A sign post not a satnav
Around a year ago the RSA 2020 Public Services Commission published its final report. This morning what is now the RSA 2020 Public Services Hub published an update, exploring the Government’s reform programme looked at through the prism of the Commission’s recommendations.
My task was to reflect on the degree to which the Commission’s injunction that services be judged by their ‘social productivity’ has been observed. The answer, as those who read this blog regularly will guess, was ‘not very much at all’.
Over the long term socially productive public services help people meet their own needs, collectively and individually. The RSA bases this argument on our analysis of the widening ‘social aspiration gap’ between society’s needs and expectations and what the state can provide if citizens continue to think and act as we do right now. The goal of social productivity is facilitated by two ways of thinking about services.
First, service outcomes should be seen as co-productions, reflecting the combined efforts of state and civil society to meet shared goals, such as children having a stretching and enjoyable education, people living healthy lives and communities being cohesive and safe. Second, the key determinant of the success of a service lies in the clarity and quality of the relationship between service commissioner/provider and citizen/service user.
But despite the comprehensive and radical scale of Coalition reform neither of these ideas is prominent. Michael Gove will point to free schools. But not only are these marginal to the system as a whole, but it is far from clear whether – once they have been established – the relationship between school, pupil and parent will be any different (indeed, overall, it looks as though Academies are less responsive to parents and communities than their predecessor local authority schools – something which is storing up big trouble in the medium term). Meanwhile the Department for Education has shown no interest at all in encouraging or supporting new, more collaborative relationships between schools, parents and communities (by the way, drawn from our Citizen Power Peterborough project, here is an example of what the RSA is doing on this topic).
Similarly, despite some complex and rather confusing new accountability mechanism bolted onto Andrew Lansley’s health plan by the Liberal Democrats, the focus of NHS reform is on structure and governance not relationships between the health service and communities (of place or of interest) or between clinicians and patients. The Government may be seeking to change the model of service delivery but service delivery it will remain. Increasing contestability and giving more power to GPs may make marginal improvements to NHS productivity (although there is no evidence that they will), but it is inconceivable that growing health and social care needs can be met without a more co-productive model of responsibility and provision.
A final example of the apparent incuriosity of the Government towards the relational nexus of services lies in higher education. Here the rhetoric of markets has left the sector hopelessly confused as to whether students should be seen as learners (which implies deference to the institution and academics) or consumers (which implies the student is in charge).
The great irony in all this is that many of the criticisms I have outlined can be seen to reflect a Big Society approach. Notwithstanding the massive pressure of spending cuts, a fusion of Big Society thinking and (for want of a better term) ‘post bureaucratic’ public service reform could have created a rich context for innovation. But as we all know, Whitehall as a whole views the Big Society project with thinly veiled contempt (judging by his conference speech, even the Prime Minister may now be giving up on his pet project).
Anyway, this is all by way of an introduction to a fascinating conversation I had after this morning’s event. A senior advisor in the Cabinet Office approached me to say that he broadly agreed with my emphasis on reforming the relationship at the heart of public services. ‘But’ he went on ‘just because Whitehall isn’t forcing councils, officials and agencies to think and work in this way doesn’t mean there isn’t the space for them to choose to’.
In a way this is fair. It is certainly easier to talk to local government about citizen engagement and co-productive than Whitehall. But the idea that local agencies will spontaneously take on the challenge of reframing services and recasting the relationship between professionals and the public is surely a triumph of hope over expectation.
On the one hand, even if Whitehall has reduced some of the burden of central targets, it still places powerful constraints and incentives on public sector agencies and institutions. If citizen engagement is not among the incentivised behaviours it is likely to be pushed aside by those which are. On the other hand, just because the centre doesn’t mandate an action doesn’t mean it can’t provide leadership through – to list just four mechanisms - exhortation, strategic guidance, dissemination of good practice or lauding the achievements of pioneers . When, I wonder, was the last time Michael Gove invited head teachers to London to praise their efforts in connecting with the community?
But while I think the advisor’s line of defence was a touch disingenuous, it does open up an interesting question (in fact, one that the same advisor had raised in a different context in the earlier group discussion): how does the centre promote a direction of policy without imposition? Number Ten is very keen on nudging as a method of individual behaviour change but what about organisational nudging?
I don’t have any sources to hand, but this must be an issue which has been explored by academics or consultants in the context of various organisations. Any thoughts?
It’s their party and I’ll sigh if I want to
So, a few comments at the end of party conference season. What struck me was the contrast between the political gatherings and the country at large. Beyond the conference centres large parts of the nation seem consumed by gloom, anger and fear. Yet within the security cordons all the parties evinced a strange tranquillity.
The Liberal Democrats find being in power uncomfortable but in the face of their dire poll ratings they carry the stoical resignation of someone in the early stages of protracted root canal work. Despite the pain they still think being in Government is the right thing to do. Having endured so much already why would they stop now?
Although some former ministers miss being able to make decisions that matter and relax in chauffeur driven cars, most people in the Labour Party are secretly enormously relieved to be in opposition. Perhaps the sunny day made a difference, but of all the conferences the one in Liverpool seemed to me the most cheerful. Labour activists had got sick of having to defend their Government and thoroughly enjoy being back on the moral high ground. Those who ask why Labour isn’t more worried at the public’s lack of enthusiasm for Ed Miliband miss the point. Many in Labour recognise the problem but, given how little appetite they have for being back in power (especially when there only seem to be hard choices to make), it’s not really an issue.
And the Conservatives are relaxing back into their natural role as the party of Government. Although David Cameron’s speech was not exactly exciting (if Cameron speeches were a sport they’d be something with a small and genteel following; maybe show jumping or fencing), but in two ways he showed how confident he is right now. First, his willingness in interviews and his speech to list the things that middle England is moaning about – pay freezes, energy bills, transport costs etc. Only a confident leader chooses to open up his own vulnerabilities in this way – Gordon Brown would never have done it. By naming the grievances he helps diffuse them as a barrier to communication. Secondly, by talking in his speech about gay marriage and overseas aid, he underlined that he intends to stick to Cameron Conservatavism and not pander to the right of his own Party. Cameron seems to me more assured than any leader since Tony Blair’s early years.
There are plenty of things that could disturb the equilibrium. Ironically, given their objective standing, Labour may be the most stable. The Party has always been remarkably tolerant of losing leaders. Liberal Democrat resignation will only start to give way to panic if the Party’s poll ratings haven’t started to pick up by 2013. As for the Conservatives, the question is whether Cameron is willing to carry on being his Party’s greatest asset while providing only nominal leadership over domestic policy. Surely, sooner or later, he is going to get a grip on Number Ten and try to run the country? If so – and here there is an obvious parallel with Blair’s leadership journey – he might provoke a backlash from the Treasury and noises off from the ambitious Mr Johnson.
Even so, if you can get half decent odds, it is well worth a punt on a greying Prime Minister Cameron ushering in the third decade of the 21st century.
But what should we take from the contrast between the miserable but indifferent nation and the contented conferences? Like everyone else I enjoy being pious and indignant about politicians so I’m tempted by the obvious charge that it just shows how out of touch they all are. But it’s not just the politicians, it’s us as well.
Right now most people (looters and entrepreneurs aside) are just keeping their heads down and hoping they can survive the next few years. Like a birthday cake has to have icing, every political message must be topped off by hope. But whether it’s the Prime Minister’s ‘we’ll all get through this together’ or the Opposition’s ‘when we’re back in power everything will change’, the message seems so hollow and inadequate we can’t even be bothered to get angry about it.
The parties can contentedly talk to themselves and each other safe in the knowledge that almost no one else is really listening.
The sky’s the limit
Of the people who once in a while kindly take the time to read my blog many, I know, aren’t Fellows of the RSA. I rarely get as many comments on posts about the Society as I do commenting on, for example, public services or politics. But I want to ask you non-Fellows to stick with this post There is some stuff I want to share with you and I need your feedback. So, in advance, thank you.
Last night was the Society’s AGM. It was a bittersweet affair. Sitting on the platform, it wasn’t comfortable to be repeatedly verabally assaulted without the right of reply. Worse was seeing so many great people giving up their time not to discuss changing the world but to debate the arcane details of RSA governance. But, the important thing – and it really is important – is that the Fellows, in their votes last night and the bigger postal ballot, gave a strong message.
The opponents of the Trustees’ proposals had made pretty clear this, for them, was not just about the detail of the governance changes but a wider referendum on the stewardship of the Society. So a victory for the Trustees by a ratio of 4 to 1 was a clear vote of confidence. As I said yesterday, in ballots like this the disgruntled are more likely to bother to vote, so with a 10% turnout this suggests only a very small proportion of the Fellows feel strongly opposed to how the Society is being run. This gives Trustees and staff a powerful mandate to drive forward with our core strategy.
I have been talking in recent posts about measuring impact. The issue surfaced last night both negatively and positively. The former came in an attack by a Fellow who accused me of being dismissive of his attempts to get the RSA to do a project on manufacturing. (As it happens we are increasing our engagement in manufacturing both through strands of our design work and the focus of the next Journal). But, as I had tried to explain (obviously unsuccessfully) to the Fellow when he came to see me, the problem is not a lack of enthusiasm for manufacturing as a subject area but the difficulty of working out how the RSA could make a useful – impactful – contribution in an area already quite crowded with experts and rather worthy-but-dull policy papers.
For a project to have a chance of success it has to be practical, distinctive and credible. Finding an interesting subject matter is relatively easy; turning it into a good research proposal (not to mention getting the proposal funded) is much, much harder.
While there will, I guess,always be Fellows who feel insulted if their ideas aren’t taken up, last night also saw a different and stronger strand of Fellow opinion on show. These are the Fellows who are using the resources and opportunities generated by the RSA to take our charitable mission into their own hands and make great stuff happen.
I think I’ve written before of the Fellows in Chelmsford who were worried about the future of their town centre. In the last 18 months, with lots of support from RSA staff, they’ve gone from a small informal group to a fully constituted community interest company which has received funding from a number of sources. Or there was the Fellow from a East Midlands University who came up to me at our fringe at Tory Party conference to say that he and three other colleagues – inspired by the RSA’s work – had created a scheme to support a growing number of students to set up their own social enterprises. Or how about the news that one of our Royal Designers for Industry (a great old RSA institution) has volunteered to spend three days at the new RSA Whitley Academy next week working on a project with the pupils?
I know synergy is an ugly word (as well as sounding like a form of renewable power generated by bad people) but the RSA is creating it all over the place. I was able to share a staggering statistic last night: getting on for fifty million RSA lectures have now been watched on line around the world. If just a tiny fraction of the lectures inspire people to think or act differently then this can generate initiatives, these initiatives can grow into projects, the projects can link with research being undertaken at the RSA and then Fellows can take RSA research and start applying it and adapting it locally. It is this unique capacity to connect ideas, research and Fellow activism which makes the RSA the kind of organisation the 21st century needs.
We knew already (and last night confirmed it) that most Fellows are supportive of -and more and more engaged with – the RSA’s mission and ambition. But it would also be really interesting to hear what people outside the organisation make of what we are and what we are trying to become (if you want to know more about us just visit the RSA website and spend a few minutes browsing).
Last night we turned a big corner. I really think the Society can accelerate, making a powerful contribution to enhancing human capability and meeting some of the great challenges the world now faces.
I guess I would think that wouldn’t I.
But, dear readers, what about you?
Tonight’s the night
A short post today as it’s a big day for all of us at the RSA. Tonight is the Society’s AGM. This is a chance to talk to Fellows about the year gone past and the period to come. But, arising from the RSA Governance review, it will also see a debate, voting and the final result of motions (both for and against Trustee recommendations).
One of the joys of the RSA Fellowship is that it is a broad church encompassing different backgrounds, professions, interests and values. So there are many opinions to hear. We have conducted a recent Fellows’ survey and are doing a larger scale one later in the year. But while it is important that Trustees and staff respond to the views of the Fellowship as a whole, it is never going to be possible to satisfy every strand of opinion. That is why tonight is so significant.
Although I’m sure the turnout will be modest, when Electoral Reform Services finally reveal the combined result of the postal vote and tonight’s poll, my own hope is that the Society gets a clear and definitive message about Fellows’ views. There is so much to celebrate in our work (for example, the latest figures put us at nudging fifty million on-line views of RSA lectures), but unless the stewardship of the Society is satisfactory to Fellows as a whole there is always a danger that discussion of governance issues distracts us from our core charitable mission.
Whenever anyone makes a case – whether it’s positive or negative – we tend to argue that we are speaking for lots of other people. So we say ‘you must see this film; everyone think it’s great’ or we tell the poor call centre worker ‘all your customers think your broadband service is totally useless’. But once in a while there comes a chance to really find out how widespread concerns are or how solid support is. It is always likely that the annoyed are more motivated to turn out than the satisfied, but unless we adopt compulsory voting Australia-style that’s just the nature of this kind of process.
Whatever happens tonight, it doesn’t mean anyone will stop arguing their cause, but it does at least make it clearer who will be speaking on behalf of the broader Fellowship. As staff do their hard working best to give Fellows the services, resources and support they want this knowledge is vital.
By the way, if you are a Fellow and want to come tonight, listen to the debate and make up your own mind, all FRSAs are welcome (whether or not you have already voted). The AGM is in the Great Room at 5.00 but please bring your Fellowship card.
You can read all the papers for the AGM including statements for all the motions here.
It’s good to talk
A conversation with two Number Ten advisors has added a new dimension to my case for socialised public services. By ‘socialised’ I mean public services which seek to maximise what they add to, and draw from, wider society. Such an approach tends, amongst other things, to emphasise prevention, capacity-building, localism, community engagement and co-design.
The new dimension concerns the enthusiasm in Number Ten for social interaction. Put simply, it appears that the number and range of social interactions we have contribute to resilience, wellbeing and opportunity. Now, Government policy boffins are exploring how to reform institutions in order that they foster greater social interaction.
This was a point I made at the final RSA conference fringe, which took place with the Conservatives in Manchester today. We had a great panel – Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley, Jennifer Dixon from Nuffield, Ben Page from Ipsos Mori, Jesse Norman MP and Sir Stephen Bubb representing our sponsors, The Social Investment Business (sadly the delegate numbers were not so great, but I suspect this reflects the fact that ordinary Tory delegates are more interested in current Party controversies like leaving the EU rather than public services).
I suggested to Andrew and the rest of the panel that maximising social interaction was a great goal to set for public services and one right in line with the Big Society. But I also admitted to pessimism about whether such a view would permeate a Whitehall machine still stuck on (indeed in many ways accelerating) a transaction based model of public service reform. The sad truth is that, overall, the most interesting parts of the Big Society project are bouncing off the senior civil service like a tennis ball off a brick wall. Indeed, Ben whispered to me that he has some research showing that of all public sector managers it is Whitehall civil servants who are most sceptical about David Cameron’s big idea (yet more evidence that the Treasury is currently much more influential than Number Ten on domestic Government policy).
There are lots of reasons for the lack of buy-in to a model of socialised public services, but there is one that the champions of this approach need to take to heart. While there are many great examples of more community-centric ways of working (Southwark Circles of Care, the expert patient programme and the RSA Whole Person Recovery project being just three examples), they tend to be small scale and often very dependent on a particular combination of local circumstances and leadership. The question is ‘how might such approaches be scaled up so that they come to represent genuine system reform?’ One thing is for sure; the Coalition’s approach to procurement and it’s somewhat heedless rush in to payment by results won’t (even if they were intended to) achieve such a shift. But what, my dear readers, will?
PS Another reason I am thinking about social interaction right now is a fascinating draft RSA report I read this morning charting how just one large retail store has been able to generate oodles of community engagement and social interaction. I will post again when the report is published.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.