LOCAL LEVEL RURAL PROOFING PROJECT

GOOD PRACTICE LITERATURE REVIEW

A stage report for Defra by Rural Innovation

Introduction

The methodology for Defra’s Local Level Rural Proofing project includes a review of existing literature on good practice in the design and delivery of services in rural areas at an early stage of the project. The aim of this review has been to identify evidence of “underlying principles” of good practice. Those principles identified will be tested further and expanded upon from intelligence gained in the primary evidence gathering stage of the project.

To keep this review manageable within the project timescale, we have focused on evidence of good practice and exemplars of rural proofing produced over the last five years. The list of documents to be reviewed was agreed with the project Steering Group. This short report considers each document in turn and offers some initial conclusions.

The paper does not provide full summaries of the documentation reviewed. Rather it concentrates on identifying evidence of "underlying principles" which contribute to improved outcomes from the design and delivery of services for rural users. We define these "underlying principles" as something that could be applied to the design or delivery of any local service and which would improve the outcomes for rural people, communities or businesses.

To be useful in the context of this project an underlying principle needs to be locally delivered, to be rurally focused and to deliver benefits to service users.

1

Emerging Conclusions

This review of literature and case studies suggests that the following approaches / actions might be considered to be valuable underlying principles of good practice in the design and delivery of rural services:

1. An overt and upfront commitment from service designers to provide fair and equitable treatment for users and to achieve proportionate outcomes in rural and urban places;

2. Approaches to service design which seek to address the fundamental challenges of rural delivery (sparsity, distance, etc) by harnessing and enhancing typical strengths within rural communities (social capital, self-reliance, etc);

3. Finding ways to spread or reduce the fixed costs of service delivery, so as to mitigate increased unit costs of delivery arising from distance/time costs and lost economies of scale (the rural premium). This may involve organisations collaborating, services co-locating, the use of ICT, volunteer input or various other approaches;

4. Taking into account a broad range of potential outcomes (economic, social and environmental) when assessing options for rural delivery (beyond unit cost or "value for money");

5. Taking a "user focused" approach to design; involving rural communities in the early stage of needs assessment service planning and then involving them in shaping appropriate local solutions;

6. Starting this dialogue with rural communities from first principles, asking what their needs are and how they wish to use services rather than simply adjusting current service models;

7. Investing in understanding local circumstances and the impact of geography on service costs and use, in order to inform the design of evidence-based solutions;

8. Considering urban-rural inter-dependencies and the scope to maximise the benefits for rural communities arising from them;

9. Designing sufficient flexibility into delivery models, so they can be adapted to local circumstance or opportunity;

10. Offering a portfolio of delivery solutions to meet the varying needs and circumstances of rural users;

11. Targeting geographical gaps in delivery so that services are readily accessible to more (potential) users, especially those in remoter or more isolated locations;

12. Focusing particular effort (and perhaps financial support) at those groups who find it hardest to access existing services. This may involve tailored solutions for individuals; 2

13. Service commissioners seeking to avoid spatial gaps in provision by including incentives or penalties within contracts to avoid market failure among providers;

14. Factoring in broad outcomes which enhance the future sustainability of rural communities as design objectives or within the criteria for assessing "return on investment";

15. Recording and monitoring at lower or local levels of geography (commensurate with local delivery) and reviewing the outputs regularly to seek further rural service enhancements;

16. Designing solutions to increase the use of existing assets within rural areas (e.g. buildings, land and transport) in order to enhance their viability;

17. Looking to collaborate beyond the boundaries of individual services, so additional outcomes may arise;

18. Testing innovative approaches in small areas (as pilots) in order to gain sufficient evidence, learning and support for their mainstream use.

The remainder of this paper provides short reviews of selected documents.

3

Developing Collaborative and Innovative Approaches to the Delivery of Rural Services A report by Hindle R & I Annibal (2011)

This September 2011 report looked at maintaining and improving public service delivery in rural areas. It used interviews with Service Managers in 8 organisations and a web review. It highlighted good practice in four areas, namely: libraries; primary schools; bus services; and use of IT. Certain rural characteristics – such as sparsity, distance, geography and demography – were found to add costs and impact on delivery, but others – such as social capital, experience of community-led planning, community asset ownership and self-reliance – offered strong potential for moving to new delivery models. Indeed, it concludes that in some instances (as a result of cost pressures) new delivery models are required and cost- cutting with old models will no longer suffice.

To that end the report recommends that statutory providers:
Work with communities to develop collaborative solutions when reconfiguring services;
Understand local conditions, how communities work and cost drivers, in order to design and implement appropriate contracting solutions;
Identify and remove any cultural or administrative barriers which stand in the way of collaborative service delivery;
Change their attitude to risk (e.g. in procurement and performance management) to facilitate service decentralisation;
Consider criteria beyond value for money (and simple unit costs of service delivery) when making procurement decisions and appraising performance;
Invest in capacity building as part of the transition to collaborative local delivery; and
Develop a portfolio of solutions which suite the range of diverse local circumstances.

Libraries : examples studies in this report have:
Spread (i.e. reduced) the fixed cost base of operating a public library, either by placing them in multi-use venues or bringing in volunteers;
Identified new resources, such as volunteers, who can improve access for library service users; and
Made use of resources that would be in a library (such as IT) to introduce access to other public services.

In Grassington (North Yorkshire) there is now a community-run library branch which opens during six days a week, replacing a twice-a-week mobile library visit. It is hosted by the Grassington Hub building. Its IT offers a telemedicine link saving patients a hospital round trip of almost 50 miles. In Arlesley (Central Bedfordshire) a local library point is now run by volunteers, co-located with the Town Council, GP surgery and community hall. In Lincolnshire consideration is being given to multi-use mobile libraries e.g. with post offices and/or healthcare consulting rooms. Others are using technology to reduce the cost base in order to retain or improve rural library provision e.g. book ordering online.

Primary schools : key to retaining rural schools, where Local Education Authorities feel they can no longer justify the cost per pupil, is to find a way of spreading some fixed costs. This 4

can mean sharing the head teacher, teaching staff, administrative functions or facilities with other schools. It can take the form of loose collaboration, more formal federation or (under the free schools model) one school taking over the running of another. In Devon, for example, the Devon Education Forum was reviewing all options to retain rural schools, which may mean some no longer operating autonomously. The County has also established Local Learning Communities where schools in a geographic area share experiences and (often) explore how collaboration could assist. (It should be noted that sharing resources can happen for other reasons e.g. more schools gaining access to the best teachers.)

Bus services : many marginal rural bus routes have been replaced with more flexible and better-targeted solutions such as demand-responsive services, registered community bus routes and minibus hire for community groups. The aim is both to attract more passengers and to drive down costs. Examples include Connect2Wiltshire, where a demand-responsive service has reduced the need for local authority subsidy, and Hallen Community Bus in South Gloucestershire, where a community group took the initiative and now contracts a service from a nearby social enterprise. It is of note that many of these approaches were piloted initially and, once proven, have then attracted local authority subsidy.

Use of IT : the stated reasons for introducing IT-based solutions include, extending the reach of services to make them accessible to more users and reducing the cost for the provider of (rural) delivery. IT can be used to take services out to the user (instead of the user travelling to them), including where a provider can access records and data remotely at a user’s home. However, the report notes limitations posed by the poor broadband and mobile internet connectivity in many rural areas. Joint Access Centres in North Yorkshire, based in existing buildings such as libraries or community offices, offer local people access to information and a range of Council services. Shropshire Council’s Broadplaces initiative similarly offers internet access points (with laptops, printers, webcams and technical support). Access to services is further enhanced by adopting electronic signatures, ID scans and the like.

State of Rural Public Services 2011 A report by Brian Wilson Associates for the Rural Services Network (2011)

This November 2011 report explores recent trends in rural public services and is based mainly on the collation or secondary analysis of data and research, plus findings from a survey among the RSN membership. It contains some examples of good practice in relation to three service areas: public transport; libraries and cultural services; and parks leisure and environmental services. The following is from those examples.

Public transport : East Riding of Yorkshire Council targets its transport budget by calculating the subsidy level it is willing to offer bus operators with a grading system that recognises service vulnerability. Higher scores go to rural routes and to services that provide timely access to employment or schooling.

Rural branch railway lines in Devon and Cornwall have seen a renaissance and a large rise in passenger numbers. Three things about the approach are noteworthy. One is the extent of joint working between the County Council and rail operator, so both take complementary actions or investments. The second is that the market for each branch line has been 5

carefully analysed and the service approach or improvement then tailored to the identified needs. The third is that the rail operator has invested considerably in working with local communities, which has been paid back with a great deal of volunteer effort (through the Community Rail Partnership).

Libraries and cultural services : the key feature of the library service review in Wiltshire has been the introduction of more than 300 volunteers, which has kept all its rural branches open. The County Library Service has been very clear in defining what resources, back-up and support it still needs to provide and what it can realistically leave to trained volunteers. On an invest-to-save principle, it has also introduced new technology (self service check- outs) to make the approach work.

In Cornwall some static public libraries have been co-located with village school libraries, replacing infrequent mobile library provision. They have thus found a way to make greater use of under-used resources. Various other local authorities are also cited as using co- location to retain libraries e.g. in a resource hub for council services and with a social enterprise. Another is placing a book collection and return point in a resource centre.

North Kesteven District Council (in Lincolnshire) manages to deliver a range of arts and heritage activities to rural communities through a close partnership and understanding it has built with an independent provident society which now operates its arts, leisure and environmental services. Both are committed to reaching out to the smallest communities.

Environmental services : in St Edmundsbury (in Suffolk) a community litter picking scheme has proved successful because it is kept simple and flexible. Whilst the district council promotes the scheme, local initiative is what drives it. Community groups (often via their parish council) can ask the district council to supply equipment and later collect the rubbish at any time. This does not replace a district council service, but rather augments it.

Some similar features appear in the South Kesteven community cleaner scheme. This offers small grants to parish and town councils to fund local priorities for environmental maintenance (as long as that includes some litter picking). Partnership working with the local council tier is a feature. Once again what is offered is additional to the district council’s street cleaning service and the district provides all equipment and training.

Rural Proofing Literature Review A report by Rural Innovation and Brian Wilson Associates for the Commission for Rural Communities (2008)

This report explored the literature which had developed on rural proofing toolkits, guidance and approaches. It was commissioned to inform a 2007 rural proofing review and it thus drew lessons for future efforts to support rural proofing. Given that remit, much of the report looked at attempts to link rural proofing with policy making processes and it found many examples at a local level. Indeed, it concluded that rural proofing – whilst essentially introduced as a national level policy commitment – had “filtered down to a local level” and was “more willingly undertaken, more rigorously applied and more sustained in its use at

6

regional and local levels”. Much of the local work had tried to embed rural proofing within policy development and review processes.

From this project’s perspective some relevant points made within the report are:
A reminder that the starting point for rural proofing was to have policy makers consider whether there their proposals are likely to have any significant differential rural (i.e. spatial) impacts. There is a tendency for some policy makers to fall back on stating that their policies apply universally, without them having thought through the practicalities of delivery in different geographies;
The finding that those who undertake rural proofing should make better use of the evidence base, to understand rural characteristics and variation, and so their assessment is then based upon facts. Rural proofing approaches in Lancashire 1 and in Northern Ireland (see below) are cited as good examples;
Its note that the 2007 rural proofing monitoring report flagged, as important, having policies which are designed flexibly and so can be adapted to local needs;
Similarly, the monitoring report’s mention that a facilitator for good rural proofing is having policies developed through wide stakeholder engagement or consultation; and
The conclusion that rural proofing has strong links, which could be exploited, with policy agendas for sustainable communities and for tackling inequalities.

In looking at the application of rural proofing to the ‘delivery chain’, the report identifies a few other considerations of interest to this project, including that:
Policy application should seek to secure proportionate impact for rural areas from investment;
Rural-urban interdependencies should always be considered (so, it could be inferred, rural should not be viewed in isolation);
Again, when determining how policy is to be applied locally, it will help to increase the involvement of service users, citizens and communities; and
It will help inform more effective service design if the monitoring data about existing service delivery is recorded and analysed spatially.

Thinking Rural: the Essential Guide to Rural Proofing A guide from the Department of Agriculture & Rural Development, Northern Ireland (2011)

Northern Ireland introduced rural proofing in 2002 and, as the above Rural Proofing Literature Review found, by 2008 there were published examples of its application to policy developments such as domestic rating reform and libraries provision. The Thinking Rural guide is an output from a 2009 decision by the Northern Ireland Executive to enhance and re-commit to rural proofing. It seeks the “fair and equitable treatment of rural communities and that [policies do] not indirectly have a detrimental impact on rural dwellers and communities”. This is further defined as being that “policies demonstrate proportionality to rural areas, taking into account their unique characteristics”.

1 Lancashire County Council’s work involved service-specific rural proofing projects on childcare, libraries, transport and youth services. 7

The guide largely explains how to apply rural thinking to policy development and decision making processes. However, a number of pointers for this project are identifiable in or interpretable from the questions for policy makers listed in this document. They include:
Whether the ‘rural premium’ (i.e. high unit cost of rural delivery) can be avoided by adapting the service delivery model;
Whether the risk of spatial gaps in (commissioned) public services can be avoided by using incentives or having sufficiently tight contracts or regulatory licences;
Whether the risk of overlooking scattered disadvantage can be addressed by appropriate use and analysis of the evidence base, and by partnering or capacity- building with local support structures;
Whether a deeper practical understanding of the policy issues and challenges can be gathered through proper consultation with rural stakeholders.

OECD Rural Policy Reviews: England, United Kingdom A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (2011)

In one of its occasional rural policy reviews the OECD recently looked at England. These reviews provide a hard-nosed analysis of the issues and policy responses, reaching some recommendations for future policies. This analysis recognised the (by international standards) geographically compact nature of rural England, “generally no more than half an hour’s drive from an urban area”. It also identified rural mainstreaming, rural proofing and developing the rural evidence base as key elements of the national policy approach.

The OECD understands why rural mainstreaming has been attractive, given the high extent of urban-rural interaction in England (e.g. for commuting and access to service centres), though they note it has proved challenging to implement. Of interest are the report’s recommendations that:
Solutions which go with the grain of the market are more likely to succeed than those which amend fiscal incentives or introduce new regulation;
Rural growth should feature within/contribute towards urban and city-region policy approaches, given the levels of interconnectedness in most places;
Rural mainstreaming should be reinforced, though policy makers should distinguish accessible rural areas where it may be sufficient from (the fewer) remote rural areas where more distinctive policies may be needed; and
Rural economic competitiveness will be best addressed if housing, planning and economic strategies are joined up at the local level.

Review of Rural Social Enterprise in England A report by the Plunkett Foundation for Defra and the Cabinet Office (2011)

This research offers the first systematic survey of social enterprises in rural England, which sought to find out their scale and scope, and to assess their economic, social and environmental impacts. It notes a backdrop of a growing number of social enterprises, growing policy expectations from the sector and some sustainability (including financial) challenges. Many of the social enterprises surveyed are tackling core rural policy issues,

8

such as access to basic services, access to transport, broadband provision and affordable housing.

Some findings which are of interest to this project are:
Social enterprises typically use their local knowledge of the market to survive and thrive in areas where the statutory or private sectors struggle to deliver a service. In that sense, they generally seek to address a market failure;
Asset ownership is often transformative, since it can generate income (though there may be an initial purchase cost) and the social enterprise becomes master of its own destiny. This could be interpreted as releasing more potential and innovation;
Volunteers are key for most rural social enterprises. They help engage a supportive community and are often involved with both delivery and governance. Though not explicitly stated in the report they also, of course, reduce the fixed cost of rural service delivery;
Instead of simply considering how they can deliver a service to a rural community, social enterprises often start by asking, what is the issue the community wants solved? Indeed, some arise out of community-led planning exercises.

Future Libraries: Change, Options and How to Get There A report by Museums, Libraries & Archives and the Local Government Group (2011)

This report is based on a year’s experience (2010-11) of providing support to 10 pilots involving 36 library authorities, to help them develop innovative ways of modernising services (the Future Libraries Programme). Six of the 10 pilots were essentially in shire areas. Two pilots naming rural access issues in their project summaries were those for: Northumberland and Durham, looking at IT use and work with transport providers; and Herefordshire and Shropshire, looking at community-run and charity-run models.

Four options, identified through the programme pilots, to help libraries survive were:
Reducing costs and/or improving performance by running libraries in partnership with the private sector, charities and other councils;
Extending the reach of libraries by integrating them with other community facilities and public services;
Stretching frontline resources further by sharing back office functions with other local authorities; and
Tailoring services better to local needs and/or reducing cost by giving library users the ability to play a more active role in running services.

It includes a ‘reform and change model’ to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness. This is not just rural and five of its features are arguably too organisational for this project, but the other five are outward facing and may be highly applicable in a rural context. All ten features are therefore listed below, with the outward facing ones on the right.

Ten features of the reform and change model Political and managerial leadership Analysing need Governance arrangements Understanding current cost and performance Aligning services with priority outcomes Recognising digital opportunities 9

Internal capacity to support change User and community engagement External support and challenge Partner and stakeholder engagement

Tackling Rural Disadvantage through How Public Services are Reformed A report by the Commission for Rural Communities (2008)

The purpose of this report was to draw together research and stakeholder evidence about the likely implications of public service reform (under the previous Government’s model) for rural areas and for disadvantaged rural people in particular. The focus was on reform of health, education and housing services.

Its core concern was that a focus on provider competition and user choice risked inadvertently making life harder for the rural disadvantaged. It saw a tension “between satisfying the needs of those who have the freedom to chose ... the services they want ... and ensuring that those without these freedoms are not further disadvantaged ...” A finding was that careful rural proofing of reform policies was needed to avoid this coming about. It also concluded that financial pressures on public services may be exacerbated if competition was the basis for determining the income of providers. Smaller providers in rural areas may struggle to compete and standard payment tariffs to providers will favour urban provision (where they can achieve economies of scale). It may cause the loss of some local services.

The report found that providers in rural areas are instead looking to collaborate to cut costs on staff, transport, offices and back-office functions, and so to remain competitive. This model is evident in some village school collaborations. It is important that competition does not discourage such collaboration. The report also believes that wider impacts (than cost) must be taken into account when commissioning services in rural areas, such as benefits to the local communities.

Finally, on ‘voice’, the report says that effort must be made by policy makers in rural areas so the voice of the disadvantaged is heard amongst the voice of the majority. It warns that apathy and complex policy making may dissuade that voice from coming forward.

Strong Counties and Vibrant Rural Communities A report by the County Councils Network and its Rural Issues Task Group (2007)

This report was compiled to look at key issues for rural communities from a county councils perspective and to highlight good practice responses by those councils. In policy terms it is now slightly dated 2 and some of its good practice has since developed further, but it remains of interest. It too contends that achieving personalisation of services and choice in provision is a challenge in rural areas for a variety of reasons (services being less financially viable, a lack of market competition, service outlets being distant from one another, the opportunity cost of travel and – interestingly – the risk of unforeseen consequences for the sustainability of communities). There is room here to note three of the report’s case studies.

2 The authors understand that the County Councils Network report may soon be updated. 10

One example quoted was in Shropshire, where the council viewed the rural challenge as an “access jigsaw” – identifying the service needs of individual communities and how people can or could access those services through a mixture of innovative local provision, transport and community based options.

Another is a Gloucestershire example, where the police could not fund a neighbourhood policing scheme in each rural community, so they introduced mobile police stations which visited those communities at pre-arranged times. Policy makers have used innovation to find a balance between provision which is too centralised for rural communities and provision which is too localised to be affordable.

The report also describes a Wheels 2 Work scheme in Cornwall, where young adults without their own transport or access to public transport were loaned a moped for a period in order to reach training or employment opportunities. These schemes have been well documented over the years. They show that where a collective solution is not realistic (e.g. a bus), an individually tailored solution may need to be sought (e.g. a moped).

The report concludes that rural service “provision must remain flexible, evidence-based and rooted in local communities, and work with the grain of what local people want and need ...”

Rural knowledge best practice from the LGID website Pages on the Local Government Improvement & Development website (accessed February 2012)

LGID (formally IDeA) managed a Rural Excellence programme for rural local authorities. Its website documents that programme and includes some best practice rural examples drawn from its Beacon awards scheme. A selection of those examples is considered below to see if they shed any further light on underlying principles.

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council implemented a Rural Access Strategy, “to ensure there is no divide between rural and urban [areas] in access to council services”. Key principles that it followed were: partnership working with other bodies trying to serve rural communities to better use resources; meeting local needs and recognising there was no single solution; and continuing to review and learn so its approach evolves. In practice this led to engagement with communities through parish councils and village action groups, a joint visiting service for older people with the County Council and Pensions Service, IT kiosks placed in remote post offices, libraries and health centres with access to council services; and an E-bus with IT links which visits rural communities encouraging take up of council services.

Cumbria County Council was a Beacon authority under the ‘better, brighter futures’ theme for its education delivery to 14-19 year olds. Its work has focused on extending reach into sparsely populated areas, which it has done by: working collaboratively with other organisations in five travel-to-learn area partnerships; using ICT innovatively to deliver information, advice and guidance to young people via an electronic Individual Learning Plan; and the use of peripatetic staff to overcome certain other access issues.

11

Carers Northumberland (a care trust) has established a ‘virtual carers centre’. They did this because carers can face isolated lives and because providing them with face-to-face support was difficult in such a rural area. Their service review started by consulting carers to find out what their priorities were. Carers and former carers now make up at least half the board of trustees, so that experience shapes the service. Carers Northumberland wanted to find a solution that was widely accessible and economically viable, making it sustainable into the future. This has been achieved by introducing: a first point of call for all carers; effective signposting to more specialist support; using telephone/internet conference calls; roving carer support groups; and linking up carers with each other. The approach means they can respond to needs irrespective of location. By refining its service delivery approach it has also removed some service duplication.

Finally, in Stratford-upon-Avon district the Blackwell Youth Club received a grant from the Local Heritage Initiative for an inter-generational project to explore the area’s history. Two features of this time-limited community project seem relevant. One is that the project has left a broad legacy. The IT equipment is now used, not only by the Youth Club for a homework club, but by agreement also to meet various other identified local needs (such as access to training and skills development, IT learning opportunities for isolated people and various other community events or meetings). Another feature is that this is enabling better use to be made of existing assets in the village. The village hall, which hosts the IT equipment, is now hired out much more frequently and is more financially viable.

Case studies on the ACRE website Pages on the Action with Communities in Rural England website (accessed February 2012)

The ACRE website includes a variety of case studies, based on the work of the Rural Community Action Network (of county-based and regional third sector support organisations). One again it is not possible to do justice to all the material, but a few examples of case studies from outside the statutory sector are cited in order to consider evidence of underlying principles.

SHAKERS is a youth facility which has been established in Askern by North Doncaster Rural Trust and its partners. It offers young people a meeting space and cafe, an events space for discos and a private counselling room. Key features of this project include: the involvement of young people in specifying the facilities they wanted at the site; having a layout which can be used by other groups for other purposes (to maximise use of the asset and the benefit); and how the project has been used to generate enthusiasm (volunteering) among the community.

The Humber & the Wolds Rural Community Council helps to manage a Community Car Scheme in North Lincolnshire. This provides a safe, reliable and affordable transport service for those without their own means of transport or access to public transport. Volunteer drivers receive 43p per mile to cover their fuel and other vehicle running costs. This (like the wheels to work scheme above) offers a highly tailored service to meet individual needs, where no other transport solution exists. It is not clear from the website whether there is some targeting at specific groups e.g. the elderly, those unable to afford a taxi.

12

Orwell Housing has been developing a sheltered housing scheme on an exception site in Capel St Mary in Suffolk. This followed concern about the large number of older people in the village and that many may be forced to move (away from friends) into urban centres if they required sheltered housing. The initial response was for the Rural Housing Enabler to undertake a housing needs survey, which confirmed and quantified demand for the scheme. Key outcomes will be that older residents can maintain their links with the community and their moves into sheltered housing will release homes for younger households or families. It will help the sustainability of the community at Capel St Mary.

The Suffolk ACRE Good Neighbour Scheme has set up a network of schemes around the county, with local teams of volunteers providing a range of support to the elderly and those in need. This can include befriending the lonely, giving lifts to services, minor home repairs, form filling assistance and looking after pets during hospital stays. Local schemes are established where there is a need, typically evidenced in a Parish Plan. Fundamentally the scheme aims to fill gaps left by other support services and so ensure that help is accessible for all residents. There are links with various statutory and third sector partner organisations, so that any support needs which go beyond that given by a ‘good neighbour’ are referred to the appropriate place. The scheme is seen as building community cohesion, by creating friendships and networks, and enabling older people to remain living at home for longer.

Brian Wilson February 2012

13