What works in local growth and skills? Learning from recent evaluations

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

Following the previous blog on homelessness and rough sleeping, this piece turns to another major area of local government activity: local growth and skills programmes. Here too, evaluation activity has expanded rapidly, with a mix of national frameworks, programme‑level syntheses and place‑based studies. Taken together, these evaluations offer a valuable, and still evolving, picture of what is working, what is proving harder, and what local systems actually need to deliver economic outcomes.

Four strands of evidence stand out.

MHCLG local growth evaluation

The MHCLG local growth evaluation programme is significant not just for its findings, but for its approach to evaluation itself. Rather than focusing on single programmes, it introduces a portfolio‑level strategy covering multiple funds aimed at improving sub‑national economic performance.

Recent work, including the process evaluation of the Local Growth Fund and Getting Building Fund, highlight both strengths and tensions in the model. Decentralised decision‑making and the “single pot” approach enabled locally tailored investment and stronger alignment with local strategies. Private sector involvement and local prioritisation were widely valued.  However, delivery was shaped by pressures to deliver “shovel‑ready” projects quickly, particularly in the Getting Building Fund, which sometimes limited strategic coherence and innovation. Governance arrangements, while locally responsive, were often complex, and approaches to monitoring and evaluation were variable. More broadly, the evaluation underlines the difficulty of measuring long‑term economic impact, particularly where interventions are diverse and outcomes unfold over many years.

Multiply deep dives (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland)

The Multiply deep dives bring a skills and employability perspective, focusing on adult numeracy provision across the devolved nations. Multiply was a £559 million UK‑wide programme designed to improve functional numeracy, with flexible, locally designed delivery models.

The deep dives use qualitative case studies, interviews with delivery partners and analysis of monitoring data, focusing on one area in each nation and drawing on wider place‑level evidence. A central finding is that local flexibility enabled innovation, particularly in embedding numeracy in real‑world contexts such as employment, parenting or financial capability.

At the same time, the evaluations highlight familiar delivery challenges. Short delivery timescales, in some cases just a year, created pressure to scale quickly, often leading to adaptation of existing provision rather than genuinely new approaches. Partnership working across councils, colleges and the voluntary sector was essential but time‑consuming to establish. Engagement with target groups remained difficult, particularly where low confidence rather than low skill was the primary barrier.

Overall, the evidence suggests that contextualised, learner‑centred approaches are promising, but require time, trust and sustained funding to embed.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) interim evaluation synthesis

The UKSPF interim synthesis report provides perhaps the most comprehensive current view, drawing together 34 place‑based evaluations across the UK. It focuses on process learning rather than impact, reflecting the relatively early stage of delivery.

A clear headline is the importance of local autonomy. Across almost all areas, the ability for Lead Local Authorities to design interventions around local needs was strongly valued, particularly compared to the perceived rigidity of previous EU funds. This flexibility supported alignment with local strategies, more responsive delivery, and better integration across policy areas.

Other success factors included strong local programme management teams, continuity of provision (using UKSPF to sustain previously funded services), and the ability to combine funding streams to create coherent local offers. However, challenges were equally consistent. Tight central government timelines constrained planning and procurement, limited consultation, and created recruitment difficulties. As with other programmes, evaluation and outcome measurement remained underdeveloped.

The synthesis highlights a key tension: local freedom within central constraints. While devolution of decision‑making was real, the operating environment still imposed significant limits on what places could achieve.

UKSPF place‑based evaluations

The place‑based evaluations add depth to this picture by examining how UKSPF worked in specific localities. Using mixed‑methods approaches – including contribution analysis, surveys, interviews and case studies – across 34 areas, they explore how combinations of interventions interact within local systems.

These studies show that outcomes are highly context‑dependent. In some areas, UKSPF supported visible improvements in community facilities, local business support, and employability outcomes. In others, impacts were harder to detect, reflecting both the early stage of delivery and the complexity of local economies. What emerges clearly is that programme success depends less on individual projects than on how they are aligned and sequenced locally.

The evaluations also reinforce the importance of existing capacity and partnerships. Areas with mature governance arrangements, strong voluntary sector links, and prior experience of managing regeneration funding were better able to mobilise quickly and deliver coherent programmes.

What does this mean for local authorities?

Across these evaluations, several consistent lessons emerge.

First, local flexibility works, particularly when supported by capacity and stability. Both UKSPF and Multiply demonstrate the value of devolved decision‑making. However, the benefits are uneven, depending on local capability, existing partnerships, and the time available to plan and deliver.

Second, time is the missing ingredient in local growth policy. Tight delivery timescales appear across all programmes, driving a focus on “shovel‑ready” activity, limiting innovation, and constraining partnership development. Economic change, skills development and behaviour change all take longer than funding cycles typically allow.

Third, integration matters more than individual interventions. The strongest evidence, particularly from the place‑based evaluations, is that impact depends on how interventions fit together. Skills, business support and community investment are interdependent, yet funding streams and evaluation frameworks often treat them separately.

Fourth, measurement remains a weak spot. Across the local growth portfolio, there are persistent challenges in demonstrating impact and value for money. This is partly methodological, but also reflects the reality that many outcomes (productivity, employment, resilience) are long‑term and influenced by wider factors.

Finally, these evaluations underline a familiar but important point: local systems deliver national priorities. Where programmes align with local strategies, build on existing partnerships and allow room for adaptation, they show promise. Where they are constrained by short timescales, fragmented funding or complex governance, delivery becomes more transactional.

The conclusions from the local growth and skills evaluations strongly align with, and are reinforced by last month’s excellent report from the Institute for Government, Designing and delivering employment support.  The IfG goes further in diagnosing why these issues persist and what structural reform is needed. Both emphasise the value of local flexibility, integration and tailoring to place, with the IfG explicitly arguing that strategic authorities are best placed to design joined‑up employment support aligned to local labour markets and services. Likewise, both bodies of evidence highlight fragmentation and poor coordination across programmes as major barriers, with the IfG noting longstanding failures to “shift the dial” despite multiple national schemes, echoing local growth evaluations on disjointed funding and siloed interventions. The IfG report places significant emphasis on the limits of centralised systems and the need for multi‑year funding, capability and accountability frameworks.

In short, the local growth evaluations provide grounded evidence of what works in practice, while the IfG report offers a more explicit systems diagnosis: that without sustained devolution, integration and long‑term investment, the conditions needed for those “what works” approaches to succeed will remain constrained.

The Local Elections

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Preface

For years, Chris Game’s pre-election column in the Birmingham Post has followed a familiar, almost reassuring rhythm – beginning with Birmingham, moving across the wider West Midlands, and ending with a measured national overview. But this year breaks decisively with that tradition. The forthcoming local elections are anything but routine: they are unusually volatile, strikingly unpredictable, and potentially transformative in ways rarely seen in modern British politics. What might once have been a steady survey now demands a wider lens, as voters across the UK head to the polls in contests that could reshape not only local councils, but the broader political landscape itself. This post was first published in The Birmingham Post on 30th April 2026 and is available here: https://pressreader.com/article/281835765304023

Chris Game

The Post’s annual local elections column: it used to be, if not easy, at least formulaic, especially in a ‘Birmingham year’ – in the past three years in four, but now just one: which happens to be this year.  I’d start with ‘the Biggie’ – the City Council itself; then the other metropolitan West Mids councils with elections, focusing mainly on any that might possibly see a change in political control.

On then to any interesting-looking adjacent counties or districts, before concluding with a couple of national ‘round-up’ paragraphs. Informative, I’d hope; exciting, possibly less so. 

In total contrast, this year’s Thursday May 7th locals, both individually and collectively, are quite simply the most fascinating, intriguing, and, above all, potentially most consequential since, some reckon, the 1970s. There’s no remote chance of doing them justice in this single column, so my main aim is to stimulate your interest and thereby encourage you to catch the results as they’re published at various times during the ensuing couple of days.

You could stay up, but the only West Mids results you’re likely to catch are Redditch (est.1.45 a.m.) and Dudley (3.30 a.m.). The rest are mainly later Friday afternoon: Solihull 3.00 p.m., Sandwell and Walsall 5.00, Walsall and Birmingham, last maybe but absolutely NOT least, 6.00 – recounts permitting!

This column, therefore, will start by illustrating the exceptional scale and importance of next Thursday’s ‘big picture’, providing hopefully at least a sense of the hundreds of momentous electoral battles happening across England, before gradually ‘homing in‘ on some of those in the West Midlands.

Over 7 million voters in England, Wales and Scotland will elect over 5,000 councillors  – including almost a third of so-called ‘principal’/top tier council representatives – and are widely expected to produce a set of results the like of which the UK has rarely, if ever, seen before.

The English results could collectively, as Proportional Representation campaigners Make Votes Matter put it: “be the most chaotic yet, with power won on tiny vote shares and whole swathes of the country left unrepresented”.  Sounds bad, if exciting. However, serious students of these things reckon the Scottish and Welsh national results could “open the way” to the break-up of the whole UK, so it seems right to start with them.

All 129 Scottish Parliament members are up for re-election, 73 representing constituencies, 56 their respective 8 regions. Each voter casts two votes on separate ballot papers, deploying two different electoral systems, designed to make it harder for one party to secure a majority. The Nationalists just managed it in 2011, paving the way for the 2014 independence referendum (55% ‘No’, for those with short memories), and they’re going for a more successful ‘breakaway’ repeat.  

The Welsh Senedd elections are, potentially at least, equally consequential. In the biggest parliamentary change since powers began being transferred to Wales in 1999, Senedd Members will increase from 60 to 96, with parties able to list up to eight candidates per constituency. Voters choose a single party or Independent candidate.

In contrast to Scotland, though, no party has ever won a Parliamentary majority, and the new system seems unlikely to change that. Currently, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru are neck-and-neck on an estimated 36/37 seats, with Labour some way adrift, prospectively ending a century of dominance in Welsh politics.

And so to the 5,000+ seats across England’s unitary, county, district and London councils – and, of course, the 6 directly elected mayoralties. Always difficult to summarise, this year’s hundreds (of contests) and thousands (of candidates) are clearly impossible. PLUS, this year – surely the most exciting, and utterly unpredictable, bit – many contests will have candidates from no fewer than five parties currently polling between 10% and 29%, and therefore in with least a chance.

Oh yes, and just a few weeks ago, 30 councils whose elections had been postponed to 2027 due to forthcoming local government reorganisation – including Cannock Chase, Redditch, Rugby and Tamworth – were told, following Reform UK’s legal challenge, that they must reinstate them on their original schedule. Affecting 4.6 million potential voters, if you were wondering – you could hardly make it up! 

And so, in this reverse-order column, we’re back in the metropolitan West Midlands, with room left for only the briefest of numerical overviews of PollCheck’s most recent (March 30th) seat projections; 2022 comparisons, though some were elections by thirds; as many as space permits. They are, I hope you’ll agree, fascinating.

Birmingham  101 seats. Current – Lab (2012- ); Projected – No Overall Control (NOC)

Cons 23 (+2); Reform 20 (+20); Greens 16 (+14); Lib Dems 13 (=); Lab 10 (-42)   Others 19 (+6)

Coventry  54 seats.  Current – Labour (2010- );  Projected– NOC

   Reform 22 (+20); Lab 21 (-18); Greens 6 (+4); Cons 5 (-5); Others 0 (-1)

Dudley  72 seats.  Current – NOC: Cons minority admin. Projected – NOC

  Cons 26 (-7); Reform 24 (+21); Lab 14 (-9); Lib Dems 5 (=); Others 3 (-5)

Sandwell  72 seats.  Current – Lab (1979- );  Projected – Lab

  Labour 53 (-7); Reform 17 (+17); Cons 2 (-2); Greens 0 (-1); Others 0 (-7)

Solihull  51 seats.  Current – Cons (2011- );  Projected – Cons

  Cons 27 (+16); Greens 13 (+10); Lib Dems 7  (-1); Reform 4 (+4)

Walsall   60 seats.  Current – NOC: Cons minority admin. Projected: Reform

   Reform 33 (+33); Cons 17 (12/20); Lab (5/20); Others (3/20)

Wolverhampton  21/60 seats  Current – Lab (2011- )   Projected: Labour

   Labour 38 (-6), Cons 11 (-1); Reform 8 (+6); Green 1 (+1); Others (2).

Chris Game is an INLOGOV Associate, and Visiting Professor at Kwansei Gakuin University, Osaka, Japan.  He is joint-author (with Professor David Wilson) of the successive editions of Local Government in the United Kingdom, and a regular columnist for The Birmingham Post.

What works in homelessness and rough sleeping

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

We’ve just started a new series of Inlogov blogs summarising the growing body of evaluation evidence in local government, and what it tells us about how councils are learning what works. Nowhere is that learning more urgent or more complex than in homelessness and rough sleeping. A series of recent national evaluations provide a rich, if sometimes uncomfortable, picture of how programmes are operating on the ground, what difference they are making, and where the system continues to struggle. 

Systems‑wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping

The systems‑wide evaluation represents a deliberate attempt to step back from individual programmes and understand homelessness as a complex, interconnected system rather than a set of discrete services. Led by the Centre for Homelessness Impact with research partners, the early reports combine systems‑mapping, policy analysis and qualitative fieldwork in five local authority areas.

The core finding is stark: the system is not working as intended. Public spending and organisational effort are disproportionately focused on crisis response rather than prevention, even though this approach places increasing pressure on local authorities and delivers poorer outcomes. Fragmented funding streams, short‑term grants and inconsistent incentives across departments actively undermine joined‑up working. The evaluation does find examples of strong local partnership practice,but these are often working around the system rather than being supported by it.

The central conclusion is that meaningful progress requires sustained, cross‑government commitment to prevention, better alignment between housing, health, justice and welfare systems, and a clearer understanding of how national policy choices shape local outcomes.

Rough sleeping and complex needs process evaluation

The rough sleeping and complex needs evaluation zooms in on services supporting people facing the most entrenched disadvantage. This process evaluation examined interventions funded through the Rough Sleeping Grant and Rough Sleeping Social Impact Bonds, focusing on people with co‑occurring mental health and substance misuse needs.

Using case studies across 12 areas, interviews with service users and staff, and cost analysis, the evaluation explored how different models worked in practice. It found that progress, including improved housing stability and engagement with services, was most likely where support was flexible, persistent and relationship‑based. Small caseloads, psychologically informed approaches and multi‑disciplinary working were all important.

However, delivery was often hampered by structural barriers beyond local control: gaps in mental health provision, restrictive criteria in mainstream services, workforce instability and the limitations of short‑term funding.

Rough Sleeping Initiative process evaluation

The Rough Sleeping Initiative (RSI) process evaluation complements earlier impact analysis by explaining how and why the initiative achieved results. While the impact evaluation estimated a significant reduction in rough sleeping in RSI areas, the process evaluation explored local delivery through surveys of all funded authorities and in‑depth qualitative case studies.

Local authorities consistently reported that RSI funding enabled them to expand outreach, create specialist roles, and strengthen partnerships with health and voluntary sector providers. Rapid mobilisation, local flexibility and visible political commitment were key strengths. Many areas highlighted the value of multi‑disciplinary teams and assertive outreach in engaging people who had been sleeping rough for long periods.

At the same time, the evaluation identified familiar challenges: recruitment difficulties, reliance on short funding cycles, and the risk of losing skilled staff when funding ends.

Next Steps Accommodation Programme evaluation (briefing paper)

The Next Steps Accommodation Programme (NSAP) evaluation focuses on what happened after the incredible emergency response of “Everyone In” during the Covid pandemic lockdowns. It draws on two waves of interviews with service users in 34 local authorities, around 12 and 18 months after they were placed in longer‑term accommodation.

The findings are cautiously positive. Many people reported improved stability, safety and wellbeing, and a reduced use of emergency services. Sustained accommodation outcomes were more likely where individuals received ongoing, tailored support alongside housing. However, the evaluation is clear about its limits: the absence of baseline data, attrition over time, and the likelihood that those still in contact with services are the “success cases”.

Crucially, it highlights risks to sustainability, particularly affordability pressures, isolation, and unmet support needs.

Capital Letters process evaluation

The Capital Letters process evaluation adds an important organisational and commercial dimension to the evidence base. Capital Letters was established in 2019 as a borough‑owned, non‑profit company to reduce homelessness and temporary accommodation use in London by collectively procuring private rented sector homes, reducing competition between boroughs and driving better value for money.

The evaluation, based on interviews with boroughs, board members, landlords and MHCLG officials, alongside document and performance data review, focuses on how the initiative was set up, governed and sustained. It finds that Capital Letters had early success in demonstrating the potential of scale, shared negotiation and coordinated landlord engagement. Boroughs valued the ambition to change market dynamics rather than simply manage them.

However, the evaluation also highlights significant challenges. Achieving financial self‑sufficiency while meeting social objectives proved extremely difficult, particularly in a highly pressured London housing market. Tensions emerged between commercial risk, borough expectations and the constraints of homelessness legislation. Governance and accountability arrangements were complex, and uneven borough engagement limited the company’s ability to operate at the scale originally envisaged. Ultimately, despite grant support, Capital Letters was unable to become financially sustainable and subsequently wound down operations in 2025.

What does this mean for local authorities?

Read together, these evaluations paint a coherent but challenging picture of what local government can do in homelessness and rough sleeping.

First, prevention and system change demand stability. The biggest barriers to progress lie beyond individual projects. Short funding cycles, fragmented policy levers and misaligned national incentives consistently undermine local efforts, even where practice is strong. Councils can innovate, but without longer‑term certainty the system pulls them back towards crisis response.

Second, relationships and capability are critical. Outreach teams, assertive support for people with complex needs, and sustained tenancy support all rely on skilled staff, trust and persistence. These are precisely the elements most at risk from time‑limited programmes and competitive commissioning.

Third, housing supply and affordability are constraints. The Rough Sleeping Initiative and Next Steps evaluations both underline that service innovation only works when there are viable move‑on options. Capital Letters reinforces this at a system level: even ambitious collective approaches struggle when the underlying market is stacked against local authorities.

Fourth, collaboration is necessary but tricky. Whether through multi‑disciplinary teams or borough‑owned companies, partnership working requires time, governance capacity and shared risk. The evidence suggests collaboration works best when it is supported by clear national frameworks, realistic financial models and space to mature, rather than when it is required to develop and achieve results rapidly.

Finally, these evaluations show the growing value of learning‑focused evaluation in local government. They do not offer simple answers or “magic bullet” models. Instead, they help councils articulate what they are already experiencing on the ground and provide credible evidence to challenge policies and funding arrangements that make homelessness harder, not easier, to resolve.

The learning is no longer about whether local authorities know what works. It is about whether the wider system will allow them to do it.

What Works?  Local Government is Finding Out

/ jlowther2015 / 1 Comment

Jason Lowther

At last month’s Smith Square debate, we had an interesting discussion (among other themes) on how innovation spreads.  I mentioned that I was frustrated at the lack of traction that many evaluation reports seem to get, and that so many basically say “we don’t know so probably do more research”.  However, over the last 18 months, government has released a wave of evaluation evidence across multiple themes that are priorities for local government.  Partly in answer to my challenge, over the next few weeks we’ll be looking at what each of these can tell us about “what works” in their area: homelessness and rough sleeping, local growth and skills programmes, democratic engagement, the Community Ownership Fund (COF), and others.

This week, I’ll have a go at seeing the story the collection as a whole might be telling us about the pressures, strengths and future direction of local government systems. They reveal a landscape where councils are doing a great deal right, but also where structural conditions, funding models and capacity constraints limit what even the best local practice is able to achieve.

A shared diagnosis: rising demand, systemic pressure and fragmented delivery

Most of the recently published evaluations echo the same system‑level diagnosis: demand is rising faster than capacity. In homelessness, systems‑wide analysis shows local authorities facing increasing crisis presentations driven by housing shortages, welfare constraints and cost‑of‑living pressures. In UKSPF and Multiply, compressed timeframes and short‑term funding cycles created operational strain and restrict innovation.  The Community Ownership Fund interim evaluation suggests that without the fund many pubs, community centres, sports facilities and heritage buildings would likely have been lost from community use, but also highlights long lead‑in times, complex project management demands, and volunteer burnout as recurring challenges.

Prevention consistently outperforms crisis response, but funding architectures still favour the latter

Across homelessness evaluations, the conclusion is clear: prevention is more humane, more effective and delivers better value for money than crisis response. Yet central‑local funding arrangements often reward short‑term, visible ‘rescue’ rather than long‑term preventative investment. Skills and economic development evaluations show similar dynamics. Multiply deep dives find that providers would benefit from multi‑year cycles that allow them to embed contextualised numeracy provision and build trusted relationships. Instead, annualised funding introduces uncertainty and forces a focus on quick (rather than effective) delivery.

The COF evaluation also surfaces a version of this problem. It shows that community ownership has deep preventative value, protecting assets before they disappear, strengthening social infrastructure, and avoiding long‑term local decline. But early rounds of COF were more accessible to groups with high pre‑existing capability, meaning communities most at risk were sometimes least able to prevent asset loss. Later rounds have improved this, lowering match‑funding requirements, widening eligibility, and offering stronger pre‑application support to disadvantaged communities. The lesson resonates across sectors: preventative systems require accessible, stable and equitable funding frameworks.


Local flexibility and community empowerment are major drivers of success

One of the clearest conclusions across the recent evaluations is that local flexibility works. UKSPF’s devolved decision‑making has been widely praised for enabling councils to design interventions aligned to local priorities. Multiply’s flexible design allowed councils to embed numeracy learning in real‑world contexts that resonated with learners.  The COF interim report finds that COF has been “uniquely positioned” to meet community needs, enabling groups to save valued assets and renew pride in place. Communities report increased participation, stronger local identity and early signs of improved social cohesion following COF‑supported interventions.

Workforce, capacity and governance: the quiet constraints shaping outcomes

A recurring thread across the evaluations is the impact of workforce shortages and operational capacity. Staff churn, fragile volunteer bases, rising caseloads and short‑term contracts constrain delivery, limit innovation and prevent organisations from embedding learning. Investing in capacity (skills, governance, leadership and organisational resilience) is critical for successful place‑based policy.

Partnerships make the biggest difference, but they need careful stewardship

From rough sleeping multi‑disciplinary teams to UKSPF delivery partnerships with VCSE organisations, strong collaboration emerges as one of the most important influences on success. Evaluations show that where councils act as effective system convenors (aligning partners, coordinating case management, sharing data and creating shared goals), outcomes improve.

What does all this mean for local government?

Three big implications stand out across the evaluations.

First, councils are increasingly system‑shapers, not simply programme‑managers.  The evaluations underline that successful outcomes depend on how councils orchestrate local systems (such as housing, economic development, VCSE partners and community groups) rather than on the quality of any single programme.

Second, stable, long‑term funding is essential for prevention, equity and innovation.  Short‑term cycles undermine prevention, limit strategic planning and exhaust delivery partners. The COF findings show how programme design changes can increase equity, but also how instability can disadvantage the communities most in need.

Finally, capacity‑building is central to reducing inequality, even when the policy focus is capital investment.  Across the board, councils, community groups and VCSE partners need investment in skills, leadership and organisational resilience. It’s essential that as a sector we develop systematic and accredited processes to deliver the necessary education and training.

The emerging picture is of local government doing extraordinary work under extraordinary pressure. But the future of place‑based policy will depend on giving councils and communities the tools, stability and capacity to shape local systems, rather than firefighting the consequences of systemic constraints.

Next time I will be diving in more detail into what the evaluations tell us about “what works” in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping.

Rewiring Public Spending: Why Place-Based Budgets Are a Game Changer

/ jlowther2015 / 1 Comment

Jason Lowther

Today’s announcement of five new pilots of place-based budgets is to be welcomed, particularly if we are able to learn the lessons of previous incarnations of this approach.

For at least two decades, reformers have argued that public money should be organised around people and places rather than the siloed lines of departmental spending. The Total Place pilots at the end of the 2000s offered an early glimpse of what a whole-area approach could achieve: count everything that is spent in a place, identify duplication and misalignment, and then redesign services around users and prevention instead of institutions and costly reactive services. The initiative was short-lived, but it started a body of learning that has grown through subsequent programmes and analyses (Kings Fund 2010; Leadership Centre 2010).

The case for place-based budgets is if anything stronger than in the 2000s. Despite recent increases in funding, local government finance is under intense strain, with parliamentary scrutiny concluding that the funding system is perilously complex and increasingly dominated by mandatory, high-cost services. As demand for social care, homelessness support and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) has accelerated, councils have had less fiscal room for prevention or early intervention (Public Accounts Committee 2025). Contemporary policy analysis likewise contends that austerity-era dynamics have created a ‘doom-loop’ of short-term firefighting, and that pooling budgets locally and focusing on shared, place-level outcomes offers a realistic route to break it (New Local 2024).

What, then, does the available evidence on place-based budgets demonstrate? I would highlight three key lessons.

First, integration pays. Total Place’s ‘high-level count’ and service ‘deep dives’ gave leaders a common picture of spending, surfacing duplication and transactional costs that fall between organisational boundaries. That visibility enabled local partners to experiment with redesign, supported by cultural work and customer insight, pointing to improved value and user experience, even though formal causal evidence remained emergent due to the initiative’s brevity (Leadership Centre 2010; Kings Fund 2010).

Second, place-based approaches work best as portfolios, not isolated projects. Evaluations of ‘single-pot’ style funding, such as the Local Growth Fund and Getting Building Fund, found synergistic effects when local partners curated integrated suites of interventions, although capacity constraints, time pressure and administrative burdens often limited impact (MHCLG 2025).  To quote: “A place-based approach, underpinned by joined-up strategic planning and strong partnerships, enhanced the effectiveness of interventions, while the flexibility of funding design encouraged innovation”.

Third, process quality matters.  For example, the UK Community Renewal Fund evaluation recorded achievements but highlighted design and delivery lessons, especially around streamlining and enabling local capability (DLUHC 2023).

Each of the service areas targeted in the new pilots have clear potential benefits from place-based budgets. For SEND, with demand surging and statutory duties paramount, money gravitates to crisis responses, while coordination across education, health and care is hampered by mismatched rules and timelines. Fragmentation and pressure are crowding out prevention, strengthening the argument for pooled, place-level budgets with shared outcomes that enable early help (Public Accounts Committee 2025).   For young people at risk of offending, short-term cycles and centralised decision-making weaken continuity and trust (ICON 2025). For adolescent mental health, prevention depends on integrating multiple local services around a common, place-based outcomes framework.  For adults facing multiple disadvantage, evidence from the Troubled Families and similar programmes showed how place‑based, whole‑family approaches can more effectively support adults experiencing multiple disadvantage.

The literature suggests five practical design features. First, begin with a whole-place account of spending, including deep dives where duplication and hand-offs are greatest, then use that map to re-route resource into prevention (Leadership Centre 2010). Second, fix governance and outcomes before money moves: agree a small set of shared, population-level outcomes and decision rules that prevent old silos from re-emerging inside pooled funds (New Local 2024). Third, commit to multi-year settlements; the stop-start rhythms of competitive funds correlate with weaker delivery, thinner partnerships and lost learning (MHCLG 2025; DLUHC 2023). Fourth, invest in local analytical and commissioning capacity. A systematic review of 134 place-based business cases found surprisingly low rates of SMART objectives and limited place-sensitive value-for-money analysis (University of Birmingham 2025). Fifth, align central missions with local flexibility: national outcomes frames can be compatible with local choice on delivery (University of Liverpool 2026).

When budgets follow place and purpose rather than departmental programme labels, partners collaborate more, duplication falls, transaction costs reduce and services are redesigned nearer to the lives they intend to improve. The empirical evidence base is not fully robust since few initiatives have enjoyed the time and design stability that gold-standard evaluations require, but the direction of travel is remarkably consistent across evaluations, parliamentary scrutiny and academic commentary. Building in proper evaluation this time round could really help strengthen this evidence base.

The new pilots are a chance to “stand on the shoulders” of all the hard work local and central governments have done to date, learning the lessons so that this time we can genuinely change the system.

References

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) (2023) UK Community Renewal Fund evaluation. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-community-renewal-fund-evaluation-report (Accessed 17 March 2026).

ICON (2025) Mapping the Landscape of Place‑Based Initiatives. Available at: https://www.neighbourhoodscommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/10957-Mapping-the-Landscape-ICON-Report-V2.pdf (Accessed 17 March 2026).

Institute for Government (2025) The case for Total Place 2.0. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/total-place-2.0 (Accessed 17 March 2026).

King’s Fund (2010) Place‑based approaches and the NHS: Lessons from Total Place. Available at: https://assets.kingsfund.org.uk/f/256914/x/74928b3392/place-based_approach_nhs_total_place_event_write-up_2010.pdf (Accessed 17 March 2026).

Leadership Centre (2010) Total Place: A whole area approach. Available at: https://www.leadershipcentre.org.uk/total-place/ (Accessed 17 March 2026).

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (2025) Local Growth Fund and Getting Building Fund: Place‑based case studies – Executive summary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-growth-fund-and-getting-building-fund-place-based-case-studies/local-growth-fund-and-getting-building-fund-place-based-case-studies-executive-summary (Accessed 17 March 2026).

New Local (2024) Place‑Based Public Service Budgets: Making Public Money Work Better for Communities. Available at: https://www.newlocal.org.uk/publications/research-reports/place-based-budgets/ (Accessed 17 March 2026).

Public Accounts Committee (2025) Local Government Financial Sustainability. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmpubacc/647/report.html (Accessed 17 March 2026).

University of Birmingham (2025) Business Cases and Place‑Based Funding. Available at: https://blog.bham.ac.uk/lpip/2025/11/26/business-cases-and-place-based-funding/ (Accessed 17 March 2026).

University of Liverpool (2026) Place‑based policy. Available at: https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/publicpolicyamppractice/innovationsinpublicpolicy/place,based,policy.pdf (Accessed 17 March 2026).

Understanding Mayoral Accountability: Insights from Japan and the UK

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

What makes a directly elected mayor genuinely accountable to the public? How do contrasting political and administrative systems shape the conduct, choices, and leadership styles of those entrusted with substantial local authority? These questions were central to a recent Inlogov seminar led by Akinari Takehisa, former mayor of Setouchi City in Japan, and as part of his PhD studies at Kwansei Gakuin University in Japan, visiting researcher at Nottingham Business School. Drawing on a rare combination of long mayoral experience and rigorous academic research, Aki offered a compelling comparative exploration of how accountability is constructed and enacted within Japan and the United Kingdom.

Aki’s work centres on executive mayors, leaders who uniquely embody both political and managerial authority. Unlike council leaders or ministers, who operate within more layered decision-making structures, executive mayors face the dual responsibility of providing political direction and ensuring the effective, lawful, and ethical delivery of public services. This dual role offers the promise of coherence and visibility in leadership, while simultaneously demanding a careful balance between responsiveness, organisational discipline, professional values, and legal boundaries.

Why Compare Japan and the UK?

Although Japan and the UK represent different political traditions, their local government systems share notable similarities. Both countries are advanced democracies with historically strong central oversight of municipal administration. Both have grappled with questions of local leadership and experimented with models aimed at enhancing the authority and public visibility of mayors.  Japan has adopted the directly elected mayor model across all of its 1,718 municipalities, embedding it deeply into local governance. The UK, by contrast, has applied the model selectively, introducing executive mayors in just 13 principal local authorities since 2002. This contrast creates a rich basis for comparison: one system fully institutionalised, the other still evolving.

But the most significant insights emerge from how each country structures accountability. Japan’s governance arrangements involve vertically layered responsibilities shared between national, prefectural and municipal governments. This can foster helpful coordination, but it can also confuse responsibility when things go wrong. The UK, meanwhile, relies heavily on arm’s-length accountability mechanisms, with statutory roles such as Section 151 Officers and Monitoring Officers acting as key guardians of financial integrity and legal compliance. These institutional safeguards create clearer boundaries around mayoral authority.

Three Core Questions

Aki’s research explores three interrelated questions. The first concerns how institutional environments in Japan and the UK shape mayoral accountability. The second looks at how personal characteristics (leadership styles, professional backgrounds, and the use of performance information) influence accountable behaviour. The third examines the behavioural traits that support or undermine accountability, identified through interviews and narrative analysis.

To address these questions, Aki conducted extensive fieldwork: interviews with 15 mayors and six key stakeholders in Japan, and with six mayors and six stakeholders in the UK. This qualitative evidence was supplemented with a literature review and advanced comparative techniques, including fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), which allows researchers to understand complex relationships across multiple cases.

What the Early Findings Reveal

A first major insight concerns the impact of institutional contexts. In Japan, accountability reforms have unfolded gradually since the 1990s, driven by incremental devolution and efforts to improve transparency. The use of performance information has grown, though its uptake varies significantly between municipalities. In the UK, accountability has evolved in more dramatic cycles. Reforms associated with New Public Management in the 1980s, followed by the Best Value regime in the late 1990s and 2000s, significantly expanded performance oversight before many national requirements were rolled back during the austerity era after 2010.

A second key finding arises from the fsQCA analysis. Mayors who demonstrated consistently high levels of political, hierarchical, professional and legal accountability were far more likely to sustain long and stable careers. By contrast, those whose professional or legal accountability was weak were more likely to experience short or troubled terms, particularly in Japan where mayors enjoy substantial personal discretion. Interestingly, extensive use of performance information did not necessarily correlate with stronger accountability. Its effectiveness depended on how thoughtfully and transparently it was applied.

Aki also found that behavioural characteristics play a decisive role. Inclusive leadership, transparency, ethical judgement, and constructive collaboration with professional officers strengthened accountability in both countries. Conversely, secrecy, impulsive or populist decision‑making, and blurred boundaries between political campaigning and administrative neutrality frequently undermined it. Japan and the UK each demonstrated examples of positive “synergies” between political and managerial roles, such as the ability to commit to long‑term policies or communicate strategy clearly to the public. But both also exhibited negative synergies when these roles clashed or overlapped in unhelpful ways.

Conclusions

Aki’s emerging conclusions highlight the importance of recognising accountability as a multidimensional and dynamic practice. Japan continues to advance its approach through gradual decentralisation, while the UK contends with the legacies of shifting reform agendas. Yet in both countries, the success of directly elected mayors rests not only on the formal powers they hold, but on the quality of leadership they exercise and the institutional structures that guide and constrain them.

The research offers valuable lessons for policymakers, practitioners and scholars. It suggests that accountability must be intentionally designed and continuously reinforced. Clear institutional roles, better training and development for mayors, and stronger professional support structures can all contribute to more effective local leadership. As debates about mayoral systems continue in both countries, the insights from Aki’s work provide a timely and thoughtful contribution to understanding what truly makes local democratic leadership accountable.

You can view the whole (50 mins) seminar here:
https://bham.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=76530fc7-ce2a-4884-964a-b3fd00c80704&start=1315.148058

Jason Lowther is director of Inlogov, the Institute of Local Government Studies, at the University of Birmingham