The quality of local governance matters more than ever before. To many citizens, their local government is the most tangible form of government, and it is also the layer of government with which they have most contact in their everyday life. The power of the local administration is that it represents ordinary citizens. People eat, drink, work, play and socialise with others in towns and cities. To be fully effective, local government management and service delivery capacity needs to be strong, and resources need to be adequate. Civil society and businesses are essential actors in ensuring local governments have the capacity to meet the needs of its citizens. There are a host of challenges that confront local government in the 21st century: delivering quality services; lack of finance and local fiscal autonomy; engaging citizens and communities in meaningful and authentic ways; forming effective partnerships which incentivize local actors to find solutions to the many complex and intractable issues facing communities; generating inclusive and sustainable development; implementing strategies for disaster risk reduction; managing transparent communications; and, rapidly evolving technologies and socio-economic demographics. The Governance of Local Communities: Global Perspectives and Challenges is about the role that ideas, institutions, and actors play in structuring how people govern local communities and, more specifically, the types of adaptations necessary in local government roles and responsibilities, structures, and processes to effectively respond to a changing local government environment. Global changes require that we rethink local governance. A wide net of international experts on local governance was assembled for this volume to stimulate frank conversations around the many contemporary challenges facing local government.

The single theme that underlies this report on the performance of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is: delivery. The DCLG faces unusual challenges as a result of how it is structured and its reliance on the performance of other departments, agencies, local authorities for the achievement of its goals set by the Government. Most of the money for which DCLG is responsible is spent for it by someone else - by over 450 local authorities, 47 local fire brigades, by large government agencies such as the soon-to-exist Homes and Communities Agency with a £2.2 billion budget. The challenge of delivery is examined under several headings: the capability review carried out by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit; the ten public service agreements (focussing particularly on decent homes, fire and rescue services, race equality and community cohesion and gender equality); home information packs; FireLink and FiReControl, two major technology projects currently under way and both overdue and exceeding planned costs. On the Departmental report, the Committee welcomes the higher standard of the report, and the improvement in provision of full and clear information to Parliament and the public. A concern remains about the number of staff reporting feeling bullied, harassed or discriminated against.

Community Budgets are demonstrating their potential to deliver cheaper, more integrated and more effective public services. They are at risk, however, of being replaced after a few years if key issues are not resolved. If this opportunity is missed, the Committee warns that local services could come under unsustainable pressure in the face of increased demand and reduced budgets. This in turn may result in more spending later on judicial and emergency health and welfare interventions. The Government should send a clear message that it will assist every local authority wishing to introduce Community Budgets and to set out the specific assistance it will provide them with. Furthermore, the programme of pilots must not be allowed to slow progress towards wider implementation. If they are to succeed, public service providers and local authorities must realise investment in Community Budgets will bring them benefits. Local authorities, their partners, and central government should, therefore, develop a framework for agreements on how the benefits of investment are to be shared. On the Troubled Families Programme, the Committee is supportive of the work being done but highlights the need for greater focus on how work with these families will continue after the programme ends in 2016. Noting that the resources available have not increased in proportion to the number of families added to the programme in June, DCLG needs to monitor carefully progress and provide more resources to local authorities if necessary