Search results

Since 1997, the Labour Government sought to respond to the dilemmas and consequences of the earlier New Public Management reforms, according to the two principles of joined‐up government and public service delivery. A key aspect of its reform programme has been the public service agreement (PSA) framework, a target‐based performance regime that acts as a vehicle for the majority of spending and policy decisions across government and on the ground. Analysing its implementation and success, the article suggests that, in theory, the PSA regime provides an important example of steering at a distance as a form of political leadership, wherein the role of the centre is to provide the strategic framework for policy delivery. However, there are several structural constraints that have impeded the effectiveness of the framework, such as the pervading Whitehall departmental culture, and the tensions between top‐down performance management and devolved autonomy on the ground.

As one of the Government's top 30 priorities, the Public Service Agreement on Socially Excluded Adults is an extremely powerful lever for improving the lives of some of the most disadvantaged in our society. But its easily understood aim ‐ ensuring a home and a job for the most at‐risk adults ‐ belies the complexity involved in making this PSA happen. From local area agreements to problems in gathering evidence about excluded groups, this article details the mechanisms involved, the obstacles to be overcome, and the benefits that the success of this PSA will bring.

The Social Exclusion Task Force, based in the Cabinet Office, works across government to ensure that the opportunities enjoyed by the vast majority of people in the UK today are extended to those whose lives have been characterised by deprivation and exclusion. The Task Force recognises that much has already been achieved through investment in public services, tax and benefit changes, and the national minimum wage. However, intensive collaborative support is needed for the most vulnerable individuals and families, whose difficulties are complex and persistent. The development of the first public service agreement (PSA) for very vulnerable adults is a major step forward in addressing the needs of some of our most disadvantaged citizens.

The new local government performance framework, in combination with the move towards greater personalisation in services, creates a radically new funding environment for housing with care and support. From the Public Service Agreement (PSA) on achieving settled accommodation for individuals at risk of exclusion, through to the impact of local joint strategic needs asessments and individual budgets, the principles and mechanisms of the new joint commissioning culture create more opportunities for providers to articulate the needs of the client group served, and to assert the case for more joined‐up and responsive services. This may require different skills and new styles of leadership at local level, and providers who have become adept at being competitors may need to re‐discover the skills of partnership. Meanwhile, new social exclusion policy frameworks are emerging for supported accommodation, which can support moves away from institutional care for those with mental health problems.

Targets set in 2005 by the Department of Health in the form of a public service agreement (PSA, 2003‐2006) standard require the development of comprehensive CAMHS, which provide services for children and young people with learning disabilities (LD). This standard presents particular challenges to the existing national CAMHS workforce.This paper reports on a specific project to undertake a northwest regional audit regarding capacity and capability of staff working in CAMHS to care for children and young people with learning disabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the mismatch between the language and rhetoric used by UK Central Government departments to promote particular policy options and initiatives and the experiences of Third Sector organisations engaged in such programmes. The paper provides an overview of policy development involving the Third Sector in the UK and seeks to provide a practice and political context to facilitate the analysis.

The paper draws upon empirical research undertaken with Third Sector and public sector agencies in specific initiatives in England. The methodology adopted includes an analysis both of the policy documents and official guidance notes provided as well as qualitative data drawn from interviews with key participants in the process.

The paper observes that for both parties in the process the relationships/experience was uncomfortable. The diversity, size, ethos and shape of the Third Sector were not fully understood by public sector agencies and the implications of the governance and decision making processes were not fully grasped by either party.

While the policy and practice implications are explicitly discussed in the paper it is rooted in the particular organisational structures/culture of the UK (and England in particular). While comparisons are possible they are to be found in the discussion on processes.

The paper adds to the analysis/understanding of the policy and practice relationship(s) between the Third Sector and central/local government and points to ways in which these relationships are likely to become more significant over time.

The paper adds to the literature on the Third Sector but is significant because of its focus on specific policy initiatives.

This paper is an account of the discussions and recommendations by the exper t advisory panel on potential metrics and ‘sentinel indicators’ for improved outcomes in housing and mental health, as par t of an inter‐agency seminar called to advise on the development of metrics and measures for community mental health, for Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review (Marmot, 2010). The seminar covered all aspects of mental health in both its broadest and narrower senses.Much of the background material for these discussions, therefore, cuts across familiar knowledge silos between the fields of health and housing. Where it is necessary to elucidate the text, references are included to relevant research and policy frameworks that may be unfamiliar to the general reader. This paper is not, however, intended as a general literature review nor is it an evaluation of the available research. A paper on this subject will feature in a future issue of the Journal.1The conclusions from the panel discussion are presented in four main areas, reflecting the need to specify metrics across the wide‐ranging interface between housing and mental health, while still keeping the task manageable. Five current or potential health service metrics were proposed as having par ticular value as signal indicators. Two of these (relating to primary care prevention and public health) have no precision as yet, par tly as new services and approaches are still evolving. Among existing health datasets, the Mental Health Minimum Dataset (MHMDS) (NHS Information Centre, 2009a), SITuation REPor ts (SITREPS) (Department of Health, 2003), and the Summary Care Record data were singled out, though each is thought to need more work to improve the current data categories as well as data collection.One rather more fundamental point made was that the identifying, assessing and encouraging of effective inter‐sector par tnership work will be the key to tackling health inequalities. The use of other, non‐health services data therefore holds great potential for a better recognition both of needs and of outcomes in successful par tnership work, especially where this can be interpreted at local level. These wider comments are elaborated in the context of housing, but may be applicable to all effor ts to evidence and work with the social determinants and the social outcomes of mental health. For the future, a combination of well‐crafted nationally sanctioned metrics and the ‘soft intelligence’ of locally identified meaning may be most effective.Subsequent developments confirm the potential in cross‐sector development work, and indicate the potential for fur ther collaboration via the local performance framework. As policy frameworks continue to evolve rapidly, the ar ticle ends with a Codex, updating the relevant policy frameworks context since the seminar (in Spring 2009) and especially in the context of a new coalition government with aspirations to ar ticulate and promote public health in the context of the local performance framework and the ‘new localism’ agenda. This final section and comments therein are therefore entirely the responsibility of the author.

In December 1999, the UK Civil Service Management Board in Whitehall agreed upon a reform program focusing on six themes, all connected with improved managerial processes internal to the civil service and intended to complement the more externally oriented Modernising Government agenda set out in a white paper earlier that year. The purpose was to achieve major changes in the way in which the civil service was run – “step change” rather than continuous improvement. In May 2002, the Cabinet Office commissioned a research project to provide an evaluation of the Civil Service Reform program through four case studies. This chapter draws upon the findings of that study to discuss the extent to which cultural differences affected the outcomes of this ambitious reform program. In addition, it draws upon a set of interviews in 2005 which updated the findings of the research. The chapter suggests that four very different types of culture had important impacts on the way in which the case study organizations went about the process of addressing the Cabinet Office reform program, namely national cultures which differed greatly between the case studies, although they were all UK-based organizations; organizational cultures which differed greatly within each of the case study organizations; occupational cultures which crossed the four case studies, but usually with significant differences in each context; and sectoral cultures which in several cases provided particular barriers to change. The chapter shows how these different dimensions of culture were interwoven in the change programs of the four cases and explores the extent to which their progress on the reform agenda was affected by their particular cultural mix. It suggests that some “cultural stances” within these overall cultures were more difficult to change than others, so that reforms had to be re-activated on several occasions and through a variety of mechanisms. Finally, the chapter illustrates how, in the case study organizations which were most successful, a deliberate strategy was adopted by top management of highlighting the clashing internal cultures, in order to challenge the traditional positions of internal and external stakeholders, in spite of the risks involved.

Increasing the productivity of publicly funded infrastructure and human capital is an imperative faced by every nation, especially in the health sector, where most nations are struggling with almost continuous increases in the proportion of national budgets spent each year on health and health care. Efficiency is one aspect of the broader issue of productivity within the health sector. This case study examines how a generic Government-funded body, with no specific health or health care mandate, can stimulate improvements in efficiency in Government-funded hospitals and healthcare and thereby contribute to improved productivity in these vital services.

The government has set challenging targets for the availability of all public services electronically by 2005. This paper describes the strategy adopted by Derbyshire County Council, and the role of the library service within the overall corporate approach. The authority has adopted a “putting people first” change management strategy which places information and communications technology (ICT) development within the broader framework of culture change across the organisation, with the aim of making services more accessible and responsive. The paper describes the success of the library service in recovering from severe budgetary problems to create a network of public ICT provision which has become a national exemplar and shows how this is being used to help deliver the corporate targets for e‐government.