Social Productivity

An interesting weekend as I got to reading the report from the public services trust which was published earlier in the week -"From social security to social productivity: a vision for 2020 Public Services" . I then attended the chairman's civic service and the bishop of Grantham preached a message which supported many of the ideas and views emerging from the report.

The report calls for a complete reconfiguring of public services around the needs and capabilities of citizens, based on the principle of social productivity. It argues that our public services are increasingly unsustainable. The Commission calls for a new deal between citizens and the state, based on social productivity - greater social responsibility and more intelligent collaboration between citizens and public services.


2010 Public Services are described as too centralised, too prescriptive, too narrow, too passive, too static, too opaque and too patchy. The commission argues for  public services which engage others to to create better social and economic outcomes - leading to social productivity.

It's well worth a read.

Acknowledged by Minister

Local Government Minister Bob Neill told Local Authorities thinking creatively will help them do more for less at a conference hosted by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) . In his presentation he made reference to the work which we at Breckland and South Holland are doing. It's always pleasing to get acknowledgement. This is what he said ....



" frontline services could be protected as finances get tighter if councils start to rethink procurement, sharing services and being more transparent to get value for money.

The new Government is putting councils and communities back in control of their own destinies by pushing power away from the centre. With their new freedoms councils can be more innovative and radical than ever before about the way they deliver services.

Mr Neill highlighted councils that were already leading the way. Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham Councils are planning to merge their education departments saving a total of £4 million. Already there are 11 shared chiefs in place and twenty other district councils are discussing whether to share their chief executive and senior management teams. South Holland and Breckland district councils are poised to establish the first cross-county shared chief executive post between two authorities that do not share a border.

The Minister stressed councils must work with citizens to decide how to deliver services in a new era of transparency and openness. He pointed to Dartford Council where they held a public poll to decide on whether to keep the weekly rubbish collection. An overwhelming 94.5 per cent voted yes and so the Council developed a plan to share some services with Sevenoaks to cover the cost.

Bob Neill said:

"The most urgent issue facing the country is the need to reduce the deficit, put finances back on a stable footing and ensure economic recovery. To help cope we are transferring more power to councils that will mean more local decisions can be made with greater local flexibility. We are putting councils and communities back in control of their own destinies.

"Many councils are already taking steps to make their own efficiencies through innovative and effective working. I want to see more sharing management, expertise and resources. Incremental changes won't be enough. Councils need to think about how they can radically reconfigure services. I don't for a minute believe that this will be automatically painless. But the sector recognises that there are savings to made to focus resources on the front line through better procurement, greater collaboration and sharing of services.

"There is still waste to be driven out - greater transparency and accountability will help identify this potential. It is vital that we all look at where every penny is spent and that citizens are engaged in making these decisions. This is why we want all spending over £500 published online by January.

"The Chancellor recently met with local government to discuss how we can increase productivity by reducing unnecessary waste and costs on things like reporting to Whitehall and the ring-fencing of grants. We are committed to a phasing out more ring-fenced budgets. We have already cut the centrally-imposed burdens on local government. The Spending Review will drive decentralisation across all areas that fund local government. Departments are considering issues beyond their traditional remits including those that cross administrative boundaries.

"There will be real challenges as we face the future. But there are many things we can do to ensure that frontline services are protected, and that local people are able to hold local government to account. Localism will help local authorities to make the savings necessary to live within the fiscal constraints facing us all free from central government interference. Government's role is in the opening up of public services so they can be locally-driven services and meet local needs."

street clutter

"Our streets are losing their English character. We are being overrun by scruffy signs, bossy bollards, patchwork paving and railed off roads wasting taxpayers' money that could be better spent on fixing potholes or keeping council tax down. We need to 'cut the clutter'.

"Too many overly cautious townhall officials are citing safety regulations as the reason for cluttering up our streets with an obstacle course when the truth is very little is dictated by law. Common sense tells us uncluttered streets have a fresher, freer authentic feel, which are safer and easier to maintain."

so says Communities Secretary Eric Pickles who is encouraging Councils to get rid of unnecessary clutter in a bid to make streets tidier and less confusing for motorists and pedestrians. This would be a good time to have a look around your community with a fresh pair of eyes and report any bad examples of the kind referred to by Mr Pickles. 

Understanding Big Society

I came across this article by Adrian Brown on the Institute for Government blog. It makes some interesting points which add to our understanding of the "Big Society"

Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist reportedly said that “anyone who isn’t shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.” And so it is with the Big Society.

Over the past few weeks, the Institute for Government has been hosting a seminar series on Big Society Public Services along with NESTA and the Design Council. The series provided an opportunity to explore what the Big Society means in five different policy areas.

It is fair to say that for each area, from education to criminal justice, the full implications of the Big Society for policy and the management of services are still being worked out. What is already clear is that many of those implications are likely to be profound.

A new relationship

Most people solve most of their problems most of the time without reverting to the state. Families, friends, communities and the marketplace can all help individuals to solve problems with minimal involvement from government.

Even when the government does get involved there is a great deal that can be achieved without the state providing all the funding, assets or people involved in the solution. This switch in emphasis lies at the heart of the Big Society argument and suggests a potentially radical shift in the relationship between citizen and state.

The implication is that individuals and communities must take more responsibility for achieving outcomes that matter to them. They must also be willing to accept a greater share of the risks that were previously held elsewhere.

Big platoons

Central to the Big Society narrative is an enhanced role for civil society including charities, the voluntary sector and social enterprises. Newly formed public sector mutuals would also sit here such as the twelve Pathfinder Mutuals announced earlier this month.

But the romantic view of Burke’s “little platoons” sits uneasily with the demands on such organisations to professionalise and scale-up if they are to successfully work alongside large, private contractors without getting crowded out.

Quantifying social value is difficult, but the Big Society demands that everyone will need to get a lot better at it if we are to make the difficult trade-offs that are likely to be necessary. Add to this, the fact that many of these organisations are predominantly reliant on government money which will inevitably be squeezed over the next few years and the need for radical thinking becomes clear.

No, Minister

Handing greater decision making powers to localities means that central government will need to become a lot more disciplined about how and when it chooses to intervene.

Establishing a clear ‘operating framework’ which outlines the boundaries to local freedom would be a good starting point. In the most devolutionary scenario this could be a very limited set of specifications designed to ensure that minimum standards are met and the appropriate actors are clear on their roles and responsibilities.

Everything else would be for local discretion. Ministers would need to respect this even when decisions are taken locally that they disagree with. Can we expect to see Secretaries of State standing at the dispatch box and saying “that was a matter for the local people” more often?

You’re in charge

With greater devolution must come greater local accountability. Local councillors and local authorities are an obvious place to start but in the future will be supplemented by other elected representatives such as locally elected police and crime commissioners.

Local people will also be engaged directly through mechanisms such as community forums, e-petitions and special interest groups. Choice of provision also has a role to play, and the schools agenda is aiming to put more power in parents’ hands to choose the school that best meets their needs (or to help establish new schools in areas where provision is poor).

Unblinking transparency of performance is the essential ingredient that will give these mechanisms teeth. But people must also be willing to use that information to hold providers, officials, elected representatives and ultimately each other to account. Different communities are likely to require different incentives to adopt this role.

There also needs to be an acceptance that services will not be the same everywhere – the dreaded “postcode lottery” – except in contrast to a lottery you can actually do something to change the outcome.

The Big Society has been criticised by some as unsubstantial. On the contrary, I’d argue that while the full implications are only slowly emerging, each new layer triggers further, often profound questions.

Where will this vision lead? Almost certainly to a radically different role for the state but to quote Bohr again, “prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”