Smaller councils can have a “natural advantage” in bringing about the close, connected communities which give children the best possible start in life.

This is the conclusion of a report by the Staff College which sets out ways councils could potentially disaggregate existing children’s services departments when smaller unitary councils are created through local government reorganisation.

The report for the District Councils’ Network (DCN) says that both small and large councils can effectively run children’s services, adding: “The advantages of proximity to place are not outweighed by larger scale.”

“The prevailing narrative is that big is beautiful and brings economies of scale. But there is an alternative lens,” it says. “What matters is proximity to people and the places they live in, staying close to families and supporting them. Close, connected communities, coupled with strong, passionate and ambitious leadership, will give children the best possible start in life. This is where smaller councils can have a natural advantage.”

To read the report please click here.

The report notes how existing district councils possess skills and expertise in place-based leadership and convening power. It says these attributes are essential to support the necessary shift towards prevention and early intervention in children’s services, as well as co-production with children and families.

District councils already specialise in prevention. The report cites Tendring District Council’s creation of wellbeing hubs in 16 primary schools to prevent avoidable mental ill health and Cherwell District Council’s Your Move project, which works with schools, GPs and children’s services to offer free physical activities and sporting opportunities to the families needing them most.

Such early help prevents problems from tipping into crisis – which often requires costly intervention from the public sector to resolve.

The report notes the fall in spend on early intervention since 2010, which was put at 42% in a recent report by Pro Bono Economics.

“Local government reorganisation gives us a chance to do things differently,” it says. “Of course, reorganisation and disaggregation won’t be easy. We need to approach it with a full understanding of the challenges and risks. But it opens the door for new councils that are bold and ready to put prevention, early intervention and place-based leadership at the heart of their approach to children’s services.”

It calls on those seeking to create smaller unitary councils to approach children’s services with confidence and optimism.

The report suggests a series of measures to facilitate the disaggregation of children’s services. Strong leadership, with robust management oversight, is required, as is close partnership with other agencies. It also suggests that some specialised services operate best on a multi-council or regional footprint.

In response to the report, Cllr Hannah Dalton, Health, Housing and Hardship Spokesperson for the District Councils’ Network, said:

“Local government reorganisation offers an opportunity to rethink children’s services, ensuring that they’re close to communities, centred around children and families, and move to having a more preventative focus.

“District councils don’t have statutory responsibility for children’s services, but we do offer the localised, place-based leadership which gives us unrivalled knowledge of our places. This helps identify children and families needing help and can bring about the culture of early intervention we all seek.

“It’s clear that the performance of relatively small existing unitary councils on children’s services is every bit as good as that of larger councils. They have a natural advantage in bringing about connected communities with children at their heart.

“While disaggregation must be approached with care, it is clearly a viable option – one that can bring about essential change.”

DCN member councils deliver a wide range of local government services to over 21 million people – 38% of England’s population. They cover 60% of the country by area.

Over 91,000 households were owed a prevention and relief duty in the year to September 2024 by DCN councils. The homelessness crisis is no longer confined to London and Metropolitan areas. While London Boroughs still have the highest absolute numbers in temporary accommodation, district areas are experiencing a faster percentage growth in TA use, demonstrating how this challenge is rapidly expanding beyond traditional urban centres.

The number of households in temporary accommodation were 49% higher in September 2024 compared to 2021. For households with children, figures have grown by 70% in the same period. This rapid growth is creating an unsustainable financial burden, with some councils now spending over a quarter of their council tax income on homelessness services.

District councils are at the forefront of tackling homelessness, with responsibility for housing and homelessness services across their communities. Our members have statutory duties to prevent and relieve homelessness, provide temporary accommodation, and support vulnerable residents.

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposal to use ‘total Housing Benefit (HB) + Universal Credit (UC) claimants’ as a measure of homelessness demand?

No

We oppose using ‘total Housing Benefit and Universal Credit claimants’ as the primary measure of homelessness demand. This metric fails to capture the true nature of homelessness pressures facing district councils.

The proposed formula misses crucial cohorts who are vulnerable to homelessness but may not be claiming benefits. Young people, rough sleepers, and those who are sofa surfing but not claiming UC would be overlooked. The current formula’s focus on actual prevention and relief duties provides a more accurate picture of real demand.

We are also concerned that the formula fails to capture homelessness pressures from asylum seekers receiving positive decisions and households in resettlement schemes. These individuals aren’t represented in HB/UC claimant figures until after they present as homeless, creating disproportionate pressures on certain district councils with higher asylum accommodation numbers or resettlement scheme participation.

Several of our members in high-value housing areas have highlighted that their communities experience significant homelessness challenges despite having relatively low numbers of benefit claimants. The extreme housing costs in these areas create homelessness risks for working households with incomes above benefit thresholds. Many households presenting as homeless have never claimed benefits but face housing crises due to relationship breakdown, the end of private tenancies, or other life events. Under the proposed formula, these high-pressure areas would receive less funding despite their substantial need.

The drive for simplicity in the formula to the extent of using a single metric will significantly underestimate the true demands on councils for prevention and relief services. Alongside HB & UC claimants, government should also use the prevention and relief data it already publishes to ensure true demand for prevention services are reflected at a local authority level. There are two key measures which should be considered:

• The proportion of prevention/relief duties which end with councils securing PRS accommodation for that household. This represents the significant effort and time which councils put into preventing individual households from living in TA. These cases, and the demand on finite resources, are currently not reflected at all in the proposed formula.
• The number of households owed a prevention or relief duty who are in full time work and not in receipt of benefits. This is necessary to reflect the true demand on homelessness services in DCN and high-cost areas. In these areas, demand for support significantly outstrips the number of households receiving housing benefit or universal credit.

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposal to use ‘TA Numbers’ as a measure of TA demand?

Indifferent

While we are broadly supportive of using TA numbers as a measure of demand, we believe this metric alone doesn’t capture the full picture of how councils manage homelessness pressures.

To create a more balanced formula, we recommend also including the percentage of prevention and relief duties which end with securing private rented sector accommodation. This would properly account for successful prevention work that directly reduces the need for temporary accommodation placement.

We are concerned that using only TA numbers could create counterproductive incentives. As Exeter City Council points out, it “penalises authorities from working proactively to reduce length of time people are in TA and does not consider numbers of households where it is prevented.” Without acknowledging prevention outcomes, the formula risks rewarding higher TA numbers rather than successful prevention work.

Oxford City Council notes that “having 45-50% of the grant determined by TA costs reduces incentive to lower TA use when possible. A council that is focused on prevention and making major progress to lower TA use year on year will be penalised with cuts in HPG each year.” This appears to conflict with the government’s stated aim of reducing temporary accommodation use.

To truly support government’s prevention agenda, the formula should strengthen the prevention side by incorporating metrics that reward councils for keeping households out of temporary accommodation altogether through successful interventions in the private rented sector.

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposal to use ‘mean rents in the PRS’ as a measure of homelessness costs?

No.

We believe that using mean private rented sector rents as a proxy for homelessness costs is flawed for several reasons.

While moving from lower quartile to mean rents may better reflect market reality, basing calculations on two-bed rents does not reflect the diverse accommodation needs across our membership. Many of our members report significant pressures on one-bed properties and larger family accommodation.

A significant concern is the removal of the old formula’s inclusion of ‘prevention and relief into the PRS’ to help determine homelessness costs. This previous measure effectively acknowledged the difficulty that urban areas face due to expensive rental markets.

Local market conditions and affordability vary dramatically across district areas. In Hastings, for example, just 1% of properties are affordable within Local Housing Allowance benefit rates. Similar acute affordability crises exist in many district council areas, yet the proposed formula would significantly reduce funding to these places.

The formula assumes both availability and affordability of accommodation at mean rent levels. In practice, many districts have no properties available at these theoretical mean levels, forcing councils to use more expensive accommodation options. Additionally, the costs associated with securing accommodation for homeless households often exceed standard PRS rates due to additional fees, deposits, and support costs.

Overall, we believe the proposed measure oversimplifies the complex housing market conditions that drive homelessness costs and fails to account for the significant variations in local housing markets across district council areas.

Question 4: Do you agree with the proposal to use the ‘labour cost adjustment’ as a measure of homelessness costs?

No

While labour costs are a significant factor in delivering homelessness services, the proposed approach has several shortcomings.

Many of our member councils prefer the Area Cost Adjustment (ACA) over the Labor Cost Adjustment (LCA) as the ACA factors in property prices and travel times, both of which provide a better picture of extra costs on local authorities.

The Labour Cost Adjustment is not explained in detail in the consultation, with no information about what this is derived from, making it difficult to understand and assess its potential impact.

We question whether this adjustment considers that areas with higher wages are typically areas that are more costly to live in. This adjustment may disadvantage those areas that are less affordable to live in.

Without clear understanding of how this metric works, it’s difficult to assess its appropriateness or potential impact on homelessness funding.

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposal to use ‘mean rents in the PRS’ as a measure of TA costs?

No

This proposal misunderstands the reality of temporary accommodation costs for our member councils.

Mean rents do not capture the significant variations in cost between emergency, one-off bookings of accommodation versus longer-term, pre-negotiated arrangements. They also do not include cost of managing accommodation, utilities, or void costs.

The disconnect between PRS rents and true TA costs is particularly acute for district councils, where 49% of households in temporary accommodation are placed in expensive nightly paid accommodation. This represents a substantial cost pressure that mean PRS rents simply do not reflect.

The cost of temporary accommodation is higher than rent levels in the PRS for multiple reasons. Bills such as council tax and utilities are inclusive, unlike in the PRS. TA is often procured on a nightly paid basis from private landlords, leading to costs far above standard market rents.

Using mean PRS rents would not consider the property sizes needed to accommodate those in TA, the need for specialist TA, or the cost of TA locally which is often far higher than PRS rents. Many of our members believe the current use of 3-year average spend on TA is more appropriate and suitable for measuring TA costs.

A critical issue that the consultation fails to address is the substantial gap between Housing Benefit subsidy (frozen at 90% of 2011 LHA rates) and actual TA costs. DCN research has found that the subsidy only covers approximately 38% of the actual cost of providing temporary accommodation, with councils using HPG to bridge this gap.

The new funding formula would be particularly damaging for councils that have to rely mostly on private temporary accommodation. These councils face much higher costs than those with their own housing stock – with some now spending over a quarter of their council tax income on homelessness services. In Hastings, a council without their own housing stock, this figure reaches 58%, with council spending rising from £730,000 to £6.5 million annually in the past five years.

Proceeding with the formula as suggested would lead to councils with high numbers of households in council or housing association owned TA being overcompensated. In this circumstance, full costs can be claimed through the Housing Benefit system. It would be appropriate for government to apply a deflator to this part of the formula, where councils have a high proportion of households in this type of temporary accommodation. This would ensure that funding is directed to those areas bearing the highest costs locally.

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposal to use RO4 (Revenue Outturn tables on TA spend) to approximate TA numbers where there is no TA data available for the given year?

Yes

This is a reasonable approach for the small number of authorities where data might be missing. This is only applicable to the local authorities who are not returning consistent data to MHCLG.

We recommend that MHCLG continue to improve data collection methods and provide support to ensure all local authorities can submit accurate and timely information.

Question 9: What do you think is an appropriate split of HPG funding between temporary accommodation and prevention and relief?

Other

We believe that the split between temporary accommodation and prevention and relief should not be rigidly prescribed. Each local housing authority should continue to determine how to spend its HPG funding based on local circumstances and challenges.

A predetermined split would be particularly unfair to councils without their own housing stock who face significantly higher TA costs, as they must rely entirely on private sector accommodation at market rates (which is subject to the subsidy cap). These differences in housing create fundamentally different cost bases that a standardised percentage cannot address.

The underlying issue remains that many councils are forced to use HPG funding to cover the substantial gap between Housing Benefit subsidy (frozen at 90% of 2011 LHA rates) and actual TA costs. While our members would prefer to use this funding for prevention work, they have no choice given the significant subsidy shortfall.

Rather than imposing a fixed split, government should address the root cause by updating the TA subsidy rate, which would naturally allow more HPG funding to be directed toward prevention and relief as originally intended. Until government does this, we do not support any split and push for continued flexibility.

Question 10: Should there be a phased approach to implementing a change in weighting? For example, implement a partial change in weighting in year 1 and the full change in year 2.

Yes

Any significant changes to funding allocations should be phased in to allow councils to adjust their services and avoid disruption to vulnerable residents. Our members support a phased approach to implementing changes in weighting.

Many district councils have structured their homelessness services around current funding levels, and with some authorities facing potential cuts of up to 39%, abrupt changes would jeopardise critical support for those at risk of homelessness. A gradual implementation provides essential time for service planning and adaptation, should the proposed changes go ahead.

Question 11: If prevention and relief spend represented 55% of overall HPG funding, what do you think is an appropriate split between labour and rent costs?

Other

We do not believe it is appropriate to rigidly prescribe how prevention and relief funding should be split between labour and rent costs. Each local authority has been able to determine how it feels is most appropriate to spend its HPG funding, and we would welcome this to continue.

It makes little sense for MHCLG to prescribe specific spend on rent and labour. To impose such controls would go against government policy intention which is to decentralise decision making and control on spend.

Different areas face different cost pressures and have different approaches to preventing homelessness. Imposing a one-size-fits-all split would limit councils’ ability to deliver effective, local services tailored to their communities.

Question 12: Do you agree with the proposal to use transitional arrangements to mitigate changes in funding allocations?

Yes

Transitional arrangements are essential to avoid drastic funding reductions that could jeopardise vital homelessness services.

Our analysis shows that under the proposed formula, councils including Huntingdonshire (-39%), Exeter (-38%), Gloucester (-37%), Oxford (-36%), Broxbourne (-36%), Hastings (-34%), Arun (-33%), Mid Sussex (-31%), Welwyn Hatfield (-27%), and Tendring (-26%) would face major reductions in their homelessness prevention funding.

Transitional arrangements reduce the cliff edge scenario and allow the transition to be as smooth as possible. This is particularly important for smaller district councils, which often have more limited financial reserves to absorb sudden funding changes.

Most importantly, we would strongly encourage the department to reconsider the proposed formula itself, rather than simply mitigating its effects. Councils with high homelessness pressures should not lose critical funding for prevention and temporary accommodation costs. Without addressing the flaws in the formula, transitional arrangements merely delay financial distress for smaller councils already operating under significant budgetary constraints.

Question 13: Do you agree with the proposal to use transitional arrangements in line with the caps used in the previous formula (2% in the first year and 5% in the second)?

No – the % caps should be lower

The proposed 2% and 5% caps are insufficient to protect services in councils facing substantial funding reductions. While many of our members have accepted the proposed caps, some have expressed concerns that these levels would still create significant financial pressures.

With some district councils facing potential funding cuts of up to 39%, the proposed caps would result in substantial annual reductions. For example, Oxford City Council would lose £776,708 – 36% of its funding, while Hastings Borough Council faces losing £754,000 – 34% of its grant.

The impact of different cap levels is significant. With 5% annual reductions, councils like Oxford and Hastings would lose over £100,000 per year in vital homelessness funding. By contrast, a 2% cap would limit annual reductions to approximately £43,000, giving these authorities more time to adapt while maintaining essential services.

We believe that caps should be no more than 2% per year to provide stability for homelessness services and give authorities adequate time to adjust their service provision.

Question 14: If you answered Q13 with “the % caps should be lower – what % range would you prefer?

Up to 2%

We believe that caps should be no more than 2% per year. This would provide significantly better protection than the proposed 5% cap in the second year.

For authorities facing the largest proportional cuts, a 2% cap would mean annual funding reductions of approximately £43,000-£44,000, rather than over £100,000 under a 5% cap. This difference is particularly important for smaller district councils with limited financial reserves that still need to maintain essential homelessness services.

Question 16: Do you agree with the proposal for transitional arrangements to be tapered between financial years?

No – the % caps should be the same in all years

While our members have expressed different views on tapering, we believe consistent caps across years would provide greater certainty for financial planning.

New Forest District Council notes that consistent caps “enable better planning of resources in the longer term.” This predictability is particularly valuable for smaller district councils with limited financial flexibility.

With the scale of potential funding reductions facing some authorities – up to 39% in some cases – a consistent, lower cap provides more appropriate protection than a tapered approach. Tapering would mean that councils already under severe pressure would face increasingly difficult financial challenges each year, potentially compromising essential homelessness services.

DCN members highlight that building safety works, planned maintenance programmes and regeneration schemes all require sustained investment over many years and the importance of stability in rent policy, with more ambitious timeframes needed to deliver the scale of investment required in both existing and new social housing.

“We believe that a longer fixed settlement period, properly protected and adequately funded, would provide greater stability. This would give providers the certainty needed to deliver sustained investment programmes while avoiding the potential complexity and uncertainty of annual policy reviews.”

“If a rolling settlement is pursued, it should be based on a longer initial period – for example, a 10-year settlement that rolls forward annually. However, the crucial factor remains the length of the guaranteed period rather than the rolling mechanism.”

You can read the full response here.

The Government has been urged to take swift and decisive action to stem the temporary accommodation crisis in a letter by five of the biggest organisations campaigning on the issue.

The letter from the District Councils’ Network (DCN), Local Government Association (LGA), Crisis, the County Councils Network and the East of England Local Government Association comes as official figures reveal further alarming growth in temporary accommodation use.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government data released today reveal an alarming increase in the number of households in temporary accommodation, rising by 12.3% over the year to March to 117,450 households.

There was also a 14.7% increase in families with children living in temporary accommodation, now totalling 74,530 households.

District council spending on temporary accommodation has increased by 200% in just five years and now takes up to half of some councils’ budgets. Councils would rather invest in new high-quality, permanent housing which enables people to put down roots in their communities than spend such vast sums dealing with the consequences of homelessness.

In response to the newly published figures, the five organisations issued an open letter to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, calling for immediate action to tackle the root causes of homelessness and alleviate the unsustainable pressure on local councils.

You can read details of the five actions we seek in the letter attached.

The collaboration brings together the on-the-ground expertise of district councils, the broader local government perspective of the LGA, county councils’ social care specialism, and the specialised knowledge of Crisis to tackle this critical issue.

Cllr Hannah Dalton, District Councils’ Network housing spokesperson, said: “High use of temporary accommodation is the result of national policy failure which forces councils to expensively deal with the consequences of homelessness rather than prevent it in the first place. We seek extra powers to ensure sufficient affordable, good quality, secure homes are built in the first place, so we’re no longer reliant on often low-quality, high-cost temporary accommodation.

“Temporary accommodation prevents people from putting roots down in their community and it leads to the disruption of education as children end up moving from school to school. It’s also financially crippling councils, taking up to 30% of some districts’ budgets and using up money we’d far rather spend on supporting people to avoid homelessness.

“Councils are not receiving the funding they need to cover temporary accommodation costs – we urge ministers to unfreeze the Housing Benefit subsidy cap so it reflects the cost of providing accommodation today. However, our focus needs to be on finding longer-term solutions.

“We need action to lift the barriers which prevent councils from building and retaining council housing, and which thwart us from ensuring that homes affordable for everyone in our community are built.

“Overcoming homelessness once and for all would dramatically reduce the ill-health, low school attainment and lack of productivity associated with homelessness, reducing the burden on other public services and improving people’s lives.”

Matt Downie, Chief Executive at Crisis, said: “Our housing and homelessness system are broken, and councils are paying a hefty price for years of inaction. It’s unacceptable that we have hundreds of thousands of children growing up having never known a home of their own home. Their young lives wracked by uncertainty and insecurity which risks untold damage to their health, education and life chances.

“Councils are in between a rock and a hard place as they try to support families but without adequate levels of social housing, and proper investment, many are being pushed towards financial ruin. To pull councils back from the brink, the Autumn Budget must contain increased funding so they can continue to help people who need it most. But if we’re going to tackle the root cause of this crisis, it’s critical that alongside the positive steps on social housing the Westminster Government establishes a Unit for Ending Homelessness which is focused on ensuring we become a place where everyone has a safe place to call home.”

The letter text:

Dear Angela,

We are writing to express our deep concern about the homelessness crisis in England.

The latest homelessness statistics released today reveal an alarming increase in the number of households in temporary accommodation, rising by 12.3% over the year to March to 117,450 households. Even more troubling is the 14.7% increase in families with children living in temporary accommodation, now totalling 74,530 households.

The human impact of this crisis is enormous. Families in temporary accommodation face huge challenges including disrupted education, health issues, and difficulty holding down a job. Homelessness undermines people’s lives and life chances.

The financial impact on councils is unsustainable. Many district councils now spend between 20% and 50% of their total net budget on temporary accommodation. Total district council spending on temporary accommodation has skyrocketed by more than 200% in just five years. Councils across the country, including unitary authorities in county and rural areas, are facing these acute pressures. Government data shows that £1.74 billion was spent on temporary accommodation between April 2022 and March 2023 – an increase of 9% on the previous year.

Crisis reports that this financial pressure is impacting on local authorities’ ability to prevent homelessness, as resources are taken up with crisis intervention.

The National Audit Office’s recent report concludes unambiguously that the current approach to homelessness is not delivering value for money. It is not tackling the causes of homelessness and it is forcing councils to resort to expensive, sometimes inadequate, overnight accommodation in hotels and B&Bs.

There have been some steps in the right direction. In particular the decision to unfreeze Local Housing Allowance rates last autumn has made a difference. But we urge your Government to go much further and take radical action to end this crisis:

1. Commit to annually uprate Local Housing Allowance rates to ensure they keep pace with private rents.
2. Remove the housing benefit subsidy cap to fully fund councils to provide decent temporary accommodation.
3. Commit to long-term investment to deliver 100,000 homes for social rent per year for the next 15 years.
4. Create a substantial capital fund to enable councils to rapidly build or acquire genuinely affordable housing for people at risk of homelessness.
5. Establish a Unit for Ending Homelessness, backed by leadership from the heart of government, to lead on developing a comprehensive, cross-departmental strategy to prevent and reduce homelessness, with clear targets and adequate long-term funding for prevention.

Without swift and decisive action, we fear that more councils will be forced to cut vital preventative services, creating a vicious cycle that will only exacerbate the homelessness crisis and lead to greater costs for the taxpayer.

We stand ready to work with you to implement effective solutions to this national emergency. The time for half-measures has passed. A paradigm shift is needed to redirect resources from mitigating homelessness to preventing it entirely. By guaranteeing every person access to secure, stable housing, we can break the cycle of homelessness and create lasting change, ultimately saving both lives and resources.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Hannah Dalton, Housing Spokesperson, District Councils’ Network; Leader of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

Cllr Louise Gittins, Chair, Local Government Association; Leader, Cheshire West & Chester Council

Matt Downie, Chief Executive, Crisis

Cllr Richard Clewer, Housing and Planning Spokesperson, County Councils Network; Leader of Wiltshire Council

Cllr Jacqui Taylor, Chair, Improving Outcomes for People and Communities Panel, East of England Local Government Association

In our response, DCN called for additional funding to support the increased costs associated with adaptations and the growing level of need so that district councils can continue to best serve the needs of older and disabled people.

“We need greater support and powers from central government if we are to achieve our goal of making all housing in our areas as accessible as possible. DCN is calling for urgent reform of the planning system to ensure that more accessible and wheelchair user friendly properties are brought forward through the planning system.”

The Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) is a helpful tool to adapt more homes to meet the requirement of disabled residents. However, the means test is in urgent need of reform and the maximum grant limit of £30,000 is insufficient.”

You can read our full response by clicking here.

“The District Councils’ Network (DCN) shares the Government’s commitment to increasing physical activity and making sport more inclusive and welcoming for all – this at the heart of what district councils do every day. We welcome the recognition of the value of local government and its importance for health outcomes. The new strategy is a step in the right direction.

“Councils are proud to be the biggest funder of sport, leisure and wellbeing services, parks and green spaces in England. However, these services are under extreme pressure.  For many parts of the country, our ageing public leisure infrastructure urgently needs investment. While we recognise that money is tight, this strategy misses the chance to think creatively about investing new money in these vital interventions.

“DCN research has shown that physical activity and community engagement is a key driver of public health. It can save hundreds of millions for the NHS. We encourage the Government to make a stronger link between the sport strategy and the implementation of Integrated Care Systems. District preventative services have huge potential to tackle health inequalities if they are put at the heart of the health integration agenda.

“We also welcome the focus on decarbonisation. But further investment is required if we are to ensure the long-term sustainability of sporting and leisure infrastructure and deliver against wider carbon reduction targets.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

Councils in England are the biggest funder of sport, leisure, parks and green spaces. They are responsible for 2,727 leisure centres and 27,000 parks and green spaces which includes 33% of all swimming pools; 20% of all health and fitness facilities; 13% of sports halls and 31% of grass pitches.

Research commissioned by DCN from the University of East Anglia and Health Economics, ‘Fit for the Future: The Health Value of Wellbeing and Leisure Services’ shows that engagement of just over 1 million of the inactive population of England in a prescribed leisure services programme could provide the following impacts over a 10-year period:

• Almost 45,000 diseases avoided
• A direct saving to the NHS of £314 million for the cost of treatment of those diseases
• 70,000 Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained (a year of life in perfect health is equal to one QALY)
• This QALY gain has a health value of £1 billion and economic value of £4.2 billion
• A 3.7 year reduction in the healthy life expectancy gap

A recent report by the King’s Fund,  ‘Driving better health outcomes through integrated care systems: The role of district councils’ highlights the powerful role district councils can play in driving health outcomes with ICSs.

The event, held on 20 July, brought together the representatives of member councils and other parts of the health and care system to discuss how we can work together to reduce healthcare inequalities.

Chairing the event was Cllr Hannah Dalton, DCN Health Spokesperson, and it also featured Chris Naylor and Luca Tiratelli of The King’s Fund, who recently undertook research for the DCN on this issue.

Other speakers included Professor Jim McManus, President of the Association of Directors of Public Health; Ian Fytche, Chief Executive of North Kesteven District Council; and Ian Davidson, Chief Executive of Tendring District Council. Mr Davidson contributed footage from his council’s work on supporting children in schools through the Great Bentley Wellbeing Hub.

The importance of working across different bodies to instigate change was a prominent feature of the discussion.

To find out more about the research you can read the King’s Fund full report, as well as various articles which appeared in the media about the research.

Media coverage of our King’s Fund Report

• Jamie Sutterby and Trevor Holden, Broadland and South Norfolk Councils in The MJ (£): Leading the prevention revolution
• Natalie Brahma-Pearl, Chief Executive of Crawley Borough Council in The MJ (£): When it comes to health, districts matter
• Cllr Hannah Dalton, Leader of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council in LGC (£): Prevention-focused districts can help relieve the NHS burden
• James Hood, Director of DCN in NHS Confederation blog: Engaging with district councils – ICS Blog
• Ian Fytche, Chief Executive of North Kesteven District Council in Health Service Journal (£) District councils are the NHS’s natural health improvement partners
• Expert briefing in Health Service Journal (£) The Integrator: the race to the neighbourhood NHS

Reports mentioned in the discussion

• Association of Directors of Public Health report: Putting the ‘integrated’ in ICSs – ADPH Report
• Cheltenham Borough Council: Scrutiny task group on tackling multiple deprivation
• Tendring District Council: Primary school wellbeing hubs – DCN Innovation Spotlight

The District Councils’ Network (DCN) commissioned the independent analysts BritainThinks to survey people living in the English shires about their attitudes to the local public services in their area.

BritainThinks’ polling makes clear the significant perceived value of services such as waste collection, street cleaning and leisure services which are open to all residents but have sometimes been neglected in the national debate about local government.

Waste collection was the single most valued service, with 92% of people considering it essential.

The survey of 1,000 people living in English shire areas with both district and county councils also revealed a significant level of public backing and trust in district councils.

The survey revealed greater name-recognition for district councils – the most localised principal authorities – than for the far larger county councils, with 59% of residents being able to identify their district, compared to 32% their county council.

Fifty-four percent of people expressed satisfaction with their district council, compared to 46% for county councils. Meanwhile, 63% of people described their district council as high-quality.

Districts were more trusted to boost local pride, bring local people’s views into decision making, tackle social issues and respond to local emergencies than county councils or national government.

These findings come a month before 17 district councils are to be abolished in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, to be replaced by far larger and more remote unitary authorities.

Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen, chairman of the DCN, said:

“While there has been an understandably heavy focus on the work of social care departments in the national debate about local government, a sense of the broader role of councils and the immense value of their most well-used services has been under appreciated.

“Most district council services are universal, with all residents benefitting for instance from leisure facilities to keep people healthy, environmental services to make places green and pleasant to live in, our economic development work to secure prosperity and growth, and our unique ability to connect with and support those people in most need of help.

“Our services are visible to every single resident – they shape places; they help bring about health, prosperity, fairness and compassion; and our proactive social intervention lessens the burden on the NHS and other parts of the public sector. These services are perhaps better understood and appreciated by the local people who use them and rely upon them than by Westminster or Whitehall.

“The results of this research are an endorsement of the scale of district councils. We are the most localised principal authorities – our boundaries are for the most part built around easily-identifiable market towns, seaside communities, new towns and cathedral cities. We are genuinely local government.

“The fact that we are close to all our residents helps us win trust. Our localised nature gives us a unique convening power to pull together local people and to channel our collective energy towards moving our places forward. This often means we are best placed to drive change.

“But this research also reaffirms that local government in two-tier areas works. Residents recognise the different strengths of district and county councils.”

Ben Shimshon, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, BritainThinks, said:

“The picture of district councils that emerges from this research is of a well-understood, locally focussed and largely effective provider of services that matter to local residents.

“Whilst there is always room to improve – and almost a fifth of residents express some dissatisfaction with the performance of their council – this research demonstrates that district councils are working from a strong base, with majorities of residents feeling that they have the interests of local communities at heart, that they deliver services that matter for their community, and that their areas would be worse off without their district council.”

• You can read the full report here.
• BritainThinks’ full data can be read here.

The DCN is particularly pleased to see the Government has responded to the concerns we’ve raised about the number of host families indicating they wish to discontinue Homes for Ukraine placements, many of them as a result of financial concerns. The Government has acknowledged the generosity of the hosts within our communities by offering extended and increased monthly thank-you payments of £500.

It is right that we should reward the kindness of host families and, vitally, the extra money will also help to prevent many placements ending.

The DCN has also called for an emergency fund to prevent homelessness for Ukrainian arrivals and others suffering hardship in our communities. We therefore support today’s announcement of £150m fund to do this, as a measure to assist our overburdened housing teams in proactively supporting those at risk of homelessness.

The £500m Local Authority Housing Fund begins to address the challenge of finding long-term housing for those who need it. However, housing pressures are intensifying and although this is a positive first step, much more will be needed to provide sufficient affordable accommodation for all those who require it.

DCN notes that the council tariff has been reduced to £5,900 per person for Ukrainian arrivals entering the UK from 1 January 2023. This runs the risk of reducing the funding available housing teams carrying out crucial inspections of potential accommodation for arrivals, at a time when these services are immensely stretched.

We look forward to seeing the full detail on how the new funds are designed and allocated. It is vital that district councils – the housing authorities in shire England – are well placed to design the solutions appropriate to support people in our areas.

DCN Chairman, Cllr Sam Chapman-Allen said:

“We are pleased that the Government has listened to our concerns that there has been a significant risk to the support available to Ukrainians. These new measures will go a long way to relieving the pressure on our housing teams who’ve done sterling work to support those fleeing Putin’s illegal war.

“It’s also good to see the Government acknowledge that councils know their communities best by allowing us to allocate the £150m to prevent homelessness to those within our communities who we know are most on the brink of losing their home. Flexibility is vital as we use our local knowledge to do what we can to prevent hardship from increasing.

“The Local Authority Housing Fund is also welcome, though we need a larger-scale plan for increasing affordable accommodation than 4,000 homes. Already, 3,000 Ukrainians have already presented as homeless, and there are many from countries including Afghanistan and Syria who still need places to live, alongside longstanding members of our communities who are struggling to afford decent housing.

“It is our moral duty to support Ukrainians and refugees who are in our local areas – and this week’s announcement helps us do this. However, further support for asylum seekers and refugees is needed and we look forward to working with Government to improve the situation for all.”