Implementing social policy in the non-profit sector: housing in Ireland, north and south

1. Implementing social policy in the non-profit sector: housing in Ireland, north and south Mary Lee Rhodes Centre for Non-profit Management 5 September 2003 rhodesml@tcd.ie www.cnm.tcd.ie © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

2. The rise of ‘New Public Management’ • Cost drivers: rising cost of public service (Ireland: 22% to 40%, 1950 to 1990)* • Quality drivers: unresponsive bureaucracies, lack of innovation, minimal customer choice, low level of customer service *source: OECD Annual statistics, Foster & Plowden 1996 © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

3. NPM reforms in Republic of Ireland • Decentralisation: SMI, Better Local Government • Privatisation: Eircom, public-private partnerships, non-profit & private sector as providers of public infrastructure and services (NDP) • ‘Managerialism’: SMI, Delivering Better Government, VFM audits, Customer Charter Initiative © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

4. One effect: mixed delivery ‘systems’ Policy Policy NPM Implementation by government agencies Public Private Non-profit Pre-NPM © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

5. Social housing additions 1995-2002 Republic of Ireland Northern Ireland © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

6. Organisations are not created equal Non-statutory bodies define ‘environment’ © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

7. Question? • If policy is to be implemented via non-profit organisations – what are the implications of the different strategic framework(s) under which these organisations operate? Findings based on 1999-2001 study © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

8. Public policy is main environmental influence* • ROI: Policy environment friendly, funding growing, high demand for social housing, low level of regulation, land availability and LA relationships only concerns • NI: Policy environment uncertain, NI Executive shifting focus to services, heavy regulatory burden, decreasing demand, mixed funding a ‘mixed blessing’ *source: Mullins, Rhodes & Williamson 2003 © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

9. Objectives can be unpredictable** • ROI: ~330 orgs.*, 80/20 split between housing and social service as primary objective, wide range of services provided, community groups and S.E.s are main founders, voluntary giving way to ‘social entrepreneur’ identity • NI: 38 orgs.*, housing as core objective is req’d for registration, majority founded as result of 1976 legislation, looking to expand in ROI, voluntary identity important but business efficiency key *figures as of year-end 2001 **source: Mullins, Rhodes & Williamson 2003 © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

10. Management structure varies with size and ? • ROI: Generally executive-led, small ‘corporate’ functions, but often strong ‘local’ management – either in developments/ co-ops or regional structure, informal planning, large volunteer/ FAS/CES presence • NI: May be board or executive led, larger organisations tending towards exec-led structure, subcommittee and/or functional structures prevalent, formal planning, few volunteers, partnerships with other orgs. © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

11. Organisational resources in short supply in ROI* • ROI: Key issues are resources: land, staff (development and financial management), leadership and organisational development; networks seen as key enabler, LA ‘attitude’ is crucial • NI: Resources less of a problem, financial reserves and expertise in management and development are strengths, land availability is an issue in some locations, private funding low *source: Mullins, Rhodes & Williamson 2003 © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

12. Performance measured formally in NI only* • ROI: if limited company, must submit annual accounts to companies office, status of scheme completion to LAs to receive funding • NI: Annual performance reports to DSD, regular reports to NIHE re: allocations and building programme, subject to NI Audit Office and Equality Commission *source: Mullins, Rhodes & Williamson 2003 © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin

13. Implications for policy and service delivery • Government policy can ‘create’/facilitate voluntary sector – but in its own image? • Innovation / excellence in service delivery may benefit through ‘letting a thousand flowers bloom’ • Resource acquisition and retention are crucial in non-profit sector • Performance measurement tools is costly – benefits? • Unclear if / where there are cost savings © ML Rhodes, Trinity College Dublin