Are local authorities too risk averse to deliver on big society? If we're going to let communities take on some of what we currently do, we might have to learn to lower our expectations when it comes to risk management.
The Department for Education grant that supports school pupils to do work experience is coming to an end. In anticipation of not getting this grant my team in Surrey recently discussed what we could do. One colleague suggested a "big society solution".
He argued that before there were government funded work experience programmes young people simply joined their mum or dad, auntie, uncle or next-door neighbour at work. We went on to discuss how we might create an online network where local employers could advertise work experience opportunities direct to schools. Exciting, until someone mentioned the risk assessment and health and safety arrangements involved with work experience placements. Suddenly, such a solution became impossible.
In another example, Surrey County Council wants to develop a partnership with external providers to manage youth work in youth centres. We think such a partnership would reduce our management costs and allow us to do more for less.
This could be very big society if our new provider can capitalise on latent community assets in a way we have failed to do with any consistency. A relationship like this would ordinarily involve the TUPE of staff to the provider. However, the liabilities that are associated with the transfer of staff are prohibitive for the very small local organisations that we think might be best placed to lever the local engagement we are hoping for.
If government wants less bureaucracy and more delivery, the requirements for managing the risks associated with delivering public services may have to change. Equally, councils themselves may have to change their culture to be less risk averse. Risk management is everywhere in local government. In many cases it gives us vital protection, for example safeguarding children, but in other cases there may be a balance to be struck. In the examples above one might argue that on balance the benefits outweigh the risks and given we have less money than before maybe risk management is the preserve of those societies that can afford it and this doesn't include ours.
For communities to become independent and self-reliant rather than dependant and reliant on state funded services we may have to renegotiate the social contract between state and citizen. But even if the expectations of the citizen change and communities feel empowered to contribute to the big society; the assumption remains that the law and the local regulations will allow society to step in where before there was state.
Can small organisations, community groups, charities and individuals really meet the risk management requirements local authorities take for granted? If we are going to implement the big society idea our attitude to risk and risk management will have to change.
A risk averse culture lives outside the state also in the form of litigation. As our society becomes increasing litigious it maybe that people reject doing more for their communities because they fear being sued if things go wrong. Can the employer that takes on a work experience young person without the normal risk assessment, or the volunteer that cooks their neighbour's dinner in place of a meal on wheels or the charity that takes on delivering a statutory service at a lower cost than the council, afford to take this risk?
Crucially for local government is the notion of accountability and where it rests; community volunteer, charity or contractor? Many officers would say that some risks cannot be transferred and the line of accountability cannot be broken.
Local authorities like Surrey may be able to come up with ideas to do more for less but we may not be able to tolerate the associated risks and ambiguous lines of accountability. This dichotomy puts the ball firmly in central government's court requiring them to amend slightly or completely dismantle the regulatory apparatus that have evolved in response to the risks associated with public service.
Garath Symonds is assistant director of young people's services at Surrey county council.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for more like this direct to your inbox.
