It is just over a year since the closure of Public Service Transformation Network. So what, you ask? If you care about more effective public services and think the Government needs a capability to support local innovation, then it should concern you.
Spending on public services is dominating this election more than previous rounds. There is a clear choice emerging: spend more, or constrain spending growth. But little thought has been offered by the parties about how to improve service quality and use existing resources more effectively. Manifestos have largely remained silent on investment in prevention and early intervention, integrating budgets, and supporting joined-up provision to reflect the complexity of peoples’ needs.
Although these approaches are not new, they were central to the local-national collaboration of committed public servants from around 20 places and key Whitehall departments which became known as the Transformation Network.
The evidence of what worked influenced policy at Budgets and Spending Reviews, and provided a consistent and incremental direction for reform: a more flexible Trouble Families programme, commitments (and sometimes funding) to enable integrated health and care systems, joined-up employment and health, and emergency services collaboration.
Across Whitehall a tentative consensus emerged that effective place-based reform relied on collaborative leadership, smarter commissioning, better information sharing, co-production with communities and cost-benefit analysis.
Local authorities were fans, as they had a route for joined-up conversation with government.
The National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee supported the initiative as it was evidence-based and sought value for money. The 2015 Spending Review and productivity plan then put local service transformation firmly in the Government’s fiscal and economic plans. What happened to that agenda?
The recent election of six metro mayors is a positive step. But a quick look at mayoral priorities and it is clear tackling social issues and better public services are central to their governing mandate.
To seal these deals, the Government put a premium on local growth. Public service reform was not generally encouraged. That probably reflected the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) lack of influence with big spending departments. Some may say a missed opportunity.
The biggest step to devolve public services happened despite the DCLG, when Greater Manchester secured agreement with the NHS and Treasury to join up £6bn of health and care spending.
It is currently unclear where the devolution agenda is heading. If the rhetoric is to be believed, some powers repatriated from Brussels will be pushed down to combined authorities and local government.
I am sure Whitehall will initially be reluctant. It will want to see evidence that there is the leadership and capability locally to handle powers and budgets effectively.
Brexit is going to create further pressures on political and government structures. Ministers and officials will have many competing priorities to juggle to make sure the country gets a good deal. The bandwidth available at the centre to engage in how to deliver more effective public services will be limited in scope.
The acid test, if I were still an official, would be when John Humphreys quizzes the combined authority mayor, rather than a minister, for local failures or successes in policy or service quality. That currently flies in the face of political convention and the policy-making process.
No doubt, civil servants are rifling through manifestos to develop the practical detail. New ministers will want to quickly make eye-catching announcements. There will have been little consultation beyond Whitehall during the purdah period. This centralised approach does not lend itself well to more effective public services. It will cut across local government and mayoral mandates, as well as the devolved nations.
Our new political landscape requires far more local-national collaboration on policy development than has ever been the case. Whitehall may find it needs eyes and ears on the ground which are trusted, credible and understand public services. Whether this is through formalising new top-down governance structures, or more bottom-up approaches, like the transformation network, there will need to be more genuine consultation and engagement with places.
Whether we have more or less spending in future, the evidence suggests transforming services from the top down hasn’t been particularly effective.
The good news is that outside government a whole ecosystem of organisations has emerged which are putting co-designed, evidenced-based and outcome-orientated services into practice.
Maybe the answer isn’t more government at all. Maybe the best we can expect is to ask the Government to fund and enable markets and stop tinkering, and to let our new devolved structures get on and deliver better services for their communities.
Robert Pollock is director at Social Finance and was previously a Treasury official and director of the Public Service Transformation Network