The study by the Institute for Government thinktank found that while some councils did better than others and that spending cuts did not necessarily mean worse results, the lack of information made it difficult to get lessons. There are currently performance indicators for only about a third of local government spending, the report said, with better data needed if ministers were to implement their stated “upgrade” plan in various parts of the country. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, as well as anonymous interviews with CEOs and senior financial executives, the report highlighted a number of sometimes unintended consequences of the severe cuts that began with austerity policies in 2010. The combination of reduced central grants and increased spending on compulsory social care obligations for adults and children meant a significant drop in basic services. All UK local authorities had cut spending on such a benefit since 2010, according to the report, but their range ranged from a 5% cut in East Sussex to 69% in Barking and Dagenham. The impact was often felt in more degraded areas, where there was a disproportionate number of library closures and reductions in local bus services. This happened, the report said, because the way grants have changed over the past decade did not take due account of how much the poorest areas depend more on central government aid. But the report, Neighborhood Services Under Strain, noted that there was no significant correlation between cost reduction and worse performance, with some boards managing efficiency more successfully or being able to increase revenue from other sources. However, it was difficult to take classes due to lack of information. Despite ministers’ commitments to provide more data as part of smoothing efforts, “there are still large gaps in what the government knows about the performance of local services,” said Graham Atkins, the report’s author. “If the government really wants to understand how and why performance varies, it needs to collect new, comparable local data on the quality and accessibility of services,” he said. A key change in municipal service delivery since 2010, according to the report, has been the focus on the provision of institutionalized services, not only in social care, but in areas such as garbage collection, homelessness and bus cards, often involuntarily effects. Subscribe to the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7 p.m. BST An example cited was the prioritization of acute child services over those such as day care centers, although this could cost more money in the long run if the lack of timely support created a greater demand for institutionalized services later. Waste disposal and recycling savings mean that while less rubbish was now being sent to landfills, it was simply more likely to be incinerated, with recycling rates only rising since 2010. An example cited in the report on the difficulty of comparing local government services was the impact on libraries. One third of all libraries have closed amid spending cuts of 44% since 2010. However, there is little correlation between cost and closure, as many cost savings are achieved through means such as less staff and reduced opening hours. The result was a 52% reduction in the number of library visits per person between 2009/10 and 2019/20. “The overall picture is the smaller local authorities, who did less than they did in 2010,” the report said. “Local government in England has collapsed since 2010.” Contact the Upgrade, Housing and Communities Department for feedback.
