We love public and voluntary service bloggers. At their best, they capture the day-to-day reality of public services in a way that Westminster-commentators can’t – and they have the real expertise and insights we need to improve social policy. Here’s our selection of the best frontline blogs we’ve read this week. Do send us your suggestions for great posts we’ve missed – and those frontline bloggers we should follow in the future.
From The Big Picture
Posted on 23rd October 2012
“What are A4E up to next? Well according to David Cameron they would make an ideal company, along with our old friends G4S, to become involved in the process of Rehabilitation… The scheme will see firms such as G4S and A4e, along with charities and voluntary groups, offered cash incentives to put offenders back on the straight and narrow. We already give these companies enough money, and now we’re going to give them more? Do they have a proven track record?”
Retired and Angry, retired from the Metropolitan Police Service, examines the recent history of A4E – and doesn’t much like what he finds.
From Ned Ludd Carer
Posted on 24th October 2012
“Surely, if the carers and service users find these services valuable, that should count for a lot. But in the world of cuts, they don’t care what works, what’s valuable. They just want the overspend caused by their own unrealistically low budget reduced.”
Ned Ludd, carer, gets angry when ambushed by his local council’s plans to cut personally valuable “getting a life services”.
From The Age Page
Posted on 25th October 2012
“For a variety of reasons, most older people are unable to complain or express a view on the type and nature of care they need or want to receive. Worst of all perhaps, most are unable to influence the quality of service they have every right to expect or how or where to lodge complaints, if they have any.”
Sarah Reed reflects on the ambitions in the Government’s dementia strategy, and suggests this means we need to ensure that those who struggle to speak for themselves can be heard.
From John Tomsett
Posted on 21st October 2012
“If Jeremy Hunt announced a backward-looking reform to appendix operations which would be hugely invasive and leave patients in hospital for a fortnight (such as I experienced in 1977), the medical profession would deride him. Why aren’t we deriding Gove over his EBC proposals, which are the educational equivalent?”
Headteacher John Tomsett argues that educationalists need to begin an urgent campaign to provide an alternative to the Government’s proposals for an English Baccalaureate Certificate.
From Laura McInerney (@miss_mcinerney) writing on lkmco
Posted on 23rd October 2012
“ED Hirsch’s ‘Cultural Literacy’ has become quite popular in England this week due to him featuring on a Radio 4’s Analysis and also being the subject of a blog by Daisy Christodolou, Managing Director of The Curriculum Centre. Hirsch is the man who wrote the book ‘Cultural Literacy’ which he followed by creating ‘Core knowledge‘ an age-ordered curriculum with an emphasis on facts that, if taught correctly, he argues will give children the most important cultural knowledge. But to understand his work it helps to understand its American context, as the reason for his popularity in the States is really quite different to the way his ideas are being framed in the debate here in England.”
In this post Laura McInerny describes Hirsch’s model of ‘cultural literacy’ and its roots in the US – and questions how appropriate it is for the UK.
From Inspector Gadget
Posted on 22nd October 2012
“I have read the PM’s plans for ‘payment by results’ in terms of the re-offending rates of prison inmates with interest. This will not work. A bit like trying to use the wrong gate, ministers need to listen to police on this one. I’m sure it will be shown to have worked, but it won’t work for the simple reason that these days, criminals only go to prison in the first place if they are persistent offenders.”
Inspector Gadget argues that the use of payment by results won’t work to reduce re-offending. He speculates that this idea probably came from a think tank who in turn have been sponsored by an organisation with an interest in securing ex-offender rehabilitation contracts. Inspector Gadget argues that the most effective way to deter ex-offenders from re-offending is a lengthy stay in a closed prison, preferably far away from home.
Posted on 24th October 2012
“I want us to be bold and imaginative about transforming policing and the wider criminal justice system to save time and money and deliver a better service for the public. These are the words of our ‘beloved’ Home Secretary which she used to describe her latest improvement to the way Police investigate and prosecute offences. This bold and imaginative move introduces the power for Police to independently charge a number of offences that currently require consultation with the CPS.”
MinimumCover welcomes reforms to charging powers – but questions whether Theresa May can call these proposals ‘bold’ or ‘imaginative’ when they return powers that the police used to hold previously.
If you’re a frontline blogger, do send us your latest blogs on policy issues or posts from the past that you’re particularly proud of, and they could be included in next week’s round-up. Get in touch with us at: email@example.com or via Twitter @guerillapolicy and @guerrillapolicy
We don’t need secret recordings – the policy establishment’s disdain for public service workers is hidden in plain sightPosted: September 24, 2012
“Best you learn your f***ing place. You don’t run this f***ing government. You’re f***ing plebs. I’ll have your f***ing job for this.” So ranted the Government’s Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell to members of SO6, the Diplomatic Protection Group guarding Downing Street, according to the Sun newspaper. Unlike Mitt Romney’s recent remarks we don’t have the secretly-recorded video footage, but whether Mitchell said these exact words doesn’t matter. The policy establishment’s disdain for public service workers is there for all to see – just look at their policies and how they develop them.
Andrew Mitchell claims he actually said: “You guys are supposed to f***ing help us.” Whatever his actual words, Mitchell’s tirade was especially tasteless given that the group of officers he swore at included a female officer, just over 24 hours after the murders of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes in Manchester. It’s also pretty special to verbally abuse the people who spend their working lives protecting you. Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, said it was “hard to fathom how someone who holds the police in such contempt could be allowed to hold a public office.” Unfortunately, it’s not that hard to fathom at all – indeed such attitudes appear to be the driving force behind much public service reform over the past 30 years or so.
Much commentary has focused on the class dimensions of ‘Gate-gate’ (and whether or not Mitchell uttered the apparently politically lethal word ‘plebs’). As the Sun Says: “It is something a smug, fabulously-rich snob might say to belittle his badly-behaved butler. And as such it reinforces the view that millions of ordinary hard- working voters already have …That Britain is run by an upper-class clique — happily slapping VAT on pasties and freezing pensioners’ allowances while handing tax cuts to the super-rich.” Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph wasn’t alone in noting the potential toxicity of the incident to the Tories, but also that such behaviours aren’t unique to one party: “Labour is declaring itself appalled, though frankly that’s a bit rich from the party whose previous leader failed to shake the copper’s hand outside No10 and called an old lady a ‘bigot’.” Such incidents are cock-ups; they also indicate an underlying elitism and detachment prevalent in the political establishment.
Unlike Mitt Romney’s “47 per cent” remarks, we don’t have video footage (yet) of what Mitchell said. But like Romney, what the police offers claim Mitchell said to them represents an essentially dismissive attitude to working people – a worldview described by Paul Krugman in the New York Times this week with reference to the Romney video: “…the modern Republican Party just doesn’t have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party’s affection is reserved for “job creators,” aka employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families.”
Much the same attitude seems to be prevalent in the policy establishment here regarding public service workers – that they are somehow ‘failures’ for not having had the entrepreneurial zeal to have established their own internet marketing companies (or something equally socially productive), having decided instead to fritter away their time serving others – educating children, treating patients, cleaning streets and so on.
In the case of Mitchell’s outburst, we don’t need to see the video footage from Downing Street’s security cameras, since the policy establishment’s view of public service workers is hidden in plain sight. If the policy establishment had a greater genuine regard for the people who provide public services, they might deign to engage them in working out how public services can be improved, and especially in how policy is developed such that it supports this improvement. Instead, public service workers are more typically regarded as the ‘problem’ to be resolved (and as interests to be battled) – part of the obstructive ‘state monopolies’ that need to be broken up, rather than sources of expertise and insight that should be recognised and respected. This explains why all the main political parties would like to ‘liberate’ public sector workers so that they run their own providing organisations as part of a competitive market in public services – at least then they might join the vaunted ranks of the ‘wealth creators’, albeit at a lowly rank.
The issue then is not so much social class as the types of social occupation now common in the political establishment. It’s probably not a coincidence that both Mitt Romney and Andrew Mitchell have backgrounds in management consultancy – Romney in Boston Consulting before moving to Bain, and Mitchell as a Senior Strategy Advisor for Accenture. In this respect, both are typical of a political establishment that comprises people who have never worked in public services but nonetheless feel they know how services can be ‘made’ to work better by (re-)ordering those who do.
Perhaps then the most helpful reaction to Mitchell’s outburst has been from an unnamed Cabinet minister, who suggested to the Telegraph that he should consider volunteering to work alongside police for a few days as a penance. “It’s what you do in this sort of thing, isn’t it?” the minister said. “A few days in a high-visibility jacket with the cops could be just the thing for Andrew.”
Christopher Hitchens used to evaluate the credibility of any person or organisation by their willingness to cite ‘evidence against interests’, that is, to acknowledge facts that are contrary to their own position. It’s a good test – and one that many policymakers, commentators and think tanks would fail regularly. With this in mind, we should challenge our own view that social policy would be better if it was informed by the people who use and provide public services – after all, doesn’t the Hillsborough cover-up show that we can’t trust bodies such as the police not to put their own interests before the public interest?
We’ve argued previously against the view, promoted in particular by right-wing think tanks and commentators but implicitly taken up by much of thinktankland, that public sector workers and ‘user groups’ need to be largely ignored in policy development because they are inevitably self-interested and self-serving. Our view is that social policy would be better if it was informed by the expertise, experience and insight from the frontline.
In the case of Hillsborough, as the publication last week of the report of the Independent Panel confirmed, the police engaged in an extensive and coordinated cover-up of the truth. This went all the way to the top of the South Yorkshire Police. Chief Constable Peter Wright authorised the alteration of police statements to delete words like ‘chaos’, ‘fear’, and ‘confusion’ in criticism of the police operation, in order to enable the police and others to blame Liverpool supporters for the disaster. 164 police statements were altered in the wake of the disaster, and 116 of these received substantial changes to remove comments “unhelpful to the force’s case.”
The coroner also took blood alcohol levels from all of the deceased, including children, to try to draw a link between the late arrival of fans and heavy drinking. Perhaps most sickeningly of all, police officers carried out computer checks on those who had died in an attempt to impugn their reputations. As one comment on the Liverpool Echo‘s website asked last week: “How could such a cover up have happened? So many different authorities getting away with lies. And to get away with it for so long is simply astonishing. They must know the hurt and the pain that they have caused for so long. And still they continued to hide behind the lies, carrying on with their own lives and careers.”
This type of behaviour is not confined to the police of course. NHS staff have abused and neglected patients, and hospitals have tried to cover it up and threaten whistle blowers. Charities have mistreated and ignored the vulnerable adults and children they claim to care for. Public sector trade unions have bullied their own members and failed to represent their real views and interests; they have also stopped managers from dealing with poorly performing employees or from improving services for the public. Given this, why should we listen to the people who provide services? Won’t they always represent their own interests first?
The problem is institutions, not individuals. There will always be some people who act badly and harm others, including inevitably in public services. But only badly led and managed organisations can effectively legitimize such behaviour and try to silence those who challenge it. When we argue that the people who provide public services should have a greater role in policy, we don’t mean a stronger role for those organisations such as large charities or trade unions that can already promote their views to policymakers, rather we’re talking about the individuals on the frontline who are ignored not only by policymakers but also sometimes by the organisations that claim to represent them.
Could the Hillsborough cover-up ever happen again? Some columnists have suggested that the ‘forensic transparency’ now offered by mobile phones and Twitter would make it much more difficult and that there is a danger of over-reacting to scandals such as the Hillsborough cover-up by not trusting any public institutions. But the best mainstream media article of the week for me was by Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph, who recognised the broader implications:
“Over the years, the police have been one British institution that has proudly stood comparison with the very best in the world: unarmed (though less so than they used to be), impartial, independent and largely incorruptible. Perhaps that was always a naive caricature; but it was a view so deeply ingrained in our national psyche that we were unwilling to give credence to powerful evidence that suggested otherwise. However, it was not only the police who let down the Hillsborough families: the very institutions that most of us trust to get to the bottom of things – the courts, the media and Parliament – were all culpable.”
This is perhaps a rather middle class view – many working class communities have always had a less trusting view of the police – but it’s a strange week when the Guardian tells us to ‘go easy’ on the establishment and the Telegraph reminds us to be ever-watchful of those in power.
Surely the Hillsborough cover-up demonstrates that policy can’t be left to the establishment – that arrogance and remoteness breeds bad policy and leads to tragedy (as Daniel Taylor argued in the Observer yesterday). It reinforces the importance of the individuals who provide public services having a much greater voice in policy, so that they can speak freely and honestly outside of institutional interests and constraints.
Perhaps what’s most frightening about institutional power is not its ability to make evil decisions but its collective capacity for ignorance regarding of the effects of those decisions. The answer to the question from the commentator on the Liverpool Echo site is that such ignorance comes most easily to those remain safely distant from the consequences – another reason why we should listen more closely to those at the frontline, both service users and providers, rather than the policy establishment. As C. S. Lewis wrote:
“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of Admin. The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid dens of crime that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see the final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”
We’ve got lots of plans for the next few months as we develop Guerilla Policy. Our ambition is to create a movement of people and organisations who use and provide public services, working together to create better social policy. This is just the start. One of the things we’d love to do is create a hub for frontline practitioners and service users to blog about their work, their experiences and how they think policy needs to change.
We’ve written before here about our love of public and voluntary service bloggers, and how we’d almost always rather read a dispatch from the frontline than (largely) warmed-over opinion from a Westminster-centric commentator. At their best, frontline bloggers capture the day-to-day reality of public services in a way that no-one else can, including the dirty, difficult, and sometimes dangerous experiences that form the basis of real expertise and so the insights we need to improve social policy. For example, read BendyGirl‘s writing on the reality of welfare reform at Benefit Scrounging Scum (shortlisted for the 2012 Orwell Prize). These blogs are often highly informative, contentious, challenging, and sometimes as dull as real life – which after all is the reality of life at the frontline.
These bloggers often engage directly in policy issues, but from a practical, pragmatic and informed perspective that could surely be incorporated into policymaking before we’ve wasted millions of pounds (and harmed people’s lives) introducing policies that are destined to fail. So much ‘professional’ commentary is dominated by that week’s ‘inside baseball’ nonsense, to the exclusion of how policy effects real lives and how it could be improved. Frontline bloggers make policy real, sometimes uncomfortably so from the perspective of policy wonks – which is probably why their views aren’t usually invited into national policy debates (Guardian Professional Networks is a notable exception, along with parts of the trade press).
We want to put the real insiders where they belong – at the centre of policy. What we’re looking for are practitioners and services users who can provide a real-life perspective on policy – just as BendyGirl does on the reality of welfare. It doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself an expert – in fact, we’d prefer it if you didn’t (self-proclaimed ‘expertise’ often denoting an arrogance and insularity from other viewpoints). It doesn’t matter if you don’t know the ‘right’ words, because writing that’s worth reading doesn’t depend on anything other than your proximity to the reality of public and voluntary services. And it doesn’t matter if you can’t write for us every week (you have a life to live and a job to do, after all) – we’d prefer it if you posted when you have something to say and a bit of time to reflect.
If you already blog, we’d love to syndicate you here and hopefully add to you readership. And if you’ve never blogged before, why not give it a go – your voice deserves to be heard as much as anyone else’s. If you’re interested or have any questions, just fill out the form below and we’ll get back to you asap. We can’t pay you – but we can help you to put your name on policy.
This is a new series of posts in which we’ve invited people to give us their reactions to the New Think Tank project. First up: Phillippa Rose from Redfront. Thanks to Phillippa for contributing this post, and we welcome your comments.
Last month I was invited to contribute to a branding workshop for the currently described ‘New Think Tank’ – an experiment to develop new ways of making, and influencing public policy, from the ground up.
The notion of a bottom up think tank is in itself a bit of anomaly. People associate think tanks with ivory towers, white cubes, sometimes intimidating, and organisations steeped in high-level thinking, in all senses. Think tanks are associated with thorough research practice, sometimes publishing insights or data which influence policy, and challenging the status quo. They are rarely associated with people actually delivering public services, testing assumptions in the policies of the day. New Think Tank however advocates that “the people who experience the effects of social policy should have the opportunity to help shape it.”
At the branding workshop we looked at driving forces behind the initiative, role play, future scenario setting etc, to get a sense of the driving forces behind New Think Tank, perceptions in the room, and where this thing is going. It was a fascinating afternoon, with 20-30 people with varied views on the subjects raised. The room was made up of people working at the forefront of policy, business, charities, social enterprises. For me there was only one missing link – front line practitioners and service users. I think there was only one person there who worked in social services.
As a service designer, I have found it refreshing to see the New Think Tank testing assumptions online, consistently iterating and revising its approach in response to contributions and feedback in such an open and transparent way. I believe in Minimal Viable Product and Agile Development – trial and error, learning by doing, and involving user input from the very start. For the New Think Tank to be meaningful and make lasting impacts on policy, it needs to move to the next level, to specifically target service users and practitioners, and involve them on key areas to focus on, and practical action.
The concept and the thinking behind New Think Tank is new, exciting, fresh and has the potential to make a significant impact on policymakers, practitioners, and end users, experiencing these services. The messages are strong, the communications channels are established. With the official launch date June 1st, fast approaching now is the time to focus, perhaps one policy area at a time, or one locality at a time, who knows. It’s time to ask the people working with, and using public services.
Phillippa Rose from Redfront has enjoyed over ten years developing strategies, services and projects in the public and private sector. She has special interests in the following areas: innovation, co-creation, talent development and enterprise. At Redfront, Phillippa specialises in user-engagement, strategic partnerships, service innovation and networks.
Ten reasons why we need a new approach to developing social policy – 8. Policy would be more innovativePosted: May 16, 2012
This is the eighth in a series of posts on why social policy should be developed by and with the people who use and provide public and voluntary services. We’re publishing the rest of the series over the next week, and we welcome your comments.
With less money and, in the case of ‘rising tide’ issues such as an ageing society, less time as well, we need plenty of new ideas in social policy – but where they come from matters. Steve Jobs said that: “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” True, but a lot of innovation is sparked by seeing people’s needs close-up and figuring out better ways to meet them. This is why practitioners have created many of the best new approaches, and why we should distinguish between two types of innovation – those that seem like a good idea on paper but should stay there, and those that are good in practice because that’s where they’ve come from.
- new solutions are mostly developed in Whitehall departments and R&D labs in large technology firms (and indeed sometimes in think tanks);
- innovation grows out of major hardware solutions implemented at scale and business process re-engineering;
- process innovation (or ‘lean systems’) is the most effective way of improving efficiency;
- innovation is driven only by market or quasi-market competition; and
- the primary job of public servants and frontline practitioners is to implement what emerges from this pipeline.
The current Government would claim to have moved decisively away from this kind of thinking with its emphasis on ‘open public services‘, in which decentralisation, localism, choice and outcomes-based payments will create many more opportunities for grassroots-led innovation. But it continues to push ‘solutions’ such as lean and shared services, adheres even more than its predecessors to the importance of competition, and can’t restrain itself from introducing big ‘top-down’ reforms such as universal benefits and the Work Programme, Academies and free schools, Police Commissioners and the NHS reforms – many in the name of greater localism, it says, but with the obvious irony that they all are being pushed (imposed) from the centre.
Innovations dreamt up by civil servants and think tanks can be whizzy but can also lack groundedness, practicality, a proper analysis of possible bad outcomes, and a constituency of support necessary for successful implementation (pace the NHS reforms in particular). It would be tragic as a result if ‘innovation’ became a dirty word amongst practitioners – something that’s largely ‘done to’ them rather than ‘done by’ them. Fortunately however, there is a better way.
Secondly, then, practical innovation. Many of the most exciting ideas in public services over the past few years have come from practitioners and service users – personalisation and direct payments, family friendly policies, user voice (from the disability rights movement in particular), Nurse Family Partnerships, the Expert Patients Programme, The Swindon LIFE programme (developed by Participle with 15 local families), Keyring and Shared Lives in social care, the Richmond Fellowship’s RETAIN programme and Star Wards in mental health.
This isn’t surprising. Practitioners and users are much closer to problems, and they can see for themselves the ways in which existing services aren’t working (especially ‘failure demand‘ and where this stems from). Unlike most policy wonks, practitioners find it difficult to insulate themselves from the frustrations of services users, their families and local communities. Consequently, practitioners’ intelligence is akin to what W. Edwards Deming called ‘profound knowledge‘, rather than the partisanship and prejudice that often characterises policy debate in the Westminster bubble. Practitioners can also test out for themselves the viability of alternative approaches (though they often do it surreptitiously, which tells you something about how far we still have to go to create a system that supports frontline innovation).
This has important implications for policy. Practitioners and service users experience policy – they see firsthand how the approaches designed at the centre, from funding and commissioning to regulation and performance measurement, actually operates at the frontline. They are better positioned to anticipate how it will be interpreted and implemented, not according to the perfect blueprints of its creators but based on what happened when previous policy encountered reality. This includes the likely unintended consequences, for example, how measurement and targets can be ‘gamed’. From this, practitioners are also better placed than policy wonks to identify ways that policies act as barriers to better provision (whether the policy in question derives from central government or their own service or organisation), and so how policy could be reformed to create a more suitable and supportive environment for services including innovative approaches.
Think tanks can and have supported some of the practitioner-developed innovations mentioned above, and this has been important. But more often than not think tanks neglect others’ ideas in favour of their own (as part of the ‘battle of ideas‘ they cling to), and don’t do enough to build alliances with charities and campaigners. We might also wonder why it is that receiving a ‘seal of approval’ from think tanks matters so much, given their typical remove from the reality of life on the frontline.
What’s out-of-date then – what should be our priority for innovation – is the way we innovate in policy, including challenging the largely closed ‘innovation industry’ that inadvertently reinforces the idea that innovation is a specialised ‘elite activity’ beyond the reach of the rest of us. Instead, to get more fresh new ideas we need to go beyond the same old suspects. Focusing more on practitioner-led innovations will mean a greater practicality in new ideas. It will also – if we chose to listen – mean policy that’s better suited to frontline innovation. After all, if government can ask practitioners for suggestions of where to save money, there’s no reason it can’t ask them for their ideas to improve policy – which is also what this project is about.