8 Comments on Leave the outcomes to the people

David Wilcox on Mon, 25th Jan 2010 8:33 pm


Matthew, I think that the conclusion you report chimes with that which emerged from a related discussion at Saturday’s UKgovcamp. There we were talking (among many other things) about how to involve users in the design and development of public services to get better and/or cheaper. I shot some video interviews and ran a session, summarised here.
No surprise – it’s all hugely compicated. Even if you agree the principles it may be difficult to get internal processes changed, those users you involve may not be the ones you want to focus on – with the first barrier being the difficulty for most people in understanding the options.
Context is hugely important … one approach won’t suit all.
I like Paul Clarke’s idea of working through some examples. There was general agreement that you couldn’t make much progress without understanding the practical issues in moving from idea to implementation. I hope we can interest the 2020 Public Services Trust in digtital too, and maybe work out a common framework.

Stephen Whitehead on Tue, 26th Jan 2010 12:13 am


That’s an fascinating idea Matthew, but a world away from what we have at the moment. In many ways it runs wholly counter to our political culture. Our current model of democratic accountability is centred around using elections to reward or punish governments for their performance in meeting generally uncontroversial performance targets – low crime, economic growth and so on. To puncture the myth that governments are capable of heroically delivering these targets would inevitably deepen the crisis of democratic legitimacy which we are facing.

Moving to a situation where outcomes are seen as co-owned by government and other actors would necessarily, therefore, mean a new understanding of democratic accountability, and most likely more ways for citizens to get involved in the design and running of public services. Though where that leaves government as guarantors of high-quality institutions, I’m not sure.

Co-owning success « Stephen’s thinks on Tue, 26th Jan 2010 12:22 am


[...] January 26, 2010, 12:22 am Filed under: Public Services, democracy Just finished read a characteristically interesting post from Matthew Taylor’s blog over at the RSA. Matthew, in a textbook example of the benefits of [...]

Lauren Cumming on Tue, 26th Jan 2010 10:35 am


One of the important pieces of that discussion which is not mentioned in your blog is the idea of the state guaranteeing “graduated outcomes”, depending on the level of commitment promised by citizens. So one group of parents that accepts to work 20 hours a week with their children on homework and reading might be guaranteed 5 A*-C GCSEs, but the parents that only want to work 5 hours a week with their children may only be promised one or two.

I think one of the implications of such a negotiated system will be that some citizens will refuse to play ball, will not accept their part of responsibility to achieve outcomes. This is where I believe outcome commissioning will come into the equation. It will be important to try to stimulate those groups that are happy to accept the minimum help the state guarantees in order not to have to play a role in attaining outcomes. In these cases the best way to get results may be to incentivise providers to deliver outcomes for these groups, thus putting the onus on delivery agencies to work with citizens, to find ways to motivate them. This way, those who are less naturally inclined to work with the state should achieve a similar level of outcomes as those who are.

Susmita on Tue, 26th Jan 2010 10:58 am


Matthew, the conclusion reached is what many citizens have wanted from public services for a very very long time. It’s good and bad news at the same time; it’s depressing that matters have moved so far away from this, but heartening that the conclusion has been reached – perhaps we are not beyond saving after all. But would government be prepared to lose the army of performance management consultants etc connected with the current status quo? And how many gravy train jobs will be lost? Do you also accept that this conclusion means a certain scaling back of the state sector and indeed nosing into the lives of citizens?

Livy on Tue, 26th Jan 2010 1:01 pm


@Stephen:

Sure, but isn’t voting a rather lazy way of exercising democracy? A method that barely provides the ability to get rid of bad governments. Democracy should not be a product but a process.

@Susmita:

Exactly. But at all least the tedious coverage over MPs expenses has finally drowned in its own venom; the conversation has moved away from the corruption in the House of Commons to the corruption in Whitehall.

We (as well as the hacks) need be clearer about the difference between state and government. I’m in a rarely generous mood and will be fair to right on this one; the size of the payroll vote is silly, and virtually everybody is now a pps.

Bridget Rosewell on Tue, 26th Jan 2010 5:32 pm


A challenge is to come up with a better soundbite for social productivity. It doesn’t mean much to me and I’m not sure it will to others either. I think it might be ‘outcome co-production not delivery’?

Second, I am very concerned about the intrusive state. Others talk about the minimal state – that guarantees you will learn to read and write, or there will be A&E facilities – but anything else you will need to guarantee good behaviour. Matthew talks about the state is seeking to tap into and shape people’s own efforts. So clearly it will also want to monitor these.

My libertarian hackles are well up – and moreover this looks like quite an expensive process full of people being employed to monitor and inspect – how often did you read to your children last week, Ms Bloggs?

Moreover, this kind of thing is cannot be opposed to insurance. Insurance is where I pay a premium so that risks will be covered. That premium could certainly better reflect my condition, but there are a variety of ways to do this. Our group came up with bottom up commissioning, where the community elects those who will commission, say, the area’s healthcare. If there is less spending that the budget, there is a rebate to the citizens. If the doctor signs off their efforts to lose weight, do the physio, attend regularly, as effective, they get a rebate. That would focus the minds of consumers and engage them in co-production within the existing cultural institutions.

Bridget

Sarah Schulman on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 1:45 pm


Matthew,
Over on our blog, inwithfor.org, we offer up one response to your question, what should public services be held accountable for? While we wholeheartedly agree with the premise that outcomes are a product of both governmental and community action, we try and probe what outcomes really mean. You talk about service outcomes. We talk about social outcomes. In our experience, services and systems look very different when they aim for one versus the other. Here’s the link to our post: http://www.inwithfor.org/2010/02/leave-the-right-outcomes-to-the-people

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!