01 September 2009
Joined up for Neet solutions?
Akash Paun and Simon Parker
|
|
Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
diggFeatured Jobs
-
GROUP MANAGER FINANCIAL SERVICES
Dacorum Borough Council
£47,505-£62,136 -
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FINANCE & RESOURCES
Dacorum Borough Council
£63,153-£77,025 -
GROUP MANAGER DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & PLANNING
Dacorum Borough Council
£47,505-£56,109 -
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Tendring District Council
£112,000 - £120,000 -
GROUP MANAGER COMMERCIAL ASSETS & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
Dacorum Borough Council
£47,505-£62,136
In many parts of the public sector, hard-pressed managers facing tighter budgets are dusting off the old idea of ‘joined-up government’. Akash Paun and Simon Parker explain
Recent economic news indicates that the UK could be in the process of emerging from recession. But while business managers might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the public sector’s pain is just beginning.
Surveys show that health and education managers are the most pessimistic about what next year will bring. And well they might be. Public spending could have to fall by £90bn over the next decade, as the Government pays off the bill from a decade of spending growth, and two years of bank bailouts and ‘quantitative easing’.
In many parts of the public sector, managers looking for solutions to tighter budgets are dusting off the old idea of ‘joined-up government’. Experiments with Total Place in local areas are blazing the trail, but the debate is also live in Whitehall, with Cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell taking a renewed interest in pooling budgets behind Public Service Agreements (PSAs).
It is just possible that the fiscal crisis could be the catalyst for a transformation in the way departments work together.
But recent Institute for Government research has highlighted some of the deep challenges that government faces in making joining up a reality. We found that only seven of the 20 cross-cutting PSAs set in 2004 had been fully met four years later.
We also showed that the centre of Whitehall – the trinity of Downing Street, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office – is relatively weak when compared with other countries, which means UK government lacks a strong central actor to drive through better collaboration.
The Government has adopted a number of responses to these challenges. Among the more successful have been cultural interventions, such as facilitating the formation of networks across government through mechanisms such as the ‘Top 200’ programme for senior Whitehall leaders or the Professional Skills for Government agenda.
The Government has also modified its approach to target-setting in public services to shift emphasis to cross-cutting PSAs.
Almost all of those officials involved in these new systems report the simple act of committing to a joint target has intrinsic benefits. At the least, the different parties are brought around the table to set out their different positions, and at best, the process leads to joint assessments of what approaches have the greatest impact.
For instance, is childhood obesity reduced more by funding for sports facilities or healthier school meals? What exactly is the relationship between government policy interventions and public satisfaction with local communities?
But targets can only go so far, particularly when the resources that determine success or failure remain firmly within individual departmental silos.
The reluctance to pool budgets within Whitehall is only likely to grow as money becomes scarce.
The danger is that as resources begin to stretch, a bunker mentality might emerge at both local and national levels, in which departments fight to preserve their core services at the expense of collaborative programmes with other actors.
If joining up is going to become a reality, civil servants increasingly need to consider innovative budgeting arrangements which link resources to particular problems or desired outcomes. For instance, there could be greater use of pooled budgets where different departments or delivery bodies must jointly sign off expenditure, as for the ‘triple key’ criminal justice budget held by three departments. A complementary approach would be to require greater pooling of departmental research and development funds, to encourage the development of innovative cross-cutting projects.
If departments do begin to retreat to their silos, the centre may need to play a greater role in ensuring co-ordination.
A central function of the Cabinet Office has long been to resolve disputes between departments through its policy secretariats. But settling differences at the margins is only part of the equation. The centre needs also to generate a sense of purpose for government as a whole.
Strong central units in key areas can also provide part of the solution to collective action problems where no-one feels responsible – Tony Blair’s Social Exclusion Unit made significant progress in areas such as neighbourhood renewal.
What difference could it make now if you appointed a senior minister for Neets – the nearly one million young people in England not in education, employment or training – and gave them a substantial budget to commission from across Whitehall?
But there is a delicate balance to be struck here.
Too much central control can undermine morale and sideline the expertise that those closer to the frontline can bring – as local government knows only too well, people at the centre have less time and information than people down the line.
But in a tight spending environment, too little central involvement risks fragmentation and the undermining of progress against the key challenges that government must tackle over the next decade.
Simon Parker is a fellow, and Akash Paun is a senior researcher at the Institute for Government
Recent economic news indicates that the UK could be in the process of emerging from recession. But while business managers might be able to breathe a sigh of relief, the public sector’s pain is just beginning.
Surveys show that health and education managers are the most pessimistic about what next year will bring. And well they might be. Public spending could have to fall by £90bn over the next decade, as the Government pays off the bill from a decade of spending growth, and two years of bank bailouts and ‘quantitative easing’.
In many parts of the public sector, managers looking for solutions to tighter budgets are dusting off the old idea of ‘joined-up government’. Experiments with Total Place in local areas are blazing the trail, but the debate is also live in Whitehall, with Cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell taking a renewed interest in pooling budgets behind Public Service Agreements (PSAs).
It is just possible that the fiscal crisis could be the catalyst for a transformation in the way departments work together.
But recent Institute for Government research has highlighted some of the deep challenges that government faces in making joining up a reality. We found that only seven of the 20 cross-cutting PSAs set in 2004 had been fully met four years later.
We also showed that the centre of Whitehall – the trinity of Downing Street, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office – is relatively weak when compared with other countries, which means UK government lacks a strong central actor to drive through better collaboration.
The Government has adopted a number of responses to these challenges. Among the more successful have been cultural interventions, such as facilitating the formation of networks across government through mechanisms such as the ‘Top 200’ programme for senior Whitehall leaders or the Professional Skills for Government agenda.
The Government has also modified its approach to target-setting in public services to shift emphasis to cross-cutting PSAs.
Almost all of those officials involved in these new systems report the simple act of committing to a joint target has intrinsic benefits. At the least, the different parties are brought around the table to set out their different positions, and at best, the process leads to joint assessments of what approaches have the greatest impact.
For instance, is childhood obesity reduced more by funding for sports facilities or healthier school meals? What exactly is the relationship between government policy interventions and public satisfaction with local communities?
But targets can only go so far, particularly when the resources that determine success or failure remain firmly within individual departmental silos.
The reluctance to pool budgets within Whitehall is only likely to grow as money becomes scarce.
The danger is that as resources begin to stretch, a bunker mentality might emerge at both local and national levels, in which departments fight to preserve their core services at the expense of collaborative programmes with other actors.
If joining up is going to become a reality, civil servants increasingly need to consider innovative budgeting arrangements which link resources to particular problems or desired outcomes. For instance, there could be greater use of pooled budgets where different departments or delivery bodies must jointly sign off expenditure, as for the ‘triple key’ criminal justice budget held by three departments. A complementary approach would be to require greater pooling of departmental research and development funds, to encourage the development of innovative cross-cutting projects.
If departments do begin to retreat to their silos, the centre may need to play a greater role in ensuring co-ordination.
A central function of the Cabinet Office has long been to resolve disputes between departments through its policy secretariats. But settling differences at the margins is only part of the equation. The centre needs also to generate a sense of purpose for government as a whole.
Strong central units in key areas can also provide part of the solution to collective action problems where no-one feels responsible – Tony Blair’s Social Exclusion Unit made significant progress in areas such as neighbourhood renewal.
What difference could it make now if you appointed a senior minister for Neets – the nearly one million young people in England not in education, employment or training – and gave them a substantial budget to commission from across Whitehall?
But there is a delicate balance to be struck here.
Too much central control can undermine morale and sideline the expertise that those closer to the frontline can bring – as local government knows only too well, people at the centre have less time and information than people down the line.
But in a tight spending environment, too little central involvement risks fragmentation and the undermining of progress against the key challenges that government must tackle over the next decade.
Simon Parker is a fellow, and Akash Paun is a senior researcher at the Institute for Government
Your comments
There are currently no comments, be the first!
 Back |
 Top of page |
