Title

Local authorities are under immense pressure. Now, with medium-term financial strategies (MTFS) in place, council leaders are making tough decisions to ensure long-term financial stability.As AI has matured, the prospect of automating back-office admin, contact centres and process heavy workloads has offered an increasingly appetising option: plug budget deficits by trimming headcount.The costly reality only started to make itself known across town halls months after people lost their jobs. Removing human capacity in favour of early-stage AI automation has resulted in a boomerang effect.When a business replaces customer support with a primitive chatbot, it risks losing subscribers. Not ideal. But when a local authority replaces experienced housing or care officers with under-tested automated workflows, it results in what is known as failure demand. People assume the chatbots will resolve their issues. When they don't, people call repeatedly to fix issues.Councils are quickly discovering that cutting the human touch to bank instant savings through AI investment is resulting in them paying double months later to fix a system that wasn't broken in the first place.The hidden cost of AI investmentThe core mistake was treating local government transactions as simple linear processes that were suitable for full automation. Someone calling the council about tax arrears tends to overlap with housing benefit queries, mental health vulnerabilities or even the threat of homelessness. An experienced public sector worker understands this. AI, on the other hand, can't understand such nuances.A Freedom of Information request by the 4 Day Week Foundation found that when GenAI really launched into the public consciousness in 2022-23, UK councils were already spending £2.1bn a year on agency staff to keep essential services running. When headcounts have been cut to focus on AI productivity gains, councils are forced to recruit agency staff and interim contractors on emergency daily rates to clear the bottlenecks and resolve critical issues.Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) illustrate this. Local authorities tried to automate administrative support out of the assessment process and began to miss statutory deadlines. This results in Ombudsman investigations, tribunals and significant legal costs. To clear hundreds of cases, councillors have been forced to approve emergency funding allocated to temporary agency teams at premium rates.Across the UK local government operational decisions carry statutory liabilities and democratic scrutiny. Whether it's section 151 officers or service directors, they hold legal responsibilities that can't be delegated to an algorithm.So while AI can streamline case notes or draft routine correspondence with citizens of the region in question, human judgement remains a non-negotiable filter for fairness and risk management. Algorithms don't understand political context, act on subtle nuances or defend a sensitive entitlement decision before a committee.Rehiring or expanding human capacity is recognition of where the value of the public sector actually lies. AI should be freeing civil servants from routine admin and tedious number-crunching to focus on complex, high-risk casework.Hafod demonstrates this: the housing provider digitised support disbursements to cut admin time by almost 90%. There was no reduction in headcount. Instead, staff hours and financial savings were directly channelled into frontline community care.Balancing the scalesLocal government officials should reframe the approach to AI deployment. The key is to stop linking AI with reductions in headcount. The problem comes when assumed AI headcount savings are written into their budgets prior to a 12-month operational stabilisation period. Instead, AI should be evaluated on its ability to reduce local government backlogs and improve service quality.From there, track whether automated tools are actually resolving queries or are instead redirecting frustrated people into more expensive service channels. If call-backs, complaints or even tribunal appeals increase after AI has been introduced, the tool is displacing cost, rather than saving money.While the phrase is so overused it almost feels cliche at this point, digital transformation remains essential in local government, where legacy technology and processes have been in place for decades – and in some cases, longer. True efficiency doesn't come from removing human oversight from public services though. Just because something is tech-first, doesn't mean it's an improvement.Long-term financial stability will be secured by the authorities that view tech as the complement to the priceless experience brought by human judgement. Not a cheap replacement for it.James Malia is president of UK and Europe at Prezzee

Title

WORKFORCE

AI: Keeping the human touch in local government

By James Malia | 22 September 2026

Popular articles by James Malia

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING

Popular articles by James Malia