This report from the Institute for Public Policy Research argues that housing poverty is the most extreme form of social inequality in Britain. It says successive governments have bowed to the pressure of nimbyism and ignored the consequences of growing inequality. The report calls for dramatic changes to close the housing “equity gap” and increase choice. Despite increased consensus amongst experts and politicians on the need for radical measures and new homes, there is often strong resistance to local change. The polarisation of housing provision also has a negative effect on school standards, public services, crime and neighbourhoods: all public priorities.The report shows that there has been a growing divide between people living in the north and in the South East and between the home owning majority and people who rent. The increase in the ‘equity divide’ has been the greatest cause of the growth of inequality: the value of the net equity of personally-owned housing increased from 36 billion pounds in 1970 to 1,525 billion pounds in 2001. Tenants living on estates of poor housing have fared worst and the most dramatic evidence of the housing crisis is the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation, which has risen from 5,000 to 80,000 since 1980.
By Suzana Grubnic and Ron Hodges.This article considers the role of information and trust in Private Finance Initiative (PFI) ‘Pathfinder’ schemes in the social housing sector in England. It uses the work of Tomkins and a series of interviews with local authority PFI project managers to provide a critique of the structure of the pathfinder process. The authors conclude that the pathfinder process cannot provide information about willingness to trust and they suggest that this may be one of the reasons for the delay in the contractual signing of the first wave of these schemes.
Public Administration Volume 23: Issue 3. ISSN: 0954-0962
This report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister evaluates the impact of the Best Value regime on securing continuous improvement and sets out a baseline from which progress will be assessd in the future. Whilst Best Value is a driver for change it is imposing substantial additional burdens and costs on authorities, notably through the new inspection requirements. The regime has provided an added impetus for increased corporate working and councils that are able to operate in a ‘corporate’ fashion are most likely to have used reviews as a driver for improvement.There was some evidence of tangible improvements in performance and many officers and members expected future improvements – usually involving incremental, rather than step changes. Some authorities had concluded that Best Value reviews were of less importance given the arrival of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and officers in some authorities felt that preparations for CPA had taken up time that might otherwise have been given to Best Value reviews. The case studies highlighted resistance to the kinds of changes that the Best Value regime seeks to encourage in some councils.
The Improvement and Development Agency has published a series of case studies that demonstrate how the use of innovative technology is improving services for citizens, businesses and communities. The themes covered are: Raising awareness across schools, Improving the quality of life of older people, Improving the quality of life of children, young people and families at risk, Promoting healthier communities, Creating safer and stronger communities, Transforming the local environment, Meeting local transport needs and Promoting the economic vitality of localities.The case studies are available at http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/knowledge/bp.nsf/httppublicpages/464bd7 bd55e65c9080256d3d00556751?opendocument
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published a specification for the support required for a programme it has launched jointly with the Local Government Association. The ODPM intends to let a framework agreement to help deliver this programme of work. The framework will consist of a range of suppliers, either individually or in consortia, with interest and ability to deliver some or all of the work within the programme. A search is in progress to identify main contractors for the framework contract. Once in the framework agreement, suppliers will be eligible to respond to call off contracts for the development and delivery of activities to be commissioned under the programme, based around seven themes: Peer Support; Support for Improvement; Leadership and Change Management; Recruitment and Retention; Middle Managers’ Development Programme; Support for Specific Skills and; Supporting District Councils. There will be member development programmes to address induction, development and leadership of elected members. The middle manager development programmes will encourage middle managers to think outside their service area to adopt a more strategic emphasis to performance management.Full details are available at: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/page/odp
m_locgov_023839.doc
Read more on CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMME FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT…
This interim report by Sir Michael Lyons identifies some of the issues surround re-location from London and the South East which will be considered in the final report to be presented to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 2003. The ambition of Ministers is to relocate significant amounts of activity to other parts of the UK, in order to deliver greater value for the taxpayer, improve service delivery and to make Government more responsive to differentiated needs across the country. Early indications are that at least 20,000 posts can be re-located.Some 230,000 civil servants and other national Government workers are in London and the South East – about a third of the total. There is a strong economic case for re-location. A call center work station costs some 3000 pounds less per year in the regions. Office rents are typically 53 pounds in London compared to 27 pounds in the regions. Recruitment and retention in London is more difficult than in regional offices despite paying 20 per cent more at junior grades and at least 10 per cent more at senior grades. The average house price in greater London is some three times greater than the average for the north. The average travel to work time in London is 59 minutes, compared to 32 in Birmingham and 28 in Leeds.
The research was carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham for the Improvement and Development Agency. The logic that joint service provision might imply joint reviews and joint scrutiny has recently begun to be followed. The aim of the research was to draw from the stakeholders’ experience to understand key challenges for stakeholders in undertaking joint reviews and to identify ways in which these challenges have been faced. The report presents key messages about the approaches, challenges and potentials of joint reviews coming from the experiences of six case study reviews in England. The report collates a series of key messages that the case studies illuminate. They include: recognising the exchange between shared and individual goals; active relationship-building is essential; review participants’ seniority and capacity to fully and equally participate are significant; and leadership, co-ordination and administration can follow differing models.The document is available at http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/80256D350027CD0F/httpPublicPages/4795A
567A822372D80256D9400521C6A/$file/Joint%20reviews%20report.pdf
Read more on JOINT REVIEWS: POTENTIAL, PITFALLS AND PATHWAYS…
This report by The Public Administration Select Committee suggests that targets and tables can hamper service delivery. It assesses the measurement culture and concentrates in particular on performance targets, including PSAs, and league tables. The Report recognizes the need for targets and that taxpayers and users of public services have a right to know how well their services are being delivered and who is accountable for them. The Committee found that the aims of targets, such as giving a clear sense of direction and a focus on delivering results, are in many cases not being fulfilled nor widely recognised by those on the front line whose job it is to deliver them. The report identifies cases where “delivering on targets seemed to have become more important than delivering on services” . It calls for better integration of the performance and measurement cultures and greater local autonomy to construct more meaningful and relevant targets.The Report is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubadm/62/6203.htm
By Moira FischbacherP. B. BeaumontThe prominence of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) policy and practice is growing as a mechanism for improving resources available to, and value for money throughout, UK public services. The authors draw on the experience of a National Health Service PFI project to examine key aspects of the PFI process, in particular, structural characteristics affecting design and implementation of PFI projects, financial and other organizational costs, and the nature of stakeholder involvement and the wider employment dimension. The article concludes by reflecting on implications for PFI/PPP policy, management and research.
Read more on PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE NEGLECTED IMPORTANCE OF PROCESS…
Qualitative techniques are used extensively in government social research but there are concerns about the rigour of these techniques and the robustness of the evidence base that they draw upon. In response to the concerns the Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, part of the Cabinet Office, commissioned the National Centre for Social Research to undertake a methodological review of quality standards in qualitative evaluation methods. The aim of the project was to produce guidance for undertaking research and evaluation that uses qualitative methods. The resulting framework provides a useful and useable guide for assessing the credibility, rigour and relevance of individual research studies.Link: http://policyhub.gov.uk/servlet/Menu?id=1728