
- Image via Wikipedia
A few months ago there was much media interest in a proposal by Mike Freer, then leader of Barnet Council, to change the relationship between local councils and the citizens it serves with the focus being on finding and delivering efficiencies.
I read an interesting article with Mr Freer in today’s Guardian which promptd me to scrawl these thoughts…
In summary the three pronged approach proposed is thus:
- Offer a basic set of services with additional or prioritised services subject to supplementary payments (where allowed within law). This element of the strategy led to the media labelling the proposal as creating “easyCouncils” after EasyJet and its no frills approach to business - somewhat disproportionately given it was only one part of the “Future Shape” strategy
- The consolidation (in the name of efficiency) and streamlining of back office public sector functions in an area (aka shared services) and the creation of (our old favorite) a central shared citizen database to enable easier access to citizen needs across multiple service areas reducing duplication of contact and service
- Targeted intervention strategies for those families who are “high cost” cases including a dedicated liaison officer per family.
In principle I think all this is pretty unexciting stuff - none of it is enormously groundbreaking, particularly points 2 & 3. Although I find unpalatable in the extreme the idea of ‘levels of service’ determined by the ability to pay. That’s just not in my view an acceptable way to deliver public services.
The idea of consolidating back office functions in Government is one I have experience of. Having been around a significant number of Public Sector ”back office streamlining and consolidation” or “single database” or “revised channel/service strategy” projects it’s not so much “easyCouncils” as (un)easyCouncils.
None of these things are insurmountable to deliver but they are not insignificant areas of change (people, process and technology) particularly when trying to maintain business operations as usual. These things require significant and sometimes extended up front and ongoing investment – financial and operational. New systems and new ways of working – across councils and departments while changing front line working practices (a change not easy to facilitate overnight). And who will foot that bill and for how long before savings are realised? And let’s not mention the legal wrangles that are sure to come or how this will impact any attempt at cross Council Service Provision comparison?
Followers of Vanguard and John Seddon would go even further and say that there is no evidence that these “shared service” models work at all: http://www.lgcplus.com/5010322.article
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done to reinvigorate local government and re-empowering local Councils to find new service models is fundamental to many things, not least reinvigorating our political system. But it definitely isn’t “easy”.
I am counting down the days until we start to hear the language of the last era of Public Sector austerity – the early 2000’s – and in particular that favorite phrase of the day: “Spend to Save”. It rolls off the tongue quite nicely doesn’t it. I can hear many Consultants across the land whispering it manta-like on their way to work…”Spend to Save”…”Spend to Save”…that’s right, repeat after me….
Related articles by Zemanta
- Council backs radical ‘easyJet’ services plan(guardian.co.uk)
- Former Barnet Council leader Mike Freer interviewed(guardian.co.uk)
- Report calls for mandatory shared back office(go.theregister.com)
- easyBarnet(fightingmonsters.wordpress.com)
- Fresh headache for Cameron after “easy council” plans ruled illegal(leftfootforward.org)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e7abdfa4-7523-4c82-9e33-bc39e42d742f)






