The Government's Budget report, outlining its strategy for Total Place, was a missed opportunity, says former pilot project director, Phil Swann.
Can the Total Place approach help councils and their partners adapt to the forthcoming reductions in public expenditure without severely damaging outcomes for local communities?
Having supported two of the Total Place pilots, I am convinced that the answer is yes. Total Place can undoubtedly help secure improved outcomes at considerably less cost.
That is certainly the case in relation to support for older people in Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole, one of the national pilots.
To judge by the national Total Place report, published alongside the recent Budget, outgoing ministers and civil servants reached a similar conclusion. Unfortunately, the detail of the previous government's response suggests a denial within Whitehall of the size of the challenge that localities face, or of the extent to which the centre must change in order to help councils to deliver. The reality is that if salami-slice cuts are to be avoided, a Total Place approach is needed everywhere. Yet, what the previous government offered was, in effect, another raft of pilots and experiments in a limited number of places.
The national report committed a future Labour Government to introducing some new freedoms – for everybody, a ‘single offer' – for the best-performing places, and an ‘innovative policy offer' – for places with expertise in particular areas. An important element of the single offer, as set out in the report, is a commitment by local agencies to a range of ambitious savings ‘above those that will be required of all areas over the next spending round'. Does any body really believe that coping with expected cuts of 25% over three years is not ambitious and can be carried out without the benefits of a Total Place approach?
The fact is that when thinking about a Total Place approach, it is best to abandon the label and focus on three principles:
