1 / 34

Performance in local government Tony Bovaird INLOGOV Birmingham University

Some recent research. Evaluation of Civil Service Reform Programme (2002), revisited in 2005 Evaluation of the pilots and the long-term impacts of the Best Value regime in local government (1998

nuru
Download Presentation

Performance in local government Tony Bovaird INLOGOV Birmingham University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Performance in local government Tony Bovaird INLOGOV Birmingham University

    2. Some recent research Evaluation of Civil Service Reform Programme (2002), revisited in 2005 Evaluation of the pilots and the long-term impacts of the Best Value regime in local government (1998 – 2005) Long-term meta-evaluation of the Local Government Modernisation Agenda (2002- 2007) Evaluation of public governance initiatives in European cities (2003 – 2005)

    3. Introduction “What matters is what works!” versus “The ends don’t justify the means” Potentially very contradictory beliefs around in the system, so some ‘simple’ questions: Who is performing? For whom are they performing? What are they performing? How can we tell if they are performing? How can we improve performance? How can we beat ‘performance fixation’?

    4. Whose performance? Your own? Your office or corridor? Your service? Your programme area? Your corporate centre? Your elected members? Your partnerships? Your users? Your communities? Your national government? …

    5. Performing for whom? For citizens? For voters? For taxpayers? For service users? For the disadvantaged? For specific geographic communities (neighbourhoods, parishes, etc)? For organised community groups and interest groups? For partners? For contract principals? For inspectors and auditors?

    6. ‘Success’ looks different to different people What does ‘success’ look like: for you in your job? for your service? for your service users? for the major lobbying group relevant to your service? What does ‘success’ look like for your citizens? for your local authority? for your LSP?

    8. User satisfaction BVPIs

    9. What are they performing? Services Activities? Quality of service? Community leadership? Democratic decision-making (or ‘local governance’)?

    10. The NPM version of public sector reform – a service perspective Service improvement but just for public services Accountability of public services to service users, taxpayers and to central bodies (e.g. National Audit) Strategic management of public organisations not community leadership User involvement and choice in services not engagement and co-production by general public, citizens or other stakeholders Public confidence in service provision not in the public sector or its institutions

    11. The public governance approach to public sector reform concentrates on: Quality of life improvement not just service improvement, and including ALL services which contribute to citizens’ quality of life Accountability of ALL services and ALL sectors Community leadership by all organisations, not just public sector Public/stakeholder and citizen engagement and co-production within frameworks of democratic renewal and social inclusion (in both decision-taking and quality of life outcomes) Public confidence in the workings of government, society and the economy

    12. How can we tell if they are performing? Be clear about purposes Relate PIs to objectives, unless … Use targets – but only AFTER setting the underlying objectives PI portfolios must be balanced Set separate PIs for economy, efficiency, effectiveness, outcomes, equity and quality Assess quality of governance as well as quality of service Self-assessment is normally better (but requires audit) Agree, don’t impose (unless …) Assess priorities first – ‘proportionality’ Make comparisons over time and between departments/agencies Organise for performance management “Short, sharp, snappy”

    13. Purposes of Performance Management Control Strategic direction, ‘shaping’, ‘steering’ Hands-off empowerment Learning and continuous improvement _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    14. How can we tell if they are performing? Be clear about purposes Relate PIs to objectives, unless … Use targets – but only AFTER setting the underlying objectives PI portfolios must be balanced Set separate PIs for economy, efficiency, effectiveness, outcomes, equity and quality Assess quality of governance as well as quality of service Self-assessment is normally better (but requires audit) Agree, don’t impose (unless …) Assess priorities first – ‘proportionality’ Make comparisons over time and between departments/agencies Organise for performance management “Short, sharp, snappy”

    15. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    16. ‘SMART’ objectives Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-related

    17. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    18. Objectives are more important than targets NHS waiting list targets! Filling projects with easy-to-reach members of ‘hard-to-reach’ groups! Getting the numbers through the door by giving people a ‘quick dose’ rather than a real experience, e.g. in musical performance, theatre performance, craft workshops. However, in each case, some smarter PIs might have been set to protect the underlying objectives “Be careful what you set your heart upon … you will surely find it!”

    19. How can we tell if they are performing? Be clear about purposes Relate PIs to objectives, unless … Use targets – but only AFTER setting the underlying objectives PI portfolios must be balanced Set separate PIs for economy, efficiency, effectiveness, outcomes, equity and quality Assess quality of governance as well as quality of service Self-assessment is normally better (but requires audit) Agree, don’t impose (unless …) Assess priorities first – ‘proportionality’ Make comparisons over time and between departments/agencies Organise for performance management “Short, sharp, snappy”

    20. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    21. Dimensions of ‘good public governance’ Improvements to the quality of life of citizens and other stakeholders as a result of government actions Implementation by all stakeholders of a set of principles and processes by means of which appropriate public policies will be designed and put into practice … so we need to measure emerging best practice in these areas as well in service improvement

    22. We need to understand (and therefore measure) quality of life improvements in: Public safety and security Jobs and economic prosperity Health Social wellbeing and integration Education and lifelong learning Access and mobility Liveable environment Home comfort and shelter Enjoyment of leisure and culture

    23. … and to measure improvements in public governance principles and processes: Democratic decision-making Citizen engagement Transparency Accountability Social inclusion and equalities (of opportunity, use, access, cost, outcomes?) for disadvantaged groups Fair and honest treatment of citizens Ability to compete in a global environment Willingness and ability to work in partnership Respect for the rule of law Respect for the rights of others Respect for diversity Sustainability of policies

    26. How can we tell if they are performing? Be clear about purposes Relate PIs to objectives, unless … Use targets – but only AFTER setting the underlying objectives PI portfolios must be balanced Set separate PIs for economy, efficiency, effectiveness, outcomes, equity and quality Assess quality of governance as well as quality of service Self-assessment is normally better (but requires audit) Agree, don’t impose (unless …) Assess priorities first – ‘proportionality’ Make comparisons over time and between departments/agencies Organise for performance management “Short, sharp, snappy”

    27. Unintended consequences of performance measurement Measure fixation (ignoring the real objective) Tunnel vision (ignoring non-measurable objectives) Sub-optimization (achieving your own objectives rather than those of the organisation) Myopia (pursuing short-term or narrow objectives) Misrepresentation (deliberate ‘glossification’) Misinterpretation (‘lions controlled by donkeys’) Playing games (e.g.keeping down the rate of improvement to make future performance look better) Ossification (ignoring new needs and opportunities) Adapted from Peter Smith (1995)

    28. How can we improve performance? Strategic focus – do the important things well … … and stop doing many of the other things Raise expectations (of ALL stakeholders) Mobilize user and community co-production Create synergy inside the organisation (‘joined-up services’) Create synergy outside the organisation (‘partnerships, not contracts’) Embrace and embed innovation in all activities, not just ‘pilots’ Defuse ‘outsider’ ignorance by creating ‘partial insiders’

    29. Definition of co-production User and community co-production is … ‘the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers (in any sector) and service users or other members of the community, where all parties make substantial resource contributions

    30. Different types of co-production Co-planning of policy – e.g. deliberative participation, Planning for Real, Open Space Co-design of services – e.g. user consultation, Smart Houses Co-commissioning services – e.g. devolved grant systems, Community Chest Co-financing services – fundraising, charges, agreement to tax increases Co-delivery of services – expert patients, volunteer firefighters, Neighbourhood Watch

    31. Level of co-production: number of active volunteers in UK 170,000 volunteers in the NHS, befriending and counseling patients, driving people to hospital, fund raising, running shops and cafes and so on 12m meals a year prepared by volunteers for people in care 1.85m people are regular blood donors, with 8.2m signed up as potential organ donors 750,000 people volunteer in schools. 10m people involved in 155,000 Neighbourhood Watch schemes. (Active Community Unit, 2000) 350,000 serve on schools Boards of Governors (Birchall and Simmons, 2004).

    32. Next steps in co-production Traditional conceptions of service planning and management are now out-dated and need to be revised to take into account the potential contribution that users and communities can make. There is a need for a new compact between service users and professionals, which rebalances their contributions … … with oversight by both local politicians and communities, not just inspectors and auditors

    33. Summary Performance in local government is hugely important but not yet well understood Need to be selective – you CAN’T and SHOULDN’T answer ALL these questions! The myths about performance are more powerful than the evidence Too much talking about it Too much planning for it – we can ‘learn by doing’ Too much rote compliance – there are no foolproof templates Too much measuring it – “pulling the plant up by the roots to see if it’s growing” Too much trivial (unfocused) pursuit of performance – “seeing can be believing”

    34. Conclusions You will not perform well by simply following any single manual, code of practice, guru, mentor, auditor’s handbook or fasting regime Performance is a creative art, as well as a science and a craft – it is essential to celebrate this SO … look, listen, challenge, innovate, learn … and enjoy the performance!!!

    35. Contact T.Bovaird@bham.ac.uk

More Related