When change is planned in local government, one of the most important questions leaders, politicians and officers should ask is whether they are applying the right tests and putting the right guardrails in place to ensure it delivers better outcomes for the people we serve.
As people-based services carry the greatest share of local authority demand, budgets and workforce pressure – something which will remain unchanged before and after local government reorganisation – it is reasonable to suggest that the way we approach this critical delivery area will give us a good indication of whether we can expect success or otherwise from the changes that lie ahead.
Yet as proposals for reorganisation emerge, we can see that the debate is focused on familiar, predictable positions. Larger authorities warn of fragmentation and unsustainable costs below certain population sizes. Smaller councils talk about the power of proximity and prevention. Both sides marshal data and provide reports to make their case, but the one question that needs to be addressed most urgently is: what happens to the people at the heart of these services? By that I mean the people who need the services as much as the people who deliver them.
Let's start by looking closely at the workforce data. From the last figures I can see, in children's social work, vacancy rates sit at 17%. Agency workers represent 16% of the total workforce and cover approximately 90% of vacant posts. Adult social care is carrying more than 111,000 unfilled posts, with vacancy levels at 7% – three times higher than the wider economy and rising to more than 8% for frontline care worker roles. Demand for these services is set to soar in the decade ahead.
Councils are already drawing from the same limited pool of experienced practitioners, while geography and pay rates already have a significant impact on the ability to hire and retain the people we need.
When we put into the mix the need for each new unitary authority to have experienced leaders – directors of adult social care, directors of children's services – the gap between workforce demand and availability will become even more acute. This is before we add the negative impact that uncertainty over the location and nature of future jobs will have on attraction and retention.
People-based services can be unforgiving environments for drawn-out reform. They rely on stable teams, clear accountability and leadership that understands how decisions reverberate through families and communities.
During periods of uncertainty, predictable patterns emerge: senior leaders move on earlier than planned; talented professionals choose contract roles over permanent positions; recruitment slows as candidates wait for clarity; neighbouring councils compete harder for the same people, pushing up costs.
These are not novel risks. They are ones that have played out in each major wave of restructuring in recent years. Their impact often weighs heaviest in services that need stability to function well. Landing at a time of extensive, wider change in the system, we have to acknowledge an environment where attention, capacity and resilience are already stretched.
Another concern that should feature at the heart of this debate is the voice of the people who use these services.
For services like refuse, recycling and transport, we know there are politically visible, vocal and organised groups who know how to make themselves heard and create pressure on elected members.
It is important to be clear here. I am not arguing that we should not attempt reorganisation, nor that it is doomed to failure. I sense that structural preferences are being locked in before workforce capability, leadership capacity and risks to wellbeing are fully considered. If we get the order wrong by failing to ask the right questions at the start, the designs we put into the world will be fundamentally flawed.
But for social care and children's services, the people who depend on them most are often the least able to advocate for themselves.
Older residents who depend on home care, families working with children's services and adults with complex disabilities are not typically the people who shape structural arguments or appear in consultation responses. Yet they are the ones who feel the effects first if continuity falters, leadership gaps widen or teams lose experienced practitioners.
They are the ones directly impacted by fragmented institutional knowledge, a lack of continuity in relationships and the changing systems that accompany reform. For vulnerable people, continuity is not simply a matter of operational convenience; it shapes outcomes. It is an area where even a short period of uncertainty can increase risk.
It is important to be clear here. I am not arguing that we should not attempt reorganisation, nor that it is doomed to failure. I sense that structural preferences are being locked in before workforce capability, leadership capacity and risks to wellbeing are fully considered. If we get the order wrong by failing to ask the right questions at the start, the designs we put into the world will be fundamentally flawed.
So how should we approach this? I think there are three questions which should frame what we do.
The first is whether this reflects actual demand in our communities. Not theoretical models of need, but the real patterns of complex, cross-cutting challenges that families and vulnerable adults present.
The second is whether we can staff it sustainably with the people we have, the people we can realistically attract and the ongoing capacity for leadership as the current generation moves toward retirement or leaves the workforce.
Lastly, we should consider whether it strengthens or fragments workforce resilience. By that I mean whether colleagues have peers to learn from, managers to develop them and career pathways that keep them in the sector.
The answers to these questions might sometimes support smaller authorities. They might sometimes support larger ones. But they will always be specific to place, rooted in evidence rather than assumption and focused on deliverability rather than dogma.
So, while it is tempting to see reorganisation in terms of boundaries, the services we are reorganising are about the lives of people, often underheard, who depend on us getting this right.
And for that reason, the needs of people, not maps and optimal population boundaries, are what most deserve our attention.
Pam Parkes is president of the Public Services People Managers' Association
