why a growing number of places beyond the pilots are adopting the agenda.
The puzzle is why we haven’t got here sooner. If there are still any public service leaders who think they can manage the combined impact of the impending public spending tsunami, the digital revolution and the trend towards a more personalised market-based system of public service delivery by sitting snugly in their own institutional bunkers, they need a crash course in strategic thinking.
Mostly, because it is such a no brainer in policy terms – particularly given the scale of public funding constraints. Assessing, prioritising and responding to the needs of a place on an integrated co-ordinated fashion is intrinsically rational and sensible. It explains why a growing number of places beyond the pilots are adopting the agenda.
The puzzle is why we haven’t got here sooner. If there are still any public service leaders who think they can manage the combined impact of the impending public spending tsunami, the digital revolution and the trend towards a more personalised market-based system of public service delivery by sitting snugly in their own institutional bunkers, they need a crash course in strategic thinking.
Total Place is also capturing policy attention because it is challenging Whitehall to move beyond its silo-based approach to policy-making and financial allocations.
We should not overclaim. There are still many areas round the country where local leaders are not yet working together in a purposeful and effective way. And although the tectonic plates of central-local relations are straining, they have not yet shifted.
But Budget 2010 could signal a further change in the landscape. After local area agreements (LAAs) and multi-area agreements (MAAs), we could be into the era of super area agreements – SAAs.
The term itself may not actually be used, but we could well see the concept of a contract between central and local government taken to a new level. SAAs would be different from what has gone before in two main ways. First, they would be more strategic and relate primarily to the core needs, mainstream business and priorities of a place – rather than just to the targets of government or issues where local agencies happened to be working together. Agreed outcomes would, therefore, be much more driven from the bottom up – although, inevitably, they would, to a degree, still need to take account of service aspirations for which central government felt it had a particular mandate.
Second, SAAs would bring real freedoms to vire funding – revenue and capital – across the boundaries of agencies in return for delivering agreed outcomes. For example, we could see the Homes and Communities Agency and Partnerships for Schools bringing their capital allocations for an area to the table, and providing increased flexibility over their use – so long as agreed outcomes are achieved. [I’ll explain in a future article why revenue funding for schools is likely to remain ring-fenced].
The freedoms may well be linked to commitments to delivering efficiency savings, but an ambitious version of SSAs could also see agencies being able to use their combined funding and asset base to leverage private funding or raise extra capital finance.
It seems unlikely that SSAs could be or would be applied across the board – at least in the first instance, since the approach raises a whole host of practical issues.
What, for example, would be the governance arrangements for managing risk and sharing accountability for assets, funding streams and service outcomes? Local strategic partnerships as non-statutory bodies are unlikely to be a robust enough vehicle for this purpose. Some are advocating the adoption of a local public service trust into which all local agencies would place their assets. It is an interesting idea, but how would it work in practice? Do agencies have the necessary powers to enable them to operate in this new, more flexible world?
At what spatial level would the new arrangements operate? Would the agreements be with top-tier authorities or sub regions – or both, according to the issue being negotiated?
Which government agencies operating in a locality would be included in the new agreements, and which excluded? What would happen to the inspection and audit regimes?
So, lots of questions and challenges, which is why we could see an enlarged group of places being invited to develop and implement the SAA concept.
Robert Hill is an independent analyst on public policy
We should not overclaim. There are still many areas round the country where local leaders are not yet working together in a purposeful and effective way. And although the tectonic plates of central-local relations are straining, they have not yet shifted.
But Budget 2010 could signal a further change in the landscape. After local area agreements (LAAs) and multi-area agreements (MAAs), we could be into the era of super area agreements – SAAs.
The term itself may not actually be used, but we could well see the concept of a contract between central and local government taken to a new level. SAAs would be different from what has gone before in two main ways. First, they would be more strategic and relate primarily to the core needs, mainstream business and priorities of a place – rather than just to the targets of government or issues where local agencies happened to be working together. Agreed outcomes would, therefore, be much more driven from the bottom up – although, inevitably, they would, to a degree, still need to take account of service aspirations for which central government felt it had a particular mandate.
Second, SAAs would bring real freedoms to vire funding – revenue and capital – across the boundaries of agencies in return for delivering agreed outcomes. For example, we could see the Homes and Communities Agency and Partnerships for Schools bringing their capital allocations for an area to the table, and providing increased flexibility over their use – so long as agreed outcomes are achieved. [I’ll explain in a future article why revenue funding for schools is likely to remain ring-fenced].
The freedoms may well be linked to commitments to delivering efficiency savings, but an ambitious version of SSAs could also see agencies being able to use their combined funding and asset base to leverage private funding or raise extra capital finance.
It seems unlikely that SSAs could be or would be applied across the board – at least in the first instance, since the approach raises a whole host of practical issues.
What, for example, would be the governance arrangements for managing risk and sharing accountability for assets, funding streams and service outcomes? Local strategic partnerships as non-statutory bodies are unlikely to be a robust enough vehicle for this purpose. Some are advocating the adoption of a local public service trust into which all local agencies would place their assets. It is an interesting idea, but how would it work in practice? Do agencies have the necessary powers to enable them to operate in this new, more flexible world?
At what spatial level would the new arrangements operate? Would the agreements be with top-tier authorities or sub regions – or both, according to the issue being negotiated?
Which government agencies operating in a locality would be included in the new agreements, and which excluded? What would happen to the inspection and audit regimes?
So, lots of questions and challenges, which is why we could see an enlarged group of places being invited to develop and implement the SAA concept.
Robert Hill is an independent analyst on public policy
Your comments
There are currently no comments, be the first!
 Back |
 Top of page |
