<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Blog &#187; Public Services</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/tag/public-services/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog</link>
	<description>Institute for Government Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 13:23:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Risky business</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3380/risky-business/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3380/risky-business/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:19:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PFI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Finance Initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3380</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, the Social Market Foundation (SMF) published a damning report on the government’s flagship Work Programme. Last week, the Treasury Select Committee was similarly scathing about the use of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts to pay for public infrastructure. The connection between the two is government’s apparent inability to successfully measure, price and share risk. Not working Government is increasingly interested in ‘risk sharing’ contracts. The Work Programme uses a special type of arrangement called payment-by-results (PbR) in which the risk of reducing the number of long-term unemployed is passed to companies like Serco and A4E. The Department for Work and Pensions pays out when someone who was previously ‘long-term’ unemployed finds a job. The trick for DWP is to pass just enough risk across to the providers to incentivise innovation and improve outcomes. This depends on the price being paid for each outcome and whether any flat-rate fees are included regardless of outcome. If too little risk is passed to the provider, they won’t be motivated to improve performance and the commissioner risks overpaying for any success that is achieved; if too much risk is passed to the providers, they will demand a high price for success or risk [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3380/risky-business/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wide open public services</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3056/wide-open-public-services/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3056/wide-open-public-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Gash</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If we’ve learnt one thing from the Government’s faltering attempts to radically reform the NHS, it’s that nobody likes surprises. The Coalition failed to fully test its reforms with policymakers and professionals, resulting in public and practitioner resistance that led to the plans being first delayed, then substantially revised. So it must surely be a good thing that there were few surprises in Government’s most recent white paper on public service reform published this afternoon. The overall narrative is remarkably well-rehearsed, with Prime Minister Cameron’s mission to “replace bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability” having been echoed in the speeches of his cabinet ministers for months. The most concrete proposals within the white paper have, for the most part, been announced previously. New locally elected officials &#8211; check. More powers for community representatives – check. “Payment by results” – check. New providers of public services, including ‘mutuals’ – check. Increased professional autonomy – check. Greater transparency over public sector performance – check. Slight differences of emphasis aside (for example, a focus on finding ways of enshrining the right to choose services in legislation) this is the Government’s agenda as outlined by the prime minister a year ago in his first speech [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3056/wide-open-public-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Incrementally revolutionising public services</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3045/incrementally-revolutionising-public-services/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3045/incrementally-revolutionising-public-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organisational change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3045</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The quote serves as a reminder that over the last 30 years public service reform has been underpinned by some common, perhaps clichéd themes. Successive governments have repeatedly told us they will make public services more ‘citizen centric’, will ‘open up government’ and provide more ‘choice’ for service users. So is Cameron’s promise  to “release the grip of state control and put power in people’s hands” any different? Does today’s White Paper mark a break from the past or continuity? What new directions or policy specifics are hidden in the document’s 58 pages? Integrating services  It is now commonly accepted that provision works best when it is wrapped around the individual rather than delivered as a series of separate services. Under the mantra of ‘joined up government’ the Labour Government developed a whole suite of mechanisms to encourage the integration of services, from local partnerships and one-stop shops to pooled budgets and shared targets. But as Total Place illustrated, even with an extensive array of mechanisms to join up government, significant gaps and areas of duplication still exist in service provision. Today, the ambition to integrate services is still evident, but the old infrastructure is being disbanded. Joining up will [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3045/incrementally-revolutionising-public-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Revolutionising government art starts with white paper</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3010/government-art/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3010/government-art/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One aspect of the White Paper has received less speculation. Namely, which of the government’s artistic traditions will it seek to emulate? The strategic tradition The creators of the White Paper could look to the strategic tradition. Excellence and Fairness led this movement. Its strategic triangle graphically represented how the different elements of government strategy interlocked with one another. With a new twist on the strategic triangle – the strategic circle – the Liberating the NHS serves to remind us that we are currently living through a neo-strategic renaissance. It’s sometimes hard to pin down the zeitgeist of the strategic tradition. But it’s hard not to admire the holistic ambitions of these early crusaders. Got a question about how to achieve public service reform? All answers in a framework please. The cartographic tradition A contemporary of the strategic movement was the cartographic tradition. Rejecting the holistic principles of their strategic contemporaries, the cartographic tradition sought a more linear approach to representing their subject. As demonstrated in Strong and Prosperous Communities, the cartographic tradition sought to map the different routes that could be taken to solving the problem. If the architects of the White Paper want to follow this tradition, they [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3010/government-art/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shock, chaos and public service reform</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2611/shock-chaos-and-public-service-reform/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2611/shock-chaos-and-public-service-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 13:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2611</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Coalition&#8217;s plans for reforming our public services have been breathtakingly bold. From hospitals to schools, criminal justice to welfare, the pace and scale of the proposed reforms have taken many by surprise. But the government seems far more coy when it comes to publishing the long-delayed Public Services White Paper. What’s the problem? Shock therapy and chaos theory The government’s approach to public service reform over the past year has been radical in three different ways. Firstly, the reforms are ambitious in their scope, leaving few stones unturned. The welfare system is being revolutionised rather than tweaked. The health proposals will radically restructure the NHS. Important reform themes include opening up public services to new providers and extending the use of payment by results. Secondly, many policies are being rolled out very rapidly. The first ‘free schools’ will open this September after the Academies Bill was rushed through Parliament in the first few weeks of the Coalition. Many aspects of the health reforms are being implemented even before the legislation has been finalised (which, incidentally, will make them extremely difficult to reverse). Together these two points have been described as &#8220;shock therapy&#8220;- radical reform that is unapologetically revolutionary. Tony [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2611/shock-chaos-and-public-service-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Community Budgets are worth watching</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2305/why-community-budgets-are-worth-watching/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2305/why-community-budgets-are-worth-watching/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today marks the launch of 16 Community Budget pilots that promise to pool local budgets around families with complex needs. Eric Pickles has said: &#8220;My message to local areas is: don’t be afraid to think big &#8211; to be as bold and as innovative as you can. This is the future for public services.&#8221; The issue Community Budgets is seeking to address is well documented (not least by Total Place.) Families with complex needs often depend on many different public services. But separate chains of command can mean these services are not joined-up in a way that best addresses their needs. The result is significant cost to the taxpayer and poor quality services for the families concerned. Community Budgets aim to address this by giving local areas the freedom to pool money across budget lines and design services to reflect local needs. Some may ask whether this is some kind of April fool. How can something as technocratic as reallocating funds across budget lines really lead to big innovations in public services? If you can get past the management speak you may be surprised. At the very least, Community Budgets offer an opportunity to tease out some of the thorniest [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2305/why-community-budgets-are-worth-watching/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The fiscal squeeze: now it gets real</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2290/the-fiscal-squeeze-now-it-gets-real/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2290/the-fiscal-squeeze-now-it-gets-real/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:38:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julian McCrae</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[A more effective Whitehall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve just returned from giving a seminar in Berlin to public servants from various European countries. They were eager for more details on the UK’s fiscal consolidation. When you tell our international friends that the UK is, for example, taking 20+% out of our law and order budget, a regular response is that &#8220;we are doing the same – a 10/20/30% reduction in the administration costs of our police&#8221;. It takes a little while for the penny to drop that our 20+% applies to the whole budget – administration, police pay, running costs of prisons, etc. The next question is invariably &#8220;do you really think the UK can achieve that?&#8221; Where it depends on political capital This is, of course, a question whose answer is automatically &#8220;it depends&#8221;.  The challenge has many elements. Many of the tax rises have already come in, with more due next week. But the almost 80% of our consolidation that comes from spending reductions is only just beginning. Many welfare cuts come into effect today. Further reductions in subsidy regimes will take longer – for example university teaching grants fall in 2012-13 (with the income to be replaced by tuition fees), while legal aid reductions are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2290/the-fiscal-squeeze-now-it-gets-real/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Power to the people</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1892/power-to-the-people/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1892/power-to-the-people/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:31:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1892</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eight major charities wrote to The Times this week complaining about &#8220;a gap between rhetoric and reality&#8221; in the proposed NHS reforms. They argued that plans to make GP consortia accountable to the public are &#8220;far too weak&#8221;. If true, that&#8217;s concerning, because the NHS reforms, as well as reforms in schools, policing and other public services, are premised on the idea that services can be improved by strengthening local accountability and removing top-down controls. If the local accountability part of that formula is missing or weak then the reforms may fail to deliver the hoped for improvements. Understanding accountability There are two main challenges that any decentralising government must face. Firstly, can sufficiently robust devolved accountability mechanisms be put in place? Secondly, can Ministers and Whitehall &#8216;let go&#8217;? The Institute has been exploring both these questions but for the purposes of this blog I&#8217;ll focus on the former (see our work on Ministerial Accountability for the latter). Accountability implies that one group (let&#8217;s say the public) can ask another group (GPs) to justify their actions or performance. Consequences (positive or negative) can then follow. Academics have identified as many as eight different types of accountability: democratic, administrative, political, managerial, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1892/power-to-the-people/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Payment by results in public services</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1685/payment-by-results-in-public-services/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1685/payment-by-results-in-public-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:27:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Moss</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commissioning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Government will soon publish a white paper that will set out its direction on delivery of public services. The Institute published a short introduction to some of the difficult problems faced in the design of new commissioning arrangements in December. On 20 January, the 2020 Public Services Trust held an event to launch their toolkit for commissioners. New markets could be used as an opportunity to give providers scope to join together contracts where similar services are being provided to similar users with similar needs. Commissioning, done smartly, could end the need for separate silo based contracting in health, employment, reoffending and skills. It provides an opportunity for commissioning to succeed where the machinery of Whitehall often fails – to allow single providers to offer services to support a range of departmental outcomes to individual users. By agreeing on common approaches across Whitehall, there is the potential for services that are more user friendly and better value for money. Better commissioning To take advantage of this opportunity, Whitehall needs to become a better commissioner. It should look carefully at: New skills. This is a complex task that requires understanding of the needs of end users, the capacity of the market [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1685/payment-by-results-in-public-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are Social Impact Bonds the answer to the fiscal crisis?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1633/are-social-impact-bonds-the-answer-to-the-fiscal-crisis/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1633/are-social-impact-bonds-the-answer-to-the-fiscal-crisis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commissioning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) have been causing a “frenzy” of interest in Whitehall over the past few months. Hardly surprising given the current fiscal challenge and their apparent ability to attract external investment to our public services. If you are unfamiliar with SIBs, see our beginner’s guide to Social Impact Bonds. Putting it into practice There is only one SIB in existence at the moment (in the world) which is focused on reducing re-offending in Peterborough prison. The Ministry of Justice has agreed to pay for a reduction in the re-offending rates of short-sentence prisoners. On the back of this a group investors have stumped up £5 million to pay for a range of services focused on areas such as employment and housing to help offenders as they are rehabilitated. In truth, implementing SIBs requires a lot of hard work and negotiation between three different parties (commissioners, investors and the providers of services). In particular, there are three main challenges that must be overcome. Challenge 1: the savings must be bankable Firstly, the government needs to be able to stop spending money on something like welfare payments or healthcare. The problem is that savings can often be distributed, for example across [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1633/are-social-impact-bonds-the-answer-to-the-fiscal-crisis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

