Slimming down the targets, by Colin Talbot

16 Aug 07
The scaling down of Public Service Agreements has been heralded as emblematic of a less centralist approach to performance management. But details of the new delivery agreements suggest otherwise

17 August 2007

The scaling down of Public Service Agreements has been heralded as emblematic of a less centralist approach to performance management. But details of the new delivery agreements suggest otherwise

One of the constant criticisms of New Labour has been its supposed obsession with targets. This has often been likened to Soviet-style command and control planning, with Gordon Brown accused of having Stalinist tendencies by a former senior official.

To be fair to New Labour, it didn't invent targets. By the time it came to power in 1997 most of the UK public sector had some form of mandated performance reporting: there were already national targets in health, for example.

True, these were not always explicit, but many were and almost no part of the system escaped some form of measurement.

There was one glaring exception —Whitehall itself. Government, or rather ministries, gave themselves no targets. Public Service Agreements — introduced with the Comprehensive Spending Review of 1998 — were the pinnacle of this measurement mountain.

From 1998 onwards, government departments had to set targets and report publicly on them. These were then supposed to form the basis of setting targets lower down the system, so 'joining-up' performance drivers from top to bottom.

For the past couple of years the government has been saying that it wants to move towards a more decentralised system. A top-down approach was necessary, so the argument goes, in the early days because public services were failing so badly.

You don't have the luxury of debate and consultation when the house is on fire, you need someone in charge. Failing schools and long waiting lists for health treatments were crises that had to be dealt with through the smack of firm government.

Now, apparently, the crisis is over: targets worked and the public services are on a more even keel. Now it is time for a more gentle, caring, involving and decentralised approach. Targets are to be mercilessly scythed down and the responsibility for delivering devolved nearer the front line. There is talk of creating 'self-improving systems' that do not require central intervention once established.

Most emblematically, the government is due to announce in October that PSAs — the pinnacle of targetry — are to be vastly scaled down. Andy Burnham, the new chief secretary to the Treasury, announced as much a few weeks ago, in an interview with the Guardian. The subtext here was obvious. The message that targets are dead was itself carefully targeted by announcing it on the front page.

There are two problems with this narrative: money and reality. When the former chief secretary Stephen Timms gave evidence to the Treasury select committee in January he specifically attributed the improvements in health and education to PSAs.

But is this really true?

Any sober evaluation of PSAs' impact would have to see them in the context of increased public spending. Are improvements in services a result of PSAs or more money? The answer is probably mixed: in some areas PSAs helped concentrate the extra resources on priorities in a positive way and in others they were less successful.

The second problem is the reality (as opposed to the spin) about how the new system is supposed to work. PSAs are expected to number about 30 (down from about 160) and will not be tied to individual departments. There will be cross-government priorities, with one department designated as the lead, but with others in the frame in most cases.

The clear implication is that this reduction in top-level targets will be cascaded down into every aspect of public services.

But the detail says otherwise. Underneath each PSA will be a 'delivery agreement'. This will involve all the key players in the 'delivery chain' for this specific target in signing up to their own targets and priorities and monitoring systems to ensure delivery.

If we take an area such as child poverty, this would potentially involve hundreds of central and local public service bodies across multiple Whitehall turfs.

We don't know exactly what will be in these delivery agreements and the Treasury is being as secretive as ever about them.

A cynic might conclude that PSAs were being reduced through the device of pushing the actual target-setting down one level into the delivery agreements and hoping that no-one notices.

So when the Comprehensive Spending Review is published in October, don't just look at the

top-level PSAs; look at what's behind them. Then we'll be able to tell if the government really is on a targets diet, or just hiding the chocolate biscuits somewhere else.

Colin Talbot is professor of public policy and management and director of the Herbert Simon Institute at the University of Manchester

PFaug2007

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top