Public service reform 2010-2012:
a tale of support and scepticism

     

Against the backdrop of the eurozone crisis and a UK economy in double-dip recession, the March 2012 update on progress against the priorities set out in the Open Public Services White Paper made the case that radical public service reform was even more critical given the deteriorating economic conditions in the UK and Europe and the intense demand from the public for high-quality public services.<1>

"The case for radical reform has therefore become even stronger over the last six months."

Oliver Letwin MP and Danny Alexander MP

If the update on the White Paper is a picture of continuity, reflecting the same principles set out eight months before, the debate about public service reform in the think tank sphere combines more familiar lines of argument with fresh ideas from around the world.

Think tanks have been warning that the government needs to take a longer term view of public service reform for several years now. The 2020 Public Services Trust made this case in June 2009 when it published its report exploring citizen demand in 2020. More recently the IPPR has taken up the baton, publishing The Long View in June of this year.<2> Both reports highlight the impact of demographic and social trends on the future of public services, and argue that governments of the future will face increasing cost pressures, in many cases "irrespective of the current public finances".<3> They make the case for government leading "a public debate now on the kind of choices that will confront us"<4> and warn against short-term imperatives preventing preparations for those future scenarios that are very likely to confront us within the next couple of decades.

Think tanks are increasingly looking for inspiration from abroad

In the context of intense fiscal pressures, think tanks have begun to look to the developing world for alternative ideas. The 2020 Public Services Trust makes the case for "widening the lens" to capture as many ideas for public service innovation as possible, and in particular from developing countries, which often have to contend with high levels of demand from citizens in the context of severe fiscal constraint.<5> The Serco Institute examined the case of India in particular, where social entrepreneurs have stepped in where the state was absent, finding "frugal" but innovative ways of delivering high quality public services, often to very deprived populations who cannot afford to pay. In line with the government's principle of decentralisation, Frugal Innovation argues that allowing 'bottom-up' solutions to local public service problems to flourish may result in services that better meet citizens' needs.<6>

Civil service reform plan reveals some major changes

Meanwhile, the government has also been moving forward on another front. Amid at times heated debates about the role of management consultants, academics and think tanks in the policy-making process, the Cabinet Office published its report on civil service reform in mid-June.<7> The report calls for some radical changes: a smaller, more strategic civil service; improved policy-making capability, including piloting the commissioning of policy development by academics and think tanks; sharpened accountability; improved performance management systems and an improved employment offer (see our interview with Gus O'Donnell for his take on some of this).

The Institute for Government, which made recommendations for civil service reform in March 2012 and followed this up with the publication of seven tests of an effective reform plan, has reacted fairly positively to the plan. According to its verdict, the plan establishes a clear direction for reform that applies to most civil servants and addresses the main strategic issues. The dual civil service leadership is working well and senior civil service leaders appear committed to implementing the plan. The think tank's report does raise some concerns, however, including whether or not there is the right political support for the plan, and the lack of clarity about how reviews and reform actions will be resourced.

Implementation of public service reform will rely on public sector leaders

Of course, it is not unreasonable for the government to stick to its original plans for public service reform. In summer 2011, public sector leaders identified changes in government policy as one of the top three strategic risks to the public sector over the period 2011-2016.<8> Reform takes time, so standing by the principles and focussing on their implementation is probably wise.

If the priority now is implementation, then the beliefs and attitudes of public sector leaders to the reform process become of paramount importance. Public sector leaders, unsurprisingly, identified budget cuts (67%) as the most pressing strategic risks in the summer of 2010, and this was still the case (64%) in the summer of 2011.<9> Related to this, they are concerned about the implications of budget cuts for the delivery of core services and the maintenance or improvement of service quality. Like some think tanks, public sector leaders also worry that short term financial challenges may lead to cost increases over the longer term, for example if strategic investment in infrastructure does not occur or the public sector sheds staff with critical niche skills.

"I think we're all a bit short term at the moment and it's that longer term strategic perspective that's often missing I think." - Local Authority Chief Exec

In spite of this, our research suggests public sector leaders are already changing the way they approach service delivery. Local authorities are looking to shared services to help them make cuts, with 84% believing that the long term rewards of such an approach justify the short term challenges.<10> In education, many schools are choosing to convert to academies to reap the perceived benefits of increased autonomy from local authorities, including targeting resources where they are most needed and adopting innovations to the curriculum.<11> In both the local government and health sectors, the strategy that most sector leaders rate at least a 7/10 in terms of improving the way their organisation delivered services over the last two years, and looking forward to the next five years, is 'redesigning services to meet users' needs in a different way', with redesigning processes to increase efficiency and organisational or workforce restructuring also recognised as significant. Stopping or reducing services and raising eligibility thresholds to target those most in need are rated as least significant - although there are some signs they could grow.<12>

The public is both supportive and sceptical of public service reforms

This narrative about putting the citizen at the centre may be the longest-running element of continuity in the debate about public service reform, as again Gus O'Donnell points out with his recall of John Major's innovations in this area. If the government and public sector leaders are to ensure this happens, then they need to understand the public's views on the proposals and, crucially, the way reforms are implemented.

The reform programme itself has been greeted with both support and scepticism by British citizens. The Open Public Services White Paper (July 2011) set out five principles for reform: choice, decentralisation, diversity of provision, accountability and fair access.<13> Citizens are broadly in favour of most of these principles in theory, but with some important caveats in terms of how they are implemented in practice.

On choice, for example, we have found that 87% of the public agree that patients should be involved in making decisions about the care they receive from the NHS, and that 85% feel confident about choosing a GP surgery.<14> However, there is concern that more vulnerable groups, such as those who do not speak English well or are unable to read and write, may in practice struggle to seize the opportunities to choose.<15>

There is also some appetite among citizens for a degree of involvement in local public services, with 48% expressing a desire to get involved in decision-making at the local level.<16> One reason for this may be the level of mistrust of "experts", as two-thirds disagree with the statement, "In general, the people in charge know best".<17> In reality, however, depending on the specific issue, citizens want varying levels of engagement, from simply wanting to know more, to wanting a say, to actually wanting to get involved.<18>

Research for Accenture suggests that in terms of diversity, citizens do support the idea of a variety of providers being involved in public service provision, as long as the government retains ultimate responsibility for overseeing public services.<19>

With regards to accountability, our report for the 2020 Public Services Trust found that while the public sees accountability in public services as important, it is less of a priority than fairness and customer service standards.<20> This may reflect that accountability is not at the forefront of most people's minds until something goes wrong, when it takes on critical importance.

Finally, fairness in public service provision is extremely important to most citizens. Fifty percent of Britons understand fairness in terms of making sure that everyone has the same opportunities, regardless of their start in life,<21> which is broadly in line with the White Paper's stated aim that public service provision should primarily focus on the same opportunities being available regardless of background.

Public opinion is gradually shifting but citizens remain divided on many key issues

There is, however increasing scepticism about the necessity of some elements of the reform programme, in particular, the cuts in public service expenditure. In 2010, the public were behind cutting spending in order to pay off the national debt, with 58% agreeing this was necessary, and more than half of these strongly so. From early 2011, however, British citizens began to question the need to cut spending on public services. As of June 2012, only 46% still thought this was necessary to reduce the debt, while 44% disagreed, and so the public is now divided on this issue.

Furthermore, over the course of this parliament, citizens have become more worried about the future of public services. Shortly after the election, the same proportion (45%) of people agreed as disagreed with the statement "in the long-term, this government's policies will improve the state of Britain's public services". By June 2012, disagreement had risen to 63%, the same as for public sector leaders in summer 2011. Expectations for the quality of individual services are also low, with more people believing policing in their area, education and the NHS will get worse in the next few years than get better.<22> Putting this in the context of longer term trends reveals public opinion in this regard is at an almost historic low.

Of course, that expectations are low is not surprising given the financial challenges facing public services, and as noted above, there is still support for the argument that public spending needs to be taken under control. Reflecting on the recent past, people also continue to feel (65%) that the government and public services have tried to do too much and people should take more responsibility for their own lives. At the same time, however, more are worried (68%) now than in 2010 (50%) that government and public services will do too little to help people in the years ahead, which may well be driving some of the increased concern about the future of public services and the impact of spending cuts.

This division and often contradictory nature of public opinion on many of the core issues of public service reform reflects an as yet unresolved debate about the kind of society British citizens desire. Over the last twenty-five years or so there has been a clear shift away from a more collectivist, welfare-orientated society, towards one that encourages individuals to look after themselves. Furthermore, new cohort analysis of British Social Attitudes Survey data by Ipsos MORI shows a clear pattern, whereby younger generations are less in favour of spending more money on welfare benefits for the poor if it leads to higher taxes, than older generations, suggesting that this shift may become entrenched.

Although this change in the ideal society Britons want to see is clear, it has happened slowly, and has shown no signs of accelerating in recent years - and even now, the public is split right down the middle on the issue.

Citizen-focus is rightly an enduring theme of public service reform

Ultimately, therefore, it seems that although values are slow to change, they are trending in the same direction over time, which may be one reason why we continue to see common threads in public service reform over the years. Perhaps for the same reason, however - that values are deeply set and change very gradually - public opinion on some of the key issues remains divided. Which way the balance of opinion of the current reform process eventually falls may well depend on how well it is executed. Given the difficult economic circumstances in which implementation must occur, the government could do worse than take inspiration from countries that cope regularly, if not most of the time with fiscal constraint and high citizen demand. Encouragingly, many examples of public service innovation that deliver high quality services at very low cost are based on putting the needs of the citizen at the centre - one of the most enduring themes of public service reform in the UK, and rightly so. ▣

---

(c) Ipsos MORI. All rights reserved.