Local Government

A GENUINELY BRITANNIA-WIDE ELECTIONS DAY

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Chris Game

I chanced recently upon, in the LocalGov news circular, a local elections preview by Jonathan Werran, CE of the cross-party think tank Localis, which mentioned, in the guise of a rhetorical question, the Birmingham Post. 

“When the Birmingham Post’s circulation is less than a thousand copies for what is England’s second city, is this sufficient evidence that there is no audience at all for local politics … that this apathy mirrors widespread public indifference for local government accountability and scrutiny, and the sense that local services are something ‘done to’ residents and communities rather than for or with them?”

The remainder of the piece bypassed, rather than refuted, that accusation, en route to vigorously asserting that, even if ministers and civil servants are the key policy shapers, they do their shaping with the knowledge of what happens at the local ballot box.

As a longstanding INLOGOV member with a particular interest in local elections, I wince when politicians or commentators almost dismissively describe any local election year as low-key. It signals that they’ll continue endlessly pontificating about ‘the big one’ in July, November or whenever, while ignoring the thousands of contests and hundreds of local policy issues at stake on May 2nd – AND that this time at least they’re demonstrably wrong.

Which is what I’ve devoted 2,000+ words in, as it happens, this week’s Birmingham Post, to arguing that for us Metropolitan West Midlands electors, every one with two or three separate votes to bestow or withhold – or, indeed, the 150,000-plus full- and part-time staff photo ID-checking in some 40,000 polling stations – next Thursday in actuality is as big as it gets.

OK, I’m guessing a bit about those latter numbers, but the rest holds. This year, almost unprecedentedly (except for the 2021 post-Covid elections), every part of England and Wales[1] has at least one ‘local’ or sub-national, election – local council, mayoral, London Assembly, Police & Crime Commissioners. And, whatever happens in the General Election, the winners will still be there, representing and working for their respective communities, come 2025.

The best illustration of all this is through the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU)’s set of interactive maps – available online, uncontemplatable for the Birmingham Post,but deployable here.

MAP 1 shows LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTIONS, and indeed occupying this year perhaps about an eighth of the England part of the map – as this is a ‘non-county’ year, with no Welsh council elections.

In our still substantially ‘two-tier’ county-district local government system, next Thursday’s elections are for the minority of English district and unitary councils who elect their councillors by thirds or halves, rather than all-out, and for mainly single-tier metropolitan boroughs – smallish in map-area, but with big, concentrated populations, and most of which (Birmingham is an exception) still elect a third of their councillors in three years of each four-year cycle.

Their sizable urban electorates are clustered into small areas of the map, particularly in Yorkshire/Lancashire, and currently are very clustered politically too. Of the three dozen-plus mainly metropolitan councils north of about Cannock Chase with upcoming elections, just one – North East Lincolnshire – is currently Conservative.

The stand-out patch of Conservative blue in the south is Dorset. Established in 2019, its councillors, uniquely and for unexplained reasons, were elected for five-year terms of office, which are replicated this year. There are several blue blobs in our West Midlands metropolitan region – Dudley, Solihull and Walsall – but gone are the days when they can be assumed naturally and nationally to outnumber the Lib Dems’ yellowy-orange. And the black-coloured councils under ‘No Overall Control’ by any single party comfortably outnumber both.

The statistical details of the West Midlands metropolitan contests are summarised in the following abbreviated version of the table included in my Post article.   

The LGIU’s MAP 2 shows COMBINED AUTHORITY (CA) MAYORAL ELECTIONS – those areas created in relatively recent years allowing groups of upper-tier councils to pool responsibility for delivering functions devolved from central government, like transport, economic policy and regeneration, more effectively over a wider area, in our case the West Midlands.

With the formal establishment of the North East CA, there will be 11 of these Combined and Combined County Authorities, our West Midlands CA being one of the longer established, and nine, including us, will be electing or re-electing their Mayors. It is no exaggeration to suggest that, of all the 2,700-plus elections, this West MIdlands one can be considered the single most important – for our city’s future, but also for the future direction and vibrancy of the whole country’s sub-central government.

This LGIU map has just two modest-sized patches of Conservative blue: Tees Valley, whose elected Mayor since 2017 has been Ben Houchen – The Lord Houchen of High Leven to you and me – and the West Midlands led by Andy Street. We know how tight our contest will be – a single Savanta poll managing to put Street both two points ahead of Labour candidate Richard Parker, then three points behind! – and, if both CAs were to swing to Labour, it would surely raise questions for the next Government about the future of this crucial strand of devolution.   

Which brings us to the LGIU’s Map 3 – the POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS – in England an almost uninterrupted mass of Conservative blue, with patches of Labour red, and, dominating mid-Wales, a substantial block of Plaid Cymru green. Being picky, I’d add a red patch for the Labour Mayor of London, as he (Sadiq Khan) is London’s equivalent of a PCC and both he and the London Assembly should properly be included somewhere on the maps.

It is, of course, these 41 PCC elections, covering all England and Wales, which give May 2nd its indisputably national dimension – and also brought the West Midlands its first election-related headlines. PCCs were created in 2011/12 to make police forces more visibly responsive to local needs. Their core functions are to appoint the chief constable, set the budget, and set local policing priorities, subsequently extended in some cases (like Staffordshire) to the local fire and rescue service.

However, as Mayor Andy Street has long been somewhat enviously aware, his fellow (Labour) Mayors of Greater Manchester (Andy Burnham) and West Yorkshire (Tracy Brabin) had both acquired PCC functions, so why shouldn’t he have a second go at grabbing some of that action.

It’s a challenge – or attempted “hostile takeover” – that, had he acted much earlier and more strategically, could have prompted a useful public cost-benefit debate about the value of having a separate elected PCC role. Certainly, the bid should have been thoroughly researched and publicly tested. But in their partisan eagerness it seems either Mayor Street, or the Home Office on his behalf, screwed up.

West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster (Lab) was able to claim that the Conservative Home Secretary had a “closed mind” on the issue, and the Judge found that exactly how the change would lead to a more joined-up approach to crime prevention was “left entirely unexplained”. Simon Foster, naturally, is standing for re-election as PCC, but challenged this time by just the single Conservative & Unionist candidate, Tom Byrne, rather than the previous six..

As has been extensively noted, Mayor Street’s campaign generally excludes reference to the Conservative Party, if not from the ballot paper, from his campaign material and social media accounts. His is an individual ‘Brand Andy’ campaign, he explains, and “people are sick and tired of Westminster”.  And, of course, of his party – as he didn’t add.

I’ve not seen the point made explicitly, but ‘Brand Andy’ could apply even more strikingly to our Mayor’s evidently genuinely warm and productive working relationship with Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, notably over a post-HS2 “alternative connectivity plan”, and on Street’s part a reluctance to rule out voting for Burnham, were he a Manchester resident.

A big and possibly electorally crucial difference, however, is that recorded in a recent Centre for Cities opinion poll – that, while over a third of Manchester respondents could name at least one of Mayor Burnham’s policies, barely 10% of West Midlanders could recall one of Street’s, despite the fact that he certainly has plenty – plus, apparently, cash. It’s a disappointing stat for someone who sculpts his reputation on getting things done.

_________________

.

[1]  Which, with the exclusion of Scotland, which the Romans never properly occupied, represents what the Romans called Britannia – hence the title.

Democratising public administration through public-common partnerships: the case of the Citizen Assets Programme in Barcelona

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Marina Pera and Sonia Bussu

In a recent article titled Towards Democratisation of Public Administration:Public-Commons Partnerships in Barcelona, part of a Special issue on The International Journal of the Commons (edited by Dr Hendrik Wagenaar and Dr Koen Bartels), we explored public-commons partnerships in Barcelona through a relational lens, examining how they might be contributing to deeper democratisation of public administration.

The commons refer to those cultural and material resources collectively managed by the community and represent an alternative to both the state and the market. Recent literature emphasises the capacity of the commons’ prefigurative politics to develop alternative institutions to neoliberal regimes and/or deliberative and collective forms of resource management. The grassroots movements managing the commons often take an oppositional stance to the state, but they might also depend on its resources. By the same token, the state has an interest in supporting assets and services managed as commons, which offer flexibility and efficiency, while encouraging citizen participation in local politics.  

Within political contexts sympathetic to progressive socio-economic projects, such as  new municipalism in Barcelona, formalised alliances between the local state and the commons started to emerge, facilitating the development of novel policy instruments that respond better to the demands of the commons and open opportunities for more participatory policymaking. So-called public-common partnerships are long-term agreements based on cooperation between state actors and the commons members. In our paper, we wanted to understand better the relational work behind these partnerships and the role of boundary spanners that build bridges between two worlds, such as the state and the commons, which are often quite distant in terms of visions of local democracy and the language to articulate such visions.  We take the case of the Citizen Asset Programme (CAP) in Barcelona to explore the relationships between public officials and commons members, highlighting how these collaborations shape governance practices and can help foster a collaborative culture within public administration.

CAP was approved in 2016 and aims to create the institutional framework to recognise and support commons-managed municipal assets in the city. Based on qualitative analysis of interviews with public officials and commons members involved in the partnership, as well as official documents, we drew out insights on the relational dynamics that facilitated the creation of two policy instruments under CAP: The Community Balance Metrics and the Social Return on Investment of Can Batlló. The first one is a set of indicators to evaluate the performance of community-managed assets considering their transformative potential and including dimensions of internal democracy, care, inclusion, and environmental sustainability. The second helps to measure the value of activities and volunteer work carried out in the community centre of Can Batlló.

Through a series of vignettes depicting the different state and commons actors involved, we examined how they forged alliances and employed creative thinking to manage conflicts, resistance, and scepticism from both the local administration and the grassroots movements. Public officials from the Active Democracy Department were able to build trust among commons representatives by recognising their needs and potential. They explained the workings of public administration in a clear language. They created spaces of open-ended dialogue between grassroots movements and different departments to facilitate the development of policy instruments, measures and indicators that valued the commons’ innovative work, while still coherent with existing legal requirements. For instance, a working commission was set up involving members of Can Batlló, the Legal and the Heritage Department, as well as representatives of the District administration. This public-commons partnership developed a comprehensive agreement to regulate asset transfers, which fully recognises the social and economic value of the commons.

By the same token, the commons members played a crucial role in communicating to grassroots movements the work of the Active Democracy officials and build mutual trust. On the one hand, they helped the commons understand feasibility issues of their demands; on the other they pressed the public administration for greater transparency and creative interpretation of existing regulatory framework to strengthen democratic values underpinning asset transfer agreements.

Two cooperatives supported these partnerships as consultants. They contributed knowledge of innovative public policies from across the world. They also facilitated knowledge sharing to encourage cooperation between commons members and state institutions, for instance by inviting grassroots groups from other parts of the world to share their experience of working with the state.

The work of these public-commons partnerships is gradually reshaping the administrative culture and fostering more transparent and democratic working practices within the public administration. An example is the joint work to develop the Community Balance Metrics, which helps evaluate the performance of the commons using indicators agreed upon by both local public administration and the commons. However, these processes face a number of challenges, as they clash with established working routines and performance evaluations of public administrators that hardly ever value participatory work. Existing literature suggests that despite the introduction and encouragement of new practices, there is a tendency to revert to traditional policymaking methods when faced with unexpected problems. When boundary spanners that had supported the partnership exit the process, they can leave a vacuum that is hard to fill and that can jeopardise the partnership. In Barcelona, ongoing discussion between Can Batlló members and the City Council on who is responsible for funding the refurbishment of one of Can Batlló’s building is causing friction within the partnership and some of the work has stalled.

Inevitably this collaborative work is hard to sustain, but in the face of multiple and overlapping crises facing local government, these public-commons partnerships are also beginning to open safe space to experiment and do things differently.

Picture credit: Victoria Sánchez.

Sonia is an Associate Professor in INLOGOV. Her main research interests are participatory governance and democratic innovations, and creative and arts-based methods for research and public engagement. She led on projects on youth participation to influence mental health policy and services, coproduction of research on health and social care integration, models of local governance, and leadership styles within collaborative governance.

Marina is a researcher at Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). She holds a PhD in Public Policy from UAB and a M.A. in Sociology from Columbia University (New York). She has been a visiting scholar at CUNY Graduate Center (New York) and at INLOGOV, University of Birmingham. Her research interests
include community assets transfer, democratisation of public administration, community development and public-common partnerships.

Europe’s Largest Local Authority – It’s NUTS!

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Chris Game

It’s little consolation to the ‘powers that were’ in Birmingham Council House, but the past several months’ headlines about “Europe’s Largest Local Authority” going bankrupt have done wonders for my personal online social networking. From the BBC and Financial Times to the World Socialist International Trotskyists, that headline has made us Brummies suddenly globally famous as citizens of ELLA.

I’ve been emailed by erstwhile colleagues and ex-students I’ve not seen or heard from for years, now back home in Australia and South Africa, Japan and Kazakhstan, wanting to know whether Birmingham really is Europe’s Largest Local Authority – like it boasts on its Website Awards page – and, if so, why didn’t I make more of it while they were students here.

Yes, they’re curious about the bankruptcy bit, which I also have to try to explain, but it’s the ELLA boast that really fascinates them – because they recall their travels around Britain and Europe, and clearly blame me for their not having been able to boast about temporarily residing in the continent’s LLA.  The clever-dick ones even add, “What about Kent?” Or “Didn’t you say it was East Lindsey in Lincolnshire?”.

And they’re not wrong, of course. Take the real ‘biggies’.  In population, Kent is nowadays just one of the ‘Big 3’ of the 36 non-metropolitan or shire counties – its 1,858,000 fractionally behind Essex and Hampshire, and all roughly half as large again as Birmingham City Council’s 1.15 million. However, those counties’ local governments are, of course, two-tiered – counties and districts, each responsible for different functions and services. And – spoiler alert – it’s single-tier or unitary authorities, responsible for providing all principal local government services in an area, that count here. 

County councils provide services covering the whole county – education, adult social care, waste disposal, etc.  More local services, like refuse collection, environmental health, and leisure facilities, are provided – as I’d certainly have pointed out – by, in Kent’s case, 12 smaller district councils.

Sounds straightforward, doesn’t it?  In fact, it’s anything but, and, if you were a class of students, I’d have had to at least mention the bizarre distinctions between ceremonial and historic counties, Lord-lieutenants (Lords-Lieutenant?) and High Sheriffs. Suffice it here to stress that it’s the two-tier structure and the ‘county’ bit that bar these bodies from challenging Birmingham’s status as ‘Largest’.

We do, of course, have a West Midlands Combined Authority, headed currently by Mayor Andy Street, but that’s entirely different and its 18 local authorities cover a far larger regional area than the old West Midlands County Council that Margaret Thatcher abolished in 1986. It’s an increasingly important, and influential, regional and national voice, but definitely not a local authority.

And East Lindsey? I honestly can’t remember ever mentioning this.  If I did, I’d guess it was to encourage some overseas students to visit Skegness, as somewhere ‘different’ but inherently English and off the proverbial tourist track. It’s a pleasant seaside resort with a rather splendid clock tower – which tells the time, unlike, for apparently a further several weeks, the UoB’s Old Joe – that probably happened then to be the largest town in England’s geographically largest local government district – East Lindsey – and five or six times the area of Birmingham.

We’ve fully established, then, that Birmingham’s ‘Europe’s Largest Local Authority’ claim has nothing to do with either population or geographical size, but everything to do with the UK’s uniquely large-scale, or ‘non-local’, local government structure and the gradual disappearance of devolution to more local units of government.

Put another way, it’s a question of NUTS. Yes, there’s plenty about our local government system that doesn’t make much sense – not least its sheer non-localness – but here we’re actually talking about the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, which both sounds better in the original French and produces an easily memorable acronym.  

It’s statistical shorthand for the EU’s hierarchical way of standardising the different ways in which the hugely varying EU states administratively structure their sub-central governments – regardless, if necessary, of the institutional reality. A statistical harmonisation exercise, therefore, rather than an aid to serious cross-national local government comparison.

The NUTS classification subdivides every member country into three principal levels, NUTS 1 to 3, to which large countries can add further levels by subdividing NUTS 3 into LAU (Local Administrative Units). Very roughly, then, the currently 92 NUTS 1s are major socio-economic regions or groups of regions of relatively larger states – Germany’s 16 Länder, France’s 14 Régions, Poland’s 7 Makroregiony. And the UK, were we still EU members, would have 12: West Midlands and the eight other English regions, plus Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The 240 NUTS 2s are basic regions or regional groupings for the application of regional policies – Austrian Bundesländer, Belgian, Dutch and France’s former Provinces – and in the UK 40 conveniently grouped counties, London ‘districts’, and in the West Midlands its seven boroughs.

The 1,164 NUTS 3s tend to be sub-divisions of regions, provinces, counties, or groupings of municipalities for specific purposes, rather than individual local authorities. But such is the UK’s exceptional non-local scale that it takes nearly one-sixth of that total (174), with many councils qualifying for their own, including all seven West Midlands boroughs.

Even forgetting the UK’s large slice, that 1,164 doesn’t sound that many for a whole continent, does it?  Hence those Local Administrative Units – over 92,000 of them which constitute the overwhelmingly biggest columns in the main NUTS table. In our case LAU 4s would be the upper tiers of our traditionally two-tier system of county and district councils, and LAU 5s the lower tiers – or, rather, would have been, the two levels having since been merged.

I hate that LAU term. It’s misleading bureaucratese: a seriously disparaging label for what most European countries’ residents would first think of when asked to identify their elected local governments. To pick some examples: France’s LAU 4s were/are its nearly 35,000 Communes, Germany’s its 10,775 Gemeinden, Italy and Spain their 8,000 Comuni and Municipios – with, obviously, what we would consider mostly modest-sized populations to match.

At which point I admit my age and recall Mr Spock’s immortal response to Star Trek’s Captain Kirk: “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it”. And yes, I know it was from a later song, rather than the TV series, but it fits. Because for a Brit those sizeable NUTS/LAU numbers could easily be described as representing “Real Local Government, Jim, but not as we know it.”

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.

Photo credit: Mac McCreery https://www.flickr.com/photos/simac/

Does Parliament discuss Local Government issues?

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Steve Watson

So far in 2024 (as at 19th March), there have been 26 debates in Parliament to discuss Local Government issues. By way of comparison, there have been 12 debates on illegal immigration, and 16 on energy prices.

So, it seems reasonable to conclude that Parliament does discuss Local Government issues, but what issues have been discussed and who’s been doing the talking?

There are various sources of data on this topic, including Hansard and Parliament TV.  For this blog, I used the ScrutinyCounts app, which analyses MP’s contributions in Parliament (as recorded by Commons Hansard) and presents the data in an easy-to-use format on a mobile app so users can see who is saying what about which topics quickly and easily on their smartphone. 

The charts below, taken from the Scrutiny Counts mobile app, show the Local Government debates that have taken place so far this year and the date they took place.

As can be seen from the screenshot charts, there’s a breadth of discussion on Local Government matters ranging from Financial Distress and Funding, Combined Authorities, Mayors, through to Four-day week working. Within the app, there is click-thru functionality which lets you see the full debate content, the MP’s who have participated, and the contributions they have made. There’s also “share” functionality to enable useful and interesting content to be quickly and easily shared with friends and colleagues.

Looking across the past twelve months, there have been over 159,000 words spoken in Local Government debates (measured by words spoken as recorded in Commons Hansard).

Across the debates, Conservative MPs contributed into the debates 66.5%, Labour 22.4% and other parties 11.2% (this compares with the party split by number of sitting MPs of 53%, 30% and 17% respectively).

As can be seen in the “monthly breakdown” area of the chart below, after a relatively quiet few months over summer of 2023, the level of debate activity significantly increased during Autumn 23 and early 2024 with February 2024 being a particularly busy month.

Perhaps not unsurprisingly the top contributing MPs in Local Government debates were government and shadow government ministers such as Simon Hoare (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) and Jim McMahon (Shadow Minister (Levelling Up, Housing, Communities and Local Government) with contributions being made in their respective roles.

But aside from Frontbench MP’s, who have been the top contributing Backbench MPs in Local Government related debates during the last 12 months? (measured by words spoken as recorded by Commons Hansard).

The charts below show the top contributing Frontbench MPs, and the top contributing Backbench Conservative and Labour MP’s;

There are often detailed and constructive contributions into the debates from all the parties. The quotes shown below are taken from speeches given by the two top contributors in the above charts. They both give an insight into the work that MPs do in representing their communities and constituents in parliamentary debates.

So, in summary, yes Local Government issues are discussed in Parliament. The news in the mainstream media may focus on the weekly exchanges in PMQ’s, the political gossip of the day, or the topical late night divisions and votes, but in so doing many don’t see the work MP’s of all parties do in important debates across a range of subjects such as Local Government, Housing, Social Care, etc.

The contributions in debates are often constructive and well thought through, providing valuable insight for politicians, councillors, and council officers and all those with an interest in Local Government. The debates form an important function in bringing local issues to the national stage and play an important role in our democratic system.

The charts and images in the article are taken from the ScrutinyCounts mobile app which is available via subscription on Apple AppStore and Google Playstore. The app uses data as reported in Commons Hansard and presents it in an easy to digest format which enables users to quickly and easily read what MPs are discussing in Parliament.

Steve Watson is a Director of Hinc Ltd, the provider of the ScrutinyCounts mobile app. Steve started his career as an electronics engineer but quickly came to realise he was more suited to working with computers rather than designing them! After being a joint owner of a Local Authority data insight company which was successfully grew and subsequently sold, Steve started a new venture to develop a mobile app called ScrutinyCounts which enables users to quickly and easily see what is being said, and by who, in Parliament.   More information about ScrutinyCounts can be found here or at Twitter/X @ScrutinyCounts 

How does UK Local Government look from overseas?

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Alice Watson

My sister lives in the Netherlands. I saw her at the weekend. She’s planning her return to the UK, and so our conversation inevitably turned to “the state of the UK”. To my surprise, the first thing she raised was the parlous state of Local Government. It’s not a topic that usually cuts through to the general public. Has it got that bad?

The slant that I take on this topic (and all others to be fair) is different from most people’s. I’m Alice Watson, part of the team that created the ScrutinyCounts app, which provides easy access to parliamentary debates. So every day I use the app to check what’s been said in the House, and I dip into any debates that look of particular interest.

And as luck would have it, recently (1st Feb 2024) there was a debate about Local Authorities in Financial Distress. And a few days before that there was one about Somerset Council’s difficulties, and the week before that there was one about Transparency in Local Government, and the week before that there was one about the potential merits of the Four Day Working Week….and the list goes on. There isn’t a shortage of topical content.

People groan when I say I read Parliamentary Debates. They assume they are like PMQ’s (a pet hate of mine), which they aren’t.

Here’s a quote from the recent debate about Local Authorities in Financial Distress. It’s a reply from a Labour MP (Clive Betts) to a Conservative MP (Bob Blackman):

It’s a cheering thought. Cross party select committees working collaboratively to explore problems and find solutions.

And what else did I learn from the debate? That the woes of some councils are self-inflicted, but not all. That the various mixed pots of funding available to councils makes for a patchy funding pattern geographically. That the three main spending challenges are Social Care, Special Educational Needs, and Homelessness.

There are two big benefits to reading a parliamentary debate on this (and any other) topic. Firstly, you get to read all sides of the political argument, which is good for the soul regardless of where you sit politically. And secondly, you get a sense of how different regions are affected. By way of example, Bradford’s problems stem from the high cost of Children’s Services in the Borough. The Trustees running Children’s Services have demanded a sum equivalent to about 50% of the council’s budget. Very different from the much-reported Equal Pay claims at Birmingham.

There are hundreds of other topics that are equally interesting and relevant to people who spin in the world of Local Government. On 11th January 2024 there was a debate about SEND Provision and Funding. As is often the case, MP’s volunteered personal stories which adds conviction and context to their contributions. Read this quote from David Davis (Conservative) about his granddaughter, Chloe:

I won’t try and precis this, or any other debates here. Because with every precis, comes editorial judgement, and the whole point of ScrutinyCounts is that we don’t edit, summarise, filter or distort. We have created summary charts that enable you to navigate quickly to items that are of interest. Then you click through to the original debate and text. Our screen designs are optimised for speed reading so you can jump to contributions that interest you, and scroll up and down fast.

So what did I say to my sister about the parlous state of Local Government? I told her not to believe everything she reads in the news, but to look on ScrutinyCounts, read about it for herself, and make her own judgement!

Alice Watson is a Director of Hinc Ltd, the provider of the ScrutinyCounts mobile app. Having trained as an Engineer (Bath Uni), she established Porge (a data insight company), which she successfully grew and subsequently sold. ScrutinyCounts is her latest chapter. It sprung from her belief that people need an easy way of following politics, undistorted by echo chambers or soundbites. More information about ScrutinyCounts can be found here – https://www.scrutinycounts.co.uk/ or follow us on Twitter/X @ScrutinyCounts 

Could do better – supporting young carers at school

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Elaine Campbell

Young carers provide unpaid, and often unacknowledged care, usually for parents or other family members. While caring may be viewed as a health and social care issue, most young carers who are under 18 will spend much of their time in full-time education. So it is critical that education professionals are ready and able to support young carers to achieve at school.

This study explored how a multi-agency approach could improve the educational experiences of young carers in Northern Ireland through a survey of teachers and interviews with professionals in education and health and social care.  Young carers are often unseen by medical and educational professionals, who may be unaware they are providing care or unaware of what support may be needed.

Key findings

  • Young carers and their experiences are routinely overlooked and unseen in educational and health care settings. 
  • The lack of legislative recognition for young carers has created a policy void, despite input which has explicitly identified the need to support and care for this group of young people. 
  • Existing guidance which outlines ways to support young carers in school has not been routinely implemented in schools or shared with school staff
  • A combination of a strengths-based model, combined with existing protective factors for young people has the potential to provide appropriate care and support, promote positive self-worth and improve educational outcomes for young carers.
  • A systematic failure of planning contributes to patchy and inconsistent partnership approaches which are overly reliant on individual commitment to change, rather than systems change

Background 

While my study focused on Northern Ireland, many of the issues faced by young carers are universal in nature. The literature review highlights the unseen nature of young carers as a key barrier identified by researchers and young peoples’ experience across cross-national researchers

Teachers’ understanding of impact and role of young carers is variable, and at times, dismissive. The age at which young carers may begin their caring role is often at primary school, which is unexpected by teaching and medical professionals. The study highlighted a willingness to help but also a reliance on parents or young carers disclosing their status. 

Reaching out to young carers is essential

Teachers acknowledged the difficulties of identifying young carers; other research has established that young carers may be reluctant to self-identify or to ask for support if they feel they have not been listened to. Teachers felt that parents only disclosed when they felt forced, often during a crisis. 

Transition points provide an excellent opportunity to encourage disclosure. Updating contact information each year, conversations about the transfer to post-secondary school and when young people enrol in a new school are ideal opportunities to ask if a child is undertaking caring responsibilities. This can help start the conversation about how to support them in school. Schools can include information on their websites, on posters, and use Assemblies to recognise the contribution young carers make.

The policy deficit contributes to suffering 

Resources and initiatives have been identified, but never implemented, which is both disappointing, but also provides an opportunity for change. Guidance without legislative protection is unlikely to be prioritised. Young carers are less likely to take up further education and more likely to live in poverty, and more likely to experience poor mental health.  

The sustained lack of policy attention is an issue which requires urgent redress. Existing guidance includes specific, practical examples of ways to support young carers emotionally and practically to achieve at school, and many of the suggestions require time and planning, not financial costs. A renewed effort to share and monitor this guidance, using a policy lever, could make a powerful impact on young carers. 

Shifting the focus from harm reduction to promoting wellbeing 

Professionals described a system which considers young carers primarily in terms of harm reduction. Despite the challenges, many young people are proud of their caring role and display outstanding qualities and strengths.

There is insufficient focus on working collaboratively to provide proactive support to young carers to achieve in school, take up opportunities to socialise, and enjoy breaks from caring, or to share information about this support to young carers.

Education Authority guidance, with input from young carers, highlights that what they often want most is practical support to help them get through the school day and for their teachers to show understanding of their reality.

Conclusion 

This study highlighted that there are pockets of good practice and existing multi-agency working which have contributed to collaboration, but these are exceptional rather than routine. 

The study concludes that there is a need for greater legislative recognition, including a statutory responsibility on key agencies in health and social care and education to provide support for young carers.

Agencies should be more proactive in seeking out young carers, by including information on school enrolment and admissions forms, asking during clinical admissions and review medical appointments, and signposting to young carers’ projects and other partners.

Young carers are being failed; they deserve better, and the answers are already there. What’s needed now is the impetus to follow through and deliver.

Elaine Campbell was awarded an MPA in 2023. Previously an Assistant Director at children’s charity Barnardo’s, Elaine is currently Head of Service Enablement and Improvement at Alzheimer’s Society. She is also a Chair of Board of Governors at a primary school. She can be contacted at [email protected]