Sarah Elliott

We continue our National Apprenticeship Week celebration of our graduates’ dissertations with this examination of co-production in recycling services.

This research examines the motivations and barriers for citizens which can influence the decision to contribute positively in recycling services. The study links participation in recycling services with concern and awareness of environmental issues, and highlights the potential negative impact of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the services provided.

Effective recycling services require a combination of efforts from both service users and service providers.  Recipients of the services are required to separate their materials and present them for collection as required.  There is significant variation in the quantity and quality of participation in recycling services.  One council found 65% of residual waste could have been recycled at the kerbside, losing potential income; and contamination rates of 35% in recycling bins increase costs.

By examining the understanding and experiences of recycling services by residents the data collected in the research shows how to influence greater collaboration and engagement.

Key points

• Understanding residents’ motivations in recycling, and their experience of the service provided, can support co-production efforts.
• Clarity and trust are key to success.  Citizens need to know how to participate, how to recycle different materials, and that the council is processing the material they submit responsibly.
  
  
• Clearly information and communication, using the website and perhaps a dedicated app, can help residents feel confident to participate in recycling.
  
  
• The report suggests three key actions for councils which want to improve the effectiveness of recycling in their area.

Background

Formalisation of requirements for waste collection authorities to collect recyclable waste separately from other waste came into force through the Household Waste Recycling Act 2003.  The separation of recyclable materials from municipal waste streams minimises the amount of waste being sent to landfill or incineration, reducing the impact of escalating disposal costs whilst helping to protect natural resources.  The nature of these services requires a positive coproductive effort from its recipients to ensure that the correct materials are deposited in the correct containers and presented on the day of collection.

The first part of this research therefore involved an online survey which was available for all residents of the city to access via the survey web platform on the council’s website and via the Council Recycling Club.  Following the online survey five semi structured interviews were held with volunteer recipients of the recycling services to gain better understanding and clarity of individuals perceptions of the service.

What we knew already

Several complex factors have been identified as influencing an individual’s ability and willingness to engage positively in coproductive services. These include considerations around the personal and social perceptions, competencies, concerns and motivations of citizens operating in conjunction with a variety of socioeconomic variables.  Citizens’ perceptions include whether the service requiring coproduction is important enough to consider putting in the required effort, and the personal and social importance they put on it – for example, are the environmental benefits and cost savings resulting from effective recycling worth the effort?

The design of recycling services is important as participation may be directly linked to the amount of effort required to do so. More complicated systems may suffer lower participation where residents consider the effort to contribute outweighs the perceived benefits of doing so. 

The issue of political efficacy also arises.  A citizen’s trust in the organisation providing the service influences the likelihood of them displaying positive coproductive behaviour, for example stories of recycling materials ending up in landfill sites across the world can lead to mistrust and reduce participation in services where recipients lose confidence that their efforts are worthwhile.   The development of mutual relationships between the recipients of services and service providers are a means of addressing the distrust between political institutions and citizens.

Levels of environmental concern and involvement in recycling vary by age, gender, social class and residence.  Participation in recycling services can be linked to the level of knowledge that citizens have about the services provided and the quality of these services.   The use of social media platforms such as Apps, Facebook and Twitter offer opportunities for organisations and citizens to share and gather information, including ‘nudging’ citizens to pro-environmental actions.

Theme 1: Motivation

Environmental considerations are a significant incentive for citizens in the positive coproduction of recycling services.  The most common reasons by survey respondents on why they recycle was to reduce waste going to landfill, a sense that it’s the ‘right thing to do’, to preserve natural resources and to tackle climate change.  When asked to identify the reasons why they might not always recycle the most common responses were that the service is too complicated (37%) and that they did not always produce appropriate waste (35%).  Regarding ease of use of the current system, 97% felt it was easy or very easy to use the recycling bin service.  Interestingly, only 1% of responses suggested that a cash incentive or reward would make them recycle more.

Theme 2: Clarity and trust

Confusion over how to participate positively in the services provided, alongside a lack of confidence that recyclable materials are being processed responsibly act to demotivate citizens when deciding if the effort required to positively participate outweighs the perceived benefits of doing so.

Some residents appear to be put off recycling because they think the system is too complicated, for example they don’t know which items can be recycled.  One interviewee commented, “I’m not sure if some things are recyclable or not. I want to recycle everything I can but find myself putting things in the green bin because I am not sure”.

The survey also found concerns about whether council can be trusted to recycle effectively.  One interviewee highlighted the concern as follows: “It would be good to know what happens to the recycled material and that it is being effectively recycled. Documentaries have shown that it ends up dumped in underdeveloped countries which are unable to process the waste, it’s a massive deception.”

One in eight items participants said they put in the recycling bins items which are outside the scope of the scheme.  Although participants mainly correctly identified types of waste suitable for recycling in the service, common errors were including plastic bags, glass other than bottles/jars, and hard plastics.  When unsure whether an item was admissible to recycle, 62% of participants would put it in the waste bin and 18% in the recycling bin.

Theme 3: Information

A lack of knowledge can lead to negative coproduction even from those people that identify themselves as regular recyclers.  In order to identify how people currently access information about the Council recycling services and to identify other communication methods that may be helpful participants were asked to identify what would help them recycle more.  The most frequently occurring response given by those answering this question identified that an app that confirms what can and can’t be recycled would help them to recycle more.   One respondent commented that “I would recycle more if I was sure exactly what items I can recycle, we should be utilising more technology to enable recycling and make it easier to access information”.

Through the development of better and clearer information on these topics, councils can provide recyclers with increased confidence that they are “doing the right thing” and increase the coproductive capacity of participants in the recycling services. 

Conclusions

Environmental concerns such as tackling climate change and preserving natural resources identified as a primary motivator for residents.  However, there can be a lack of clarity amongst recyclers around the requirements of the service.

A lack of trust from some recyclers that materials “may not end up being recycled effectively” can negatively impact on their decision to engage fully in the services where they feel that the effort required to participate outweighs the perceived benefits of doing so. Through better and clearer information on these topics councils can provide recyclers with increased confidence that they are “doing the right thing” and increase the coproductive capacity of participants in the recycling services.  This can be further enabled through the development of more technologically enabled relationships with citizens, giving them access to digital platforms such as a recycling App which can  provide easy and accessible  guidance and information about recycling services.

To increase co-production in recycling services, council should:

• Review existing information available to residents on the council’s website to ensure that it is easy to access and clear, and analyse how this information is being accessed.
• Consider an App that residents can use to have easy, clear and up to date information about the recycling services including information about which materials can be accepted.
• Develop a communications campaign to share information with residents about the environmental and financial benefits of recycling and highlighting the problems of contamination in the recycling bins.

__________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Sarah Elliott, supervised by Dr Louise Reardon. 

For further information

Please contact the Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV)
Jason Lowther, at [email protected]

Sally Giles

Over recent decades, the environment for public services has become increasingly challenging and complex.  In response, more emphasis has been given to interagency co-operation and systems leadership, although effective systems leadership can be extremely difficult. 

Based on a detailed literature review and twelve semi-structured interviews in a case study partnership, this study reaffirms the importance of systems leadership for public services, whilst highlighting certain barriers that can reduce its effectiveness. It makes recommendations for future improvements.

Key points

• Many issues facing the public sector (such poverty or obesity) are deeply complex (‘wicked’) social problems requiring cross-boundary co-operation to resolve them in an increasingly challenging and complex environment.   
• Systems leadership has been described as a ‘mind set’ of overlapping dimensions, rather than a collection of observable technical skills or competences. 
• Partners may have widely varying understandings of the ‘system’ and its leadership, and lack shared understanding and commitment.
• Partnerships may neglect the essential (and difficult) work of developing effective local strategy and local focus by focussing on national agendas, projects and tasks. 
• Team building across the system and improving staff capabilities to undertake systems leadership are important. 
• Systems leaders need to develop their own individual capabilities, but work is also needed on the system and the community.  Systems leadership must be facilitated at each of these levels.  
• Developing systems leadership locally could be supported by facilitated workshops focussing on the development of shared understanding, shared vision, team building and a collective narrative which helps communication with key stakeholders within and without the system. 

Background

Many issues facing the public sector (such poverty or obesity) are deeply complex (‘wicked’) social problems requiring cross-boundary co-operation to resolve them.  The environment for public services in the UK and beyond is increasingly challenging and complex.  The leadership required to be effective in these complex and uncertain environments is variously described as collaborative, distributed, dispersed or systems leadership. 

Systems leadership can be a complex and difficult option, with high transaction costs, extended time frames, and an ambiguous link to improved outcomes.  This research therefore explores the conditions under which theories of systems leadership have relevance for leaders of public services, investigating the extent to which a systems leadership approach has been adopted in a case study partnership, and whether the approach conforms to, or falls short, of an ideal type drawn from the academic literature, and how further improvements can be made.     

What we knew already

Systems leadership draws on insights from systems and complexity theory, which maintain that the component parts of a social arrangement can best be understood through their relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation.  In complex adaptive systems, large numbers of components or agents adapt and learn how to best meet desired outcomes, and solutions tend to emerge rather than being imposed.  The constant changes taking place within the system and the external environment mean that it is impossible to predict what will happen next.  The leadership required in this type of system relies on learning, creative and adaptive capacity. 

Systems leadership has been described as a ‘mind set’ of overlapping dimensions, rather than a collection of observable technical skills or competences.  Examples of these dimensions are ways of feeling, perceiving, thinking, relating and doing.  Such leaders need strong skills in analysis, synthesis and creating a narrative which simplifies complexity, galvanises stakeholders around a key purpose, and motivates them to continue difficult and demanding work in the face of uncertainty and challenge. 

Systems leadership may not always be an appropriate response to all leadership challenges or situations – practitioners need to reflect on the right response before acting.  In particular, leadership within an organisation (likely to be more command and control oriented) is different from the leadership required when working with complex problems and across boundaries in an inter-organisational space (which is likely to be systems leadership).

Systems leadership is not an easy option.   Aspects of the operating or authorising environment can hinder systems leadership, such as a lack of support from senior managers or politicians, bureaucracy and hierarchy, inspection and regulation and the tension between partnership and contractual arrangements.  The complexity of the operating environment can limit effective leadership.  And time pressures can lead to a focus on tasks and easily measured goals.  In response, leaders may choose to avoid systems leadership and resort to ‘command and control’ or the use of technical or process-type solutions. 

Understanding ‘the system’ and its leadership

Most of the interviewees in the case study Child and Mental Health Services partnership had a broad agreement that ‘systems leadership’ involves collaboration across boundaries, however beyond this there was wide variation in definitions given.   Similarly, often people from different organisations understood the term ‘system’ differently.  A frequent approach was to define systems leadership in terms of common goals or a common vision.  But there were also examples of extreme differences, from a view of systems leadership as imposed in a top-down way by government, to that of effective systems leadership requiring a kind of bottom-up or emergent moral imperative. 

There was a widely held view that the understanding and practice of systems leadership varied from organisation to organisation and from individual to individual.  Most individuals had developed their understanding from their training, roles and exposure to role models.  Collective understanding and collective commitment, in the form of shared vision, shared strategy, shared agendas or shared values were widely viewed as key facilitators of systems leadership but in many situations a shared local understanding has not yet been developed. 

Developing collective understanding

In focussing on tasks, projects and process (often driven by national agendas), partnerships may neglect opportunities for developing effective local strategy and local focus.  The work of developing this local focus can be threatening to partners.  The comment of one LA strategic manager clearly exemplifies the issue:

I don’t think we really understand each other’s issues, and I don’t think the system would feel particularly safe enough to explore these in a candid way.  (LA strategic manager)

One useful starting point is to think about the outcomes for the people or groups the system is designed to support, for example improving children’s mental health.  What are the real priorities in the specific local area, which might differ to a national set of priorities?  This needs to be at a much more detailed level than a headline outcome (such as ‘improved mental health’), for example looking at a very local level to understand needs and available resources and co-producing the analysis and action plan with relevant communities.

Developing the team

Team building across the system and on improving staff capabilities to undertake systems leadership are important.  Systems leaders can usefully see themselves as a virtual team, requiring similar investment to organisational teams.  For example, operational managers may benefit from support to move from a typical ‘command and control’ approach. The most commonly cited skills needed for working effectively across systems were problem solving, listening, emotional intelligence, humility, facilitation and meeting skills, and the ability to negotiate and influence without wielding traditional levers of power.   

Tackling complexity and lack of time

Complexity, such as a fragmented commissioning landscape or complex governance and contractual arrangements, can negatively impact on the effectiveness of systems leadership.  Complexity can also impact on the ability to shape and communicate a narrative about the state of the system, its progress and challenges.  Partnerships should take time to understand the complexities involved, their impacts, and also to consider whether all this complexity is necessary.

Another recurrent theme in the case study was extreme time pressure, that participants felt impacted on relationship-building, problem analysis and strategic planning.  Helping partnership members to prioritise this work is an important aspect of system leadership.  

Conclusions

Systems leadership is an important skill  for contemporary public service organisations, but the research highlights that there is a lack of practical guidance within the literature to support systems leaders to develop their understanding of how to operationalise this style of leadership. 

Systems leaders need to develop their own individual capabilities, but also requires work on the system and the community.  Systems leadership must be facilitated at each of these levels: the onus is not exclusively on an individual, superhuman leader, but on the wider system and community, and on government to create an appropriate culture and environment.  

Developing systems leadership locally could be supported by facilitated workshops focussing on the development of shared understanding, shared vision, team building and a collective narrative which helps communication with key stakeholders within and without the system. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

About the project This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Sally Giles, supervised by Jason Lowther. 

Carl Binns

Continuing our celebration of National Apprenticeship Week, this dissertation explores systems change in violence reduction. The introduction of Violence Reduction Units (VRUs) from 2019 represented a paradigm shift in the strategic leadership and policy development relating to serious violence in the UK. Multi-disciplinary VRUs can co-commission services across sectors and engage with a multitude of partner to tackle the root causes of violence.

This research draws on the experiences and insights from a range of systems leaders working in and around the case study VRU. The study found that principles underpinning the public health approach to violence can be implemented and connected to a wide range of partners via effective systems leadership. However, systems leadership as a specific skillset is often under-recognised in the professional development of public leaders working to reduce and prevent violence.

Key findings:

• VRUs differ widely across the country in their composition and focus, but their introduction represents a paradigm shift towards focused and intensive multi-agency working.
• The public health approach can shift the focus from reacting to violence (the symptom) to a focus on changing the social determinants that cause violence, which can be systemic as well as linked to individual life experiences and capacities.
• VRU staff need to step away from the operational realities that can often blinker professionals, to enable a more encompassing view of those factors that influence susceptibility to violence.
• VRUs can provide space for innovation to develop in the form of strategies and conditions to develop interrelationships and effective ways of working in collaboration and partnership. Key to this is developing trust, between professionals and with communities. 
• VRUs have the opportunity to engage in ‘active listening’ with the community as a whole and with specific sub-groups such as victims of violence or potential perpetrators and victims.
• When practically applied, concepts of systems leadership can help system leaders to ‘become comfortable with chaos’ and enable them to extend public health principles across a system with otherwise diverging priorities and policy drivers. 

Background

Violence Reduction Units were established in 18 policy forces in 2019 as new multi-agency units responsible for tackling and preventing violence.  They represent an important step forward in regards local leadership around complex social issues.  This research investigated the extent to which VRUs can implement a ‘whole-systems’ policy response to serious violence using a case study of a large urban Violence Reduction Unit.  In seeking to tackle violence, this VRU has adopted a public health approach which brings with it a tradition of ‘integrative leadership’.

Fieldwork interviews in the dissertation identified VRUs as an important opportunity to do things differently and enhance strategic coordination at a regional level.  They can facilitate violence prevention activity by making information, advice and guidance more accessible and taking central responsibility for convening key partners. 

What we knew already

The UK government’s adoption of VRUs was inspired by experiences in Glasgow from 2005, which concluded: ‘Violence is preventable, not inevitable’.  The Glasgow partnership, formed of police and other local community partners, worked in an intensive and focussed way to provide to opportunities in employment, activities and education for those involved in violence. Accompanying this was a strong enforcement arm which ensured those who did not engage faced tough penal sentences.

VRUs differ widely across the country in their composition and focus, with two main operational models: a centralised multi-disciplinary unit and a hub and spoke structure. Central to both models is a tripartite structure which includes a governance board, a dedicated team of staff from a range of professional backgrounds and an additional localised resourcing to deliver focussed activity on the ground. The emerging literature on VRUs presents their introduction as a paradigm shift towards focused and intensive multi-agency working.

The public health approach can be seen as a shift in cultural thinking from a limiting focus on reacting to violence (the symptom) to a focus on changing the social determinants that cause violence. Where historical policy responses were often characterised by fragmented interventions spearheaded by the criminal justice sector, the public health approach prioritises principles of connectivity and collaboration and the inclusion of community voice and agency. This transition clearly requires a different set of skills for public sector leaders, with boundary crossing activity as ‘the new normal’ for effective service delivery.

Practical steps for implementing whole-systems approaches include the identification of ‘ways of working’ and specific activities such as enabling distributed leadership, being flexible and adaptive, and communicating effectively with partners via systemic data sharing across systems.  Systems leadership can be viewed as an interactive process of continual negotiation between many interacting actors; a marked change from the ‘bureaucratic ideal type’ mode of governance.  Leading in such a complex environment is often disconcerting, intellectually demanding and emotionally draining, often described as ‘emotional labour’.

The causes of violence are complex

VRUs need to develop a common understanding of the causes of violence in their locality.  Some responses focus on systemic issues prevalent within society, such as poverty and deprivation, a lack of opportunity and meaningful employment.  Others focus more on the pervasive impact of personal relationships and community contexts, drawing out trauma and negative life experiences in early childhood as central to a propensity towards violence.  A third perspective considers individual risk factors and protective factors, drawing out concepts of gender, psychology and individual capacity to resolve conflict.

Recognising the complexity of the system

VRU staff need to step away from the operational realities that can often blinker professionals, to enable a more encompassing view of those factors that influence susceptibility to violence.  Complex adaptive systems have a large number of agents that interact, adapt and learn together. They are particularly difficult to navigate through in that they are emergent in nature and cannot be perceived of or predicted by standard linear deduction.  System mapping can help actors build a visual picture of interdependencies and key players within a system, highlighting a key role for VRUs in coordinating local violence reduction activity. Framing a view of the system around the needs of individuals of specific cohorts can help.  Each agency within the system also needs to recognise the importance of violence as a societal issue.  VRUs must work within a context where national policy is not ‘joined up’ in addressing issues of violence.

Thinking in systems and leading across sectors

VRUs can provide space for innovation to develop in the form of strategies and conditions to develop interrelationships and effective ways of working in collaboration and partnership. Key to this is developing trust, between professionals and with communities.  Building effective partnerships with schools may be particularly important. As well as this facilitation role, VRUs at times need to take more of an active role in directing and shaping action to effect change. 

VRUs have the opportunity to engage in ‘active listening’ with the community as a whole and with specific sub-groups such as victims of violence or potential perpetrators and victims. Community involvement is often momentary, an afterthought or tick-box exercise without the true ambition of incorporating their views into the policy process. Active listening must build from the concept of transparency; providing communities with an understanding of how they can target their issues at specific parts of the system, then truly listening to what they have to say and acting on it.

VRUs have important roles in creating a shared and compelling narrative which mobilises, convenes and stimulates system actors by making sense of complexity and bringing together different strategies and visions to form a common purpose. Developing such a narrative requires the sharing and collective use of data and evidence, and developing a unified understanding of the problem and subsequent appropriate action to take. This takes time to develop.

VRUs can also empower others to view violence as their business by creating a shared sense of responsibility around violence prevention and reduction activity, in spite of the system’s current fragmentation.  A whole system response necessitates a cultural shift within society, so that all people understand the part they play within a violence prevention system.

The pandemic and recovery

The pandemic created unprecedented challenge for those working to reduce and prevent violence; impeding service delivery, increasing risk factors relating to violence and vulnerability and restricting the ability of VRUs to access partners or carry out face-to-face engagement with communities and stakeholders, and exacerbating the disconnect which can exist between different elements of the public services.  But the pandemic has also provided new opportunities such as the advances made in virtual connectivity via digital innovation, a new sense of unity, and a recognition that agencies and communities can work effectively together to tackle difficult issues.  

Conclusions

The introduction of VRUs is a paradigm shift towards greater local autonomy around violence prevention activity, and marks the beginning of a journey towards enhanced sector collaboration where risks are identified earlier, and vulnerable people are better supported by end-to-end services.  When practically applied, concepts of systems leadership can help system leaders to ‘become comfortable with chaos’ and enable them to extend public health principles across a system with otherwise diverging priorities and policy drivers. 

VRUs should lean into the diversity of opinion and expertise that exists across the system and find ways of connecting this up. Through analysis and insight generated via data, and the effective sharing of resources and knowledge with different sectors, VRUs have begun to foster a collective sense of both the challenge that faces their area, and the solutions to be acted upon. The direct mandate from the Home Office, coupled with flexible funding places them in an ideal position to corral partners around tangible change programmes. This serves a double purpose in that this as well as delivering activity for those in need, it also initiates engagement, and provides VRUs with an opportunity to influence and shape ways of thinking. VRUs can embody the principles of a public health approach to violence, and can make these tangible through carefully exercised systems leadership.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Carl Binns, now a Senior Policy Advisor at the UK Home Office, and supervised by Dr Stephen Jeffares.

Further information on Inlogov’s research, teaching and consultancy is available from the institute’s director, Jason Lowther, at [email protected]    

Courtney Brightwell

Even before the rapid increases in fuel prices in 2021, schools across England faced a challenge to buy goods and services that represent value for money in terms of the price paid, quality of the product and its ease of access. The best deals, for example for energy, will often be beyond the reach of schools without significant procurement capability. 

This project explored how schools could save on their energy bills, which total over £600m per year in England.  This challenge is set to increase further as energy prices have risen to record levels in 2022, due to low levels of gas storage in Europe and lower pipeline imports from Russia, and the importance of gas-fired power stations. 

Key points

• The costs of energy are beginning to dominate school budgets and the lack of transparency and unpredictable nature of the size and frequency of bills prevents good financial planning. 
• The energy market is complex involving major energy suppliers on one side, and schools with limited market knowledge and experience on the other.
• Energy costs vary markedly between schools.  Median costs per pupils are highest amongst secondary schools, particularly in London (over £100 per pupil).  Primary schools pay much less (around £50 per pupil) and special schools much more (over £250 per pupil). 
• Schools often use energy brokers or their local authority, as they lack specialist understanding of the energy market.  Many are concerned whether these third parties are truly focussed on getting the school the best energy deal.
• Schools can save energy and reduce costs by improving the energy efficiency of their infrastructure and influencing the behaviours of staff and pupils.  This commonly includes the use of LED lighting, solar panels, and replacement boilers.  
• More can be done to help schools be intelligent buyers and users of energy.   Government could make it easier for schools to switch supplier and ensure more transparent pricing information. 
• There may be potential to develop a national aggregated energy deal for schools.

Background

Many school staff are concerned regarding how the costs of energy are beginning to dominate school budgets and that the lack of transparency and the unpredictable nature of the size and frequency of bills prevents good financial planning.  This research addresses the questions: “What problems do schools experience when buying energy?” and “Why do they experience these problems?”. 

The energy market is complex and includes many major suppliers who are large private companies, so the market quite starkly poses schools, often with limited market knowledge and experience, against large often multi-national companies.  It raised the question whether public funding to schools is being swallowed up in part by the exploitation of schools’ weak buying position.

Following a detailed literature review, interviews were completed with 11 School Business Professional staff from a variety of school types (e.g. local authority, academy, special and private) and education phase (primary and secondary).  In addition, national data on expenditure in over 20,000 schools was analysed.

What we knew already

The UK (along with the USA and Canada) has increasingly decentralised decision making in education from local authority to school level.  Interestingly the opposite trend can be observed in Southern and North West Europe and parts of Asia.

The existing literature shows that energy consumers are most likely to switch supplier for an improved deal in countries with more established liberalised energy markets, and where tariff calculators and customer ratings of suppliers are available.  The availability of the consumer having time available to search for savings is an important factor.  Barriers to switching include the complexity of energy tariffs, low attention to the issue of energy prices, expected costs of switching and lack of switching experience.  Many of the key challenges consumers face in securing a good deal are magnified in the school setting, since the business energy market does not offer fixed unit costs for energy, nor access to handy price-comparison tools.

Variations in energy costs

Analysis of the national dataset demonstrated that energy costs per pupils are highest amongst secondary schools, particularly in London (over £100 per pupil).  Primary schools pay much less (around £50 per pupil) and special schools much more (over £250 per pupil).  Regions such as London, the Northeast and Yorkshire & Humber pay more than some other regions.  Generally, there is little consistent difference between the spend of academies and LA maintained schools, nor between rural and urban schools.

Diagram 1:  Median per pupil energy spend in Secondary Schools – broken down by region and school type (2017-18)

How schools buy energy

Schools often look to outsource procurement expertise on energy through a broker or reverting to an external process which they regard as being robust.  Even Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), more likely to have their own procurement capacity and capability, were not found to be running their own energy procurement processes. This may be because the school needs not just a procurement expert, but one who fully understand the energy market, which is too specialist a role to fit in within schools’ typical staffing structures.

The most common routes to market were through a private broker, a local authority or a LA established company; some schools instead use a Public Sector Buying Organisation.  Schools generally reported finding buying energy relatively easy, particularly when using a broker or local authority route, although many were not sure they had a good deal there were concerns that the incentives of brokers or LAs may not always match those of the schools (what academics call principal-agent differences). 

Energy companies can try to pressurise schools into signing contracts quickly, as this quotation from an interviewee in a MAT demonstrates:

it’s a very high-pressure environment for a business manager.  So, for example Gazprom with my 6th form college is just rolling over at the moment there’s no particular agreement in place. They e mailed me just the other day saying oh we’d be interested in chatting, so I just e-mailed back saying yeah that’s great – end of Covid we will start to look at this as I want to ensure I’m getting the best deal … we’ll be in contact. The next thing you know I’ve got a flurry of e mails from Gazprom saying that’s great, what we’ll do is get the deal together, we need it signed by the end of the day because we’re live pricing, so you need to sign the same day. I get a follow up the same day saying have I thought about it, are you ready to sign?… That is what business managers are dealing with from these energy companies.

(Participant 5 – Multi Academy Trust).

Reducing energy use

The relatively high variation in energy costs per pupil between schools is partly due to tariff differences and partly due to differing levels of energy use.  High costs could be due to the age of the building, its state of repair, the energy efficiency of its infrastructure, or the behaviours of staff and pupils. There are a range of measures a school could put in place to reduce its energy costs.

All schools in the project had undertaken some kind of activity in recent years and the most common were the use of LED lighting, solar panels, and replacement boilers.  

What can be done?

There are several ways schools could be supported to lower energy costs.  The National School Buying Service could provide support walking a school through the energy procurement process and advise them throughout the journey.   Schools who represent an outlier on energy spend could be supported to understand and take action on the underlying reasons for their high costs in terms of the efficiency of their energy infrastructure, their current energy deal or behaviours in school. Since the dissertation was written this service has started helping schools with energy procurements.

Government could consider intervening in the energy market with regulation to require energy providers to provide more transparent pricing to schools so that they are clear on what their future liabilities will be, or to make it very simple for schools to switch supplier quickly if they are not convinced they are accessing value.

There may be potential to develop a national aggregated energy deal if it delivers return on investment after factors such as support with meters and bill validation is factored in and if assurance can be gathered that the new deal would involve less cost to schools than the least costly energy deals currently in place.

Conclusions

There is potential to help schools save money by improving market regulation and procurement support, and individual schools can take steps to reduce significantly their energy use.

_________________________________________________________________________________

About the project

This research was a Master’s dissertation as part of the MSc in Public Management and Leadership, completed by Courtney Brightwell in 2020, supervised by Dr Peter Watts.