Scottish Government

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Scottish Executive issued a discussion document "Transforming Public Services - the next phase of reform" as part of the process of achieving the key ambition of public service reform leading to the provision of world class services in Scotland centred around service users. Such public service reform is to be based on five key principles as set out by the First Minister at the Scottish Government Forum on 6 December 2005.

• Increased personalisation and user focus
• Quality and innovation
• Efficiency and productivity
• Joining Up
• Accountability

The discussion document sought views on twenty discussion points based round the five key principles of public service reform and was been widely distributed to stakeholders across Scotland. Overall, 70 responses were received from a range of organisations and individuals. The responses break down as follows: 24 Local Authority, 13 Agencies/ NDPB/Central Government, 9 Professional Groups, 5 Voluntary Organisations, 8 Health Bodies, 5 Individuals, 3 Private Sector and 3 Other Organisations. Dudleston Harkins Social Research was commissioned by the Scottish Executive Social Research, on behalf of the Finance and Central Services Department's Public Service Reform and Efficiency Group, to undertake comprehensive qualitative analysis of these written responses to the discussion document and to present the results in a report format. The analysis will feed into the overall public services reform agenda, which is also being informed by a series of nine stakeholder dialogue events, and qualitative research into public views of public service reform. The results from this evidence gathering will help in the development of options for possible models of public services delivery within Scotland.

Overall themes and issues

Positively, all but a few responses, while perhaps having doubts about some of the specifics, endorsed the 5 principles of reform set out as guiding the proposed transformation. There were, however, some differing perspectives on how radical reforms needed to be. For example, many stated that a number of the proposals could and should be achieved through further development of Community Planning Partnerships ( CPP) rather than requiring any radical or fundamental reform. Similarly, a minority of responses stated that as there had been fundamental change in Scotland since devolution, there was an argument for letting these changes bed in before undertaking further changes. On the other hand, a smaller number of respondents felt that much more fundamental reform was required - some in relation to the way public services are delivered by different organisations, some in relation to geographical boundaries and some in relation to radical re-structuring of government and governance.

A number of responses suggested that the document was strong on rhetoric but much weaker in relation to specific recommendations or targets. Similarly, some thought that the breadth of the scope of the consultation with the inclusion of 'all public services' meant it was not meaningful. Several were specific in suggesting that the proposed transformation lacked an overall framework.

There were many comments about the concepts of 'public sector' and 'public services' Two key issues were, the perception that not enough attention is given to the role of voluntary and private sector organizations in service delivery and the perceived lack of recognition of different structures and obligations among different service providers.

In particular, many local authority responses stated that the consultation did not properly recognize the unique nature of local authorities in relation to democracy, local accountability and existing statutory duties.

Many Local Authorities and NDPBs felt the document did not reflect the current diverse status of different public sector organisations and the various methods and lines of accountability this entailed. In particular, several local authorities felt that there is a key need to recognise the role of democracy and the constitutional position of Local Authorities when considering reforms and that, therefore, there cannot be a 'one size fits all' approach to scrutiny and accountability.

Another common theme running across all questions in the consultation and shared by the considerable majority of respondents was the need for a reduction of audit, inspection and regulation. This was seen as administratively burdensome and to contradict the aim of making services tailored and responsive to local needs. In relation to many of the consultation issues, the question of funding was raised. There were some overall concerns that the issue of public sector finance had not been adequately considered. Some were concerned that 'Transforming' services could be related to cost cutting rather than service improvement.

Services should be user focused and personalised

Three questions were posed under this overall heading.

What more can we do to ensure public services are driven by a desire to create as much user focus as possible?

In general, the notion of furthering the user focused nature of services was welcomed by respondents but some issues were raised in relation to how this is achieved. For example, some raised concerns about the quality of customer engagement, while others felt it was crucial that other stakeholders (such as staff involved in the provision of services and voluntary sector organisations representing customers) should be involved. Additionally, several responses suggested that many lessons could be learnt from the private sector which has considerable experience and expertise in engaging with customers.

What more can we do to ensure that the public are able to make informed choices about the services available to them?

Again, the notion of enabling the public to make informed choices about the services available to them was broadly welcomed but with some key concerns noted. Some felt that there was a clear need to maintain a balance between customer choice and the knowledge of professionals (particularly in relation to health care). Others were concerned with the need to manage customer expectations and enable customers to clearly understand the ramifications of their choices - many were concerned about the quality of information available to enable customers to make choices. Perhaps more fundamentally, a few respondents questioned whether service users actually wanted to make choices about services and were more concerned about reliability and quality.

How can we ensure that complaints relating to public services are resolved at the first point of contact rather than escalating the process?

The discussion question relating to dealing with complaints was least contentious but, as demonstrated below, some questioned whether instead of focusing on dealing with complaints, the focus should be on improving service to minimise complaints arising.

In summary, the key issues raised in this section of the discussion document were:

• Further developing the user focused nature of services was generally seen to be a positive move, although it was acknowledged that this will be a challenge and may necessitate changes to the way in which services are designed and delivered.
• There were concerns raised about the best way of engaging with customers and it was suggested that there is a need to improve the quality and effectiveness of such engagement. Suggestions included the need for training staff, more use of user forums, or building upon mechanisms for community engagement through Community Planning.
• The need to ensure engagement with all groups in society was highlighted (especially by the voluntary sector).
• There was seen to be a conflict between national minimum standards and user focus.
• The notion of encouraging the public to make informed choices was broadly supported. Key issues raised related to resources and funding, information provision to facilitate informed choices, managing expectations and discussions around whether choice was achievable, or indeed, desirable.
• Suggestions on how to ensure that the public are able to make informed choices included providing good quality information in accessible formats and publishing the results of consultations and how they have been used.
• There was broad agreement that mechanisms should be introduced to enable the majority of complaints to be dealt with at the first point of contact.
• Suggestions on how this could be achieved included establishing a single complaints system for the Scottish public sector, providing more information to customers about how to complain, or introducing a Charter Mark system.
• There were comments that the focus on dealing with complaints was misplaced and that, for example, that this should be part of a broader improvement strategy.

Quality should be improved and innovation encouraged

Again, three specific questions were considered under this heading.

What more can be done to foster a culture of innovation and creativity in public services?

There were broad levels of agreement that innovation and creativity should be encouraged but the majority of responses felt that the current structure and culture of public services does not foster such activity. In particular it was suggested that the culture is very risk averse, workloads are too high, there are too many legislative and audit demands and a lack of funding (or funding flexibility) for creative or innovative developments.

How can we strengthen the Best Value process?

There were mixed messages in the responses to this question. Many believe that Best Value functions well but should be rolled out across the public sector/those involved in providing public services and not confined to local authorities - this was perhaps the most common suggestion. Several respondents suggested that communities should be involved in setting the standards and what is measured and recorded as performance indicators through the CP process. A few local authority respondents felt that although they supported Best Value, they felt the system had become over-burdensome and that the performance measurement requirements needed rationalisation.

How best can we identify and ensure minimum service standards across public services?

The issue of ensuring minimum service standards was perhaps more contentious. While there was broad agreement that service standards should be high, the setting of minimum standards was not seen to sit well with either the notion of services being user and locally focused or with fostering a culture of innovation or creativity. There was a general consensus that standards necessarily vary from service to service and from area to area depending on the nature of the service and the needs and priorities of local people. In particular, it was commonly felt by a broad range of respondents but local authorities in particular that owing to issues of local democracy, Local Authorities should have flexibility to respond to local need.

In summary, the key issues raised in this section of the discussion document were:

• It was agreed that innovation and creativity should be encouraged but that the current structure and culture of public services does not foster such activity. In fact, it was suggested that the culture is very risk averse, workloads are too high, there is a perceived lack of joint working and information sharing by different departments, and that there are too many legislative and audit demands and a lack of funding for creative or innovative developments.
• Specific suggestions on how such a culture could be achieved included the Scottish Executive rationalising the legislative, inspection and audit demands imposed on the public sector, and reviewing the extent to which much of the funding for the public sector is ring-fenced to drive the Executive's national priorities. Another suggestion highlighted the need for collaborative working between different parts of the public sector.
• In order to achieve innovation, it was also thought to be necessary to focus on the customer and strengthen the voice of the user. It was also suggested that the Scottish Executive should report on and disseminate good practice.
• There were mixed messages in relation to improving Best Value. Many believe that Best Value functions well with its main problem being that it only relates to certain public sector bodies and that it should be rolled out to include all organisations involved with the delivery of public services. However, a few local authority respondents, although supporting Best Value, felt the system had become over-burdensome and that the performance measurement requirements needed rationalisation.
• Again demonstrating the key role many respondents perceive for Community Planning, it was suggested that communities should be involved in setting the standards and what is measured and recorded as performance indicators through the CP process.
• The issue of ensuring minimum service standards was perhaps more contentious. While there was broad agreement that service standards should be high, the setting of minimum standards was not seen to sit well with either the notion of services being user and locally focused or with fostering a culture of innovation or creativity. There was a general notion that standards necessarily vary from service to service and from area to area depending on the nature of the service and the needs and priorities of local people.
• Some did believe that some setting of minimum standards was desirable made suggestions such as creating Key Performance Indicators.

Improve efficiency and productivity

There were two questions considered in this section.

What more can we do to drive up efficiency and productivity in public services?'

One key issue raised in answer to this was in relation to joining up services and organisations sharing good practice and learning from each other. In fact, this is a common theme raised in relation to the discussion document. Other issues raised included less duplication between services, determining the most effective way in which 'efficiency and productivity' are measured, suggestions for some fundamental re-structuring of the public sector being required, and issues surrounding funding. As with some other consultation questions, this did incur some resentment that the Executive did not recognize current efficiency and productivity within the public sector - particularly local authorities

And, 'how best can we move to radically streamline funding, planning and performance reporting?'

In relation to this question, there were suggestions for the rationalisation of performance reporting. As in relation to other questions, many of the responses focused on streamlining services and reducing duplication, and introducing a more integrated approach. Other suggestions included establishing outcome agreements, and not having a prescriptive form of performance management for public bodies.

In summary, the key issues raised in this section of the discussion document were:

• Driving up efficiency and productivity could be aided by joining up services, there being less duplication between services, and organisations sharing good practice and learning from each other.
• It was also suggested that the most effective way in which 'efficiency and productivity' are measured should be determined and that improved efficiency and productivity metrics should be adopted. It was felt that there is lack of information on productivity and efficiency measures and that the focus should not be on price rather than quality.
• It was suggested that there should be greater flexibility in relation to funding and the removal of much ring-fencing, and also that local services should be provided locally and locally managed.
• While generally there was agreement that improving efficiency and productivity are fundamental to the transformation of public services, there were concerns raised about how this will be achieved.
• In relation to streamlining funding, planning and performance reporting, there were suggestions for the rationalisation of performance reporting. Many responses focused on streamlining services and reducing duplication, and introducing a more integrated approach.
• The rationalization of performance reporting was also suggested, with the introduction of a more balanced framework which recognises local accountability in performance terms.
• Other suggestions included establishing outcome agreements which are developed between central and local government (and partnerships).
• Although most responses suggested the need for a more integrated, streamlined approach, a few emphasised the importance of evaluating each service individually.

Join up services and minimise separation

Generally, there was agreement that improvements were needed in relation to providing joined up services and the majority of respondents felt that this could best be achieved through further development and support for Community Planning Partnerships.

Three specific questions were considered in this section.

Whether any legislative changes are required to help public sector organisations work more closely together?

In relation to legislative changes, although there was broad agreement that improvements in joint working were required, there was not a consensus that legislation was required. Many felt that improvements could be achieved through a strengthening of CCPs and that this could improve joint working among all those involved in providing public services - not just among public sector organisations. Several respondents suggested that rather than new legislation being required, the removal of existing barriers to joint working should be removed (such as those identified in the Audit Scotland Review of CPP¹ - e.g. budgeting). However, many respondents suggested that the key area for any change in legislation related to data and information sharing. Current actual or perceived limitations on data sharing were seen as a considerable impediment to elements of joint working.

Can more effective and accountable regional partnerships and structures be made?

Community Planning Partnerships were again seen as playing a key role in relation to effective and accountable partnerships and structures. Several respondents also suggested the need for more integration between Community Planning and broader level strategic planning. The complexity of achieving more effective and accountable regional partnerships was recognised, and in fact, it was suggested that what makes effective regional partnerships will vary from service to service and as such these should be carried out under the heading of community planning.

What do we need to do to provide more strategic leadership in relation to e-government?

Generally, most responses were positive about the role of e-government and its potential to help improve local services and partnership working. It was suggested that e-government has to focus clearly on how it can support the achievement of the stated key objectives for public services. It was also stressed that achieving better strategic leadership should involve all parts of the public sector, and that it is important that this is seen to be supportive rather than directive. It was suggested that sharing good practice and learning from different public bodies is a useful starting point.

This question did generate comment in relation to the sharing of information and data protection issues. It was recognised for example that although maintaining individual rights to privacy is important, there is a need for the greater sharing of data across regions and across service types.

In summary, the key issues raised in this section of the discussion document were:

• Generally, there was agreement that improvements were needed in relation to providing joined up services and that this could best be achieved through further development and support for Community Planning Partnerships.
• Several respondents suggested that rather than new legislation being required, the removal of existing barriers to joint working should be removed.
• Many suggested that the key area for any change in legislation related to data and information sharing, as current actual or perceived limitations on data sharing were seen as a considerable impediment to elements of joint working.
• Some responses introduced limitations to the extent that Community Planning could play an effective role. It was felt that agreement of a manageable number of streamlined joined-up priorities and a focus on outcomes would be crucial.
• The complexity of achieving more effective and accountable regional partnerships was recognised, with it being suggested that what makes effective regional partnerships will vary from service to service.
• The importance of governance arrangements was also stressed.
• Generally, most responses were positive about the role of e-government and its potential to help improve local services and partnership working. It was suggested that e-government has to focus clearly on how it can support the achievement of the stated key objectives for public services.
• The variation in the extent to which various services provide e-government was also recognised, as was the fact that there appears to be little communication between different bodies about their different systems and standards.
• The importance of ensuring that the focus remains on the customer and their needs was also recognised but there were also issues raised about limitations caused by data protection legislation.

Strengthen accountability

It is important to note that the issue of accountability received high level of attention and there were very mixed views among different respondent types. There were particular concerns about the role of accountability within the system of locally democratically elected councils and the relationship with central government.

What role should elected councillors have in relation to public services - whether or not delivered by the local authority?

There was a broad consensus among those responding to this question that elected councillors should have a scrutiny role in relation to services provided in their area to varying extents. Some thought that no changes were required but others thought an expanded role covering all public services should be developed. However, several respondents suggested that a scrutiny role would only be effective coupled with a governance role. In other words, it was important to match any development in responsibility and scrutiny with some powers to be able to act on the solution of problems.

What should be the relationship between local authorities and other agencies delivering public services in their area?

Many of the responses to this question emphasised the importance of Community Planning Partnerships as the key to this relationship. Several respondents referred to the Audit Scotland Review on Community Planning. Others felt that there was additional scope for more involvement of voluntary and private sector organisations within CPPs. However, within the context of Community Planning, some respondents wanted it to be clear that owing to the status of Local Authorities as elected bodies, they needed to be both partner to other agencies but also a regulator and enforcer.

How can we strengthen the accountability of Chief Executives and senior managers of public bodies for high performance and for achieving agreed outcomes?

There was a general view that accountability is already in place for Local Authority services although some suggest ways this could be strengthened. However, many respondents believed that accountability of senior managers of other organisations should be improved. Several responses suggested some examples of mechanisms which might usefully be employed in order to strengthen accountability in relation to performance and outcomes. In summary, these focused on improved performance management and reporting and on the nature of outcome measures.

In summary, the key issues raised in this section of the discussion document were:

• Generally, it was agreed that elected councillors should have a scrutiny role in relation to services provided in their area to varying extents.
• In terms of the relationship between local authorities and other agencies delivering public services, many of the responses emphasised the importance of Community Planning Partnerships as the key to this relationship.
• Some respondents referred to the Audit Scotland Review on Community Planning which reports the impact the wide range of national policy initiatives (and their lack of integration and prioritisation) has on CPPs.
• Others felt that there was additional scope for more involvement of voluntary and private sector organisations within CPPs.
• Within the context of Community Planning, some respondents made it clear that owing to the status of Local Authorities as elected bodies, they needed to be both partner to other agencies but also a regulator and enforcer.
• There was a general view that accountability is already in place for Local Authority services although there were suggestions on how this could be strengthened.
• Many believed that accountability of senior managers of other organisations should be improved, with others suggesting that more accountability to service users is required.
• There were broad levels of agreement that performance measurement and performance indicators needed to be rationalised and reviewed to make them reflective of what is important to service users (rather than based on what it is currently possible to report on).
• Although locally devised performance indicators were advocated, other respondents highlighted the need for a common system across public services or Local Authorities to enable comparisons to be made.

Structures, outcomes and people

This section of the consultation included five questions and the first four are examined in this Chapter. The fifth question 'What are your proposals for locally developed reform initiatives?' generated a considerable volume of information about a wide range of initiatives which are to be carefully examined by the Executive in order to map out examples of innovation across public services. Although responses were received relating to all four other questions, most responses focused on the issues of the proposed move to outcome based approach and incentivising success. Both theses issues particularly generated responses from Local Authorities.

What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of a radical move to an outcome based approach?

A key point to consider is that made by one of the Local Authority respondents that actually a shift towards outcome based reporting is not radical as currently local authorities are reporting on outcomes. This position was not commonly shared however as a minority of responses focused on whether it was desirable to make such a change towards such an outcome based approach. However, the majority of responses were broadly supportive of becoming outcome focused as long as agreement could be reached about which outcomes to consider, how they are measured and the importance of including soft outcomes. Additionally, a potential pitfall which many responses noted was the need to avoid an associated increase in bureaucracy, administration and centrally imposed targets. There was also some concern that there is perhaps a perceived tension between such an approach and user focus.

What more can we do to incentivise success - in achieving outcomes or high quality, efficient services?

Responses to this question demonstrated some evidence of resentment towards the Scottish Executive for this question with the majority suggesting that incentives are not necessary. In fact, some respondents seemed some quite 'offended' that public sector and voluntary agencies needed incentives to encourage them to provide good services. Popular themes among responses were that it was more important for the Executive to provide adequate funding with the potential for flexibility and demonstrate confidence in agencies to undertake their functions.

Are there areas where structural change would bring better outcomes than improved working together across boundaries?

Although there was general agreement that improvements in joined up services were needed, structural change was not necessarily seem as the most appropriate route. Of course there were a few exceptions and specific suggestions as to what changes would help which are listed at the end of the section but many thought the best way forward was to improve upon existing arrangements (such as Community Planning and joint working) and not 're-invent the wheel'. There was also a belief that the focus should be on how different services can best be delivered and not necessarily about the structures that currently deliver them.

Are there better models for the relationship between central and local agencies?

Some of specific responses to this consultation question suggested some current frustration particularly among local authorities and their representatives with the current relationship model. It seems that many local government respondents would prefer more autonomy, flexibility, consultation and communication.

In summary, the key issues raised in this section of the discussion document were:

• The notion of becoming outcome focused was broadly supported, as long as agreement could be reached about which outcomes to consider, how they are measured and the importance of including soft outcomes. The need to avoid an associated increase in bureaucracy, administration and centrally imposed targets was also highlighted, as was the perhaps perceived tension between such an approach and user focus.
• The range of potential benefits identified included improved services/better quality services, and clearer roles and responsibilities and less confusion for the customer.
• Potential drawbacks included that this would require fundamental culture change and a long timescale to achieve.
• Some respondents seemed some quite 'offended' that public sector and voluntary agencies needed incentives to encourage them to provide good services. It was felt to be more important for the Executive to provide adequate funding with the potential for flexibility and demonstrate confidence in agencies to undertake their functions. Another suggestion included removing some of the existing bureaucracy.
• There was also a common feeling that the consultation veered towards punishing failure rather than incentivising success.
• Although there was general agreement that improvements in joined up services were needed, structural change was not necessarily seem as the most appropriate route. Many considered the best way forward to be improving upon existing arrangements and not 're-inventing the wheel'. There was also a belief that the focus should be on how different services can best be delivered and not necessarily about the structures that currently deliver them.
• There were a few respondents who believed that there was a need for structural change to rationalise and simplify structures but that this would need to vary from service to service.
• In relation to better models for the relationship between central and local agencies, there appeared to be some current frustration with the current relationship model, with many local government respondents preferring more autonomy, flexibility, consultation and communication.
• There was specific support for more responsibility being taken on at the local level, and there was also support for strategies to avoid confusion and duplication but not necessarily by introducing new models but by rationalising existing models.