As New Labour backs away from its bout of New Centralism, it does so nervously, not knowing with what to replace the culture of top-down targetry that accompanied the large increases in public spending of recent years. How can a Secretary for State argue that more resources will delivery better outcomes without more control?
We need to understand the strengths and limits of targetry. A target focuses managers’ attention. It increases accountability – and the public sector badly needs a shift to a culture of accountability for outcomes rather than for process. But the setters of national targets have often assumed that the way to make progress is to translate in top-down fashion the national target into equivalent local targets. Local situations, however, are sufficiently different to require bottom-up strategies for change, as well as different local targets. Achieving a 5% improvement in school attendance requires both that local targets for improvement may vary from 0% to 20%, and that the local delivery will also vary.
This is where it gets difficult for the centre. It cannot set local targets for every circumstance, nor review every local strategy. Yet how, other than blind trust, can they believe the extra investment will deliver on the ground? What can be done to ensure there is local cross-learning? What are the types of information that provide a reasonable guide to progress? The availability of such indicators would allow the centre to focus on challenging and changing the smaller number of under-performers, rather than increasing the bureaucratic burden on all.
This approach was used in the successful delivery of one government target, and we believe it could be applied more elsewhere.
In 1997 the government promised to cut in half the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders - from 142 days to 71. This challenged the criminal justice system, especially the Youth Justice Board: it was a national commitment to be delivered across 42 areas in England and Wales. Yet it was realised by the middle of 2001, a year ahead of schedule.
Ultimately it was about changing the way young people were managed through the system and then to maintain the system.
Firstly, there was clear leadership and drive from Whitehall, emphasising its priority in the midst of other initiatives.
Secondly, local strategies - while having similar flavours - had to be different. This reflected different starting positions, different contexts (urban versus rural, say) and the differing styles, capabilities and approaches that we all have as managers.
Thirdly, support was provided to local areas - working with local teams to tailor the approach, rather than sending instructions or missives from the centre.
Fourth, management and performance data was provided to local and central managers enabling them to see, in summary, how an area was performing. The key with this data was that it was immediate, allowing managers to take control of any under-performance. The systems were developed in a matter of weeks.
This approach is now being used across the government but it needs to be tailored. The ability to bring about change in our public services depends on many things. It’s about creating an environment with local accountability, balanced by challenge from the centre. Information is the key - giving local people the power to deliver.
