Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byicgfmconference
Uk implementation unit_kathyhall_simoncase_en
The document summarizes the evolution of performance frameworks used by the UK government to monitor and improve public services from 1997-2014. It describes how the frameworks shifted from hundreds of targets to focus on a smaller number of cross-government priorities and outcomes. It also discusses the role of organizations like the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit and Implementation Unit in driving delivery of key government priorities by providing challenge, support and troubleshooting to departments. Overall, the document examines lessons learned about balancing accountability, outcomes and reducing bureaucracy in performance systems.
More Related Content
Similar to Uk implementation unit_kathyhall_simoncase_en
Uk implementation unit_kathyhall_simoncase_en
- 1. Improving performance, accountabilityand transparency of public services: lessons from the UK Implementation Unit Simon Case & Kathy Hall ICGFM Winter Training Conference Washington D.C., 1-3 December 2014
- 2. Agenda 1)Context: UKgovernment and public services 2)UK performance framework: evolution from 1997 – 2014 3)Driving delivery: the Prime Minster’s Delivery Unit and Implementation Unit
- 3. Context: structure ofUK government Prime Minister & the Cabinet Central government: 24 Ministerial Departments e.g. Defence, Health 22 Non-Ministerial Departments e.g. Charity Commission 300+ Executive Agencies & other non-departmental public bodies Parliament Local government Other local services e.g. hospitals Other service deliverers e.g. private sector, charities UK public UK public “Centre” of government: No.10, Cabinet Office, HM Treasury
- 4. Context: what isthe Implementation Unit? Implementation Unit’s role and remit: Mandate to monitor, track and implement policy priorities of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Maximising implementation of top government priorities Tracking progress on business plan commitments and planning future framework ‘Whack-a-mole’: rapid response to issues and incidents which occur before, during and after implementation Celebrating implementation successes How do we do this? Provide timely, accurate assessment of PM / DPM’s priorities Conduct ‘deep dive’ reviews and gather frontline intelligence Develop greater implementation capability across government Ensure internal and public accountability “Centre” of government: No.10, Cabinet Office, HM Treasury
- 5. Context: UK centralgovernment spending – a quiz Which UK government department do you think spends most money? Welfare Education Defence Health
- 6. Context: UK centralgovernment spending
- 7. Context: UK challenges Political Choice Technology Transparency Devolution Spending context
- 8. Context: UK challenges Political Choice Technology Transparency Devolution Spending context
- 9. Agenda 1)Context: UKgovernment and public services 2)UK performance framework: evolution from 1997 – 2014 3)Driving delivery: the Prime Minster’s Delivery Unit and Implementation Unit
- 10. Introduction of PublicService Agreements 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 • 3 year spending envelope •3 year department budgets •Value for money savings •Policy review & reforms Comprehensive Spending Review Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 No mechanistic link between performance and resource allocation in Spending Review Performance management framework Departmental resource allocation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 • Announced alongside Spending Review • Set out priority objectives to be delivered • Numerical targets attached in most cases • ‘Agreement’ in exchange for spending allocation Public Service Agreements
- 11. Spending Review 1998 600 targets Spending Review 2000 160 targets 130 targets Spending Review 2002 110 targets Spending Review 2004 Spending Review 2007 30 x-govt outcomes plus Dept’l Strategic Objectives Public Service Agreements evolved over time
- 12. Public Service Agreementsand local service delivery Departmental Strategic Objectives 30 X-govt PSAs National Indicator Set 198 indicators Local Areas select priorities Negotiate targets with govt Depts translate PSAs & DSOs into performance frameworks for local services e.g. NHS, policy Local Area Agreement Local Authority is lead body Progress published and assessed by Inspectorate Other local services NHS, police and others sign up to achieve Local Area Agreements
- 13. 2010: new government,new approach “Tight” “Loose” versus • Abolished performance architecture and regional govt structures: PSAs, PMDU, National Indicators, Local Area Agreements, government offices, RDAs • Increased democratic accountability of services e.g. Police & Crime Commissioners • More open policy making e.g. crowd sourcing, use of technology • Huge focus on data transparency to enable choice for service users; and increase public accountability • Tightly manage public finances; and efficiency – departmental spending cuts; Efficiency & Reform Group. • Departmental controls: on communications, consultants, recruitment. Shared services e.g. digital • Improve governance and core delivery: Non-Executive Directors; Major Projects Authority • Agree & monitor actions to reform public services to be more devolved, democratically accountable: and diverse: departmental business plans
- 14. Performance framework reducedand reformed Spending Review 1998 600 targets Spending Review 2000 160 targets 130 targets Spending Review 2002 110 targets Spending Review 2004 Spending Review 2007 30 x-govt outcomes plus DSOs Spending Review 2010 Spending Round 2013 Dept’l Business Plans Business Plans refreshed
- 15. From Coalition Agreementto Business Plan actions Programme for Government (PfG), May 2010 (399 commitments) Mid Term Review (MTR), Jan 2013 (211 commitments) Departmental Business Plans: Priorities for the Parliament, with named officials responsible for delivery; Key policy and implementation actions, including specific, dated actions; Input and Impact Indicators, measuring cost and outcomes.
- 16. Transparent reporting ofprogress Progress reported transparently: Can be tracked online at No.10 website Departments must explain delays Good progress being made. Out of 1200+ actions: 47% completed 45% in progress 4% delayed 4% not scheduled to start
- 17. We will guaranteethat health spending increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament We will establish a smart grid and roll out smart meters We will develop local Work Clubs – places where unemployed people can gather to exchange skills, make contacts and provide mutual support We will reduce time-wasting bureaucracy that hampers police operations We will provide start-up loans and business mentors to unemployed people wishing to set up their own businesses We will invest an additional £920 million in UK science research infrastructure We will promote the electrification of the car fleet Based on spend Based on initiatives Vaguely defined We will invest an additional £920 million in UK science research infrastructure We will introduce a new bowel screening programme to reduce incidence of, and mortality from, bowel cancer, saving 3,000 lives a year A rare exception: But actions are mixed and not usually outcome focused
- 18. Advantages and disadvantagesof both systems Business Plans Public Service Agreements Focused on outcomes and outputs Cross-government priorities Linked to local level delivery Provided systematic & consistent structure Made civil servants and ministers feel more directly accountable for delivery X Outcome measures were too high level and dissipated X Outcome focus provided less scope to interrogate activity and resource allocation X Accountabilities sometimes unclear X Criticised for generating bureaucracy, stifling innovation & potential for gaming Link success to defined policy outputs Give more detail on actual departmental activity Provide clear lines of accountability Transparently reported Simple, with less bureaucracy X Outcome indicators not linked to outputs, not always aligned to dept. objectives X Do not cover the breadth or depth of departmental activities X Not integral to departments internal planning/performance management X Do not provide a means for tracking financial data to policy performance
- 19. Conclusion: Finding theright balance Ideal performance framework finds the right balance Reducing spending and increasing efficiency Improving public services and outcomes Outwards accountability through transparency Top down accountability Challenge and scrutiny Support and capability building Flexible to emerging problems Consistent over time Comprehensive across government Focused on clear priorities Departmental/Agency based Cross-government
- 20. Conclusion: Finding theright balance Ideal performance framework finds the right balance Reducing spending and increasing efficiency Improving public services and outcomes Outwards accountability through transparency Top down accountability Challenge and scrutiny Support and capability building Flexible to emerging problems Consistent over time Comprehensive across government Focused on clear priorities Departmental/Agency based Cross-government
- 21. Agenda 1)Context: UKgovernment and public services 2)UK performance framework: evolution from 1997 – 2014 3)Driving delivery: the Prime Minster’s Delivery Unit and Implementation Unit
- 22. Performance framework alonenot enough to secure delivery Prime Minister & the Cabinet Central government: 24 Ministerial Departments e.g. Defence, Health 22 Non-Ministerial Departments e.g. Charity Commission 300+ Executive Agencies & other non-departmental public bodies Parliament Local government Other local services e.g. hospitals Other service deliverers e.g. private sector, charities UK public UK public “Centre” of government: No.10, Cabinet Office, HM Treasury Delivery /Implementation Unit
- 23. Prime Minister’s DeliveryUnit (PMDU) created in 2001 Spending Review 1998 600 targets Spending Review 2000 160 targets 130 targets Spending Review 2002 110 targets Spending Review 2004 Spending Review 2007 30 x-govt outcomes PMDU set up: • Small (-50) unit at heart of govt • Focused on driving progress on up to 10 priority PSAs • Health, Education, Crime, Rail • PM appointed head: Michael Barber PMDU moved to Cabinet Office: • Still small and linked to PSAs • But focus broadened; merged with Capability Reviews • Civil service head of unit PMDU moved to Treasury: • Still small and linked to PSAs • Civil service Head of Unit • Focused across all PSAs and performance fmk policy • Support for National Economic Council
- 24. PMDU: roles andresponsibilities To help government deliver improved, more efficient and effective services for citizens We will achieve this mission by providing challenge and support to the work of departments in five main areas over the course of the spending period: Planning for delivery Monitoring, evaluating and reporting on delivery Overcoming obstacles to delivery Building Capability • Help produce trajectories and baselines for PSA indicators • Provide support and challenge on delivery planning • Helped produce Delivery Agreements for CSR07 PSAs • Report directly to Prime Minister and Chancellor on progress against delivery of PSAs and other priorities •Provide departments with feedback on likelihood of delivery •Report to Cabinet Committees on progress • Use problem-solving tools to help departments overcome specific challenges when delivery is off track • Use tools and techniques jointly with departments •Conduct training for wider civil service •Support networks in sharing best practice Developing the performance framework •Learn lessons on what works and doesn’t work with Public Service Agreements •Make recommendations to adapt for the future
- 25. Implementation Unit createdin 2012 Spending Review 2007 30 x-govt outcomes PMDU moved to Treasury: • Still small and linked to PSAs • Civil service Head of Unit • Focused across all PSAs and performance framework policy • Support for National Economic Council Spending Review 2010 1200 reform actions PMDU abolished Spending Round 2013 Actions refreshed Implementation Unit set up: • Based in Cabinet Office • More narrow role but across wider range of (not fixed) priorities • Monitor business plan actions • Coalition wide: report to PM & DPM • Support for Cabinet and sub-committees To translate political will into real world impact Tracking progress on all business plan commitments Troubleshooting emerging implementation issues Celebrating implementation successes Maximising delivery of government ‘s top implementation priorities
- 26. Financial Reputational Freedoms Individual - Bonuses - Pay rises - Appraisal - Praise - Awards - Promotion - Autonomy Organisation - Payment by results - Completion payments - Name/shame - League tables - Reduced monitoring Asking the simple questions Effective delivery What are you trying to deliver? By when are you trying to deliver it? How are you going to deliver it? Where will you deliver it? Who do you need to deliver it? Why would they deliver it? Choice Decentralisation Diversity of provision Fair access Accountability
- 27. Focusing on ‘whatworks’ Six What Works centres established Health, education, crime, early intervention, economic growth and ageing Funded by government and non- government sources What Works centres summarise and share evidence on what works (and what doesn’t) in each thematic area. Evidence summaries easy to access and understand for local practitioners “The What Works Network will bring a real step-change to our evidence generating capabilities, and will further ensure government takes decisions at the Spending Round and future events on the basis of high quality research aimed at delivering the best possible outcomes for the public” Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury www.gov.uk.uk/what works
- 28. Despite all ourefforts, performance challenges remain Set strategic aims Translate to policy Plan policy implementation Rollout policy Policy formed (and targets adopted) without considering implementation sufficiently Not enough focus on key ministerial priorities / too many priorities No high-quality evaluation of policy rollout Not enough high-quality proactive proposals for what departments can do Too little effective consultation with external experts Lack of commercial & IT capabilities (e.g. supplier terms / contract design) Not enough fieldwork – policy and implementation still designed in Whitehall Patchy outcome data collection Insufficient setting of meaningful and measurable outcome goals Not enough focus on 'customer journey' Lack of general implementation skills and experience Lack of effective incentives or accountability Lack of meaningful business case analysis
- 29. Despite all ourefforts, performance challenges remain Set strategic aims Translate to policy Plan policy implementation Rollout policy Policy formed (and targets adopted) without considering implementation sufficiently Not enough focus on key ministerial priorities / too many priorities No high-quality evaluation of policy rollout Not enough high-quality proactive proposals for what departments can do Too little effective consultation with external experts Lack of commercial & IT capabilities (e.g. supplier terms / contract design) Not enough fieldwork – policy and implementation still designed in Whitehall Patchy outcome data collection Insufficient setting of meaningful and measurable outcome goals Not enough focus on 'customer journey' Lack of general implementation skills and experience Lack of effective incentives or accountability Lack of meaningful business case analysis
- 30.