Joining Up to Improve Public Services1 Four types of joined up government and the problem of accountability, Sue Richards Professor of Public Management, University of Birmingham -

Joining Up to Improve Public Services

REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERALHC 383 Session 2001-2002: 7 December 2001

The National Audit Officescrutinises public spending

on behalf of Parliament.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is an Officer of the

House of Commons. He is the head of theNational Audit Office, which employs some750 staff. He, and the National Audit Office,

are totally independent of Government.He certifies the accounts of all Government

departments and a wide range of other publicsector bodies; and he has statutory authority

to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness

with which departments and other bodieshave used their resources.

Our work saves the taxpayer millions ofpounds every year. At least £8 for every

£1 spent running the Office.

LONDON: The Stationery Office£0.00

Ordered by theHouse of Commons

to be printed on 29 November 2001

Joining Up to Improve Public Services

REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERALHC 383 Session 2001-2002: 7 December 2001

This report has been prepared under Section 6 of theNational Audit Act 1983 for presentation to the Houseof Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act.

John Bourn National Audit OfficeComptroller and Auditor General 26 November 2001

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, isthe head of the National Audit Office, which employssome 750 staff. He, and the National Audit Office, aretotally independent of Government. He certifies theaccounts of all Government departments and a widerange of other public sector bodies; and he has statutoryauthority to report to Parliament on the economy,efficiency and effectiveness with which departments andother bodies have used their resources.

For further information about the National Audit Officeplease contact:

National Audit OfficePress Office157-197 Buckingham Palace RoadVictoriaLondonSW1W 9SP

Tel: 020 7798 7400

Email: [email protected]

The NAO study team comprised Chris Lambert, JulieMcGuinness, David Clark and Tom Ling, NAO researchfellow, under the direction of Michael Whitehouse.

NOP Consumer Ltd ran the focus groups of parents andrough sleepers.

ContentsExecutive summary 1

Achievements so far 3

How joint working can be made more successful 9

Recommendations 12

Annex - Key questions which departments need 14to consider to achieve successful joint working

Part 1

Introduction 17

How joint working is intended to improve 17the delivery of public services

The role of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury 22

How we carried out the examination 26

Part 2

Achievements so far 27

Progress made by five joint working initiatives 28

What those intended to benefit think about 41joint working

How cross-cutting Public Service Agreements are 43promoting joint working

Part 3

What is needed for successful jointworking 47

What needs to be in place to promote 47successful joint working

Designing joined up programmes 51

Appendices

1. Methodology 60

2. Four types of joined up government and 61the problem of accountability - Sue RichardsProfessor of Public Management Universityof Birmingham

3. Rough sleepers 71

4. Early Years Development and Childcare 76Partnerships

5. Sure Start 82

6. Business Link Partnerships 88

7. British Trade International 94

8. International perspectives on joining up 100government

References 103

JOINING UP TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SERVICES

Photography - images kindly supplied by:

Business Link Nottinghamshire -cover, pages 2, 16, 26, 27, and 91

Crown Copyright - cover, pages 16, and 26

Margaret Wilson - pages 5, 34, and 88

The Passage Day Centre and Night Shelter for homeless people - pages 5, 26, 27, 28, 42, and 71

Sure Start Aylesbury Plus - pages 5, 27, 30, 32, 42, 76, and 82

executivesummary


1

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary

Joint working or "joined up" government

Joint working or "joined up" government is the bringing together of a number ofpublic, private and voluntary sector bodies to work across organisational boundariestowards a common goal.

Joint working can take different forms:

Realigning organisational boundariesbringing together the whole or parts of two ormore organisations to create a new organisation.

Formal partnerships - working together by contract, protocol or framework agreement.

Informal partnerships - working together by liaison, consultation or unwritten mutualagreement.

Source: National Audit Office examination of joint working initiatives

1

1 Four types of joined up government and the problem of accountability, Sue RichardsProfessor of Public Management, University of Birmingham - Appendix 2 to this report.

1 Many organisations are involved in delivering public services - for example,support and advice for the elderly is provided by the NHS, the Department forWork and Pensions, local authority social services departments, private sectorproviders of residential care and the voluntary sector. How well suchorganisations work together and co-ordinate their activities can have asignificant impact on the quality of public services.

2 In the past departments have often been concerned exclusively with achievingtheir own specific objectives reflecting responsibilities and funding which theycan directly control. While this can be effective in delivering many of theGovernment's priorities, it can result in departments adopting a too narrow"silo" approach and not considering the wider contribution which they canmake to cross-cutting programmes for groups such as children, the elderly andthe long term unemployed. As Sue Richards, Professor of Public Management,University of Birmingham highlights in her research paper1 which sets out ananalysis of the public policy problems that joined up government is seeking toaddress, many of the most difficult issues faced by society - drug abuse, socialdeprivation, juvenile crime and inner city decline cut across traditionaldepartmental responsibilities. They require a co-ordinated and combinedresponse by departments, local authorities and other bodies in deliveringpublic services.

3 The Government requires public, private and voluntary organisations involvedin delivering public services to work together much more to designprogrammes that are better interconnected and mutually supportive thusincreasing their chances of success and their overall quality (Figure 2). TheModernising Government White Paper (Cm 4310) published in March 1999called for public sector staff to work in partnership across organisationalboundaries to deliver integrated or seamless services. The ModernisingGovernment Action Plan, published July 1999, along with subsequent progressreports, set out a range of initiatives and activities for departments to supportthe objective of joint working.

2

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


4 Departments and their agencies are responsible for achieving more jointworking when appropriate in the policies for which they are responsible. TheCabinet Office and the Treasury are responsible for promoting joint workingand monitoring its achievement. They are doing this through funding newinnovative joint working approaches, training, and disseminating goodpractice, particularly on refocusing services to meet customers' needs. TheOffice of Public Services Reform, established in 2001 and based in the CabinetOffice, will have a key role to play in improving joint working, through thescrutiny of structures, systems, incentives and skills currently in use across thepublic sector.

5 This report assesses the impact of five joint working initiatives in achievingimprovements in public services for three client groups - rough sleepers, pre-school children and small and medium sized businesses (Part 2). Drawing onour fieldwork and research we also highlight a range of good practice likely tosupport successful joint working (Part 3). This good practice is intended to helpdepartments which are considering establishing joint working arrangements.

How joint working can help improve public services2

Source: National Audit Office

Benefits

Taking a wider view so that departments' activities make a contribution to cross-cutting programmes for client groups such as the elderly and children.

Tackling intractable social issues such as drug abuse, rough sleeping, juvenile crime and inner city regeneration by promoting the design of programmes which are better interconnected and mutually supportive thus increasing their chances of success.

Improving delivery for example, by delivering services through "one stop shops", integrated with websites accessible 24 hours a day, and by citizens only having to provide information on a range of issues once and to one location.

Promoting innovation by bringing people together from different backgrounds and experiences.

Improving cost effectiveness of public services by removing overlaps and realising economies of scale.

Joint working between:

! departments

! agencies

! voluntaryorganisations

! private sector

Five initiatives

! Rough Sleepers

! Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships

! Sure Start

! Business Link partnerships

! British Trade International

3

3

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


Achievements so far (Part 2)6 Each of the five initiatives which we examined has in place joint working

arrangements. These range from - establishing a completely new organisationsuch as British Trade International bringing together the responsibilities of twodepartments, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign andCommonwealth Office for international trade promotion and development - toformal contractual partnerships between local authorities, NHS CommunityTrusts and voluntary organisations such as those funded by the Sure Start Unitto improve the health and well-being of children particularly those most inneed, and local business service partnerships established as non-profitcompanies (Figure 4).

7 Some of the initiatives are already achieving tangible benefits (Figure 5). Thenumber of people counted as sleeping rough has reduced by 62 per cent from1850 in June 1998 to 700 in June 2001. At 31 March 2001 the target to providea free part-time nursery place for 4 year olds had been achieved as planned;free part-time places were available for over 50 per cent of 3 year olds; and140,000 new childcare2 places had been created exceeding the target of82,000 by 70 per cent. The productivity and profitability of businesses assistedby Business Link partnerships is higher than those of non-assisted businesses.For the other initiatives - Sure Start and British Trade International - it is too earlyfor there to be any measurable long term benefit although systems are in placeor being established to assess their impact.

8 These early achievements demonstrate good progress in establishing jointworking to improve public services. But getting a wide range of diverseorganisations with different responsibilities to work together is a complexprocess. It requires a willingness on the part of service providers to adopt newways of delivering public services and new management approaches. Notsurprisingly there are a number of risks which require careful management:-

9 Removing barriers to joint working. Not all organisations are sufficientlycommitted to joint working. For example, the Rough Sleepers Unit has foundin some instances when it is not providing direct funding that it can be difficultto influence local authorities and NHS Trusts to treat rough sleepers as apriority. Organisations need incentives to work together because theirestablished practices and procedures can reinforce the primacy of achievingtheir own objectives rather than joining up. A change in culture is also neededso that those involved in joint working recognise that they may have tocompromise and negotiate to ensure that the partnership achieves its goals.

10 Better joint working by departments. Some of the organisations involved inlocal partnerships told us that while joint working was now much better locally,they considered that departments needed to work together more centrally. Thiswas particularly so where there was no dedicated central unit such as Sure Startgiving strategic direction. Cross-cutting Public Service Agreements3 whichinclude joint objectives and targets which several departments shareresponsibility for achieving should promote better co-ordination. To beeffective these agreements will, however, require implementation plansdesigned and delivered by departments working together.

2 Childcare is the provision of a safe environment for children while parents are at work.It does not normally involve any element of teaching. Childcare can be provided bypublic, private and voluntary organisations.

3 Public Service Agreements set out each department's objectives for public services withmeasurable targets for the delivery of the objectives. There are currently four cross-cutting Public Service Agreements covering the Criminal Justice System, Action againstIllegal Drugs, Sure Start and Welfare to Work.

4

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


Client groups and joint working initiatives covered by this report4

Client group Expenditure Key features of joint workingPartners

Rough Sleepers Unitto reduce the numberssleeping rough

£200 million over thethree years April 1999- March 2002


Early YearsDevelopment andChildcarePartnerships toimprove the co-ordination anddelivery of childcareand early educationservices

£300 million in 2000-01 rising to£650 million in 2003-04

Business Linkpartnerships toprovide support forsmall businesses

£81 million in 1999-2000 rising to £499million in 2003-04

£160 million a year

British TradeInternational help allbusinesses to developnew business overseasand improve existingservice

Foreign andCommonwealthOffice

Department of Tradeand Industry

£220 million a year

Pre-school children

There are around 4million children aged0-4 years in the UK

Small and mediumsized businesses

There are 3.7 millionbusinesses in the UK ofwhich almost all havefewer than 250employees

! dedicated central governmentunit with a pooled budget toco-ordinate activity

! outside London, partnersagree a strategy to tacklerough sleeping

! in London, voluntaryagencies work together toprovide support to individuals

! broad partnership ofproviders and otherstakeholders

! work together to assess needin a geographic area and planhow to meet it

! dedicated central governmentunit with a single budget toco-ordinate activity

! multi-agency partnership toplan and deliver services tofamilies in a neighbourhood

! emphasis on co-ordinatedaction and communityinvolvement

! partnership of local businesssupport services

! single point of access forbusinesses

! supported by a new centralgovernment agency, the SmallBusiness Service

! unique governmentpartnership bringing staff fromtwo departments togetherunder unified management

! single point of contact tointegrated support services forexporters

An estimated 10,000people slept rough atsome time during 1998in England, a smallernumber sleep rough forprolonged periods oftime

Rough Sleepers Voluntaryorganisations

Local authorities

Health services

Police

Local authorities

Private nursery andchildcare providers

Voluntary nursery andchildcare providers

Schools

Parents

Community groups

Voluntaryorganisations

Local authorities

Health services

Learning and SkillsCouncils

Local authorities

Chambers ofCommerce

Enterprise Agencies

Initiative

Sure Start to improvethe health and wellbeing of children andtheir families so thatchildren are sufficientlywell developed toflourish when they startschool

5

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


Impact of joint working initiatives and how performance is measured5

How performance is measured Impact Initiative

Rough Sleepers

By a single measure - to reducethe number of people sleepingrough in England by at least twothirds from 1850 to around 600by April 2002.

The number of people countedsleeping rough in England was 700 inJune 2001, a reduction of 62 per centfrom 1850 in June 1998.

Early Years Development andChildcare Partnership

By measuring the number ofnursery places for 3 and 4 yearolds and the number of childcareplaces against the targets, forexample to provide a free parttime nursery place for two thirdsof 3 year olds by March 2002.

At March 2001 all 4 year olds andover half of 3 year olds had a freepart-time nursery education placeand 140,000 new childcare placeshad been created (against a target of82,000).

Sure Start

By a national evaluation andlocal evaluations of achievementby 2004 against four objectivesand linked targets, for exampleto improve the health of youngchildren by reducing the numberof mothers who smoke duringpregnancy by 10 per cent.

It is too soon to measure theimpact of the initiative.

Business Link partnerships

By using a range of informationto assess Business Linkpartnership performanceincluding market penetration,customer satisfaction and impacton customer productivity andprofitability.

Customer satisfaction withservices was 75 per cent in 1997.Survey work in 2001, usingdifferent methodology, suggestssatisfaction levels among thewider small and medium sizedbusiness community may now belower, but more work is neededto provide firm data.

British Trade International

By measuring, for firms receivingassistance, the improvement inbusiness performance ofestablished exporters and newexporters against quantifiedtargets.

Data collection andmeasurement systems are beingdeveloped, first results are notexpected until 2002.


6

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


11 Avoiding exclusion. All the five joint working initiatives had been designed toensure that there is equal access to the services for those intended to benefitfrom them. Often, however, the users of public services have varied needs - forexample, Sure Start local programmes have many families on low incomes withlow levels of education or who do not speak English fluently. To ensure thatthese families are not excluded Sure Start workers visit them in their homes toassess their needs and discuss the support available. The parents of pre-schoolchildren whom we consulted4 welcomed the increase in childcare places. Butparents, especially those on low incomes, often work shifts and weekends andsaid that they also needed high quality, inexpensive childcare outside normalweekday working hours. The Department for Education and Skills has assessedthe needs of all parents, including these groups and is developing proposals tomeet their requirements. These two examples illustrate that those involved indelivering public services need to assess carefully the requirements of clientgroups through consultation and research. In so doing departments should alsoconsider the costs and benefits of different ways of meeting people's needs soas to adopt the most cost effective option.

12 Informing intended beneficiaries of the services available. For joined upservices to be effective those intended to benefit must be aware of the supportavailable to them and how to access it. For example, parents in our focusgroups were less aware that the Early Years Development and ChildcarePartnerships existed and suggested that more should be done to publicise theservices which parents could call upon. Publicising and marketing services tomaximise take up by those intended to benefit is very important.

13 Changing behaviour. Remedying long term social problems often requireschanging people's behaviour particularly in encouraging them to take upservices intended to help them. For example, the Rough Sleepers Unit and itspartners have often had to devote considerable time persuading those living onthe streets to accept the help available. Sustainable changes in behaviour areunlikely to be achieved in the short term; they usually require concentratedeffort over a long period and this has to be taken account of in planning jointworking initiatives.

14 Ensuring benefits are sustainable. Central specialist units such as those for SureStart and Rough Sleepers are increasingly being established to give strategicdirection in tackling social issues. Such units can promote joint working bybringing together staff from a number of departments and other organisations tointegrate policy planning and service delivery both centrally and locally. Whilethese specialist units are playing an important role in achieving more jointworking, their long term success will depend on how well the new methods ofworking which they are promoting are accepted by departments and localagencies and become an integral part of their normal day to day working.

15 Measuring performance. Both those funding joint working initiatives and thoseinvolved in carrying them out need reliable and comprehensive information andperformance targets to assess whether the initiatives are achieving their intendedbenefits and to take action to address shortfalls in performance. Each of the fiveinitiatives have appropriate performance targets and systems for measuring theirachievement as well as having procedures for assessing satisfaction with theservices provided. Some of the targets are easily understood but others are moredifficult to measure for example, improvements in the well-being of children andincreases in the profitability of small businesses.

HOW JOINT WORKINGINITIATIVES ASSESS CLIENTSATISFACTION

! Customer surveys and consultation exercisesBusiness Link partnerships,British Trade Inter-national andRough Sleepers Unit

! National and local evaluationsSure Start

! Feedback from outreach workersRough Sleepers Unit

4 We held 6 focus groups each consisting of between 7 and 10 parents of pre-schoolchildren. Separate groups of parents of pre-school children were held for Sure Start andEarly Years Development and Childcare Partnerships.

7

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


16 Many of the initiatives rely on data collected on their behalf by partners orcontractors and there is a need to ensure that such information is reliable andnot at risk of misinterpretation. If performance targets are too narrowly definedthey can have a perverse effect. For example, a school seeking to meet itstargets and improve its position on a league table of school performance maydecide to expel a difficult pupil who may ultimately become a charge on thesocial security budget if she or he is ill equipped for employment.5

17 Assessing cost effectiveness. Joint working may result in additional costs.Conversely by working together organisations can improve efficiency byremoving overlaps and duplication in service delivery. The costs of joint workinghave to be considered in terms of sustainable improvements in public services.Evaluating the effectiveness of expenditure is difficult because of the manydifferent organisations involved, who produce a broad range of impacts atdifferent times, and the need to assess whether the impact is lasting. Forexample, constructing supported housing for rough sleepers takes longer to havean impact than an alcohol detoxification treatment lasting six months or a year.

18 Without carrying out a full evaluation, it is possible to make some assessmentof the cost effectiveness of joint working. For example with Early YearsDevelopment and Childcare Partnerships, the average cost of providing achildcare is place £650, which compares with the average cost of £640 forproviding an out of school childcare place under the previous arrangements.The Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships ensure there areplaces for children of all ages rather than solely for those of school age as withthe previous initiative. Places for pre-school children and those with specialeducational needs are more expensive to provide because the children needmore support from staff and, in some instances, more specialised equipment.Conversely, before the establishment of the Rough Sleepers Unit the averagecost of reducing the number of people counted sleeping rough by one wasapproximately £120,000 per person. The joint working initiative has decreasedcosts - the average cost of reducing rough sleeping is now about £70,000 perperson (costs are in real terms).6 This decrease suggests that the provision ofmore integrated services including health and social support is more costeffective in helping rough sleepers and preventing rough sleeping than theprevious arrangements.

19 As yet because many of the joint working initiatives have not been longestablished there have been very few independent evaluations of their costeffectiveness. There is now a need for more detailed assessments of the costeffectiveness of different forms of joint working including their productivity; thedifference which they make in terms of sustainable improvements in the qualityof public services; and the contribution made by the different members of thejoint working arrangement.

5 Measuring the Performance of Government Departments, HC 301, Session 2000-01,22 March 2001, paragraphs 5 and 11 explain the potential for perverse behaviours inresponse to targets. Also see the report 'Truancy and Social Exclusion', Social ExclusionUnit, Cm 3957, May 1998'.

6 Comparing the reduction in rough sleepers between 1998 and 1999 and between 1999and 2001 with the expenditure on rough sleeping over these years. The difference inthe number of people counted sleeping rough between two points in time reflects thechange in the balance between those who have left the streets, those who move in andout of accommodation and the number of new people coming onto the streets. It doesnot measure the number of people housed in the period.

8

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


20 Promoting accountability. There are two aspects to accountability for publicexpenditure: (i) having reliable mechanisms for reporting expenditure andperformance to those funding an initiative and ultimately to Parliament; and (ii)citizens having a means of redress where the quality of public services is poor.Joint working will involve a number of organisations possibly receiving fundsfrom a number of different sources. Some of the organisations may be small andhave limited experience of working in the public sector. For each joint workinginitiative the roles and responsibilities of partners, how their performance is to bemeasured and reported, and the accounting and audit arrangements to ensurepropriety over public expenditure all need to be clearly set out and understood.

21 In addition, there should be well publicised ways for those intended to benefitfrom joint working initiatives to raise concerns if they are not satisfied with theservices which they receive and for these concerns to be given seriousconsideration. For example with Sure Start, local partnerships agree whichpartner will be responsible for administering funding and producing accountsand agree also who is to be the lead partner to report performance to the SureStart Unit. Each service provider operates their own complaints procedures asunder partnership arrangements legal responsibility for quality of serviceremains with the organisation which provides the service.

22 For small community groups and voluntary organisations keeping the necessaryrecords of expenditure and data on performance which are essential foraccountability can be a considerable administrative and costly burden. Indesigning joint working initiatives departments need to consider how reportingand other associated procedures can be streamlined. In particular they shouldlook for ways to integrate different reporting requirements and shareinformation so that organisations only have to provide information in oneformat and to one location.

9

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


How joint working can be made more successful(Part 3)

Five requirements of joint working

23 Our examination identified five requirements which as a minimum are neededto promote successful joint working.

Goals - working towards clearly defined, mutually valued, shared goals

if objectives are unclear or not shared, partners may work towards different,incompatible goals and fail to achieve desired outcomes.

Progress measurement - evaluating progress towards achieving the desired goaland taking remedial action when necessary

joined up initiatives are no different from other activities in that theirprogress must be monitored and remedial action taken when performanceis less than satisfactory.

Resources - ensuring that sufficient and appropriate resources are available

without sufficient resources including appropriate skills, a joint workinginitiative will not be capable of being sustained in the longer term; andvalue for money and propriety may be put at risk.

Leadership - directing the team and the initiative towards the goal

joined up initiatives can be difficult to keep on track because of theadditional complexity arising from the number of players involved. Goodleadership is important as part of the "glue" to hold the initiative together.

Working well together - to achieve a shared responsibility

if organisations do not establish good working relationships, based on mutualsupport and trust, acknowledging their differences and sharing informationopenly, then joint working will fail and improvements in public services willnot be achieved.

12

3

4

5

10

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


This requires determiningwhether an existingpartnership or organisationcould take on a new role, andif not which organisationsneed to be part of the jointworking arrangement.Departments need to balanceinvolving all organisations andcommunity groups who havean interest with avoiding thepractical difficulties oforganising and motivatinglarge numbers of partners.There is no "one size fits" allfor joint working. It shouldreflect the best way ofdelivering a service. SomeSure Start partnerships arecompanies limited byguarantee to enable them tocontract for services; othershave decided not toincorporate to give themgreater flexibility. Thegeographical boundaries ofpartnerships should becoterminous with existingadministrative boundarieswhenever possible and newjoint working initiativesshould link effectively withexisting initiatives both locallyand within centralgovernment.

Who needs to be involved

Key stages in designing joint working arrangements

24 The long term success of joint working initiatives depends ultimately on how well they aredesigned. Each of the above five requirements needs careful consideration in designing jointworking arrangements, particularly in deciding:

Incentives can take differentforms, strong leadership canbe an important incentiveparticularly if this convincesparticipants of the highpriority and commitmentunderpinning the jointworking. The better the fitbetween the objectives of theinitiative and those of partnerorganisations the easier it isto join up. Additional fundscan be a powerful incentiveto work together as canallowing partnerships greaterflexibility in the use orresources. For example, KentCounty Council hascommitted itself to getting allthe different agencies in thecounty to work together tomeet national targets toreduce social deprivation. If itachieves the targets theCouncil will receive aGovernment PerformanceReward Grant of £26 millionin addition to having moreflexibility over its spending.

What incentives are needed toreinforce joint working

Careful consideration needs tobe given to how to build anddevelop the capacity of localcommunity groups, and otherorganisations with limitedexperience of working inpartnership, to join up andwork together effectively. Thiscan be done by providing (i)advice and guidance; (ii)expert assistance availablelocally - for example BritishTrade International hasregional directors whose roleis to support and manage thenetwork of export advisers inBusiness Link partnerships;and (iii) learning networksincluding conferences,seminars, training events andlocal networking meetings -for example, the Sure StartUnit hosts a forum forquestions and answers frompartnerships on its website toshare learning and goodpractice between programmes.

What support is needed toimprove the capacity oforganisations to work together

11

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


Consideration needs to begiven to whether it isimportant for the jointworking arrangement to haveflexibility in the way money isused or whether tightercontrol by the central unit ordepartment responsible forthe policy is needed to targetspending on nationalpriorities. In general it isbetter for joint working forthe partnership to havecontrol over its funds. Pooledbudgets allow greaterflexibility, make it easier forpartnerships to designsolutions that fit localcircumstances and encouragepartnerships to develop astrategic approach. Forexample, the Rough SleepersUnit has brought togetherfunding previouslyadministered by severaldifferent governmentdepartments and agencies.This has enabled the Unit tohave greater flexibility inpursuing its strategy to reducerough sleeping. In this case,the freedom to directspending is also buttressed bya specific target to reducerough sleeping by two thirdsover three years.

How to provide funding inways which promote jointworking

Some partnerships are set upto achieve a defined goalwithin a set period of time andothers are established toprovide a continuous role andhave no finite lifetime. Againthere is no single approachwhich is appropriate for all.When designing an initiative,consideration needs to begiven to which form is themost appropriate. For thosewith a finite lifetime the exitstrategy should be designed toensure that the outcome of theinitiative is sustained. Thosewithout finite lives willdevelop and evolve their waysof working and it is importantthat the partnerships aremonitored to ensure that theirwork continues to have apurpose and value. Thepartnerships should be re-evaluated periodically, whichmay point to new objectivesand incentives, to areorganisation and relaunch,or that the joint working is nolonger necessary. For examplethe Rough Sleepers Unit isplanning a succession strategydesigned to ensure that thereduction in numbers of roughsleepers is sustained when theUnit is wound up. TheBusiness Link partnerships arean example of where theSmall Business Service hastaken the opportunity ofreorganising and relaunchingan existing initiative toimprove quality of service.

How long should joint workinglast

Accountability arrangementsmay differ depending on thenature of the joint workingbut as a minimum theyshould include:! Clear definition of roles

and responsibilities;! Unambiguous targets and

performance measures;! Clear statement of those

intended to benefit fromthe initiative;

! Reliable and regularperformance information;

! Clear understanding of whois responsible for takingremedial action if needed;

! Audited financialstatements; and

! Periodic independentevaluations

At the same time departmentsshould seek to minimise theadministrative burden onsmall organisations. Joined upprogrammes may also haveimplications for departmentalstructures. Programmesdesigned around clientgroups often cut acrossexisting policy responsibilitiesand departments shouldconsider whether their ownorganisational structures areappropriate to support theinitiative at an early stage. Forexample, policy responsibilityfor nursery education andchildcare in the Departmentfor Education and Skills hasbeen brought together withinone unit. The Unit hasspecialist partnership advisersfrom local government,located in GovernmentOffices for the Regions.

What accountability andregulatory framework will bestsupport joint working

Recommendations

12

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


25 The Modernising Government White Paper, together withthe successive reports by the Cabinet Office and theTreasury, set out ways in which joint working can improveservice delivery. To reinforce these messages and to realisethe potential to improve public services by deliveringthem in a joined up way whilst securing value for money,we recommend:

For the Cabinet Office

1 Improve the dissemination of good practice on jointworking. The Cabinet Office have carried outconsiderable research into good practice in jointworking and issued guidance on refocusing services tomeet customers' needs. Many departments have alsoproduced guidance based on their own experience ofjoint working. Most of this guidance has, however, beenprepared by departments independently. To prevent thereinventing and rediscovery of similar lessons the timeis now right for the Cabinet Office to evaluate existingguidance, and bring the key lessons together in aconcise but comprehensive set of guidance for all thoseinvolved, or likely to become involved, in joint working.This could usefully include a self assessment tool tohelp partnerships evaluate how well their approach tojoint working reflects good practice.

The Cabinet Office should also promote their websiteas a central source of advice and good practice withlinks to proven exemplar practice elsewhere whichorganisations can draw upon.

2 Assess the benefits and disadvantages of differentforms of joint working and the circumstances whenthey are most appropriate. Joint working is taking avariety of different forms - from establishing neworganisations such as British Trade Internationalbringing together the responsibilities of twodepartments to having a dedicated single unit such asthe Rough Sleepers Unit to give strategic direction andpriority to tackling important social issues. Each ofthese forms of joint working have associated costs andbenefits and their success in improving public servicesand remedying social and economic issues willdepend on how well they are suited to thecircumstances they have to deal with. The costeffectiveness of the different forms of joint working,and when they are likely to be most appropriate,needs to be carefully evaluated so that criteria can beproduced to help departments decide which model toadopt.

For the Treasury

3 Disseminate the lessons learned from introducingcross-cutting Public Service Agreements todepartments. Cross-cutting Public Service Agreementshave considerable potential to improve joint workingbetween departments. They need, however, to bereinforced by carefully thought through anddeveloped implementation plans designed anddelivered by departments working together andworking with local authorities and other bodiesinvolved in delivering public services. Drawing on thework that was carried out as part of the 1998 and 2000Spending Reviews the lessons learned fromdeveloping and implementing cross-cutting PublicService Agreements need to be evaluated anddisseminated. This should cover how to set and securecommitment to shared goals, and how to developreliable performance measurement systems for sharedresponsibilities.

For Departments

26 Departments should ensure that their procedures andmanagement approaches support joint working by:

4 Identifying clearly when joint working is needed.Departments need to consult widely with clientgroups and other departments and organisationsdelivering services to identify when there is a need forjoint working. For example, joint working may beneeded to:

! address policy objectives or improve services thatcut across existing departmental boundaries;

! provide a single point of service to clients; whetherby a case worker as the first point for assessing theneed for and securing access to a range of supportservices such as health, counselling, housing andskills training; call centre; or as web-basedservices; and

! improve value for money in delivering services, byreducing duplication, streamlining processes andrealising efficiency gains.

13

exec

utiv

e su

mm

ary


5 Determining the most appropriate form of jointworking. Working in partnership has costs as well asbenefits and departments should evaluate the differentoptions for joint working, the risks associated with eachoption and how best to manage them. Criteria fordetermining the most appropriate form of joint workingshould include - (i) the extent to which it is likely to meetcustomers needs and thereby promote maximum takeup by those intended to benefit and avoid any groups ofpeople being excluded; (ii) how easy it will be forcitizens to access the service in a seamless way and withleast inconvenience; (iii) how well the proposedarrangement is likely to achieve sustainable benefits forexample, by ensuring that support services are fullyintegrated within the joint working; and (iv) the relativecosts and likely benefits of the joint working initiative.Departments also need to ensure that joint workinglocally is supported and reinforced by effective co-ordination between departments and their agencies.

6 Providing appropriate support for joint working. Jointworking remains a relatively new concept for manyorganisations. Smaller bodies particularly those basedin communities often need considerable support to helpdevelop their capacity and skills to work effectivelywith other organisations. Staff in departments andagencies also have to develop their skills to change theirstyle of working. In designing joint working initiativesdepartments should assess their own capacity for jointworking and that of the other organisations that need tocome together and allocate sufficient time andresources to develop the skills and joint workingcapacity of all those involved.

7 Establishing reliable accountability arrangements. Howorganisations participating in joint working have toaccount for how they use public money and reportperformance achieved should be clearly defined andagreed by all parties involved in the initiative from theoutset. Departments should also monitor progress inachieving the intended benefits of joint working andinvestigate the reasons for variations in achievement soas to raise the performance of partnerships that are lesssuccessful. There should also be easy to access andwidely understood ways for the users to express theirconcerns when they are not satisfied with the servicesprovided by the joint working initiative. Where jointworking fails to produce an appreciable improvement inpublic services departments need to consider carefullythe justification for continuing with the initiative.

27 There is no single model for joint working and departmentsneed to consider the best arrangements depending oncircumstances and the specific needs of the client groupwhich the joined up service is intended to help andsupport. The Annex to this Executive Summary sets outsome key questions which departments should consider indesigning joint working initiatives.

28 In addition, the following National Audit Office reportsinclude a range of other good practice which is alsorelevant for joint working:

! Supporting innovation: managing risk in governmentdepartments (HC 864, 1999-2000) August 2000;

! Measuring the Performance of GovernmentDepartments (HC 301, 2000-01) March 2001;

! Modern Policy-Making: Ensuring Policies Deliver Valuefor Money (HC 289, Session 2001-02) November 2001;and

! Better Regulation: Making Good Use of RegulatoryImpact Assessments (HC 329 Session 2001-02)November 2001.

14

anne

x

Key questions which departments need to considerto achieve successful joint workingAnnex


Have departments identified how the client group is expected to benefit from joined up working,weighed the costs and benefits of taking a joined up approach and the risks associated with eachoption for achieving the policy goals?

For example, departments may wish to pursue joined up working because they have identified thatthis is more likely to achieve policy goals or is necessary to achieve greater efficiency in the deliveryof services. In other cases, however, joined up working may not be necessary to achieve the goalsand may add to the cost of service delivery.

Have departments identified the possible range of joint working options and assessed the advantages,disadvantages and risks of each?

For example, departments should consider whether an existing partnership could take on the newpolicy goal, look at a range of organisational forms drawing on experience from elsewhere andconsider how to create a good fit with other initiatives to promote synergies between programmes ata local level.

Have departments assessed what incentives are needed to secure commitment from partnerorganisations to the joint working?

For example, partner organisations may need incentives to commit their limited resources to joinedup initiatives, such as financial incentives, flexibility over spending decisions or other means to raisethe priority of the initiative.

Are the goals of the initiative clearly defined and shared by the intended partners?

For example, partner organisations have their own sets of objectives; departments need to ensure thatthere is overlap between partners' objectives and the policy objectives for joint working initiatives.Departments should ensure that the goals of the initiative are clear and that they can manage anyconflict between partners' own objectives and the goals of the joint working.

Have departments established systems for measuring performance which reinforce effective jointworking towards the objectives?

For example, the performance measures put in place should provide regular feedback to partners,managers and departments on progress towards achieving the goals of the joined up working.

Does the way in which the initiative is funded support or impede joined up working?

For example, departments should assess the advantages and disadvantages of pooling funding for thejoined up working, try to minimise the number of funding streams partnerships have to deal with andassess whether additional resources are needed to support local partnerships.

Do departments' administrative systems place unnecessary burdens on local organisations,especially smaller ones; can systems be made simpler and more efficient?

For example, departments should assess the scope for reducing the burden of administration byworking with other funders and regulators on joint systems and streamlining their own procedures.

Have departments allowed for the time needed to set up a new initiative and for new partnerships toform and start working together effectively?

For example, it may take time for a new partnership to establish itself to the position where it cansubmit a well-considered bid for funding to the department. It also takes time to employ staff and findpremises from which the service can be delivered. Departments need to use their experience frompast initiatives to plan realistically, being aware that decision-making in joint working initiatives maybe slow because of the need, for example, to consult with the community and secure commitmentand agreement from a range of organisations to a course of action.

decide whether joined up working is necessary

design the most appropriate form of joint working

provide incentives for joint working

ensure that partner organisations share the

policy objective

establish appropriate performance measurement

systems

provide funding in ways which support joined

up working

minimise the burden ofadministration on

departments and localpartnerships

set realistic timescales

15

anne

x


Joining up with other partners presents those who design, implement and deliver public services with different challenges to workingthrough single organisations. Our work indicates that there is no single method of joining up that is appropriate in all cases, eachinitiative must take into account a range of factors to maximise the chances of delivering successful joined up services. To improvethe likelihood of joined up initiatives achieving what is intended, departments may wish to consider how to:

Have departments recognised the importance of leadership in promoting successful joint workingand taken steps to build this requirement into the design of the initiative?

For example, good leadership, through a Chairperson or lead manager, can help secure the co-operation of partners and other stakeholders. Leadership is also important to maintain a sense ofdirection and enthusiasm and to encourage compromise, where necessary, between partners.Departments should promote and support good leadership of joint working arrangements.

Have departments considered the skills needed to implement the joint working and whether theyneed to take steps to increase the pool of talent available?

For example, partnerships have found that they need staff who have the ability to think innovativelyand flexibly, understand the different cultures and values of the partner organisations and who areable to work collectively and negotiate around difficulties. In addition, many initiatives draw onspecialist professional skills which are in short supply. Departments need to consider where the skillsare to come from and whether it will be necessary to develop training schemes to increase the skillsavailable and mitigate the possible impact on other services of drawing talent away to joint workinginitiatives.

Do new partnerships have the information they need to carry out their functions?

For example, individuals invovled in joint working arrangements may be inexperienced at workingin partnership and need advice and guidance on a number of different aspects of joint working.Departments should consider how to encourage partner organisations and individuals to understandtheir role, improve their skills, learn how to work together well and share lessons about what works.

Have departments set out when they will review whether the joint working is still needed, or whetherit requires new goals or incentives?

For example, a partnership's continuing role may be affected by external pressures such as changesin its client group, or the law of diminishing returns may make its continuing efforts less costeffective. An evaluation of the joint working may point to the need to reorganise or revitalise the jointworking or to draw it to a close.

Have departments set out how clients who have a complaint about the services delivered throughjoint working can seek redress via a complaints procedure or ombudsman?

For example, ensuring that partnerships are required to have a local complaints procedure and thatthe partnerships and initiatives will be covered by an ombudsman, either by the ParliamentaryOmbudsman or by the Local Government Ombudsmen.

Have departments set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of partners, how performance is to bemeasured and reported and the accounting and audit arrangements for public expenditure?

For example, those organisations receiving funds to participate in a joint working initiative need toknow what their responsibilities are for the stewardship of public funds including propriety. If this isnot understood and reliable reporting arrangements in place there is a risk that public money maynot be used for its intended purpose and intended benefits may not be achieved.

encourage good leadership

enable those implementingthe initiative to draw on theright skills

provide appropriateguidance and advice

establish an appropriatetime in the future toevaluate the continuingneed for the joint working

ensure that there are clearlines of redress for citizens

ensure that there is a clearaccountability framework

Part 1 Introduction

17

part

one

1.1 Many of the services which citizens rely on the publicsector to provide are the responsibility of more than onedepartment or agency. Responsibility for thedevelopment and well-being of children for example, isshared by many organisations (Figure 6). How well suchorganisations and their staff work together to deliverservices in a joined up and co-ordinated way, shareexperience, and learn lessons are central to the provisionof public services which meet the needs of their clientgroups and deliver value for money.

1.2 This part of the report of the report covers:

i) How joint working is intended to improve thedelivery of public services. The section sets out thecontext for joint working including the problems itcan solve and the forms it can take;

ii) The Cabinet Office's and Treasury's role in promotingjoint working and their progress on key initiatives toimprove and increase joint working; and

iii) How we carried out the examination and the casestudies of joint working we examined.

How joint working is intended toimprove the delivery of publicservices1.3 If those involved in the delivery of public services do not

work together the consequences can be serious.7 Theimpact of a service such as support for the elderly canbe reduced if its various components - social care,social housing, health prevention and support, andpensions advice are not co-ordinated, are delivered late,or unintentionally work against one another. Citizenscan be inconvenienced if they have to visit a number ofdifferent geographically dispersed local offices forcomplementary public services rather than being able toaccess them from a single co-ordinated delivery point.Value for money can also be put at risk if services areduplicated, economies of scale made possible by jointworking are not realised, or if a critical element ofservice delivery is under resourced or poorly planned.

Better public services require service providers to work together6

Education Policy

Department for Education and Skills indeveloping educational policy

Support and Development

Voluntary sector providing support andpromoting child development

Protection and Well-being

Local Social Services Departments inproviding child support and protection

Pre-School Care

Private and voluntary nursery providers andpublic sector nursery education providers

Primary and Secondary Education

Local Education Authorities in managing theprovision of educational resources -schools, equipment, and books

Teaching

Teaching profession in delivering highquality teaching

Healthcare

NHS in providing child healthcare

CHILDREN'S

DEVELOPMENT

AND WELL-BEING

7 Four types of joined up government and the problem of accountability, Sue Richards, Professor of Public Management, University of Birmingham -Appendix 2 to this report.

Arts and Sports

Government funded organisationssupporting events for children



18

part

one


1.4 Joint working is increasingly recognised by governmentsaround the world as having considerable potential todeliver better public services. A recent survey of joinedup government in Europe cited over 100 case studyexamples from 11 countries.8 Figure 7 shows examplesof joined up initiatives in other countries providingservices to the client groups examined by this report.

1.5 Delivering high quality public services is becoming morecomplex. In order to attract and retain customers manycommercial organisations put considerable effort intoproviding higher quality services and citizens expectsimilar improvements in the quality of public services.But better quality can be expensive and departments haveto balance improvements in quality with achieving valuefor money. Technological advances are making it possibleto deliver a range of public services electronically in waysand at times more convenient to citizens. At the sametime departments are having to develop and implementsolutions to a number of difficult social issues such aslong term drug abuse, rough sleepers, juvenile crime andhow to regenerate inner cities which have experiencedlong periods of urban decline. Better co-ordination andjoint working between organisations involved in publicservice delivery is considered by the Government to haveconsiderable potential to improve public services by:

! Taking a wider view Departments have historicallybeen concerned with achieving their own objectivesreflecting responsibilities and funding which theycan directly control. This narrow "silo" approach canmean that departments give insufficient attention tothe wider impact which their activities can have onservice delivery. Joint working should makedepartments consider the wider contribution whichtheir activities can make to cross-cutting

programmes for client groups such as children, theelderly, the long term unemployed and smallbusinesses.

! Tackling intractable social issues Despite a range ofpolicies and programmes some long term socialissues prove difficult to resolve or alleviate. This maybe partly explained by departments adopting apiecemeal approach for example, having a range ofactions such as training, counselling, advice, workexperience, financial support, incentives whichbecause they are unco-ordinated their individualimpacts are reduced. Alternatively, departments maydeal with the symptoms of the problem rather thanits cause for example, providing training to developskills of the unemployed when there is no incentivefor them to take up the training. Joint working shouldpromote the design of programmes which are betterinterconnected and mutually supportive thusincreasing their chances of success.

! Improving delivery Joint working can improve theaccessibility of public services, and the speed withwhich they are delivered. For example, by deliveringservices through "one stop shops"; integratedwebsites accessible 24 hours a day; and by citizensonly having to provide information on a range ofissues once and to one location.

! Promoting innovation By bringing together peoplefrom different backgrounds with a wide range ofskills and experience, and who are likely to havedifferent views on what is needed to improveservices, can help promote a culture of challengewhich increases the chances of new thinking andinnovation.

! Improving cost effectiveness Joint working shouldremove overlaps in the delivery of services, helpdrive out waste and inefficiency in interconnectedprocesses, enable organisations to harness theircollective purchasing power, and realise economiesof scale.

1.6 Joint working can be appropriate at any or all of thestages of policy development - designing publicservices, implementing them and reviewing theireffectiveness (Figure 8). Joint working can also takedifferent forms ranging from informal relationships withpartners having considerable discretion to morestructured approaches with targets, milestones andclearly defined methods of working. Alternatively anumber of organisations can be brought together orrealigned in a new single organisation (Figure 9).

8 Hagen and Jubicek - One-Stop-Government in Europe, University of Bremen

The Government has set the target that by 2005 100 per cent of public services will be

available electronically.

Source: Modernising Government White Paper 1999

Examples of joined up initiatives in other countries7

Homelessness

Canada's federal government funds community partnershipsto plan and implement comprehensive local strategies toreduce and prevent homelessness

Childcare

In the USA, four federal government agencies jointly fund theNational Child Care Information Center a web-basedresource providing information on childcare servicesthroughout the country

Small businesses

Spain has brought together three levels of government in anetwork of one stop shops where citizens can findinformation and start the administrative procedures forlaunching a business

Child development

New Zealand's Family Start programme provides high riskfamilies with a key worker to teach parenting skills and linkthe family in to health, education and social services andlocal community groups


19

part

one

Joint working may be needed at any stage in the design and delivery of public services8

Understanding the problem or issue, designing the policy and deciding whether joined up working is necessary

PublicServiceDelivery

Designing a programme jointly; or identifying partners needed to work together, and deciding on the best form of joint working, the funding needed and how performance will be assessed

Working in partnership to deliver the programme or service

! Evaluating achievement

! Accounting for performance

! Learning lessons


1 2

4 3


Joint working can take different forms9


To bring together functions with the same objectives in one organisationFor example in 1996 the Environment Agency was created to bring together waste, water and pollution inspectorate staff to deliver integrated environmental management

To bring organisations together to work towards mutually agreed goalsFor example Sure Start partnerships agree a plan setting out shared targets and what each partner should do to meet them

To collaborate on particular issuesFor example local authorities work with tenant groups to encourage tenant participation in the management of council estates

Realignment of organisational boundariesBringing together the whole or parts of two or more organisations to create a new organisation

Formal partnershipOrganisations agree rules for working together, for example by contract, protocol or framework agreement

Informal partnershipOrganisations work together by liaison, consultation or unwritten mutual agreement

20

part

one


1.7 Whatever the form of joint working there are risks whichneed to be managed. Those involved in partnershipshave to work in new ways and this requires changes inbehaviour. Working in partnership requires balancingmultiple goals, looking beyond one's ownorganisational boundaries to understand others'perspectives and working cultures and a willingness tocollaborate and compromise. If this does not happen thesuccess of joint working can be undermined. A diverserange of public, private and voluntary organisations arereceiving public money to finance their contribution to

joint working arrangements. There needs to beappropriate mechanisms to account for how this moneyis used particularly in reporting what it achieves and thatit is used for its intended purpose. Balance is needed,however, so that accountability arrangements do notbecome such an administrative burden that they stifleinitiative. Previous reports by the Committee of PublicAccounts and the National Audit Office havehighlighted some of the risks with joint working whichrequire careful management (Figure 10).

Risks which if not given sufficient attention can result in joint working not being successful10

Risks to joint working Examples

Clearly defined sharedgoal(s) for the initiative

! If partners work to different goalsand fail to manage the differencesthen they may fail to achievedesired outcomes.

The Department of Social Security and Post Office Counters Ltdhad different objectives for the Benefits Payment Card project.Although there was an agreement between the two parties onhow this would be dealt with, this did not prevent later disputes.This was one of a number of inter-related factors and hasresulted in the cancellation of the project. (The Cancellation ofthe Benefits Payment Card project, HC 857 1999-00)

Completion of the new British Library was hampered by the lackof shared objectives between the then Department of Heritageand the British Library. (Progress in completing the new BritishLibrary, HC 362 1995-96)

Sufficient and appropriateresources

! If information on client groups isnot accessible to the variousagencies involved in deliveringservices then delays may occur inprocessing applications, claims orcustomer enquiries.

Most parole clerks have some difficulty in obtaining parolereports from the police, the courts, and the Probation Service.The problems with police and court reports illustrate the needfor criminal justice organisations to share appropriateinformation, for example on the nature of a prisoner's offences.Otherwise organisations at the end of the chain have to carryout their responsibilities without important information. (Parole,HC 456 1999-00)

! If funding is not pooled or co-ordinated there may beinefficiency and delay.

As a result of a lack of allocated resources, the British AntarcticSurvey's pre-contract work sometimes overlapped with detaileddesign or began very close to the start of detailed design afterbeing abandoned at an earlier stage. This greatly limited thevalue of the pre-contract work carried out and it meant therewas not enough time available for the lessons of the pre-contract work to be evaluated and fed into the formulation ofthe detailed design contracts. (The British Antarctic Survey -management of major capital projects and scientificprogrammes, HC 572 1992-93)

! If there is not enough funding,this may delay progress inimplementing an initiative.

The system for assessing and paying claims for incapacity anddisability benefits depends on the efficient processing byBenefits Agency offices together with advice from doctors andhospital consultants, and outsourced service providers.Bottlenecks occur, however, which result in delays in processingsome referrals for examination, for example some of the BenefitsAgency's offices defer referrals when they have insufficientfunds. (The Medical Assessment of Incapacity and DisabilityBenefits, HC 280 2000-01)

! If there are not enough peoplewith the right skills then theinitiative or project may notachieve its objectives.

The New Millennium Experience company lacked senior staffwith experience of running a large visitor attraction. In view ofthe operational difficulties being experienced in the early daysfollowing the opening of the Dome, the company replaced thethen Chief Executive with some one who had most recentlyworked at Euro Disney as a Vice-President. (The MillenniumDome, HC 936 1999-00)

21

part

one


Performance measurement ! If there is a failure to take accountof any variations in results, thismay limit progress in achieving thedesired outcome.

Measuring outcomes of hip replacement is important todetermine the success of the operation and the prosthesis. Fewerthan half of consultants measured outcomes and even fewer didso regularly. (Hip replacements: Getting it right first time,HC 417 1999-00)

Leadership ! If there is unclear leadership, theproject could founder and fail tomeet its objectives

The Home Office's programme management team responsible forimplementing the National Probation Service Information SystemsStrategy suffered from a lack of continuity in its leadership andwas not fully resourced to deal with the scale of issues facing it.In its first seven years, for example, the programme team hadseven different programme directors. This was one of the factorscontributing to the project being delayed. (The Implementation ofthe National Probation Service Information Systems Strategy,HC 401 2000-01)

Clear accountability forservices

! If partners responsibilities are notclear Parliament and the publicmay not know who to hold toaccount for the success or failureof the partnership.

The administrative arrangements for the provision of flooddefences are highly complex. In reviewing the lessons learnedfrom flooding in late 2000, the Environment Agency and theMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should considerwhether the division of responsibility for provision of flooddefences and the operation and permissive nature of the powersincreased the risks of suffering flood damage for some citizens.(Inland Flood Defence, HC 299 2000-2001)

! If Parliament is not able to identifytotal expenditure and outcomesachieved by the joint initiativesthen Parliament cannot takeassurance that taxpayers' moneyhas been well spent.

Some Education Action Zones were spending large sums of publicmoney before they had sound financial controls in place.(Education Action Zones: Meeting the Challenge - The LessonsIdentified From Auditing the First 25 Zones, HC 130 2000-01)

English Partnerships relied on estimates when reporting itsachievements in its annual reports between 1994-95 and 1997-98. These estimates were based on the outputs that mightbe expected from each £1 million spent, drawing on experiencefrom previous programmes and projects. The figures werereported as 'estimates' in the Agency's annual reports althoughthe basis of the calculation and the uncertainties associated withthe reported figures were not disclosed or explained.(Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:English Partnerships: Assisting Local Regeneration, HC 6421998-99)

! If it is not clear which organisationis responsible for service qualitythen clients may be unable toobtain redress for poor services.

Following rail privatisation in 1993, the division of responsibilitiesbetween the two supervisory bodies, the Office of the RailRegulator and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, was notclear cut. In 1997 a review of rail regulation concluded that therewas confusion about the role of the two regulatory bodies,especially in relation to passengers' rights. (Action to improvepassenger rail services, HC 842 1999-2000)

Risks which if not given sufficient attention can result in joint working not being successful (Continued)10

Risks to joint working Examples

Working together well ! If not all those in the partnershipare committed to the aims then thebenefits of joint working may belost. If the partners do not valueeach others' contributions orunderstand each others' culturesand constraints they may not workeffectively together

Underpinning the success of the work to combat fraud is theneed for co-operation between local authorities and centralgovernment agencies, such as the Benefits Agency and theEmployment Service. However many local authorities areunwilling to tackle fraud seriously, some because they believedthere was none in their area. (Progress on measures to combatHousing Benefit fraud, HC 391 1998-99)

22

part

one

The role of the Cabinet Office andthe Treasury 1.8 The Modernising Government White Paper (CM 4310)

published in March 1999 emphasised the importance ofpublic services being more responsive to the needs ofcitizens. To help achieve this the White Paper called forpublic sector staff to work in partnership acrossorganisational boundaries to deliver integrated or seamlessservices. The Modernising Government Action Plan,published July 1999, along with subsequent progressreports set out a range of initiatives and activities by theCabinet Office to support the objective of improving jointworking. Departments and their agencies are responsiblefor achieving more joint working when appropriate in thepolicies for which they are responsible. The Cabinet Officeand the Treasury have a role in promoting joint workingand monitoring its achievement.

The Cabinet Office

1.9 The Cabinet Office has adopted four main approachesto promote joint working in delivering public services(Figure 11).

1.10 Reaching out - The role of Central Government atRegional and Local level, published by the Performanceand Innovation Unit9 of the Cabinet Office in February2000 considered the impact which departments'policies and programmes were having at a regional andlocal level. The report concluded that:

! A central and co-ordinated overview of the regionalimpact of departments' policies including thecontribution which they made to improving publicservices was needed.

! Departments had a wide variety of regional offices,sources of information and networks which weretoo fragmented and needed to be better co-ordinated.

! Departmental initiatives and programmesimplemented locally were often not linked or joinedup which reduced their effectiveness and createdburdens for local, public, private and voluntaryorganisations.

1.11 The Regional Co-ordination Unit was set up in 2000 toaddress these issues and transferred to the CabinetOffice in June 2001 together with the GovernmentOffices for the Regions. One of the Unit's key roles is toensure better co-ordination of Area Based Initiatives -policy initiatives intended to have a geographically-focused impact - and to scrutinise new proposals toensure that existing delivery mechanisms are properlyconsidered before creating new ones. By so doing theUnit's overall aim is to increase the impact of locally

Role of the Cabinet Office

! co-ordinate work on a wide range of cross-cutting issues

! lead department on the ModernisingGovernment agenda

! corporate headquarters for the Civil Service

! support the Cabinet and Cabinet committees

! support Prime Minister's Office

Source: Cabinet Office

There are nine Government Offices for theRegions which are responsible for:

! supporting a coherent approach to regionalprogrammes

! providing co-ordinated input into regional andlocal partnerships

! advising departments who are formulatingpolicies on regional issues and views


9 The Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office uses teamsfrom the civil service, the voluntary, public and private sectors to carryout studies on cross-cutting issues; identify what needs to beimproved, and propose innovative approaches to delivering services.


23

part

one


A number of reports by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit - "Wiringit up"1, "Adding it up"2 and "Reaching out"3 have analysed what needs to be in place toimprove joint working and partnerships for example, leadership, flexible budgeting,incentives, and skill improvement. New units in the Cabinet Office to tackle issues suchas social exclusion have been established with a remit to develop and implementpolicies cutting across existing departmental boundaries. For example, the SocialExclusion Unit established a series of policy action teams focusing on issues such ashow to bring about neighbourhood renewal. These were made up of Whitehall officials,outside experts and people working in deprived areas to ensure that therecommendations were based on a wide range of experience, on evidence, and wererealistically deliverable. In addition, the Service First Unit commissioned research usingthe People's Panel: to examine the experiences of citizens when using public services;evaluate the service provided within or across organisations; and identify anyopportunities for, or obstacles to, improvement. The project fed into the ModernisingGovernment White Paper.

Four approaches taken by the Cabinet Office to promote joint working 11

Approach Progress at 31 August 2001

1 Developing new thinking

2 Providing guidance and carrying outinitiatives to recognise good practice

The Cabinet Office has developed a range of guidance and sponsored a large number ofinitiatives to encourage successful joint working. For example, a good practice databaserelating to service delivery, the Public Sector Benchmarking Service and the TNTPartnership award and Beacon Schemes to recognise and publicise good practice andare developing a repository of best practice in policy-making. Service Action Teams,made up of people from departments, local government and the voluntary sector wereset up to remedy practical problems facing people during particular life episodes. Theirwork led to improved guidance and fed into the development of UK Online.

3 Encouraging and facilitatingexperimentation

Learning laboratories have been established to encourage innovation and tackle barriersto joint working and service improvement. They work experimentally and are notsubject to existing regulations as a means of determining if there are significant barriersto joint working which need to be removed. For example, the Cabinet Office say that inthe Northeast where a number of organisations are working together to help prisonersintegrate more quickly into the community when released there are indications thatthere has been a fall in re-offending rates among prisoners at participating prisons.

The Cabinet Office with the Treasury established the Invest to Save Budget in 1999.Departments and agencies can apply for funding from the Budget for innovative projectswhich have a strong joined up component and deliver joined up public services. At 31August 2001 250 projects were in progress and receiving £260 million from totalfunding available of £400 million.

4 Developing resources and skills The Centre for Management and Policy Studies of the Cabinet Office runs training anddevelopment courses, programmes and seminars on aspects of joint working.

NOTES:

1. Wiring it up: Whitehall's management of cross-cutting policies and services - Performance and Innovation Unit January 2000. 2. Adding it up: Improving Analysis and Modelling in Central Government - Performance and Innovation Unit January 2000. 3. Reaching out: The role of Central Government at Regional and Local Level - Performance and Innovation Unit February 2000.


based initiatives in improving service delivery whileminimising the burden of "red tape" on localorganisations.

1.12 In June 2001 a number of new units were established aspart of the Cabinet Office to improve policy making andservice delivery including promoting more joined upworking:

! The Prime Minster's Delivery Unit will strengthenthe capacity of Whitehall to deliver theGovernment's key objectives. The role of the Unit isto ensure that the Government achieves its deliverypriorities during this Parliament across the key areasof public service: health, education, crime and

asylum, and transport. The Unit will develop adefined set of best practices in policyimplementation and delivery. This will enable moreeffective learning across departmental boundariesthan has been possible in the past.

! The Office of Public Services Reform, which wasestablished to strengthen the capacity of the publicsector to deliver the Government's key objectives,will advise on the reform of public services, throughthe scrutiny of the structures, systems, incentives andskills currently in use. The Office intends to focusprincipally on change in the delivery of policy andeffective nation-wide implementation, includingbetter joining up of services.

24

part

one


The Treasury

1.13 The Treasury is promoting improvements in publicservices and joint working in a number of ways:

! Public Service Agreements were first introduced in1998 to cover the three financial years 1999-2002.Each Agreement sets out the aim of the departmentor policy, supporting objectives and relatedperformance targets. To promote joint working therewere initially three cross-cutting Public ServiceAgreements covering the criminal justice system,action against illegal drugs, and Sure Start for pre-school children. In 2000 the Public ServiceAgreements were revised and a further cross-cuttingAgreement was added covering Welfare to Work. InJune 2001 the Government allocated £300 millionfor local authorities which entered into local PublicService Agreements committing themselves toworking to achieve 12 key outcomes reflectingnational and local priorities for improving publicservices.

! Public Services Productivity Panel advises on waysof improving the productivity and efficiency ofdepartments. In May 2000 the Panel publishedWorking in Partnership to assist local healthcommunities involved in joint planning toimplement systems to support the NHS's nationalinformation strategy. The report concluded that forjoint working to be successful there needed to besustained senior management commitment, explicitagreement on clear and common objectives and theparticipation of the right people. The reportrecommended a self-assessment tool for partners touse to identify areas of strength and weaknessaround six facets of joint working: policy and goalsetting, accountability, networking and alliances,culture and learning, resources, and skills andcompetencies.

! Accounting and budgetary framework. The Treasuryare providing advice on appropriate accountabilityand reporting arrangements that need to be in placefor new organisations established to promote jointworking and for public money allocated to partnerorganisations.

1.14 The Treasury is also with the Cabinet Office, supportingthe Invest to Save Budget to fund innovative projectswhich have a strong joined up element (Figure 11).

The role of the Treasury is to manage the overall policyfor the economy and the overall managementframework for public finances and services. In respectof joined up government the Treasury have introducedPublic Service Agreements, the Public ServicesProductivity Panel, and advised on the accounting andbudgetary framework for joint working arrangements.Source: HM Treasury

26

part

one


voluntary organisations

local authorities

health services

police

local authorities

private nursery and childcare providers

voluntary nursery and childcare providers

schools

parents

community groups

voluntary organisations

local authorities

health services

Learning and Skills Councils

Chambers of Commerce

local authorities

International Trade Advisers

Enterprise Agencies

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Department of Trade and Industry

Client groups covered by this report12

Clients

rough sleepers

Pre-school children

Case Studies Partners

Source: National Audit Office analysis of Case Studies.

small andmedium sized

businesses

How we carried out the examination1.15 We examined five different joined up initiatives

benefiting three client groups - rough sleepers, pre-school children and small and medium sized businesses(Figure 12). The initiatives are:

! The Department for Transport, Local Governmentand the Regions' Rough Sleepers initiative to reducerough sleeping (Appendix 3).

! The Department for Education and Skills' Early YearsDevelopment and Childcare Partnerships to planearly education provision and create and supportchildcare places (Appendix 4).

! The Department for Education and Skills and theDepartment of Health's Sure Start to improve thehealth and well-being of families and children,before and from birth, so that children are ready toflourish when they go to school (Appendix 5).

! The Department of Trade and Industry's BusinessLink partnerships to improve the competitiveness ofsmall firms by encouraging their use of high qualitybusiness support services. The partnerships includeInternational Trade Advisers funded by British TradeInternational (Appendix 6).

! The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's and theDepartment of Trade and Industry's British TradeInternational (Trade Partners UK) to provide helpfor firms wishing to export and invest overseas. Thereport does not deal with British TradeInternational's responsibility for inward investmentpromotion known as Invest UK (Appendix 7).

For each initiative we interviewed departmental staff andthose involved in local partnerships to obtain their views onwhat was making the initiative work well, the barriers theyhad encountered to successful joint working and how thesewere being overcome. More detail on the methodology is atAppendix 1.

Part 2

2.1 The success of joint working depends on thecontribution it makes to improving both the quality andimpact of public services. In some cases the benefit maybe immediate for example, being able to obtain adviceon a range of issues from one government local office;in other cases it may take some time for the benefit to berealised or to be capable of measurement. For example,the impact of initiatives such as Sure Start to improve thewell-being and educational development of youngchildren so that they are better equipped to learn willonly become apparent when they attend school.

2.2 It is important, however, that joint working initiatives havein place reliable means of measuring and monitoringtheir impact and the difference which they make to thedelivery of public services. This is essential for ensuringthat resources are deployed cost effectively, decidingwhether an initiative needs to be modified or terminatedif it is not working as planned, and to learn lessons forwider application.

This part of the report covers:

i) The progress made by the five joint workinginitiatives we examined including what is differentabout each initiative, how its performance ismeasured, and the impact it has had to date;

ii) What those intended to benefit think about the jointworking initiatives, drawing on focus groups withclients to assess their satisfaction with services andtheir awareness of the services available; and

iii) How cross-cutting Public Service Agreements arepromoting joint working, focusing on the four cross-cutting agreements and the ways in which theymeasure performance against targets.

Figure 13 shows the key characteristics of each of theclient groups which the five joint working initiatives areintended to benefit.

Part 2


Achievements so far

27

part

two

13 Key characteristics of the client groups which the five joint working initiatives are intended to benefit

Rough sleepers

! a person sleeping outside or in a placenot designed for habitation

! 9 out of 10 are male

! three quarters are aged over 25 with6 per cent aged over 60

! three quarters have mental health,alcohol and/or drug problems

! rough sleepers are likely to have atroubled family background and/orhave been in institutional care egchildren's home, armed forces orprison

Pre-school children

! children aged 0 to 4 years

! around 750,000 children are borneach year in the UK

! 45,000 children attending nurseryschool have special educational needs

! 14,000 pre-school children are onchild protection registers

! one quarter of all children live insingle parent families

Small and medium sized businesses

! an economic enterprise with fewerthan 250 employees

! there are 3.7 million in the UK

! they employ 55 per cent of theworkforce

! they comprise 99 per cent of firms inall sectors, except utilities

! around 100,000 are active exporters

Source: National Audit Office.

28

part

two

Between 1990 and 1999 the government spent some£250 million in England on a rough sleepers initiativehelping approximately 4,500 rough sleepers off the streetsinto permanent accommodation. About 50 per cent of roughsleepers live in London with half the remainder in 33 othertowns and cities. In 1998 there were still on average 2000people sleeping rough on any one night (in the course of ayear an estimated 10,000) and in order to assess what morecould be done the Social Exclusion Unit of the CabinetOffice initiated a multi-agency review of rough sleeping. Thisconcluded in 1998 that "without better integration at bothpolicy planning and delivery level there is little that can bedone to reduce the numbers sleeping rough". In response adedicated Rough Sleepers Unit (the Unit) was established in1999 in what is now the Department for Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions. The Unit is headed by aDirector with national responsibility for tackling roughsleeping supported by a multi-disciplinary skilled team of35 staff, with a budget of £201 million over the three yearsApril 1999 to March 2002.

Partners are:

! Voluntary organisations such as Centrepoint

! Local authorities

! Social services

! Police

Someone sleeping rough will be:

! befriended on the street by an outreach worker whowill assess their needs and direct them to specialisthelp

! referred to a hostel when a suitable place isavailable

! receive continuing support

! when ready, move to permanent accommodation

! receive continuing support to prevent a return torough sleeping


SeeAppendix 3

for moredetails

Progress by five joint working

Rough Sleepers Unit

part

two

29


WHAT IS DIFFERENTThe Rough Sleeping initiative has introduced both newstructures and new ways of working

High level commitment. A Ministerial SteeringCommittee with representation from key governmentdepartments oversees progress and acts as an enabler tobring departments together. It approves spending plansput forward by the Rough Sleepers Unit.

Leadership, co-ordination and shared funding. TheRough Sleepers Unit co-ordinates the activity of thevoluntary sector and takes the lead in working with otherdepartments. It plans how to spend the budget which ispooled bringing together funding from the Department forTransport, Local Government and the Regions, theDepartment of Health and the Housing Corporation.

Contractual arrangements. The Rough Sleepers Unitprovides grant funding to voluntary organisations. Grantagreements specify the posts to be funded, the workprogramme, target and milestones and monitoringrequirements. Grant agreements also give some of thevoluntary agencies the power to deploy specialist stafffrom other agencies.

Integration. Rough sleepers willing to accept assistance canexpect to have a key worker to put together a package ofhelp tailored to their individual needs, including help withclaiming benefits, and tackling drug, alcohol and emotionalproblems, mental illness, and training for employment. Therough sleeper will continue to have a key worker even afterthey are housed to provide ongoing support.

Joined up implementation. Local authority homelessnessofficers work with local voluntary and statutory agencies todevelop and implement a rough sleeping strategy. TheUnit's grant agreements with voluntary agencies requiresthem to work with each other as a pre-requisite for funding.

Better information and reduced "red tape". Betterinformation is available and actively shared betweenagencies to track rough sleepers and to monitor theimpact of support provided to help them get off thestreets. There is greater control over access to hostelplaces so that sleeping rough is not used as a fast trackmethod for obtaining a flat. There are protocols forhanding over responsibility for a rough sleeper from oneagency to another so that they do not slip through thesystem. And procedures which voluntary organisationshave to follow to apply for grants have been simplified.

HOW PERFORMANCE IS MEASUREDBy a single measure - to reduce the number of peoplesleeping rough by at least two thirds from 1850 to 616 orlower by March 2002. This measure is included in theDepartment for Transport, Local Government and theRegions' Public Service Agreement.

IMPACTAt 31 July 2001 information collected by the Rough SleepersUnit indicated that the number of people sleeping rough hadreduced to 700. In London the reduction was from 635 toaround 350. The number of entrenched rough sleepers inLondon - those who have multiple health and social needsrequiring sustained help reduced from 427 to 110.

initiatives

30

part

two

In May 1998 the now Department for Education and Skillslaunched its National Childcare Strategy for children up to14 years (16 years for children with special educationalneeds). This identified a need for better co-ordination of allthose organisations involved in the delivery of childcareservices. The key aim of the National Childcare Strategy is thecreation of new childcare places for 1.6 million children byMarch 2004. Since September 1998, the Department's earlyeducation strategy has provided all 4 year olds with a freepart-time nursery place, with free part-time early educationprovision for all 3 year olds by September 2004. The totalexpenditure made available for childcare and earlyeducation programmes was £300 million in 2000-01 and thiswill rise to £650 million in 2003-04. These programmes arebeing implemented through 150 partnerships bringingtogether private, voluntary and public sector organisationsproviding childcare and early education.

A private or voluntary sector organisation wishing to providechildcare facilities must register with its local social servicesdepartment and be inspected. The role of the Partnership inthis process is to provide advice and guidance to childcareproviders on the standards they must meet. The Office forStandards in Education (OFSTED) took over the registrationand inspection of childcare providers from September 2001.

! Department for Education and Skills

! Local Authority support and oversight

! Partnerships of local authorities, private andvoluntary organisations plan childcare and nurseryeducation provision

! Childcare and nursery education providers


SeeAppendix 4

for moredetails

Early Years Development andChildcare Partnerships

31

part

two


WHAT IS DIFFERENTThe main features of the joint working are:

Private and voluntary sector involvement. The partnershipsbring together for the first time all sectors to develop andimplement local authority wide plans setting out how eachpartnership will meet government targets for the expansion ofearly education and childcare.

Clear rules of working. Partnerships set up to facilitate theprovision of childcare places receive support from localauthorities. There is typically a lead officer who providesadvice on how the partnership should operate. Funding fromthe Department for Education and Skills depends onpartnerships meeting requirements such as representing localviews including health services, parents, employers, religiousinstitutions and childcare providers.

Contractual arrangements. The Department for Educationand Skills pays grants to local authorities to employ staff tocarry out the work of the partnerships. In addition, there areseparate funding streams from the Department and the NewOpportunities Fund10 to providers of nursery education.

Support and training. Comprehensive training is madeavailable to anyone working with pre-school children so thatthey are better equipped to organise and deliver high qualitychildcare and nursery education provision.

Quality assurance. Partnerships are working to enhance thequality of pre-school education and childcare. Thepartnerships are doing this by paying for voluntary andprivate sector groups to take part in national schemes such asthe Pre-school Learning Alliance's Aiming for Quality schemewhich set standards for pre-schools in curriculum planning,staffing, safety and other areas; or by setting up their ownquality assurance scheme. OFSTED regulates early years.

HOW PERFORMANCE IS MEASUREDThe Department for Education and Skills has set a number ofquantified targets for example to increase the number of freepart-time nursery places for 3 years old from 34 per cent in1999 to 66 per cent by 2002.

IMPACT At 31 March 2001 the target to provide a free part-timenursery place for all 4 year olds had been achieved asplanned; free part-time places were available for over50 per cent of 3 year olds; and 140,000 new childcare placeshad been created exceeding the target of 82,000 by70 per cent.

10 The New Opportunities Fund is a UK wide National Lottery distributor focusing on health, environment and education.

32

part

two

Sure Start was launched in July 1998 following a crossdepartmental review of children's services involving13 departments. The review recommended that a range ofservices should be brought together to support the complexand varied physical, developmental and emotional needs ofyoung children and families in deprived areas with the aim ofimproving the health and well-being of children so that theyare ready to flourish when they start school. Some£1.4 billion is allocated over the five years 1999 to 2004 tosupport child and primary healthcare, early education, playand support for families in most need. Sure Start is beingimplemented through local partnerships involving public,private and voluntary organisations.

The programme is led and co-ordinated by the Sure Start Unitlinking the Department for Education and Skills and theDepartment of Health. Each partnership is located in acommunity with a lead partner, a programme board and anaccountable organisation responsible for expenditure. ByJuly 2001, 437 programmes had been announced in fivephases; the first phase of 59 local programmes begandelivering services in 2000-01.

Partners are:

! Community groups

! Voluntary organisations such as NEWPIN and NSPCC

! Local authorities

! Health services

! Parents


SeeAppendix 5

for moredetails

Sure Start

Services provided by Sure Start programmes include:

! advice on parenting

! health promotion and referral to specialist services

! support for families with special needs children

! family support for ethnic minorities

! childcare

! drop in centres

! language and literacy projects

! volunteers befriending projects

33

part

two


WHAT IS DIFFERENTThe main features of Sure Start are

Strategic direction. The Sure Start Unit has nationalresponsibility for the programme with the backing of aMinisterial Steering Committee covering the Department forEducation and Skills, the Department of Health, the HomeOffice, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Departmentfor Transport, Local Government and the Regions and theTreasury. The Unit has 100 staff drawn from many backgrounds.The emphasis is on combining experience rather than drawingon the expertise of one department.

Targeted intervention. Local programmes focus intensively ona relatively small number of families within a smallgeographical area about the size of an estate or neighbourhoodwith 400-1000 children under the age of four. Previousapproaches were linked to GP surgeries, community healthtrusts rather than focusing on a specific area.

Contractual arrangement. The Sure Start Unit provides grantfunding to a designated 'accountable body' for eachpartnership, for example the local NHS Primary Care Trust. Alegally-binding agreement between the partners ensures thatthe accountable body distributes funds to service providers inaccordance with the partnership's agreed delivery plan.

Multi-agency. Each partnership is planned and managedlocally according to local priorities and is both multi-agencyand multi-disciplinary instead of having a series of separatedisconnected services delivered by a range of organisations.

Community involvement. Sure Start aims to involve parentsand the wider community in planning and providing services.Parents are encouraged to join the partnership and to providevolunteer support to services. Community involvement alsohelps persuade families who may be reluctant to take up theservices on offer.

Tackling deprivation. Sure Start is directing increased fundinginto deprived areas which allows more services to be targetedon need. Each programme receives access to capital funding of£750,000 and around £700,000 a year for additional services.

HOW PERFORMANCE IS MEASUREDSure Start has four national objectives and linked targets set outin its Public Service Agreement to be achieved by March 2004.The objectives cover improving the social, emotional andphysical development of young children; their ability to learn;strengthening families and communities; and increasing theproductivity of programmes. Each local programme workstowards achieving those targets but may also set additionallocal objectives and targets.

IMPACTIt is too early for there to be any measurable benefit from SureStart programmes. A national evaluation will run from 2000-01 to 2006-07 and cover how well programmes arebeing implemented, local context (social, demographic andeconomic factors), the impact of programmes and their costeffectiveness, and provide support to the more detailedevaluations of local programmes.

34

part

two

SeeAppendix 6

for moredetails

Business Link partnerships offer:

! A first point of contact for businesses seeking advice

! A personal business adviser service

! Support such as marketing and IT development

! Referral to other expertise to provide business support

In the early 1990s support and advice for businesses wasfragmented. To remedy this the Department of Trade andIndustry set up in 1993 the first Business Link partnership andby 1996-97 there was 89 partnerships. Key partners werelocal Training and Enterprise Councils,11 Chambers ofCommerce, local authorities and enterprise agencies12.

During 2000-01 the Small Business Service, a new executiveagency of the Department of Trade and Industry restructuredthe network of Business Link partnerships, in part because ofthe variation in their performance - some were effectiveothers were less so. Funding from the Small Business Serviceis some £160 million a year. Individual Business Linkpartnerships also receive funding from other sources such asthe European Structural Funds. They also obtain fee incomefrom assisted businesses for higher value support, such asdiagnostic reports from business advisers.


11 Training and Enterprise Councils provided employment and businessrelated training. They were replaced by Learning and Skills Councils in 2001.

12 Enterprise agencies provide support and training to people who wantto start a business.

Business Link partnerships

35

part

two


WHAT IS DIFFERENTSome key differences with the new partnership working are:

Joining up government. In 1998 half of partners surveyed saidthat lack of co-ordination between central governmentdepartments was a barrier to partnership development. TheSmall Business Service now has the role of co-ordinating thegovernment's strategy for small businesses. It is doing this byliaising with government departments on policy initiatives andreviewing proposals for new business regulations to protect theinterests of small businesses. Small Business Service regionalteams are based in the nine Regional Development Agenciesand work closely with them to ensure that the plans of BusinessLink partnerships reflect regional economic strategies.

Customer focus. The new Business Link partnerships arerequired to demonstrate that their primary focus is onmeeting their customers needs. Their target market now alsoincludes social enterprises and disadvantaged and under-represented communities.

Streamlining. Partnerships were reduced from 89 to 45 and adirect contract established between each partnership and theSmall Business Service. The intervening layer provided by theTraining and Enterprising Councils was removed.

Contractual arrangements. The Small Business Serviceawarded franchises to local business service partnerships,usually set up as not-for-profit companies, to co-ordinate andprovide services under the Business Link brand name. Underthe franchise agreement Business Link partnerships receivefunds from several sources, including the Small BusinessService, to deliver services specified in separate contracts.

Wider focus. Support is extended to include businesses withfewer than ten employees and those thinking of starting abusiness. Previously support had focused primarily on moremedium sized businesses.

Targets. The Department of Trade and Industry's Public ServiceAgreement for 1999-2002 includes targets to increase theproductivity and profitability of small and medium sizedbusinesses assisted by Business Link partnerships.

Private sector leadership. Some new partnerships have beenestablished which are private sector led by 'for profit'organisations. Other new partnerships, for exampleNorthumberland Business Service, have local businesspeople on their board.

Branding. The Business Link name and logo are recognisedby firms as the established brand for subsidised advice andsupport for small businesses. This is increasing the profile ofthe service so that the businesses community is more awareof support which is available.

HOW IS PERFORMANCE MEASUREDThe Small Business Service assess the performance ofBusiness Link partnerships by surveying firms assisted toassess their satisfaction; and by monitoring improvements inthe productivity of businesses which the partnerships havehelped and by comparing their performance with a sample offirms which have not been assisted. In addition, Business Linkpartnerships provide a range of management informationwhich is used by the Small Business Service regional teams toassess performance against plans.

IMPACTPrior to the changes to partnership working an independentevaluation in 1998 indicated that the productivity of firmsassisted by Business Links increased by 13 per cent comparedto one per cent for a sample of firms that were not assisted.In 1997, 75 per cent of firms in Business Link partnerships'then target market, those with 10 to 200 employees, weresatisfied with the service which they received; in 2000 itremained virtually unchanged at 74 per cent. More recentresearch in Summer 2001, covering the very smallestbusinesses previously not part of the target market, suggeststhe baseline of customer satisfaction faced by the newnetwork is lower. This research is part of a regular series ofstudies - a clear picture will emerge over time.

36

part

two


In February 1999 a Government review13 of support topromote UK exports found a lack of cohesion among thevarious organisations responsible for support to exporters.Support was not sufficiently focused on businesses' needsand arrangements for allocating resources were complexwith too many funding streams. In response British TradeInternational was established in May 1999 to join upinternational trade promotion and development services tobe branded as Trade Partners UK.

British Trade International is a partnership between theDepartment of Trade and Industry and the Foreign andCommonwealth Office and has put in place a unifiedmanagement structure over existing staff to create a notionalorganisation without legal status. All staff remain employedby their parent department. A Memorandum ofUnderstanding sets out the partnership arrangements. BritishTrade International's Group Chief Executive reports to aboard chaired by the Minister of State for International Tradeand Investment who holds office at both the Department ofTrade and Industry and the Foreign and CommonwealthOffice. The Permanent Secretaries of both Departments arerepresented on British Trade International's Board.

SeeAppendix 7

for moredetails

Examples of support for exporters include:

! help to exhibit at overseas trade fairs

! tailored market research

! sales leads from abroad

! enquiry service about opportunities in specificmarkets and economic sectors

! local support and advice through Business Links tohelp firms develop their export skills

13 The Review of Export Promotion. A Report by the Secretary to the Cabinet. February 1999.

British Trade International

37

part

two


WHAT IS DIFFERENTThe key differences arising from the establishment of BritishTrade International include:

Strategic direction. An overall joined up strategy for tradepromotion and development is now in place. This covers thetrade development and promotion work undertaken in theEnglish regions, inward investment promotion work andnational co-ordination across other government departments.

Customer focus. There is a greater focus on customersparticularly the needs of small and medium sized businesseswhich make up over 80 per cent of the target group.

Funding arrangements. British Trade International receivesdirect funding from the Exchequer for its programmeexpenditure of around £85 million a year. Its staff,administration and capital costs are paid for out of thebudgets of the Department of Trade and Industry and theForeign and Commonwealth Office.

Coherence. A more coherent and high profile is presented tobusinesses by introducing in May 2000 the Trade Partners UKbrand. This is intended to make it clearer to the businesscommunity the support which they can call upon to helpthem export.

Single point of contact. Establishing the Trade Partner's UKwebsite www.tradepartners.gov.uk will provide a singleintegrated point of contact - a gateway -for export servicesand sources of information.

Assessing impact. The more unified structure of British TradeInternational is intended also to improve the monitoring ofthe various types of support to assess their effectiveness inimproving business performance.

HOW PERFORMANCE IS MEASUREDBritish Trade International's Public Service Agreement targetis to enhance the competitiveness of companies in the UKthrough overseas sales and investments. This includes specifictargets such as at least 15 per cent of firms assisted whichhave not exported before, and at least 50 per cent ofestablished exporters assisted improve their businessperformance within two years. British Trade International aredeveloping data collection and measurement systems toassess the achievement of these targets.

IMPACTThe Department of Trade and Foreign and CommonwealthOffice used to assess the impact of their support for exporterson a programme by programme basis as well as by customersatisfaction. It is too soon to measure the impact of the newjoined up support provided by British Trade International.

38

part

two


Assessment of progress

Overall impact

2.3 Each of the joint working initiatives is improving servicedelivery. Business Links have a track record of assistingsmall businesses; the number of Rough Sleepers isfalling and the number of nursery and childcare placesare increasing. While it is too soon to form a judgementon the full extent of the benefits from British TradeInternational and Sure Start, there is some initialevidence that clients are receiving better services. Forexample, customers are making increasing use of theTrade Partners UK website to access information onpossible export markets (Figure 14); and Sure Startinterventions, such as earlier detection that a childneeds speech therapy and so can start therapy morequickly, are improving people's lives.

Identifying the need for joint working

2.4 Departments determined that the joint workinginitiatives were required by various means for example,cross-cutting policy reviews (Sure Start), analysis of theperformance of existing ways of delivering services(British Trade International) and detailed assessment ofclient group needs (Rough Sleepers). Departmentsgenerally do not adopt one single approach or model todesign policies (Modern Policy-Making: EnsuringPolicies Deliver Value for Money (HC 289, Session2001-02) November 2001) and a standard approach todetermine whether joint working is needed is unlikely tobe feasible. Departments, however, need to take a wideview to identify opportunities for joint working toimprove service delivery. In particular, they shouldassess the needs of their client groups, the risk thatcurrent policies may not realise their intended benefitsand the costs and benefits of joining up. Factorssuggesting that some form of joint working is neededinclude benefits being short term and not sustainable(for example, initiatives to help those who are alreadydrug dependent not being supported by longer termpreventive education programmes); gaps in delivery (forexample, advice on getting employment not being co-ordinated with skills training); and inefficiencies such assupport and advice being duplicated.

Barriers to joint working

2.5 We found that not all organisations are sufficientlycommitted to joint working. For example, the RoughSleepers Unit has found, in some instances when it is notproviding direct funding, that it can be difficult toinfluence local authorities and NHS Trusts to treat roughsleepers as a high priority. Some of the organisations

involved in local partnerships told us that while jointworking was now much better locally, they consideredthat this was not always happening centrally. This wasparticularly so where there was no dedicated central unitgiving strategic direction. The need for better joint workingbetween departments was supported by our interviewswith organisations representing the interests of smallbusinesses which considered that it would take some timefor the Small Business Service to have an impact on co-ordinating departments' initiatives for small businesses.

Avoiding exclusion

2.6 All the joint working initiatives we examined had beendesigned to ensure that there is equal access to theservices for those intended to benefit from them. Each ofthe initiatives have a varied set of clients with differentneeds, for example businesses just starting requiredifferent often more intensive support than those whichhave been in business for some time. The joint initiativesare tailoring their services to meet the needs of differentclients, particularly those such as rough sleepers whooften have complex health and emotional problems aswell as needing accommodation. These differencesemphasise the importance of carefully researching andanalysing the characteristics of those intended to benefitso that services can be targeted on those most in needand delivered in ways that they can access easily. Forexample Sure Start local programmes have manyfamilies on low incomes, with low levels of education,or who do not speak English fluently. To ensure thatthese families are not excluded, Sure Start workers visitthem in their homes to assess their needs and informthem of the help available.

Innovation and need for careful marketing

2.7 Joint working is also leading to innovation, for exampleSure Start programmes are teaching parenting skills,such as a training programme run by psychologists tocreate a secure emotional bond between mother andinfant, whilst local authorities, voluntary organisationsand the police are working together for the first time todevelop and deliver joint strategies for tackling roughsleeping. Increasing use is also being made ofinformation technology to deliver services for example,the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnershipsare using the Web and call centres to make childcareinformation more easily accessible (Figure 14). There isscope, however, for more marketing of services so thatthose intended to benefit from the joint workinginitiatives are fully aware of the support which isavailable to them and know how to obtain it. If servicesare not publicised and carefully marketed thoseintended to benefit may not do so or groups of societymay be inadvertently excluded.

39

part

two


Websites used by joint working initiatives to improve service delivery14

Joint working initiative Website and who it is directed at What the website provides Number of visits permonth (July 2001)

Rough Sleepers www.housing.dtlr.gov.uk/rsu/index.htm

Operational since January 2000,the web pages are intendedprimarily for those interested inpolicy on rough sleeping.

! information about the initiative 500

www.changealife.org.uk

Operational since November 2000and aimed at the general public.

! how the public can help roughsleepers

! links to partner voluntaryorganisations

1200


www.dfes.gov.uk/eydcp/index.htm

Operational since October 1998and intended primarily forpartnerships and childcareproviders.

! information about the initiative

! planning guidance for partnerships

! examples of good practice

Not separatelyidentified

www.childcarelink.gov.uk

Operational since December 1999,the website is intended specificallyto help parents find childcare intheir area.

! childcare providers, searchable bypost code

63,000

Sure Start www.surestart.gov.uk/home.cfm

Operational since July 2000, thewebsite is intended for parents, thegeneral public, partnerships andproviders.

! information about the initiative

! planning guidance

! examples of good practice

! notice board for questions

! contact details of Sure Start teammembers

! information on local programmes

10,000

Business Link partnerships www.businesslink.gov.uk

Operational since June 2001 andaimed at all small and mediumsized businesses.

! information on key topics ofinterest to small businesses

! e-mail link to national call centre

! extensive links to other sites, forexample www.dag-business.gov.uka database of regulations

! information on Business Linkpartnerships, with an appointmentsfacility

125,000

British Trade International www.tradepartners.gov.uk

Operational since May 2000,aimed at all businesses interestedin exporting.

! general information on exporting

! self assessment diagnosticquestionnaire for new exporters

! information on overseas marketsand sectors

! sales leads

! links to other sites includingcommercial sites for exporters

! information on help availablelocally and links to internationaltrade teams in Business Linkpartnerships

102,000

Source: NAO analysis of departments’ websites and visit figures supplied by departments

40

part

two


Assessing the cost effectiveness of joint working initiatives

NOTES

1. Cost is central government expenditure only in real terms at 2001 prices. Data on other spending directed towards reducing roughsleeping or creating childcare places by local authorities, voluntary agencies and businesses is not available.

2. A rough sleeper is defined as someone sleeping outdoors or in a place not designed for human habitation, such as a warehouse orshed. Rough sleepers have been counted each June in London and 33 other towns and cities in England since 1998, in addition someother towns where there are few rough sleepers also submit count data or estimates. Counts are carried out by voluntary workers withknowledge of where people sleep. The extent of undercounting because people sleeping rough are hidden from the counters is notknown. The 'before' figure for rough sleeping is calculated on expenditure in 1998-99 and the fall in rough sleepers between June 1998and June 1999.

3. A childcare place is a place provided for children up to the age of 14 years (16 with special needs) by a registered child carer. Localauthorities collect data on the number of registered places in their areas. The 'before' figure is based on the Out of School ChildcareInitiative which ran for four years from 1994-95 to 1997-98 and included out of school clubs and holiday schemes. Since 1999 fundinghas also been provided to develop childminding, creches and play schemes for pre-school children and to provide facilities for childrenwith special needs.

Source: National Audit Office analysis of data supplied by departments

15

Measure Cost effectiveness

Before joint working began in 1999 From 1999-2001

Rough sleeping: £117,000 £71,000cost1 per reduction byone of individuals (£183,000 (£119,000counted sleeping rough2 including capital expenditure) including capital expenditure)

Childcare: £640 £650cost1 per additionalchildcare place3

Measuring performance and effectiveness

2.8 Reliable information is needed as a minimum on theextent to which joint initiatives meet their objectives andachieve sustainable improvements in service delivery. Allof the five joint working initiatives we examined haveappropriate performance targets and have in place or aredeveloping with their partners measurement systems totrack progress against their targets. Some of the targetsare easily understood and measured for example, thenumber of nursery places established can be calculatedfrom local authority returns on the number of nurserygrants awarded. Other targets are more difficult tomeasure for example, increases in the productivity andprofitability of small firms. At present many of theinitiatives rely on data collected on their behalf by theirpartners or by contractors and there is a need to ensurethat such information is reliable and not at risk ofmisinterpretation or manipulation. For example, the SureStart targets require programmes to work to keepchildren safe from abuse and so reduce the numberrecorded on the child protection register. Once a childno longer needs to be on the register Sure Start aims tokeep them off by providing on-going support. There ispotential, however, that this requirement could act as a

disincentive to re-register children who for whateverreason once again become at risk. To counter this theSure Start's programme staff monitor their catchmentarea to ensure that children removed from the childprotection register receive the services which they need.

Need for formal evaluations of costeffectiveness

2.9 Some initiatives such as Sure Start have strategies tocommission independent evaluations of the extent towhich planned outcomes such as improvements in childhealth are achieved. Figure 15 shows the costeffectiveness of two of the joint working initiatives weexamined. In the case of rough sleeping it would appearthat the new integrated approach is more cost effectivethan the previous initiative in reducing rough sleeping,although we cannot say whether these benefits will besustained. With Early Years Development and ChildcarePartnerships, the average cost of providing a childcareplace is £650 which compares with £640 for providingan out of school childcare place under the previousarrangements. The increased cost per place is becausepre-school children and those with special needs need

more support from staff and, in some instances, morespecialised equipment than other children. Ourcalculations, however, contain a number of underlyingassumptions: that measurement is accurate andconsistent over time; that the results of expenditure havean immediate impact; and that external factors notunder the control of government, for example spendingby voluntary agencies, have not changed significantlyover the period. There is, therefore, a need for moredetailed assessments of the cost effectiveness of differentforms of joint working including their productivity; thedifference which they make to the quality of publicservices; and the relative contribution made by thedifferent members of the joint working arrangement.

What those intended to benefitthink about joint working2.10 In order to assess whether those intended to benefit

from joint working are receiving a better service wecommissioned NOP Consumer Ltd to hold focusgroups14 of rough sleepers in London and Manchesterand of the carers of pre-school children in Leeds,Southwark and Sunderland. Focus group participantswere asked whether they had noticed any change inservices following the introduction of joint working. Asthe new Business Link partnerships and theestablishment of British Trade International are morerecent developments it is too early for them to have hada discernible impact. It was not practicable, therefore, atthis stage to consult the users of these services. Theviews of the focus groups are summarised in Figure 16overleaf and they highlight three key points.

2.11 Clients' satisfaction with services. Those intended tobenefit from joint working have a varied range ofrequirements. For example, families needing childcarefacilities while they are at work want low cost highquality care. Many parents especially those on lower

incomes, however, work weekends and evenings andthey want childcare outside normal weekday workinghours. Those involved in delivering public services needtherefore to assess carefully the requirements of clientgroups through consultation and research. In seeking tomeet these requirements departments and agenciesmust also consider what is affordable and likely torepresent value for money.

2.12 Peoples' awareness of what support is available. Peopleare usually not concerned with the internal proceduresinvolved in delivering public services. This is only likelyto be an issue for people if they are not able to get theservice or support they need when they want it withminimum inconvenience. Therefore for citizens theissue is not how services are joined up but that they aredelivered in a seamless co-ordinated way. With SureStart for example, parents were enthusiastic and veryaware of the support and services available; parentsperceived them as being an integrated package ratherthan delivered as part of a partnership. For joined upservices to be effective, however, those intended tobenefit must be aware of the support available to them. Forexample, parents in our focus groups were less aware thatthe Early Years Development and Childcare Partnershipsexisted and suggested that more should be done topublicise the services which parents could call upon.Publicising and marketing services to maximise take upby those intended to benefit is therefore very important.

2.13 Difficulties in changing behaviour. The success of somejoint working initiatives particularly those focusing onsocial issues often depends on their ability to influencepeople to change their behaviour. For example, theRough Sleepers Unit has to persuade those living on thestreets to take up the services intended to help themsince the Unit cannot compel them to do so. Some roughsleepers often those who have recently started living onthe streets are very willing to move into supportedhousing. For others sleeping rough has become an

41

part

two


1 PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN - NATIONALLY

Jackie "I know you have got out of hours creches now, butnone of them normally go into night work. There are a lotof people who have shifts".

Karen "The only private nursery that I found that wouldtake him and only have to pay half days was veryexpensive. And then I would have to pay for someone topick him up from nursery (a half day place at the localschool) and take him there".

Peter "We need adequate childcare, you want to makesure that your child is looked after properly but at the endof the day there isn't that here"

2 PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN - SURE START

Gloria "I had really bad post natal depression and it wasthrough here that they got me out of it."

Sinead "I have made an awful lot of friends here by doingcourses and I have gained a lot of knowledge as well. Iwent on the course that teaches me how to look afterJames properly… different ways to bring him up withoutsmacking him"

Toni "My health visitor actually got one of the guys (fromthe advice centre) to come and see me at home when I firsthad the baby to help me out with certain things".

CASE STUDIES

14 We held 8 focus groups each consisting of between 7 and 10 individuals. Separate groups of parents of pre-school children were held for Sure Start andEarly Years Development and Childcare Partnerships.

42

part

two


What the intended beneficiaries think about the support they receive

Source: Focus groups with rough sleepers and parents of pre-school children facilitated by NOP Consumer Ltd.

16

Are you aware of thenew initiatives andhow they areintended to helpyou?

How easy is it foryou to get the serviceor support available?

How have youbenefited from theservice provided -has it made adifference?

Was the support youreceived co-ordinated?

How could theservice be improved?What would help youmost?

Rough Sleepers

Rough sleepers were aware of thechanges introduced by the RoughSleepers Unit and how it cansupport them to stop sleeping onthe streets.

Rough sleepers were generally wellinformed about the range ofservices available, particularlyfood, showers, advice and supportand where to get them.

Rough sleepers also knew they canaccess accommodation anddetoxification treatment throughoutreach workers.

Younger rough sleepers who havebeen on the streets for less timesaid they use supported livingarrangements such as hostels.

Many rough sleepers chose not totake up accommodation ratherthan be separated from theirfriends, partners, or pets andbecause they consider the hostels'regulations stop them frombehaving as they wish.

Rough sleepers pointed to co-ordinated services such ashealthcare available in drop-incentres and the outreach workersin London who make sure thatthey receive support.

! Increase the times services areopen to bridge the gaps inopening times between daycentres and night centres.

! Return to the previousarrangement where roughsleepers could book intohostels without being referredby an outreach worker. Roughsleepers thought this wouldallow them to hold down a jobmore easily in winter.

Early years Childcare anddevelopment partnerships

Parents said that they had littleawareness of the initiative, but mostknew that information on nurseryschools and childcare is availablefrom the local authority.

Parents thought it was very difficultto find good quality childcare thatthey can afford.

Parents appreciated part-timenursery classes in schools, butworking parents found it difficult toco-ordinate the school place with achildcare place.

Parents are benefiting from newprovision for their older childrensuch as after-school clubs.

Most of the parents were happywith the quality of their child'snursery.

Parents were less aware thatPartnerships plan and co-ordinatenursery education and childcareservices across the local authorityarea.

! Provide more high quality andlow cost childcare so thatworking is more attractivebecause some money is leftover. After paying for childcarelow income families or singleparents have little disposableincome left which provides noincentive to work.

! Provide more childcarecovering weekends / shiftworkers hours.

! Advertise what is available andwhere to find information onwhat is available.

Sure Start

Parents were very aware of theSure Start initiative and the rangeof services offered, for exampleparenting classes, creches, adviceservices.

Non-working parents said thatthey use the services and considerthat they benefit from them.

Working parents said that it ishard for them to attend supportclasses and facilities because theytend to be open only between 9and 5 on weekdays.

Parents who attended parentingclasses considered they make areal difference to their ability tobring up their children.

Parents regarded Sure Start as oneservice and not a co-ordinatedprogramme involving many. Theirexperience of Sure Start was of aprogramme providing a range ofdifferent types of support fromone source.

! Provide more childcare in theevenings.

! Provide more courses in theevenings.

! Give more encouragement tofathers to attend parentingskills classes.

43

part

two


accepted way of life which they say they prefer. Ourfocus groups indicated that these rough sleeperspreferred the previous policy of being able to sleep in ahostel on occasional nights in winter rather than havingto be referred by an outreach worker, which is part of amore integrated approach to providing support. Forexample, by assessing rough sleepers' health, social andpsychological needs as part of a co-ordinated strategy tohelp them move off the streets. Changing the behaviourof client groups is often therefore something which jointworking initiatives have to bring about if long term socialissues are to be remedied. How this is to be done and, inparticular, the incentives needed to change behaviourrequire careful consideration. Sustainable changes inbehaviour are unlikely to be achieved in the short term;they usually require concentrated effort over a longperiod and this has to be taken account of in planningjoint working initiatives.

How cross-cutting Public Service Agreementsare promoting joint working

2.14 Public Service Agreements were first introduced in 1998setting out each department's objectives for the publicservices which they were responsible for together withmeasurable targets to monitor the delivery of theobjectives. This first set of Public Service Agreementscovered the three financial years 1999-02. Followingthe Comprehensive Spending Review in 2000 theAgreements were developed further and supplementedby Service Delivery Agreements which set out in moredetail how the targets in the Public Service Agreementswere to be achieved. The current Agreements cover theyears 2001-04.

2.15 Public Service Agreements are intended to focusdepartments' efforts on delivering and improving theservices which they are responsible for while at thesame time ensuring that departments are accountablefor their performance. To promote more joint workingbetween departments cross-cutting Public ServiceAgreements were introduced including joint targetswhich several departments share responsibility forachieving. Currently there are four cross-cutting PublicService Agreements:

! Criminal Justice System comprising the crime-related work of the Home Office (The Prison, Policeand Probation Services and Victim Support), theLord Chancellor's Department (the Crown Court, theCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division), magistratescourts and legally-aided criminal defence services);the Law Officers' Departments (the CrownProsecution Service and Serious Fraud Office), thejudiciary; and the magistracy.

The Public Service Agreement is intended to provideclear strategic direction to the system as a whole,with joint strategic planning and performancemanagement. The Criminal Justice System's aimsare: to reduce crime and the fear of crime and theirsocial and economic costs; and to dispense justicefairly and efficiently and to promote confidence inthe rule of law.

! Action against Illegal Drugs comprising activitydelivered by the Home Office, the Department ofHealth, the Department for Education and Skills,HM Customs and Excise, the Treasury, Foreign andCommonwealth Office and the Department forInternational Development.

The aim is to reduce drugs related harm and costs tosociety by co-ordinating the planning, delivery,resourcing and performance monitoring of actionagainst illegal drugs as part of an anti-drugs strategy.

! Sure Start to improve the well-being of youngerchildren through better access to family support,advice on nurturing, health services and earlyeducation. Sure Start provides services to all familieswith children under four within 500 disadvantagedneighbourhoods.

! Welfare to Work to improve the co-ordination of thework of the Department for Education and Skills, theDepartment for Work and Pensions and the Treasuryto move as many unemployed and inactive welfarerecipients into jobs and to help welfare recipientsfacing severe disadvantages to compete effectivelyfor jobs.

2.16 Each Agreement has a series of performance measuresto monitor and assess achievement of their targets(Figure 17 overleaf).

3 ROUGH SLEEPERS

Terry "They get people booked in the hostels and bedand breakfasts but even if you are booked into a hostel,all of a sudden you are not homeless, you have got ahome but it is not a home."

Mike "We have got a five day nurse and a three daydoctor. You have got referrals for the chiropodist, dentistand opticians. Health isn't a problem.

Richard "They come and they talk to me but they knowthat I don't want to get involved with the type of helpthey want to give me…I am on the streets but I don'thave somebody telling me when to get up, what towear, what to do"

John "Come the winter a lot of blokes on the street go outand work and they go and book in (to hostels). Thegovernment has taken that opportunity away, you can notgo and book in, you have to be referred by a worker".

CASE STUDY

44

part

two


Cross-cutting Public ServiceAgreement

Criminal Justice System

Action against Illegal Drugs

Sure Start

Examples of targets included in cross cutting Public Service Agreements and how their achievement is being assessed 17

Example of target

Improve by 5 percentage points thesatisfaction of victims and witnesses with theirtreatment by the Criminal Justice System by2002 and thereafter at least maintain thatlevel of performance.

There are eight other targets.

Reduce the levels of repeat offending amongstdrugs-misusing offenders by 25 per cent by2005 (and by 50 per cent by 2008).

The target covers adults aged 17 and over,arrested in England and Wales. Arresteesunder the age of 17 are classed as juvenilesand therefore ineligible to be interviewed (asthe presence of a guardian is required). Thoseunder 17 are also less likely than olderoffenders to have become heavily drugdependent.

There are three other targets.

Improving health. Achieve by 2004 in the500 Sure Start areas, a 10 per cent reductionin mothers who smoke in pregnancy.

This target is a proxy for improved health.Babies whose mother did not smoke duringpregnancy are more likely have normal birthweight, experience less respiratory illness,more likely to be breastfed and be generallyhealthier.

How target is being measured

Data will be drawn from three main sources:

1) Users of both the civil and criminal courts(including jurors) will be covered by theCourt service customer satisfaction survey'

2) Victims of crime will be covered by theannual British Crime Survey, and

3) Witnesses by a new witness satisfactionsurvey, both commissioned by the HomeOffice.

The British Crime Survey will be conductedannually and the Witness survey at intervalsagreed by the Criminal Justice Strategic PlanningGroup. The baseline year for victims will be1998-99 and for witnesses it will be 2000. Anindependent market research company willconduct the witness satisfaction survey.

Performance is being measured nationally by theNEW-ADAM research programme (New English& Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring)1.

Self -reported data is used to determine both:

"Repeat offending": arrestees who admittedoffending twice or more per month during thelast year, ie repeat offending in the last month.

"Drugs-misusing": those reporting using heroinand/or crack/cocaine at least once a week duringthe last year. The exact relationship betweendrugs and crime is complex but NEW_ADAM1

research indicates that heroin and crack/cocaineare the drugs most implicated in determining thehighest levels offending and illegal income.

Baseline data will be derived from 16 custodysuites in selected police forces across Englandand Wales. The baseline will be set over twofinancial years (8 sites in 1999-2000 and 8 morein 2000-2001). The selected sites were chosen toprovide as full a geographical coverage ofEngland and Wales as possible.

Health visitors, midwives and Sure Start workerswill collect baseline data when they visit familieswith new borns within two months of birth. Theywill ask mothers:

! Did you smoke before you pregnancy wasconfirmed?

! Did you give up smoking completely, at anytime during your pregnancy, until after thebaby was born?

! Did you start smoking again after the birth ofyou baby?

In some cases, baselines may have to beestablished on the basis of data collected duringhome visits in the first three months of operationof the programme. A national baseline based onan aggregation of data from individualprogrammes, or data collected by the nationalevaluation or national surveys, is to beestablished by 31 December 2002.

Departments report progress against these targets for example:

! In February 2001 the Criminal Justice System AnnualReport15 highlighted that the time taken from arrest tosentence of persistent young offenders had fallen from142 to 95 days by September 2000. For all otheroffenders there had been a reduction of 10 days in thetime taken from being charged to being sentenced.

! In 2000 a national witness survey indicated that76 per cent of those surveyed were satisfied withtheir treatment.

! By March 2001 the Sure Start Unit had establishedlocal programmes that were delivering services to10,000 children each month including visiting almost100 per cent of parents within two months of the birthof their baby.

45

part

two


Welfare to Work

Strengthening families and communities.Reduce by 12 per cent the number of 0-3 yearold children in Sure Start areas living inhouseholds where no one is working by 2004.

This target is a real outcome in its own right.Programmes will work on reducing thebarriers to employment and training thatparents of young children living indisadvantaged areas face. The target will beconcerned with reducing the differentialbetween parents of young children living inSure start areas and the wider population.There are two other targets.

Reduce the number of children in householdswith no one in work over the 3 years to 2004(the target is shared with the Treasury and theDepartment for Work and Pensions).

Over the 3 years to 2004 increase theemployment rates of disadvantaged areas andgroups, taking account of the economic cycle- people with disabilities, lone parents, ethnicminorities and the over 50s, the 30 localauthority districts with the poorest initiallabour market position and reduce thedifference between their employment ratesand the overall rate (the target is shared withthe Treasury and Department for Work andPensions).

There are three other targets.

! An aggregated baseline for the programme,referring to the 12 month period 1 April2000 - 31 March 2001, is beingestablished using data from the LabourForce survey or using data on benefitrecipients. This is to be established byDecember 2001.

! In the longer term, data to measureprogress against the target will becollected centrally as part of the Sure Startevaluation and distributed to local sureStart programmes.

This target monitors households where at leastone adult is of working age, has a child underthe age of 16 and where no one in thehousehold is in employment. The target will bemeasured using seasonally unadjusted GreatBritain Labour Force Survey data. This is anational statistic. The baseline will be Spring2001 with the target monitored every sixmonths, using Spring and Autumn data.

The target will separately monitor theemployment rate for the following groups:

! Lone parents

! Ethnic minorities

! Over 50's

! People with disabilities

! 30 areas with poorest initial labour marketposition. Data will be derived from theLabour Force Survey.

Cross-cutting Public ServiceAgreement

Sure Start (continued)

Example of target How target is being measured

NOTE

1. New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Programme (New Adam) was established in July 1999 as a nationalprogramme of research on interviewing and voluntary drug testing of arrestees. It is currently managed by the Home Office Research,Development and Statistics Directorate and conducted by the University of Cambridge.

Source: National Audit Office analysis of Public Service Agreements and Technical notes.

15 Criminal Justice System Annual Report 1999-2000, February 2001

46

part

two


2.17 Departments publish on their websites the details of theirtargets and associated performance measures in thePublic Service Agreements, Service Delivery Agreementsand Technical Notes (which define the measures andbaseline performance against which the targets will bemeasured). The websites for the cross-cutting PublicServices Agreements (Figure 18) provide generalinformation on each joint working initiative and howthose intended to benefit can access services and support.

2.18 In addition, many departments' Agreements include thesame target. For example the target to deliver ameasurable improvement in the performance of TradePartners UK in providing support for businesses isincluded in both the Foreign and CommonwealthOffice's and the Department of Trade and Industry'sAgreements. There is also a Public Service Agreementfor Local Government which brings together all the

targets in departments' individual agreements whichrely on local authorities and their local partners todeliver. Each Local Authority is required to develop itsown Public Service Agreement incorporating the targetswhich it is responsible for within its area.

2.19 The Government also intends to use targets to bridge thegap between deprived and more prosperous areas.16 Itis considering setting minimum targets for outcomes inhealth, education, employment and crime in deprivedareas combined with convergence targets for raisingstandards in these areas towards the national average.Local strategic partnerships would have a role in co-ordinating services at a local level to meet these newtargets.

2.20 Cross-cutting Public Service Agreements have workedwell in encouraging joint working and setting sharedtargets and priorities where a manageably small numberof departments are involved.17 Departments are nowdeveloping their performance measurement systems tomonitor better progress in achieving the targets. Forexample, during 2001 the Home Office are introducingnew questions into the British Crime Survey to enablethe Department to assess the effectiveness of theCriminal Justice System both in reducing crime and indealing with young people accused of crime. TheNational Audit Office are working with the Treasury anddepartments on options for providing assurance aboutthe quality of data systems to monitor and assessprogress in meeting Public Service Agreement targets.

2.21 Whether Public Service Agreements and supportingService Delivery Agreements will lead to sustainableimprovements in public services will ultimately dependon the action taken by departments to achieve thetargets. This will require (i) carefully thought throughand developed implementation plans designed anddelivered by departments working together and throughpartnerships involving the health service, localauthorities and voluntary and private sectororganisations; and (ii) reliable independent informationto monitor and measure performance and to takeremedial action quickly where progress is less thanplanned or value for money is not being delivered.

16 Government Intervention in Deprived Areas; report of the SR 2000 cross-cutting review, HM Treasury, April 2000 17 Measuring the Performance of Government Departments, NAO HC 301, (2000-01) paragraph 6.

The four programmes supported by a cross cuttingPublic Service Agreement each have an integratedwebsite

18

http://www.cjsonline.org.uk

http://www.worktrain.gov.uk

http://www.surestart.gov.uk

http://www.drugs.gov.uk

The annual British Crime Survey covers a randomlyselected sample of those aged 16 or over living in England

and Wales who have been affected by crime.

3.1 This part of the report discusses how to create successfuljoint working initiatives. We draw principally on ourexamination of five joint working initiatives for whichwe analysed the features of the joint working in eachcase and asked those whom we interviewed about thesuccess factors and barriers to joint working which theyhad to overcome. We also considered evidence fromacademic research, the views of our expert panel,international comparisons and previous reports by theCommittee of Public Accounts and the National AuditOffice. In this part we focus on:

i) What needs to be in place to promote successfuljoint working. We set out the key success factors forjoined up or partnership working; and

ii) The questions which programme designers shouldaddress when designing joined up initiatives toenhance their chances of delivering successfuloutcomes.

What needs to be in place topromote successful joint working3.2 A wide range of organisations deliver public services -

local offices of government departments such as BenefitOffices; local authorities; non-departmental publicbodies such as the Environment Agency; non-profitmaking companies such as housing associations; andprofit making companies such as Consignia (formerlythe Post Office). All of these service providers have theirown objectives and work within different regulatoryframeworks. For example local authority Social Servicesdepartments operate in a complex arena of regulationand well-established ways of working reinforced by theSocial Services Inspectorate, local authority structuresand practices and social workers' professional training.To be successful joint working has to establish anenvironment in which all these different requirementsare mutually supportive and work towards a commongoal. When, where and how to join up thereforerequires careful consideration.

3.3 Our examination identified five requirements which as aminimum are needed to promote successful jointworking. Figure 19 provides examples of how each ofthese requirements are being met by the five joined upinitiatives covered by this report.

1Goals - working towards clearly defined, mutually valued, shared goals

Risk from failing to focus on goalsIf objectives are unclear or not shared, partners may worktowards different, incompatible goals and fail to achievedesired outcomes.

The Safer Cities Programme distributed funds to localpartnerships to develop crime prevention strategies andschemes, but no overall goals or targets were set forprogramme co-ordinators and steering groups. The overallprogramme had only a marginal effect on reducing recordedcrime.18

3.4 People and organisations working together have to focuson achieving the goals of the initiative or project. To dothis, they must have a clear, shared understanding ofwhat the goals are and an agreed time frame in which toachieve them. In some cases government departmentsset goals for local partnerships and the time frame fordelivery. In other cases, local partnerships have morefreedom to set their own goals and to establish the bestway for them to contribute to government's overall aims.In both situations it is important that partners are clearabout what they are trying to achieve and by when.

Part 3


What is needed for successful joint working

47

part

thre

e

18 Partnerships in Community Safety, an evaluation of Phase 2 of the Safer Cities Programme, J Knox, A Pemberton and P Wiles, Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions 2000

48

part

thre

e


2Progress measurement - evaluatingprogress towards achieving the desired

goal and taking remedial action whennecessary

Risk from failing to monitor progress and evaluateachievementsJoined up initiatives are no different from other activities inthat their progress must be monitored and remedial actiontaken when performance is less than satisfactory. If partnersdo not measure their progress and compare this against theirplans and available external benchmarks, such as theprogress made by other similar initiatives, they may fail toidentify where and how they could improve.

The Audit Commission found that many pre-1999Community Safety partnerships, set up to tackle crime andanti-social behaviour, had been unable to monitor andevaluate progress because they had not identified clearlytheir starting position or clearly linked their localimplementation plans to their overall strategy. This hinderedthe learning and development of the partnerships.19

3.5 Joint working can involve a few or many organisationsbut ensuring that each makes its designated contributionto the partnership at the right time and of appropriatequality requires careful monitoring. This requires (i) anagreed action plan specifying the responsibilities ofeach partner with a timetable for delivery; and (ii)reliable information to track progress and assessperformance. Our examination of the five joint workinginitiatives found that working with partners to developan action plan and monitor achievement against theplan was usually the full time responsibility of adedicated member of staff.

3.6 Partnerships may be set up to be time-limited orongoing, depending upon their objectives. It is goodpractice, however, for all partnerships to recognisewhen they are near to achieving their original objectivesand make plans to close down the partnership or setnew objectives.

3Resources - ensuring that sufficient andappropriate resources are available

Risk from insufficient or inappropriate resourcesWithout sufficient resources, including appropriate skills, a jointworking initiative will not achieve its intended benefits or these willnot be capable of being sustained in the longer term; and value formoney and propriety may be put at risk. Shortages of resourcesmay result in staff having to "fire fight" a variety of problems at theexpense of the core objective of the joint working initiative.

A lack of finance skills meant that in the early days ofEducation Action Zones, some Zones were spending largesums of public money before they had reliable financialcontrols in place creating risks of poor accounting,impropriety and poor value for money.20

3.7 Joint working often requires additional or different skillsand resources to working through a single organisation.There is always a cost to working in partnership, even ifit is only the time partners have to give to meetings. Jointworking initiatives usually need:

! Dedicated budgets to underpin the initiative and toavoid funds being diverted to other programmes.

! Sufficient time to establish effective workingrelationships. We found that if organisations had someprior knowledge or experience of working togetherthey made swifter progress than organisations whichwere completely new to one another. For example, theSouthwark Sure Start programme established itselfquickly because the partnership built on existing goodworking relations between staff from the CommunityHealth Trust and other local agencies.

! Skills. Typical skills required for joint working areproject management, marketing, consultationparticularly in the context of obtaining andunderstanding the views of community groups,financial planning and IT. More specialist skills mayhave to be bought in such as accountancy and legaladvice. For example, in setting up the newNorthumberland Business Service the implementationproject team had to carry out an extensive consultationexercise with small firms, define the tasks needed toget the new service up and running, develop abusiness plan, contract for a new IT system, liaise withthe Small Business Service and other funders anddevelop a marketing plan for the new service.

! Guidance and advice. Those involved in joint workingmay have little prior experience of working withgovernment organisations and, therefore, needguidance and advice on a range of issues including -establishing appropriate governance and accountabilityarrangements; how to engage local communities; thetype and extent of information needed to monitor theprogress of joint working and how such data should becollected; and quality assurance - how to assess andenhance the quality of the key outputs of joint working.

19 Safety in Numbers - Promoting Community Safety, Audit Commission, 1999.20 Education Action Zones, Meeting the Challenge - The Lessons Identified From Auditing the First 25 Zones, National Audit Office, HC 130 2000-01,

January 2001.

49

part

thre

e


4Leadership - directing the team and theinitiative towards the goal

Risk from lack of appropriate leadershipJoined up programmes can be difficult to keep on trackbecause of the additional complexity arising from the numberof players involved. Good leadership is important as part ofthe "glue" to hold the programme together. The leader mustdrive the initiative forward but also engender a co-operativespirit. Where there is no clear leadership or the leader isunable to secure the co-operation of key partners then turfwars may result with the energies of partners being distractedfrom key goals.

Research shows that strong leadership was important increating successful joint working in partnerships set up toregenerate neighbourhoods in deprived areas.21

3.8 Most joint working initiatives are not partnerships ofequals. Some organisations have more authority,resources or status than others. For joint working to beeffective these differences need to be managed so thatall parties are committed to achieving the intendedbenefits. Typical leaderships skills required to make jointworking successful include:

! Facilitation - particularly the ability to secure theinvolvement and commitment of a wide range oforganisations in discussion and decision making.

! Influencing and communication such as the abilityto convince partners and a range of stakeholders ofthe purpose of the initiative and what it can achieveand that there are no hidden agenda - that the realbusiness and decision making is not taking placeelsewhere.

! Organisation and planning - particularly to co-ordinate a range of partners and activities toachieving a common goal and sustainableimprovements in public services.

5Working well together - to achieve ashared responsibility

Risk from poor working relationship between partnersIf organisations do not establish good working relationshipsbased on mutual support and trust and open sharing ofinformation then joint working will fail and improvements inpublic services will not be achieved.

If mistrust develops the consequences for service delivery andvalue for money can be serious. For example, the tendencyfor an adversarial relationship to exist between constructionfirms, subcontractors, consultants and their clientscontributed to poor performance, cost and time overruns inthe delivery of construction projects.22

3.9 The aim of working in partnership is to harness the energiesand expertise of individuals from different organisationstowards the same goal, whether that goal is to provide abetter quality, more efficient service or to tackle anintractable social problem. If individuals from differentorganisations cannot work effectively together then thebenefits of joint working may be lost. Individuals takingpart in partnership working can find it an uncomfortableprocess trying to balance the goals and priorities of thepartnership with those of their own organisation which iswhy it is important that their organisations support thepartnership's goals and priorities.

3.10 Joint working requires different approaches and attitudesto working as a single organisation. Partners have toshare responsibility and authority but traditional ways ofworking may influence organisations to seek to protecttheir own interests. Developing trust between partners iskey in creating a working environment where theconcerns of individual organisations can be entrusted tothe partnership. For example, in the Sunderland EarlyYears Development and Childcare Partnership, thepartner representing play groups trusted the localauthority to negotiate with schools over their admissionspolicies, a matter of great concern to play groups.

3.11 Barriers can arise from individuals' preconceivednotions of the attitudes or skills of people from differentworking backgrounds compounded by a lack ofunderstanding of partner organisations' differentcultures and ways of working. Partners need to be awareof their own and others' expectations and viewpointsand to make positive efforts to develop open and honestcommunication. This can be helped by specific team-building events and joint activities.

3.12 As partnerships mature other problems can arise. Theoriginal enthusiasm and drive of the partners can waneor the partnership comes to resemble a cosy club,appearing exclusive to outsiders. Partnerships need toconstantly re-evaluate their goals, their achievementsand their expectations to ensure that they keep up thework rate and remain open to new ideas and people.

21 Policy Action Team 17. Joining it up Locally, National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,2000.

22 Modernising Construction, National Audit Office, HC 87 2000-01, January 2001.

Benefit secured. The Northumberland Business Service won thefranchise for Business Link services in Northumberland becausetheir client-centred approach enabled them to develop a suiteof services to meet local needs following extensive consultationwith small businesses.

50

part

thre

e


Examples of good practice in joint working 19

1 Goals - working towards a clearly defined, mutuallyvalued, shared goal.

Northumberland Business Service was formed when agroup of local business people got together with theCounty Council to develop a new service. The steeringgroup worked together to define what they wanted thenew service to be like. Their starting point was that theservice should meet the business support and advice needsof all small businesses in the county. The Small BusinessService reinforced this client-centred approach by adoptingappropriate performance measures for example, settingminimum customer service standards and competencestandards and accreditation of advice providers.

2 Progress measurement - evaluating progress towardsachieving the desired goal and taking action as a result.

Sure Start programmes involve local partnershipscreating an action plan with milestones and targetsunder each of Sure Start's key objectives. Theprogramme manager is principally responsible formonitoring progress against the plan. The Sure StartUnit has also put in place an evaluation framework toassess the effectiveness of the initiative and itscomponents.

3 Resources - ensuring that sufficient and appropriateresources are available.

The Department for Education and Skills providesresources direct to Early Years Development andChildcare Partnerships, paid via the local educationauthority, to underpin their partnership working and todevelop services. The Department provides funding fora small team to give administrative and managerialsupport to each partnership and provides a range ofother support through its partnership advisers, websiteand conferences.

4 Leadership - directing the team and the initiativetowards the goal.

The Department for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions appointed a rough sleeping Director to takepersonal responsibility for driving the initiative forward.The Department chose someone with strongcommunication skills and drive to promote the goal tothe team and to partner organisations.

5 Working well together - to deliver a sharedresponsibility.

The Department for Trade and Industry and the Foreignand Commonwealth Office joined together to formBritish Trade International. Managers and staff from bothdepartments are working to overcome differences inculture and working practices between the twoorganisations. British Trade International areimplementing joint training and secondments toreinforce joint working.

Benefit secured. The performance framework allowspartnerships to try out new approaches and test whether theywork. Partnerships can assess their progress, learn from othersand take action to refine their programme as a result.

Benefit secured. Partners can draw on the expertise andassistance of partnership staff allowing them to fulfil theirstrategic role.

Benefit secured. The leader was able to enthuse the team andpartner organisations. As a result, partners committedthemselves to the goal, believing it could be achieved if theyworked together for the benefit of clients.

Benefit secured. Staff from the two organisations are learningto work with one another and barriers are being broken downto encourage staff to pursue common goals.

Source: National Audit Office examination of five joint working initiatives

51


Designing joined up programmes3.13 The long term success of joint working initiatives depend ultimately on how well they are designed at the outset. This section

of the report focuses on six key questions which require careful consideration in designing joined up programmes.

A who needs to be involved

B what incentives are needed to reinforce joint working

C what support is needed to improve the capacity of organisations to work together

D how to fund the initiative to support joint working

E how long should the joint working last

F what accountability and regulatory framework will best support joint working

part

thre

e

AWho needs to be involved?

3.14 The starting point for the design of any policy or serviceis considering a range of options, one or more of whichmay involve joint working. If joint working isappropriate a decision about which organisations needto work together has to be made. This can involvevarious stages:

! Deciding whether to establish a new partnership.The first consideration should be whether a newpartnership or other joint working arrangement isrequired. Departments need a good knowledge ofthe extent and track record of partnerships andservice providers that already exist particularly at alocal level and consider whether an existingpartnership or organisation could take on a newrole. Departments need, however, also to guardagainst the temptation to use existing serviceproviders simply because they believe it will beeasier and cheaper to do so.

! Determining the number of organisations to bepart of the joint working arrangement. The numberand range of people and organisations invited to bepart of a joint working initiative will depend on whatthe initiative is intended to achieve. Departmentsneed to balance involving all organisations andcommunity groups who have an interest or somerole to play with avoiding the practical difficulties oforganising and motivating large numbers ofpartners. Departments may need to considerwhether there are other ways of involving largenumbers of stakeholders and community groupswithout them needing to be formal partners forexample, through regular consultation.

! Deciding the organisational form which jointworking should take. There is no "one size fits all"for joint working. The appropriate legal frameworkwill depend on circumstances, for example apartnership may be set up as a legal entity if it needsto own property or contract for services in its ownright. Having clear governance arrangements, sothat partners understand their role andresponsibilities is, however, important.

! Determining geographical boundaries and linkagesto other initiatives and bodies. Departments need toexamine the proposed geographical boundaries ofnew partnerships they wish to set up to ensure thatthese are co-terminous with existing administrativeboundaries wherever possible. This should simplifypartnership arrangements and make liaison withother initiatives and bodies more effective.Departments should identify other local and nationalinitiatives which will impact upon the work of thenew partnership and consider how to ensure that thenew initiative links effectively with existing initiativesboth locally and within central government. 52

part

thre

e


Some Sure Start partnerships have become companieslimited by guarantee, with a board of directors, toenable them to contract for services whilst otherpartnerships have decided not to incorporate becausethey wish to preserve their flexibility to adapt theirpartnership arrangements to new circumstances whichmay develop.

In 2000, the Small Business Service reduced thenumber of Business Link partnerships from 89 to 45and made their boundaries co-terminous with those ofone of their principal partners, Learning and SkillsCouncils. The new partnership areas are also alignedwith the boundaries of Regional DevelopmentAgencies. County councils, in particular, now workwith only one Business Link partnership instead ofseveral.

When the Department for Education and Skills wereconsidering how to implement its national childcarestrategy it identified that it could expand the role of theexisting Early Years Development Partnerships toinclude childcare. This was a more efficient use of localresources and also improved the integration of earlyeducation with childcare.

The Department for Education and Skills requires EarlyYears Development and Childcare Partnerships toinclude representatives from a wide range of localorganisations including churches, higher education andhealth. This is important for a partnership whose role isto plan services for the whole community. Partnershipmeetings can be very large, however, and involve over50 people making it difficult to engage all partners.

53

part

thre

e


BWhat incentives are needed to reinforcejoint working?

3.15 Organisations need incentives to work together effectivelybecause their customs, functions, and regulatory frameworkscan tend to reinforce the primacy of directing resourcestowards organisations' own objectives rather than joining upwith others. Incentives can take different forms:

! Promoting action through leadership. Strongleadership can be an important incentive particularly ifthis convinces joint working participants of the highpriority and commitment behind the initiative.

! Ensuring that objectives have direct relevance to partnerorganisations. The better the fit between the objectives ofthe initiative and those of organisations involved in thepartnership the easier it becomes to join up. This meansensuring that objectives are defined in a way that isrelevant and meaningful to participating organisations.

! Providing financial incentives. Additional funds canbe a powerful incentive to work together. Forexample, the new Neighbourhood Renewal Unit inthe Department for Transport, Local Governmentand the Regions requires local authorities to set upa local strategic partnership to co-ordinate all thepartnership activity within their areas as a conditionof access to funding from the £900 millionNeighbourhood Renewal Fund.

! Allowing partnerships greater flexibility in their use ofresources. An alternative way of incentivisingorganisations to work together is to give them greatercontrol over how they use their resources. In 2001,20 local authorities agreed to pilot local Public ServiceAgreements. In return for greater freedom, for examplethe ability to borrow money or to disapply governmentregulations and administrative procedures - such asfreedom to keep revenue raised from fines or to switchgrants between different programmes, local authoritieshave committed themselves to achieving a range ofperformance targets which address both local andnational priorities. For example, Kent County Councilhas committed itself to getting all the different agenciesin the county to work together to meet new targetsincluding closing the gap between its deprived areasand the rest of the county. If it achieves its targets KentCounty Council will receive a Performance RewardGrant of £26 million in addition to having moreflexibility over its spending.

3.16 Incentives do not always have the impact originallyintended and this risk has to be carefully managed.Incentives need to be designed carefully and theirvarious potential impacts thought through. In a numberof the joint working initiatives which we examined wefound examples where despite incentives being in placeorganisations did not act in ways originally intended. Inaddition, established partnerships may need newincentives and challenges from time to time to preventthem becoming stale.

The lead officers of each of the Early YearsDevelopment and Childcare Partnerships which wespoke to said that the support given by their MP or localcouncillors was important in securing the co-operationof partners. They considered that without this supportthe partnership would be seen as low priority by theCouncil's education or social services departmentswhich would also affect how other organisations sawthe work of the partnership.

The Rough Sleepers Unit found that despite its work incommunicating its objectives to partner organisations,a few pursued goals which were not fully inaccordance with those of the Unit's policy. Thissituation arose from genuine differences of opinionbetween the Unit and voluntary organisations over howto address rough sleeping and homelessness. The Unitfound that it was not enough that the organisationdeliver the services set out in grant agreements. If theydid not fully agree with the aims or approach of theinitiative then they would not work effectively withothers to provide joined up innovative solutions. Forexample, working with police to tackle a street drugsculture which attracts young people to the streets.

The effect of the target to reduce rough sleeping by twothirds within three years galvanised activity within keyvoluntary sector organisations. Generally managerswelcomed the target as providing a sharper focus fortheir activities although the reaction of workers tryingto move people away from the streets was more mixed.

CWhat support is needed to improve thecapacity of organisations to work together

3.17 The size and nature of organisations working together injoint initiatives varies considerably. Some organisationshave well established procedures and are familiar withworking with departments. Others, and in particularlocal community groups, may have little experience ofworking with public sector bodies. In designing jointworking initiatives careful consideration needs to begiven to how to build and develop the capacity of localcommunity groups, and other organisations with limitedexperience of working in partnership, to join up andwork together effectively.

3.18 Support to develop the capacity of organisations towork together can be provided in various ways.

! Advice and guidance. Departments routinelyprovide guidance to those organisations whichreceive funding in the form of grants. The guidancetypically sets out grant conditions and departments'grant administration procedures. For joint workingand partnership initiatives departments provideadditional advice. We found this guidance to be ofvarying quality and focus - some set out generalgood practice principles for partnership workingsupported by examples, some provide specificadvice relevant to particular partnership models.Most of the guidance had been prepared bydepartments independently of one anothersuggesting that there is a need for more genericguidance on the principles of joint working basedon a wide range of experience.

! Expert assistance available locally. Four of the jointworking initiatives which we examined hadestablished expertise in regional offices either in theGovernment Offices for the Regions or the RegionalDevelopment Agency as a source of advice andassistance. The role of these individuals is to provideadvice to partnerships on a range of issues, facilitatenetworking between partnerships and monitor theirperformance and give feedback. The Rough SleepersUnit carries out these functions itself from Londonalthough it delegates the networking role in Londonto a voluntary organisation, the Homeless Network.

! Learning networks. Organisations involved in jointworking need easy access to information on goodpractice. We found that departments used a range ofapproaches to disseminate and promote goodpractice. These included conferences, seminars,training events, local networking meetings andwebsites.

54

part

thre

e


Sure Start has appointed regional development officerswho work from Government Offices for the Regions toadvise and monitor Sure Start partnerships. The officershave their own expertise but also work to ensure thatlessons learned from one partnership are disseminatedmore widely. British Trade International has appointedregional directors part of whose role is to support andmanage the network of international trade advisers inBusiness Links.

The Department for Education and Skills has held a numberof events for Early Years Development and ChildcarePartnerships to identify problem areas where furtherguidance is needed and to promote networking betweenpartnerships. The Small Business Service promotes thesharing of knowledge and ideas between Business Linkpartnerships by holding training events whilst the Sure Start Unit hosts a forum for questions and answersfrom partnerships on its website to share learning and goodpractice between programmes.

EXAMPLES OF GUIDANCE ON JOINTWORKING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE:

■ Building Partnerships in the English Regions:A Good Practice Guide, Department of theEnvironment Transport and the Regions, 1998.

■ Working in partnership: developing a wholesystems approach. Good Practice Guide, NHSExecutive, 2000.

■ Working with local agencies and otherpartnerships and networks, Department forEducation and Employment, 2000.

■ Partnership Programmes - A Guide Written by H M Customs and Excise, 2000.

DHow to provide funding in ways whichpromote joint working

3.19 How joint working is financed can influence howsuccessful it is. Consideration has to be given towhether it is important for the joint workingarrangement to have flexibility in the way money is usedor whether tighter control by the central unit ordepartment responsible for the policy is needed to targetspending on national priorities. The financing of jointworking usually takes two forms - it can either be "ring-fenced" or "pooled". There are advantages with bothapproaches (Figure 20).

3.20 In general it is better for joint working for thepartnership to have control over its funds. Pooledbudgets allow greater flexibility, make it easier forpartnerships to design solutions that fit localcircumstances and encourage partnerships to develop astrategic approach. Separate ring-fenced budgets,especially combined with short-term or annual biddingfor funds, militate against this. Where appropriate,departments should consider whether they can setmeaningful, measurable targets for achievement whichcan be carefully monitored in place of ring-fencedbudgets.

3.21 In funding joint working arrangements there areadditional or increased support services likely to beneeded including administrative and secretarialsupport, financial management, premises for meetings,attendance allowances to cover for staff absence atmeetings and training for partners.


Sure Start partnerships have a single capital budget and asingle programme budget. This gives the partnerships theflexibility to design programmes which draw on what isalready available and plug any gaps in existing services. Italso promotes innovation because partnerships havefreedom to try out different approaches. Departmentalcontrol is exercised by scrutiny of partnerships' plans andby having a set of targets which partnerships must aim tomeet.

The Rough Sleepers Unit has brought together fundingpreviously administered by several differentgovernment departments and agencies. This hasenabled the Unit to have greater flexibility in pursuingits strategy to reduce rough sleeping. In this case, thefreedom to direct spending is also buttressed by aspecific target to reduce rough sleeping by two thirdsover three years.

RING-FENCED BUDGET: funds are designated by thesponsoring department for a clearly defined purpose andcannot be used for anything else without prior agreement ofthe department.

Advantages include:

! Partners have to focus on achieving a specific objectiveoften within a designated time period.

! Sponsoring departments have much greater control overhow money is used.

! Clearly specified amounts of money are allocated topriorities with guaranteed funding often for a number ofyears.

! There are clear lines of accountability becauseresponsibility for expenditure is clearly specified.

POOLED BUDGET: funds which can be used to finance arange of activities are provided by a number of departments,agencies and local authorities.

Advantages include:

! Partners have greater flexibility in the way in which theycan use funds.

! Partners can design solutions which fit localcircumstances.

! Joint working is promoted because a number oforganisations have an interest in how their money isspent.

! Accountability can be promoted by defining theoutcomes to be achieved (with the partnership havingdiscretion as to how they are achieved) and havingmeasures to monitor progress.

Advantages of pooled and ring-fenced budgets20

part

thre

e

55

EHow long should the joint working last

3.22 All forms of organisation need renewal after a period oftime to respond to new circumstances and to preventthem becoming stale. Depending upon the nature of theproblem the initiative is intended to solve, departmentsintend some joint working initiatives to produce animpact in a short period of time whilst others aredesigned as long term initiatives. There are two pointsprogramme designers need to consider:

! Succession strategies. It is important that, for time-limited initiatives, there is a properly thought-through succession strategy to ensure that theachievements of the initiative are sustained and thatlessons are learned from the joint working and,where applicable, transferred to mainstreamservices. Departments should ensure that they buildin time to develop succession strategies into theirwork-planning.

! Maintenance. For longer term initiatives theproblem becomes one of maintaining the drivetowards the goals. This may be more of a problemfor partnerships than other organisational formsbecause partnerships often require greater effort towork well. Departments need to have a good handleon partnership performance and be ready to providefresh incentives and challenges to partnerships fromtime to time. They should also re-evaluate therationale behind the joint working and assesswhether the initiative still fulfils a valid purposewhich cannot be met in some other, simpler way.

56

part

thre

e


The Rough Sleepers Unit was established to reduce thenumber of people sleeping rough by two-thirds byApril 2002. The Unit has been working on a successionstrategy to ensure that the reductions it achieves inrough sleeping are sustained beyond April 2002.

The national network of Business Link partnerships wasformed between 1993 and 1997. The early enthusiasmfor the initiative waned in some areas and somepartnerships lost their focus on customers. The SmallBusiness Service restructured the network in 2000-01in part because of the variation in their performance.

FWhat accountability and regulatoryframework will best support joint working

3.23 In designing joint working arrangements departmentsneed to establish a clear accountability framework whichdoes not impose unnecessary burdens on partnershipsand service providers. Departments also need to considerwhether their own internal organisational structures willadequately support joint working.

! Establishing a clear accountability framework. Anumber of organisations may make a contribution toservice delivery and receive public money to do soas part of joint working. Reliable accountabilitydepends on (i) there being clear and accuratereporting of how public money is used by eachorganisation and what it has achieved; and (ii) thoseintended to benefit from the service having adequatemeans of redress where quality of service is poor.

The sometimes complex nature of joint workingarrangements mean that it is important for the role andresponsibilities of each organisation to be clearlydefined and understood by all those involved in thejoint working and those who use the service. The latteris particularly important if citizens are to know towhom they should complain if they are not satisfiedwith the service. Service providers should make clientsaware of complaints procedures and the partnershipshould undertake regular surveys of client satisfaction.

The minimum requirements needed to promote soundaccountability include:

! clear definition of the roles and responsibility ofeach organisation involved in joint working, andin particular partners' responsibility for ensuringpropriety in the use of public money;

! unambiguous targets setting out theimprovements in service delivery to be achievedand over what time period;

! clear statement of the client groups who areintended to benefit from the initiative;

! reliable information regularly provided onprogress in meeting targets;

! clear understanding of who is responsible for takingremedial action if progress is less than satisfactory;

! audited financial statements reportingexpenditure; and

! periodic independent evaluations to assess theachievement of planned benefits and to learn lessons.

In setting up joint working initiatives these basicrequirements should be formally communicated to eachpartner organisation and a lead officer designated ashaving responsibility for ensuring that they arecomplied with.

57

part

thre

e


Sure Start programmes have the most complexaccountability arrangements of any of the five jointworking initiatives which we examined. Localpartnerships agree which partner will be responsible foradministering funding and producing financialaccounts. The partnership as a whole is responsible formeeting Sure Start's objectives although the lead partnerhas the responsibility of reporting on performance to theSure Start Unit. Each service provider operates their owncomplaints procedures and is responsible for the staffthey employ and the services they deliver. Clients cancomplain to their service provider in the first instance ifthey are not satisfied with the quality of service theyreceive. The partnership has no legal responsibility forquality of service, this rests with each individualorganisation within the partnership.

58

part

thre

e


! Minimising the administrative burden. Jointworking is often funded by a number of differentdepartments and agencies all of which can haveseparate grant application and reporting ofexpenditure and performance procedures. Theremay also be separate regulation, inspection andevaluation requirements. All of this can result in anincreased administrative burden particularly forsmaller organisations. In designing joint workinginitiatives departments need to consider ways inwhich reporting and other associated procedurescan be streamlined. In particular they should lookfor ways to integrate different reportingrequirements and share information so thatorganisations only have to provide information inone format and to one location. For example, theRegional Co-ordination Unit of the Cabinet Office iscurrently carrying out a review of regenerationfunding to try to make grant application proceduresmore accessible and to streamline monitoring. Thisbuilds on earlier work carried out by the BetterRegulation Task Force on voluntary sector fundingarrangements.

! Considering whether existing departmentalstructures support joint working. Implementingjoined up programmes may have implications fordepartmental structures. Programmes designedaround client groups often cut across existing policyresponsibilities and departments should consider atan early stage in the design of programmes whethertheir own organisational structures are appropriateto support the initiative. We found that each of thefive joint working initiatives which we examinedhad resulted in organisational changes fordepartments to enable them to provide a joined uppolicy response to the needs of specific clientgroups (Figure 21).

The Rough Sleepers Unit reduced the number ofmonitoring reports it required from voluntaryorganisations. These organisations, however, felt thatwhilst the Unit had made some progress, there was morethat could be achieved. In particular, voluntaryorganisations which received funding from a number ofdifferent departments and agencies have suggested thatdepartments should share information and work togetherto develop a single system of regulation and inspection.

59

part

thre

e


Organisational changes in departments to promote joint working21

Initiative

Rough Sleepers

Early YearsDevelopment andChildcare Partnerships

Sure Start

Business Linkpartnerships

British TradeInternational

Department

Department forTransport, LocalGovernment and theRegions

Department forEducation and Skills

Department forEducation and Skillsand Department ofHealth

Department of Tradeand Industry

Department of Tradeand Industry andForeign andCommonwealthOffice

Organisational change

A specialist unit established in the department overseen by a Ministerial steering groupwith representation from key government departments. Key positions are staffed bysecondees from voluntary sector homelessness organisations.

Policy responsibility for nursery education and childcare has been brought togetherwithin one unit. The Unit has specialist partnership advisers, brought in from localgovernment and elsewhere, located in Government Offices for the Regions.

A specialist unit was established between the Department for Education and Skillsand the Department of Health. It is overseen by a Ministerial steering group withrepresentation from key government departments and staffed by civil servants fromdepartments and secondees from local government. The Unit has specialistdevelopment officers located in Government Offices for the Regions.

The Small Business Service was established as an executive agency of the Departmentof Trade and Industry to manage Business Link partnerships and to promote joined uppolicy towards small business from across government. The Small Business Service hasregional directors brought in from the private sector and located in the RegionalDevelopment Agencies.

British Trade International is itself a unique form of central government organisationbringing staff from two departments together into a single operation without formalstatus either as a separate government department or as an Agency. The Group ChiefExecutive reports to a Board including representatives from the two departments andthe private sector and to a Minister who holds office in both departments. It hasregional directors - most from the private sector - and in most cases located in theRegional Development Agencies.

Source: National Audit Office examination of five joint working initiatives

60

appe

ndix

one

Appendix 1 The Methodology

1 The main features of our methodology were:

! We undertook five case examinations of services tothree client groups - rough sleepers, pre schoolchildren and small and medium sized businesses -conducting structured interviews with staff indepartments and in local partnerships to understandthe different circumstances and ways in whichjoined up government is being implemented and toidentify the lessons that have been learned whichhave the potential for wider application;

! The Department for Transport, Local Governmentand the Regions' rough sleepers initiative whichhas a dedicated unit within the department andpartners comprising voluntary organisations, localauthorities, health services and the police.

! The Department for Education and Skills; localEarly Years Development and ChildcarePartnerships which has partners including localauthorities, private nursery and childcareproviders, voluntary nursery and childcareproviders, schools and parents.

! The Department for Education and Skills and theDepartment of Health's Sure Start initiative, withlocal partnerships whose membership varies andoften includes local authorities, health services,voluntary organisations and community groups.

! The Department of Trade and Industry's BusinessLink partnerships involving the learning andskills councils, local authorities, Chambers ofCommerce, and enterprise agencies.

! The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and theDepartment of Trade and Industry's British TradeInternational.

! To support the findings of our case studies, we alsomet with the following organisations who representthe interests of different client groups:

i) Rough sleepers

Crisis

Centrepoint

ii) Pre-school children

National Childminding Association

National Children's Bureau

Pre-school Learning Alliance

The NSPCC

The Children's Society

iii) Small and medium sized businesses

CBI

Federation of Small Businesses

Institute of Directors

National Federation of Enterprise Agencies

The British Chambers of Commerce

And to provide a perspective from local partnerships

iv) Local Government Association

! We commissioned NOP Consumer Ltd to carry outfocus groups of rough sleepers and the parents ofpre-school children to find out their views of theservices they received, their perceptions of thechanges brought about by the joined up initiativesand what additional services they would like. Theycarried out the focus groups with rough sleepers inLondon and Manchester and with parents of pre-school children in London, Leeds and Sunderland.

! To supplement the case examinations, we carriedout a review of recent research into the factors thatare important to achieve successful cross boundaryworking.

! We looked at practice in other countries to learnfrom their approach to working across boundaries:Australia, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand,Sweden and the United States of America.

! We reviewed previous reports by the National AuditOffice and the Committee of Public Accounts toidentify examples of joint working and the scope oflessons to be learnt.

! We commissioned an academic research paper fromSue Richards, Professor of Public Policy, Universityof Birmingham, on the types of joined upgovernment and the problem of accountability.

! We consulted an expert panel comprising IanHandford (outgoing Chairman, Federation of SmallBusinesses), Lin Homer (Chief Executive, SuffolkCounty Council), David Prince (Director ofOperations, Audit Commission), Sue Richards(Professor of Public Management, University ofBirmingham), Nicola Simpson (Director of PublicAffairs, NACAB), Gerry Stoker (Professor of Politics,University of Manchester) and Alan Whysall (DeputyDirector, Cabinet Office).


61

appe

ndix

two

Introduction1 'Joined up government' has been seen as the answer to

many of the public policy problems, which haveemerged in the last few years. There is glibness about theterm which disguises the significance of thefundamental system design questions which relate tothese policy problems. Like joined up writing, theimplication is that this is a relatively straightforwardprocess which one can easily accomplish. Newinitiatives which promise to solve difficult and complexproblems need to be based on careful analysis of thenature of those problems, and it is hoped that this paperwill assist in that analysis.

2 Joined up government has become the fashionablesolution to some of the problems of co-ordination andcontrol in government. It raises issues of organisationaland system design which are inherent in any complexsituation. All governments wish to use public policy toachieve change in the real world, and require joined upgovernment and public service in order to do so. Theyhave to decide how to define their problem and whatthe best policy is for solving it, how best to mobilisesupport for these changes, what policy instruments arelikely to lead to the right results, how to allocateresources to incentivise and enable people to deliverthose results, how to deploy organisationalresponsibilities and accountabilities for delivery, andhow to evaluate and learn from the experience in orderto do better next time.

3 How this is done in any given circumstance is likely toreflect the core strategic purposes a particulargovernment sets itself. What are the key themes bywhich they will be judged? The approach toorganisational and system design also reflects the keydrivers and enablers of change in the wider political,economic, social and technological environment, all ofwhich will impact on a government's capacity toachieve purpose.

4 This paper argues that an older paradigm of publicpolicy and public service, in place in the three decadesfollowing the second world war, was characterised bygovernment joined up through policy consensus and thecommunity of professional practice. As the conditionsfor this paradigm decayed, it was replaced by another

paradigm, which was designed to achieve increasedeconomy and efficiency in public spending, but inachieving these fragmented the system for deliveringservice outputs. This paradigm too ran its course,achieving some of the core purpose of increasedeconomic competitiveness, until being replaced, asseems to be happening now, by a new paradigm, whichfocuses on the effectiveness of the outcomes of publicpolicy and service. All governments have to deal withissues of co-ordination, but these have been madeparticularly problematic at the present time by thelegacy of this second paradigm and its fragmentation.

5 In the first section, this paper tracks those big changes inthe core strategies of governments and relates them toissues of co-ordination and control. Following that, itexplores the nature of the types of problems to whichjoined up government may be the answer, and assesseswhat processes for joining up are likely to be appropriatefor different types of policy and service problem. Finally,the implications for accountability are considered. Doesjoined up government need to be mirrored by joined upaccountability, or does it require accountability to bemore focused on outcomes and less on inputs andprocesses - more on the ends and less on the means.

Paradigm change in public policy6 Public policy and public services change constantly,

adapting to new circumstances in the polity, theeconomy and the society to which they relate. However,there appear to be times when change is of a differentorder, when it is step change - or paradigm change -rather than incremental. These are periodic momentswhen many of the old institutionalised 'rules of thegame', which in normal times go unquestioned andeven unacknowledged, are overtly challenged. Thisseems to be such a moment, and 'joined upgovernment' indicates one feature of this step change.

7 It is possible that there may not be a paradigm change atthe present time. The picture is not altogether clear. It iseasier to see paradigm changes in the past, where timehas allowed the pattern to emerge more clearly, than ofthose currently taking place. The management theoristHenry Mintzberg uses the term 'emergent strategy' toindicate a pattern of behaviour and action whose

Appendix 2Four types of joined up government and the problem of accountabilitySue Richards, Professor of Public Management, University of Birmingham


62

appe

ndix

two


direction becomes clear over time (Mintzberg, 1994).The distance of time allows us to distinguish rhetoricfrom reality in government action.

8 In order to understand the nature of the current situationit is important to explore more of its origins. Thereappear to be three fundamental paradigms of publicpolicy and public service in the UK's post-war history,each relating to the 'core project' of governments at thetime, involving mission and strategy which for much ofthe time came to dominate the policy agenda.

9 The first paradigm had its peak in the war-time and post-war creation of a welfare state providing plannedsecurity from cradle to grave, with a protected economyto maintain full employment, and powerfulprofessionals to ration resources according to theirjudgements about need. This paradigm itself grew out ofa reaction to a previous paradigm characterised by adhoc and uncertain provision of welfare, provided bylocal boards, friendly societies and charitable bodies,and from laissez-faire economic management, whichled to periods of high unemployment.

10 Planning and co-ordination at the top combined with apluralist distribution of power between central and localgovernment, and between elected politicians and keygroups of public service professionals. This distributedsystem of decision-making ensured that many differentperspectives contributed. Changes in the nature ofservices delivered required the development of aconsensus amongst the key players. Change did happenbut it took time to happen.

11 The characteristic organisational form was the largebureaucracy, ideally suited to the delivery of plannedoutputs to a standard level in conditions of environmentalstability. Mintzberg (1993) divides bureaucracy into twoforms - 'machine bureaucracy' and 'professionalbureaucracy', and both were characteristic of this time. Insome cases the task to be undertaken by the organisationwas straightforward enough to be turned into a set ofsimple rules and procedures requiring little front-linediscretion - as for instance in the case of delivering non-discretionary social security benefits. Machinebureaucracies like this deliver standard outputs by havinga standardised process. Where the task is not so easilysimplified, as for instance in the application of complexmedical sciences to observable symptoms in the humanbody, the more appropriate model is the professionalbureaucracy, where standardisation is through the skillsand knowledge of the front line practitioners, acquiredthrough initial training and then through continuingprofessional development. This description has beenelaborated in order to remind us what in this first post-warparadigm were the characteristic modes of co-ordination -joined up government through planning and professionalconsensus.

12 There were characteristic flaws in this paradigm - thepaternalism of dominant professionals who decidedthings for us, not with us, and the relatively weak leversfor keeping down costs. But no one talked about 'joinedup government' because they were actually doing it, ina form appropriate for the paradigm. In the end, thisparadigm lost legitimacy and the way was opened bythe end of the 1970s for a wholly different recipe. Thesecond paradigm was born out of the decay of the socialand economic conditions which had earlier applied, therise of individualism and the fiscal crisis thataccompanied it. The core project of this new paradigmwas global competitiveness, a reaction against theperceived failure of protectionism in economic policy.

13 For public services the significance of this change wasmassively increased attention to unit costs and theirreduction, as the state 'overhead' was cut back, andincreases in the opportunity for the private sector aspublic services were opened up to market forces. Localgovernment and public service professionals weresubject to measures which reduced their scope forautonomous action, and powers were concentrated inWhitehall - perhaps necessary to break the oldparadigm. The pressure to reduce costs led to neworganisational design principles coming into play.Simplified structures, focused on delivery of cost - andin some cases quality improvement within narrowboundaries became the order of the day. The key changewas a belief in the necessity of separating out thestrategic commissioning of services from their provision,thus avoiding 'producer capture' by public serviceprofessionals. Executive agencies in central government,the purchaser provider split in health and the divide intoclient and contractor functions in local government -these were all structures designed to improveperformance by narrowing the focus and injectingcompetition. These developments in the UK weremirrored in many other countries as they responded tothe same international pressures - although the responsein each case was conditioned by its internal factors.

14 For the UK, while there were many improvements inproductivity achieved, overcoming the underlying flawin the 'welfare state' paradigm - lack of costconsciousness. But all such institutional arrangementshave their flaws, and the flaw in this 'efficiency'paradigm was that power was centralised into aWhitehall structure and a culture built on siloprinciples. In the past, the presence of corporateplanning mechanisms, with collective responsibility inthe cabinet at the centre, and the more distributednature of power - in local government and amongstprofessionals - had counter-balanced this tendency.Now, however, these checks and balances werereduced in importance.

63

appe

ndix

two


15 One effect of this was the emergence of 'wickedproblems' (Clarke and Stewart, 1997, Jervis andRichards, 1997). The term 'wicked problems' wasidentified as a product of the silo structures, occurringbecause rational efficient behaviour - narrowly defined- had consequences for other policy and service areas,creating irrationality and inefficiency at an overallsystem level. The classic example is the difficult pupil,excluded from school by a head teacher who needs toimprove his or her school's performance measurementand thus position on league tables of measured outputs.The young person then frequently becomes a charge onthe criminal justice budget in the first instance, and thenlater on the social security budget as they face adult lifeill-equipped for modern employment conditions.

16 That kind of problem is obviously the product of theperverse incentives created by a narrowly defined,output driven performance management system, andthe term 'wicked problem' has been used to refer to this.But the term had a slightly different meaning originally.It was used in the operational research field to denote anintractable problem that we do not know how to solve(Nelson, 1968). The emergence of a raft of such wickedproblems in this paradigm seems to have undermined itslegitimacy with the general public, just as the flaws inthe previous paradigm had. The 'wicked problems' wereinterlocking and deep-seated social problems relating toworklessness, low skills, poor health, drug abuse, therise in crime, the fear of crime, the desertion of publicspaces and consequent reduction in informal socialcontrol of disaffected young people. What seems tohave occurred - not everywhere but in particular 'hotspots' - is a break down of civil society, leaving publicservices with tasks they were ill equipped to handle.

17 The two paradigms outlined here represent archetypalpositions in the continuing dilemmas about the state andthe market, each bringing characteristic benefits anddisbenefits in its wake. So a new paradigm, aimed atachieving both 'economic dynamism' and 'social justice'seems to be emerging, a form of social democraticpolitics, which seeks to maintain the momentum ofcompetitiveness but also intervene heavily on the supplyside to solve these social problems. These interventionsare not merely compensatory, to ease the pain of change,but instead are designed to enhance competitiveness bysolving the 'wicked problems', focusing on developingskills and employability in individuals, and by addressingsocial and community conditions which might harmemployability and thus competitiveness. This paradigm,too, will have its flaws, since all paradigms do. We do notyet have a clear picture of what those flaws might be.

18 The term 'wicked problems' has been used in two ways.The first refers to problems which persist because thedesign of the public policy system hinders their solution.The second concerns a set of intractable social andeconomic problems which no one knows how to solve.

Although in practice both may apply at once, it is worthkeeping an analytic distinction. I will pick up thisdistinction in the section after next.

19 Before going on to explore the varying nature of thoseproblems, it is worth reflecting on a major change in thestrategic environment of government which is changingthe technology it may employ in its work. The changesin information and communications technologypromise to have such an impact on informationhandling that this needs to be encompassed inconsidering issues of joined up government. In the nextsection the paper explores the potential impact onjoined up government of the revolution in informationand communications technology (ICT).

Technology and organisationalstructuring20 Despite the obvious difficulties of introducing ICT in

government, well documented in NAO reports, no-onecan doubt that this revolution in information handlingcapacity will fundamentally affect issues of co-ordination and control, and the nature of the joined upgovernment problem. 'Knowledge base' - and thegrouping together in single organisations of the peoplewho share that knowledge base - is the key principlewhich lies behind the traditional structure of Whitehalland the local agencies it sponsors. It is also the mainway in which local government activities have beenstructured in the past. As long ago as 1918, the RoyalCommission on the Machinery of Governmentestablished 'knowledge base' as the factor which shoulddetermine organisational structure (Haldane, 1918). Atsome stage in the future, ICT developments may be suchas to undermine the notion that the knowledge andexpertise of people should be the key determinants ofstructural design. If information handling capacitiesbecame sufficiently great, the kind of structureMintzberg described as 'professional bureaucracy'would no longer be needed, as even complex taskscould be accomplished by carefully designed processeswhich could be carried out by people withouttraditional professional skills and knowledge. Althoughthis is already happening at the margins, we have not yetmoved very far down this path. For the 'machinebureaucracy', however, we are already in the midst offundamental change.

21 Changes in the handling of process information aretransforming traditional structures. This is well illustratedin the criminal justice system, where there are plans toset up a data warehouse which stores information aboutoffences and the charges brought as a result againstdefendants. The information in the warehouse will beaccessible in regulated ways on line to all the agenciesof the criminal justice system, for trial, sentencing andthe supervision of sentences. Three government

64

appe

ndix

two


departments and six local criminal justice agencies aredirectly involved in the criminal justice process whichwill be covered. Joined up information will lower costs,speed up the process and increase the transparency andreliability of the system, which to victims and otherpublic stakeholders currently seems extremely opaqueand uncertain.

22 This is standard technology, not leading edge, althoughit is immensely difficult in organisational terms to makeit happen. This is partly because the required expertiseis in very short supply, not least because the sameprocesses are happening in the private sector, wheresuch capacities are a key element in competitiveadvantage. The price goes up for specialist skills wheredemand exceeds supply, and human resource practicesin the public sector make it difficult to compete. Sothere are obstacles in the way, but it is clear that ICT willhave a crucial part to play in joined up management andprocess information and, by implication, joined upgovernment.

Intractable problems, tamableproblems and seamless service23 It is clear that the problems to which joined up

government is an answer are quite diverse in nature, andit seems sensible to suppose that the type of joining uprequired will be different in each case. The next sectionexplores the different types of problem and thenexamines the issues for joining up.

Intractable problems24 There is a set of policy problems which tends to focus on

the issues of social exclusion. A vicious circle prevails.Having lost their traditional economic base, and thedisciplines and self respect that go with employment,some communities which did not have access to thenew prosperity - for reasons of geography, ethnicity,culture or other excluding factors - seem to havesuffered a steep decline in social order, with peoplehiding behind their front doors, reluctant to take on therole of active citizen and community member.

25 The full impact of this emerged as the last paradigmmatured. Health inequalities between the top andbottom strata of society had grown; while educationalstandards achieved in the mainstream began to rise, forsink schools on sink estates they remained firmly at thebottom, and crime rose, with the fear of crime comingout as the top issue in studies of public opinion.

26 This is the situation for which the term 'wicked problem'was originally coined in the USA. In the UK 'wickedproblems' were less racially differentiated, but this didnot make the problems any less intractable. Certainlypublic services seem not to have helped. The pattern of

provision in services like education and health has beenbased on values of universalism, where special needwas - and probably still is - under-recognised in thepolicy planning process. The need to retain the supportof the mainstream for public services has ensured thatthey have not been as redistributive as they might havebeen. The government's National Strategy forNeighbourhood Renewal and the floor targets whichcame out of the last spending review may begin to shiftthe pattern of priorities, although there will always bethe countervailing force of the demands made by thosewith better resources for influencing policy decisions.

27 While improved public services for these communitiesare part of the answer, there is more to it than that. Whatis needed is, in effect, the redevelopment orstrengthening of community capacity, networksbetween people that become the means for ensuringcommunity safety, mutual support for well-being, betterhealth and quality of life, and all of this resulting in there-establishing of social control that keeps down anti-social behaviour, a task which is impossible for thepolice without public support and assistance.

28 For these intractable problems, it is necessary torecognise the fundamentally situational character ofboth the problems and the solutions. In driving publicservices to achieve better results, ministers frequentlyhave in mind 'average' service users, and require servicedeliverers to work to this norm. If by doing that theyremove the scope and the drive for responding in asituationally distinctive way to the intractable problemsoutlined above, they will have diminished rather thanenhanced joined up government. While no one knowshow to solve these problems in a general way - hencethe term 'intractable' - because there are manyexamples of success it is possible for local leadershipand entrepreneurial energy to emerge and flourish(Leadbeater,1997).

29 It is possible that careful learning from these manysituations will provide us with more generalisableknowledge of what works. In which case, by definition,the problems would stop being intractable and bedefined as tame instead. While they remain intractable,a strategy of decentralised policy and servicedevelopment, integrated into structures that focus onlocality or community, seems to be the key toappropriate joining up. The central drive should be onfacilitating local players to achieve outcomes. Forcingthem to try to achieve outputs defined at the centre willnot work.

Tame problems30 Tame problems are those where solutions are known, or

where there is a chance through investment in researchand evaluation of finding an answer. Looking at the risein many social indicators which occurred during the

65

appe

ndix

two


post-war years, it is evident that this was a time whenintractable problems were tamed, and solutionsembedded in the professional practice and policies ofthe welfare state. Situations change, and the oldsolutions may no longer be relevant, but the extent towhich practitioners know how to achieve betteroutcomes in public policy should not beunderestimated. The key problem is that during the lasttwenty years the policy priorities, and the structures,processes, cultures and competencies that went withthem, were different.

31 There does appear to be a new class of problems - tamerather than intractable - which lie on the boundariesbetween different jurisdictions, and which haveremained relatively unaddressed in the recent past. Oneexample would be in the rehabilitation of offenders, asit becomes clear that a large proportion of thepopulation of offenders suffer severe educationaldisadvantage, lacking the skills that might enable themto build a stake in society. In the modern economy,those without life and work skills will go to the wall. Aproportion will be drawn into crime as their ownpersonal salvation. Working across the boundaries ofprisons, probation and the employment service allows afocus on the particular needs of this special group, withthe development of programmes which address theiroffending behaviour and also their educationaldisadvantage.

32 These problems are individual to the service user orclient rather than situational in the 'community' senseoutlined above. They are therefore susceptible to the'what works' approach, and to a top-down strategywhich requires partnership working across the silostructures. Whereas in the case of intractable problemsit is right to let a 'thousand flowers bloom', each plantwithin its own unique habitat, in this case, joining upthrough a programmatic design may be the best way ofachieving desired outcomes. This will requireconsiderable attention to the performance managementframeworks designed in the days when cost reductionwas king to allow for the effective use of resourceswherever most needed in the service process to achievethe right results.

33 Since by definition the knowledge and skill baserequired to solve these 'tame' problems will bedistributed across a number of service structures, adesign which gives access to the required knowledgeand skill is essential. This is likely to involve thefollowing:

! Ambitious national strategy. Defining theproblem and assessing potential solutions will lieoutside the scope of local agencies. Althoughtheir knowledge will be needed in thedevelopment of the strategy. It falls to centralgovernment to develop the strategy and the

programme for its delivery. That will involveprogramme, objectives, targets, performancemonitoring and performance comparison. Apartfrom exceptional cases, this will not requirenewly created silo structures, but the process oftwo or more existing structures working inpartnership to achieve results. Creating newstructures adds to the problems of complexityexpressed in the term 'congested state' (Sullivanand Skelcher, forthcoming).

! Cross-sector leadership capacity. This kind ofchange cannot be created by incentives andsanctions alone. While a certain level ofincentive to achieve results can be built into thisprocess via comparative evaluation, a keycomponent in joining up this type of problem isleadership which focuses attention on results.Ministerial leadership in central governmentneeds to be structured so as to facilitate this, andnot be narrowly departmental in nature. Thedevelopment of self-motivating problem solvingleadership in local service agencies is vital, sincesuch people will be required to balance the twinaspects of this 'third way' paradigm. Where thereare well-established ways of delivering outcomesthrough known outputs, the job will be tocontinue to drive down costs, delivering moreoutputs for less input. Where outcomes can onlybe achieved through new outputs, which requirepartnership working for their production,leadership will be needed to create and maintainthis capacity. These two quite different tasks willneed to be led by the same people, a mix oftransformational and transactional leadershipcompetences (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998; Newman,2001).

! Flexible/pooled budgets. Ideally, budgetaryframeworks should be built around the nature ofthe outcome to be achieved. Where outcomesneed partnership-based outputs to achieve them,it makes sense to have a flexible approach tobudgets, allowing the money to be spent asseems to the partners most likely to lead to thedesired results. Public service has already startedmoving in this direction, as in the case of the£500 million budget agreed at the last spendingreview for the criminal justice system, to be usedin whatever agency would provide most system-wide benefit. Change needs to be a step at a timeso as to build assurance that the gains inoutcomes outweigh the apparent disbenefits ofreduced levels of detailed control andaccountability.

! Evaluation and learning. Problems of this nature- no longer as intractable but not well-established routine operations within existingstructures - will benefit from a heavy emphasison experimentation, evaluation and learning.

66

appe

ndix

two


While major investment is now taking place inthe first two activities, this cannot be said of thethird. Learning from and learning by publicservice practitioners is essential to deliveringbetter outcomes on tame problems.

Seamless service34 The final category of problems to which joined up

government is the answer relates to a wide range ofservices which have been established in the past, usingthe technology of the time, and which technologicalchange now allows to be delivered differently. In thepast, people have taken for granted inconvenience andhigh transaction costs for users as they deal withdifferent parts of the public sector. Advances incustomer service in the private sector, supported by theICT revolution, have had the effect of ratcheting upexpectations of public service, meeting the needs ofusers, rather than users fitting in to the historic pattern ofservice delivery.

35 It is important to draw a distinction between using ICTto provide information services in a more efficient way,and re-engineering the business process to provide abetter - in this case more joined up - service. Designingsystems so that they link up a range of currently separateservices that the user needs will be important. Whetherit be life episodes such as birth, starting school, startingwork, retirement, or particular client needs, such as themultiple needs of disabled children, electronic links areone answer to the propensity of different organisationsin a service delivery network not to communicate witheach other. Call-centre technology and systems providefurther linkage, in that they typically involve codifyingknowledge and information which was previouslydispersed in separate organisations, so that it can behandled by generalist staff who do not have specialistbackground knowledge.

36 The direction of travel is to move from mere provision ofinformation - useful as that may be - to be able toundertake transactions on line or through the call-centre. In order to achieve this, the frequently implicitknowledge held by staff members about the nature ofservice delivery has to be made explicit. Once itbecomes explicit, and therefore independent of itssource, the service can be packaged together with otherservices the same user might need, and be accessed allat the same time - even though the organisations whichhistorically delivered the services were diverse inpurpose, culture, location and form of governance.

37 This enables the joining up of services around otherprinciples than function, principles such as 'life episode'which make a great deal more sense to service users.Given the raised expectations which result from privatesector advances in this capacity, it will no longer begood enough to structure services and manage aroundfunction. Instead, client need will become the dominantdesign principle, as governments search for legitimacyby enhancing service quality.

38 It is hard to imagine the changes which will flow fromthis. But a number of issues for government obviouslyarise:

! Managing the change. While the technologyinvolved in this kind of change may not be leadingedge, the organisational and systems designcompetence required is, and such skills are inshort supply. Making human-operated implicitprocesses into explicit machine-based systems isdifficult. Minimising the risk of system crashes andgaining the benefits from making these changesrequires significant levels of skill. Governmentwill inevitably be tempted to try to reap thebenefit without ensuring that it has boughtsufficient skill and knowledge to achieve this.

! Mixed governance. It is likely that services forwhich there will be a single point of entry willcome from different governance frameworks.Pilot projects offering one-stop-shops for amixture of central and local government serviceshave already taken place. Different systems forsetting strategic direction and for accountabilityand audit illustrate a substantial mis-matchbetween the systems developed in the past andwhat is needed for a future of joined up service.Dealing with these issues will take a well-developed capacity for corporate managementat the highest levels in government, with overallsystem effectiveness as the goal rather than thevested interests of the component parts. Whatwere once vast empires of staff will disappear astheir skills are made redundant, and with themwill go the traditional career expectations oftheir senior managers. If fear of the futurepredominates in the minds of those seniormanagers, there are plenty of obstacles tochange to provide an excuse for slow progress.

39 While there is no exact equivalent of the bottom linewhich drives innovation in the private sector, ministersand senior officials need to be conscious that this typeof joined up government will be crucial in maintainingthe legitimacy of public service provision amongstcitizens.

67

appe

ndix

two


Horses for courses40 In summary, joined up government is a phrase which

hides a multitude of different sorts of problems, withdiverse solutions. The table above summarises thedifferences which have been discussed above.

! Degree of centralisation appropriate in setting thepolicy framework and the framework foraccountability;

! The type of indicator to be used to assessperformance - input, output or outcome;

! What the nature of the knowledge base is; and

! What structural choices are appropriate.

The table sets out the different types of joined up problemagainst these factors. It includes the traditional professionalpublic services which were characteristic of the publicpolicy system in the early post-war era.

Joined up government andaccountability41 In Hirschmann's seminal book 'Exit, Voice and Loyalty',

he argues that processes of accountability are the mostsignificant factor in the health of the public sector(Hirschmann, 1970). The customers of firms providingservices in the market place make individual choicesabout whether to stay as customers, or whether to exitfrom the arrangement and take their business elsewhere.Obviously this only applies where there is competitionand the customer does have a choice. These marketsignals allow shareholders to hold managers to accountfor their performance, with capital markets reinforcingthe point through changes in market capitalisation.

42 Hirschmann argues that for the public domain, fromwhich most individuals cannot exit, there must beequivalent processes of discipline exercised through'voice', the generic term he uses for accountability. If thecapacity to exit is what makes market provisionefficient, it is equally important in the public domain forpeople to exercise their voice in such a way as to exertthe same disciplines on public bodies. There is nodichotomy - in principle - between efficiency and theaccountability. 'Exit' in the market sector producesefficiency, and 'voice' in the public domain should dothe same.

43 That is not to say that the actual processes throughwhich accountability is exercised are necessarily fit forpurpose. Indeed, as quasi-constitutional features of thepublic policy system they are likely to have changed lessthan the rest of the system. Earlier, the paper suggestedthat analysis of the development of the public sectorafter 1945 reveals three substantial step changes in itsorganising principles. The first of these paradigms, withits focus on planned, universalistic provision of welfareand economic protection, was dominated bybureaucratic organisational forms - machinebureaucracy and professional bureaucracy.

44 Public accountability systems were rather well alignedwith machine bureaucracy. The notion that one personat the top of the pyramid could decide on policy, whichwould then be delivered through a carefully designedcascade, fitted well with constitutional notions ofministerial responsibility. For professionalbureaucracies, accountability was primarily to self-regulating professional bodies, such as the RoyalColleges in health, and to local government structuredinto committees, which in turn mirrored localgovernment professionals. Self-regulation fitted theculture of paternalism and deference, which stillprevailed.

Degree ofCentralisation inGovernance

Decentralised

Decentralised

Centralised

Centralised

Four types of Joined upGovernment

1 Traditional professionalservices

2 Dealing withintractable problems

3 Cross-boundary solutions to tame problems

4 Seamless Service

Key element ofknowledge base

Community ofprofessional practice

Situational

Evaluation andresearch-based

Expert systems basedon explicit knowledge

Key performanceindicators

Input

Outcome

Outcome

Output

Key structure

Specialised service unit

Communitypartnership

Service providerpartnership

Call-centre/internetservice

68

appe

ndix

two


45 The paradigm change which began in the late 1970sbrought greater challenges to existing processes ofaccountability. The bureaucratic forms which aligned sowell with old processes of accountability lost legitimacyand public support because a more demanding set ofservice users were no longer content with the quality ofservice received. Structural and cultural changesdesigned to enhance service quality and value formoney moved public bodies out of alignment withtraditional accountability processes.

46 Machine bureaucracies like the system for deliveringsocial security benefits were substantially altered inbecoming executive agencies in order to improve theirperformance. Perhaps the most significant change wasthe appointment of a chief executive, to act as themanagerial leader of the organisation, rather than as amere functionary who would report up the line to theSecretary of State. Taking the strategic direction set byministers, as expressed in the policy and resourcesframework, chief executives were to work within thatframework in leading change.

47 The place of public accountability in the story of publicmanagement reform in the UK reveals the system'scharacteristic difficulty in addressing constitutionalissues directly. No change was made in the formalprocess of ministerial responsibility and accountability,thus ensuring one of two outcomes. Either thesignificance of the processes of accountability would bediminished as they were seen to be out of touch with themodern world, or the reforms would be underminedbecause the dimension of accountability had not beenaddressed. In fact, the picture which emerged wasmixed. Some holders of the office of chief executivetook that to mean that they were just civil servants likeany other, and under-performed in terms of theleadership of service improvements. Others managed acareful balance, and one at least came to grief throughacting as he thought a chief executive should act, beingsacked by his Secretary of State for not behaving like acivil servant. Over time, however, new conventions onvalue for money have taken root to legitimate a moremodern approach to public management.

48 Professional bureaucracies were subject to changes informal accountability. The purchaser/provider split inhealth placed decisions about how best to meet thehealth needs of a particular local population and theassurance of quality in health service in the hands ofhealth authorities, rather than with senior doctors, whoin turn were to be held to account through contracts forthe delivery of the service. But this was a plan thatfailed. Doctors were able to claim greater legitimacythan the ministerially appointed small businessman whowas the typical non-executive appointee to local health

boards. The provider side of the NHS was in fact able toretain the initiative and before the internal market wasabolished it had stopped functioning as a full market,still incurring the transaction costs of the market, butwithout its benefits.

49 Rather more successful was the introduction of newforms of accountability in school education. The newinspectoral regime established under Ofsted wasfocused on providing parents and the wider public withinformation about comparative school performance,rather than being focused on helping teachers improveas the previous HMI had been - holding the professionto account rather than being part of the professionalcommunity. Teachers were unable to retain the initiativein the same way as doctors, and found themselvesaccountable for performance to others, particularlyboards of governors, outside the profession for the firsttime. The key difference between the two cases seems tobe the involvement of consumers, the parents. While noquasi-market for state schooling ever materialised,Ofsted's practice involved treating parents as customerswho needed information in order to make a choice ofschool. In mimicking the practice of the market, Ofstedwas able to invest itself with the legitimacy of market-like behaviour.

50 The case also raises the significance of what ProfessorJohn Stewart refers to as twin aspects of accountability -being held to account for your stewardship by a superiorbody, and rendering account to consumers and citizensabout how you are serving their needs.

51 Codes of stewardship require that those who act asagents of the public be held to account for theirstewardship. The principle is a deeply embedded featureof the processes for legitimisation of collective action inthis country. It cannot be substituted by rendering anaccount to the public about performance, but it is notthe only source of legitimacy, and wise public servantswill seek to expand their influence by opening upchannels of communication with consumers of theservice and the wider public.

52 What this suggests is that there was no smoothadjustment in the processes of accountability to enablethem to cope with the new patterns of public serviceactivity developing in that second paradigm. The natureof the way that public bodies were directed andmanaged changed, and the institutions of accountabilityceased to be as fit for purpose as they had previouslybeen. Nonetheless there was a process of adaptation,characterised by a renewed focus on value for money,evident in the work of elected chambers and in the workof the public audit bodies.

69

appe

ndix

two


53 As a new outcomes-focused paradigm develops, newchallenges to old accountability systems will emerge,and many of these will focus on joined up government.Each of the types of joined up government will presentits own accountability challenges. The three categoriesof joined up government discussed above - dealing withintractable problems, tame problems and developingseamless service - each will need differentaccountability treatments.

! Intractable problems and accountability. In themodel described at the end of the previous sectionof this paper, it was indicated that in order to addressthese issues, a decentralised approach is needed,driven by outcome based performance targets,recognising the situational nature of the problemand its solution, with community based partnershipas the key structure. Accountability mechanisms willneed to be developed which are congruent withthese principles, empowering local people to beresponsible and accountable for their actions. Themajor challenge will be to ensure that the nationalaccountability of many of the public services whichwill be important in those local situations does notoverride their local contribution. There areindications, for example, of police forces too busymeeting nationally set targets to give properattention to their crime and disorder partnershipwork; of schools so busy meeting individualisedtargets that they play the performance managementgame and dump the youngsters who need themmost; of GP practices unwilling to provide care forhomeless people because it would interfere withtheir capacity to deliver nationally set targets onvaccination and screening, on which part of theirremuneration is based. Public officials, schooledunder the second paradigm, assume that theirnational accountability requires them to impose thiscentralised framework. In order clearly to legitimatea more appropriate set of behaviours innovation isneeded in the accountability processes involved.

! Tame problems and accountability. For this class ofproblems, where solutions are known but whosesolution requires effective working acrossboundaries, the accountability issues will bedifferent. The model suggests that this kind of joinedup government should be centrally driven, based onoutcome targets through knowledge that is researchbased and through service partnerships, probablyunderpinned by contracts. This requires a degree ofinnovation in accountability in order to providelegitimacy for cross-boundary flows to achieve

outcomes. There will need to be shared ministerialresponsibility, and relationships with centrally andlocally accountable bodies which need to worktogether co-operatively. But many of thesearrangements have already piloted, notably in cross-departmental ministerial responsibility for the SureStart programme, and joint ministerial responsibilityfor the performance of the criminal justice system.Such innovations will need to become part of thestandard repertoire of design options from whichpolicy makers draw their choices.

! Seamless service and accountability. The modelgives us the following conditions for this kind ofjoined up government - a centralised frameworkbased on output targets, using explicit knowledgeprogrammed into expert systems, using internet orcall-centre based delivery. The key challenges forpublic accountability will emerge as these newareas of seamless service intersect with other aspectsof public policy and public service. It will benecessary to manage the interface appropriately. Aswith the rest of this ICT enabled change, noteverything can be predicted. But it is already clearthat the ICT infrastructure will be jointly owned bygovernment and private sector partners, each usingit for their own purposes. This will bring to the forethe many issues which relate to the governance ofpublic private relationships, and test accountabilitydesign capacity to the maximum, so as to ensure thebenefits of partnership while ensuring the protectionof the public interest.

54 To maintain its key role in building legitimacy forcollective action, the system of accountability must beseen as relevant to the achievement of the legitimatepurposes of elected governments. This does not meanfollowing every twist and turn of the moment, but it doesmean being broadly in tune with major shifts of direction,which have underlying public support. So if there areparadigm shifts in public policy and public service, alongthe lines indicated in this paper, there need to bematching paradigm shifts in the system of accountability.The suggestions here are indicative but certainly notdefinitive, and more work is required in this area.

70

appe

ndix

two


Conclusions 55 This paper has presented an argument that the public

policy system is undergoing one of its periodic stepchanges, and that the issues of joined up governmentare intimately connected with these changes. The lastmajor step change had, in focusing effort on efficientperformance, actually created or made worse theproblems of integration and joined up working. Whilethere had been increased efficiency in a narrowlydefined sense as a result of this, the wider impact on thepublic policy system was to reduce effectiveness forsome services and some clients. When faced with thechallenges of a globalised economy, a revolution in theworking technology of public service and the socialmalaise resulting from a period of rapid economicchange, this was enough to propel us into seeking a newway - the Third Way - which would achieve botheconomic dynamism and social justice, ensuringeffective outcomes in solving difficult social andeconomic policy problems.

56 The paper suggested that such policy and serviceproblems ought to be differentiated. 'Wicked problems'consist of two types - intractable problems that aresituationally dependent, and problems that can only besolved by working across organisational boundaries. Inaddition, the revolution in ICT creates the potential forreconfiguring a vast array of services better to meet theneeds of users, following the lead of the fundamentalchanges in private sector service management. All ofthese issues have been labeled as requiring 'joined upgovernment' solutions, but the argument here is thatvery different sorts of problem require very differentapproaches to their solution.

57 Whatever solutions are found, it is important that theaccountability arrangements are fully integrated into thenew approach. Accountability should be valued as a keymechanism for ensuring public support of collectivechoices, and seen as part of the answer not part of theproblem. Public officials working on system changesshould not demur from addressing the design ofaccountability out of a sense that it is improper to enterthe domain of elected representatives. Electedrepresentatives need to recognise that the way they holdpublic sector bodies to account, and for what they areaccountable, is a crucial component in the delivery ofbetter outcomes in public policy. Ancient institutionslose their legitimacy at times of rapid change unless theyalso change. A more open and transparent dialogueabout such matters is an important first step.

ReferencesAlimo-Metcalfe, B, Effective Leadership London,Improvement and Development Agency, 1998

Clarke, M G and Stewart, J D, Handling the WickedIssues, INLOGOV working paper, 1997

Jervis, P and Richards, S, Public Management; Raisingthe Game, Public Money and Management, April -June 1997

Haldane, Royal Commission on the Machinery ofGovernment, chaired by Lord Haldane, 1918

Hirschman, A O, Exit, Voice and Loyalty,Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1970

Leadbeater, Charles, The Rise of the SocialEntrepreneur, Demos, London, 1997

Mintzberg, H, Structure in Fives' Designing EffectiveOrganisations, London, Prentice Hall, 1993

Mintzberg, H, The rise and fall of strategic planning,London, Prentice Hall, 1994

Newman, J E, 'Modernising Governance' New Labour,Policy and Society, London, Sage, 2001

Sullivan, H and Skelcher, C, Working AcrossBoundaries, London, Macmillan, forthcoming

71

appe

ndix

thre

e

Rough SleepersAppendix 3What has worked well! underpinning work to understand the problem

! clear objective and target

! pooled budget

! adequate resources

! leadership

! skills

Risks to success! lack of buy-in to the objectives

! lack of agreement over priorities

! impact of short timescales

! burden of administration

Key lessons! Understanding the nature of the problem can help

identify where joined up solutions are needed

! Pooling budgets can reinforce joint working by givingplanners more control over resources directed towardsthe client group. Pooled budgets should, however, bereinforced by clear outcome based targets

! Reducing the burden of administration on departmentsand other agencies would make joining up easier

Client groupRough sleepers, former rough sleepers and people atrisk of rough sleeping

PurposeTo reduce the number of people sleeping rough

Ways of workingUse grant funding and strategic direction to bringvoluntary and statutory agencies together to develop co-ordinated services and influence governmentdepartments to develop preventative measures

Funding£201 million over 3 years, including £73 million ofcapital expenditure

Time frame3 years from April 1999 to March 2002

Responsibility for deliveryDirector, Rough Sleepers Unit, Department forTransport, Local Government and the Regions

72

appe

ndix

thre

e


Why join up?1 Between 1990 and 1999 the government spent

£250 million in England on a rough sleepers initiativehelping approximately 4,500 rough sleepers off thestreets and into permanent accommodation. In centralLondon, where the problem is greatest and where it hasbeen measured consistently, the number of peoplesleeping rough on any one night fell from around2,000 in the early 1990's to 400 in 1997. Research hassuggested, however, that around five times this numbermay spend some time sleeping rough over the course ofa year. Data for England suggests that in 1998 nearly2,000 people slept rough each night. These figures showthat while many people were helped off the streets theoverall numbers remained high.

2 In 1998 the Social Exclusion Unit of the Cabinet Officecarried out a multi-agency review of rough sleeping. Itreported1 that whilst the earlier rough sleepers initiativehad reduced the numbers sleeping rough in centralLondon substantially, those that remained tended to bethose with the most difficult problems and it had notprevented new people from arriving onto the streets. TheUnit reported that "without better integration at bothpolicy planning and delivery levels, there is little thatcan be done to reduce the numbers sleeping rough". Itrecommended action across a range of agencies andgovernment departments:

! to co-ordinate services better;

! to tackle the needs of those with complex problemssuch as addiction or emotional problems; and

! to provide help to those at risk of homelessness,such as people leaving care or prison, to preventthem ending up on the streets.

In 1999, in response to the Social Exclusion Unit'sreport, a Rough Sleepers Unit (the Unit) was establishedin the former Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions with a three year remit to reduce roughsleeping to as near to zero as possible, and by at leasttwo thirds by 2002.

What is different3 The new initiative on rough sleeping has put in place

both new structures and new ways of working (shown inthe table below):

4 Other key differences include:

! a clear outcome-focused target;

! a greater focus on helping those with more complexor multiple needs;

! a pooled budget, bringing together funding from theDepartment for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions, the Department of Health (part ofHomeless Mentally Ill Initiative funding) and theHousing Corporation;

! greater emphasis on control over access to hostelplaces and development of other accommodation toensure that rough sleepers get access to appropriatehousing;

! a requirement for voluntary sector agencies to worktogether which is set out in service level agreementswith the agencies; and

! better data on and tracking of individual rough sleepers.

5 London is home to an estimated 50 per cent ofEngland's rough sleepers with around 50 per cent of theremainder living in 33 other towns and cities. The Unitfunds 80 organisations to deliver its strategy in London.The Unit's method of achieving co-ordinated action inLondon was to assign geographical areas ofresponsibility to the key outreach and resettlementorganisations and to award grants on condition thatagencies worked together. Agencies are required to co-ordinate service provision and ensure thatindividuals always have a key worker as they move fromstreet towards a permanent home. For example, St Mungo's North West London tenancy sustainmentteam includes a substance misuse worker from theHungerford project and a youth worker from LondonConnection.

Organisational structures

Ministerial Steering Committee with representation fromkey government departments

Rough Sleepers Unit within the Department for Transport,Local Government and the Regions, headed by a Directorwith national responsibility for tackling the problem

Local authority homelessness officers in 33 towns andcities outside London which have recorded high numbersof rough sleepers

Ways of working

The Committee oversees progress and acts as an enabler tobring departments together. It approves the spending plansput forward by the Rough Sleepers Unit

The dedicated unit co-ordinates the activity of the voluntarysector agencies and takes the lead on working with othergovernment departments. It plans how to spend the budget

Local authorities work with local voluntary and statutoryagencies to develop and implement a rough sleeping strategy

1 Rough Sleeping, Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, Cm 4008, July 1998

73

appe

ndix

thre

e


6 The Rough Sleepers Unit also funds agencies to providecentral co-ordinating services for the initiative inLondon. The Homeless Network holds regular meetingsfor partner agencies to help overcome some of thecultural and practical issues that arise. For example, itworked with agencies to agree a protocol for thehandover of responsibility for an individual roughsleeper from one agency to another. Whilst the HousingServices Agency developed a database to make it easierfor outreach teams to keep track of and shareinformation about individuals.

7 In the 33 towns and cities outside London which haverecorded high numbers of rough sleepers, the RoughSleepers Unit required the local authority to establish aconsortium of key agencies to develop a local strategy.The Unit only supported bids for funding which werepart of this strategy. In Manchester, the city's roughsleeping co-ordinating group represents the citycouncil's housing and social services departments, thepolice, the health authority and the voluntary agencies.The Group agreed a strategy for the city and continuesto hold regular meetings to facilitate communicationbetween the different agencies and to agree action plansfor specific individuals.

Achievements to date8 The headline target for the initiative is to reduce the

number of people sleeping rough in England by at leasttwo thirds from June 1998 to March 2002, from 1,850 to616 or lower. At June 2001, the number countedsleeping rough was 703. Thus the overall target is insight.

9 The number of rough sleepers in London, however, isnot falling as fast as outside London because there is a

group of rough sleepers in London who have been onthe streets for some time and who accessaccommodation sporadically but do not wish to leavethe streets permanently. The number of vulnerableentrenched rough sleepers2 in London has fallen sharplyfrom 427 to 110. In June 2001, the Unit published aconsultation document on its future strategy beyond2002 for preventing a new generation of rough sleepers.

10 We commissioned consultants NOP Consumer Ltd tocarry out focus group research with rough sleepers inLondon and Manchester. The rough sleepers identifiedsome impact from greater co-ordination of services.Positive comments were made about advice and supportservices, training opportunities, healthcare services andimproved access to help for people new to the streets.The changed priorities, however, for access toaccommodation were felt to benefit some butdisadvantage others. In Manchester, the views of roughsleepers were generally less positive than in London, inpart due to discontent over police action against streetbegging.

11 Our examination of the initiative's joined up working inLondon and Manchester identified the following pointsas factors in driving it towards success.

What has worked well

Underpinning work to understand theproblem

12 The Social Exclusion Unit analysed what was knownabout the client group, the experience of previousinitiatives directed towards rough sleeping, andconsulted with the statutory authorities and voluntaryorganisations working with rough sleepers. This analysisidentified the need for a different, more joined upapproach which would be led by the Rough SleepersUnit. The Unit built on this work and consulted widelyto develop its strategy.

Ministers' interest leading to a clear objectiveand target

13 The impetus behind the initiative, combined with clearobjectives and a simple outcome-focused target, hascreated a strong drive to achieve the initiative's goalswhich is felt in both Whitehall, particularly in the RoughSleepers Unit itself, and in the voluntary agencies. Thevoluntary agencies welcomed the focus on outcomes asbeing more dynamic and providing crisper priority.

2 Entrenched rough sleepers are a group of known individuals sleeping rough in London who the Unit identified in 2000 as having multiple needs and needing sustained co-ordinated help to improve their situation.

Number of people estimated to be sleeping roughin England

1

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

2000

1500

1000

500

0

National

National target to be reached by March 2002

London

Entrenched in London

Number of rough sleepers

Year

Source: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

74

appe

ndix

thre

e


Pooled budget

14 The Rough Sleepers Unit has brought together differentprogramme moneys from within the Department forTransport, Local Government and the Regions andobtained control over some other sources of funding, forexample as part of the Department of Health'sHomeless Mentally Ill Initiative. The Unit regards itsability to control and prioritise funding as veryimportant in enabling it to pursue its strategic goals.

Adequate resources

15 Since the Rough Sleepers Unit was set up, more moneyhas been made available to address the needs of roughsleepers other than their housing needs. Voluntaryagencies very much welcome the opportunity to bid foradditional money for a variety of specialist provision.For example, in Manchester, a night centre was openedto provide a range of services such as outreach, health,mental health and substance abuse workers who canwork with individuals to help them access the longerterm services they need. The centre works as a drop-incentre rather than providing beds as in a hostel.

Leadership

16 Voluntary agencies welcomed the leadership shown bythe Director of the Rough Sleepers Unit in reinforcing asense of urgency and encouraging agencies to be morecreative in finding solutions. The Director has alsoencouraged the Rough Sleepers Unit to take a hands-onapproach. For example, members of the Unit help carryout the regular street counts of rough sleepers. Thisapproach has led to a level of dialogue between thevoluntary agencies and the Unit that has, on the whole,promoted the feeling amongst all concerned of workingin partnership.

Skills

17 The Rough Sleepers Unit was established as a multi-disciplinary team bringing together civil servants withexperience of working in different governmentdepartments and people from the voluntary sector witha depth of knowledge of both the client group and howvoluntary agencies work. This combination of skills andknowledge has been important in developing andimplementing the Unit's strategy.

Managing the risks to success18 The Rough Sleepers Unit has encountered a number of

obstacles to joined up working and some of them haveproved to be difficult to resolve within the timeframe ofthe current initiative.

Ensuring buy-in to the objectives

19 It has been important to get buy-in from other bodies, inparticular local authorities and the voluntary sector, tothe policy and the accompanying strategy. On the wholethe voluntary agencies have welcomed the emphasis onproviding a co-ordinated service to their clients. Somehave criticised, however, the policy of focusing onrough sleeping rather than all forms of homelessnessand the Unit has had to manage the difference betweenits own objectives and that of voluntary organisations.

Securing agreement over priorities

20 Initially the Unit found it easier to work with somegovernment departments than others. This may bebecause of differences in the departments' perceptionsof their priorities and responsibilities. Departmentsresponded very well to requests to carry out preventionwork for a relatively narrow group of people towardwhom they owed a clear duty of care, such as prisonersor former members of the Armed Forces. The Unit foundit harder to engage effectively with some othergovernment departments with wider responsibilities andthe Ministerial Steering Group has been an effectiveforce for raising the needs of rough sleepers as priorities.The Unit also found that their knowledge of othergovernment departments has been helpful. For example,when working with the Benefits Agency to develop away for rough sleepers who have no proof of theiridentity to claim Housing Benefit.

21 The Unit still lacks leverage, however, over someimportant players, principally local authorities and NHSTrusts. The Unit has sometimes found it difficult,particularly where it is not providing direct funding, toget these bodies to share its priorities or focus on roughsleepers. For example, in London, an area of hugehousing need, the Unit has had greater successpersuading some local authorities to make housingavailable for former rough sleepers than others.

Managing the impact of short timescales onservice delivery

22 The Rough Sleepers Unit was given three years to solvea problem that had not been solved during the previousten years. The Unit faced a number of challenges beforenew services could be delivered, including:

! setting up the Unit with the right mix of skills andexperience;

! consulting stakeholders and developing the strategy;and

! implementing the strategy.

75

appe

ndix

thre

e

23 Voluntary and other agencies then had to gearthemselves up to develop services and create the newworking arrangements. Some of the improved co-ordinated services to rough sleepers will have beenavailable for only about 18 months when the three yearinitiative is finished. The voluntary agencies have told usthat what they perceive as unrealistic timescales has ledto rushed planning. They also report difficulty inrecruiting and retaining staff due to the short-termnature of the funding available. In Manchester we weretold that a key worker had just left to take up apermanent post elsewhere and that his work withvulnerable young rough sleepers had been lost. Other staff were also looking for jobs which offeredpermanent contracts.

Reducing the burden of administration

24 Excessive administration, for example requiringvoluntary agencies to provide information that is notreally needed or used, has diverted voluntary sectorresources away from planning and delivering services.The Unit wanted to simplify the grant application andmonitoring processes typically used by the formerDepartment for the Environment, Transport and theRegions. They made some progress, for examplereducing the number of monitoring reports requiredfrom agencies; but it was largely too little too late tohelp the voluntary sector.

25 The Unit also tried to reduce the number of grantagreements it needed to have in place by requiring keyagencies to sub-contract for specialist services. It foundthis arrangement could, however, have adverse VATconsequences for the agencies. The VAT issues werecomplex and it took three months to ascertain that anexemption might apply. As the Unit was unable toresolve the problem in time, it was forced to let thegrant agreements in order to make progress with theinitiative. As a consequence the Unit had to set up andmaintain an additional 100 grant agreements.

Key lessons

Understanding the nature of the problem can helpidentify where joined up solutions are needed

The Social Exclusion Unit, in 1998, analysed why peoplecontinued to sleep rough despite the help made availablethrough different government schemes. It identified a needfor more joined up action across government departmentsand between voluntary organisations to prevent roughsleeping. For example, it showed that people leavinginstitutional care need special help. The Rough SleepersUnit was set up to work with government departments toimplement policies and procedures which make it lesslikely that individuals will end up on the streets. It alsodesigned ways it wanted voluntary and other agencies towork together to prevent duplication and gaps in services.

Pooling budgets can reinforce joint working bygiving planners more control over resourcesdirected towards the client group. Pooled budgetsshould, however, be reinforced by clear outcomebased targets.

During the 1990's, at least six different governmentdepartments and agencies controlled elements of fundingfor rough sleepers; for example both the Department ofthe Environment and the Department of Social Securityfunded advice services, and the Department of Healthfunded health initiatives. Whilst the services wereintended to be complementary, in practice mechanisms tojoin up on the ground were weak. In contrast, the RoughSleepers Unit was given control over all centralgovernment resources directed towards rough sleeping.This enabled it to implement a strategy for how differentorganisations should work together. It assigned voluntaryorganisations responsibility for particular geographicalareas and made it a condition of funding thatorganisations work together to provide packages ofsupport tailored to individual needs. It reinforced thisjoined up approach with clear outcome - related targtets.

Reducing the burden of administration ondepartments and other agencies would makejoining up easier

Voluntary organisations working with the homeless areoften funded from a number of sources. They find thedifferent funding and regulatory requirements ofgovernment departments a considerable burden on theirresources. Both the voluntary organisations and the RoughSleepers Unit identified that elements of the formerDepartment of the Environment, Transport and theRegions' standard grant making procedures were nolonger necessary and took up valuable time. The RoughSleepers Unit questioned the existing procedures andsimplified its monitoring as a result. Both the Unit and thevoluntary agencies, however, believe that furtherstreamlining may be possible without increasing the risk ofresources being misapplied.



Appendix 4What has worked well! leaders regard the work as important

! building relationships around shared goals

! resources to underpin partnership working

! leadership skills

! working arrangements support partnership working

! sharing information on practices that work

Risks to success! key parties not engaging in the partnership

! funding arrangements place disproportionate burden onpartners

! impact of short timescale

Key lessons! Partnerships need support from local councillors and

senior council officials to ensure that partners givesufficient priority to the work of the partnership andresources are not diverted elsewhere

! Good leadership is needed to create effective workingrelationships between partners

! Partnerships need to focus on their aims and onestablishing and carrying out the tasks needed to achievethose aims

Client groupChildren aged 0-14 years (16 years with special needs)

PurposeTo plan early education provision and create andsupport childcare places in partnership with localauthorities

Ways of working

150 formal partnerships bringing together private,voluntary and public sector providers to plan andimplement local strategies

Funding

Approximately £300 million in 2000-01 rising to£650 million in 2003-04

Time frameSince 1999, not time limited

Responsibility for deliveryLocal authority

appe

ndix

four

76

77

appe

ndix

four


Why join up?1 In May 1997, the Government announced its broad

policy approach to early years education. A key elementof the approach was that early years educationalservices should be planned in each local educationauthority through an Early Years Development Plan,drawn up by the local authority in full co-operation andconsultation with a forum representing parents,providers, local education authorities and the privateand voluntary sectors. Early Years DevelopmentPartnerships were formed to provide that forum in early1998.

2 In May 1998, Ministers launched a National ChildcareStrategy to create more childcare places, improve thequality of childcare and make it more affordable. TheDepartment for Education and Employment3 decided,rather than creating a new body, to expand the remit ofEarly Years Development Partnerships to includechildcare. Early Years Development and ChildcarePartnerships produced their first Plans for 1999-2000.

3 Public funding for early education and childcare comesfrom three main sources: the Department for Educationand Skills, the New Opportunities Fund and theEuropean Social Fund. Funding from the Department forEducation and Skills in particular covers a number ofdifferent elements of the policy initiative, for examplefunding for nurseries in deprived areas and training ofchildcare workers. Early Years Development andChildcare Partnerships provide a way to join up much ofthe funding with the exception of early educationfunding which the Department for Education and Skillspay to schools (via the local education authority) on aper pupil basis.

What is different4 Before the creation of the Early Years Development and

Childcare Partnerships the private and voluntary sectorshad no formal input into local authority policy on earlyeducation and childcare services. The partnerships bringall sectors together for the first time to develop andimplement local authority-wide plans showing how apartnership will meet government targets for theexpansion of early education and childcare. Previouslylocal authorities, private sector and voluntary sectorproviders and interest groups acted independently ofone another, although in some areas local authoritieshad informal links with the voluntary sector.

5 The annual plan sets out how the local authority incollaboration with the partnership will:

! secure a free early education place for all 4 yearolds;

! secure the number of free early education places for3 year olds required by the Department forEducation and Skills;

! expand childcare provision for children up to theage of 14 (16 for children with special needs);

! improve the quality of the available early educationand childcare; and

! implement and develop a childcare informationservice.

6 The partnerships are not legal entities. Local authoritiesact as banker for partnerships and are legallyresponsible for their expenditure. The local authorityalso provides administrative support arrangements,typically a lead officer and one or two staff who supportthe Partnership, and may employ directly, or contractfor, development workers and other specialist staff toimplement elements of the Partnership's Plan. TheDepartment for Education and Skills sets rules forPartnerships as a condition of grant funding. Forexample, the Department requires partnerships torepresent the views of a wide range of local interestsincluding the health service, employers and churches aswell as education and childcare providers and users. Butit allows partnerships to develop their own operationalrules for matters such as how decisions are taken andchoosing a Chair.

Achievements to date

Progress against key targets set by theDepartment

7 In 1999 the then Department for Education andEmployment set targets for the expansion of nurseryeducation places and, in 2000, a target for theexpansion of childcare places. In all the initiative has29 strategic targets. The Department has met or is oncourse to meet its key targets (Figure 1). Partnershipshave had less impact in shaping the delivery of extranursery education places for 4 year olds because thesechildren are largely absorbed into reception and nurseryclasses in primary schools, a process which predates theestablishment of the Partnerships.

3 Known, since June 2001, as the Department for Education and Skills.

78

appe

ndix

four


Views from Partnerships8 As part of our fieldwork we interviewed partnership

members from the statutory, private and voluntarysectors in 3 local authority areas: Sunderland, Leeds andthe London Borough of Southwark. We found thatPartnership members were enthusiastic about theirPartnership and pointed to benefits both for themselvesas providers and for children and their parents. Theyidentified achievements in the following areas of work:

! Places - they had met government targets for theprovision of nursery education and childcare places;

! Training - they provided free comprehensive trainingto anyone working with pre-school children in thearea; private and voluntary sector representativeswere particularly pleased to be able to access goodquality training for the first time;

! Quality - they were working to raise the quality ofnursery education and childcare through training,quality assurance schemes and other means;

! Special Needs - they had employed SpecialEducational Needs Co-ordinators to ensure thatchildren, particularly those in private and voluntarynurseries, receive the help they need; and

! Information - they had worked to make informationavailable to parents on local childcare and nurseryeducation. In Sunderland, for example, thepartnership advertised its Children's InformationService using a variety of innovative meansincluding releasing balloons from a local park witha free mobile phone to the child or parent whoseballoon travelled furthest.

9 Partners also identified benefits to themselves and theirsector from working together in partnership:

! all felt that planning of services was enhanced bybringing together their differing perspectives andnon-local authority members representing privatenurseries, maintained and independent schools andvoluntary sector childcare and education providerswere particularly pleased to be able to influenceservice provision for the first time; and

! non-local authority members valued the knowledgegained and the contacts made through thePartnership; for example, a voluntary sector co-ordinator of creche facilities found her newknowledge of the wider strategic picture helped herplan her own services, whilst the owner of a privatenursery said she now knew who to contact to getinformation on a wide range of issues affecting herbusiness.

Views from parents10 We commissioned NOP Consumer Ltd to carry out

focus group research amongst parents of small childrenliving in the local authority areas we visited. Theprincipal findings from this research were:

! few parents could identify any change in the qualityor quantity of early education and childcare servicesin their area;

! although parents were not aware of the work of thePartnership, most knew that information on theavailability of childcare was available through thelocal council;

! several parents had benefited from new provision fortheir older children such as after-school clubs;

! most of the parents were happy with the quality oftheir child's nursery although a few felt their childdid not receive enough attention or tuition;

Progress against key targets1

Target set

1999

Target

! to provide a free part-time nursery place for all 4 year olds

! to increase the provision of free part-time nursery places for 3 yearolds from 34 per cent to 66 per cent by 2002, focusing on the mostdeprived areas of the country

Achievement by March 2001

! achieved

! free part-time places available for 50 per centof 3 year olds

! 140,000 places created, 70 per cent overtarget

! to create 82,000 new childcare places by March 20012000

Source: Department for Education and Employment Departmental Reports and Main Estimates 2000, Cm 5102 and 2001, Cm 4602 and Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships Planning Guidance 2001-02

79

appe

ndix

four


! all the parents wanted cheaper, more flexiblechildcare to be available locally; and

! working parents, both men and women, wereparticularly concerned about the problems theyencountered of getting affordable childcare whichfitted in with their work patterns.

What has worked well11 During our fieldwork, we found a number of common

factors that helped the partnerships achieve success.

Leaders regard the work as important

12 The local authority is the key member of Early YearsDevelopment and Childcare Partnerships. It isresponsible to the Department for Education and Skillsfor the plan, is the guardian of much of the grant moneysand is often the largest provider of early education.Local authority officers identified the attitude ofcouncillors and senior council officials towards thePartnership as very important in ensuring that thePartnership was able to gain support from other councildepartments such as Estates.

Building effective relationships aroundshared goals

13 We found a great deal of commitment and enthusiasmamongst the partners we spoke to. They identified somekey features in creating and maintaining thisenthusiasm:

! all partners readily accepted the partnership goals ofincreasing access for parents to good qualitychildcare and early education for their youngchildren;

! the amount of money available to the partnershiphas created a sense of optimism which has helpedpartners work together and eased potential tensionsover spending decisions; in addition, it has givenpartners a real job to do;

! partnerships have become more focused and task-orientated as they have matured; in particular, sub-groups were successful in engaging the energies ofpartners on developing policy and solving problems;

! special events such as awaydays were used verysuccessfully by partnerships to break down barriersand bond people together. In Sunderland, partnerswent on a two day awayday to write their Plan.Partners agreed that this had not just improved theplanning but had improved relationships overall.

Resources to underpin partnership working

14 The Department for Education and Skills’ ChildcareGrant can be used to provide administrative support forPartnerships. In each of the three areas we visited, wefound that this funding was essential to underpin thework of the partnership. Partnership members generallyhad full-time jobs within their own organisations andcould not undertake the detailed work needed toprepare partnership plans. Without dedicated resourcesto organise meetings, prepare bids for funding, monitorbudgets, plan and monitor the implementation of plans,partnerships would founder.

Leadership skills

15 The non-local authority members of the Partnerships wespoke to identified the skills of the chair and the leadofficer as important to the effective working of thePartnership. The core skills they identified were:

! facilitation skills; for example the ability to create aninformal unthreatening atmosphere in meetings;

! influencing and communication; for example theability to convince others that there are no hiddenagendas; and

! organisation and planning.

Working arrangements support partnershipworking

16 Partnership members identified a variety of practicalconsiderations which were important in allowing themto contribute effectively to the work of the partnership:

! the size, location and timing of meetings are allimportant considerations which can influence theway the partnership works. In Leeds, for example,the Partnership's desire to be open and inclusive hasled to very large formal Partnership meetings whichcould be off putting to some, so the partnership hasused sub-groups and working groups as a way toengage members;

! the cost of belonging to the partnership should notoutweigh the benefits. Some Partnership members,particularly those from the private and voluntarysectors, need to engage staff to cover their absenceat partnership meetings. We found this not to be asignificant barrier in the locations we visitedbecause the members recognised other benefitsfrom being on the partnership. Southwark providesan allowance to cover partners' costs which caninclude the cost of providing cover for absence atmeetings.

80

appe

ndix

four


! new members may need assistance to get up tospeed with partnership business. None of thepartnerships we visited offered an induction to newmembers routinely; several members said that aninduction would have been helpful, for example aparent on one partnership said that for some timeshe did not understand her role and felt left out;

! the volume and complexity of documents shouldnot prevent partnership members from contributingtowards decision making. In Sunderland, membersvalued the work of the lead officer in producing aneasy to read commentary on the formal partnershippapers and minutes which enabled members toidentify quickly the issues of interest to them.

Sharing information on practices that work

17 The Department for Education and Skills has provided asignificant and growing amount of expert support toPartnerships on all aspects of their work. Within the lastyear, the Department has:

! improved its core guidance on the preparation ofPartnership Plans;

! visited all Partnerships to assess their progress;

! held conferences for chairs and lead officers ofPartnerships to discuss common issues;

! held training events on particular issues, such asSpecial Educational Needs;

! promoted networking amongst lead officers in theirregions;

! employed Partnership advisors in the regions as asource of expert help on specialist issues aroundearly education and childcare; and

! provided extensive guidance on most aspects ofPartnerships' work, available on the Department'swebsite.

18 In 2001-02, the Department will deliver an enhancedtraining programme for Chairs, lead officers andmembers and a Partnership handbook and inductionpack for new members. Lead officers welcomed theDepartment's increased support and praised theopenness and problem-solving approach of theDepartment.

Managing the risks to success

Ensuring all relevant parties are engaged

19 All the Partnerships we visited found it difficult tomaintain the active participation of all the groupsnominally represented on the Partnership. For example,all Partnerships found it difficult to consult parentseffectively, although they tried. Partnerships also found itdifficult to maintain representation from other groupssuch as employers, schools and libraries but channelledtheir efforts towards trying to influence key providerssuch as primary school head teachers. Generally, wefound that the Partnerships we visited were able toengage with the most important groups, the childcareand early education providers, for planning provisionfor their area.

Reducing the burden of fundingarrangements

20 Lead officers of Partnerships were critical of the complexfunding arrangements for early education and childcareprovision. Funding comes from several sources,including the Department for Education and Skills, NewOpportunities Fund and European Social Fund andwithin a single funding stream there can be manydifferent ring-fenced budgets. In Sunderland, one staffmember works full-time monitoring around 20 differentbudgets. In addition, funders make new amounts oftime-limited funding available at short notice. Leadofficers have to be quick to apply for the money andquick to spend it; there is often insufficient time for thePartnership to ratify lead officers' decisions.

Managing the impact of short timescales

21 Lead officers, in particular, were critical of the lack oftime Partnerships have to prepare their Plans. In 2000,the Department for Education and Skills sentPartnerships the essential planning guidance for 2001-02 just before Christmas. This made it impossible insome cases for Partnerships to complete their Plans, getthem approved by the Department and have new staff inpost by 1 April, leading to a delay in starting new workwhilst staff were recruited. The Department issuedpartnerships with the 2002-03 planning guidance inSeptember 2001.

Key lessons

Partnerships need support from local councillorsand senior council officials to ensure that partnersgive sufficient priority to the work of thepartnership and resources are not divertedelsewhere

Local councillors and senior council officials need to giveclear signals that they regard the work of the partnership asimportant if they are to mobilise and maintain support forthe partnership from partner organisations. If keystakeholders regard the work of the partnership as lowpriority there is a risk that partners will divert resourceselsewhere, particularly management time. In turn, this canaffect the ability of the partnership to make decisionsbecause staff attending partnership meetings are unable tocommit their organisations to an agreed course of action.This risk was avoided in the partnerships we visited where,for example, support from the local MP and councillorsensured that the local authority did not reduce expenditureon nursery places when the funding mechanism changed in2001.

Good leadership is needed to create effectiveworking relationships between partners

Lead officers, appointed by the local authority, organise thework of Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships,including persuading the right people to sit on thepartnership. The chair of the partnership runs the partnershipmeetings including managing the discussion and securingagreement to action. Both individuals play a crucial role increating an environment where partners feel they can maketheir views heard and business gets done. Without an openand consultative style of leadership, there is a risk that thepartnership will split into factions because partners do notknow who to trust. The particular leadership skills needed arefacilitation skills (the ability to create an informalunthreatening atmosphere in meetings for example);influencing and communication (the ability to convinceothers that there are no hidden agendas); and organisationand planning skills.

Partnerships need to focus on their aims and onestablishing and carrying out the tasks needed toachieve those aims

Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships areplanning bodies which decide how to spend newgovernment moneys for the expansion of nursery andchildcare provision. Most partners are not direct providersof nursery or childcare services and do not necessarily workwith each other in any other capacity. They often cometogether solely to plan new services. In these circumstancesthere is an increased risk that if the partnership does notmaintain a firm focus on achieving the end result it couldbecome merely a talking shop, and that this could lead todisaffection amongst partners. We found that when partnerstake on specific tasks with target dates, progress towardsoverall goals is faster and partners' morale is boosted bytheir achievement.

81

appe

ndix

four


82

appe

ndix

five

Sure StartAppendix 5What has worked well

previous experience of working together

shared objectives and commitment

key skills

working arrangements support partnership working

sharing information on practices that work

Risks to successlack of data for effective planning

insufficient time allowed for each stage

lack of participation by the community

lack of skilled partnership support

Key lessonsPartnerships need support from skilled professionals toavoid financial and administrative problems which candistract attention from achieving partnership goals

Sharing information on practices that work, includingapproaches to joint working, can help partnershipsprovide more effective services

Investing time and resources may be required to geteffective community involvement in the partnership

Client group

Children from birth to four and their families andpregnant women

PurposeTo improve the health and well-being of families andchildren, before and from birth, so that children areready to flourish when they go to school

Ways of workingPartnerships of community groups, statutory authoritiesand voluntary organisations develop and thenimplement programmes for a catchment area of 500families with children under four

Funding£81 million in 1999-2000 rising to £499 million in2003-04

Time frameProgramme announced in July 1998 and currentlyfunding announced to end of March 2004

Responsibility for deliveryDirector, Sure Start Unit, Department for Education andSkills and Department of Health

83

appe

ndix

five


Why join up?1 In 1997 the Government launched the Comprehensive

Spending Review to ensure that departments' spendingand programmes met priorities. Thirteen departmentstook part in the Review of services for young children,which drew on research on the characteristics ofchildren at risk of becoming socially excluded, theimpact of early interventions elsewhere in the world andthe variation in provision existing in the UnitedKingdom. The Review concluded that althoughspending on young children costs the UK over£15 billion a year (£10 billion not including benefits), itwas not providing the support needed by some of themost disadvantaged young children and their families.The Review recommended that a range of servicesshould ideally be brought together to support thecomplex and varied physical, developmental andemotional needs of young children and families. Andthat these services should be easily accessible andbacked up by outreach to offer support in the home.4

2 As a consequence the Government launched the SureStart programme in July 1998 which aims to improve thehealth and well-being of families and children beforeand from birth, so children are ready to flourish whenthey go to school. Sure Start provides new funds forlocal partnerships to support the integrated andpreventative provision of a range of services, targeted inparticular on under fours and their families in areas ofneed. The services currently include childcare, primaryhealthcare, early education and play and support forfamilies including advice on employment, training andbenefits.

3 The Sure Start Unit selected local authority districtsaccording to levels of deprivation. It then invited localpartnerships to choose areas within the districts, eachcovering around 400 to 1,000 children under four yearsold, and develop a programme and apply for funds. TheUnit has separate ring-fenced funds, which it allocatesto programmes.

4 The programmes are based on communities and arespread across the country. Each partnership has a leadpartner, a programme board responsible for thepartnership or programme, and an accountableorganisation, which is responsible for funding theprogrammes and accounting for the expenditure. ByJuly 2001 437 programmes had been announced in fivewaves. The first wave of 59 local programmes begandelivering services in 2000-01.

5 During our fieldwork we visited three partnerships:Southwark Aylesbury Plus, Leeds Bramley andSunderland Thorney Close. The Southwark andSunderland partnerships were part of the first wave ofprogrammes and the Leeds partnership part of thesecond wave.

What is different6 The new initiative has brought both new structures and

new ways of working. The Sure Start Unit has nationalresponsibility for tackling the problem and runs theoverall programme. The Unit has over 100 staff drawnfrom a variety of backgrounds, secondments fromelsewhere in the Civil Service and from the voluntarysector. The emphasis is on combining experience anddisciplines rather than drawing on the expertise of onedepartment. This approach is repeated with theMinisterial Steering Committee which hasrepresentation from key government departments:Health; Education and Skills; Work and Pensions;Transport, Local Government and the Regions;Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Home Office;Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury.

7 Other key differences include:

The programmes are focused intensively on arelatively small number of families and a smallgeographical area - about the size of an estate orneighbourhood. Previous services were separate andlinked to GP surgeries, community health trusts orlocal authorities rather than on a specific area.

The programme for each partnership is planned andmanaged locally according to local priorities and isboth multi-agency and multi-disciplinary instead ofhaving a series of separate services delivered by arange of agencies.

There is an emphasis on engaging the community inplanning and delivering services. Partnership boardsmust include parents and plans must demonstrateconsultation with local parents.

The initiative is directing increased funding intodeprived areas which allows more services to betargeted on need.

Achievements to date 8 Sure Start has four national objectives and linked targets,

set out in its Public Service Agreement, to achieve byMarch 2004 (Figure 1). Each local programme workstowards these targets but may also set additional localobjectives and targets.

4 Comprehensive Spending Review: new public spending plans 1999-2002, Cm 4011, July 1998, page 90

84

appe

ndix

five


Aim, objectives, targets and reported achievements for Sure Start

Aim: To work with parents to be, parents and children to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of babies and youngchildren - particularly those who are disadvantaged - so that they can flourish at home and when they get to school, and thereby break thecycle of disadvantage for the current generation of young children

1

Objectives

Improvingsocial andemotionaldevelopment

Improvinghealth

Improvingchildren'sability to learn

Strengtheningfamilies andcommunities

Increasingproductivity of operations

Targets 1999-02

Parenting support and information for allparents

A 10 per cent reduction in children re-registered on a child protection register

All local Sure Start programmes to have agreedand implemented, in a culturally sensitive way,ways of identifying, caring for and supportingmothers with post-natal depression

A 5 per cent reduction in proportion of lowbirth weight babies

A 10 per cent reduction in children admittedto hospital as an emergency during their firstyear of life with gastro-enteritis, a respiratoryinfection, or a severe injury

At least 90 per cent of children with normalspeech and development at 18 months and 3 years

100 per cent of children in Sure Start areasto have access to good quality play and early learning opportunities, helping progress towards early learning goals whenthey get to school

75 per cent of families report personalevidence of an improvement in the quality of services providing family support

All local Sure Start programmes to have parentrepresentation on local programme board

At least 250 local programmes in England

100 per cent of families in contact with thelocal Sure Start programme within the firsttwo months after birth

Evaluation strategy in place by 2000-01

Outcome March 2001

All local programmes' plans include parentingsupport and information services.

Trailblazers are now delivering services to over10,000 children each month. This includes visitingalmost 100 per cent of parents within two monthsof the birth of their baby to introduce them to SureStart services. Each local programme is contactingan average of 50 new children every month.

All programmes' plans include provision for goodquality play and early learning opportunities. The128 trailblazer and round two programmes plan tosupport an additional 16,000 childcare placesincluding nurseries, daycare, childminders,wraparound care and creches.

All local programmes are setting baselines.

All approved programmes have parent representationon their programme boards. Many have their ownlocal target of having between one third and one halfparents on their programme board.

260 programmes have been announced. Of these:

128 trailblazer and second wave programmes areup and running;

66 third wave programmes have drawn up plansand will start work from spring 2001;

66 fourth wave programmes were announced inJanuary and should start work from autumn 2001.

Programmes are visiting almost 100 per cent ofparents within two months of the birth of their babyto introduce them to Sure Start services.

Contract to carry out the national evaluation of theSure Start programme in England is now in placeand work began early in 2001. All localprogrammes have evaluation plans.

Targets 2001-04

Reduce the proportion ofchildren aged 0-3 in the500 Sure Start areas whoare re-registered within thespace of twelve months onthe child protection registerby 20 per cent by 2004

Achieve by 2004 in the 500Sure Start areas, a 10 percent reduction in motherswho smoke in pregnancy

Achieve by 2004 forchildren aged 0-3 in the500 Sure Start areas, areduction of 5 percentagepoints in the number ofchildren with speech andlanguage problemsrequiring specialistintervention by the age of 4

Reduce by 12 per cent thenumber of 0-3 year oldchildren in Sure Start areasliving in households whereno-one is working by 2004

No target

Source: Public Service Agreements for Sure Start and DfEE Annual Report March 2001, Cm 5102

85

appe

ndix

five


9 It is too soon after the initiative was launched and thefirst local programmes began to deliver services, forthere to be any measurable change in the long termoutcomes as set out in the targets. A national evaluationof the programme will run from 2000-01 to 2006-07. Inaddition, each local programme has its own evaluationstrategy which measures its progress and which will feedinto the national evaluation. The comprehensivenational evaluation is organised in five integrated corecomponents:

implementation covering what is being done in thelocal programmes;

local context analysis looking at the social,demographic and economic context of eachcommunity over time;

impact determining the effect of Sure Start onchildren, their families and communities in theshort, medium and long term; which features provemost effective, and for which clients Sure Startworks best - compared with children and familiesnot in Sure Start communities;

cost-effectiveness will determine whether the effectsjustify the investment of resources; and

support for the local evaluations including advice tolocal programmes on possible approaches andmethods for carrying out their evaluations. Localevaluations will measure programmes' progresstowards the targets in the Public Service Agreementand will review their working practices andprocesses and assess whether the services beingprovided achieve good value for money.

10 The first wave of programmes began to deliver services in2000-01 and as yet they have only their own monitoringof contacts and anecdotal evidence from case histories toindicate whether the programmes are making anyimpact. To help give an early indication of the impact ofSure Start on families, we commissioned NOP ConsumerLtd to run focus groups of parents in each of the threeSure Start programmes that we visited.

11 Our focus groups found some common themes emergedfrom the sessions. The families' perception of Sure Startwas most favourable where the families had youngchildren, particularly new babies; and those in the twoprogrammes, Southwark and Sunderland, which hadbeen established the longest, and therefore the familieswere likely to have had more contact with theprogrammes. The parents who had received Sure Startservices were appreciative and thought that theprogramme had made a significant difference to theirability to bring up their children well. They referred tolearning alternative ways of disciplining their childrenrather than smacking them, receiving help with post nataldepression, creche services while attending classes onparenting skills, to receiving advice and support fromhealth visitors in their own homes, and to receiving

regular information on events and services available.However, those who worked had a different experienceas they considered the services to be only availableduring working hours, to mothers at home with theirchildren, and therefore felt excluded for example, fromsupport intended to improve parenting skills.

What has worked well12 Our work on the three programmes identified the

following common factors that had led to a successfulfirst year of operation.

Previous experience of working together

13 All three programmes were initiated and the planssubmitted to the Sure Start Unit by people who alreadyhad experience of working together. In Southwark amember of the staff of the Community Health Trust tookthe lead, together with a member of staff from a localvoluntary organisation, and together they drew oncontacts to identify other statutory authorities andvoluntary organisations working in the area and thenorganised wider consultation. In Leeds the communitygroup on the estate was already involved with otherorganisations working in the area and they put togethertheir bid with the community group as the lead partner.

Shared objectives and commitment

14 All Sure Start programmes share the same overarchingobjectives. In all three programmes, the staff had a greatdeal of commitment to these objectives. They wereenthusiastic about the benefits of working in a clientcentred manner, rather than the previous less co-ordinated way, and they pointed to instances where theyhad been more effective in supporting their clients andachieving the targeted outcomes.

Key skills

15 All three of the partnerships highlighted the importanceof certain key skills amongst their staff. In Leeds theyhad seconded an accountant to help set up theirfinancial systems. In Southwark a member of theCommunity Health Trusts' staff had carried out a similarrole, advising each of the voluntary groups involved inthe Sure Start programme about the records that theyhad to keep. In addition all the partnerships consideredthat the programme manager or director's leadershipskills were vital to ensuring that the partnershipdeveloped effectively and that the partners remainedfocused on the outcomes that they wished to achieve.

86

appe

ndix

five


Working arrangements support joint working

16 All the programmes have established clear and visiblestructures for working together. In Southwark theprogramme board meets regularly and the team workerson the programme have a monthly meeting to shareexpertise and perspectives and work out ways to addressshared problems. In Sunderland most of the programmeteam work in the same building and their closeproximity allows the team to meet together at shortnotice to discuss and agree their joint approach toindividual cases.

Sharing information on practices that work

17 The Sure Start Unit has a regional network of advisers,located in the Government Offices, who provide adviceand support for the programmes, a role which iscurrently being expanded. In addition the Unit has awebsite featuring all their guidance, contact details forall their programmes and a forum for exchanginginformation and sharing experiences in dealing withproblems. The local programmes had found that thesupport they had been given was helpful and that theUnit was able to build on its experience with the earlyprogrammes to share experience with the next waves ofprojects. The Leeds programme found the web materialparticularly useful to identify contacts in otherprogrammes who had previously dealt with problems.

Managing the risks to success18 All three programmes had faced a number of challenges

in setting up their partnerships and have had toovercome those challenges to make progress.

Ensuring that sufficient data is available

19 One of the challenges faced by each local Sure Startprogramme is to plan the key elements of theirprogramme and for this they require sufficient accuratedata on the clients within the programme area. Thepartnerships also need data to help evaluate their impacton the client group that they serve. The LeedsProgramme considered that although some of thestatutory authorities had data on the client groups andtheir needs and they were reluctant to make the dataavailable to the programme in case it contravened theData Protection Act. The experience of the otherpartnerships, however, was that much of the data had tobe collected by the partnerships and that it was not heldalready. When collecting data on individual clients, itwas important that the programme ensured that clientsconsented to information being passed on to other SureStart workers within the local programme. SouthwarkSure Start had set out a series of guidelines for each ofthe workers explaining the issues, the data that wasneeded and stressing that clients had to give theirconsent both to record the data and to pass it betweenworkers.

Ensuring that sufficient time is allowed foreach stage

20 One of the distinctive elements of Sure Start is that eachlocal programme determines the particular combinationof activities needed for that area. A partnership, whichidentifies itself as being the appropriate group for thearea, puts together the plan and bid for resources. Allthree partnerships had found that the consultationprocess and facilitating partnership working took longerthan they had originally anticipated. They also pointedout that their initial experience was that it took time tobuild the trust of the communities within which theprogrammes were based because the communities oftenfelt that they had been let down by schemes in the past.

21 Often the area covered by the programme overlaps withthat of other initiatives for example the New Deal forCommunities. In order to ensure that the initiativessupport each other the programmes liaise with eachother and attempt to remove duplication. In Southwark,the Sure Start programme initially only bid for revenuefunding as they anticipated that any capital expenditurewould be funded by the New Deal for Communities forthe same estate. Both in Southwark and in Sunderland arepresentative from the Sure Start programmes sits onthe Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership.However, the liaison is time consuming and oftenrequires support from key statutory authorities orvoluntary organisations.

Ensuring that communities have the skills tocontribute effectively

22 One of Sure Start’s aims is that each programme shouldinvolve the community and in particular represent theviews of parents and carers. All three partnerships hadhad difficulties in involving parents and othercommunity members. They considered that there weretwo issues that lead to the difficulty, the first was theother demands on parents' time - particularly parents ofyoung children. The second was that some communitymembers felt reluctant to take on roles for which theyfelt unskilled, for example membership of thepartnership board. Both the Sunderland and theSouthwark programme had found it difficult to retainparents on the programme board because of their othercommitments and were making positive efforts toidentify parents who were willing to serve on the board.

Ensuring that partnerships obtain appropriateskilled support

23 Each Sure Start programme covers an identified areawithin a local authority. Over half of the lead partnersare local authorities, and the remainder consists ofhealth authorities and voluntary organisations such asthe NSPCC and Barnardos (Figure 2). In contrast overthree-quarters of the accountable organisations are localauthorities compared with very few voluntaryorganisations. This reflects the support provided byprofessional staff within statutory authorities. In additionsuccessive Sure Starts within a local authority area, mayhave varying lead partners but the accountableorganisation is the same so as to reduce cost of settingup systems. In both Southwark and Sunderland,successive Sure Start programmes have the sameaccountable organisation.

Key lessons

Partnerships need support from skilled professionals toavoid financial and administrative problems which candistract attention from achieving partnership goals

Sure Start partnerships usually include a wide variety oforganisations, some quite small. The record keeping andfinancial systems required by the Sure Start Unit can seemcomplex to smaller voluntary or community groups. Leadpartner organisations have also found they have needed todraw in professional support in the areas of finance, planningand administration to avoid the risk they become boggeddown in solving short term problems, such as submitting bidsfor funding, and fail to give enough attention to strategicthinking. In Leeds, for example, the lead partner hasseconded an accountant from a private firm to set up itsfinancial systems.

Sharing information on practices that work,including approaches to joint working, can helppartnerships provide more effective services

Sure Start is a new initiative in the UK based on research ofwhat has worked in other countries. The Sure Start Unitprovided partnerships with advice on what has workedelsewhere but allows them to develop their own programmeto fit in with what is already available locally and to promoteinnovation in both what is provided and how it is provided.Given this approach and the lack of experience of some ofthe partner organisations in working with others, there is anincreased risk that some of the practices put into place willnot work. In addition, it is more likely that the programmemay become dominated by professionals from, for example,the health or education sectors, because they haveconfidence in their professional approaches. To counter theserisks, the Sure Start Unit has a regional network of advisers,located in the Government Offices, who provide advice andsupport. It also hosts a web-based forum for exchanginginformation and sharing experiences in dealing withproblems. This allows programme managers and partners todraw on the experience of other programmes around thecountry and makes them less reliant on the views ofdominant professional groups.

Investing time and resources may be required to geteffective community involvement in the partnership

Sure Start partnerships need the involvement of parents toensure that programmes are meeting local need and toencourage parents to take up services. If parents distrust theservices on offer or do not see that they can benefit, then theymay not take them up. Potentially, this could make theprogramme less effective because it does not reach all thefamilies who could benefit. Two of the partnerships wevisited had found it difficult to get parents or othercommunity members actively involved because they werereluctant to take on roles for which they felt unskilled, forexample membership of the partnership board. Partnershipsare trying to encourage the involvement of the community ina number of ways, for example by holding Fun Days in alocal park with invitations sent to every household in theSure Start Area.

The majority of Sure Start programmes are led bystatutory authorities and more have statutorybodies as the accountable body

2

Source: Sure Start Unit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Accountable Organisation

Lead Partner

Percentage of round 1 and 2 programmes in each organisation

LocalAuthority

Voluntary HealthAuthority

87

appe

ndix

five


Business Link partnershipsAppendix 6What has worked well! securing backing from influential local players

! negotiating skills

! branding

! data sharing

Risks to success! conflicting objectives

! lack of customer focus

! lack of joining up by central government

Key lessons! Progress monitoring, followed by corrective action where

necessary, by funders and partners can help ensure thatpartnerships continue to achieve and improve

! Having a clear customer focus can help partnersovercome tensions in the partnership and maintain theirsense of purpose

! Joining up central government to ensure that the demandsplaced on local partnerships do not compete or overlaphelps reinforce partnerships' goals

Client groupSmall and medium sized businesses

PurposeImprove the competitiveness of small firms byencouraging their use of high quality business supportservices

Ways of working

Bring together business support agencies in a locality toprovide tailored assistance to individual businesses

FundingApproximately £160 million a year

Time frameSince 1993, not time limited

Responsibility for deliveryPartnership board of each business link and the SmallBusiness Service

88

appe

ndix

six

89

appe

ndix

six


Why join up?1 In the early 1990's support and advice for businesses

was fragmented and overlapping. None of the providersin either the private sector or public sector supplied thecomplete range of businesses' support and adviceneeds; for example, obtaining finance; businessplanning; quality and design; employment issues;training and development; exporting; informationtechnology and marketing. In addition, there wasevidence that small businesses did not seek advice toimprove their business competitiveness either becausethey could not afford it or because they did not realisethey needed it.

2 The Business Link initiative stemmed from a recognitionby the then Government that business support servicescan help enhance firms' competitiveness. It decided tocreate a network of new bodies which would bringexisting service providers together in partnership andprovide a single point of access to small businessesneeding assistance. The Department of Trade andIndustry set up the first Business Link partnerships in1993 and gradually extended the scheme until by 1996-97 there were 89 Business Link partnerships coveringthe whole of England. The key aims of the initiative wereto:

! increase the use of business support by small firms;

! rationalise the provision of support to reduceduplication and to make it more coherent; and

! improve the quality of support services.

What is different3 The early Business Link partnerships varied in form,

from loose strategic partnerships to limited companieswith a Board of Directors. In each case, however, thekey partners were the local Training and EnterpriseCouncil, Chamber of Commerce, local authorities andEnterprise Agency; together with other partners such asuniversities or development agencies. The Departmentof Trade and Industry provided funding for thepartnerships via the Training and Enterprise Councils.Partnerships employed their own staff and secondedstaff from partner organisations. Some set up separateBusiness Link offices whilst others co-located with apartner organisation, such as the Chamber ofCommerce.

4 Business Link partnerships usually offer:

! a first point of contact for small businesses seekinginformation and advice;

! a personal business adviser service to assessbusiness' needs;

! direct provision of some commonly requiredservices, for example, marketing and informationtechnology development, either in-house or throughpartner organisations; and

! appropriate referral to other expertise to meet their needs, these referrals are often to private sector specialists outside the partnership such as accountants.

5 They also seek out potential high growth businesses andhelp them realise their potential. Many Business Linkservices are subsidised to encourage small businesses toaccess business support, however partnerships can anddo charge for some services and prior to 2000 theDepartment of Trade and Industry set partnershipstargets for client fees.

6 During 2000-01, the Small Business Service, a newexecutive agency of the Department of Trade andIndustry, restructured the network of Business Linkpartnerships. The restructuring was necessary becausethe then Department for Education and Employmentdecided to replace Training and Enterprise Councilswith Learning and Skills Councils but it gave the SmallBusiness Service the opportunity to address the variationin partnerships' performance. Whilst some partnershipswere performing well, the Small Business Servicejudged others to be of poor quality. It reduced thenumber of partnerships from 89 to 45 and replaced theprevious contracting arrangements with a directcontract between the Small Business Service and thepartnership. It also put more emphasis on the need forBusiness Link's support to include very small businessesand those thinking of starting a business. In 2001, theService introduced a quality management framework forthe new network setting minimum standards ofprofessional competence and customer service, andrequiring partnerships to aim for continuous qualityimprovement.

7 The new Business Link network became operational inApril 2001. Some partnerships are relatively unchanged,some have merged, and some new partnerships havebeen established including several which are led by 'forprofit' organisations, a new development for the service.We visited Business Link West which is a mergedpartnership and the Northumberland Business Servicewhich is a newly established partnership.

90

appe

ndix

six


Achievements to date8 Ernst and Young carried out the first evaluation of the

effectiveness of Business Link partnerships for theDepartment of Trade and Industry in 1995. Their mainfindings were that:

! around 40 per cent of the firms surveyed identifiedimprovements in business performance resultingfrom the help they received;

! 40 per cent also said they would probably not havegone to an alternative source of help if Business Linkservices had not been available; and

! 64 per cent rated the assistance provided byBusiness Links better than what was there before,particularly the accessibility, range and cost ofservices.

9 A further evaluation of Business Link partnerships byPACEC Consultancy Ltd in 1998 gathered financial datafrom both users and non-users of Business Link servicesto assess the impact of Business Links on businessperformance. This study found that:

! the productivity of firms assisted by Business Linksincreased by 13 per cent compared to 1 per centamong non-assisted firms; and

! the profit margin in assisted firms improved by7 per cent but deteriorated by 7 per cent in non-assisted firms.

10 In 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry set PublicService Agreement targets to increase the productivityand profitability of small and medium sized businessesassisted by Business Link partnerships and to improvethe quality of services delivered under the Business Linkbrand. It has been tracking firms' performance since1996 comparing the productivity and turnover of firmsassisted by Business Links with a matched sample offirms which were not assisted. The Small BusinessService published the full results from this work inNovember 2001. It also has a new Impact AssessmentFramework, focusing on Business Links' customers only,which will report on a regular basis on a range ofindicators of business performance, includingprofitability.

11 The Department assesses whether the quality ofBusiness Links has improved through a number ofmeasures including firms' satisfaction with the servicesthey receive. In 1997, 75 per cent of firms weresatisfied. By June 2000, however, satisfaction wasvirtually unchanged at 74 per cent. A recent survey offirms in June 2001 using a different methodologyassessed satisfaction with Business Links at 65 per cent.Other research has found that satisfaction withindividual Business Links varies considerably. In a 1999survey5 it ranged between 100 per cent and 63 per cent,indicating that some partnerships have been moresuccessful than others at providing services which meetthe needs of clients.


Securing backing from influential localplayers

12 Effective Business Link partnerships work within existinglocal political structures ensuring that they gain thesupport of important backers. Many Business Links workparticularly closely with the local Chamber ofCommerce. The office of Business Link West in Bristol islocated in the Bristol Chamber of Commerce andInitiative, whilst its satellite offices in other areas are co-located with other partners. In Northumberland, thenew Northumberland Business Service was formedunder the Northumberland Strategic Partnership, theoverarching partnership for the County, comprising theCounty Council, district councils, agencies and localbusiness people.

Negotiating skills

13 The negotiating skills, particularly of the dominantpartners, are an important factor in managing therelationships between partners, especially where thereis tension between partner organisations' objectives andBusiness Link objectives.

5 University of Cambridge ESRC Centre for Business Research

92

appe

ndix

six


Branding

14 The Business Link name and logo are recognised byfirms as the established brand for subsidised advice andsupport for small businesses. Having a strong brandimage has helped promote and reinforce partnershipworking amongst local providers of business supportservices. During the Small Business Service'sconsultation in 2000 on their plans for the network,some consultees recommended dropping the BusinessLink brand because it had become tarnished in someareas. However, overall it was felt that it provided arecognised badge which the Service could build on.

Data sharing

15 Information and communication technology is beingused increasingly to aid joined up working. Nationally,the Small Business Service is developing a sophisticatedtelephone and computer system to provide informationto small businesses and people wanting advice onsetting up a business and to refer them to their localBusiness Link partnership for in depth help. BothBusiness Link West and the Northumberland BusinessService have a networked client database so thatinformation on clients can be accessed and updatedfrom each local satellite office and partners. BusinessLink West also shares its database with North SomersetCouncil with whom it carries out joint visits.

Managing the risks to success16 In 1998, Public and Corporate Economic Consultants

carried out a value for money evaluation of BusinessLinks for the Department of Trade and Industry. We drawon this work, which explored the barriers to partnershipdevelopment, as well as our own independentexamination.

Managing partners' different objectives

17 In 1998, Business Link partners and Chief Executivescited differing aims and objectives as the biggest barrierto the partnership development. For example individuallocal authorities had a different approach to economicdevelopment and regeneration than Chambers ofCommerce, which developed to represent theirmembers and play an advocacy or lobbying role. Whilstmost Business Links resolved these issues, in some areasturf wars persisted or else one partner came to dominatethe partnership. This was usually the Training andEnterprise Council because it controlled funds fromgovernment.

18 Business Link partnerships varied between being adirect provider of services, possibly in competition withthose offered by individual partners, or acting as agateway or referral agency, signposting firms to otheragencies when they required services. When, in 1997,the Department of Trade and Industry introduced feetargets for Business Links, some partners felt that thisincreased competition between Business Links andpartners' agencies. Under the new franchisearrangements Business Links role will be to stimulatedemand for business services and act as a referralagency with quality-assured sub-contractors; inaddition, the Small Business Service dropped fee targets.

Developing and maintaining a focus on thecustomer

19 When the Business Link partnerships were set up, therewas much enthusiasm for the initiative amongst partnerorganisations. They recognised that small businesseswere not always aware of how they could benefit frombusiness support services and supported a proactiveapproach. However, after the initial period of change,some partnerships developed a more cynical attitude totheir customers. For example, in Northumberland theprevious Business Link service took the view that smallbusiness people know what business support they needand come to the Business Link only to obtain services ata subsidised cost. In contrast, the new Business Linkteam in Northumberland intends to return to the originalethos and take a much more proactive approach. Anincreased and improved focus on the customer is a keyfeature of the Small Business Service's requirements fornew Business Link franchises.

Providing a clear lead by joining up centralgovernment

20 The creation of the Small Business Service changed therelationship between Business Link partnerships andgovernment in two important ways. Firstly the SmallBusiness Service now has the role of co-ordinatinggovernment strategy towards Business Links and smallbusinesses. In 1998, half of partners surveyed said that alack of co-ordination between central governmentdepartments was an important barrier to partnershipdevelopment because departments had differing roles,areas of responsibility and funding inputs in relation toBusiness Links.

93

appe

ndix

six


21 Secondly, the Small Business Service has taken directcontrol over the Business Link network. The Departmentof Trade and Industry has always recognised thatBusiness Link partnerships need local discretion overstrategy and services. However, it found it difficult toaddress poor performance by specific Business Linksbecause it routed funding to Business Links throughTraining and Enterprise Councils, bodies responsible tothe former Department for Education and Employment.

22 Under the new franchises, the Small Business Servicehas a direct contractual arrangement with BusinessLinks. It has appointed regional managers to liaise withBusiness Links and manage the contract. As the contractholder, it has also used its position of influence to bringBusiness Link partnerships closer to one another tocreate a sense of belonging to a national organisation,for example by holding national and regional trainingevents and by setting common quality standards.

Key lessons

Progress monitoring, followed by corrective actionwhere necessary, by funders and partners can helpensure that partnerships continue to achieve andimprove

The Department of Trade and Industry had a number ofaims in setting up Business Link partnerships. One of itsaims was to improve the quality of advice and supportservices to small firms. Although the Department putperformance measures in place it did not have the capacityin the regions to obtain a thorough understanding of theperformance of each Business Link partnership. Partnersand funders need to heed early warning signs that apartnership is failing to deliver good quality services as it iseasier to challenge bad practice before it becomesentrenched. In 2001, the Small Business Service introduceda quality management framework for the new networksetting minimum standards for professional competenceand requiring that partnerships aim for continuous qualityimprovement. It has also appointed regional managers tomonitor progress more closely.

Having a clear customer focus can help partnersovercome tensions in the partnership and maintaintheir sense of purpose

In the late 1990's some Business Link partnerships startedto concentrate on providing services which were cheap todeliver and withdrew more complex, less profitableservices. They lost sight of the need to put their customers'needs first in order to pursue other goals. In 2001 the SmallBusiness Service, in the new Business Link network, hasemphasised the need for partnerships to concentrate on thecustomer. We found that in the new NorthumberlandBusiness Service there was a very strong focus on providingservices to meet the needs of their clients and potentialclients. This focus was helping to promote good workingrelationships between the partners.

Joining up central government to ensure that thedemands placed on local partnerships do notcompete or overlap helps reinforce partnerships'goals

An evaluation of Business Link partnerships in 1998 foundthat partners complained that a lack of co-ordinationbetween central government departments was a barrier topartnership development because departments sent outdifferent, and sometimes competing, messages anddemands. There is a risk that a lack of joining up bydepartments can result in frustration at a local level whichcould undermine local partnerships' motivation. TheGovernment created the Small Business Service, in 2000,to provide this joined up response to both Business Linksand small firms in general.

94

appe

ndix

sev

en

British Trade International (Trade Partners UK)

Appendix 7What has worked well! leaders regard the work as important

! development of a clear strategic direction

! negotiating skills

! performance measurement

Risks to success! competing priorities

! control over resources

! lack of corporate culture

! accountability arrangements

Key lessons! Bringing organisations together to create effective

partnership means resolving competing priorities, settingclear goals and establishing a strategy for achieving them

! Building partnerships takes time and determination todevelop new relationships, facilitate cultural change andovercome entrenched points of view

! Partnerships may require new accounting andperformance measurement systems to allow them to givean account to Parliament and the public for their use ofpublic moneys and their achievements, these should beput in place when the partnership is formed

Client groupUk businesses

PurposeProvide help for firms wishing to export and investoverseas

Ways of workingPartnership between Department of Trade and Industryand the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to bringtogether trade development and export promotionactivities under one management structure

FundingApproximately £220 million a year

Time frameSince May 1999, not time limited

Responsibility for deliveryGroup Chief Executive of British Trade International

95

appe

ndix

sev

en


Why join up?1 Trade development is a complex area of activity and

businesses have diverse needs. Different public sectororganisations: Business Link partnerships; theGovernment Offices and the Regional DevelopmentAgencies; the Department of Trade and Industry andother government departments; and the Foreign andCommonwealth Office deliver services locally,regionally, nationally and overseas in support ofbusiness' international trade efforts.

2 In February 1999,1 the Government carried out a reviewof the UK's export promotion work. The review teamreported a number of failings of the structure of exportpromotion services:

! no one person or organisation was responsible oraccountable for the overall direction andmanagement of Government support for exporters;

! there was a lack of cohesion among the bodiesinvolved causing significant confusion amongbusiness customers and undermining theeffectiveness of the overall effort;

! the arrangements for allocating resources werecomplex with too many funding streams;

! the services offered were not sufficiently customer-focused; and

! it was not possible to measure the overall impact ofGovernment support for export promotion.

3 In May 1999, as a result of the review of exportpromotion, British Trade International was established tojoin up Government's export promotion and tradedevelopment activities, subsequently branded as TradePartners UK. In July 2000, the Invest in Britain Bureauwas also brought within British Trade International andrenamed Invest UK. Our work has concentrated onBritish Trade International's role in providing tradepromotion and development services to business,particularly small businesses.

What is different4 British Trade International is a partnership between the

Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign andCommonwealth Office which has placed a unifiedmanagement structure over existing staff and services tocreate a notional organisation without formal legalstatus. All staff remain employed and funded by theirparent department. A Memorandum of Understandingsets out the partnership arrangements.

5 British Trade International's Group Chief Executivereports to a Board chaired by a newly created Ministerof State for International Trade and Investment whoholds office at both the Department of Trade andIndustry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.The Board, comprising civil servants and senior businesspeople, advises on the strategic direction of British TradeInternational. The Group Chief Executive has aprogramme budget of around £85 million a year. Inaddition the two Departments also fund British TradeInternational's administration and capital costs and thePermanent Secretaries at the Department of Trade andIndustry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Officeremain accountable to their Secretaries of State forBritish Trade International's use of their Departments'staff and other resources. They are also represented onBritish Trade International's Board.

6 The key difference arising from the creation of TradePartners UK is that it enabled the Government to devisean organisation with a new role and a new overallstrategy in the field of trade promotion anddevelopment. That role and strategy include:

! a greater focus on customers, particularly the needsof small and medium-sized businesses whichcomprise over 80 per cent of Trade Partners UK'starget group;

! presenting a high, more coherent profile to businessby introducing (in May 2000) the Trade Partners UKbrand;

! developing a single point of contact for exportersand potential exporters to web-based and otherservices through the Trade Partners UK website; and

! developing ways of measuring the impact of TradePartners UK services on business competitiveness.

1 The Review of Export Promotion, A Report by the Secretary to the Cabinet; February 1999

96

appe

ndix

sev

en


Achievements to date7 The Department of Trade and Industry has measured

customer satisfaction with export promotion servicessince 1995. This data shows that average customersatisfaction rose from 82 per cent in 1995 to 94 per centin 2000 (Figure 1). Customer satisfaction has continuedto increase since British Trade International was createdin 1999.

8 In 1999 there were around 30 different governmentwebsites providing information to exporters. BritishTrade International rationalised these with the objectiveof consolidating all web-based information on a singlewebsite www.tradepartners.gov.uk launched inMay 2000. It has invested significant resources indeveloping the site as a comprehensive source ofinformation for business and a gateway to Trade PartnersUK services. The number of monthly visitors to thewebsite more than doubled between June 2000 andJuly 2001 from 15,000 to 35,000, and the average

number of pages viewed per visit increased from four toseven over the same period. Research in 2000 by BritishTrade International's consultants indicated that greaterpromotion of the site and brand was needed to reach allthe firms which could benefit. It is too soon to say withcertainty how successful the brand and website will be.The website, in particular, is still being developed.

9 Prior to 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry andthe Foreign and Commonwealth Office evaluated theeffectiveness of their export promotion activitiesseparately on a programme by programme basis. In1999, the two Departments shared a Public ServiceAgreement target set prior to the formation of BritishTrade International. The following year as part of the2000 Spending Review British Trade International setnew Public Service Agreement targets to reflect better itsnew role of focusing on enhancing the competitivenessof British business rather than simply generating exports.These new targets are also shared by its parentdepartments in their own Public Service Agreements.British Trade International's progress against its PublicService Agreement targets is shown in Figure 2.

10 British Trade International has put in place a newframework of performance measurement which willseek to measure the impact of its activities oncompanies over time; the relative effectiveness of thedifferent types of support; and the quality of serviceprovided. British Trade International is co-ordinating itsapproach to measuring its impact on competitivenesswith that of the Small Business Service. It will ask firmswhich have utilised its services for information on theirturnover and profitability over a two year period andcompare their business performance with a controlgroup of firms which have not received exportassistance.

Average customer satisfaction with export promotionservices since 1995

1

Source: British Trade International

100

95

90

85

80

751995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Per cent Creation of British Trade International

Customer satisfaction

Trend line

Progress against Public Service Agreement Targets2

PSA targets for 1999-00 to 2001-02

Performance target: To improve support for exporters, raise thequality of service, generate additional exports, and enhance thebusiness image of the UK

Performance measure Outcome byDecember 2000

50 per cent of firms adjust their approach "to exporting as a result of assistance

70 per cent of firms satisfied with the "targeted market information provided

£20 of additional exports generated for Measure droppedeach £1 of DTI/FCO expenditure

45 per cent of visitors to major 'image' "events held abroad show an improvement in their perception of the UK

PSA targets for 2001-02 to 2003-04

Performance target: Enhanced competitiveness of companies in theUK through overseas sales and investments

Performance measure Current position

At least 15 per cent of new-to-exportfirms assisted improve their businessperformance within 2 years

At least 50 per cent of establishedexporters assisted improve theirperformance within 2 years

At least 80 per cent of firms receivingassistance to win major overseasprojects report that Trade Partners UK'shelp was a significant factor

Measures being developed

Data to be collected fromApril 2001

Measures being developed

Source: British Trade International Expenditure Plans 2001-02 to 2003-04, Cm 5123

}

97

appe

ndix

sev

en



Leaders regard the work as important

11 The review of export promotion identified theconsequences of the fragmentation of export promotionactivities. The Government accepted the report andacted upon it to create British Trade International. Thepresence of a minister on British Trade International'sBoard has maintained the impetus behind the neworganisation.

Development of a clear strategic directionand customer focus

12 British Trade International published its NationalStrategy for trade promotion and development inOctober 1999. The work done to establish its overallobjectives and sense of direction has provided acommon sense of purpose that has helped weld theorganisation together. The organisation's core valueshave changed by becoming a customer-focusedorganisation. Competing priorities can be held inbalance by ongoing strategic work.

Negotiating skills

13 In order to create a successful partnership organisationboth the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and theDepartment of Trade and Industry had to transfer controlover some of their activities to British TradeInternational. Both departments had to find ways toachieve the shared British Trade International objectivein tandem with other objectives. The key officialsneeded imagination and commitment when negotiatingthe terms of British Trade International's Memorandumof Understanding with its parent departments to agreean innovative but workable solution acceptable to allthree organisations.

Performance measurement

14 The creation of a single organisation to undertakeinternational trade promotion has provided theopportunity to develop performance measurementsystems which can demonstrate the impact of the UK'strade development and export promotion work. Thisboth improves accountability to funders andstakeholders and provides useful management tools. Thenewly developed performance measurement systemsand targets will reinforce customer focus and theemphasis on outcomes.

Managing the risks to success15 British Trade International is a compromise between the

fragmentation that was there before and the creation ofa separate export promotion and trade developmentbody. The review of export promotion considered that ithad advantages over a completely unified operationincluding the close co-ordination of commercial workwith political work overseas and the ability to bringmarket, sectoral and regional information together at thecentre.2 It is an attempt to create an integrated and co-ordinated set of activities without creating a new silo.There are risks however.

Resolving competing priorities

16 Before British Trade International was created, the UKlacked an overall strategy for trade promotion, firmscould get government support to export to almost anycountry they wished to try, a market-led approach. Indrawing up its strategy, British Trade International hastried to balance this approach with a sectoral approachbased on developing different trade promotion strategiesfor different sectors of industry and on developing thecapacity of individual firms to trade internationally. Thetwo approaches are not necessarily incompatible andBritish Trade International is working towards aconsensus with stakeholders on where the balance lies.

Gaining control over resources

17 One of the key issues for British Trade International is toachieve effective management control over all theresources it has been given. For example, many of itsstaff overseas carry out both diplomatic and trade-related activities. British Trade International has agreedwith the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, throughthe Memorandum of Understanding, that it canredeploy these resources from one country to another ifit so wishes, provided this does not prejudice theefficiency of the deployment of Foreign andCommonwealth Office resources as a whole.

18 British Trade International also secured managementarrangements which include giving the Group ChiefExecutive input into the objective setting, performanceappraisal and promotion systems of staff workingoverseas on trade-related activities. These arrangementswill encourage senior embassy staff to work closely withBritish Trade International to deliver well managed tradepromotion and development work overseas.

2 The Review of Export Promotion, A Report by the Secretary to the Cabinet; February 1999, p29

98

appe

ndix

sev

en


19 At the other end of the chain, British Trade Internationalfunds Business Link partnerships (Appendix 6) to employinternational trade advisers (formerly exportdevelopment counsellors) to provide advice andassistance on all aspects of exporting to local businesses.The Small Business Service, an executive agency of theDepartment of Trade and Industry, reorganised thenetwork of Business Link partnerships in 2000-01. BritishTrade International took full advantage of thisreorganisation to negotiate new contracts with BusinessLink partnerships refocusing and rebadging internationaltrade teams in the Links because it had found that someexport development counsellors were ignoring theirbroad role in developing the trade capabilities of localbusinesses in favour of working as unofficial exportmanagers for fee-paying client companies in order tomeet the Department of Trade and Industry's fee targets.A comprehensive development programme forinternational trade advisers and an initiative for newexporters will help to improve delivery.

20 British Trade International does not have directmanagement control over international trade teams butit has employed International Trade Directors in theregions to manage the contracts with Business Linkpartnerships and influence service delivery. Forexample, the International Trade Director in the NorthEast region has agreed with the four Chief Executives ofthe new Business Links that they will co-manage theinternational trade teams.

Developing a corporate culture

21 British Trade International's staff are employed by twodifferent government departments on different pay andconditions. Cultural differences make it difficult forpeople to feel they are part of a single organisation. Inaddition, British Trade International's Foreign andCommonwealth Office staff are nearly all overseas,whereas its Department of Trade and Industry staffgenerally work in London. The Group Chief Executiveand senior managers are working to create a sense ofcorporate identity for British Trade International. Forexample, by working to reconcile the personnelpractices of the two Departments and by encouragingmore secondments to allow Department of Trade and Industry staff to serve overseas and to bring moreForeign and Commonwealth Office staff into theLondon headquarters operation. British TradeInternational also holds joint training events to break down barriers and encourage a sense of corporate identity.

Developing clear accountabilityarrangements

22 At present British Trade International's resources areaccounted for in three separate places: its own accountfor programme expenditure and within the Departmentof Trade and Industry's and the Foreign andCommonwealth Office's accounts for its staff and otheradministrative costs including capital expenditure.These accounting arrangements lack transparency,making it difficult for outsiders to compare British TradeInternational's costs with its achievements. When theTreasury is satisfied that the Memorandum ofUnderstanding between British Trade International andits parent departments has been implemented giving theGroup Chief Executive effective control over theresources deployed on British Trade International'swork, it will appoint him as an Accounting Officer inrelation to British Trade International's administrationcosts and thus give him the authority necessary as abasis for the production of an account for the wholeorganisation. This authority should be given from 2002.

23. To produce a single account for all its resources, BritishTrade International must be able to identify and place avalue on the resources at its disposal. This involvesdetermining the costs arising from its trade-related workoverseas and the correct apportionment of capital costssuch as IT expenditure which benefits both British TradeInternational and one of its parent departments.

99

appe

ndix

sev

en


Key lessons

Bringing organisations together to create effectivepartnership means resolving competing priorities,setting clear goals and establishing a strategy forachieving them

The Department for Trade and Industry and the Foreign andCommonwealth Office have worked together on promotingexports for many years with established ways of working.Each Department, however, had little influence over how theother Department worked and where it saw its priorities. Incoming together to create a new organisation, British TradeInternational, the Departments have examined their existingways of working and agreed new priorities and goals for thenew joined up organisation. This work has beenfundamentally important to whether British TradeInternational will be a success because without clear goalsthe partners would have continued to deploy their resourcesto meet their own trade and investment priorities.

Building partnerships takes time and determinationto develop new relationships, facilitate culturalchange and overcome entrenched points of view

British Trade International is a partnership where all the staffengaged on the work of the partnership have remained theemployees of the partner organisations. The global spread ofthe operation limits the scope for staff with differentemployers working together. This means that partnership staffremain within their accustomed cultural setting and,moreover, mix little with the staff of the other partner. In thissituation there is an increased risk that partnership staff donot believe that the partnership is real and resist changes totheir established ways of working. British Trade Internationalis aware of these difficulties and has taken a number of stepsto create its own organisational identity and ethos. Theseinclude traditional management tools such as staff appraisalsystems and trying to create loyalty to the organisationthrough leadership. It has also used secondments betweenthe two departments and joint training and other events.

Partnerships may require new accounting andperformance measurement systems to allow them togive an account to Parliament and the public fortheir use of public moneys and their achievements,these should be put in place when the partnership isformed

British Trade International, set up in 1999, is a new form ofgovernment partnership. Its parent departments, theDepartment of Trade and Industry and the Foreign andCommonwealth Office have worked together to agree aframework for how the partnership is to be run. At present,however, British Trade International's resources areaccounted for in three separate places: its own account forprogramme expenditure and within the Department of Tradeand Industry's and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office'saccounts for its staff and other administrative costs. Theseaccounting arrangements lack transparency, making itdifficult for outsiders to compare British Trade International'scosts with its achievements. In accordance with theMemorandum of Understanding British Trade Internationalwill be able to produce an account, bringing together all itsincome and expenditure in one place, from 2002-03. BritishTrade International is also implementing new performancemeasures to account for its achievements.

100

appe

ndix

eig

ht

Appendix 8 International perspectives onjoining up government


Australia

Government is divided betweencentre and states

Joining Up

! In Australia, the three main types of joined up

working are: between central and state;

between officials providing similar services

across the country; and partnerships between

public and private sectors.

! Until the 1990s, joined up working was mostly

top-down. More recently local officials and

politicians have led the way to provide co-

ordinated services to citizens.

! Despite a long history of using performance

measurement, government has been slow to

develop cross-cutting measures.

! Partnership arrangements have often been

secretive leaving the public unaware of why

decisions were taken.

! Examples of joined up working include

Centrelink, which provides information to the

public on behalf of a number of services, and

an inter-agency approach to combating drug

misuse.

Key Points

! The need for joined up working is accepted

both centrally and locally. For example, central

government has led a co-ordinated response to

external trade pressures and international

agreements. More locally, the development of

one stop shops has been successful at joining

up information about services. Officials have

benefited from the exchange of technical and

practical information.

! Barriers to building further on these successes

include: secrecy leading to suspicion from the

public; the danger that partners exercise their

veto leading to gridlock; and weakly developed

cross-cutting measures leading to inadequate

performance management.

Canada

Government is divided betweenthe central government, and theten provinces and three territories

! Joined up working occurs in two ways. First,

between the central government and the local

states and territories. Secondly, across

departments. The round of public sector reforms

initiated by the 'Programme Review' in 1994

made it possible for public services to share

their resources. These have contributed to a

significant increase in joined up government.

! Performance targets are used to co-ordinate

joined up working. These are concerned with

what should be done rather than how it is

achieved.

! The Auditor General of Canada has stated that

these arrangements are too often hidden away

from the public. This is especially common

where delegated, voluntary, or private

organisations are involved.

! Cross-cutting performance targets have proved

helpful. For example, the Great Lakes 2000

initiative brought together Environment Canada,

six other federal departments, and four Ontario

Province ministries. It used 50 performance

targets for environmental and health

improvements.

! There are two main barriers to the further

development of joined up working. First,

decision making is often hidden from the public

and from elected politicians. But the Treasury

Board Secretariat is also concerned that too

much formal accountability might stop

partnerships responding flexibly to citizens'

needs.

! Secondly, despite successes using performance

targets, the Office of the Auditor General has

concerns that the poor quality of information

makes performance management less effective.

101

appe

ndix

eig

ht


Netherlands

Constitutionally centralised butwith widely-spread decisionmaking

Joining Up

! Joined up government extends in three

directions: between the central and the local

levels of government (for example, the Ministry

of Home Affairs promotes modernisation in

local government); between government

departments (for example, the cabinet's annual

inter-departmental reviews); and between 'social

partners' (for example, in advisory groups).

! Since the 1980s there has been media and

public concern that with so many partners it

becomes hard to co-ordinate the business of

government.

! Performance targets have been used to improve

co-ordination. For example, the Government's

budget is now based on what politicians want

to achieve rather than how to achieve it. The

Cabinet also carries out cross-cutting reviews.

However, the Finance and Interior Departments

are unable to impose cross-cutting performance

targets on other departments. It has been

technically, and sometimes politically, difficult

to keep the whole departments focused on

achieving performance targets.

Key Points

! The Dutch inclusive style of running public

services has been successful in many respects.

Successes are associated with low strike rates,

the successful management of rising welfare

costs, and the management of difficult ethical

issues such as abortion.

! However, involving many partners in decision

making and in delivering services also has a

cost. Dutch Governments have tried to change

the balance between inclusive partnerships, on

the one hand, and co-ordinating costs and

overall activities, on the other. By reducing the

number of advisory councils, for example, it is

hoped to provide more streamlined decision -

making.

! The barriers to successfully achieving this

balance are, first, that powerful social partners

in each public service limit central co-

ordination. Secondly, the development of cross-

cutting performance measures has been slow.

New Zealand

Constitutionally centralised butwith decision making alsorelatively centralised

! With a relatively small and centralised system of

government, joined up government in New

Zealand has mainly involved co-ordinating

central government departments to provide

joined up services on the ground. For example,

Strengthening Families aims to improve the well

being of families and it is supported by the

Ministries of Health and Education, the Ministry

of Social Policy and many other central agencies.

At the local level, collaboration is strengthened

by inter-agency case management, jointly

identifying gaps, and joint use of resources.

! Central to achieving this co-ordination are the

Strategic Priorities and Overarching Goals.

These set out the Government's objectives,

including cross-cutting targets. Each Department

is then required to develop its own Key Results

Areas within these priorities. Departments later

publish their achievements against these targets.

! The use of Strategic Priorities and Overarching

Goals is a bold attempt to co-ordinate joined up

working. In areas such as care for older people

it has helped to bring agencies together at both

national and local levels.

! However, the impact of this on the core work of

Departments is often limited. Strategic Priorities

only partly determine the way Departments

work.

! Overcoming these limitations would require the

development of more tightly defined priorities.

This is technically difficult to do. These would

then need to be more closely linked to what

each department does. In turn, this would

require incentives to encourage the pursuit of

Strategic Priorities.

Sweden

Constitutionally centralisedwith widely spread decisionmaking

! The delivery of Swedish public services is

characterised by negotiation, collaboration and

compromise. Previously, limited 'joining up'

was achieved through such negotiation. More

recently, Governments have also used

performance targets, including cross-cutting

ones.

! The pursuit of joined up government is not a

major public goal in Sweden. Government has

responded to the pressures for improved

co-ordination by a combination of joining

together agencies, encouraging collaboration,

and setting cross-cutting targets.

! Joined up government in Sweden involves small

central Ministries, relatively independent

agencies managed by the Ministries, and

regional and local authorities.

! Historically, negotiation and compromise have

been important features of joined up working.

More recently, Parliament has also set budgets

for cross-cutting policies.

102

appe

ndix

eig

ht


Sweden - continued Key Points

! Barriers to further improvements include: the

limit to further amalgamations of agencies if

they are to carry out their specialist tasks; the

danger that collaboration and negotiation will

lead to gridlock; and the difficulties experienced

in setting targets which determine how partners

work.

Joining Up

! In order to co-ordinate the work of so many

partners, in recent years Government has

reduced the number of agencies by joining

some of them together. Remaining agencies

have been given tighter performance and

spending targets by central government.

United States of America

Government is divided betweenthe centre and the states withconsiderable diversity in publicservices

! The United States provides a wide variety of

joined up working with each state often finding

new ways of delivering services. However, with

so many programmes, and new programmes

being developed all the time, it is often difficult

to measure success.

! However, despite limited legal powers, the

central government has successfully established

widespread provision in areas such as services

for homeless people, childcare support, and

training.

! Joined up working has often been pursued,

therefore, by spreading best practice. However,

there is an increasing use of cross-cutting

measures (for example, the Department of

Health and Human Services has established

targets for other agencies on reducing tobacco

use).

! Barriers to further improvements include the

incompleteness of performance data. Although

targets are set very openly, the public can be

less confident that agencies are accurate in

describing their performance.

! The down side of encouraging innovation is that

the opportunity to slowly improve a joined up

service by carefully evaluating its long term

effectiveness may be lost.

! Joined up government in the United States is,

first of all, between the central government and

the state governments. For example, the Federal

Executive Boards spread best practice

throughout the public sector. It is also between

the public sector and the voluntary sector.

Major programmes for delivering childcare,

training and community safety depend upon the

voluntary sector, for example Boost4Kids, the

Child Care Partnership Project, 21st Century

Skills, SafeCities.

! The states have independent powers in many

areas and share responsibilities in others.

Central government therefore often lacks the

power to impose performance targets. It

therefore often relies more on funding initiatives

and legislating where it can rather than

enforcing targets.

! Central government also identifies and spreads

best practice in joined up working (for example,

through the Federal Communications Network).

! However, some cross-cutting performance

targets are used. These are proposed by each

Department, considered by the Office of

Management and Budget, and decided on by

Congress. Under the Government Performance

and Results Act, agencies must publish their

performance reports.

103

refe

renc

es


References and websites

Bibliography

Modernising Government, Cm 4310, March 1999

Wiring it Up: Whitehall’s Management of Cross-cuttingPolicies and Services, Performance and Innovation Unit,Cabinet Office, January 2000

Reaching Out: The Role of Central Government atRegional and Local Level, Performance and InnovationUnit, Cabinet Office, February 2000

National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Joiningit Up Locally, Social Exclusion Unit/DETR, April 2000

A Fruitful Partnership: Effective Partnership Working,Audit Commission, November 1998

Take Your Partners, report of the LGA UrbanCommission hearings into partnership working, LocalGovernment Association, September 1999

Working in partnership: developing a whole systemsapproach, Public Services Productivity Panel, HMTreasury, May 2000

Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reformand Accountability, Comprehensive Spending Review:Public Service Agreements 1999-2002, Cm 4181,December 1998

2000 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements, Cm4808, July 2000

Spending Review 2000, Service Delivery Agreements2001-2004: A Guide, Cm 4915, November 2000

Measuring the Performance of GovernmentDepartments, National Audit Office, HC 301, Session2000-2001, March 2001

Rough Sleeping, Social Exclusion Unit, Cm 4008, July1998

The Review of Export Promotion, A Report by theSecretary of the Cabinet, February 1999

Governing in the round, Perri 6, Diana Leat, KimberleySeltzer and Gerry Stoker, Demos, 1999

Implementing holistic government, David Wilkinsonand Elaine Applebee, Demos 1999

One-Stop Government in Europe, Martin Hagen andHerbert Kubicek (Editors), University of Bremen, 2000

Websites

Cabinet Office - www.cabinet-office.gov.uk

HM Treasury - www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

Invest to Save - www.isb.gov.uk

Regional Co-ordination Unit - www.rcu.gov.uk

Social Exclusion Unit - www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/seu

Performance and Innovation Unit - www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation

Local Government Association - www.lga.gov.uk

Local Government Information Unit - www.lgiu.gov.uk

Audit Commission -www.audit-commission.gov.uk/comsafe

Documents

Joining Up to Improve Public Services1 Four types of joined up government and the problem of accountability, Sue Richards Professor of Public Management, University of Birmingham -