: Richard Davis
: Responsibility and Public Services
: Triarchy Press
: 9781909470842
: 1
: CHF 10.60
:
: Staatslehre und politische Verwaltung
: English
: 128
: DRM
: PC/MAC/eReader/Tablet
: ePUB

In this important book, Richard Davis looks at the issue of 'responsibility' in public services - on both the government's part and that of the users. While government wrestles with how to cut the cost of services, Davis shows that government can provide responsible, sustainable and effective services significantly more cheaply by focusing on what is of 'value' to individuals and communities.
What is of 'value' can only be determined by fully understanding the context in which problems arise and then providing tailored support to get people's lives back on track and as quickly as possible.
The emphasis needs to change, Davis shows, from supplying services (chosen in advance by government regardless of actual need) to helping people to look after themselves and take responsibility for their own lives. It's a simple logic.
The current system defines problems according to predetermined services and categories. But there are many people who never fit into the categories the system has allocated and constantly fall between the cracks and remain in trouble  - so the wider system continues to have to give them emergency help because the principle services are ineffective. This racks up further costs.
Responsibility and Public Services shows that it is cheaper to offer people tailored services that meet their needs than to continue providing 'off-the-shelf' services that don't meet their needs. The thinking is that if a little time is taken to understand people in context and to find out what matters to them, the solutions are far easier and cheaper. And, because you build in resilience and help people take their own measures, it stays cheaper.

Chapter 1

Design against demand (the contextual needs of the citizen)

The current system understands demand as a transaction, e.g. a phone call. It sets handling standards (answer within x seconds) and target measures (y% of calls to be answered) against that transaction and seeks to reduce the cost at all times. From the perspective of the citizen, services designed around these ‘transactions’ rarely supply what they need and are just a wasteful part of the process.

We carried out some research for Advice UK on how well the voluntary advice sector was working. Advice organisations, local and national, help people struggling with decisions around the granting of disability allowances. They manage cases and provide advocacy. Of all the cases going to tribunal, 93% were found in favour of the plaintiff. This is eyebrow-raising in itself but the real learning comes when you find out that the agencies involved (as they were then) rarely got their sums wrong. The decisions were technically accurate but the judges found that the context had been ignored. In other words, the person had been ignored. So, for example, a person with mental health problems was deemed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to have ‘recovered’ and the support was withdrawn. The reality, as noted in the tribunal decision, was that it was precisely that support that enabled the person to cope. When it was withdrawn the recovery was reversed. The point is that the transactions – the technical aspects – don’t take ‘context’ into account. For the citizen, context means, ‘Do you understand me and my life?’

People from every agency we work with talk about andbelieve that they deal in ‘person-centred’ services. So to conclude that we need to change the public sector from a transactional perspective to a person-centred perspective will simply get the eyes rolling. The problem for most people is trying to fathom why anyone would design a system that was not person-centred. But design it they did. It is equally difficult for practitioners – how could they admit to themselves that they are not person-centred?

A better focus might be one that tackles effectiveness and efficiency, the goal being to do exactly what matters at first point of contact – either the issue is resolved for the citizen, or the right processes are designed so that problems can be resolved as efficiently as possible for all concerned. This is the critical concept that initiates change. It is the place for leaders to begin to understand what the processcould look like, and then (when you’ve tried it) what itdoes look like. The new way of thinking, doing only what matters, becomes much clearer both in principle and in practice. The paradoxical aspect is that when you seek to improve effectiveness in this way, the efficiency improves all on its own.

A Case Study
Stoke City Council

The leaders of the functional departments at Stoke City Council had been learning what worked for citizens and what did not. They had also involved other agencies, such as Fire& Rescue and the police services. They took the decision to set up a multi-agency team that would be capable, as