Business plans shift responsibilities for outcomes away from ministers

David Cameron launched today what he called a "power shift" from Whitehall to individuals and local communities. Behind the 30 to 40 page Business Plans announced by each department lies an attempt to answer a perennial question: how to push through, and sustain, a programme of reform? The shift is significant though not quite in the manner claimed since the Government is moving to concentrate on activity and process rather than results and performance. During the New Labour years, the emphasis was on central  monitoring of key priorities, via the Delivery Unit, and a range of targets about outcomes (notably via public service agreements agreed with the Treasury, by which performance was judged and managed). These were backed up by unpublished delivery plans. There was a later, only partially successful, attempt during the Blair years to shift away from the centre by creating more diversity of provision and greater choice of services.

What today's change means

 Today’s change is twofold. First, there will be a movement away from targets for policy outcomes to a focus on the processes and timing of reform. The Business Plans are all about activities: when will a change occur and who is responsible. Politically, the aim is to show the Government is busy and is not slipping back on the reform agenda in May’s coalition agreement. Second, much more information will be provided about inputs ( the costs of programmes) and  impact (levels of attainment and results). Much of this data will be at a very local level: for instance, as in New York and Chicago, on levels of crime in your neighbourhood, and local waiting lists for hospitals. This 'market in information' is supposed to allow individuals, local groups, the media, think tanks and pressures groups to be able to campaign for change in order to drive up standards.

10 Downing Street and the Centre still in control

Despite today's hype about a "power shift", 10 Downing Street and the Centre are not relinquishing control. The reform plans will be publicly updated monthly, and ministers will be held to account for failure to meet the milestones, or dates by which reform plans are to be achieved (notably largely procedural points like carrying out a consultation or introducing legislation). This will involve detailed monitoring by the Downing Street implementation unit, meetings with Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander, and ultimately, in cases of persistent failure, with David Cameron and Nick Clegg. This is similar in theme to the routine stock takes which Tony Blair on his key public service priorities.

Ministers judged by reform, not results

For Whitehall officials, the onus will be on showing they are being active — at the same time as they are facing big internal reorganisations to cut the number of staff by a quarter or more. But the key point is that ministers are being held to account for their handling of reform, not for the results. There is no direct link between the reform plans and the outcome. So ministers and civil servants are not being judged by the success, or failure, of the policies. This is unlike the past when ministers and civil servants were held responsible for outcomes. However, in practice, ministers will find it hard to escape responsibility if/when the impact indicators show a deterioration in performance and they will still be blamed.

Results through transparency

Instead, all the focus is on local results via the transparency proposals. Some of the new information will be available nationally, but much will only be available locally, though supposedly on a standard basis. But it will up be to outside bodies to co-relate and compare this information. There are big questions about how all this information will be used. What are the levers of change? Coalition policymakers seem to hope / believe that these will arise spontaneously from local groups, whether called civil society (on the left) or the Big Society (by the Cameron camp). There is no explanation about what role the various inspectors and regulators will have in using the data about local performance. Are they supposed to drive improvements? Much will depend on the extent of choice of providers. Downing Street policythinkers think that providing more information will drive reform far better than centrally imposed targets. It is less about shedding power than trying to shed responsibility.