When you work in and around public services, one of the things you get used to is the criticism of public services. There are varied - often opposite - opinions on the merits, success or failure of various public services. Since starting as a Non-Executive Director of a Primary Care Trust I have watched the impact of criticisms on staff working in the sector.
Everybody in the sector recognises the need for improvements and change especially with increasingly tight ‘budgets’. At the same time we have to acknowledge achievement and improvements in our services. The two are not contradictions. It recognises the fact that whilst services have improved, consumer and customer expectations don’t stand still; the market isn’t static and unchanging.
These pressures combine to create the need for constant change in services. They need to be quicker, better, more flexible, innovative... the list goes on. This is the future of public service reform and essentially it boils down to the same pressures that apply to all organisations – public, private or voluntary – how can we deliver higher levels, of higher quality services for less cost? When we’re looking at pubic services, crucially this also involves deciding ‘what should be funded?’. Sometimes ‘no brainer’ decisions, really agonising decisions over priorities with fixed amount of spend.
As well as the customer (the people using the service), we mustn’t lose sight of the people delivering the service. In the public, private and voluntary/faith sector there are amazing people, absolutely dedicated to what they do. How are we motivating and leading – both as practitioners and more broadly as a society – the people who commit themselves to these careers? I am always keen to know how staff respond to press coverage of public services, which increasingly these days tends to focus on areas for improvement. And in ‘political’ debate often results in dialogue around ‘failure’.
Speaking to staff inside and outside my own organisation, it really hacks people off. Often because complex issues are distilled down to overly simple issues for debate. This is inevitable but perhaps a bit more time should be spent on identifying success and learning from them in both ‘press’ and ‘political’ discussions.
As well as health, our education and welfare services come under constant coverage at the moment. The scrutiny and debate is essential but simplification of messages often misses the point. A couple of weeks ago there was press coverage lamenting the failure of New Deal. This is interesting as the UK has the highest employment rate in the G8 and is internationally recognised for both its social welfare best practice and its economic strength.
Have we got issues to tackle in reforming our welfare services? Oh yes! Has the work by thousands of people on New Deal to support people from some of the deprived areas in the UK contributed to the strength of the economy? The simple answer is 'yes'. Would the economic strength of the UK simply have created and allowed these jobs to be filled anyway? Of course not.
When I talk to front line staff in public services – across public organisations, private companies and in voluntary, faith and community suppliers – I come across many thousands of people who work their guts out to help some of the most disadvantaged people in society. They can feel angry and frustrated that their contribution and efforts are undermined. Let's remind ourselves of the people working in public services who passionately believe in helping people.
The pace of public service reform can be ruthless. However, the need for public service reform is significant. My view on this is apolitical. The need is not driven because things are ‘failing’ but because we need to modernise and adapt to a fast changing environment. Some of the older ways we have done things need refreshing. We face new challenges that didn’t exist 10 years ago and these need to be addressed. We must all adapt, respond and make our services relevant to our customers.
As a country, how are we responding to this? On welfare reform Freud poses relevant challenges and his suggestions get cross party support. Leitch does similar on skills and learning. Big questions still need to be asked and responded to in health and social services.
New Deal didn't fail. People who gained support wouldn’t have naturally moved into work. However, many people are coming back through New Deal for the second, third and fourth time now. It has come to the natural end of its course. It did its job, increasing employment rates alongside a whole plethora of other initiatives and in an environment which supported its success.
Now we need something new and fresh for those clients who New deal hasn’t helped yet and for those people who have not had access to support. This requires new ideas and approaches relevant to tackling the labour market in 2008, 2012 and beyond. New Deal was okay for the end of the 20th Century, but we need a new momentum heading into the 21st century. Cross party support for Freud, Leitch and Harker reinforce the UK's willingness to rise to this challenge. We are not complacent, we need to change. But now we're a market leader and so we are charting new territory and can't just import ideas from overseas. A4e intends to play its role in the debate, design and delivery of modern public services in a global market and keep the customer firmly at the centre of our approach.