Alternative Service Delivery in Rural Areas (RE0260) Interim Report Countryside and Community Research Institute, the Rural Services Network and Rose Regeneration Contact author: Professor Nigel Curry: ncurry2@glos.ac.uk Prepared May 2013 Published November 2013

Alternative Service Delivery in Rural Areas INTERIM REPORT Section Page CONTENTS 1 1. Introduction Report purpose 2 Report structure 2 2. Summary of findings Different models of rural service delivery 3 Barriers to the development of alternative service delivery models 4 Some preliminary good practice examples of service delivery outside of local authorities 5 Identifying economic issues relating to outsourcing by rural authorities 6 Identifying cultural components influencing alternative delivery models 7 Stakeholder evaluations of alternative delivery models. 7 Commentary on the early findings 8 3. The policy context for rural service delivery Introduction 9 Reforming public services 9 Enabling local action 10 Accounting for social value 12 Devolving more public expenditure 12 Accessing funds and resources 13 Thinking Rural 15 Concluding Comments 16 4. A review of practice Introduction 18 Changes in the service delivery landscape 19 Emerging new models of delivery 19 Indicators of success 23 Barriers to Success 24 Value for Money 25 Other information 26 5. Perspectives on alternative rural service delivery from the literature The scope of public service delivery 27 From ‘welfarist’ to alternative service provision 28 Service delivery and citizenship 28 Service delivery and sustainable development 30 Service delivery and ICT 31 6. Empirical assessment of alternative service delivery Introduction 33 Overall results 33 Filtered results and cross-tabulations 44 Non-standard responses 46 7. Case Study Selection Parameters 48 The case studies 48 8. References 51 Appendix 1 – Practice review web sources 54 Appendix 2 - The call for evidence questions 76 Appendix 3 - Individual questionnaire responses for the 12 case studies 81

1

1. INTRODUCTION Report purpose CCRI, working with the Rural Services Network and Rose Regeneration, has been commissioned by Defra to research alternative service delivery in rural areas, with a particular focus on approaches involving civil society (i.e. the voluntary and community sectors - VCS). This interim report for the project contains the results of a Rapid Evidence Assessment designed as a scoping exercise and as a means of identifying case study service delivery approaches for subsequent in depth study. It has addressed the first core objective of the study as a whole: to provide up-to-date evidence demonstrating a number of successful alternative approaches to public service delivery in rural areas. In so doing provides information for informing best practice in the delivery of rural services. Report Structure The Rapid Evidence Assessment has a number of elements that are reported here. Section 2 provides a summary of the main findings of the Rapid Evidence Appraisal structured thematically to address the issues in the brief. A brief commentary on these early findings is offered. Section 3 provides a review of current policy as it pertains to rural service delivery as a means of helping to define the parameters for the development of good delivery practice. It covers public service reform, the development of local action, accounting for social value, the devolution of public expenditure, and accessing funds and resources. It concludes with an assessment of the specific rural consequences of these policy sets. Section 4 then reviews current practice through an exploration of web-based sources. The service delivery landscape briefly is reviewed, before a taxonomy of delivery models is developed. Indicators and barriers of success are articulated and value for money considerations also are offered. Section 5 then provides a brief review of the critical literature relating to shifts in service delivery modes and indeed services themselves. From an introduction to how rural service delivery can be interpreted, shifts in welfarist delivery models are reviewed in the context of citizenship, sustainable development and developments in information and communications technology. Section 6 provides the results of an empirical enquiry into alternative service delivery by reporting on nearly 200 responses to a questionnaire about a range of aspects of rural service delivery. This allows much of the review work in the previous three sections to be tested empirically and also allows the articulation of benefits and problems. The results are analysed in a number of different groupings (for example by region) and the enquiry as a whole is used to identify a set of case studies for closer study. Section 7 describes the criteria and filters used for the identification of 12 case studies for closer investigation. The whole of the research team has made a contribution to this report.

2

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Different models of rural service delivery. Different types of delivery model for rural services have been high on the Coalition agenda, since at least the Prime Minister’s head of policy development, Paul Kirby, was appointed in February 2011 (he stepped down in January 2013). His blueprint for public service reform, entitled Payment for Success (written in 2010 whilst he was at KPMG) called for wholesale public service liberalisation as a means of cutting the cost of public service providers. He is quoted in the Guardian of 21 February 2011: "the boundaries between public, private and third sector (service) provision should melt away ........ this empowerment agenda will have to be forced on to public sector organisations in the early stages to break the tendency to structural inertia". In this context, the Rapid Evidence Assessment has uncovered eleven separately identifiable models of rural service delivery, set out in full below and considered further in section 4 of this report. This classification is valuable for explanatory purposes, but in practice, individual services can show characteristic that draw for more than one of these models. The range of delivery types in practice therefore, invariably is more subtle than this classification, and an evaluation of 12 case studies in more depth in the second part of this research will throw more light on this subtlety.

• Commissioning services externally – where the designers and funders are not necessarily the providers of services but were historically or could have undertaken service delivery in-house. This involves a shift from services per se (and technical processes of analysis, procurement and performance review) to outcomes for end users. In the future, there could also be an expansion from commissioning specific services to commissioning across councils or on a corporate basis.

• Social enterprise – businesses operating on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. They trade for a social or environmental purpose but have clear rules about what they do with its profits (for example, not seeking to maximise shareholder return) and generate their income by selling goods and services rather than relying upon grants to stay afloat.

• Partnership (joint ventures, strategic partnerships) – the partnering of local

authorities with other public, private and voluntary/community sector organisations or a mix of these sectors. Unlike PPP or PFI which focus upon capital intensive activity, these formal arrangements between a public body and other organisation/s have expanded to many areas of work – from the transfer of back office functions to specific services.

• Shared services – where local authorities work across administrative boundaries,

join up departments and/or merge services with neighbouring councils.

• Co-operative councils – an emphasis on re-designing the way a council works by incorporating a co-operative ethos into its relationship with staff, communities, service users and providers. Presented as an alternative to traditional notions of outsourcing and as an extension of the Big Society focus on voluntarism, this approach establishes a way of working that enables residents/service users to become active participants rather than passive recipients.

• Mutuals and co-operatives – organisations that are owned and controlled by their

members, who may be employees, organisations or consumers. Established to meet shared needs and run on a democratic basis, these organisations may have

3

left the public sector (a process called ‘spinning out’) but continue to deliver public services.

• Internal transformation – the redesign of services or activities currently provided

in-house.

• Outsourcing – subcontracting processes, services and/or whole operations to a third party organisation while retaining overall ownership and ultimate responsibility.

• Direct delivery by local authority - including in-sourcing, where services that have

been out-sourced are returned to direct provision to respond to changing public policy, to join up services at a neighbourhood level and/or have the flexibility to shift resources quickly to respond to local need.

• Private companies – can be sole trader companies or franchises where the

business successfully tenders for contracts. Through ‘open market consultancy’ i.e., word of mouth contacts, service users and providers obtain external support.

• Co-production – a way of designing and delivering services in an equal and

reciprocal relationship between staff, people who use services, and their families, friends and neighbours. This can take place at many levels: between two people, at the level of a service, or to transform how organisations are run and what services are commissioned.

Barriers to the development of alternative rural service delivery models. In exploring these alternative delivery models within the Rapid Evidence Assessment, a number of barriers or challenges to their implementation have been uncovered. The salient of these are summarised here and reference is made to the section of the report in which they are discussed more fully.

• Many rural councils and other delivery organisations are small and lacking in capacity for the delivery of some services. This can limit diversity and choice. This is despite the fact that the Open Public Services White Paper recognises the specific service needs of rural areas, particularly in relation to the principle of fairness. Our empirical review of alternative delivery mechanisms does show some slight regional variations in delivery, but form this work there are no evident differences in the characteristics of service delivery by different type of rural area (S3, S6).

• Small rural district authorities with the smallest budgets run the risk of reaching a financial tipping point where their viability is questionable (S3)

• Some rural areas can be unattractive to independent service providers because,

whilst service needs might be high, the volume of demand might be low. (S3).

• The Heseltine Review could push more public funding locally into economic development at the expense of both social needs and rural areas (S3).

• Inflexible procurement and commissioning processes can limit service viability

(S4).

• In some areas there is a lack of time and finance to develop new service models, and putative providers can be risk averse (S4).

• The diversity of delivery models can lead to service fragmentation (S4).

4

• Services increasingly are becoming demand driven rather than needs driven. (S4).

• There can be a reluctance to become involved partnership working in places

where rural issues are not high on the public policy agenda (S4).

• Some small local enterprises can be vulnerable in standard tendering processes, particularly in relation to their call on technical skills and to price (S4).

• There are widely reported problems in securing operational funding (S6).

• Finding and/or retaining volunteers is a problematic issue for some service

providers (S6).

• There is often a lack of expertise in developing new delivery models in all sectors (S6).

• Procedures and red tape are often seen as limits to progress (S6).

Some preliminary good practice examples of service delivery outside of local authorities The Rapid Evidence Assessment has uncovered instances of good practice in alternative service delivery, in addition to the findings of the primary questionnaire reported n section 6. Instances of these are set out below and they are considered more fully in section 4 the report. We note that the inherent capacity of rural areas is strong given their heritage of developing village design statements, parish plans, village appraisals and the like. Volunteering is stronger in rural areas than in urban ones.

• Central Surrey Health – the first social enterprise to come out of the NHS, set up in 2006, run by 700+ nurses and therapists delivering nursing services to 280,000 people in Surrey (website: http://www.centralsurreyhealth.nhs.uk/page/index)

• GLL – established in 1993 to run leisure centres in Greenwich. Since 1996 GLL has expanded to run all kinds of community services and spaces across the UK (e.g. libraries and playgrounds) Website: http://www.gll.org/b2b/pages/welcome-to-gll

• Hackney Community Transport - social enterprise established in 1982 to provide

low cost minibuses for local community groups. In 2011/12, HCT had 700 employees, 12 depots spread across London, Yorkshire, Humberside, the South West and Channel Islands, a fleet of 370+ vehicles and a turnover of £28.6 million.

• Village Agents – aims to bridge the gap left by the lack of local networks for

isolated people in rural areas and provide a focal point for help and assistance between people in the community and statutory and/or voluntary organisations. The Village Agents promote services and identify needs for individuals that are not currently being met. Various schemes operate across England, normally administered by Rural Community Councils.

• Social Enterprise UK was approached in 2012 by a group of elderly people whose

retirement village has been repeatedly bought and sold by private equity companies. Following the collapse of the company that most recently owned the village, the residents now aim to turn the village into a resident-owned co-operative. There is every reason to believe they will be successful (source: the

5

shadow state – a report by Social Enterprise UK - http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/uploads/files/2012/12/the_shadow_state_3_dec1.pdf).

Good practice examples taken together can provide generic insights into the practice of alternative delivery models. Common characteristics that have been noted in section 4 include:

• that successful services are both needed and used; • that successful services have evolved out of and/or have ongoing support from

(severally) local authorities, heath authorities, rural community councils and other public and voluntary bodies

• that these enterprises have been set up in response to reductions in funding and/or service redesign in the public sector and/or gaps in the field;

• they commonly deliver services which are scalable and can be increased with little additional infrastructure;

• many of them started at a micro level/in a locality and are sustainable and well established/mature;

• they make a tangible difference to people’s lives (i.e., supporting the ‘hard to reach’, isolated, elderly, sick etc to remain living in their own home, to feel more able to ask for help and support after the initial contact, to make informed choices because they have been able to access some support to aid their decision-making).

Identifying economic issues relating to outsourcing by rural authorities A number of economic issues have been indentified within the report and the salient are summarised here. Reference is made to the section in the report were they are discussed more fully.

• The practitioner literature pays considerable attention to the distributional consequences of new service delivery spend in terms of who benefits and who loses under new service delivery models. Commonly, the gainers and losers are quite different under different delivery models (S4).

• In some instances outsourcing is seen as giving control to the local authority to

demand and expect an excellent service to be delivered at a mutually beneficial cost (requiring good governance, commissioning processes and ongoing review). Despite this, in many cases, there is seen to be a reluctance on the part of authorities to undertake outsourcing. This partly derives from a view that the state is an entity with its own purpose (a public provider rather than a market provider) rather than a distributor of money to a series of services; and a view that wider social and environmental goals need to be used sparingly but applied consistently as well as the economic case (S4).

• Some of the literature suggests that outsourcing is not new and was established long before the word ‘outsourcing’ was invented (e.g. motorway building) - from Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) in the 1990s, to Best Value in the 2000s, to the operational efficiency approach now (S4).

• The Public Services (Social Value) Act of 2012 requires services to be procured through ‘best value’ rather than least cost, which allows, in principle, the additional costs of rural service delivery (relative to urban delivery) to be taken into account (S3).

• The Community Infrastructure Levy offers some potential for the diversion of funds from development into things relating to local needs (S3).

6

• The Big Lottery Transforming Local Infrastructure fund offers scope for the

support of rural service delivery (S3).

• At a national level, research by the CBI ‘Open Access: delivering quality and value in our public services’ 2012 identifies six ways for the Government to achieve the best results from its open public services programme: (1) express a clear vision for how public sector markets will operate in the future; (2) create a transparent marketplace to enable commissioners to compare providers; (3) establish mechanisms to address provider failure and ensure service continuation; (4) promote contracts that focus on outcomes; (5) ensure the public sector has the right mix of commercial skills; and (6) create effective government engagement with all types of provider (S4).

Identifying cultural components influencing alternative delivery models In the practitioners’ survey (S4) it was recognised that a cultural change is necessary for the delivery of alternative service delivery models. There is a claimed reluctance among some civil/public servants to end majority state provision which needs to be worked through (e.g. some re-skilling and retraining may be required to assist in the shift in practice). Local authorities that have already made this shift in practice (from service providers to service specifiers) are viewed as being more receptive and supportive towards alternative service delivery models than those local authorities that are wedded to traditional in-house delivery approaches. In the field, working with partners, involving service users, building community capacity, having champions and oversight were seen as a critical part of this culture change. The case studies in part two of the research will examine more closely the cultural adjustments that have been made in individual projects, and found to be useful in the development of the service. . Stakeholder evaluations of alternative delivery models Finally, by way of summary, a number of extant evaluations of alternative delivery models have been undertaken and these are considered fully in section 4. The more salient of these are set out below.

• The Plunkett Foundation 2012 ‘a better form of business – community owned village shops’ makes the case for growth, citing the size and scale of community shops and their low failure rate (i.e., of the 286 shops that have ever opened only 13 have closed).

• ‘Pubs and places – the social value of community pubs’, produced by IPPR in 2012 explores the state of the pub trade and cites the Pub is the Hub as example of a successful scheme.

• The Community Transport Association’s State of the Sector in England report

2012 reviews a number of case studies.

• A report on reducing rural isolation prepared for the Big Lottery Fund (2011) explores the role of voluntary and community sector as a provider of services that address rural isolation, with Village Agents cited as a successful project.

• A self assessment approach for local authority staff to use alongside in-house

evaluation processes, highlights alternative service delivery models (i.e., Choices for Change - a toolkit for exploring alternative methods of delivering services produced by Museums Galleries Scotland in 2010).

7

• Reform of public services has been broken down by central Government

department (into a scorecard) covering accountability, flexibility and value for money (e.g. 2012 reform scorecard). The practitioner review has recorded models and examples rather than evaluation (S3.

Commentary on the early findings The research so far suggest that there are both successes and problems associated with alternative service delivery and success is influenced by the personalities, skills and motivations of those driving service change. Success also appears to be influenced by the type of delivery model chosen within its specific context. In this regard ‘good practice’ must be judged by its context as well as in terms of the specific model chosen. Success itself tends to be considered in terms of the volume of use (and financial viability) of the service, rather than the level of need. There is some reluctance on the part of some rural local authorities to move service provision into different types of delivery model and smaller and more remote authorities are likely to be less well served by most forms of delivery, than larger more populated ones, relative to direct authority provision. Because of this and the fact that most delivery models tend to cater for demands rather than needs, inequalities in service provision are likely to increase. The notion of what constitutes a rural service is likely to broaden.

8

3. THE POLICY CONTEXT FOR RURAL SERVICE DELIVERY Introduction This section provides an overview of the changing national policy context for the research, outlining recent legislation, White Papers and national documents which are or soon will be shaping service delivery in the rural areas of England. It is recognised that the picture at local or sub-national levels will be quite varied: policies will play out in different ways according to their interpretation and delivery by local actors in the statutory, private and civil society sectors. Nonetheless, there are certain policy directions determined at a national level which will have a bearing on service delivery approaches in all types of rural (and urban) area. Reforming public services Public service reform has been promulgated actively by central government for over a decade and the Coalition Government has made clear that it is also one of its priorities. Its ambitions are to give people more control over the services they receive and to open up service delivery to new providers. This shift is expected to lead to greater innovation, improved productivity and better value for money. The approach was set out in the Open Public Services White Paper (Cabinet Office, 2011), which described five guiding principles:

• choice – offering service users more choice to meet their (rising) expectations; • decentralisation – having decisions taken at the most local level that is

appropriate; • diversity – opening up service delivery to a range of providers from different

sectors; • fairness – ensuring that users have fair access to services; and • accountability – driving up quality and value for money both for users and

taxpayers. The Open Public Services White Paper sets the strategic direction which is now being put into practice in areas such as healthcare and education. The Health & Social Care Act 2012 aims to put local clinicians at the centre of the NHS commissioning process. Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) took over from Primary Care Trusts in April 2013 as the bodies purchasing services on behalf of their populations. The Act also legislates so that patients can choose a service which best meets their needs and it sets up local patient organisations, called Healthwatch, to provide user input to service design and delivery. In education, Academy Schools are being further encouraged and there is a new model known as Free Schools, whereby parents, teachers and charities are able to open schools in response to local demand. The first Free Schools are due to open during 2013. Such schools have a considerable degree of autonomy and local education authorities are to restrict themselves to a more strategic role. Another example is social care, where users are being given more control over the services they receive through direct payments and personal budgets. Direct payments are cash given to users which they must spend on eligible community care services1. Personal budgets – the roll out of which is due to complete in 2013 – are funding allocations give to users after they have their needs assessment, which they can either use as direct payments or can leave with their local authority to spend on their behalf.

1  Services provided by local authorities are not deemed eligible under the direct payment rules. 

9

Rural assessment: the White Paper helpfully makes explicit reference to rural as an issue which is relevant to the principle of fairness. It says, “There are important issues of fairness for people in rural areas accessing individual services, including ensuring that there is sufficient diversity to give people meaningful choice and targeting funding to address the higher cost of providing services in remote areas ...” The principle of decentralisation could also be seen as broadly helpful, since it implies more decision making at a spatial level closer to rural communities. More decisions should be taken, for example, by individual schools and by CCGs. Decentralisation might also be taken to mean an enhanced role for the very local tier of government – parish and town councils – which are present across most rural areas. Government Ministers certainly express a wish to see this happen. Many local councils and rural civil society organisations can be characterised as small and lacking in capacity, so in practice their ability to take on that role will vary. Capacity may similarly act as a constraint to the principle of diversity, though undoubtedly there is a key role for non-statutory organisations to plug gaps in rural service provision. Where they do, they may prove notably adaptable to local rural circumstances. The principle of choice is perhaps the most problematic in a rural context. Where service provision is already financially challenging, because of costs associated with delivery in sparse or remote areas, it is less likely to appeal to new entrants from the private or civil society sectors, so creating opportunities for choice may prove hard. There is a risk that new entrant providers cherry pick the easier and cheaper task of service delivery in urban centres, whilst steering clear of rural areas. Enabling local action The flagship piece of legislation encouraging more community activism and more decision making at a neighbourhood level is the Localism Act 2011, and the various Regulations since which have brought the measures it introduced into force. From the perspective of this research, some of the Community Rights are particularly interesting. The Community Right to Challenge enables a community group or a parish/town council which believes it could run a public service better than the current provider to submit an expression of interest to take over its delivery. Employees in those services can also use this power, if they wish to run it as a mutual organisation. This right is applicable to various services (including statutory services2) which are generally the responsibility of principal local authorities or fire and rescue authorities. A bid may be to run a service across the (administrative) area where it’s currently delivered or it can be just to run it in a particular place e.g. a parish council’s area3. The Community Right to Bid relates to assets rather than services per se, though the assets may be key (as premises) to local service delivery. It tries to address concerns that valued land and buildings can easily be lost through private sales or public disposals. Community groups can nominate an asset with ‘social value’ – a building or piece of land – to their local planning authority (district, borough or unitary council) requesting it be put on a register of ‘community assets of value’. That asset may currently be in the hands of a public authority or a private business. If accepted for the register, the community group gains a purchasing opportunity should the asset come up for sale or disposal. The community group can at that stage invoke a six month delay, allowing it to try and pull together a bid (alongside any other interested bidders).

2  In the case of statutory services, whilst actual delivery may be taken on by a community group, the accountability for that delivery still resides with the statutory body. 3  In which case the existing provider will continue to deliver in the rest of the administrative area. 

10

Neighbourhood planning powers, introduced by the Localism Act, should also be of relevance4. For example, communities drawing up a Neighbourhood Plan can write planning policies for their area which make it easier to develop community buildings and amenities (and they can seek to protect existing service outlets, community buildings or amenities from a change of land use). Moreover, a Neighbourhood Development Order (for parish and town councils) or a Community Right to Build Order (for other community groups) may be used to grant planning permission for a specified type of development on a specific site, which could include any of those mentioned above. Finally, under the banner of new freedoms and flexibilities, the Act seeks to encourage further innovation among principal local authorities by giving them a General Power of Competence. This allows them to do anything an individual can do5 provided it is not in breach of some other law. Rural assessment: it might be hypothesised that rural communities will make proportionately greater use of the new localism measures than their urban counterparts. Most have an existing governance structure with a parish/town council; many have some experience of asset management or of running very local services; survey results show that levels of volunteering are typically above the national average; and surveys also show residents having a strong sense of belonging to place and community. There may also be a push factor, in that rural communities often say they feel distant from the levers of power and want more say when it comes to decision making. In some cases losses (or threatened losses) of marginal services in rural areas may also spur communities into action. To-date there are probably too few examples of take-up of the Community Rights to allow this to be tested. Evidence about neighbourhood planning does lend some credence to support the expected rural focus, though it should not be over-stated. Moreover, the take-up of neighbourhood planning is variable geographically i.e. clustered, which may indicate that communities learn from and follow each other. As various commentators have pointed out6, different rural communities have differing capacities (time, skills, etc) to engage with the localism agenda. There is a risk the most able communities make the best use and the least able are left behind – at least, unless they can access external support and resources. It may also be (and there seems to be anecdotal evidence of this) that the larger rural communities with active and better resourced town councils are greater adopters of localism powers than are smaller rural communities. Larger communities may create more ambitious and wider ranging Neighbourhood Plans than those typically created by smaller communities. One of four areas chosen in 2010 by central Government for financial and other support under its Big Society Vanguard initiative is in a highly rural setting – Eden Valley in Cumbria. The main focus in Eden has been on developing Neighbourhood Plans and it is home to the first place in the country to complete one7.

4  For reasons of space, neighbourhood planning is not explained in any detail in this note. 5  It is worth noting that this does not give new tax raising powers, since an individual cannot raise tax. 6  For example, Mark Shucksmith in his Future Directions in Rural Development report, in 2012 for the Carnegie UK Trust. 7  The Upper Eden Neighbourhood Plan, which covers 17 parishes, passed its referendum on 7th March 2013 and was adopted by Eden District Council in April. 

11

Accounting for social value A potentially important piece of legislation is the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. This took full effect in January 2013, so public sector commissioners and procurers of services8 must now adhere to it. The Act, for the first time, places a duty upon public bodies to consider social value before they reach the point of procuring via contracts or framework agreements9 (albeit in a “proportionate” way). It states that “the authority [public body] must consider:

• how what is proposed might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area: and

• how, in conducting the process of procurement, it might act with a view to securing that improvement.”

The intention is that, by considering social value at an early stage (that is, pre-procurement when services are being conceived, designed and specified) it will inform the procurement process. Procurers might re-think the outcomes they seek and the types of services they commission. Commissioners are encouraged to take a value for money approach, rather than a simple lowest cost approach. The Act also asks procurers to “consider” consulting during the pre-procurement stage. Rural assessment: the Act, therefore, has considerable potential to determine things such as the design of a service or the criteria that will be used to assess tenders for its delivery. Given that services may be in particular need of tailoring to suit local rural circumstances, the Act could prove useful. Moreover, it may be that procurement which lays emphasis upon local rural factors is more likely to suit delivery organisations based in those areas. For example, consideration of social value could lead a procurer to break up a large contract into a number of smaller ones. Public bodies must consider (or measure) public value across their entire administrative area, even if the proposed service will be delivered to just part of that area. In very mixed or large administrative areas the extent to which this will enhance benefits for local rural communities is therefore debateable. Rural considerations could be played down by comparison with urban considerations. Nor can tendering be restricted to local organisations/businesses; that would be in breach of competition law. Devolving more public expenditure In October 2012 the wide-ranging Heseltine Review submitted an independent report, No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth, to the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). The Government’s response (March 2013) accepted most of its recommendations, with some decisions and detail to be decided through the upcoming Comprehensive Spending Review. This Review aimed to set out a comprehensive economic plan to improve the UK’s ability to create wealth. However, its prime relevance to research on service provision are its beliefs in the potential of local leadership and in the long-term impact that decisions on issues such as housing, transport, education and welfare have on economic prosperity. It therefore makes the case for a large-scale devolution of funding from central to local government.

8 This includes contracts for both services and goods, so long as the service element is financially the main component i.e. more than half the cost. 9 The Act applies to public service contracts and framework agreements which are subject to the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, though its principle could be applied elsewhere as good practice. 

12

As partnerships of local business and civic leaders, the 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships or LEPs (suitably upgraded) are seen as the bodies whose: “work can build on local strengths, in rural as well as urban areas, and identify barriers to growth”. It says that Whitehall Departments should identify their spending which supports growth and release that to a single pot allocation to be held locally. Single pot budgets would offer flexibility and better enable the leveraging-in of private sector investment. Individual allocations to LEP areas should follow a competitive bidding process. LEPs would use this money to drive long term strategies and business plans that they would draw up for their areas. In its response the Government has agreed the principle of transferring many functions to the local level from 2015 onwards and that a Single Local Growth Fund should be set up, with moneys to be allocated to LEPs and their partners using a mix of “negotiation and competitive tension”. Current funding for housing, transport and skills is cited in this regard. The Government has also agreed that LEPs should produce multi-year strategic plans and that EU funding should be simplified and aligned with those plans (this to include the Rural Development Fund for England). Rural assessment: there are at least three aspects of interest. One is that having more devolved decision-making about public expenditure on services and assets could mean that greater account is taken of local, including rural, circumstances. That, though, may depend on the make-up of LEP boards and whether they contain a sufficiently strong rural voice. Second is that the creation of single pot funding could result in more joined-up thinking and delivery that is better suited to rural needs. It is widely recognised that delivery across traditional silos can bring particular benefits in rural areas. However, there is an obvious risk that LEPs focus on more eye-catching larger urban initiatives for their strategies and their competitive bids. The third aspect is that nationally more funding may become channelled through and allocated (to LEPs) by BIS. Defra will want to make sure that this does not disadvantage (however, inadvertently) rural areas. The quality of bids put together by the more rural LEPs could become a crucial factor. Important, too, will be the detail (and rural proofing) of criteria drawn up to assess bids. One can say that in practice there will almost certainly be some rural winners and losers from these reforms. Accessing funds and resources Funding for public services is under considerable downward pressure, with Government making the task of reducing public sector borrowing a top priority. Its 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review set out the framework for lowering public sector expenditure over the period 2011 to 2015. Local authority revenue budgets are being slimmed by 24% and most areas of government spending are similarly affected (e.g. Department of Transport -21% and Home Office -23%), though both healthcare (zero) and education (-3%) have been relatively protected. The way local government finance operates is also undergoing significant change, as a result of the Local Government Finance Act 2012. This includes the introduction from 2013/14 of a Business Rates Retention Scheme. Local authorities will retain half10 the Business Rate revenue they collect (the remainder going into a central pot for redistribution). To incentivise growth they will also be able to retain, as additional

10 Districts will keep 40%, counties will receive 9%, and fire and rescue authorities will receive 1%. 

13

funding, 50% of all new Business Rate revenue that is collected from businesses which start up or expand in their area in future11. In a similar vein, under the New Homes Bonus local authorities have started receiving matched funding from central Government to add to any increase in their Council Tax revenue arising from new housing. Matched funding will be received for a period of six years after the housing is built. Government has set aside £668 million for the New Homes Bonus in 2013/14 and this sum is expected to grow quite quickly, becoming a significant source of local authority income. Community Budgets are a way for local public service providers to pool their spending in an area, in order to try and achieve better outcomes. The Government hopes this will enable new approaches and better designed services, including those based around shared assets, shared staff and the like. It builds upon the experience of pilot projects begun in 2011. Section 106 Agreements are now being partially replaced by a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which most local planning authorities are setting up. It sets a standard local level of charge (determined by floor space) for new housing, retail and commercial development. Most of the money raised is retained by the local planning authority, to help fund specified (in its CIL policy) services infrastructure e.g. roads, and schools. When development takes place in an area with a parish or town council, either 15% or 25%12 of the money gets passed on directly to that local council, who may spend it on anything relating to local needs arising from the development. Funding from other sources which is worth noting includes:

Transforming Local Infrastructure: a Big Lottery programme (£30 million in 2012) to help local infrastructure organisations improve the support they offer frontline community and voluntary bodies who deliver or who could deliver services;

Advice Services Transition Fund: another Big Lottery programme, with £65 million and providing grants to some 300 partnerships of local not-for-profit bodies who give advice to communities on issues such as welfare, housing, debt and employment. Grants enable them to adapt and improve their efficiency;

Innovation in Giving Fund: £10 million managed by NESTA, which backs ideas that aim to encourage volunteering and charitable giving;

Social Action Fund: £24 million managed by the Social Investment Business, which funds organisations that create community action opportunities; and

Community First: £80 million managed by the Community Development Foundation, which match-funds projects in areas of low social capital13.

However, it is widely reported that principal local authorities, with their reducing budgets, are cutting back the financial support that they make available to community and voluntary sector organisations, as well as to parish and town councils. DCLG has made small grants funding available to communities to help them use the Community Rights and neighbourhood planning, and it has further funded certain support organisations to offer advice and assistance to those local communities. Rural assessment: the overall reductions in public expenditure in principle affect rural and urban areas alike. It could be that when pressed providers choose to shut their

11 There is a third element, which is a safety net to halt a significant decline in revenue where there is economic decline e.g. as a result of major business closures. 12 The 25% figure is for areas which have an adopted Neighbourhood Plan, otherwise the 15% figure applies. In areas with no local council the local planning authority should reach some agreement with the impacted local community about how the money is spent.   13 £30m targets the most deprived wards and £50m goes towards a more widely available endowment fund. 

14

more marginal rural service outlets or it could be they work hard to maintain rural access by making any closures in the urban areas where populations can reasonably reach alternative outlets. There is, though, one argument articulated that small rural district authorities with the smallest budgets could reach a financial tipping point where their organisational viability is questionable. Equally of interest is the spatial pattern of funding distributed to individual local authorities (as Revenue Support Grant or RSG). Rural local authorities receive around two-thirds as much RSG (per head of population) as urban local authorities towards revenue funding their service provision. As part of changes to the formula used for RSG from 2013/14 DCLG has increased the weighting it gives to population sparsity and it has added a further small one-year sparsity payment. These gains, however, are offset by other formula changes which benefit more urban areas, especially in the south. Both the Business Rates Retention Scheme and the New Homes Bonus are expected to have mixed impacts on funding for rural local authorities. Some in growing areas or with available sites for business parks may gain. Others in more peripheral locations, with lots of protected landscape or with few larger settlements may lose out. CIL offers a new funding source for parish and town councils. Some, such as larger town councils with sizeable development sites, could receive quite large sums for them, much of which may be put towards capital projects to improve local services. The spatial pattern of this income stream should be akin to that for the New Homes Bonus. Indeed, it should be possible for local planning authorities to set higher CIL levels (payable by developers) in faster growing areas. Community Budgets could be especially useful in a rural context, where joint working between service providers and the redesign of services to meet rural circumstances may be particularly appropriate. A fair proportion of the organisations which have benefited from Transforming Local Infrastructure funding are based in shire areas and they include a few members of the Rural Communities Action Network. It cannot, though, be assumed that shifting funding from the statutory sector to the civil society sector will automatically be to the benefit of rural communities. Civil society organisations may similarly find it administratively easier, less costly and more attractive to focus their efforts on large or headline projects (invariably urban) than on lots of small projects (invariably rural). Thinking rural In 2012 the Government produced a Rural Statement which set out its priorities for rural areas and related rural-specific policy actions or initiatives. One of its three priorities was ‘quality of life’, which it described as “rural people [having] fair access to public services and to be actively engaged in shaping the places in which they live”. This covers local authorities delivering services effectively on the ground and local communities addressing needs which they identify. One specific concern is improving broadband and mobile phone connectivity in rural areas: the Rural Statement cites the actions and funding under the Rural Broadband Programme (BIS), the Rural Community Broadband Fund (Defra) and the Mobile Infrastructure Project (DCMS). It also cites rural actions or initiatives on (amongst other things) community transport, post offices, libraries, healthcare and community renewables. Defra also can point to the funding it provides, under a four year agreement, to Action with Communities in Rural England and the 38 county-based organisations in the Rural Communities Action Network, to assist them in delivering advice and support to both local service delivery organisations and directly to rural communities.

15

More generally policy making across Whitehall departments should be subject to ‘rural proofing’. Government has a commitment which “requires policy makers to14:

• consider whether the policies they are developing will have any impacts in rural areas;

• assess the significance of those impacts; and • where appropriate, adjust the policy to ensure that the needs of those who live in

rural communities are addressed fairly.” As much as anything it aims to steer national policy makers towards policies which have sufficient flexibility that they can be locally matched to rural circumstances. It is widely recognised that the impact of rural proofing has, since its inception in 2000, been mixed. Various reasons explain this, including the extent to which rural proofing is known-about, understood and applied. Defra intends soon to refresh the rural proofing guidance that it provides to Whitehall departments, in its role as a champion for rural communities. It is also setting up an independent review of the process, to be led by peer Lord Cameron. Last year (2012) it made available material which local policy makers and service providers can use to help them rural proof their decisions. Rural assessment: by definition these policies are rural focussed. They seek to bend nationwide policies in order that they fit rural circumstances and to intervene with actions in areas where a particular issue with rural provision is recognised. They do this in ways which fit with the general direction of Government policy, not least the five guiding principles that were set out in the Open Public Services White Paper. Concluding comments There can be little doubt from the above that the Government’s policy intention is to support and foster ‘alternative service delivery’. It is, though, perhaps inevitable that at a time of no economic growth and with public sector retrenchment, there are differing views to be held about the impact of policy changes on the ground and within communities. The broad thrust of policy is to decentralise decision making, to encourage a wider array of public service providers, to give communities more say in the services they receive and to provide the means for more action within communities. These could be seen as, in principle, things which play to the strengths of many rural communities. Where this works well it could foster innovation in local service provision and this ought to generate better outcomes. An interesting question would be how far the result of this is simply that non-statutory providers are taking over existing services in rural areas (typically because they are put out to tender). Alternatively, if policies really are resulting in fresh approaches being adopted for service delivery or whether entirely new services are being created. Another consideration is whether the policy impacts on service innovation and delivery are particularly patchy at a local level, and if so why that is. Many have speculated this would be one outcome of policies which place great store on community-based actions and which therefore depend upon local capacity to act. On the other hand, support for infrastructure organisations and front line providers is, in-part, meant to compensate for such unevenness. Above all, what is the level of take-up of alternative service provision and, given the largely positive policy climate, what now are the barriers holding it back? Are any of those barriers peculiarly rural in nature?

14 Quote is taken from the rural proofing page of the Defra website. 

16

Rural communities face both push and pull factors which could lead to alternative models of service delivery. Policy measures and initiatives may offer the opportunities which pull some in that direction. Hard funding choices or the loss of a valued existing service could equally be the push which generates fresh thinking and community action.

17

4. A REVIEW OF PRACTICE Introduction This section draws together key evidence about alternative rural service delivery from practitioners. It has involved the collation of a range of consultancy reports, discussion papers, think pieces, pamphlets and booklets from organisations and professionals involved in issues relating to service delivery in rural areas. Together, these illustrate the variance in stakeholder views and experiences available in the public domain. The sources used are set out in appendix 1 and the key words used for the search strategy were as follows. Alternative models service delivery, alternative provision, asset base rural communities, new models service delivery, service delivery Big Society, community ownership, co-operatives, mutualisation, rural Big Society, rural social capital, locally based social enterprise, voluntary sector public service delivery, communities service delivery, public service reform, alternative delivery models, rural public service delivery, outsourcing services, value for money public services.

• Exclusion criteria included: age of article (before 2010), urban contexts and limited or no reference to service delivery in rural areas.

• Inclusion criteria included: currency of the information, rural context and reference to service delivery in rural areas.

• Limitation criteria included: access to information (i.e. organisations with information that is “in press” may not be available), types of information (i.e., internal committee papers, advertisements for workshops/events were screened and omitted) geography (examples outside of the England were used by exception if they demonstrated successful alternative approaches and lessons that could be applied in an English context).

To identify existing information and reports, a number of data sources was used:

• Internet search engines (i.e., Google). • Organisations in membership of the Rural Coalition: Action with Communities in

Rural England, Action for Market Towns, Arthur Rank Centre, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Country Land & Business Association, County Councils Network, Local Government Association, National Association of Local Councils, National Farmers Union, National Housing Federation, Plunkett Foundation, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Royal Town Planning Institute, Rural Services Network and Town and Country Planning Association.

• Relevant charities and consultancies such as The Plunkett Foundation, IPPR, Carnegie UK Trust, New Economics Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

A database was used to record the information. The database had three components: (1) information and reports collected from a general web search, (2) information and reports gathered from searching relevant rural stakeholder sites, and (3) specific research and publications pages from stakeholder organisations. Each entry on the database (1 and 2) at appendix 1 sets out:

• Details of information: author, date, publication type, source/publisher, website URL and date accessed.

• Description: information type, relevance (parameters, location, service area) and key search terms.

• Content overview: findings and impact (implemented/evaluated; successes/barriers) and quality/reliability of information.

18

Changes in the service delivery landscape Many of the documents gathered for the review were written in response to or at a time when public bodies were being asked to transfer more power to people and communities, with information framed around the (then) Open Public Services White Paper, Arm’s Length Bodies reform, the Big Society and/or Localism and Decentralisation. In some documents the transferral of power to communities was not new – rather the concept of ‘Public Service Transformation’ could be traced back to the introduction of the Welfare State in the 1940s which had subsequently led to an ongoing requirement to balance public need with available funds. In other documents, the word ‘restructuring’ has been used to describe a shift from ‘joined up Government’ and New Public Management (NPM) to Citizen Focused Service Delivery. For some practitioners this led to the possibility of developing a new framework for the co-production of service delivery between individuals, communities and the public sector. There was a call for 'rebalancing' not 'substitution' - a view that every public service is already a balancing act between state provision and community participation and the focus now needs to be on the state and citizens running local services together. For other practitioners, it was less about cuts and more about ‘reframing the nature of support’. Regardless of the contexts, themes and constructs used, the pace of change is now seen as being fundamentally different and related to available funding, the range of public services in scope and levels of need. This raised a series of discussions and debates around the following.

• How to find and fund an “appropriate” service model that meets the needs of rural communities.

• Whether the Big Society should be split into two - a 'provider-user' split wherein the first responsibility of big society is to be a strong policy to support community activity in its own right; and diversifying providers is seen as supplementary and secondary to this.

• A focus on outcomes or inputs? • Accountability to the user versus a new form of centralisation? • Are community member’s consumers or citizens? How realistic is it to involve

service users given the pressure to take decisions quickly? • The ability of the marketplace, service providers and users to respond to current

and future demands. • Priorities for spending – for those with responsibilities for statutory provision, the

relationship between rationing demand and/or investing in the long term. • With local authorities at different starting points, will there be a widening gap

between performance? For example, some Councils have made headway and are already working with a variety of partners from across the public, private and voluntary and community sectors (moving away from being ‘service providers’ to become ‘service specifiers’) whereas other Councils are more committed to traditional in-house delivery. Within a policy context that seeks to open up public service provision, perhaps some local authorities will have more appetite and aptitude for responding to the current agenda than others?

• Concerns that a 'shadow state' is emerging, in which a small number of companies have large and complex stakes in public service markets and a great deal of control over how they work.

Emerging new models of delivery (a) What do we mean by alternative service delivery models? The following delivery models emerged from the Review (listed in no particular order):

19

• Commissioning services externally – where the designers and funders are not necessarily the providers of services but were historically or could have undertaken service delivery in-house. This involves a shift from services per se (and technical processes of analysis, procurement and performance review) to outcomes for end users. In the future, there could also be an expansion from commissioning specific services to commissioning across councils or on a corporate basis.

• Social enterprise – businesses operating on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis. They trade for a social or environmental purpose but have clear rules about what they do with its profits (for example, not seeking to maximise shareholder return) and generate their income by selling goods and services rather than relying upon grants to stay afloat.

• Partnership (joint ventures, strategic partnerships) – the partnering of local

authorities with other public, private and voluntary/community sector organisations or a mix of these sectors. Unlike PPP or PFI which focus upon capital intensive activity, these formal arrangements between a public body and other organisation/s have expanded to many areas of work – from the transfer of back office functions to specific services.

• Shared services – where local authorities work across administrative boundaries,

join up departments and/or merge services with neighbouring councils.

• Co-operative councils – an emphasis on re-designing the way a council works by incorporating a co-operative ethos into its relationship with staff, communities, service users and providers. Presented as an alternative to traditional notions of outsourcing and as an extension of the Big Society focus on voluntarism, this approach establishes a way of working that enables residents/service users to become active participants rather than passive recipients.

• Mutuals and co-operatives – organisations that are owned and controlled by their

members, who may be employees, organisations or consumers. Established to meet shared needs and run on a democratic basis, these organisations may have left the public sector (a process called ‘spinning out’) but continue to deliver public services.

• Internal transformation – the redesign of services or activities currently provided

in-house.

• Outsourcing – subcontracting processes, services and/or whole operations to a third party organisation while retaining overall ownership and ultimate responsibility.

• Direct delivery by local authority - including in-sourcing, where services that have

been out-sourced are returned to direct provision to respond to changing public policy, to join up services at a neighbourhood level and/or have the flexibility to shift resources quickly to respond to local need.

• Private companies – can be sole trader companies or franchises where the

business successfully tenders for contracts. Through ‘open market consultancy’ i.e., word of mouth contacts, service users and providers obtain external support.

• Co-production – a way of designing and delivering services in an equal and

reciprocal relationship between staff, people who use services, and their families, friends and neighbours. This can take place at many levels: between two people,

20

at the level of a service, or to transform how organisations are run and what services are commissioned.

In the call for evidence, reported in full in section 6 below, respondents were asked to describe the type of delivery organisation through which they felt their service was delivered (see page 25) but there were sufficient differences in the interpretation of these forms for the results to suggest more confusion than clarity in these emerging forms of delivery. Thus, for example, nearly 32% of respondents felt that their delivery organisation was a charity (which could fall into a number of the above categories). Some 16.7% felt that their delivery was through some form of partnership and 15% felt that it was through some form of social enterprise. None felt that they worked through mutuals or cooperatives but just under 5% felt that delivery was through a private company. Of the remaining responses, 2.5% were not sure, but the largest category (20%) was ‘other’. From the individual responses to the ‘other’ category, it is clear that different respondents interpreted their delivery organisation in quite different ways. Many of the models in the above list have developed in response to austerity – in some cases this was seen as a threat; in other cases practitioners regarded austerity as an opportunity to ‘do things differently’. Taken as a collective, the models bring to the fore, issues around equality, capacity, governance; and the relationship between people and their locality. They also open up debate around top down, bottom up or networked approaches – with some commentators believing there will be a return to bottom up development models underpinned by community developers and entrepreneurs. (b) What novel methods are being developed and/or implemented? By model type Successful initiatives contained in the literature included:

• Social enterprise - Care & Share Associates, Hackney Community Transport, North Country Leisure, Eaga, Team Fostering, Central Surrey Health, Community Campus '87, Shared Interest, Community Renewable Energy, Ealing Community Transport, Bulky Bob's, GLL and Cylch.

• Partnership – Vale of White Horse & South Oxfordshire Councils transforming governance.

• Shared services – Chorley, South Ribble and Worcester Councils sharing back office functions.

• Co-operative councils – Brixton Re-Use Centre and Lambeth Resource Centre. • Mutual and co-operatives - Sunderland Music Co-operative and Co-operative

Trust Schools. • Internal transformation – charging for discretionary activities and trading

activities (Shropshire and Essex Councils). • Insourcing – Cumbria (human resources, accounts, highways and economic

development), Fife (building services), Hillingdon (housing management), North Tyneside (recycling), Redcar & Cleveland (customer service), Rotherham (grounds maintenance) and Thurrock (waste collection).

• Private companies - Serco reoffending reduction project in Hull. • Co-production - Goodwin Development Trust.

By service type (i) Libraries The documents explore how library services could be provided in the future and/or the role of library buildings as community assets. Alternative models of provision cited include: the creation of arms length companies or trusts; the use of volunteers;

21

community managed services; shared services with other local authorities; and the private sector. (ii) Broadband Some of the literature takes up the lack of rural coverage in BDUK/local authority funding streams, and considers how universal coverage relates to ‘marginal’ rural environments. Three alternative models are presented: (1) public sector intermediaries (e.g. iNorthumberland Loan Fund, LEP Growing Places fund); (2) social enterprise intermediaries (e.g. Social Investment Business, Big Issue Invest); and (3) private sector intermediaries (with projects in the Cotswolds, South Devon and North Devon identified). (iii) Heritage Those documents targeted at local authority officers describe how to take stock of heritage assets and formulate transfer strategies. Those documents targeted at communities set out how to assess options, develop support for the project, manage the risks, raise finance and ensure long term viability. The literature opens up debates around the limits of involving others (such as the voluntary sector), the requirement for professional input into protecting the historic environment and level of stakeholder respect for in-house provision by local authorities. The Local Government Association (LGA) and English Heritage worked with local authorities in 8 areas to develop case studies of best practice: Cheltenham District Council, Chichester (West Sussex Councils), Cotswolds AONB (Gloucestershire & Oxford Councils), Essex County Council, Northumberland County Council, Northamptonshire County Council, South Hams District Council and Cornwall Council. (iv) Pubs The literature provides an audit of Britain's community pubs and why they matter. In rural areas, the pub is viewed as becoming a host (or co-location) for public services (with references to shops, post offices and broadband). The ‘Pub is the Hub’ is cited as an example of good practice. The issues facing pubs including a request for business rate relief and finance, reform of planning, alcohol pricing and improving relations/partnership working between tenant and pub companies are all highlighted. (v) Adult social care Much of the literature covers the rising demand for care, the engagement and barriers to involving older people in their care, and the challenges faced by community and voluntary sector groups struggling themselves to provide ‘that bit of help’. Studies in Salford and Dorset have considered how to involve older people in commissioning services and the difference that this involvement makes to outcomes. (vi) Community shops The documents review the benefits that community shops deliver (e.g. local food, reducing isolation) and set out how community ownership works, signalling that it will work in different ways in every community. The success of community shops trading in the UK is referenced (at the beginning of 2012 there were 273 shops; of the 286 shops that have ever opened only 13 have closed); the different models/approaches are described (60% register as an Industrial and Provident Society); and the Plunkett Foundation’s Village CORE Programme is quoted as contributing to sector growth. (vii) Community transport

22

The literature suggests that remote rural areas will have more community transport organisations in them compared to urban areas. Documents provide an overview of the size and scale of the community transport sector and the support available for those looking to set up schemes. (viii) Woodland Documents are applicable to both existing woods and the creation of new woods and targeted at community groups. The literature describes how community woodland ownership and management is less well embedded in the UK compared to other countries and amid localism and review of the public forest estate in England there are now new opportunities for community involvement. Models around social enterprise, calls for a finance intermediary - an umbrella organisation that could raise money through social investment (e.g. similar to Energy4All) - and/or social investment through issuing community shares are all presented as possible ways forward. The relationship between models and service area Some of the documents align models to particular services, including:

• Employee owned organisations = health, social care. • Community ownership = community facilities, leisure, culture and sport. • Employee plus other stakeholder owned organisations = childcare, education,

health, housing and welfare-to-work. The following examples were quoted as successful initiatives across several documents: Central Surrey Health, GLL, Hackney Community Transport and Village Agents schemes. These are expanded upon in section 6 below as examples of successful delivery outside of local authorities. (c) Decision making The following considerations are intended to guide people starting up, redesigning and/or running public services to identify the most ‘appropriate’ service model in the field:

• Service delivery – will it lead to quality improvements? What is the level of demand?

• Strategic – what, who, at which level. • Logistical - procurement, commissioning. • Financial. • Local accountability. • Type of tenure. • Legal. • Community resources (knowledge, skills, time) and involvement from service

users. • Access to advice and support.

Indicators of success

• Adequate financial and business planning. This has been shown to be important in a number of cases particularly in distinguishing between capital costs (most grant aid is oriented towards capital projects) and on-going revenue costs. Also it is important to have a longer view of the development of ASD project beyond the initial start-up period.

• Having an organisational model that is recognised in procurement and

commissioning. There needs to be clarity over who is responsible for different aspects of the project to avoid duplication of effort and omitting to do things

23

because nobody has been given the task. In the case of some procurement and commissioning actions, some project workers may have to hold liability as well as responsibility.

• Ensuring assets are fit for purpose. This concerns both human and physical

assets. Are all of the skills available for the task at hand? Are any physical assets that are to be used, such as buildings or transport appropriate: do they meet health and safety and other legal and insurance requirements?

• Communication and constructive approach on the part of all bodies – including

openness to service user involvement. Letting everyone who might have an involvement or an interest in the project is important – through newsletters, websites and the like. Success also comes with full and honest negotiations with all parties who are likely to be effected by the project

• Capacity and leadership of key individuals – with the skills, time, passion,

perseverance, long term commitment and a history/track record of success. All of these skills are required. Enthusiasm is necessary but might not be sufficient to deal with all legal, financial and planning matters. Volunteer fatigue should be actively managed wherever possible.

Barriers to success In many ways these are a corollary to the indicators of success.

• Inflexible procurement and commissioning processes. These can make the project too slow and possibly too costly to make it viable. Shopping around is important.

• Change management. There has to be an openness to projects changing in their

development phase in a way that might not have initially been envisaged. Such new directions, if not embraced, will throw the project off course.

• Risk aversion. Nearly all new ASD initiatives require a degree of risk taking to get

them of the ground. Such risks have to be embraced, but systematically, undertaking risk assessments wherever possible.

• Time. This can relate to insufficient time within the project team as a whole to

execute the project effectively, but also to project timings, making sure that everything happens in sequence and to meet the time requirements of other pieces of the project jigsaw (for example committee cycles of the local authority).

• Finance. Finding the right mix of funding (such as grants and donations as well as

loans) is important because too much dependency on loans can make the project too expensive and dependency on grants and donations can be problematic if grant applications are not successful or if donations are not forthcoming in the volume required.

• Service fragmentation. This can occur when previously integrated services have been broken into smaller units with a consequent loss of economies of scale in provision. The single service becomes unviable because it is not treated in concert with a set of others.

• Gap between what people say and what people do – and a need to provide

services that people want to use. It is always of some value to do some market testing before setting out on new provision. People can bemoan the loss of

24

services because of the principle of provision or because they might want to use it sometime in the future. This does not mean that they will become regular users, however.

• Blurring of boundaries between public, private and/or voluntary/community

sectors. This can lead to ambiguities or misunderstandings in what actually is being provided and therefore perceptions of who should be paying for such a service, and indeed who will want to use it. Here, it is helpful to make it clear who is contributing what to an ASD service.

• Reluctance to partnership working. All partnerships require relinquishing some control over a project, as ideas have to be shared and agreed often across quite a disparate range of partners. Co-operation also is about compromise and if tis is not forthcoming, disagreements and fractions can develop.

• Rural issues are not high on the policy agenda. This is a more general barrier in a particular area, if there is simply not enough political will to make innovations in alternative rural service delivery become a reality.

Value-for-money Some of the literature describes how alternative models can help local authorities deliver value-for-money by improving public services, contributing to economic development, supporting community development and addressing social exclusion. At a macro scale, research by Oxford Economics (commissioned by the CBI) reports that in 20 discrete service areas covering local government services, healthcare support services, education, offender management and police support; average cost savings of at least 11%, or £2 billion, could be made by opening up these service areas to competition from independent providers. Extrapolating further, opening up competition across all possible public services (excluding those categories of spending which could not be delivered by independent providers such as constitutional affairs, EU payments, debt interest, defence and social protection payments) could deliver savings of £22.6 billion. On the one hand, this has led to debates around whether the Government is prepared to end majority state provision. On the other hand, the performance by the contractors of the Work Programme and collapse of Southern Cross in providing residential elderly care are cited by some as powerful reminders of what can happen when a market based approach to delivering services goes wrong. For awarding fixed price contracts to independent providers with penalties can lead to a belief that to maximise profit you need to deliver the minimum that is acceptable and cut costs. However, West Lindsey District Council returned housing and homelessness advice back to in-house provision in 2009 and reported efficiency savings of £35,000 per annum (attributed to removing the bureaucratic costs of contract management and monitoring). In a community context, applying Social Return on Investment (SROI) to capture non-financial value, revealed how one pub generated £59,200 worth of social value for its surrounding community. In sum, these examples oscillate between providing value-for-money and delivering quality. In practical terms, procuring ‘the optimum combination of whole-life cost and quality to meet the user requirement’ is a balancing act between (lowest) cost providers and delivering (higher) quality services. How, then, do you develop a reward structure based on quality improvements and outcomes rather than contract sum and profit?

25

Other information

• There are different dimensions to these discussions and debates – spatial, service, model and user experience.

• There is an opportunity to share practice and new models between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland (and in some case at a European and/or international level).

• What constitutes an alternative delivery model – and if it has been successfully operating for a period of time, is it still innovative, how does it fit within a Big Society context? For example, should innovation improve the lives of users by providing them with greater choice and control (‘voice’) and build on their capabilities and encourage them to bring about positive change in their local area? Or should a model emerge through a multiplicity and diversity of thought, processes and approaches in looking at a particular issue?

• How does the perspective of service users fit in the design and delivery of services?

• Should it matter if the service provider is from the public, private or voluntary and community sector as long as they deliver a great service for the end user? For example, the public can be more reluctant to accept a private sector organisation delivering public services wherein any profits derived by the business (i.e., as a reward for better delivery) are perceived to be unjust. Is it necessary to ‘legitimise’ the perception of profit amongst the public?

26

5. PERSPECTIVES ON ALTERNATIVE RURAL SERVICE DELIVERY FROM THE LITERATURE The scope of public service delivery In section four, focus has been given to emerging alternative models of rural service delivery. In this section a brief review of the literature is undertaken that examines the changing nature of rural service delivery itself. The nature of what rural services are and who they are for frequently has been debated. Definitions of ‘public service’ abound and the scope of this project allows some latitude. Whilst the SoR, (page 15) suggests that: “Public Services are those provided by or through the state, publicly funded by our taxes” the SoR also allows that other priority services may be embraced if they are found to be significant. The Carnegie UK Trust in its Manifesto for Rural Communities (2009) asserts that there are some services that are ‘essential’ and should be available wherever people live – these ‘essential services’ include utilities, affordable/healthy food, community meeting places, primary level education, benefits for those who are eligible, general health care and security/public safety. The RSN (2010), too, considers services to be any activity delivered by public bodies and local authorities, as well as those that are commissioned, contracted or subsidised by them but also those provided directly by the private and community sectors without direct subsidy. This embraces most of the delivery mechanisms set out in section 3. Yet a lot of the discussion about what constitutes a rural service tends more to be driven by of what services are provided rather than what might be needed. This tends to lead to services being subsumed into the ’public sector’ ‘statutory obligations’ and ‘areas’ (e.g. health, education), but tends to overlook which services are needed and how new services might be introduced. Certainly rural services, however characterised, cost more to deliver than those in urban areas. The Countryside Alliance in its Rural Manifesto (2009), for example, estimates that people living in rural areas travel around 10,000 miles per year to access ‘essential services’ – 43% more than residents of towns. In recognising this, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Services., (2010), recommended that funds be allocated on a ‘cost-based approach’ rather than according to ‘need’ to take account of different types of area, with top-ups to adjustment for need and other priorities. The scale and pace of change affecting rural service delivery also is considerable. The CRC’s State of the Countryside Report (2008) indicated that the number of service outlets continued to decline in both urban and rural areas but because of the larger distances involved in rural areas the availability there fell lower and faster. The Rural Insight Survey of 2012 in general terms also suggests that: • More than 30% of respondents feel that services have become less accessible in their community over the last 12 months. • 62% rate the idea of local people having greater involvement in delivering publicly funded services themselves, 11% said this was a bad idea. • 50% of respondents feel that it is hard to live in their neighbourhood if you have a low level of wealth. • 57% of respondents so far think that rural communities are likely overall to become less sustainable over the next year (this figure was 49.5% in the 2011 Survey).

27

In the context of these conditions, this section of the interim report provides a brief review from the literature of the changing nature of public service provision and outlies some of its perceived causes. From Welfarist to ‘alternative’ serve provision Articulations of the nature of (and need for) ‘modern’ rural service provision in England and Wales were comprehensively articulated in both the Scott Report on Land Utilisation in Rural Areas (1942) and Barlow’s Report on the Distribution of the Industrial Population (1940) as pieces of the jigsaw of Welfarism in the post war reconstruction of the 1940s and 1950s. Rural welfarist services were then prioritised as: access to suitable housing (subsequently researched by Larkin, 1979); appropriate transport and accessibility (researched during the 1970s by Moseley (1979)); rural primary schooling (subsequently explored by JURUE/Department for Educational Enquiry, 1981), a comprehensive healthcare, free at the point of use (reviewed for the 1970s and 1980s in Evans and Neate (1983). These services were felt to have a particular pertinence in rural areas. But other services, common to both rural and urban areas alike, were part of this Welfarist mix. These included public libraries (Howkins, 2003), leisure and recreation (Glyptis, 1987) social services (Shaw and Stockford, 1979) and the welfare of the elderly (Wenger, 1992). The ‘Rural Economies’ report by the Performance Innovation Unit (PIU 1999) noted a “continuing emphasis on delivering services from within organisational and departmental ‘silos’, even though such approaches are often uneconomic, inefficient and ineffective” resulting in a “a mismatch between the reality of the English countryside today and the inherited policy framework (rooted in the realities and policy instruments of the late 1940s)” (p3). A common characteristic of this Welfarist approach to rural service provision was the centrality of the State (at different levels) as the responsible agent for delivery, with community and voluntary services (CVS) bodies such as the Womens’ Institute and rural community councils having a relatively peripheral role. At least three factors have led to shifts in both types of rural service and in their delivery modes as a departure from the State Welfarist model. The first is the reassertion of citizenship in governance of all types, leading to pluralist modes of delivery and consequent adjustments and/or reductions in regulation surrounding delivery. The second is the development in understandings of the practice of sustainable development. Inevitably, the third is the impact of information and communications technology (ICT). Each of these is considered below. Rural service delivery and citizenship This contemporary citizenship shift probably has its origins in Thatcher’s ‘active citizen’ from 1979 (Parker, 2002), developing into Major’s ‘consumer citizen’ from 1995 (Faulks 1998). Blair’s ‘third way’ agenda from 1997, too, would confer rights on citizens only in exchange for certain responsibilities (Giddens, 1998). The state was to become more of an enabler than a provider and citizens were to make an active contribution to civil society through, for example, the provision of a range of community ‘services’. Both the 1995 Conservative Rural White Paper (DoE, 1995), and the New Labour one in 2000 (DETR, 2000) offered a range of empowering mechanisms for rural communities to “help themselves” (Lowe, 1996, page 12) and some of these opportunities turned into duties (for example the preparation of Community Development Plans and Community Strategies) under the Local Government Act, 2000. By 2008, the English Communities White Paper (DCLG, 2008) was offering further empowerment to parish and other local councils and encouraging more of them to be formed as part of a process of strengthening local decision-making.

28

The shift to a Coalition Government in 2010 offered no departure to this movement. Citizenship is now institutionalised into rural service delivery. This has led to a shift in the models of provision, as has been discussed in section 3 above, away from the state (although not completely) towards more pluralistic delivery. Taken together, a shift to the wider range of delivery models outlined in section 3 has, according to the literature, had a number of consequences:

• local communities have been able to tailor their rural service needs in a bespoke way to their locality, moving away from a ‘one size fits all’ mode of provision (Marsden at al, 2004);

• community cohesion has been seen to have increased through active participation (Bryden and Hart, 2004);

• service provision has moved more towards the needs and preferences of local communities, rather than just traditional welfarist provision (Moseley and Owen, 2008). Thus, for example, the significance of environmental services (such as woodland) and cultural services (such as heritage) have been noted in the practice review in section 3 as being important;

• lines of responsibility between providers have become blurred and in instances ambiguous (Goodwin, 1998). There is also some confusion, noted in section 3, as to which models of service provision are the most appropriate in different circumstances;

• the ‘laissez faire’ context of service provision has led to a proliferation of groups, networks, partnerships and the like seeking to develop service provision causing in cases, organisational complexity, confusion and inefficiency: who is, should be or could be, responsible for what (Curry, 2009, OECD, 2011);

• the equity consequences have been observed to be significant. Educated, organised and affluent communities are better placed to undertake their own rural service provision than those who are less well endowed with such assets. Arguably, those most able to provide services are the ones who might need them least (McAreavey, 2006, Curry, 2012).

And with a broadening of models of delivery has been a shift in the styles of rural service delivery. Thus, in places ‘public’ transport provision has given way to community car sharing and a variety of ‘wheels to work’ schemes, often run by rural community councils. And the nature of service delivery has changed too, as in the growing importance of things like cultural and environmental services noted above. These new kinds of service often have been associated with land use, triggered by a range of opportunities given to communities from the time of the Planning for Real exercises of the 1990s. Owen et al (2007) chart the development of village appraisals, parish plans, village design statements and the like, commonly seen as services in themselves (to improve community cohesion) but also as an entree to unlocking further different kinds service through the articulation of need, such as community land trusts (Christopolous, 2006). Other opportunities offered to communities undoubtedly have made the consideration of environmental services more popular. Initiatives such as the Parish Paths Partnership (Parker, 1999), community health initiatives associated with the environment (Pretty, et al, 2005) and the management of environmental space at the local level, as in the case of Millennium Greens (Curry, 2001) have all sharpened this appetite. The self-determination of green open space by the local community has not always been welcomed and the Coalition Government has sought to restrict what they see as ‘vexatious’ use of the Town and Village Green application process where it is considered inappropriate.

29

Outside of land use, the changing nature of rural services has led to more diverse types of provision. These have been seen, in a survey of such services in Gloucestershire (Curry, 2013), to include community cinema, community shops, mobile crèches, ‘learning for employment’ groups, and community investment clubs. But this broadening nature of the range of rural services also can have quite subtle manifestations. In a survey of 900 rural older people in England and Wales, the most significant service was found to be ‘neighbourliness’: “The (rural) community that we live in, about 6 or 7 of us all have dogs and cats. Now if I tell you, we all hold each other’s house keys so that if there is a problem (I’m away and delayed, for example) we can go and do things like let the dog out without any hassle. I’m not suggesting that this will happen in every town and city, but it is a good example of how communities work and how neighbourliness works for us”. (Curry and Fisher, 2012, page 367) Service delivery and sustainable development Undoubtedly, the growth in citizenship has created a context for new models of rural service provision as well as new styles of provision and a change in the nature of services. But a concern for sustainable development can be distinguished from the citizenship project as an alternative service delivery driver, to the extent that much of its energy comes from outside of government (and sometimes independent of it, and at variance with it) altogether. Perhaps best exemplified by the Transition Towns Movement, new rural services are growing up in the as a response to climate change, global warming and dependency on non-renewable fuels (Hopkins, 2008). Here, new rural services are part of alternative lifestyles, concerned to develop resilience and independence (not least from the State) through things such as community trading exchanges, renewable energy production and community supported agriculture. The Bovey Tracey Community Garden provides a good example of this. In partnership with the National Trust, members of the local community of Bovey Tracey in Devon, maintain and manage a Victorian walled community garden at Parke, the headquarters of Dartmoor National Park Authority, for the production of local food. It is open to everyone (in the local area) for growing their own fruit and vegetables, sharing knowledge and learning new skills. It is about learning to garden as much as food production per se, based on minimising the carbon footprint through organic production. Work is exchanged for food. At issue here is the extent to which ‘independence’ from the state can be at variance with state objectives. In the Transition Movement, for example, there are instances where market exchanges give way to bartering and gifting and other forms of non-monetary exchange such as that as noted in the Bovey Tracey case above (Scott-Cato and Hillier, 2010). Increasingly communities are introducing their own currencies (the Totness, Stroud and Bristol pounds, for example), which can lead to tax avoidance and a growth in ‘informal’ (or non-legitimate) models of rural service delivery (McElwee and Somerville, 2009). Perhaps bridging rural service provision through citizenship and through sustainable development imperatives is the notion of service provision through local asset development. In the UK this has been pioneered through the Carnegie Trust Rural Programme (2009). Inspired by American models, and very much designed to pursue the sustainability goal of community resilience, the Trust advocates growing the capacity of local pole to provide a range of services. Networks, high level skills and volunteering are critical here, along with the enhancement of community assets of all kinds and the

30

strengthening of community-led planning. They propose a shift in the nature of rural services into areas such as ‘community learning accounts’ and the development of ‘communities of practice’. Service delivery and ICT The impact of information and communications technology on rural service delivery was one of the planks of Professor Dennison’s Minority report to the Scott Enquiry (1942) more than 70 years ago. “much of the isolation of rural communities has been overcome by the advent of the motor car, the wireless and the telephone and these will act as great facilitators to economic progress in the countryside” (para 38). Its impact has been continually changing since (Demos, 2005). Moseley and Owen (2008) see ICT as a principal driver to rural service provision modes, styles and nature. In terms of modes it is one of four (fixed outlets, mobile outlets doorstep delivery an electronically (ICT)) and the one that is likely to increase the most into the future as more people have a computer in the household. It encourages the development of ‘non-spatial communities’ (and therefore non-spatial citizenship) based on communities of interest rather than place. In this context, the spatial dimension of services provision (in this case, rural) is residualised relative to the service function itself. In terms of styles of delivery, ICT, too, offers the potential for increased home-working in rural areas which itself is likely to place a greater demand on traditional services on the part of those now ‘staying in the village’ to work. Styles of delivery also are changing in health care, with NHS Direct displacing a proportion of physical visits to the GP. The nature of delivery also is likely to change as ICT becomes increasingly mobile, through phones, tablets, satellite navigation and the like. With the roll out of broadband to rural areas as a current coalition priority, according to Moseley and Owen (2008): “the vast majority of rural residents by 2015 could well have access to some aspects of e-commerce, e-banking, e-government, e-medicine, and on-line education and training” (page 115). They summarise the main likely impacts of ICT on rural services as follows (page 116):

31

Source: Moseley and Owen (2008)

32

6. EMPIRICAL ASSESMENT OF ALERNATIVE DELIVERY Introduction To embellish the foregoing policy, practice and literature reviews relating to alternative service delivery, a call for evidence was carried out in February 2013. This took the form of an online questionnaire that was agreed with Defra and then circulated to a wide audience through the Rural Service Network’s database of rural Council Officers and Parish Councils. Both The Plunkett Foundation and ACRE assisted in publicising it amongst their members. The questionnaire itself is presented at appendix 2. The purpose of the questionnaire was to assist assessment of the factors that have helped some initiatives to succeed and to identify those barriers that have caused delays to, or event prevented, potentially beneficial schemes. It sought to explore the central issues and was structured in such a way that, through the use of predominantly closed questions, it facilitated quantitative analysis. A high number of responses, 198 in total, was received. Overall results Although responses were received from each geographical region of England with the exception of London, a high percentage came from the South West (39%), from the East (19%) and from the West Midlands (11%). Not all the responses could be assigned to a particular urban/ rural classification. Typically those that could not, about 12% of the total, either covered more than a single Local Authority area or their geographical extent could not be determined. Of those responses that could be classified, 49% were in ‘Rural 80’ areas, 40% in ‘Rural 50’ areas and 11% in ‘Significantly Rural’ areas. Of the schemes that have a clearly stated geographic location 14% were coastal (defined for the purposes of this report as including a place or area less than five miles from the sea) and 86% were not. By far the largest category of responses was about schemes aiming to benefit the elderly. Other categories of schemes comprising more than 10 responses were, (in order of number of responses) rural transport; environmental and highway maintenance; social and sports facilities; library, cultural and tourist information services; and facilities for children and young people. The approach used below for reporting the results from the questionnaire provides percentages for the responses given to the specific questions and omits skipped responses. For clarity the question is also reproduced. The word ‘scheme’ refers to each example for which a questionnaire was completed. Pie charts, where used, illustrate the percentages of responses to a particular question and bar graphs show the number of responses. Q. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? A wide variety of different organisations took part in the questionnaire, with charities forming the largest single group (32%). Community owned enterprises/social enterprises comprised 15% of the total; Community interest companies and Volunteers assisting a statutory/traditional provider each comprised a little under 10%, ‘another type of community group’ 6%; and the commercial private sector slightly under 5%. 2.5% of respondents indicated that they were not sure and just over 20% selected the ‘other’ option.

33

The ‘other’ responses are listed below.

• Voluntarily organised volunteers under Town Council • Hampshire County Council fund a local voluntary organisation, Age Concern

Hampshire to deliver the service. • Totally operated by volunteers • Churchill Methodist Church • Community group, run by six people • Public private partnership company • Churches Together in Ludham(2). Both are reg'd charities. • Charitable Incorporated Association • Joint initiative with local housing provider • Partnership of Councils and voluntary groups working together under one roof • Two Parish Councils • AONB • Policing funding by joint enterprise • A private business - sole proprietor • Parish Council • Had intended it to be run by Community Interest Company • Parishes Councils plus their use of their own staff/volunteer groups. • Parish Council • County council • A group of volunteers who wish to improve the area in which they live • Parish council • Local school

34

• Parish Council • Church based group with general community input as well. • Town and Parish Councils • The Swanland Heritage Group will be the result of a Swanland History Group's

research into the history of the village and the wish of that group to share the accumulation of records accumulated during its research into the production of six books on the subject.

• A partnership of which no more 50% are allowed to be statutory • Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership C/O Shropshire Council • Unincorporated organisation of volunteers not for profit responsible to the

community • A charity and incorporated company • Parish Council • Volunteer group supported by Parish Council • A collaboration of local councils (City, Town and Parish) • Not for profit organisation • Public Sector (County Council) • Charity but we are too small to register • Parish Council • Cluster of 4 Parish Councils • The Burbage News is entirely independent, professionally published, run and

distributed by volunteers • Community partnership

Q. Has the scheme resulted from a council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? 49% of the responses stated that the scheme was one resulting from a Council or other public sector initiative and an equal percentage stated that the scheme was not in that category. 2% were unsure. Q Please tick whichever statement is most applicable (in relation to success of operaton) Some 70% of the responses stated that their scheme was operating successfully; 21% reported experiencing difficulties and 7% indicated that their scheme should start operating within the next year. Only 3% reported that their scheme had either ceased or was unlikely to go ahead. However, this probably reflects a greater willingness to report successful schemes and should not be construed as being representative of a wider picture. Q. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? 56% said that their scheme had been in operation for more than 3 years, 24% between one and 3 years, and 18% for less than a year. Less than 2% said that their schemes are not yet operational. Q. If operational what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? 96% of responses claimed a social benefit from the scheme; 77% an economic benefit and 61% an environmental benefit. The open responses detailing these different types of benefit are set out in the table below and summarised. Economic benefits: Respondent comments (grouped) Summary of benefit Tourism is supported Attracts tourism / leisure to the

35

Attracting tourist to support businesses More visitors to the area Tourism is boosted

area

Bus operator revenues increase Generates income from external bookings

Service viability (increases income)

Volunteers reduce the operating cost Better (more focussed) use of resources Saves on bus subsidy needed Use of volunteers keeps price down Low cost means for information providers Reduces call outs of emergency services Non-profit making model lowers costs Value added from use of volunteers Grit is only spread/used when really needed The service is run by volunteers

Service viability (lowers costs)

Brings shoppers into town Brings more business to local communities

Brings footfall from the locality

Parents helped with budgeting Low cost lunches for the elderly Provides goods for low income households Maximises take-up of benefits Low cost service for parents Means reasonably priced groceries available People assisted to claim benefits as entitled Access to a local credit union Offers choice at a good price to the vulnerable

Financial help for vulnerable

Helps people back into work Supported people into employment Makes people more employable

Saving on state welfare budget

Employment for local people The supported groups employ people Business support delivered leads to new jobs

Creates new jobs in the area

Broadband enhances economic growth Business support

Boosts business efficiency

Diversification on small farm Brings extra income into coffee shop

Viability of host/co-located business

Social benefits: Respondent comments (grouped) Summary of benefit Reduces social isolation Provides access to friends and family Social contacts for older people Allows travel to social engagements Reduces feelings of isolation Elderly can get out and meet people Needy are checked on to see if OK

Tackle social isolation / loneliness

36

Support for the recently bereaved Lonely elderly have a meal together Enables those without cars to get out People become less socially isolated Helps reduce social isolation Older people have access to hot meals Having access to support services Provides a nutritious meal and contact Helps people to continue in their own homes Improves stability of troubled families Improves safety of local communities Keep elderly in their own homes longer Mental health social group improves wellbeing Day centre for elderly within the community Improves people’s health and life quality Health care visits in the village Practical and emotional respite for carers

Improve health and wellbeing

Provides shopping opportunities Provide access to events Pub becomes more of a village hub Created a hub for the community Supports those providing rural services Training takes place locally in a familiar place Helps people access the services they need Allows those without cars to get about Gives disables better access

Physical access to services / facilities

A heightened sense of community Hub where community exchanges information People attend drop-in and chat to others Provide centre for clubs and societies A place for youngsters to enjoy time together Provides an enjoyable social occasion It has revived the village community spirit Re-energised the community Assists people’s ability to get involved Creates more groups in the community Keeps the farming community together Provides fellowship as well as a good meal People get a chance to travel together

Sense of belonging to community

Allows volunteers to make a difference Outlet for people to help each other Created a community around care of clients Puts dementia carers in touch with each other Involves local volunteering Brings in volunteers working together

Builds local / community capacity

More integration of hard to reach groups Issues tackled in more inclusive way Integrated the community Brings people in the community together

Community cohesion

Creative way to tackle complex needs Those who lost jobs meet / share experiences

Address social exclusion

37

A free service for those facing difficulties Enables communities to feed back to providers

Users able to shape services

Environmental benefits: Respondent comments (grouped) Summary of benefit Reduces carbon with only one vehicle used Reduces need to travel to work Fewer cars used Encourage and promote car sharing Less journeys made to hospitals Reduces need to travel to town 13 miles away We car share wherever possible Reduction in private car use Cuts out travel to supermarkets Low mileage food (food miles) Locally base without need to travel No need to drive to the supermarket Reduced need for people to travel No need to travel 15 miles to cinema, CAB, etc Less need to travel Cuts down individuals’ carbon footprints People travel in one vehicle

Cuts car or travel use / mileage

Improvement to building’s energy use Generates some of its own electricity Building has ground source heat pump

Improves building energy efficiency

A cleaner, tidier looking village Know local land e.g. can tackle flooding

Maintains local environment

Recycles and re-uses We recycle rubbish rather than landfill

Cuts down on waste / landfill

Enhances distinctiveness of the local area Helps improve general feel in the town

Character of local area

Better care of ecology on the farm

Wildlife / habitat gains

Groups often have an environmental mission Can respond to environmental emergencies Reduces domestic and grass fires Provides information on environmental issues

Raised awareness of environment

38

Responses to specific claimed achievements are shown on the graph below

Q. have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? Just over half the responses (53%) told us of significant problems in setting up the scheme but conversely (47%) said they did not experience significant problems. The most common problem cited was related to operational funding (55%), followed by finding and/or retaining volunteers (28%). Almost 37% of the responses referred to ‘other’ significant problems and these are analysed below.

39

Other problems relating to service delivery. There were 49 useable responses to question 12 which asked respondents to identify ‘other’ problems in the development of alternative service provision. Ten of these concerned the public reaction to the loss or change in public transport provision but the remainder were broadly distributed across a number of issues. They can be divided into three broad sets, those relating to resources, those relating to expertise and those relating to procedures. Resource problems These were spread between financial and physical resources. Financial resource problems were of two types. Financial shortages ranged from a complete loss of funding for a project (or non-availability of core funding) to a lack of pump priming monies to develop new projects. It was noted that securing funding was becoming harder over time and that the parameters for a viable project also were changing. The second set of financial problems related to financial uncertainties and complexities. Here, rules and criteria could be problematic. Funding criteria were difficult to interpret and funding rules appeared to change over time. A number reported funding pots into which respondents were in the process of applying had been put on hold, or that timescales for funding applications were too short. More practically, unrealistic site valuations (on the part of the state) inhibited progress with projects as did a range of insurance complexities and in one case, a contractor going out of business. The articulation of physical resource problems was more straightforward. They ranged from the relatively large scale (problems with water quality, a lack of buildings, structural problems with buildings, lack of transport) to the smaller scale but vital (the lack of storage for non-perishable goods, the need for an antenna and in one case, simply a lack of chairs).

40

Lack of expertise The second area of ‘other’ problems related to a lack of expertise in a number of respects. A first group of these related to the need for specialist ‘legal’ knowledge. This related, for example, to the need to define community assets successfully under the Localism Act, 2012 or to understand the legal difference between statutory and non-statutory responsibilities. A second area could be termed the need for minimum levels of competence. There was a need for more affected people (suppliers and consumers), for example, to understand what was being done or what was required of them. Other problems in this category more bluntly just identified individuals (council members, caretakers) as being incompetent. A third area related to the fragility of training for new skills in relation to the provision of services. Here, there was a lack of training, it had been promised but not delivered, or it had been cancelled. A range of problems also was articulated in relation to the expertise of voluntary effort. Here it was recognised that enthusiasm was not necessarily coincident with ability and a number of projects had suffered from this lack of expertise amongst volunteers. Where attempts had been made to improve this expertise (although training was not always available) there were cases where volunteers had become disenchanted and left. It was noted by one respondent that the volunteers with the greatest expertise often had the smallest amount if available time to devote to the project Procedures as limits to progress Thirdly, there were two broad types of procedure that acted as barriers to project progress. Technical procedures related, for example, to restrictive legal frameworks, VAT & corporation tax and a lack of regulatory codes compliance. Here was a lack of understanding, too, of what were perceived to be complex employment arrangements. Less formally, there were perceived to be complex arrangements with suppliers, the need to clarify arrangements for users and more generally, “delays at council” Finally, political procedural activity was perceived as a problem by some. Thus, simply, there was “political resistance” to projects, sometimes characterised as negative public responses. The public transport replacement or loss noted at the beginning of this section falls into this category. Other comments in this category characterised project ‘obstructers’ as a ‘vociferous minority’: “Minority interests (were) obstructing things”; “(There was) opposition from a small, but vociferous number of people from an adjacent Village who organised a malicious campaign”; “(There was) opposition from small number of highly motivated local residents”. But this language, and indeed the perception of the problem itself is undoubtedly influenced by the perspective of the person filling out the questionnaire. Q. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? Slightly over 22% of responses indicated that problems had delayed their scheme by more than 6 months.

41

Q. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Responses indicate that almost 60% of the schemes have paid staff but just over 40% do not. Q. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Some 80% of the responses said that their scheme has volunteers although 20% do not. Q. Has the scheme received outside advice? If yes, who provided that advice? Outside advice was obtained by almost 80% of schemes but less than 12% of responses said they had utilised paid-for advice. The advice came from a variety of sources as indicated below but Councils and other public sector organisations were identified in 62% of responses.

42

Q. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? If yes, from whom was the finance obtained?. 62% of responses stated that their scheme received significant outside finance in the set-up phase and 38% stated that they did not. Of the specified options Unitary/County/ District Councils were the most commonly identified sources of set-up funding (56%) with Parish / Town Council funding being identified by 34%.

43

Q. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? 46% of responses said that they were receiving no outside finance towards operational costs whereas 54% said that they were receiving such funding. Filtered results and Cross-tabulations The questionnaire results provide only a comparatively small dataset. Also, the replies are self-selected so cannot be assumed to be representative of alternative rural service delivery schemes as a whole. Moreover, the responses are self-reported and therefore reflect the particular views and perceptions of respondents. For these reasons the results do not readily lend themselves to rigorous statistical analysis. However, it is interesting to highlight selected aspects of the responses and to note apparent contrasts between different scheme characteristics as these may help to identify potential success factors and barriers. Filter 1. The 3 schemes that are considered unlikely to go ahead. These comprised a community-run bus service which has legal problems; a proposed multi-use track which reports a lack of support from Councils; and a broadband delivery scheme affected by a change in funding criteria. Filter 2. The 3 schemes that had ceased after set-up. These comprised a fingerpost replacement scheme that may have finished as a result of completing its objectives; a day care provision for elderly people with mental health needs that encountered problems with operational funding and finding and retaining volunteers; and a youth club that experienced difficulties in finding suitable volunteers and obtaining appropriate training. Filter 3. The 31 schemes that were delayed by over six months. These were specifically filtered in order to identify the problems that those schemes reported. Difficulties in obtaining set-up funding were reported by over half. Almost half also reported operational funding problems. Other significant problems for that group of delayed schemes included, in order of the number of cases: finding/retaining volunteers, planning, legal and finding premises. Filter 4 Selected Regions. Filters were applied for the three regions, The South West, East of England and West Midlands, from which more than 20 responses had been received. A filter was also applied to the combined results from the North East and the North West (reported as ‘North’ below). The four filtered responses were then compared and the results are given below. Extreme caution must be applied to the interpretation of these results because of the low number of cases in certain categories. A very much larger dataset would be required before any regional differences could reasonably be deduced. • A higher proportion of schemes in the East resulted from a Council or other public sector initiative (62% compared to 57% in the North, 43% in the West Midlands and 42% in the South West) • Schemes in the Northern region were the most likely to report as successful (86% compared to 78% in the East, 63% in the South West, and 52% in the West Midlands) • Schemes in the West Midlands were the most likely to report significant problems (43% compared to 24% in the South West, 14% in the East and 5% in the North) • Responses from the North include proportionally fewer schemes that had been in operation for more than 3 years (26% compared to 55% in the South West, 63% in the West Midlands and 71% in the East) • Environmental benefits were claimed for 74% of schemes in the North (67% in the East, 65% in the West Midlands and 59% in the South West)

44

• Schemes in the East were the most likely to claim to deliver the service at less cost and to be more likely to survive • The schemes in the East were the most likely to be delivered by charities • 68% of schemes in the East reported significant set-up problems, as did 62% of schemes in the South West (compared to 43% in the West Midlands and 25% in the North) • 88% of the West Midlands schemes reported operational funding problems (60% in the South West, 44% in the North and 36% in the East) • A higher percentage of schemes in the South West reported delays of over 6 months. • A lower percentage of schemes in the South West and the West Midlands employed paid staff. • A higher percentage of schemes in the East (81%) and in the North (78%) received advice from a Council or other public sector organisation (compared to 53% in the South West and 47% in the West Midlands.) • Of those schemes that received external set-up funding, 84% of schemes in the East state that they received funding from a Unitary, County or District Council (compared to 55% in the South West, 55% in the North and 27% in the West Midlands) Three cross-tabulations were undertaken: 1. Whether or not the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative. 2. Whether the scheme was reported as operating successfully or experiencing problems 3. Whether or not the scheme employed paid staff Compared to other schemes, those schemes resulting from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative showed the following characteristics: • More likely to be operating successfully • Less likely to have been operating for more than 3 years • More likely to regard themselves as offering a flexible approach to delivery and/or providing a service model that is more likely to survive • Less likely to be run by charities • Less likely to report set-up or operational funding problems • More likely to have paid staff but less likely to have volunteers • More likely to report obtaining advice from a Council or other public sector organisation • More likely to have received set-up funding from a Unitary, County or District Council Compared to schemes that reported that they were operating but experiencing problems, the schemes that reported operating successfully showed the following characteristics: • More likely to have resulted from a Council or public sector organisation’s initiative. • Less likely to have operated for more than 3 years • Less likely to be community interest companies or charities. • Less likely to experience problems with operational funding • Less likely to experience problems in finding or retaining volunteers • Less likely to employ paid staff and also less likely to have volunteers (presumably attributable to being less likely to be operated by paid staff and volunteers together) • More likely to have received set-up funding from Unitary, County or District Councils and/ or from Parish and Town Councils.

45

• Less likely to have received lottery or charity funding Compared to schemes with no paid staff, those with paid staff showed the following characteristics: • More likely to have resulted from a Council or Public sector organisation’s initiative • More likely to be experiencing difficulties • More likely to claim economic and/or environmental benefits • More likely to claim better outcomes at no greater cost; more flexible approach to service delivery; to reach harder-to-reach clients; and/or to provide a service model more likely to survive. • More likely to be a charity or a community interest company • More likely to have experienced set-up problems • More likely to experience operational funding problems • Less likely to experience difficulties finding/retaining volunteers • More likely to have received outside advice • More likely to have received significant outside finance to set up. • More likely to have received set-up funding from a Unitary, County or District Council. • Less likely to have received set-up funding from a Parish or Town Council • More likely to receive outside finance towards operational costs Caution must be exercised in interpreting the above results as they may or may not represent directly causal links. For example schemes with paid staff are identified as being more likely to be experiencing problems but this could be for a variety of reasons including the size/ complexity of the scheme. Very small sample sizes in certain cross-tabulations are also particularly unreliable as indicators. There does however appear to be a suggestion that delivery models resulting from Council and other public sector initiatives are generally operating comparatively successfully. Non-standard responses In addition to the responses considered above, several other replies were received. Of these, 6 were submissions of additional information about schemes that were included in the questionnaire and 13 provided information about schemes for which no questionnaire response was submitted. Also received were 4 emails expressing general views about alternative service delivery models in rural areas. The six submissions augmenting the questionnaire responses included details of a community pub; a book room, a coffee caravan, good neighbour schemes, youth facilities, and a bus service subsidised by parishes. All are positive practical examples of alternative delivery of services meeting local needs. The responses relating to schemes for which no questionnaire had been completed typically related to very local initiatives operating at a single village or parish level. These included a community shop, a parish skip, parish-run public toilets and tourist information facilities, a community-run library, litter collection and grounds maintenance, maintaining amenity buildings, and providing a snow warden. More unusual examples included a village that purchased a defibrillator, an animal-assisted therapy facility, a mental health support group, a village taking advantage of the Community Payback Scheme, and a social enterprise specialising in traditional building projects. One response referred to scheme that was likely to fail to come to fruition (a proposed multi-use trail).

46

Since the additional information was not of a standard format, (for example it included committee reports, publicity leaflets and the comments of individuals), it is difficult to draw meaningful comparisons from them. However, a number of barriers were specifically mentioned including funding, legislation, planning, travel options, lack of interest by councils and landowners, and finding volunteers. These reinforce the barriers articulated in the survey. Three of the four emails expressing views about alternative service delivery in rural areas came from council officers. One commented that local authorities, faced with cuts in funding, are unable adequately to support third sector bodies and expressed concern that the third sector may lack necessary specialist input and is often uncontrolled, unregulated and unmonitored. Another highlighted the difficulties of providing online services in rural areas and the problems that this can cause to benefits claimants in particular. The third identified 5 key barriers as being poor public transport and roads; an ageing population increasing demands for health and well-being services with no related increase in funding; a lack of funding for volunteers’ expenses leading to more VCOs adopting a social enterprise model and using paid staff rather than volunteers; increased commissioning by statutory agencies having a negative impact on micro charities/VCOs that rely on small grants; and contract length not always being sufficient. One reply was from a volunteer who observed that charities seem increasingly to prefer to employ paid workers rather than using volunteers.

47

7. CASE STUDY SELECTION This final section of the text of the interim report sets out the means by which the 12 case studies for in depth exploration have been selected. Their parameters are summarised in the table at the end of this section and they are represented geographically in the map overleaf. Parameters The questionnaire has provided information on 198 schemes. Whilst an analysis of that database has revealed some interesting themes with regard to potential success factors and barriers it does not facilitate the consideration of factors as service user satisfaction levels, organisational attitudes or social capital considerations. Accordingly, 12 case studies have been selected for in-depth analysis. The selection process has involved a traffic-light system such that those schemes marked red were not considered for further study and the remainder were identified as either possible (amber), or preferred (green) selections. Filter 1 All cases where the respondent had not indicated that they were willing for the scheme to be selected as a case study were coloured red. Where there are multiple examples with both very similar geographical and service area characteristics all but one of those was also coloured red. Filter 2 Mindful that the research focuses both on success factors and on barriers, 2 of the case studies were selected from schemes that have either ceased to operate or have failed to set up. The remainder include examples of successful schemes and of those which have reported problems. It was also considered desirable that the case studies should reflect a range of organisational delivery characteristics. Since Charities and Community owned/social enterprises were the most common categories identified through the questionnaire the case study selection included at least 3 examples from each of those categories. The remaining case studies have been selected from other organisational types. Schemes aiming to deliver services traditionally provided by the public sector may have a high potential for providing ‘learning’ value to future schemes. Therefore, just over half the case studies are schemes that have resulted from a public sector organisation’s initiative. Filter 3 In making the final selection regard has been had to selecting a mix of examples from Rural 80 areas and Rural 50 areas. One case is from a significantly rural area. A geographical spread has also been achieved although this is not proportional to the regional distribution of questionnaire responses. The final filter involved including some particularly interesting and/or innovative examples. The case studies Using these parameters, 12 case studies have been identified as in the map and table below. Their responses to the survey questionnaire are presented at appendix 3, with

48

the exception of the Faith in Affordable Housing case study, which did not complete a questionnaire.

49

Case study selection parameters Case study Service type Delivery mechanism Rural 50

or 80? County Brief initial assessment of

problems/successes from questionnaire. Future Transport transport Yet to choose most

appropriate model R80 Cambridgeshire Attempted to create community-run

replacement for withdrawn service but legal complexities encountered.

Suffolk Links transport Commissioned service/social enterprise.

R80 Suffolk More flexible service, meeting local needs at less cost. Adverse initial public reaction to replacement service.

Malbank Coaches transport Private company (currently with some outsource work)

R50* Cheshire Meets needs of individuals at no greater overall service cost.

Rural Coffee Caravan Information Project

elderly Grass-roots/ social enterprise

R80 Suffolk Flexibly addresses rural isolation but has problems with operational funding.

Wishing Well elderly Hybrid outsource/ grass-roots social enterprise.

R50* Cheshire Flexible, reaches harder-to-reach clients at less cost but experiences operational funding issues

Okehampton Work Club employment advice

Grass-roots/ social enterprise (Charity)

R80 Devon Delivers locally needed service at less cost. Funding problems

Ennerdale Hub Ltd retail Community based social enterprise

R80 Cumbria Successful community pub. Problems with funding and finding/retaining volunteers

Jubilee Park Woodall Spa leisure/ tourism

Parish Council, by asset transfer from District

R80 Lincolnshire Flexible and lower cost service meeting local needs. Legal complexities encountered

Faith in Affordable Housing housing ?? ?? Cumbria/Glos Lechlade Youth Club young people Grass-roots/ social

enterprise. R80 Gloucestershire Meets a local need. Operational funding

problems The Colwall Orchard Group landscape/

environment Social enterprise (Company and charity)

R50* Herefordshire

The Project Group Mental health Social enterprise (Community Interest Company)

R50* Shropshire Meets a local need at no greater cost but experiences operational funding difficulties.

* Unitary Council classification

50

8. REFERENCES All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Services (2010), minutes, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/rural-services.htm Barlow M (1940) Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, Cmd 6153, HMSO, London. Cabinet Office, (2011) Open Public Services White Paper, HM Government, London, http://files.openpublicservices.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/OpenPublicServices-WhitePaper.pdf Carnegie Trust (2009) A manifesto for rural communities: inspiring community innovation, the Trust, Dunfermline. Christopoulos D (2006) Theorising and understanding the social economy. The future of the social economy: local solutions to global challenges seminar. University of Bristol, June 9. Commission for Rural Communities (2009) State of the Countryside report 2008, the Commission. Cheltenham Countryside Alliance (2010) Rural Manifesto, the Alliance, London. Curry NR (2001) Community Participation in Rural Policy: Representativeness in the Development of Millennium Greens, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(4), 561 - 576 Curry N R (2009) The Disempowerment of Empowerment: How Stakeholding Clogs up Rural Decision-making. Space and Polity, 13(3) 211 - 224 Curry NR (2012) Sustainable rural development in England: policy problems and equity consequences, Local Economy, 27(2), 95 – 102, March. Curry N R and Fisher R (2012) The role of trust in the development of connectivities amongst rural elders in Britain Journal of Rural Studies, 28(4) 358 – 370 Curry N R (2013) Planning and policy documents as transactions costs: the case of rural decision-making in England, Land Use Policy, 30, 711– 718 Department of Communities and Local Government (2010a), Draft Structural Reform Plan, DCLG, London, July http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/16359212.pdf (Accessed, 14 February 2013) Department of the Environment (1995) Rural England, HMSO, London. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2000) Our countryside: the future. A fair deal for rural England. White Paper. DETR/MAFF, London, November. Demos (2005). Beyond digital divides? The future for ICT in rural areas. London: Commission for Rural Communities. Evans D and Neate S (1983) Policies for access to healthcare and their outcome in Leicestershire, in Lowe P, Bradley T, and Wright S (eds) Deprivation and welfare in rural areas, Geo Books, Norwich.

51

Giddens A (1998) The third way: the renewal of social democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge. Glyptis S (1987) Sport and recreation in rural areas: a sample study of Ryedale and Swaledale, Yorkshire and Humberside Council for Sport and Recreation. Goodwin M (1998) The governance of rural areas: some emerging research issues and agendas, Journal of Rural Studies 14(1) 5 – 12. Hennessy CH (2010) Civic engagement in later life and lifelong learning International Journal of Education and Ageing 1(2) 153-166, December. Howkins A (2003) the death of rural England, a social history of the countryside since 1900, Routledge, London JURUE/Department for Educational Enquiry (1981) the social effects of rural primary school reorganisation, final report, Birmingham, University of Aston. Larkin A (1979) Rural housing and housing needs in Shaw M (ed.) Rural deprivation and planning, Geo Abstracts ltd, University of Norwich, Norwich, England. Lowe P (1996) The British Rural White Papers, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Working Paper 21, December. Lowe P and Ward N (2007) Sustainable Rural Economies: Some Lessons from the English Experience, Sustainable Development 15, 307–317. McAreavey R (2006) Getting close to the action: the micro-politics of rural development, Sociologia Ruralis 46(2) 85 - 103 McElwee G and Somerville P (2009) Theorising Illicit Enterprise in the rural: Is everyone at it? Paper presented at the 7th Rural Entrepreneurship Conference, Rheged and Redhills, Penrith, Cumbria”, 28-29th May. Marsden T, Eklund E and Franklin A (2004) Rural mobilisation as rural development: exploring the impacts of new regionalism in Wales and Finland. International Planning Studies, 9(2-3), 79 – 100. Moseley M (1979) Accessibility, the Rural Challenge, Unwin, London. Moseley M and Owen S (2008) the future of rural services: drivers of change and scenario for 2015, Progress in Planning, 69, 38 Owen, S., Moseley, M. J. and Courtney, P. (2007) Bridging the Gap: An Attempt to Reconcile Strategic Planning and Very Local Community-Based Planning in Rural England, Local Government Studies 33 (1), pp. 49-76 OECD (2011) OECD Rural Policy Reviews: England, United Kingdom. OECD Paris, January Parker G (1999) Rights, symbolic violence, and the micro-politics of the rural: the case of the Parish Paths Partnership scheme, Environment and Planning A. 31(7) 1207-1222 Parker G (2002). Citizenships, contingency and the countryside: rights, culture, land and the environment. London: Routledge. Performance and Innovation unit (1999) Rural Economies London: Cabinet Office

52

53

Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M. and South, N. (2005). A countryside for health and well being: the physical and mental health benefits of green exercise. A report to the Countryside Recreation Network, February. Rural Services Network (2010) Bulletin, July. Scott, Lord Justice (1942) Report of the Committee on land Utilisation in Rural Areas. Cmnd 6378, HMSO, London. Scott-Cato M and Hillier J (2010) How could we study climate-related social innovation? Applying Deleuzean philosophy to Transition Towns Environmental Politics 19(6), 869 - 887 Shaw M and Stockford D (1979) The role of statutory agencies in rural areas: planning and social services, in Shaw M (ed.) Rural Deprivation and Planning, Geo Abstracts ltd, University of Norwich, Norwich, England. Wenger C (1992) Help in old age, facing up to a change, a longitudinal network study. The Institute of Human Ageing, occasional papers 5, Liverpool University Press.

Appendix 1 – Practice Review Web Sources

Author Date

Title Publication Key search

terms Informatio

n Type

Website URL Relevance - parameters,

location, service area

Findings & Impact - aspiration/implemented/evaluated and

success/barriers identified

quality/reliability/strength of information

Notes

Andrews, N. Scopes, J. & Yard, J. 2008

Public Service Transformation and Reform

Report alternative service delivery models Consultancy

http://www.sourcingfocus.com/uploaded/documents/PublicServiceTransformationandReform08.pdf

Examines obstacles to public service reform.

Gap between private and public will wider unless more radical approaches to transformation are adopted within Government. Obstacles include: risk aversion, change management and inflexible procurement. Recommends a plurality of provision to drive innovation and close the gap. To accelerate this process: build acceptance, education, candidate process, create heroes and engage with provider community.

Paper produced as a standalone document by Twenty Insight to provide sourcing advice to Government and business.

Examples of successful alternative delivery models include: National Savings, the congestion charge and Vertex front office functions for Westminster Council. No rural content, limited references to vol/com providers.

PA Consulting 2012

Exploring Alternative Service Delivery Models

Website alternative service delivery models Consultancy

http://www.paconsulting.co.uk/our-thinking/exploring-alternative-service-delivery-models/

Summary of an event inc CLG, legal, commercial and the third sector to discuss whether Alternative Service Delivery Models (ASD) can truly transform public services.

ASDs are a viable long-term solution, not an easy, quick-win option to turnaround performance and reduce costs; Public sector procurement regulation, specifically the draft EU Directive, threaten to stop ASDs in their tracks; Central government needs to do more to enable local government to overcome the hurdles and incentivise take-up where appropriate; and ASDs are not a one size fits all panacea

Commonwealth Secretariat 2011

Alternative Service Delivery Revisited

Report alternative service delivery models Voluntary Association

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/234857/FileName/Discussion_Paper_10.pdf

Regards ASD as a 1990s machinery of Government that has regained currency in Commonwealth public sector development during the global economic crisis. Includes examples of Government approaches in Canada and Tanzania.

Describes a shift in Commonwealth countries, including the UK, from joined up Government, to New Public Management (NPM), to efforts to improve citizen focused service delivery amid austerity in a post NPM era. Frames ASD, sets out potential delivery options/models (pp 3), provides case studies from Canada and Tanzania and summarises lessons. Recommends the basis for ASD should be on a bottom up case-by-case basis and it is important to know why existing arrangements do not work before launching into ASD. It also references the role of champions and central oversight bodies.

Limited references to UK

White, J. Alternative Report http://www.tu Considers how The report describes the levers for change, Produced in

54

2010 Business Models for the public sector

alternative service delivery models Consultancy

rnerandtownsend.com/513/_7064.html

local authorities can 'deliver more for less' whilst protecting frontline services.

presents 6 business models (internal transformation, outsourcing, shared services, local authority model, joint venture and strategic partnership), examines the capacity of the marketplace and a 9-point flow chart for authorities to follow to identify more effective and efficient delivery models.

response to a BBC Survey published on 1 March 2010 on cuts to public services.

Museums Galleries Scotland 2010

Choices for Change - a toolkit for exploring alternative methods of delivering services

Report alternative service delivery models Membership Body

www.choicesforchange.info/downloads/?f=toolkit

Toolkit for local authority heads of service in museums and cultural services to use to consider alternative models of service delivery.

Set out as a self assessment approach for local authorities to use alongside in-house evaluation to highlight ASD models. It provides a platform for discussion, methodology for decision making (strategic, service delivery, logistical and financial), and signposts other related areas. Outlines 4 service delivery models: (1) transfer to a museum trust/social enterprise, (2) direct delivery by local authority, (3) joint arrangements with other local authorities, and (4) outsourcing.

Informed a consultation by Museums Galleries Scotland to develop a national strategy in Scotland to unite the sector and work towards a more sustainable future.

Local Government Chronicle 2011

The changing face of service delivery

Journal alternative service delivery models Media

http://www.lgcplus.com/Journals/2011/09/28/p/p/o/Open-Services-Supplement-29092011.pdf

A 24-page special report looking at how the relationship between public/private, public/public and public/third sector is changing - illustrated through case studies and opinion pieces.

Contextualised by the Open Spaces White Paper, this report provides a background to open services, a roundtable of experts and provides a series of case studies around: (i) modelling partnerships - Flintshire CC transforming its IT; Vale of White Horse & South Oxfordshire transforming governance; (ii) pooling resources - Chorley, South Ribble & Worcester sharing system and Eastbourne Councils 'agile working' project; (iii) virtual shared services - Bromley and North Somerset Councils profiled.

Association for Public Service Excellent (APSE) 2011

Insourcing update: The value of returning local authority services in-house in an era of budget constraints.

Report alternative service delivery models Consultancy

http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/20122.pdf

The report seeks to challenge the orthodoxy that private sector contractors are more efficient and cheaper than the public sector.

Based upon a survey of local authority officers which found 57% had either brought a service back in-house or were in the process of doing so. Contains 8 case studies of insourcing, including: Cumbria (human resources, accounts, highways and economic development), Fife (building services), Hillingdon (housing management), North Tyneside (recycling), Redcar & Cleveland (customer services), Rotherham (grounds maintenance) and Thurrock (waste collection). Reasons include: cost savings, flexibility, service quality improvements and local accountability.

55

Thomas, P. & Gash, J. 2011

New Thinking on Delivery Models in the UK Civil Service and public services

Report new models service delivery Charity

http://www.cambridgeservicealliance.org/uploads/downloadfiles/serviceweekslides/Peter%20Thomas.pdf

A review of how delivery models for public services have changed over the last 20 years.

Emphasises commissioning as being central to the Government's reform agenda which is pushing towards complex, outcome focused contracts. Two case studies are outlined: (1) Serco reducing reoffending project in Hull, and (2) family recovery project in Westminster. Provides an overview of delivery model dimensions including: who, at what level, commissioning, accountable and involvement from service users.

The Association of Professionals in Education and Children's Trusts (Aspect) 2011

New Terrain: new models of education and children's services delivery

Report new models service delivery Trade Body

http://www.aspect.org.uk/files/2060/NEW%20TERRAIN.pdf

A commitment to raising school standards by designing an overarching education and children's service commissioning framework

The report examines how local authority interventions can be maintained in a context of reduced capacity with 7 evolving models presented: multi-authority platforms, voluntary sector, inter-school collaboratives, mutuals and cooperatives, social enterprise, self-employed consultancy and private companies.

McDonald, C. 2012

Pursuing new models of service delivery: a spotlight on public sector mutuals

Report new models service delivery Consultancy

http://www.publicserviceevents.co.uk/ppt/RLS12_Campbell_McDonald.pdf

Summary of why you should set up a mutual and the challenges to creating a mutual.

Identifies the barriers around mutual (i.e., commissioning reform, lack of advice, lack of right skills, access to capital, lack of local buy-in); the strategic, technical, cultural and funding challenges; provides2 case studies (Kensington & Chelsea youth service and MyCSP).

The authors specialise in mutual/employee ownership it has been written as promotional material.

Staite, C. 2012

A new model for public services?

Report new models service delivery Academic

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/government-society/inlogov/discussion-papers/new-model-discussion-paper-1012-2.pdf

Explains how previous approaches by Councils to respond to limited resources (i.e., pumping in more money, driving up performance or reducing supply costs) will no longer work and offers a 'new model of public service'.

Posits a new model for service delivery which brings together themes and constructs to suggest how local government and local public services can bridge the gap between available funding and rising need. This model has been constructed as a triangle with relationships between individuals, communities and the public sector, co-production and behaviour change at each corner; and arrows between each corner setting out the need to build trust, build capacity and manage demand. The paper asks the reader a set of questions about whether the model is a helpful framework and what, if anything, is missing.

The paper will form part of a book chapter exploring the idea of a new model of public services.

Crowe, D. & Howell, S. 2012

Catalyst Councils. A new future for

Report new models service

http://www.localis.org.uk/images/Catalyst_c

Explains the importance of and how councils are

(1) What do we mean by alternative delivery models? Commissioning services externally, social enterprise, partnership

The report draws upon a survey that was sent out to

56

local public service delivery

delivery Consultancy

ouncils_12_9_12_WEB.pdf

finding new ways of working and the barriers to innovation.

(joint ventures), shared services, Co-operative councils, mutuals. Short case studies provided include: Salford Urban Vision, Tri-borough (London borough councils), Oldham Co-operative Council and Greenwich Leisure Limited. (2) What novel methods are being developed/implemented? Councils charging for discretionary services, trading activities (Shropshire and Essex cited), citizen behaviour change, early intervention/new payment mechanisms and communities taking control (i.e., co-production and community assets - Goodwin Development Trust cited).

every Council leader and Chief Executive in summer 2012. 82 responses were received.

Chanan, G. & Miller, C. 2011

The Big Society and Public Services: complementarity or erosion?

Report service delivery big society Consultancy

http://www.pacesempowerment.co.uk/Home_files/The%20Big%20Society%202.pdf

Sets out the case for Big Society policy being divided into: (1) strengthening communities and (2) service provision - creating a 'provider-user' split. The 1st role of big society must be to support community activity. Diversifying providers/encouraging social enterprises only makes sense as supplementary to this.

Think piece setting out a series of themes around the emergence of the big society agenda and how its aim of strengthening communities (which the authors argue comprise an independent mass of community groups) with the running of public services. The piece calls for 'rebalancing' not 'substitution' - every public service is already a balancing act between state provision and community participation and the focus needs to be on the state and citizens running local services together.

Reynolds, F 2011

Big Society in Sutton

Report service delivery big society Academic

http://www.cloresocialleadership.org.uk/userfiles/documents/resources/fellows/Faith_Reynolds/Big_Society_in_Sutton_July_2011_WHITE.pdf

The report considers the voluntary sector's response to changes in the economic and political climate and its implications for its relationship with local authorities.

Sutton is a vanguard for the Big Society Makes 3 recommendations to refocus resources to promote community/citizen engagement: (1) the voluntary sector should refocus efforts on community engagement: building organisational resilience, increasing innovation and improving effectiveness; (2) the local authority should use the commissioning framework to rebalance upward accountability with downward

Between 2010 and 2011 Faith Reynolds undertook a fellowship on the Clore Social Leadership Programme and is overseen by the Institute for Government. The report contains a

The voluntary sector in Sutton is comprised of 343 organisations, with more than 70% predominantly small with 80% citing the local authority as one of their significant funders leaving them vulnerable to funding fluctuations.

57

accountability: incentivising models which promote community participation and entrepreneurialism; (3) Councils should build the capacity of the voluntary sector to scale up by attracting investment - facilitating local businesses to get involved, brokering links with primary contractors for public services and 'selling' Sutton's voluntary sector to philanthropists and investors.

foreword by Nick Boles MP.

Angier, P. & Affleck, A. 2010

The Big Society, mutuals & the re-shaping of public service delivery - A briefing paper

Report service delivery big society Consultancy

http://www.angier-griffin.com/downloads/2011/may/The%20Big%20Society%20briefing.pdf

Provides background to Big Society vanguards and Mutual Pathfinders to suggest that local authorities will be asked to consider the options for switching public service delivery from 'in house' services to autonomous mutual organisations.

Provides 12 examples of mutuals and social enterprises operating at different scales and across different sectors: care & share associates, North Country Leisure, Eaga, Team Fostering, Community Campus '87, Shared Interest, Community Renewable Energy, Ealing Community Transport, Bulky Bob's, Cylch, Sunderland Music Co-operative and Co-operative Trust Schools. The briefing document presents a 5 step plan for the successful mutualisation of public services: (i) identify services to be mutualised, (ii) consult fully with staff, (iii) identify sources of advice, (iv) compile a fully costed business plan, and (v) sign contract and begin transfer.

Produced by an organisation that supports social and community businesses in Sunderland and the North East. Limited rural content.

Co+operative Development Scotland undated

Making a positive difference to public services - co-operatives and employee owned businesses in public service delivery

Report service delivery co-operatives Government

http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/~/media/SE/Resources/Documents/MNO/Making-a-Positive-Difference-to-Public-services.pdf

Explores the benefits of co-operative and employee owned business models.

Describes co-operative business models, how they are already delivering public services (e.g. Co-operative Trust Schools, Foundation Trust Hospitals); opportunities and challenges for growth; how they can be developed; and presents 6 case studies: Central Surrey Health, Eaga, Highland Home Carers, Harwich Connexions, Childbase and GLL.

Developed in response to Scottish Parliament's Finance Committee inquiry into how to deliver public services amid tightening public expenditure. Contains large scale UK wide examples of cooperative and employee owned business models.

Bland, J. 2011

Time to get serious. International lessons for developing public service mutuals

Report service delivery co-operatives Trade Body

http://www.uk.coop/sites/storage/public/downloads/international_public_service_mutuals.pdf

The paper looks at international experience of co-operatives working in public services in order to draw out lessons for UK and

Presents the following illustrative examples to suggest how the mutual model can work in the delivery of high quality public services: co-operative schools and residential care in Spain; social care, health and employment co-operatives in Italy; and pre-school care in Sweden. These have been

Examines experiences in Spain, Italy and Sweden to identify lessons relevant for the promotion of new co-operative models in the UK.

58

devolved services. used to suggest some key lessons and ingredients for success, including: specialist business support; clear co-operative and mutual models; organisational forms that can be recognised in procurement; long-term commissioning; solutions for taxation constraints; and openness to user involvement as well as employee ownership.

House of Commons Communities & Local Government Committee 2012

Mutual and co-operative approaches to delivering local services. Fifth report of session 2012-2013

Report service delivery co-operatives Government

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcomloc/112/112.pdf

Forms part of an inquiry into what local authorities are doing around mutuals and co-operatives, to identify the benefits that such approaches might offer, to assess the risks and examine the support being provided by Government to assist in setting up mutuals and co-operatives.

The report addresses three main issues: (1) an overview of mutuals and co-operatives that are in operation or being developed by local authorities. (2) the benefits that are being claimed for mutuals and co-operatives. (3) the adequacy of support for those setting up mutuals and co-operatives and barriers and risks that appear to be preventing authorities from using these models. Models being used by local authorities include: employee-owned mutuals or co-operatives; two-way and multiple stakeholder models; multi-way models; and co-production. The barriers include: finance, taxation, procurement and cultural. Risks identified: accountability, local engagement, employees, service fragmentation and asset loss.

Evidence in a rural context provided by West Lindsey District Council.

Government is stimulating local authorities to consider mutuals/co-operatives. They are not being set up in significant numbers. Critical mass is needed to demonstrate conclusive improvements in service or savings. Advocates a Government strategy for the collection of evidence and dissemination of best practice/tested models to break down the barriers.

Lambeth Council. 2010

The Co-operative Council - sharing power: a new settlement between citizens and the state

Report service delivery co-operatives Local Government

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7A3AAA00-19A8-48E2-833F-F159681ADE9D/0/SharingPowerCoopReport.pdf

The report sets out the conclusions from a Co-operative Council Citizens' Commission about the co-operative council approach.

Recommendations based around four themes for the co-operative council: principles for delivering public services; council and citizens working together; the council as an co-operative organisation (e.g. organisational culture); and delivery including early adopters. Case studies include: Brixton Re-Use Centre and Green Valleys CIC. There are 5 early adopters: (i) Lambeth Resource Centre/day centre; (ii) youth services; (iii) Living Space Cafe; (iv) adventure playgrounds; and (v) crown lane children's centre.

The document sets out an approach for how the Council is working with communities rather than necessarily making significant changes to how public services are currently delivered.

Big Society Network. undated

It's Our Community: Scoping Study

Report service delivery community ownership Charity

www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/.../IOC_Scoping_Study_-_FINAL1.doc

This scoping study examines the potential for sharing experience and lessons on community

This scoping study investigates the notion of community ownership of services, and what innovative models and approaches could be shared across Europe that would encourage and enable communities to drive better service outcomes. The study covers 4

Based on a desk review of literature, and an initial survey of innovative models of organisational form and approaches

59

ownership of services across four countries in Europe (France, Germany, Portugal and the UK).

themes: social services, sustainability, accessibility and innovation/IT and considers 4 models: user led, employee led, mutualisation and not-for-profit.

.Proposes exploring the initial comparisons here, differentiated by: (a) where communities can most usefully do things; (b) where institutions/legislation needs to change.

Wiltshire Community Land Trust & Wiltshire Council. 2012

Wiltshire's Community Ownership of Assets Toolkit

Toolkit service delivery community ownership Local Government

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/wiltshire-community-ownership-of-assets-toolkit.pdf

Provided for communities that have identified building or land that their community values and would like to see it better used or safeguarded for the future.

The document is set out as a series of tables organised under the headings: who can do what, the process, who to contact in the Council, support available and other considerations. 8 models of community asset ownership are presented in these tables: right to bid for assets of community value; community asset transfer; service delegation, community right to challenge, meanwhile use and pop-up shops, community right to reclaim land, compulsory purchase powers and community right to build.

Introductory/overview document for community members.

Woodland Trust. 2011

Community ownership for woodland management and creation - research report July 2011.

Report service delivery community ownership Charity

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/our-views-and-policy/woods-for-people/Documents/CommunityOwnershipModels_WT_submission_June2011.pdf

Reviewed community ownership/management of woodland in the UK, with emphasis on business and finance models to enable an increase in community woodland in the future (applicable to both existing woods and creation of new woods).

To help communities can take a bigger role in the management/governance of woodland explores tenure, the legal forms available, sources of funding, and other resources that communities need (knowledge, skills, time) and who can help them. Identifies woodland as a complex where traditional models such as charities and trusts are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the needs of all community groups. Calls for a finance umbrella organisation - that could raise money through social investment (e.g. Energy4All does this for renewables). Recommends further research: (i) the transfer of assets to communities is driven by government, to what extent is there a demand from communities (2) Can community woodland groups be encouraged to a business model that includes enterprise and income generation? (3) The roles of the private, public and voluntary community sectors?

Presents opportunities for the development of both social and natural capital.

Social Enterprise

Transitions. An introduction

Report service

http://www.sel.org.uk/upload

An information and 'go to' handbook

Provides information and advice for taking direct control of a public service by

Written for staff at London local

60

London undated

for public sector staff, showing how making the transition to social enterprise could transform your public service

delivery community ownership Local Government

s/Transitions_SEL.pdf

for information and resources on establishing a social enterprise.

establishing a social enterprise. The handbook covers: how to take charge of design and delivery of public service; involving your community; and working in partnership with the local authority.

authorities and schools.

Coperstake, P. & Thompson, H. 2010

New models of public service ownership. A guide to commissioning, policy and practice.

Report service delivery community ownership Think tank

http://www.opm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OPM-employee-ownership-report-Aug-2010.pdf

Outlines which models of ownership are likely to be appropriate in different situations, and the services where greater employee control may add value.

For commissioners and policy-makers the report identifies three models likely to be most relevant and the services aligned to each: (i) employee owned organisations - health, social care; (ii) community ownership - community facilities, leisure, culture and sport; and (iii) employee plus other stakeholder owned organisations - childcare, education, health, housing and welfare-to-work.

Part of the organisation's Public Interest Research.

Moor, C. & Leach, M. 2011

The Rural Big Society

Report service delivery alternative provision Think tank

http://www.respublica.org.uk/documents/nhd_The%20Rural%20Big%20Society%20CRC-ResPublica.pdf

Explores the value of the Big Society in rural societies.

Demonstrates the nature and value of the Big Society in a rural context. Challenges include: rapidly ageing population, reductions in state spending, infrastructure and complexity/cost of local governance. It includes 16 recommendations around Assets (e.g. asset transfer unit; peer to peer learning networks); Social Capital (e.g. enhancing the role of Town and Parish Councils, village agents approach); and Social Enterprise (e.g. DECC/community energy schemes, next generation broadband, procurement).

Intended to help central and local government deliver the big society in rural communities.

Provides an overview rather than attempting to be definitive or comprehensive.

Social Enterprise UK 2012

The Social Enterprise Guide for people in local government

Report locally based social enterprise Consultancy

http://mutuals.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Social%20Enterpise%20UK%20-%20Local%20Authority%20Guide.pdf

A guide for people working in local authorities who are interested in social enterprise

The guide explains how social enterprises can help meet many of a local authority's strategic objectives, and gives practical advice about how teams within local authorities can engage with social enterprises to benefit the communities they serve. It identifies 5 models of social enterprise: (i) employee ownership, (ii) cooperatives, (iii) trading charities, (iv) social firms and (v) other social enterprise models. The document explores how social enterprises can deliver efficiency and value-for-money and issues for local authority

The guide contains short examples/case studies - mainly from London authorities but also: West Lindsey District Council/Hill Holt Wood; and West Sussex County Council/social enterprise network.

61

staff to consider when commissioning and procuring from social enterprise.

Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector & The Baring Foundation 2012

Protecting Independence: the voluntary sector in 2012

Report voluntary sector public service delivery Charity

http://www.independencepanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Protecting-Independence-final.pdf

The document examines 'what is independence' and 'why does it matter?' for voluntary sector organisations. Three dimensions of independence are identified: purpose, voice and action.

The report was published at a pivotal time for voluntary sector organisations - under pressure from all kinds of funding and with one in three organisations delivering public services and uncertainty around the future commissioning and funding of these services. The Panel identified 6 of the most significant challenges facing the voluntary sector. They were: (1) statutory funding models, (2) lack of ability to shape key decisions, (3) blurring of boundaries between the voluntary and other sectors, (4) self-censorship, (5) threats to independent governance, and (6) the need for stronger safeguards and effective regulation. The document further sets out lessons from the Work Programme and looking ahead expresses concern that parts of the voluntary sector which deliver public services could become not for profit businesses, virtually interchangeable with the private sector.

50 individuals and organisations responded to the Panel's 'Independence of the Voluntary Sector' consultation in 2011.

The first of five annual assessments to be published by the Panel.

Macmillan, R. 2010

The third sector delivering public services: an evidence review.

Report voluntary sector public service delivery Academic

http://www.tsrc.ac.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=l9qruXn%2FBN8%3D&tabid=712

Examines research evidence, argument and policy development on the third sector and public service delivery over the last 5-10 years.

Te document explores four themes: (1) commissioning/procurement practices, (2) experiences of third sector organisations in the new service delivery landscape, (3) the support needs of third sector organisations, and (4) the impact of the new service delivery landscape on third sector organisations. Two overarching findings: (a) greater focus and attention has been given to the voices and concerns of staff involved in third sector organisations rather than trustees, volunteers and stakeholders; and (b) less attention has been paid to the nature of the services commissioned and whether new commissioning processes are leading to service improvement.

Examines 48 pieces of research published between 2004 and 2010 on the themes of public service delivery, commissioning and procurement. No rural component.

Bassett, D. et al. 2012

2012 reform scorecard

Report public service reform Think tank

http://www.reform.co.uk/resources/0000/0353/Reform_Scorecard_2012_FINAL.pdf

Charts departmental progress on public service reform.

The scorecard sets out the principles of reform, evaluates the Coalition Government's performance (broken down by department); successes and reverses in public policy in 2011; makes six recommendations for 2012 - reopen the

62

spending review around protected budgets, full scale review of health and education workforces similar to policing, renew commitment to NHS reform, consider large scale providers who can help deliver reform quicker than SMEs, and give Minister powers to appoint senior civil servants. The scorecard also raises issues around outcomes versus inputs and accountability to the user versus a new centralism.

Williams, C. 2012

The Shadow State. A report about outsourcing public services.

Report outsourcing public services Consultancy

http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/uploads/files/2012/12/the_shadow_state_3_dec1.pdf

The report outlines the risks and profound effect that outsourcing practice is having on the wider economy.

The report's author believes that a 'shadow state' is emerging, where a small number of companies have large and complex stakes in public service markets and a great deal of control over how they work. The report covers disjointed spending / spending power; having no choice of provider is a national and local problem (with charities and social enterprises squeezed out of the marketplace); the role of shareholder profit; and considers the alternatives (e.g. new legislation, different commissioning practices). Two service areas are explored in depth: children's care and adult social care to explore what is happening in different parts of the marketplace.

Appendix 1 provides examples of social enterprises delivering public services - no rural components.

Oxford Economics 2012

Open Access. Delivering quality and value in our public services

Report outsourcing public services Consultancy

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2012/09/action-now-to-open-up-more-public-services-to-competition-could-save-%C2%A3226-billion/

identifies how to maintain high quality public services and achieve £22.6 billion or more of taxpayer savings by further opening up public service delivery to independent providers.

Outlines research undertaken by Oxford Economics which demonstrates how Government could achieve major savings (up to £22 billion) by opening up public services to a range of diverse providers leading to efficiencies and productivity improvements. The research identifies six ways for the Government to achieve the best results from its open public services programme: (1) express a clear vision for how public sector markets will operate in the future; (2) create a transparent marketplace to enable commissioners to compare providers; (3) establish mechanisms to address provider failure and ensure service continuation; (4) promote contracts that focus on outcomes; (5) ensure the public sector also has the right mix of commercial skills; and (6) create effective government engagement with all

The report sets out savings across local government services, healthcare support services, education support and development, offender management and police support - no specific rural component.

63

types of provider.

64

Practitioner Search

Author Date

Title Publication Information Type

Source Website URL

Relevance - parameters, location, service area

Findings & Impact - aspiration/implemented/evaluated and success/barriers identified

Quality/reliability/strength of information

Notes

Macdonald, l. 2012

A New Chapter - Public Library Services in the 21st Century

Discussion Paper Charity

Carnegie UK Trust http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/2012/a-new-chapter

Outlines considerations that need to be addressed if a new vision for public libraries of the future is to be developed.

The document outlines a gap between what people say and what people do (the need to provide libraries that people want to use); and the divergence in policy and practice between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the need for their shared heritage to lead them to share practice and new models). Five key questions are critical to the future of libraries: (1) what is the relationship between libraries and community and individual wellbeing? (2) do the aims of the library service need to be redefined for the 21st century? (3) how should library services be provided in the future? (4) what is the role of library buildings as community assets? (5) would more policy direction and coordination at a jurisdictional or cross-jurisdictional level be helpful? Alternative models of provision include: creation of arms length companies or trusts; the use of volunteers; community managed services; shared services with other local authorities; and/or use of the private sector.

Based on a survey of 1000 people by Ipsos MORI and a review of literature on public libraries.

Accompanied by a full research report and factsheet for each country.

Elvidge, j. 2012

The Enabling State. A discussion paper.

Discussion Paper Charity

Carnegie UK Trust http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/changing-minds/people---place/enabling-state

Intended to stimulate debate on the role of Government (in the UK and Ireland).

The document raises four questions for discussion: (i) is it the right time for change, for substantial rethinking of the relationship between society and the state? (ii) Is communitarianism - helping people build their capacity for mutual help - the right foundation of change? (iii) should the state develop an enabling role around building capacity, alongside its role in continuing to provide public services where their effectiveness is clear? (iv) what actions are needed in your country or region to assist change?

Forms part of an overarching project on the Enabling State being undertaken by Carnegie 2012-2013.

Heery, d. & White, d. 2013

Going the last mile - how can broadband reach the final 10%?

Discussion Paper Charity

Carnegie UK Trust /Community Broadband Network http://www.carnegieuktrust.

Considers how future public investment in broadband can be organised in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for the final 10% of rural

3 key challenges identified: finance, areas not covered by BDUK/local authority funding streams, and marginal environments. Draws upon several examples in the United States to call for an intermediary approach which uses specialist investment intermediaries to find the right mix of loan/equity/grant funding for each project and then

65

org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=a88d402f-26c9-4f74-9f53-24e10c8e74d3

communities who are most likely to be left behind in the roll out of NGA.

manage the finance. Three models of intermediaries are presented: (1) public sector intermediaries (e.g. iNorthumberland Loan Fund, LEP Growing Places fund); social enterprise intermediaries (e.g. Social Investment Business, Big Issue Invest); and private sector intermediaries (e.g. projects in the Costwolds, South Devon and North Devon identified).

Wallace, j. & Schmuecker, k. 2012

Shifting the Dial: from wellbeing measures to policy practice

Report Charity

Carnegie UK Trust /IPPR North http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/10/SHIFTING%20THE%20DIAL_WEBfinal_9826.pdf

The report shares the findings of a project undertaken to ask what needs to happen to ensure that measuring wellbeing is made to matter in policy-making practice.

The report contains case studies from the United States, Canada and France. The report recommends three areas for action: visible leadership, continuing to develop practical means of using wellbeing data and mobilising a wellbeing movement.

Shucksmith, m. 2012

Future Directions in Rural Development

Report Charity

Carnegie UK Trust http://carnegieuktrust.org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=c032b476-c5e8-4f56-b3ef-a04e9e4494e2

Considers how rural development should proceed in an era of austerity.

Presents two models of rural community development: (i) a choice between top down or bottom up? (ii) a networked approach. The document raises issues around equality and capacity and governance. The networked approach involves the mobilisation of assets, building of capacity amongst individuals, and networks which connect people beyond their locality. The report argues that in an age of austerity there will be a return to bottom-up development models.

A follow on the 'A Charter for Rural Communities' published by the Carnegie UK Trust in 2007.

Wallace, j. & Miller, m. 2012

Rural Development Networks. A mapping exercise.

Report Charity

Carnegie UK Trust http://carnegieuktrust.org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=4063ad9f-18b4-4a89-843c-4f102d07461c

Explored where and why rural networks exist, their benefits to users and the key issues they face in the current climate of public spending cuts.

Rural Networks play an important role in building community capacity but within an era of austerity face challenges ahead. Networks face issues around funding, engagement with users, representation and visibility, prominence of rural issues, facilitation and moderation, and partnership working. Proliferation and complex landscape of networks exists. Makes 2 recommendations for networks: (1) they should meet and discuss how they can best represent the voices of users; and (2) share experiences of partnership working. 3 recommendations for Government: (a) hold a summit of rural networks to look at future efficiency and effectiveness; (b) map sources of information and advice; and (c) short life forum for senior civil servants to discuss issues relating to the sector.

222 local, national and cross/international networks in UK and Ireland found.

66

Cabe & Asset Transfer Unit 2010

Community-led spaces. A guide for local authorities and community groups

Report Charity

CABE & Asset Transfer Unit http://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Community-led-spaces_FINAL_Nov10.pdf

a guide for community organisations and local authorities around the community asset transfer of public spaces such as parks, gardens and woodlands.

The report defines public open space assets, makes the business case for transfer (around governance, accountability, finance and communications) and contains 8 case studies.

2 references to rural - role of town and parish councils and an example of asset transfer from Essex.

English Heritage 2011

Pillars of the Community: the transfer of local authority heritage assets

Report Charity

English Heritage & Asset Transfer Unit http://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/pillars-of-the-community-the-transfer-of-local-authority-heritage-assets.pdf

The report includes key considerations for local authorities in transferring heritage assets including strategy development. It provides a range of advice for community and voluntary organisations from assessing potential uses to ensuring the long-term viability of the transfer.

The local authority perspective includes taking stock of heritage assets and formulating transfer strategies. The community perspective includes assessing options for use, developing support for the project, managing the risks, agreeing terms, building an effective organisation, raising finance and maintaining long term viability.

Hart, l. 2010

To have and to hold

Report Charity

Development Trust Association http://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/To-have-and-to-hold-210910-for-web-FINAL.pdf

A guide to long-term community ownership and development of land and buildings.

The guide sets out starting points, maintenance and management, building support from stakeholders, feasibility, finance, business planning, design and construction and legal issues.

Leisure Futures Limited 2011

Impact on Reducing Rural Isolation

Report Charity

Big Lottery Fund http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/about-big/publications?containing=%20rural

A report on how projects funded by BIG have reduced rural isolation and recommendations for BIG-funded programmes aimed at further reducing rural isolation.

Key findings: the demographic trend towards an older population is increasing prevalence of social isolation; cuts in rural public transport and rises in fuel costs impact most on rural isolation; and the voluntary and community sector is the main provider of services that address rural isolation supported by BIG. Village Agents was cited as a successful project. The report praises the work of BIG in reducing isolation (even when this was not an explicit aim of the project funded) and identifies lessons learned and makes a series of recommendations.

secondary analysis of previous evaluations commissioned by BIG and primary research (166 out of 475 projects completing a questionnaire

67

about rural isolation).

Muir, r. 2012

Pubs and Places. The social value of community pubs

Report Think Tank

IPPR http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2012/01/pubs-and-places_2nd-ed_Jan2012_8519.pdf

This report assesses the social value of community pubs, showing why pubs matter, and why we should be concerned about the current state of the pub trade.

The report provides an audit of Britain's community pubs, why they matter, flaws in the current policy framework, and makes a series of recommendations (i.e., around business rate relief and finance, planning, alcohol pricing, and the relationship between tenant and pub companies). In rural areas the report finds the community pub is becoming a host for public services (cites the shop, post office and broadband); the importance of co-location; and the success of the Pub is the Hub scheme.

20 interviews undertaken in rural and urban areas.

Aiken, m. et al 2011

Community organisations controlling assets: a better understanding

Report Charity

JRF http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/community-organisations-controlling-assets-EBOOK.pdf

This report examines the experience of community organisations controlling assets in the UK over a ten year period as part of an attempt to build an evidence base.

The report examines the forms of community control of assets; the costs/benefits/critical success factors; outcomes and supporting the different organisations in this field. Identified a community assets spectrum with three bands: stewards (small, volunteer run groups), community developers (medium sized organisations) and entrepreneurs. People in these bands acquired assets in response to a threat or an opportunity. 6 factors to achieve success were found: (i) adequate financial and business planning; (ii) ensuring assets were fit for purpose; (iii) constructive approach to transfer on part of public bodies, (iv) capacity and leadership within the community, (v) effective governance of community buy-in, and (vi) financial sustainability - fit for purpose external investment. The report presents a series of implications for policy and practice.

rural and urban locations explored in the study.

Smith, c. & Cavill, m. 2010

Shaping public spending priorities for adult social care

Report Charity

JRF http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/public-spending-social-care-full.pdf

This report investigates some of the key issues currently confronting those involved in planning and providing adult social care at a time of budgetary pressure.

The report identified 5 current issues: (1) scepticism about the ability of the market place, providers and the voluntary sector to respond to future demands. (2) priorities for spending - statutory provision, rationing demand and/or long term prevention. (3) Involving service users and carers will not be realistic given the pressure to take decisions quickly. (4) future needs - making the case for long term prevention. (5) local authorities are at different starting points leading to concern that we may see a widening gap between performance.

20 interviews undertaken by Ipsos MORI (15 interviewees from local authorities and 5 interviewees from organisations representing service users or carers).

Wistow, g. et al 2011

Involving older people in service

Report Charity

JRF http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/fi

The report asks 'Does older people's involvement in

The research explored how older people in Salford and Dorset were involved in commissioning and service delivery; what difference their involvement

Salford and Dorset were selected for

68

commissioning: more power to their elbow?

les/jrf/older-people-service-commissioning-full.pdf

commissioning and service delivery herald a bright new future?'

made; the factors which lead to successful engagement; and the barriers to involving older people.

their reputations as sites which were relatively advanced in promoting the involvement of older people.

Centre for Policy on Ageing 2011

How can local authorities with less money support better outcomes for older people?

Report Charity

JRF http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/authorities-supporting-older-people-summary.pdf

The report looks at how to provide 'that bit of help' that older people want and value.

The report draws out the implications of public sector funding reductions, how the community and voluntary sector groups that provide 'that bit of help' may struggle to survive and 4 ways forward (involvement, investment, refocusing and connecting).

the report covers rural and urban areas - provides example of Sole Mates/Age Concern in Oxfordshire and intermediate care service for older people with mental health problems in Herefordshire.

Plunkett Foundation 2012

A Better Form of Business. Community-owned village shops.

Report Charity

Plunkett Foundation http://www.plunkett.co.uk/resources/publications.cfm

Provides an overview of the development of the community shop sector in the UK, and the health and wealth of the sector.

At the beginning of 2012 there were 273 community shops trading in the UK - growth peaked in 2009 and 2010 attributed to Plunkett Foundation's Village CORE Programme. Highest concentration of community shops in South West and South East of England. Of the 286 shops that have ever opened only 13 have closed. Over 60% of shops have chosen to register as an Industrial and Provident Society. Tenure type is 33% freehold, 33% leasehold and 35% based in former village shop premises. Based on the 190 shops that shared their financial data, average turnover for 2010-2011 was £156,981. The report documents the other benefits that community shops deliver (e.g. local food, reducing isolation) and concludes that community ownership works but it works in a different way in every community.

Community Transport Association 2012

2012. The CTA State of the Sector Report for England

Report Charity

Community Transport Association http://issuu.com/societymedia/docs/cta_sos_report?mod

This is the third state of the sector report published. It is intended to build a detailed picture of the size and scope of the sector.

The report provides an overview of where community transport is found, the size and scale of the organisations involved, the support available for community transport, an analysis of community transport permits and planning and collaborative working. The report found remote rural areas to have more community transport organisations than

69

e=window&viewMode=doublePage

urban areas.

CPRE 2013

Countryside promises, planning realities

Report Charity

CPRE http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/3264-nppf-verdict-less-local-control-more-greenfield-development

Provides an analysis of how the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is being implemented during its first year.

The report concludes: (i) the plan led system is being undermined because little weight is given to emerging plans; (ii) valuable areas of countryside are being lost to development despite policies in the NPPF calling for their protection; (iii) the requirement for 'deliverable' land is being used to justify development on greenfield land and not to develop on brownfield sites first; (iv) policies are being interpreted on the grounds of economic returns to developers not on the basis of community need; and (v) localism is being undermined because the transitional period of 12 months has not allowed sufficient time to get up to date plans in place. CPRE is calling on the Government to give more support to getting local plans in place, develop more detailed planning guidance over the next 6 months to address confusion and provide clarity, and revise the NPPF so prioritising urban regeneration and protecting/enhancing the countryside are properly integrated into policies to promote economic development.

Based upon analysis of 20 major planning for housing application cases and reports from 20 local plan examinations. CPRE found growing level of interest in and support for neighbourhood planning - citing plans in a number of villages, towns such as Faringdon (Oxfordshire) and Frome (Somerset), and successful referendum in Upper Eden Valley (Cumbria).

Trotman, c. 2012

Broadband Fit for Rural Growth: CLA vision for rural broadband

Report Membership organisation

CLA http://www.cla.org.uk/Policy_Docs/CLA_Broadband_Paper.pdf

This report sets out the CLA's policy on broadband and puts forward a series of recommendations for the Government and broadband infrastructure industry to consider and take forward.

The report sets out the rural-urban digital divide, Government strategy, the future needs of rural areas, and sets out recommendations around universal coverage, competition within the bidding process and forming strategic alliances.

County Councils Network 2012

Counties: Driving Economic Growth

Report Local Government

CCN http://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/Documents/CCN%20Growth

The report looks at opportunities for driving economic growth outside of London and the big cities, highlighting examples of work being

The report contains 5 case studies: Somerset County Council, Essex County Council, Cheshire East Council, Worcestershire County Council and Cumbria County Council (includes Village Agents example).

Context: city deals and Rural Coalition's 'rural challenge' document.

70

%20Pamphlet%202012.pdf

undertaken by CCN member councils.

Naylor, a. & Wood, c. 2012

Empowering communities: making the most of local assets. An officer companion guide.

Report Local Government

Local Government Association http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e87d6415-81b6-4ddd-bcb8-61983af9ef2d&groupId=10171

This guide aims to provide support to officers and introduces the full suite of tools available to them around community asset ownership and management.

The guide sets out how to map assets in your local area, build a shared understanding of community needs, increase transparency, consider how assets can be developed in a sustainable way and stimulate ideas for the co-location of services and transformation of services based upon community enterprise.

Local Government Association 2012

Local solutions for future local library services

Report Local Government

Local Government Association http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=fe4e381a-17ff-4138-9499-dc7241805636&groupId=10171

The publication sets out the context and issues around library services re-design and provision, a decision making process, a set of good practice case studies, and a checklist of things to consider when deciding how to provide a local library service.

The publication identifies 6 popular models for service re-design: alternative funding models, empowering communities to do it their way, a digital age, shared services, delivering wider community outcomes/co-location, and building on existing provision. Rural examples provided include Warwickshire Council and Lancashire County Council.

Part of the Future Libraries Programme, involving 36 councils.

Local Government Association, & English Heritage 2012

New ways of working for historic environment services

Report Local Government

Local Government Association http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2395f768-08d0-476a-afbd-586a39a58544&groupId=10171

Sets out how the LGA and English Heritage are working with local authorities to help them manage historic environment services amid budget reductions.

The report contains information about 8 case studies that the LGA and English Heritage have worked with: Cheltenham District Council, Chichester (West Sussex Councils), Cotswolds AONB (Gloucestershire & Oxford Councils), Essex County Council, Northumberland County Council, Northamptonshire County Council, South Hams District Council and Cornwall Council. 5 common themes run through these case studies: (i) the historic environment makes a positive contribution to an area, (ii) reviews of heritage services have been precipitated by concerns regarding capacity and budgets, (iii) the protection of historic environment assets requires professional input, (iv) stakeholder respect in-house provision and (v) there are opportunities and limits to involving others such as the voluntary sector.

Part of the Historic Environment: Local Authority Capacity (HELAC) project.

NALC What next for Report NALC A series of essays and 11 think pieces covering devolution, finance and

71

2012 localism? Membership organisation

http://whatnextforlocalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Whatnextforlocalismsmall.pdf

think-pieces by parliamentarians, think tanks and others sharing their ideas about localism and the big society.

localism

NALC 2011

Localism in Practice

Report Membership organisation

NALC http://www.nalc.gov.uk/Publications/Booklets_and_Resources.aspx

A set of case studies showcasing how councils are delivering services.

A series of case studies are presented under five headings covering: young people, power of wellbeing, crime and safety, innovative practice and participatory budgeting.

Many of the case studies cover rural areas.

National Housing Federation et al. 2010

Affordable housing keeps villages alive

Booklet Industry Body

National Housing Federation http://www.housing.org.uk/publications/find_a_publication/development_and_regeneration/affordable_housing_keeps_vil-1.aspx

The booklet sets out how a relatively small number of new affordable homes in a village can help ensure rural England has a bright future.

The report defines affordable housing, sets out how it is interlined with the provision of services, an ageing population and key workforce, options for developing affordable housing and source of advice and information. Examples are presented throughout the booklet.

TCPA 2012

A vision for rural England

Report Membership organisation

TCPA http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_Rural_Policy_Statement.pdf

A policy statement setting out the TCPA's views on the future of rural England.

The vision identifies 5 critical challenges/opportunities: (i) how do we meet the immediate needs of many rural people for affordable homes, well paid jobs and access to services? (ii) how do we meet the growing housing and employment needs of a growing and ageing population? (iii) how can rural England cope with the economic pressures and restrictions facing the nation? (iv) rural areas have crucial roles to play in growing food and providing eco-services. (v) implementing national, sub-national, local and community policies successfully will be the greatest challenge of all.

The Rural Coalition 2010

The Rural Challenge: Achieving sustainable

Report Representative bodies

Rural Coalition http://www.acre.org.uk/Resources/ACRE/D

The report sets out a positive and lasting legacy of sustainable rural communities in

The report sets out solutions or key propositions under the headings: creating and maintaining sustainable rural communities, meeting the affordable housing needs of rural communities,

Looks at how you can build the big society in rural

72

rural communities for the 21st century

ocuments/The%20Rural%20Challenge.pdf

which people enjoy living and working.

building thriving rural communities, delivering great rural services, flourishing market towns and empowering communities,

communities in ways that are sustainable, attractive and flexible.

new economics foundation 2012

Doing services differently

Report Think Tank

NEF http://neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Doing_services_differently.pdf

This report is about local innovation in services for disabled people.

The report present a plethora of examples of innovations developed by local authorities and providers that demonstrate how services can improve disabled people’s lives, build on their abilities, and model and promote social change (e.g. Community Catalysts in Nottinghamshire, Shop4Support, KIDS Direct short breaks, Keyring Living Support Networks).

Rural Services Network 2011

State of Rural Services Report 2011

Report Membership organisation

RSN http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/6-publications

Research into the costs of delivering services in rural areas.

The following local authority services were reviewed to identify whether, and the extent to which, there was a ‘rural cost penalty’ associated with the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas, not arising from differences in policy: Fire Services, Primary Education, Home to School Transport, Waste Collection/Recycling, Domiciliary Care and ‘Visiting Services’ (Housing Benefit/Council Tax, Premises Inspection and Nuisance Pollution visits). The research found significant differences in the level of funding per head provided to rural and urban authorities - £163 per head (50%) for 2011/12 in post-damped Formula Grant. Predominantly Rural authorities receive an average of £324 per head and Predominantly Urban authorities receive an average of £487 per head.

Rural Services Network 2011

Cost of Providing Services in Rural Areas

Report Membership organisation

RSN http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/6-publications

Research into the costs of delivering services in rural areas.

Evidence base for State of Rural Services Report covering the costs of delivery across rural England of: Fire Services, Primary Education, Home to School Transport, Waste Collection/Recycling, Domiciliary Care and ‘Visiting Services’

Content used to develop the State of Rural Services Report

Rural Services Network 2010

The Rural Review of Public Services

Report Membership organisation

RSN http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/images/files/ruralreviewofpublicservices2010.pdf

A review of the rural services’ present condition – and recent trends – ahead of both the 2010 General Election and the substantial public expenditure cuts which will follow, irrespective of which party is in Government.

This report examines recently published analyses about public service provision in rural areas and considers it alongside survey evidence gathered from Rural Services Network members (local service providers and community representatives). It focuses down onto five topics – public transport, primary schools, affordable housing, facilities for young people and support services for older people. These were identified as priorities by Rural Services Network members. Key themes covered in the document include: demand and need,

73

accessibility, fairness, cost, expectations and sustainability.

Rural Services Network 2010

The Rural Services Manifesto 2010 and beyond

Report Membership organisation

RSN http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/images/files/ruralservicesmanifesto2010.pdf

A product of a comprehensive consultation process with our membership and other individuals and organisations with an interest in rural affairs.

The report sets out a series of proposals around service provision, rural proofing, rural growth, broadband, transport, schools, health and social care, fuel poverty and flood defences.

Macdonald, l. 2012

A New Chapter - Public Library Services in the 21st Century

Discussion Paper Charity

Carnegie UK Trust http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/2012/a-new-chapter

Outlines considerations that need to be addressed if a new vision for public libraries of the future is to be developed.

The document outlines a gap between what people say and what people do (the need to provide libraries that people want to use); and the divergence in policy and practice between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the need for their shared heritage to lead them to share practice and new models). Five key questions are critical to the future of libraries: (1) what is the relationship between libraries and community and individual wellbeing? (2) do the aims of the library service need to be redefined for the 21st century? (3) how should library services be provided in the future? (4) what is the role of library buildings as community assets? (5) would more policy direction and coordination at a jurisdictional or cross-jurisdictional level be helpful? Alternative models of provision include: creation of arms length companies or trusts; the use of volunteers; community managed services; shared services with other local authorities; and/or use of the private sector.

Based on a survey of 1000 people by Ipsos MORI and a review of literature on public libraries.

Accompanied by a full research report and factsheet for each country.

Elvidge, j. 2012

The Enabling State. A discussion paper.

Discussion Paper Charity

Carnegie UK Trust http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/changing-minds/people---place/enabling-state

Intended to stimulate debate on the role of Government (in the UK and Ireland).

The document raises four questions for discussion: (i) is it the right time for change, for substantial rethinking of the relationship between society and the state? (ii) Is communitarianism - helping people build their capacity for mutual help - the right foundation of change? (iii) should the state develop an enabling role around building capacity, alongside its role in continuing to provide public services where their effectiveness is clear? (iv) what actions are needed in your country or region to assist change?

Forms part of an overarching project on the Enabling State being undertaken by Carnegie 2012-2013.

74

75

Websites Organisation Webpage Title Link

Local Government Association

Future Ways of Working http://www.local.gov.uk/future-ways-of-working;jsessionid=16127A852519570E52E0F3CDE89EA930

Ethos Big Society Series http://www.ethosjournal.com/topics/civil-society/item/209-big-society-series

NCVO Public Service Delivery Network http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/advice-support/public-service-delivery/public-service-delivery

Charity Commission Charities delivering public services http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Your_charitys_activities/Delivering_services/default.aspx

Carnegie UK Trust / Plunkett Foundation

Fiery Spirits Community of Practice http://fieryspirits.com/

Newcastle University Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal http://www.ncl.ac.uk/socialrenewal/

Locality & Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Impact of Austerity http://locality.org.uk/projects/impact-austerity/ see also http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/austerity

Action for Market Towns

Policy Resources (NB: some documents restricted to members only)

http://towns.org.uk/knowledge-hub/knowledge-hub/

The Plunkett Foundation

Publications: this section is divided into community owned rural services; food & farming; and general co-operative interest. Some publications under the first heading were funded by RDAs.

http://www.plunkett.co.uk/resources/publications.cfm

ACRE rural services publications - NB: some of the policy position documents were published in 2007.

http://www.acre.org.uk/Resources/publications/acre-briefings/acre-briefing-services

Arthur Rank Centre Library of Rural Good Practice http://www.arthurrankcentre.org.uk/library-of-good-practice

CPRE resources - NB: policy statement on Rural Services published in 2006.

http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources

NALC Booklets and Resources http://www.nalc.gov.uk/Publications/Booklets_and_Resources.aspx

RTPI Rural http://www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/topics/rural/

RSN Publications http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/6-publications

Appendix 2 - the Call for Evidence Questions 1. The name of the scheme

2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver?

3. Where is the scheme located?

Town/Village

County 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service?

5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.)

Yes

No

I’m not sure

6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable:

The scheme is currently operating successfully

The scheme is operating, but is experiencing difficulties

The scheme was operating, but has since ceased

The scheme should start operating within the next year

It seems unlikely that the scheme will now go ahead

7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational?

Less than one year (since March 2012)

One to three years (March 2010 to February 2012)

More than three years (February 2010 or earlier)

Not relevant (scheme is not yet operational)

76

8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service?

Economic

Environmental

Social 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply)

Delivers the service at less cost

Delivers better outcomes at no greater cost

Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one)

A community owned enterprise or a social enterprise

A community interest company

Another type of community group

A charity

Volunteers assisting a statutory/traditional provider

A mutual or co-operative

Commercial private sector

I’m not sure

Other (please specify)

11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme?

Yes

No

12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply)

Initial funding (before scheme became operational)

Operational funding (to keep the scheme running)

Finding and /or retaining volunteers

77

Finding suitable premises

Planning issues

Legal complexities/red tape

Obtaining advice/professional skills

Other (please specify)

13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one)

None

Less than 3 months

3-6months

6-12 months

More than a year

14. Does the scheme have any paid staff?

No

Yes

If yes, how many?

Part time

Full time

15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers?

No

Yes

If yes, how many?

16. Has the scheme received outside advice?

No

Yes - it received only free advice

Yes - it received paid-for advice

If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply)

78

Council or other public sector organisation

Third sector support organisation

Independent business advice organisation

Other professionals

Similar scheme(s) already operating

Other (please specify)

17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase?

No

Yes

If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply)

Unitary/County/ District Council

Parish Council or Town Council

Public Works Board loan

Lottery Grant

A charity

Community shares

Other (please specify)

18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs?

No

Yes If yes, from whom is the finance obtained?

19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research

Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

No

(b) To seek clarification or additional information

79

Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

No

20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study?

Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

No

If you have answered ‘yes’ to questions 19 or 20, please provide your contact details below. (These details will not be passed on to anyone else without your agreement).

Name:

Email Address: Phone Number:

80

Appendix 3 - Individual questionnaire responses for the 12 case studies 1. 1. The name of the scheme Colwall Orchard Group 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? Reviving traditional orchards (high biodiversity vale), providing community open space and food scheme (a community orchard and allotment area. 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Colwall

County - Herefordshire 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? Entire community, high percentage of elderly and young persons 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) No 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is operating, but is experiencing difficulties 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? More than three years (February 2010 or earlier) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - provides local homegrown food to the community

Environmental - manages and conserves valuable habitat

Social - provides seasonal community events, teaches local history, organic agriculture and environmental conservation 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A charity 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? Yes 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Initial funding (before scheme became operational)

Operational funding (to keep the scheme running)

Finding and /or retaining volunteers 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one)

81

More than a year 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? No 15. If yes, how many? No Response 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Yes 17. If yes, how many? 50 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? No 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) No Response 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? No 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) No Response 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? infrequent small grants from various sources 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

82

Ennerdale Hub Limited 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? This is a community driven regeneration scehems iaming to replace services lost to the community.Reopening a village pub, proving a shop facility, visaitors centre, cafe, library, showers and toilets, community rooms for activities, a micro generation scheme and so on 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Ennerdale Bridge

County - Cumbria 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? People from the local community and environs 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) No 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is currently operating successfully 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? One to three years (March 2010 to February 2012) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - 300000

Environmental - 400000 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A community owned enterprise or a social enterprise 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? No 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Operational funding (to keep the scheme running)

Finding and /or retaining volunteers

Obtaining advice/professional skills

Other (please specify) - pump prime funding for further ventures 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) More than a year 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff?

83

Yes 15. If yes, how many? Part time - 4

Full time - 6 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Yes 17. If yes, how many? 40 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received only free advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Third sector support organisation 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? No 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) No Response 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? Copeland Community Fund 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

84

Okehampton Work Club 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? Help unemployed look for work, write CVs, apply for jobs plus the benefit of social interaction-possibly with ex work mates etc . 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Okehampton

County - Devon 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? unemployed 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) No 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is operating, but is experiencing difficulties 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? One to three years (March 2010 to February 2012) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - Helping people back into work, therefore reduction in reliance on benefits and enabling them to continue to support local shops etc.

Environmental - Helps to support general improvement in morale and feel in the town after mass redundancies etcgsome l

Social - enables ex workmates to see each other, peer support etc, just a time for people in same position to mix 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Delivers better outcomes at no greater cost

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Meets the specific needs of local people 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A charity 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? Yes 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Initial funding (before scheme became operational)

Operational funding (to keep the scheme running) 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) None 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff?

85

Yes 15. If yes, how many? Part time - 1 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? No 17. If yes, how many? No Response 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? No 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) No Response 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? Yes 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) A charity 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? OUC Okehampton 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

86

Lechlade Youth Club 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? To deliver young people of Lechlade with a vibrant youth club with as many different activites and a safe enviroment 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Lechlade

County - Gloustershire 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? No Response 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) Yes 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is operating, but is experiencing difficulties 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? Less than one year (since March 2012) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Social - A place for youngsters to enjoy time togeather 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Meets the specific needs of local people 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A community owned enterprise or a social enterprise 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? Yes 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Operational funding (to keep the scheme running) 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) No Response 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? No 15. If yes, how many? No Response 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Yes 17. If yes, how many? No Response 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received only free advice

87

19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Council or other public sector organisation 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? No 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) Parish Council or Town Council 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? No 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? No Response 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

88

Jubilee Park, Woodhall Spa 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? Woodhall Spa Parish Council took on responsibility for the park as a community asset transfer from the District Council. The park provides a multitude of lesiure facilities including outdoor pool and touring caravan park. The scheme has protected this much loved local amenity and tourist attraction. 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Woodhall Spa

County - Lincolnshire 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? Local residents, tourists and holidaymakers 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) Yes 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is currently operating successfully 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? One to three years (March 2010 to February 2012) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? No Response 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) I’m not sure 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? Yes 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Legal complexities/red tape 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) None 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Yes 15. If yes, how many? Part time - Not sure

Full time - 1

89

16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Yes 17. If yes, how many? Not sure 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received paid-for advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Council or other public sector organisation

Independent business advice organisation

Other professionals 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? Yes 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) Unitary/County/ District Council 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? District Council 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

90

Malbank Coaches 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? Assisted transport to vulnerable adults to get to day care. 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Crewe, Nantwich, Audlum and Middlewich

County - Cheshire 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? Over 18 years vulnerable or disabled adults 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) Yes 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is currently operating successfully 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? Less than one year (since March 2012) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - Providing an alternative to council commissioned service

Environmental - Groups of people travelling together

Social - as above 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Delivers better outcomes at no greater cost

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) Commercial private sector 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? No Response 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) No Response 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) No Response 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Yes 15. If yes, how many? Full time - 4 - 6 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers?

91

No 17. If yes, how many? No Response 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received only free advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Council or other public sector organisation 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? No 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) No Response 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? No 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? No Response 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

92

Wishing Well 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? Meals, shopping, day club, laundry, cleaning, gardening and any practical help needed, including Personal Assistance around support to access community services and learning 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Crewe and Nantwich and Audlum

County - Cheshire 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? Vulnerable over 18 years 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) Yes 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is currently operating successfully 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? One to three years (March 2010 to February 2012) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - Signposting away from Local Authority support

Environmental - Better rural provisions and signposting to other local services

Social - Befriending, prevention to social isolation and practical help 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Delivers better outcomes at no greater cost

Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A community owned enterprise or a social enterprise 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? No 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) No Response 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) No Response 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Yes

93

15. If yes, how many? Part time - 5 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Yes 17. If yes, how many? 18 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received only free advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Council or other public sector organisation

Third sector support organisation 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? No 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) No Response 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? No 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? No Response 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

94

Future Transport 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? rural bus service: subsidy being withdrawn, so attempt to create community-run replacement 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Horningsea, Cambridge

County - Cambridgeshire 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? Horningsea residents 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) Yes 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: It seems unlikely that the scheme will now go ahead 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? No Response 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? No Response 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Meets the specific needs of local people 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) Other (please specify) - Had intended it to be run by Community Interest Company 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? Yes 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Legal complexities/red tape 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) No Response 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Yes 15. If yes, how many? No Response 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? No Response 17. If yes, how many? No Response 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice?

95

Yes - it received only free advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Council or other public sector organisation

Similar scheme(s) already operating 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? Yes 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) Unitary/County/ District Council

Parish Council or Town Council 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? would have been County Council 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

96

Rural Coffee Caravan Information Project 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? Bringing access to information and a free social opportunity to rural communities via a mobile community cafe/information centre 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? County - Suffolk 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? Rurally isolated/lonely/elderly 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) No 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is currently operating successfully 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? More than three years (February 2010 or earlier) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - We raise awareness of local independent businesses if relevant and we provide a fair amount of tourist information too.

Environmental - We raise awareness of green initiatives and encourage participation. Residents have aslo sused our visits to recruit volunteers from the village for litter picks! We also save journies into town (by car as few or no buses) to seek information as we bring it all to them.

Social - a chance to meet &chat to neighbours & our volunteers. A forum for discussion regarding life in their community. A chance for ideas to be exchanged and possibly become realities. For some its the opportunity just to get out of the house and TALK to someone. 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Delivers better outcomes at no greater cost

Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A charity 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? No 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Operational funding (to keep the scheme running)

97

Other (please specify) - Funding is more difficult to obtain NOW but hasn't been a problem before 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) None 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Yes 15. If yes, how many? Part time - 1

Full time - 2 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Yes 17. If yes, how many? 15 in project delivery 50+ in villages raising awareness 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received only free advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Council or other public sector organisation

Third sector support organisation 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? Yes 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) Unitary/County/ District Council

Other (please specify) - Rural Stress Information Network 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? Grants and Trusts through Suffolk Foundation, Henry Smith, Ganzoni and others 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

98

The Project Group 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? Creative arts group for adults involved with mental health services, working on art commissions for public and private spaces. 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Oswestry

County - Shropshire 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? Mental health service users 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) Yes 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is operating, but is experiencing difficulties 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? More than three years (February 2010 or earlier) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - encouraging client group to take up volunteering and employment

Environmental - produced beautiful art work

Social - improving mental health, keeping clients well, improving self esteem and confidence, reducing isolation, socialisation etc 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers better outcomes at no greater cost

Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A community interest company 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? No 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Operational funding (to keep the scheme running) 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) No Response 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Yes 15. If yes, how many?

99

Full time - 4 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? Yes 17. If yes, how many? 5 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received only free advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Third sector support organisation 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? Yes 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) Lottery Grant

Other (please specify) - Arts Council 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? NHS 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)

100

Suffolk Links Blyth 2. 2. What service(s) is the scheme delivering/aiming to deliver? a Demand Responsive flexible bus service to all within the area of the Bawdsey peninsular 3. 3. Where is the scheme located? Town/Village - Leiston

County - Suffolk 4. 4. What is/are the main client groups(s) for the service? full public service 5. 5. Has the scheme resulted from a Council or other public sector organisation’s initiative? (Please tick the appropriate box.) Yes 6. 6. Please tick whichever statement is most applicable: The scheme is currently operating successfully 7. 7. If the scheme is operating now, for how long has it been operational? More than three years (February 2010 or earlier) 8. 8. If operational, what have been the main benefits delivered by this service? Economic - maintaining the ability to shop and work

Environmental - less polluting than empty buses

Social - more diverse choice of destinations 9. 9. Do you consider that the scheme achieves any of the following when it is compared to a more traditional model of service delivery? (please tick all that apply) Delivers the service at less cost

Offers a more flexible approach to service delivery

Reaches harder-to-reach clients

Meets the specific needs of local people

Provides a service model that is more likely to survive 10. 10. How would you describe the organisation that delivers this service? (please tick one) A charity 11. 11. Have any significant problems been encountered in setting up the scheme? Yes 12. 12. If any significant problems were experienced, or are currently being experienced, what did/do they relate to? (please tick all that apply) Other (please specify) - public reaction to replacement of bus services 13. 13. If any significant problems were or are causing delay to the scheme how much delay did they cause? (please tick one) None 14. 14. Does the scheme have any paid staff? Yes 15. If yes, how many?

101

102

Full time - three 16. 15. Does the scheme have volunteer workers? No 17. If yes, how many? No Response 18. 16. Has the scheme received outside advice? Yes - it received only free advice 19. If yes, who provided that advice? (please tick all that apply) Council or other public sector organisation 20. 17. Did the scheme receive significant outside finance in its set-up phase? Yes 21. If yes, from whom was the finance obtained? (please tick all that apply) Unitary/County/ District Council 22. 18. Does the scheme receive any outside finance towards its on-going operational costs? Yes 23. If yes, from whom is the finance obtained? County Council 24. 19. May we contact you again for the following purposes? (a) To provide feedback from the research Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 25. (b) To seek clarification or additional information Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire) 26. 20. Would you be willing for this scheme to be used as a detailed case study? Yes (please provide contact details at the end of this questionnaire)