The document discusses Whole-Place Community Budgets (WPCBs), an initiative that brings together developments in public policy and service delivery. While ideas of partnership working are not new, past initiatives lacked robust evidence of improved outcomes. The Department for Communities and Local Government established WPCBs in four pilot areas to thoroughly test how integrating all local public service funding can be implemented and impact outcomes. The areas recognized the importance of cost-benefit analysis and evaluation in their pragmatic approaches. Local areas and central government worked cooperatively to deliver the plans, representing a promising model for future policy design. Next steps include implementing proposals, evaluating results, and continuing engagement across government.

1. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets9 July 2013
Measuring the costs and benefits of
Whole-Place Community Budgets
Angela Hands, Director – Communities and Local

2. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Whole-Place Community Budgets bring
together several important developments
in public policy and service delivery

3. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Key findings of NAO report
March 2013

4. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Ideas underpinning WPCBs are not new
• Partnership working is established
• Many past government-sponsored initiatives
with similar aims, e.g.
• Joint PSAs
• Local/Multi Area Agreements
• Area-Based Grant
• Total Place
• Locally-led initiatives (e.g. LSPs, joint/strategic
commissioning)

5. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
But the evidence base from past
initiatives with similar objectives is weak
• Very limited robust evidence quantifying impact of joint working/
resource alignment on outcomes
• Of 181 publications that met our search criteria (commenting on ‘joint
working’ initiatives) only ten covered impact on outcomes.
• Of these ten, seven reported a lack of robust evidence that joint or
collaborative working improved outcomes for service users.
• The remaining three raised methodological issues that weakened the
reliability of results.
• Similar findings from related NAO studies, e.g. recent reports on
Early action and Integration across government
• Pointing to system-wide failure to generate sufficient robust
evidence

6. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
The Department for Communities and
Local Government decided to establish a
new initiative
Department
issues prospectus
– 4 areas chosen
to take part in
pilot exercise
Areas submitted
operational plans
and detailed
business case to
the Department

7. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Purpose “to thoroughly test out how Community Budgets
comprising all funding on local public services can be
implemented in [ ] areas to test the efficacy of the approach.”
In practice areas have taken a pragmatic approach…

8. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
…consistent with a mature approach to
managing cost-reduction and integration
(though early days)

9. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Areas recognised the importance of
good evidence and cost-benefit analysis
• Progress to date
• All areas using CBA to cost proposals and quantify benefits/
show who gains
• Strong commitment to evaluation (including RCTs in some
areas) and phased roll-out
• Some areas developed ‘investment agreements’, sometimes
subject to the results of evaluation
• Continuing challenges
• Developing the ‘counterfactual’ (especially where existing
service/assets decommissioned – important to know what you
are giving up)
• Updating knowledge of key risks/sensitivities

10. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Local areas and central government worked
together effectively to deliver their plans
• ‘Co-production’ between central government and local
bodies was an important defining feature
• Local areas playing the lead role in determining scope of the
exercise
• Secondees from Whitehall were embedded in local area teams
– central government supporting rather than driving change
• High-level analytical input into, and challenge of, local areas’
plans
• Representing a promising model for future policy design
and delivery between central government and local
areas

11. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Next steps for WPCBs
• In local areas, implementation of proposals and
evaluation of results
• Network established to support community budgets in
the four areas and other areas
• Continued engagement across government will be key
o On-going dialogue around more systemic and longer-term
reforms to local funding
o Specific technical advice around CBA and elements of
implementation
o Factoring in lessons for integration to mainstream central
government processes (e.g. Spending Review)

12. Measuring the costs and benefits of Whole-Place Community Budgets
Parliament has expressed a strong
interest in Community Budgets
• The Public Accounts Committee took evidence
from central and local government witnesses on
Community Budgets (and integration across
government) in May 2013
• PAC report expected in the summer
• CLG Select Committee inquiry underway