Online brainstorm: High Impact/High Likelihood issues

From Future of Local Services to the Public

Jump to: navigation, search

The following direct responses were given by Chief Execs in the online prioritisation exercise as to why they had rated certain issues as relatively high impact AND high likelihood

Why do you believe that (ISSUE) is a potential high impact / high likelihood issue for the delivery of local services to the public over the next 10-15 years?

A major economic, terrorist or environmental disruption prompts a rethink of local contingency planning

  • Morpeth- has just suffered a major flood. It is likely to happen again and until flood protection is in place, people will not get insured and will not be able to afford to live in the town
  • This is one of the top three issues because of the pressures flooding continually brings to the county and how this impacts on budgets, people, housing development roads and infrastructure.


A new generation of "facilitative" leaders re-energises local services and places

  • Because the leadership debate is critical to the funding and ageing debate as well as part of the apathy and democratic problem.


Apathy attacks: the double devolution agenda stalls due to citizen apathy

  • It's a constant, like the speed of light


Behavioural economics: a new understanding of social complexity and how people make choices changes the way we provide services

  • The approach has been tested to a degree in my own borough where, as a Sustainable Travel Demonstration town we have seen social marketing and linked activities bring about a real change in travel behaviour. The sorts of issues we are wrestling with - obesity, alcohol misuse, climate change - require approaches geared to individuals and their own personal motivation.
  • Fundamental to resolving the tension between demand and resources.


Devolution and local empowerment through personal and community budgeting becomes a reality

  • Citizen and Business expectations
  • Government policy direction
  • Better targeting of services
  • More effective use of resources


Digital Britain creates dividends and divides for local residents

  • It is outside the control of government, will be driven by the increased opportunities it offers and will itself drive government in a particular direction
  • A world of have and have-nots. The biggest gaps exist in terms of the elderly and the disadvantaged. Mobile phone technology is most likely to increase access to e services
  • As a growth area it is inevitable for future of the city


Funding Squeeze: with funds from central government dwindling, local areas pass more of the costs on to local residents

  • The evidence is there already - costs are being transferred to users through charges or personal budgets whilst funding of services is reduced. This trend / policy is likely to continue.
  • Costs of services will increase at a greater rate than general inflation and general prosperity.
  • With public expectation rising, and government support lagging behind inflation increases, then this gap can only be met from the local residents through taxes or charges.
  • I cannot see central government providing local government with more money and I expect central government to continue to cap local tax increase. At the same time central government will expect local government to do more. This will be a major challenge.
  • Costs will continue to increase but the amount of central govt support will reduce as local gov is not seen as a priority compared with other public sector issues.
  • It is clear that the costs of delivering public services are growing faster than the resources available to meet them. Hence the crucial importance of the efficiency agenda.
  • This is a policy trend
  • There is an increasing expectation of high quality services from residents that will need to be funded and the Government is unlikely to make what is needed available thus increases local will be necessary.
  • The current economic situation will lead to a more cautious approach at a national level - even when the upturn occurs. In addition - there is no sign that despite recent problems China and India will not continue to have a big impact on the western economies. Also - existing debt that has funded the current large, much needed investments in public services will need to be paid back.
  • The economic climate and financial situation are bound to be harsh, and more and more calls will be made for action / services by LG which can't be properly responded to unless there is a major shift in real central government attitudes to LG
  • Britain is already high cost/low value in terms of public services. This will get worse as the right-wing consensus deepens and central Govt increasingly creates excuses for cutting back on public spending.
  • We will get better and better and delivering more relevant services and understanding local needs which will help to prioritise but if we are feeding from an ever decreasing cake this will undermine these efforts
  • Government is under pressure for funding and will squeeze blame LG
  • The annual budget settlements from WAG have been very low for past few years, and are not set to improve, with deceased funds (below inflation) LA's are expected to be more efficient, and if efficiencies can't be found this will impact on service delivery, and fees and changes.
  • Because capping prevents us from passing more costs to residents, therefore we have to be constantly innovative in the face of rising expectations and shrinking resources
  • The government has paid lip service to local funding and allowing local services to control funding. To devolve power means to devolve finances. As a result, the centre continues to maintain an increasing share of the money and will continue to reduce what it gives to local government. As a result local government, to avoid increased costs, will outsource more work to the private sector. The work that cannot be outsourced will be increasingly expensive as it has to be personalised and specialised for the people who rely upon the public sector safety web.
  • Devolved government does not exist as councils continue to deal with dog fouling while the central government sets their tax rates. True place shaping as reflected in devolved budgets will occur when localities can spend all of the money in their area as their local community want.
  • The larger problem for central government is that the amount of money being sent into localities is not known and the sustainable communities act (can you say as effective as the powers of well being) will begin the process whereby people understand that the government pumps huge amounts of money into an area but not through local councils. Job seekers, health, and other spending streams overshadow what the local government can provide.
  • The impact, as government attempts to cut back its spending, is that there will be less money for local government and the public will have to pay higher prices for local government services. The reason why bin collection appears relatively cheap is that it is subsidized. Once it becomes outsourced or funded directly by taxation (beyond the bin tax idea) people will face higher individual bills where the cost is paid to local residents.
  • Increasing pressures on central government and public resistance to increases in central taxation whether direct or indirect will impact adversely on local government with more services being devolved but with inadequate funding
  • It is already happening
  • Central Govt will have an enduring budget deficit and will continue to demand more from local authorities without adequately funding them. LAs will not be able to square the circle through efficiencies alone, and so will be faced with either doing less or charging more.
  • We have no money We will have no money People think we have money They want more We cant provide more People are unhappy
  • It seems likely that there will be increasingly tight settlements from central government for the foreseeable future but that duties placed on local authorities and demands from local people for services will continue to increase. It is becoming more difficult to increase Council Tax levels but charges for specific services are likely to rise significantly in an attempt to close the gap
  • It's inevitable. There will never be a desire for higher taxes now, and the demands for funds will grow exponentially. Only by passing more costs on can the gap be lessened
  • Higher demand for services that are being cut due to national funding restrictions means the risk that disadvantaged communities become more isolated
  • I believe that services will have to become more targeted and personalised which will require more choice - choice inevitably brings with it higher costs but there is little appetite from the public to pay more in taxation. I therefore think we will move increasingly to a mixed economy with only basic service being provided at public expense and the public who can afford it having to pay or be charged for anything above that level. This is likely to be especially true in relation to social care where I suspect w will see the intense development of a private social care insurance market
  • It is clear that central government will not be in a position to improve funding to local authorities but costs for basic services such as waste collection and services for the elderly continue to increase. Local government has shown how well it can improve efficiency but the opportunities for further efficiency will stop at some stage leaving increased charging as the only way forward. Tax payers are likely to get more concerned about local costs irrespective of the method of collection.
  • The funding of local government is unsustainable in its present form and will require a considerable change in current thinking but inevitably there will be increased costs for local residents


Green energy pressures

  • Higher demand, lower supply, climate change
  • Cost and the growing costs of heating and transport
  • Longer term trend, take-off stage now, related to behaviour change and service design
  • There is increasing public awareness particularly in relation to climate change and therefore there is an expectation that we take action.
  • With rising costs and uncertainty over provision then it will also be imperative that local authorities seek adaption and mitigation measures
  • Self evident economic, environmental and social pressures
  • Rising energy costs and limited natural resources, as well as government requirements to change
  • Because the Government will be likely to force LAs to implement green energy measures and their impact is likely to be significant in terms both of investment and return
  • If global warming isn't tackled by reducing CO2 emissions - domestic, business, transport - then every thing else pails into insignificance - simply deck chairs on the titanic.


Growing ethnic, social and economic disparities increase tensions in local areas

  • The results of recent surveys lead us to believe that people from different backgrounds getting on well together is a significant issue in this area. The number of emerging non-BME communities is likely to increase rather than decrease, therefore increasing any likely impact.
  • Social mobility has decreased over the last decade. Severe disparities already exist between rich and poor areas and as finances become more squeezed, and services increasingly rationed, there is a clear likelihood that the imbalance between articulate affluence and passive poverty worsens.
  • Bolton is a very diverse borough and getting more so - whilst we will manage the tensions well, it is inevitable that this will be the case, to a degree.


Housing shortfalls cause severe pressures on local authorities and services

  • Simple demographics and economics indicate that supply is not keeping up with demand both in terms of raw numbers and the type of Housing provided.
  • Other, more underlying social issues which are not presently being addressed will continue to fuel demand. e.g. break down of the family.
  • In Christchurch, even though we have the highest percentage of unpaid carers in Dorset and the South West we still have an escalating demand for elderly person type accommodation. Building more houses is not the sole solution; the problem lies much deeper than that.
  • Because housing is the fabric of local community and availability or lack of availability has multi-layered impacts on people and communities. I think we need to move to some new form of social housing or funding for housing so that it is not seen as a ghetto.
  • Potential for polarisation increases e.g. new communities, inability to be mobile, I believe this is a time bomb which has been brewing for some time - it has different ways of demonstrating itself in different parts of the country - but the impact can still be great
  • The demand for affordable housing is increasing and our ability to respond is very limited. This will constrain the attractiveness of this to a younger workforce and hit services ability to recruit and deliver. It also has the potential to cause divisions in society and we have had recent examples of that in our area when seeking to expand the provision of affordable housing
  • This has been an ongoing issue for many years and the current credit crunch is ceasing development and lessening the ability of people to gain access to the housing market as first time buyers. This will take quite a few years to correct which makes solving the problem even more difficult.
  • If the calculations on the requirement are correct (i.e. that the demand for housing will be very high) then this is a major issue for councils to address. The current financial problems and difficulties experienced by developers are likely to have a lasting effect on their ability to have the resources to build the houses that are needed. In addition, those developers that are in a position to build houses will be reluctant to do so unless the market for their products i.e. evident. All these issues will create the severe pressure on local authorities and the services that they deliver.
  • Housing shortages cause social disruption
  • There is a major shortage of good quality affordable housing in London and the south east and this is likely to worsen as the credit crunch takes hold. An already difficult situation will therefore get even worse. This will have serious knock-on effects on public services as a result of family breakdown, mental health problems, growing poverty, increases in crime levels in the most deprived areas and downward pressure on educational attainment.
  • The quality of housing provision has a proven causal link to other aspects of people's lives. Poor quality housing will impact across the public sector. It is undoubtedly one of our major challenges
  • Affordability of housing is a significant issue already. Housing downturn is increases rental values, but house price/income ratio remains very high. Rate of development is likely to slow, contributing to housing shortages
  • In a Town like Luton the supply of housing and range of housing available probably represents the main threat to social cohesion in our area. Homelessness and/or overcrowding leads to other issues such as poor health, poor educational achievement etc. It is high likely hood for Luton because we are already in this situation and desperately looking for funding solutions and land to solve this problem
  • Already reaching limits of easily developable sites and huge pressure on housing numbers in area. Affordable housing a huge challenge.
  • Because of the exceptional London Pressures; the fact that land is running out; the tension between single person and family accommodation; the need to create more stable inner city communities; the need to see far greater integration of cohesion, safety poverty and worklessness policies within a physical housing context.
  • Our growing population and, in particular, the growing household formation rate means that supply has been struggling to cope with demand for many years. The current loss of capacity in the volume house building sector will take years to replace once the liquidity problems created by the credit crunch begin to ease. Supply is likely to fall further and further behind. This is now almost inevitable and requires more from Government than a myopic insistence that we are going to deliver 3 million new homes by 2020.
  • Problems in the affordability of housing are already apparent in the housing market. Problems in this area are likely to get worse without regulation of the mortgage market. Consequently local authorities are likely to have to get more involved in the market by the provision of rented and shared ownership properties.
  • Without a boundary review it will be very difficult for Worcester city to meet the target for affordable housing. Resulting in all housing regeneration taking place within neighbouring districts, however placing an increase demand on city services, e.g. homelessness.
  • Housing Needs Assessments demonstrate a need beyond that which would be satisfied if the RSS targets were achieved and it is highly unlikely that these will be achieved.
  • Because of land scarcity in the South East


Local Area Taxes: finance of local government revolutionised with the end of council tax

  • Relatively high levels of Council Tax provide little scope to either fund normal growth nor any desirable movement of funding from central coffers to local sources. Government will eventually have to accept local government funding needs radical reform. Clearly any such reform will have a significant impact on local accountabilities and decision making.

Online social networks and Web 2.0 reinvigorate local democracy and transforms services

  • It will lead to increased expectations of services and lifestyle, with people comparing themselves to others in different communities thousands of miles away and asking "why can't I do that".
  • If the next 15 years are anything like the last in terms of the impact (for good and ill) of the new technologies then it will herald changes that we cannot now envisage. Given the prevalence of the new technologies in the borough and amongst young people generally the potential impact is enormous. The impact on services will be greater than on democracy.


Partnership working becomes increasingly complex but real and successful

  • Because there is little we can achieve on our own even if wanted to do so and CAA will require more, but all partners will be financially stretched and may have different agendas/pressures
  • West Dorset is one of 4 national pathfinders to demonstrate multi-tier areas can work as effectively as unitaries. Partnership working is a real way of ensuring economy/ efficiency whilst maintaining the democratic and local legitimacy. One partnership on one service has proved to save £4 on the district council tax (WestWey - revenues service) and provide improved services. Just think what savings and improvements that combining all services across several areas could bring whilst maintaining the sovereignty of the individual councils. Partnership is hard work but here to stay!
  • Yes - very much the spirit of moving forward
  • Because of the results already evident in this area and the potential to build on that success
  • Because it is with us and not going away, we have to make it work


The costs of mobility mount up: fuel costs, congestion, poor infrastructure and environmental impact bring transport systems to breaking point

  • In this area we have insight into this as a reality at points through the year already but we will never be as high a priority for improvement as other areas in the country, and so as these issues becomes greater in more urban and densely populated areas, relatively our situation will reach breaking point.
  • Big increases in fuel costs will lead to big increases in the cost of providing services across a large rural county.
  • We are one of the best connected towns in England by train and road and already exhibit these signs. The recent rise in fuel costs might slow the rise slightly but the trend will continue. I do not foresee the necessary investment in infrastructure to make a difference. The adverse economic impact is likely to be substantial.
  • Because we are a predominantly rural area with low incomes. Historically low budgets / capital etc. public policy is urban driven and will continue to funnel investment that way. Scarcity is a big issue - post office closures, telephone boxes etc, areas still inaccessible by broadband due to low volumes / geography. Demographics - already a large elderly population.
  • Costs and congestion are rising dramatically and there are fewer and fewer real alternatives to address the latter. Trying to find solutions will be resource intensive and divert funds from other services
  • Because of the public's expectations of mobility and the effects of a lack of mobility on all public services. Similarly the poor state of Britain's roads is a ticking time bomb for public expenditure and national/local government relations.
  • Infrastructure already very poor, poor progress on tackling environmental issues, fuel prices dependant on global market, continued reliance on the car because of paltry public transport system.
  • Despite major increases in the cost of mobility the demand for motorised transport continues to increase. This is simply not sustainable in the long term and local infrastructure is not equipped to cope. Costs, congestion and major infrastructure changes will impact heavily on the ability to deliver local services.
  • Because we are seeing the start of it now and its only going to get worse. How we do or don't get around will impact on everything else we do.
  • Because they are already key impacts locally and I see no sign of short term improvement. Strong influences outside local control.


The culture of managerialism in central and local government inhibits creativity in shaping local services

  • Society shows an increasing desire to control and count. As soon as it becomes possible for those in power to control, they want to do so. Technology now enables collection of performance data, and imposition of central requirements. Central government see-saws between increased control control, and exhortation to increase devolution and hand control over to citizens. However, the steady trend over the last 50 years has been to take power from local government and hand back to the centre, where the rhetoric about handing control to communities remains rhetoric not reality. Innovation and creativity are lauded in theory and penalised in practice.
  • High impact because managerialism would continue to straightjacket thinking in a period when more creative and innovative approaches will be required to meet complex challenges. High likelihood because I cannot see any policy shift away from it.
  • Whilst there is a growing culture of empowering the citizen, there is increasing pressure to conform - to be at the "right" place in league tables, to compare with others in ways that do not encourage innovation. If elected members are conservative - small c is deliberate - organisations become much more risk averse. Media interest in who to blame if things go wrong encourages managers to follow rules.
  • Inspection regimes are not tackling issues of outcomes in a way that will make a real difference.
  • Centrally led inspection regimes, the prescriptive nature of the national performance indicator regime, the persistent requirement of detailed accountability via endless form filling and the administrative weight and perverse incentive that this places on public services.
  • The short-sighted nature of the political regime in pandering to the majority of voters, rather than genuinely far-sighted objective planning based on evidence. The command and control mentality which promulgates the use of national targets, league tables, and competition for ratings, based on ivory tower thinking about what is required, rather than the real life experience of the population.
  • A significant cultural shift away from command and control thinking by central government will be needed before true localism has a chance to grow. Even LAAs contain predominantly mandatory specified outcomes-how local is that?
  • The machine needs to be fed, and unfortunately, more time and money is spent feeding the accountability and control regime than is spent delivering good local services. The Audit Commission should get back to real auditing, rather than compliance testing us against their prescriptive models. These models are designed by theorists and accountants, rather than people who understand services to the public. Too much strategy and planning, not enough action. Local Government should be empowered and trusted to get on with the job.
  • Yes unless things alter radically. We spend too much time effort and energy on compiling data that is hugely costly and the value is questionable for the public.

The dependency squeeze means an ever-greater focus on service provision for the elderly, health and social care

  • Demographics show rising numbers, with increasing levels of need, e.g. dementia care. Potential impact on budget is enormous and despite innovation and efficiency improvements, will lead to need for extra spend (from other services or from Council Tax) or cuts
  • The demographics of this area mean growing disparity between rising numbers of high service dependents alongside lower numbers of economically active people. Coupled with rising life expectancy and costs attached with sustaining independent and high quality lives, this represents a realistic and extremely challenging prospect.
  • People are living longer. Looking after them will cost more and more. Even though they will tend to be healthier than old people in previous generations, the net effect will be an increase in their dependency needs.
  • In Torbay we have one of the highest proportions of over 80s. There will be increased poverty with relatively fixed incomes and the current rise in food and fuel prices. Health improvements mean living longer which will increase this dependency. Greater social mobility reduces nearness of families.
  • We are already seeing the impact - higher costs of concessionary travel; demands for different types of housing provision; a growing elderly population; inadequate pensions etc. Further challenges such as the increasing cost of fuel will particularly hit the elderly
  • We already have an elderly population and it is growing. lack of funding which recognises the need for key services for this population will drive this focus
  • We are a growth area with an expected rise of 20,000 people over the next 25 years. . The greatest rise in relative population is in the 65 + age group. Many will be self-sufficient and relatively wealthy. However a significant proportion will be as the current stats show highly dependent on local services, without family locally to support them.
  • We are facing a significant increase in the numbers of older people in our area over the next 20 years, with a major impact on budgets and the way we deliver these services.
  • Because of the increasingly elderly population in the county - Herefordshire already has over 25% of the population over 60, and it is anticipated that the number of older people will increase dramatically over the next few years due to retirements in the county.
  • Increasing elderly population will necessitate much stronger emphasis on health and social care services
  • The main reason for this belief is the previous and current impact of trends in ageing and care needs - this contributed to a particular crisis affecting the PCTs and the County Council.
  • Because I see it happening every day in my job. People are living longer; families no longer automatically look after their elderly, so the dependency culture has moved from family to state.
  • People are living longer but there is a cost in terms of health and social care. We can see the pressure on the health service to approve ever more expensive treatments to sustain life. I suspect it will not be long until this filters through into social care.
  • Population profile of Norfolk shows a higher than national increase of very dependent older people. This is where most spending pressures are coming from.
  • Current trends and forecasts.
  • Current policy and the direction it is taking.
  • Cost of dependency issues - outsourcing care provision is higher cost and invariably lower quality.
  • Increased expectations of older people (who are younger now and know what care provision is like for older people and who will not be prepared to accept it in the future and who will expect alternative good quality affordable options).
  • Because we are already seeing that impact
  • Ageing population, uncertain global and national economic situation mixed with differential impacts based on race and disability will produce unprecedented pressures on the system of care.
  • Continuation of current local and national trends. Poor health also the one of the biggest barriers to wealth generation within the working age population in Manchester.
  • The demographic shift in the population, greater expectations and the added costs of providing services for the elderly long after they can contribute to the economy will impact on the services provided by the Local Authority and the PCT.


The Petabyte revolution: the power of instant data in an information rich would presents problems and opportunities for local services

  • Not just the increasing availability of information but how we are able to analyse, report and use it will impact individual behaviour and how local government can serve people better.


The value of the ageing population is successfully harnessed through the third sector

  • Simply because there have to be solutions to the prospect of an ageing population which the third sector must inevitably be a part of. In prospect older people will generally be healthier and wealthier and a valuable asset for the sector to harness


Workforce and recruitment problems in local government and other partners undermine the quality and effectiveness of services

  • Assuming that even with the increased move to partnership working and pooled resources that public services will still rely upon employed workers to deliver a large array of local services, then the current workforce demographic across the country is such that many of these services will not be sustainable unless radical action is taken to retain older workers and to ensure the intake of younger public servants. Failure to recruit, retain and develop quality employees will have an immediate and damaging impact upon public service delivery and reputation/satisfaction from communities. Attempts to manage and minimise the risks arising from these issues are not being driven consistently across authorities and public service partners which increases the likelihood of this risk. The nature of an ageing population and less education system leavers entering public service employment underpins this or public service employment being seen as an attractive proposition does not help this issue. Finally, we must recognise that the financial position and broader economic position facing public services is such that managed workforce reductions will be necessary during this period, without losing essential skill and knowledge - to manage this, it will be imperative to remove artificial barriers to public sector employment such as non-transferable pension schemes and lack of engagement and inclusion of quality HR leadership at the most senior levels within public bodies to support other senior leaders with dealing with these issues.
  • There appears to be an inability to attract young people in general to local government, particularly young graduates.
  • There is an issue with an ageing workforce which might see the loss of experience over the next 10 years or so
  • Importing of private sector managers (if they are willing) could help, however, many will struggle to co-exist with democratic principles and politicians
Retrieved from "http://communities.ipsos-mori.com/lgawiki/index.php/Online_brainstorm:_High_Impact/High_Likelihood_issues"
Personal tools