The Enabling State: Where Are We Now? Background Review of Policy Developments Reports 2013-2018 Jennifer Wallace (Editor) the Enabling State: Where Are We Now?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Enabling State: Where are we now? Background Review of policy developments reports 2013-2018 Jennifer Wallace (Editor) The Enabling State: Where are we now? Enabling Wellbeing Policy Analysis The Enabling State: Where are we now? 2019 Acknowledgements The Carnegie UK Trust team on this project included: Jenny Brotchie, Natalie Hancox, Alison Manson, Rebekah Menzies and Issy Petrie. The team carried out the desk-based reviews for Scotland and Wales. The Northern Ireland review was carried out by Stratagem and the England Review carried out by Caroline Slocock and Steve Wyler. The reviews were then considered by the following experts prior to publication: • Scotland: Sophie Flemig, Assistant Director & EC Fellow, Centre for Service Excellence (CenSE), University of Edinburgh • England: Rich Wilson, Director of OSCA • Wales: Emma Taylor- Collins, Senior Research Officer (Research, Analysis and Policy), Alliance for Useful Evidence • Northern Ireland: Karen Smyth, Head of Policy and Governance, Northern Ireland Local Government Association We are grateful to all the contributors for the time and effort they have put into this publication The text of this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license visit, http://creativecommons.org/licenses by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. B Contents 1. Introduction and methodology 2 4. Scotland 70 1.1 Methods 5 4.1 From target setting to outcomes 70 4.2 From top-down to bottom up 75 2. England 8 4.3 From representation to participation 79 2.1 From target setting to outcomes 8 4.4 From Silos to Working Together/Integration 85 2.2 From top-down to bottom up 13 4.5 From crisis intervention to prevention 87 2.3 From representation to participation 17 4.6 From recipients to co-producers / from doing-to to doing-with 91 2.4 From Silos to Working Together/Integration 22 4.7 From the state to community ownership 2.5 From crisis intervention to prevention 25 and management 94 2.6 From recipients to co-producers / Bibliography 98 from doing-to to doing-with 28 2.7 From the state to community ownership and management 31 5. Wales 106 Bibliography 36 5.1 From target setting to outcomes 106 5.2 From top-down to bottom up 110 3. Northern Ireland 43 5.3 From representation to participation 113 3.1 From target setting to outcomes 43 5.4 From Silos to Working Together/Integration: 117 3.2 From top-down to bottom up 48 5.5 From crisis intervention to prevention: 119 3.3 From representation to participation 50 5.6 From recipients to co-producers / from doing-to to doing-with 123 3.4 From Silos to Working Together 54 5.7 From state to community ownership 3.5 From crisis intervention to prevention 59 and management: 126 3.6 From recipients to co-producers / Bibliography 128 from doing-to to doing-with 61 3.7 From state to community ownership and management 63 3.8 Increases in volunteering 65 Bibliography 65 1 The Enabling State: Where are we now? 1. Introduction and methodology Five years ago the Carnegie UK Trust published The Shifts toward the Enabling State are driven by a Rise of the Enabling State (Wallace, 2013). A review number of positive and negative factors including: of over 180 policy sources, The Rise of the Enabling State identified seven interconnected policy shifts • Circumstances: A gathering storm of social, evident across the UK (see Figure 1). Together these environmental and economic pressures on public broad shifts constitute the shift from the traditional services that meant that business as usual was no Welfare State to the Enabling State: a state that longer an option without a fundamental rethink seeks to take a whole of government approach of how public services are designed and delivered and to empower individuals and communities and (Wallace, 2013). Simultaneously, citizens have higher Table 1 provides a description of what these shifts expectations about the degree to which they can entail. These shifts are complex, interdependent and have autonomy, choice and influence within and on far from risk free. the services they receive. Figure 1: The shift from Welfare State to Enabling State WELFARE ENABLING STATE STATE target setting outcomes top-down bottom-up representation participation silos working together crisis management prevention doing to doing with state third sector 2 Review of policy developments 2013-2018 Table 1: Description of the Enabling State policy shifts Shift Description From target setting A shift to managing performance based on outcomes rather to outcomes than inputs and processes From top-down to A shift of power from central to local tiers of government bottom up From representation A shift toward supporting and opening up opportunities for to participation participatory democracy From Silos to A shift toward the integration of public services, both Working Together/ horizontal and vertical Integration From crisis intervention A shift to interventions which can minimise or mitigate to prevention negative outcomes From recipients to co- A shift toward the direct involvement of users in the producers / from doing-to to production of their own services doing-with From the state to A shift toward more community involvement in the delivery community ownership and management of services and assets and management 3 The Enabling State: Where are we now? • Failure: A growing understanding that even when • Circumstances: the austerity and rising demand resources had been more plentiful, the welfare that create a drive to transform models of public state had not improved the outcomes of everyone service delivery also make it very difficult to achieve in society to the same degree as evidenced by transformation as public services exist in a constant continuing and stubborn inequalities, and, that state of crisis. this, too, required a different way of working (Elvidge, 2012). Analysis post – Brexit referendum • Structures and regulation: The shift is taking has highlighted ‘deep divides’ in the UK with a place within structures and regulations set up for significant proportion of the population feeling traditional public service delivery (and to manage ‘left behind’ and feeling that politicians and those very real risks). in power do not understand or represent their interests or concerns (Goodwin & Heath, 2016). Five years on from the Rise of the Enabling State the gap between ambition and implementation can feel • Evidence: Growing evidence that our sense of as great as ever. The demographic and budgetary agency and control, the degree to which we pressures on public services are continuing and are engaged in civic action, and the strength of increasing. The need for more personalised, responsive our social interactions, are all critical factors in public services and for citizen voice is stronger than determining our overall wellbeing (see Wilson et al ever and the failure to translate this into reality never 2018 for discussion). more obvious. The Carnegie UK Trust research has identified that Our work is also one of the few analyses that takes a changes in organisational practice in response to cross-jurisdictional approach, giving as much space the above shifts are piecemeal, often feeling like to the approaches in the devolved legislatures of they go against the grain on the mainstream public Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as we do to sector (Murphy & Wallace, 2016) and that the overall England. We are reporting as we come to the 20th approach presents risks (Wallace, 2013). At the same anniversary of the devolution, and the scrutiny time there are significant inhibitors which act to curtail provided here provides insight into how the devolved and derail the shift (some of which are also drivers). administrations have changed their approach to These also present risks and include: governance, moving further away from a Whitehall model and moving faster towards and Enabling State • Norms: a culture that emphasises efficiency, rules, than the ‘English’ system has been able to. professionalism, accountability and competition over empathy, kindness and collaboration (Unwin, 2018). 4 Review of policy developments 2013-2018 1.1 Methods Bibliography To assess progress we carried out a desk based review Elvidge, J. (2012) A Routemap to an Enabling State of policy and practice developments since 2013. Dunfermline, Carnegie UK Trust To analyse developments consistently across each jurisdiction we used a framework of indicators related Murphy, T. and Wallace, J. (2016) The Enabling State in to each of the 7 policy shifts in Figure 1. Practice Dunfermline, Carnegie UK Trust The Northern Ireland and England reviews were carried Wallace, J. (2013) The Rise of the Enabling State out by jurisdictional experts in these policy areas. Dunfermline, Carnegie UK Trust Respectively these were: Stratagem (Northern Ireland) and Caroline Slocock and Steve Wyler (England). The Wilson, R. et al (2018) Good and Bad Help OSCA/NESTA Scotland and Wales reviews were carried out by the Carnegie UK Trust Enabling State team. The reviews were then sense checked by the following expert external reviewers: • Scotland: Sophie Flemig, Assistant Director & EC Fellow, Centre for Service Excellence (CenSE), University of Edinburgh • England: Rich Wilson, Director of OSCA • Wales: Emma Taylor- Collins, Senior Research Officer (Research, Analysis and Policy), Alliance for Useful Evidence • Northern Ireland: Karen Smyth, Head of Policy and Governance, Northern Ireland Local Government Association The common assessment framework is set out in table 2. 5 The Enabling State: Where are we now? Table 2: Assessment Framework Shifts Indicators (baseline is 2013) • Evidence of new/improved strategic policy developments in outcomes based performance management at a local and national level • Evidence of new/improved service management level policy developments in outcomes based performance management 1.