|
 |
|
The fact that the London Boroughs are getting together in a “Total Place” type initiative is to be welcomed. Mapping the capital’s public expenditure should lead to some fascinating results and will aid inter-agency collaborative working. This is just one example of local authorities not waiting for Government initiatives, but getting on with it, and that too is to be welcomed.
Meanwhile, here in Whitehall and Westminster a strange thing seems to be happening to the Total Place concept. I have heard it variously described as the (speedy!) solution to:
- The gap in public funding resulting from the recession
- Democratic renewal
- And even to community cohesion!
Now there is nothing wrong with Total Place, but it is not going to solve all of the world’s ills overnight. We have a tradition of burdening quite good ideas with excessive expectation and I hope this does not happen again. Total Place will provide tools and insights to enable better decisions to be made, but politicians will still need to make crucial decisions before anything can happen.
Much collaborative and citizen centred working collapses because Whitehall cannot work collaboratively. Ministers are committed to ‘their programmes’, not necessarily the greater good. Civil Servants do not get brownie points for scrapping programmes and giving the money to other Ministers and departments, even if this would self evidently lead to better outcomes.
That is why Sir Gus O’Donnell’s interview in yesterday’s Times is so interesting. Not only did he explicitly say that local government was important, but he also spoke of a new way of funding Whitehall. He looked to a system of funding that followed issues such as obesity or global warming rather than programmes that were held in Departmental budgets. Departments and local authorities could obtain funding for activities that address these policy imperatives rather than have core budgets that need to be combined with dozens of others to achieve anything.
If Gus can pull this off, then it really opens up opportunities. Combine a new customer and citizen focussed budgetary approach with the insights that Total Place work should deliver and we may be on to something very useful, but it will not be overnight nor solve everything.
| 5 Comments
|
| Pages
|
Total place
We had an interesting discussion about Total Place in our Notts chief exec's group today. Points made included
* Reference to Barry Quirk's excellent presentation to a Mayoral forum recently when he talked about Total Place being a tool to identify duplication in provision, then enabling this to be designed out, releasing resources for an area
* some reflection on the different approaches being taken in pilot areas, and the fact that "worklessness" doesn't yet appear as a pilot study topic
* Some anxiety about Total Place being potentially disconnected from activities such as Regional efficiency partnerships and/or local strategic partnerships - where should we be having these conversations and how can we avoid creating yet more administrative bureacracies in addition to the ones we have already created?
By Ruth Hyde on 17/07/2009 @ 17:16:28 | Country: UK |
Total Place
The nature of Total Place is that it addresses how all public agencies, central and local, come together in a particular place in support of the people who live and work there. Inevitably people then start to see it as addressing all sorts of problems and projects that have troubled them over time. Part of my job is managing the boundaries around this but in the end, places and partnerships and departments need to do this too.
Gus' comments about funding problems rather than departments are interesting. The argument could do with development. In particular, what would the implication be for local funding and local services. Once again, we are probably well ahead of this in our work in partnerships but there is a considerable distance for us to progress this if we think there is mileage in it.
The themes the pilots are running are of their own choice. If particular topics are not there then that doesn't stop other places addressing those for themselves. I'm more than happy to hear what others outside of the pilots are doing in this regard and to share what we are finding. We should also not forget that the sort of intransigent issues that the themes address are often intransigent because they cross many different issues. A theme on housing and regeneration will almost certainly touch worklessness and some other points.
Total Place has been set up largely with LSPs, sometimes through the local authority but many of the initial conversations were with partners in the room. I think Total Place can significantly strengthen partnerships at a time when they will face the stern test of dwindling resource. The RIEPs are also in many cases actively involved. The SW has funded work sub-regionally I believe to spread the learning from its pilot and the E is also a long way down that road.
By John Atkinson on 21/07/2009 @ 13:37:16 | Country: UK |
Total Place
I totally agree with David that we risk killing new ways of working by strangling them with business cases, PIs and evaluation before we have allowed ourselves to explore the possibilities properly. My most important recent development opportunity was a trip last year to Denmark ( it was January, cold, the hotel was cheap-even the TPA could not have objected).The Danes have nose bleed levels of tax yet still have a deep respect for public servants and still believe that a good idea deserves support not scepticism.Total Place might be Total Idealism , but what's wrong with that?
Derek
By Derek Myers on 22/07/2009 @ 09:20:07 | Country: England |
Total Place
I do think David's comment about loading a good idea with too many expectations is correct. I am concerned that the pilots and the rest of us (nearly every colleague I talk to is working on some version of TP whether a pilot or not) have a very mixed bag of expectations being placed upon us which by their very nature will then not be met. This is a real and significant risk.
I am concerned about what CLG is actually expecting from us this Autumn and equally what is the Treasury actually expecting. They could possibly be different things and that does raise questions!
We are expert in LG at all getting together, looking at services and coming up with good ideas. These are rarely though about taking money out or really altering services. They are much more about if we spent a bit more we could improve this or stop up a gap. All our experience since Best Value reviews confirms this to me.
What I really do think is needed, Total Place with capitals or with a small t and p, is people really challenging the current mindset about how services are designed and delivered. Michael Bichard who initiated all this in the OEP, authored a key pamphlet for SOLACE and SFI on Innovation by Design. That is what I think his expectation of Total Place is.
I really do think each of us must drive that new and challenging design of services thinking in all this work. How are costs captured in the way the service is structured and supplied?How does that affect the way demand presents itself?
Only by doing this will I think we stand a chance of finding something different that must also save money. We must be absolutely clear about this point . 2011 is not that far off and it is very uncertain what public sector funding will look like. I do believe we all have a duty to prepare real options for our members and we have to work with our partners on these.
Whitehall must also look at themselves . They cannot be immune from their own version of TP. If we all connect up locally but they still keep in their stove pipes it will leave un-necessary cost and confusion in the delivery chain. That also includes thinking about all the costs in the "go tos and the go betweens" that inhabit our world. Gus O'Donnell's comments about cross Whitehall funding for outcomes is very helpful in this respect.
We have risen to many challenges over the years and I do firmly believe we can meet this one. Regardless of others expectations we must be clear and very challenging in how we deliver our own outcomes for this important initiaitve.
By Katherine Kerswell on 22/07/2009 @ 11:26:09 | Country: UK |
Total Place
David's caveat that Total Place should not be seen as the latest in a long line of panaceas for the delivery of public serives is well taken. It's salutary to remember that it's almost a decade ago since Wendy Thomson urged the Institute of Customer Service (ICS) to work through its member authorities to create "seamless public service"! But just because "there is no new thing under the sun" doesn't mean it's not right to have another go. So our President, Katherine Kerswell, is correct to stress Total Place as a huge opportunity. The counting strand is important, of course; but Katherine is also right to remind us that what Michael Bichard argued for in "Innovation by design..." [SFI: Nov 2008] was infinitely more radical. The real opportunity, as Stephen Talyor stresses so eloquently in the current SFI lies in "Calling Cumbria" more than "Counting Cumbria" - or any other set of communities, of course. Echoing John's assertion, above, of the significance of partnerships, Stephen rightly reminds us that "A partnership is a means of people coming together...organisations don't have relationships - it is people, individuals, who have vital relationships".
And that's the key! Unleashing the potential of our own "people" to optimise the social capital in our communities. Back in the '90s, SOLACE predicated our own scheme of continuous learning on the concept of "capax" - the capacity for infinite balancing acts that chief execs and senior managers need to survive! What's apparent a decade on is that it's not just senior colleagues who possess that capacity - it's everyone! Just give them a chance to develop it - as the ICS does!
And if in doubt, ask them in Birmingham, or Westminster, or Brighton, or on Tyneside; in Torfaen, or Aberdeenshire, Belfast or Dublin!
Ossie Hopkins, Institute of Customer Service.
By Ossie Hopkins on 24/07/2009 @ 10:50:29 | Country: England |
|
|
Showing 1 to 5 of 5 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
