Submission to the House of Lords inquiry on public services and coronavirus

About Locality and this submission

Locality is the national membership network supporting local community organisations to be strong and successful. Locality supports local community organisations to unlock the power in their community to build a fairer society. Our member network of over 900 organisations creates the services their community needs most in spaces where everyone belongs. Every week our membership network supports over 400,000 people, helping to transform lives. Locality provides specialist advice, peer-learning, resources, and campaigns to create better operating conditions for our members.

During the coronavirus crisis, Locality undertook extensive research with its membership network and partners, including the Keep it Local councils [1]. The Keep it Local councils are a network of local authorities committed to unlocking the power of community: building strong local partnerships, sharing power and maximising local strengths. In mid-June, we published the findings of our research and our recommendations to government [2]. Much of our response to this call for evidence is based on the data gathered as part of this work.

Summary

The power of community: findings

Barely missing a beat, local community organisations have completely recalibrated the way they work to respond to the coronavirus crisis. Alongside our NHS and care workers, they have been part of our frontline of defence against this deadly virus. Across the country, community organisations have been coordinating volunteering efforts, delivering emergency supplies, supporting isolated groups, and finding creative ways to keep communities together at a time when there is a clinical imperative for them to be physically apart.

In particular, the crisis has highlighted community organisations’ distinct role in public services as ‘cogs of connection’. In research published earlier this year [3], we explored this role in detail. This research demonstrated that, embedded in the communities they serve, community organisations have formed a range of relationships and partnerships with local people, public sector agencies, public service providers, businesses, and other local partners. This network of relationships has often developed organically over time. Indeed, they have a catalytic role linking up these often-disconnected parts of the system. Because they have forged trusting relationships they are able to support those who might be traditionally furthest from public services. And they leverage external funding into the local area and act as local economic multipliers.

When the coronavirus crisis hit, places were able to mobilise these networks to respond, and this role was more important than ever.

Rapid culture change and procurement flexibility

Community organisations’ role as ‘cogs of connection has been facilitated and supported by a number of cultural shifts. The crisis has accelerated the culture change needed to overcome bureaucracy and adopt new ways of working. Some local authorities have reported a shift away from KPIs and contract management towards partnerships, trusting services to adapt in the best way and supporting them to do so.

Many community organisations have rapidly adapted their services so that they can continue delivery – and develop new services to meet emerging needs. This has been supported by commissioners who have allowed flexibility in contract terms, giving assurance of payments despite changes in delivery. Cabinet Office guidance published in March [4] has been helpful in giving commissioners this flexibility to support services to adapt.

Well-functioning local systems have emerged during the crisis

The crisis has also, in some cases, strengthened partnership working between contracting authorities and suppliers. The key feature of the supportive local systems that have emerged has been a mutual recognition of roles and strengths. Mutual aid has been incredibly quick and agile, acting as first responders, the eyes and ears on the ground. Established local community organisations have supported this informal street-level activity across the neighbourhood, providing local people with more formal support and expertise, and connecting things up with the local public sector. The have acted as vital ‘cogs of connection’.[5] Local authorities have often then plugged statutory services into these community networks, coordinating at a strategic level and adding resource.

We’ve identified four reasons for this.

Shared purpose between local stakeholders in fighting the virus. The shared purpose of working towards the same goal – preventing the spread of coronavirus and supporting those vulnerable to its impacts – cannot be underestimated. We’ve heard many examples of the way this shared purpose has broken down long-standing barriers in the past

Pre-existing trust has enabled relationships to flourish. However, this has been aided by existing levels of trust, which have meant new relationships have been formed more quickly.

Equalising of power relationships. It has not been a case of the public sector buying a service or commissioning an output. Councils have recognised the value of the work that’s already happening, fallen into its slipstream and helped it to go further.

Cabinet Office procurement guidance providing a signal. The guidance issues to commissioners and procurement teams at the beginning of the crisis has played a significant role in supporting partnership working. It has been helpful in giving commissioners the flexibility to support services to adapt and reorient their services to respond to the coronavirus crisis.

Local innovation held back

The main area of failure during the coronavirus crisis has been where centralisation has held back local innovation rather than unlocking the power of communities. One of the most striking examples of this for Locality members was the NHS Volunteer Responder scheme. Some observed that the length of time which it took for volunteers to hear back from the scheme led to energy dissipating and volunteering capacity being underused.[6]

Recommendattions

Create collaborative public services that unlock community power

Support “power partnerships” to develop at a local level through long-term investment in councils and communities

Permanently embed procurement flexibility introduced during the crisis

Strengthen the roots of community collaboration

Support a community-powered economic recovery

Expand the Community Ownership Fund to capitalise community organisations, by leveraging Dormant Assets and other funding to establish a £1bn investment plan for community assets

Put communities in charge of local economic development by ringfencing 25% of economic development funding for community-led partnerships

Turn community spirit into community power

Put neighbourhoods at the heart of the Devolution White Paper and strengthen community powers to lead change locally.

Provide £500m revenue funding to protect, strengthen and grow existing community organisations and provide a pathway for new mutual aid groups to become established.

Consultation Response

General

What have been the main areas of public service success and failure during the Covid-19 outbreak?

The power of community

Importantly, the crisis has brought increased recognition of the critical importance of community organisations. Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently said: “one of our greatest strengths as a country is our civil society.”[7] 95% of respondents to the New Local Government Network May 2020 Leadership Index said the contribution of community groups to their coronavirus response has been “very significant” or “significant.”[8]

In particular the crisis has highlighted community organisations’ distinct role in public services as ‘cogs of connection’. In research published earlier this year [9], we explored this role in detail. This research demonstrated that, embedded in the communities they serve, community organisations have formed a range of relationships and partnerships with local people, public sector agencies, public service providers, businesses, and other local partners. This network of relationships has often developed organically over time. Indeed, they have a catalytic role linking up these often-disconnected parts of the system. Because they have forged trusting relationships they are able to support those who might be traditionally furthest from public services. And they leverage external funding into the local area and act as local economic multipliers.

When the coronavirus crisis hit, places were able to mobilise these networks to respond, and this role was more important than ever.

Rapid culture change and procurement flexibility

Bristol City Council Head of Procurement, Steve Sandercock laid out the shift this represents:

“The council encourage suppliers to prioritise things that will meet the community’s needs and trusts that details will be dealt with in relationships between contract managers and suppliers.”[10]

Cabinet Office guidance published in March [11] has been helpful in giving commissioners this flexibility to support services to adapt.

Well-functioning local systems have emerged during the crisis

The relationship between local government and community organisations is vital for the success of any community to flourish. However, it can also be a challenge, with local context and relationships meaning more productive partnerships in some places than others. In recent years, much of this has been underpinned by a common context of declining resources, rising demand and a guiding policy principle of competition. The coronavirus crisis has thrown the strength of these local partnerships into sharp relief. Our research has found that in some places, the heat of the crisis has encouraged well-functioning systems to fall into place almost overnight.

The key feature of the supportive local systems that have emerged has been a mutual recognition of roles and strengths. Mutual aid has been incredibly quick and agile, acting as first responders, the eyes and ears on the ground. Established local community organisations have supported this informal street-level activity across the neighbourhood, providing local people with more formal support and expertise, and connecting things up with the local public sector. The have acted as vital ‘cogs of connection’.[12] Local authorities have often then plugged statutory services into these community networks, coordinating at a strategic level and adding resource.

We’ve identified four reasons for this.

Pre-existing trust has enabled relationships to flourish. However, this has been aided by existing levels of trust, which have meant new relationships have been formed more quickly.

Local community organisations tell us that understanding of the work they do and trust in their expertise has grown. Linda Dellow, chief officer of Centre4 in Grimsby, says: “The local authority are looking at the community in a whole different way. We did have good relationships anyway, but now they are working towards a different model for the future.”

Cabinet Office procurement guidance providing a signal. As above, the guidance issues to commissioners and procurement teams at the beginning of the crisis has played a significant role in supporting partnership working. It has been helpful in giving commissioners the flexibility to support services to adapt and reorient their services to respond to the coronavirus crisis.

Local innovation held back

“How have public attitudes to public services changed as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak?

It is clear from our research that there is no desire on the part of council or community leaders to “bounce back” or return to “business as usual”, especially around the delivery of public services.

“We need to think how we build the Keep it Local principles [14] into the recovery work that we’re doing. So, we’ve decided we’re not going back to business as usual. We’re moving voluntary and community sector organisations that have always been at the margins to the mainstream.”

Cllr Asher Craig, Deputy Mayor, Bristol City Council, and Cabinet Member for Communities, Equalities and Public Health [15]

And this motivation is shared by the wider public: an RSA poll found that 85% wanted to see at least some of the personal or social changes they have experienced during lockdown to continue afterwards, while just 9% want a complete return to normal.[16]

Resource, efficiency and workforce

Did resource problems or capacity issues limit the ability of public services to respond to the crisis? Are there lessons to be learnt from the pandemic on how resources can be better allocated and public service resilience improved?

Public services were already under pressure before the crisis. Underfunded and overstretched, services were seeing demand rise both in numbers and complexity.[17]

Over the course of the crisis, we’ve seen how the strength of local social infrastructure has been vital to community resilience and response. Places were able to respond because of community resources, assets, networks and relationships, often built up over a number of years. However, we have also heard through our research that these resources are not distributed equally across the country. Over the past decade, cuts in spending on public services and local government capacity has led to a hollowing out of much of this social infrastructure [18]. This points to the shift we need to make through the recovery to bolster our social infrastructure, and protect, strengthen and grow community organisations. Part of how to achieve these shifts is through shifting procurement and commissioning practices, away from contracting for particular service outputs towards long term investment in community capacity.

During the crisis, charities have seen demand rise and income fall. During the first three months of the crisis, civil society organisations saw an estimated £4.3bn income lost [19]. Pro Bono Economics, has estimated a £6.4bn loss of income for charities over the next six months, and extra costs of £3.7bn caused by rising demand for services.[20]

A proportion of this has been addressed through the £750m emergency support package for charities from government. But in order to protect, strengthen and grow community organisations for the future, this requires injecting an additional revenue boost for them to thrive in the medium to long term.

Did workforce pressures preceding the crisis, such as difficulties in the recruitment or retention of workers, limit the ability of public services to meet people’s needs during the lockdown? How effectively, if at all, have these issues been addressed during the Covid-19 outbreak? Do public services require a new approach to staff wellbeing?

N/A

Why have some public services been able to achieve goals within a much shorter timeframe than typically would have been expected before the Covid-19 outbreak – for example, the increase in NHS capacity? What lessons can be learnt?

As highlighted above, the key factors contributing to rapid new collaboration and positive public service outcomes were: shared purpose; existing trust and partnerships between suppliers and contracting authorities; an equalising of power relationships; and more flexible contracting arrangements.

The key lesson we need to learn from this is that we need to begin a permanent shift away from a model of competition and targets, to one which actively invests in community collaboration and the long-term capabilities within communities to support local delivery and prevention.

Technology, data and innovation

Has the delivery of public services changed as a result of coronavirus? For example, have any services adopted new methods of meeting people’s needs in response to the outbreak? What lessons can be learnt from innovation during coronavirus?

Service delivery models have adapted at pace, as community organisations have altered the way they engage with the people, by moving services online and via telephone. New systems of place-based crisis response, built on partnership between key local stakeholders, have also been rapidly developed.

Locality members have moved many of their services online, and rapidly developed new services working to bridge the digital divide. As one Locality member described it, “we managed to roll out a new digital strategy in two days that in ordinary times would have taken us a year to implement.”[21] Other Locality members have set up phone lines to triage and manage people accessing their services and worked with local businesses to source and provide phones, tablets and internet access to those without.

Our research also shows that demand for crisis support has meant that community organisations are now engaging with residents with whom they previously didn’t have relationships, and they want to develop these new relationships further and co-produce future services. This has strengthened their resolve to increase outreach and community development.[22]

How effectively have different public services shared data during the outbreak?

We’ve heard mixed evidence on the effectiveness of data sharing, with a number of complaints from local government and community organisations on the speed at which they have been able to access national-level data on testing and tracing and national volunteering schemes.

Other examples of local innovation point in a more positive direction. Knowle West Alliance, a Locality member in Bristol, pointed to their role in developing an app in partnership with the local authority that links volunteers with requests for support – data which was shared between local government and voluntary and community sector partners.[23]

Did public services have the digital skills and technology necessary to respond to the crisis? Can you provide examples of services that were able to innovate with digital technology during lockdown? How can these changes be integrated in the future?

N/A

Inequalities

Have public services been effective in identifying and meeting the needs of vulnerable groups during the Covid-19 outbreak? For example, were services able to identify vulnerable children during lockdown to ensure that they were attending school or receiving support from statutory services? How have adults with complex needs been supported?

The majority of Locality members are based in areas of multiple deprivation, trading in areas of traditional market failure to provide local social value. In a crisis whose impact has followed the contours of existing inequalities, their role in their neighbourhoods is ever more important.[24]

A powerful recurring feature of the research has been the important role of existing relationships and deep community knowledge - forged through long-term service provision and community development - in enabling community organisations to address emergency need and identify people in need of support [25]. This crisis has also enabled them to build on this and expand their outreach to engage with people who were previously not known to them. Finally, this role has been further bolstered by the hyper-local work of mutual aid groups.

The self-organising, community-led work of mutual aid groups across the country has been one of the most inspiring responses to this crisis. They have been agile and quick to respond to local needs, based on hyper local relationships and neighbourliness. Community organisations have been able to provide some infrastructure capacity to these networks. They have, for example, supported them with data sharing and referral systems, and volunteering and safeguarding training and resources. We have also heard how community organisations have been able to be a communication bridge between local authorities and mutual aid groups.

This coordinating role has been enabled by the years of local relationships, connections, resources and experience of partnership and delivery that community organisations have built up over time.

Were groups with protected characteristics (for example BAME groups and the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community), or people living in areas of deprivation, less able to access the services that they needed during lockdown? Have inequalities worsened as a result of the lockdown? If so, what new pressures will this place on public services?

N/A

Are there lessons to be learnt for reducing inequalities from the new approaches adopted by services during the Covid-19 outbreak?

The crisis has exacerbated pre-existing pressures and inequalities. Many services are predicting further surges in demand and inequalities are at risk of being further exacerbated.

Integration of services

A criticism often levelled at service delivery is that public services operate in silos – collaboration is said to be disincentivised by narrow targets from central Government departments, distinct funding and commissioning systems, and service-specific regulatory intervention. Would you agree, and if so, did such a framework limit the ability of public services to respond to people’s needs during the Covid-19 outbreak?

Prior to the crisis, this was one of the biggest barriers to effective public services. In some cases, this has limited the ability of public services to respond holistically to people’s needs. Locality research has shown that there is a specific barrier around commissioningsiloes present a specific barrier within commissioning systems, which often remains fractured and disconnected, especially between procurement teams and commissioners [26].

However, during the crisis, we have also heard many examples of these siloes being broken down - between different local authority departments, between local government and the health sector. For example:

“With the red tape lifted, we have been able to move mountains and change things which would have taken months or even years … We always work closely with the council and NHS but this has taken our partnership working to another level.”

Kim Shutler, chief executive at the Cellar Trust and Chair of the Bradford VCS Assembly.

Were some local areas, where services were well integrated before the crisis, better able to respond to the outbreak than areas where integration was less developed? Can you provide examples?

In places where there were strong existing systems in place for integrated working, this has supported more holistic responses to need. From local authorities, for example, we have heard about the importance of existing integrated working between the council and health colleagues to crisis response:

“It also helped that we had an integrated health and social care system under a joint system of leadership formed of elected members, a single chief exec and pan-public sector system leads who could quickly make decisions to respond to an unfolding fast moving situation.”

Cllr Arooj Shah, Cabinet Member, Social Justice and Communities, Oldham Council

Some of the best responses have engaged charities at a strategic level rather than as simply delivery agents, drawing on their expertise and resources to direct resources and reduce duplication. Wirral Council, for example, involved many community organisations in strategic crisis response cells. Jenni Jones, director of Wirral Development Trust, a Locality member, described the experience:

During this crisis we’ve been able to work with a really open, honest a coordinated local authority.

Are there any examples of services collaborating in new and effective ways as a result of Covid-19? Are there lessons to be learnt for central Government and national regulators in supporting the integration of services?

As outlined in detail below, we have recommendations for how central government can support and bolster this collaboration in three ways:

Support “power partnerships” to develop at a local level through long-term investment in councils and communities

Permanently embed procurement flexibility introduced during the crisis

Strengthen the roots of community collaboration

What does the experience of public services during the outbreak tell us about services’ ability to collaborate to provide “person-centred care”?

The experience during the crisis shows us that there have been positive shifts around local partnership and collaboration. However, we have also seen worrying trends for the future direction of public services which cast some doubt on ability to embed positive change.

Demand has sky-rocketed but funding has typically not followed. Prior to the crisis, more than half of charities already said they cross-subsidise public sector contracts with income from other sources; these organisations have now seen their unrestricted income, including from fundraising and trading, plummet [27]. At a time when charities are never more needed to deliver public services, they have too often been unable to access the resources to meet demand.

While the public procurement note from Cabinet Office provides helpful guidance as outlined earlier in this submission, it does not place a requirement on contracting authorities to provide more flexibility. We have heard from Locality members that payments are being denied to some services because they are delivering in a different way, while others still have not heard if they will receive payment. Services cannot be delivered without funding.

We’ve heard specific examples of a lack of flexibility in relation to contracts administered by the Employment Skills and Funding Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions [28].

The relationship between central Government and local government, and national and local services

How well did central and local government, and national and local services, work together to coordinate public services during the outbreak? For example, how effectively have national and local agencies shared data?

There has been a worrying disconnect between local and central government. Often, local areas are better placed to understand what is needed in their areas and how to respond. The response to this crisis will, in part, be defined by an overlooking of pre-existing expertise and infrastructure , in favour of top-down solutions and centralisation.

One of the most striking examples of this for Locality members was the NHS Volunteer Responder scheme. Many observed that the length of time which it took for volunteers to hear back from the scheme led to energy dissipating and volunteering capacity being underused. Some community organisations experienced practical difficulties in getting in touch and making referrals into the NHS Volunteer Responder scheme. As Linda Dellow at Centre4 describes, the scheme lacked the expertise in coordinating local delivery:

“What they should have done is put money into the existing work and voluntary sector response…and speak to people locally about what is going on.”

How effectively were public services coordinated across the borders of the devolved administrations? Did people living close to the border experience difficulties in accessing services?

N/A

Can you provide any examples of how public services worked effectively with a local community to meet the unique needs of the people in the area (i.e. taking a “place-based approach” to delivering services) during the Covid-19 outbreak?

Wirral case study [29]

Wirral Council have responded to coronavirus alongside its communities and community organisations. As with other councils, Wirral have adopted an emergency cell response structure. Individual cells feed into a tactical group on a regular basis, which sets the direction of the council and other partners across Wirral.

The focus of these cells ranges from the humanitarian response to the economic. Community organisations are well represented on both strands of work and have fed in their local intelligence to help inform the strategic response of the council.

The council have used their strategic position to support and complement the work of community organisations. Wirral’s “peak” in cases of coronavirus came weeks behind other places in the country such as London, meaning a more localised response was needed. Community organisations have played a prominent role in communicating up-to-date information and guidance to their communities.

The council have coordinated a centralised hub, providing emergency food parcels and food shopping vouchers to Wirral Residents. Food deliveries have been carried out by local community groups and organisations. The council have, in partnership with community organisations, established Wirral InfoBank - an online directory of services and support being provided by community groups. Residents can search by postcode and find their most appropriate local provision.

The council mobilised existing networks to help drive volunteer recruitment. Community Action Wirral set up a local volunteering service – over 700 volunteers registered locally. Some of these volunteers have since been placed to support the social care system - in both volunteer roles and paid employment. Others have been placed with local community organisations to support in their response. Wirral Council also asked their local community sector partner, Capacity, to re-focus their current contract and provide free and immediate support to community organisations playing a key role in the coronavirus effort. Capacity have been asked to work with teams on the ground to secure new funding, re-focus service models and remodel business plans.

Council staff have remarked how much “residents have benefited from the quick mobilisation of community organisations”. Jenni Jones, director of one of these community organisations, Wirral Development Trust, described the work that had been put in beforehand that enabled this rapid response.

“For the past five or six years, with the support of the local authority and public health, the voluntary and community sector has been able to build trust and collaborative working which is sometimes extremely hard in such a competitive sector. As a result, during this crisis we’ve been able to work with a really open, honest a coordinated local authority. It has been refreshing to have such positive partnership working virtually from day one. I am really proud to part of Wirral at the moment.”

Andy McCartan, Commissioned Services Manager at Wirral Council, reflected on how to build on this strong partnership working:

“Traditionally, we’ve been a very KPI, performance-driven organisation. During the crisis, we’ve seen organisations do things well without this level of process and a greater degree of trust and collaboration. We now need to use this learning to understand how we commission and procure things in the future, and where appropriate and in the best interest of local communities, move away from some of those more inflexible approaches to more collaborative, outcomes driven partnership solutions with these organisations and local community businesses”

Would local communities benefit from public services focusing on prevention, as opposed to prioritising harm mitigation? Were some local areas able to reduce harm during coronavirus by having prevention-focused public health strategies in place, for example on obesity, substance abuse or mental health?

Preventative services have too often been the public services that councils have had to cut back on to balance their ever-diminishing budgets [30]. One of the major shifts we need to make as we look to the coronavirus recovery is to spend more on preventative services

Locality’s research on rising demand in public services has shown that much of the demand that is placing such pressure on our public services is actually ‘failure demand’: problems which have mounted up over time, having not been properly addressed when they were first reported.[31]

Local community organisations are more likely to solve underlying issues upfront because of the way they work: services are person-centred and joined-up with other local service providers [32]. For example, Locality’s report, Saving Money by Doing the Right Thing, found that eight people with drug or alcohol dependency presented to GPs a total of 124 times. Broader analysis from Vanguard suggests that failure demand accounts for 80% of demand into health and social care services.[33]

Role of the private sector, charities, volunteers and community groups

What lessons might be learnt about the role of charities, volunteers and the community sector from the crisis? Can you provide examples of public services collaborating in new ways with the voluntary sector during lockdown? How could the sectors be better integrated into local systems going forward?

Charities, volunteers and the community sector have played a vital role in responding to the crisis. We need a community-powered recovery. There is a big opportunity, as we build back better, to reform public services.

Create collaborative public services that unlock community power

Support “power partnerships” to develop at a local level through long-term investment in councils and communities

There should be a comprehensive review of local government finance. The local government sector was already on the financial brink prior to the crisis, with the poorest councils bearing the brunt of public spending cuts though the austerity years. While this year’s £1.6bn settlement has been secured for local government to spend money fighting the immediate impact of the coronavirus, the plan for the recovery requires substantial new settlement commensurate with the scale of the future challenge.

In particular, this should include reversing the cuts to essential preventative services that local government funds and provides. The review should also consider options as part of the Devolution White Paper for new fiscal powers for local government, with safeguards against reinforcing inequalities. This would be an opportunity to re-design the tax system with greater opportunities to support local flourishing by increasing local government powers.

Permanently embed procurement flexibility introduced during the crisis

Procurement flexibilities introduced by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of the coronavirus crisis should lead to permanent change. The flexibility to work more collaboratively with suppliers should be spread across public sector contracting authorities, through further Cabinet Office guidance. Government should embed this change in practice by supporting a programme of peer-support for councils to drive greater community partnership.

Implementing this change will allow local areas the scope they need to shift services away from competitive tendering towards community collaboration.

Strengthen the roots of community collaboration

Central government can play a role in strengthening the roots of community collaboration through a national programme to support service transformation partnerships between local government, voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations and health commissioners.

This should be designed in partnership with the community and local government sectors, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and NHS England. This could be achieved through a £10m fund over three years, with 100 places receiving £100k funding. It would provide resources for community partnerships to grow the roots of community collaboration, invest in the capacity of neighbourhood organisations, and provide development funding for embedding learning and collaborative approaches.

Alongside the creation of collaborative public services, we are also making recommendations in two other areas, which would complement this public service reform.

Supporting a community-powered economic recovery

We are calling on central government to do this by:

Expanding the Community Ownership Fund to capitalise community organisations, by leveraging Dormant Assets and other funding to establish a £1bn investment plan for community assets

Putting communities in charge of local economic development by ringfencing 25% of economic development funding for community-led partnerships

Turning community spirit into community power

We are calling on central government to do this by:

Putting neighbourhoods at the heart of the Devolution White Paper and strengthen community powers to lead change locally.

Providing £500m revenue funding to protect, strengthen and grow existing community organisations and provide a pathway for new mutual aid groups to become established [34]

How effectively has the Government worked with the private sector to ensure services have continued to operate during the Covid-19 outbreak?

N/A

June 2020

[5] Locality (2020) “Keep it Local: How local government can plug into the power of community.”

[10] Voscur (2020). “Bristol City Council and CCG commissioners respond to Voscur’s request for flexibility”. Available at:

[12] Locality (2020) “Keep it Local: How local government can plug into the power of community.”

[32] Locality (2020) “Keep it Local: How local government can plug into the power of community.”

[34] More detail on these recommendations can be found on page 72 of “We were Built for This”