The Office for Local Government (Oflog) has received significant criticism since its inception. According to a recent survey by local government and public sector professionals members’ network Solace, only 8% of senior local authority officials hold the view that Oflog will be effective, while nearly two-thirds – 62% – agree it should be scrapped.
There are legitimate questions about Oflog’s scope, capability, the services it provides and its proximity to UK Government which must be navigated, but it is curious an emerging consensus believes it should be scrapped. This is misplaced.
Oflog has three objectives: to empower citizens; to support local authorities innovate and improve the understanding of their performance; and to increase the Government’s understanding of the sector’s performance, including identifying failing authorities. These are sensible ambitions, although Oflog’s final objective is clearly its first priority.
This is not unreasonable, given the current challenges facing local authorities, but its approach will need to mature or it risks creating the impression that identifying failing authorities is its sole objective.
For example, it is unclear how Oflog is supporting authorities to ‘innovate’. Likewise, its Data Explorer adds significant value. It has become a tool of choice among section 151 officers and is superior to the Local Government Association’s LG Inform – but it alone will not ‘empower citizens’.
The datasets Oflog visualises are also not value neutral – they are political. The information the Government collects and how it is presented involves decisions made in Whitehall.
For example, housing, the environment, anti-social behaviour and employment are areas that will feature in Oflog’s Data Explorer in the future. Is this sensible, given that on their own, authorities have limited responsibilities to address these issues?
Oflog is right to use this data to engage with at-risk authorities. It can informally share concerns with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), where it is hosted, as part of a much-needed early warning system.
It also hosts webinars, and signposts to guidance and resources to support authorities make more informed decisions and adopt best practice. These interventions add value but alone are not sufficient.
To its credit, Oflog has taken significant action to reassure authorities that it is not a regulator or a precursor to formal intervention, nor will it take a position on the necessity for intervention. Yet it is difficult to maintain that position when the DLUHC is, at the same time, publishing performance tables.
Despite these limitations, Oflog occupies a space between the LGA’s Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC) and the Government’s intervention regime. And there are a significant number of authorities that need additional support.
An independent evaluation in 2017 of the CPC programme by the Centre for Local and Regional Government describes it as ‘credible’ and ‘valued by the sector’ but suggests it does not always reach beyond its own ‘fan club’. The recommendations set out in the evaluation have only partially been taken forward and the LGA has not published a list of authorities that have not engaged with the CPC Programme.
Despite its strengths, the CPC programme occupies a different space to Oflog. It is voluntary and authorities that have significant challenges, such as Birmingham, have not engaged with it.
On the other end of the spectrum is the Government’s intervention regime. Unfortunately, the DLUHC has been particularly reactive. The Department for Education, for example, is taking action – albeit controversial and limited – to address the rising deficits in the Dedicated Schools Grant.
Prior to the Autumn Statement, it was reported that the Department of Health and Social Care was engaging with the Treasury to address NHS deficits.
Meanwhile, the DLUHC has downplayed the financial challenges facing local authorities. Secretary of state Michael Gove recently told the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee that some authorities have been ‘crying wolf’.
In this context, despite its shortcomings there is a need for Oflog. It remains a new institution and will evolve as it matures, but will need to go further than its current long-term vision.
It should place a greater emphasis on organisational learning, sharing insight and improving in-house expertise and capability. This would make Oflog better suited to support the capabilities needed for modern governance.
Alongside a stronger commitment to co-design, this would also help secure buy-in into Oflog and improve already strained central-local relations.
To safeguard the standards of service the public expect, Oflog should focus on authorities that do not meet a specified performance threshold, as well as authorities that have not engaged with the CPC Programme.
If it were on a statutory footing, it could also establish a more robust – but supportive – performance regime.
Beyond its programme of webinars, this might include issuing statutory guidance, sharing best practice, encouraging capability building, conducting more substantive performance ‘health checks’, establish a regular cycle of publications of its findings and an expectation the recommendations it makes will be adopted.
Levers available to Oflog to enforce action on recommendations should also be given consideration, where appropriate. In return, the dialogue should be multi-directional, with local authority concerns about insufficient funding, engagement with Whitehall, centralisation and a host of contributory factors that affect performance given consideration or flagged to civil servants across Whitehall.
Jack Shaw is a local government expert and affiliate researcher at the University of Cambridge’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy
X – @JackTShaw
