HOMELESSNESS

Ring-fenced funds are not well suited to the roaring demand challenges of the twenties

By doing away with ring-fences all together, local partners would be freed up to collaborate and share more power and resource directly with communities, argues Jessica Studdert.

The noughties are back in fashion. I don't mean Nokia phones or velour tracksuits – I'm talking the return of the ring-fenced funding pot. In the 2000s, the defining local government finance trend was lots of money but limited flexibility – cash from the centre to local areas was routed through a complex maze of funding streams. No great initiative was asked of councils beyond delivering what was prescribed (and if you did it well, the glamour of Beacon status beckoned).

In the 2010s the arrival of austerity reversed this trend: limited money was combined with lots of flexibility over what little there was. This led to some new ways of working, because councils had to focus more on what outcomes they were getting for diminishing resource. But over the years, cash-starved services inevitably encountered crises. As the Government has tried to respond to each in turn, the bespoke funding pot has crept back into style.

An early years support vacuum? Let's bring back Sure Start style family hubs. Homelessness getting worse? Rather than Supporting these people, here's a new Rough Sleeping Initiative. Some communities still experiencing deprivation? Instead of getting a New Deal they can now hope to be Levelled Up.

But Ringfence 2.0 has a different vibe to its predecessor. In fact, it combines the worst features of the previous two decades: limited funding and limited flexibility. This has created a new range of accessories: scarce council capacity diverted to writing bids; competition between areas over finite pots; and a sector increasingly divided and ruled by a Government gripping the purse strings ever-tighter.

There's another noughties trend I'd love to see make a comeback: Total Place style funding. Or at least a revamped version which would reach its logical conclusion: place-based budgets. These would align and devolve all public service spend in a local area, maximising its impact.

By doing away with ring-fences all together, local partners would be freed up to collaborate and share more power and resource directly with communities. The flexibility to invest collectively in prevention would over time shift the balance of spend away from an over-reliance on acute response. This would be a much better look: one more suited to the roaring demand challenges of the twenties.

Jessica Studdert is deputy chief executive of New Local

@jesstud

HOMELESSNESS

Nothing is impossible when it comes to creating new councils

By Heather Jameson | 27 March 2025

Heather Jameson writes: 'After a rapid, bumpy start to reorganisation, where councils have scraped together first thoughts at breakneck speed, it is back in ...

HOMELESSNESS

Ministers set to reject social care trust plans

By EXCLUSIVE by Heather Jameson and Paul Marinko | 27 March 2025

Ministers are likely to reject plans for children’s or adult social care trusts that come as part of local government reorganisation (LGR), The MJ understands

HOMELESSNESS

Will the economic promise of devolution be fulfilled?

By Roger Russell | 27 March 2025

Roger Russell looks back on a special seminar looking to address the recent economic challenges facing the country – and questioning how to tap into the full...

HOMELESSNESS

Herts is increasing children's placements locally despite the challenges

By Miranda Gittos | 26 March 2025

Amid increasing budget pressures, Hertfordshire is committed to continuing its investment to transform the children’s residential care landscape in Hertfords...

Popular articles by Jessica Studdert