Leadership

Fascinating move by Jeremy Hunt at DH to ask Stuart Rose to advise on how to turn around failing hospitals. He has been asked to look at organisational culture and how to mentor leaders.

I liked what he said:

"Leadership, motivating staff and creating a culture where people are empowered to do things differently are crucial to the success of any organisation."

This move is only a part of a determined effort by the health service to improve the quality of its leadership. Too often people in top positions in the public sector, and indeed elsewhere, think making improvements is all down to process and structure and regulation. That is important but the key difference a good Leader can make is often the crucial element in success. So Jeremy Hunt MP was right when he said about this announcement that “the difference between good and bad care can often lies in leadership."

But when I hear of initiatives like this I think about how poor our own sector often is on supporting leadership. Very little money is spent on developing leaders. There is a paucity of good quality leadership development.

Our own experience in ACEVO is that there has been a major drop in leaders attending development courses; partly money and partly time are to blame.

We do know that often it is one-to-one, tailored support that is key to development. Which is why ACEVO invests heavily in mentoring and advice and support services.  There has certainly been a big rise in demand for this. But I am not sure that we can neglect the more formal development support of the sort the NHS Academy is now providing. Where is our own Third Sector Leadership Academy? Where is the top academic support to be found?

One of the disasters of the claw back in central funding support for capacity building has been the decline in resources for leadership development. So I'm currently looking at what we might do to provide that top class quality input to the sector. It will require funding. And at a serious level so we are even looking for the first time at how we might fundraise for this.

I know our sector has strong leaders. However, we are sometimes complacent as we pat ourselves on the back and compare ourselves to greedy commerce and a bureaucratic public sector. There is a demonstrable need for better Leaders at many levels in the third sector. As public spending continues to contract, we need to make the difference through better-equipped Leaders. So we need to find ways to provide better Leadership development.

Ed and flooding

Good to see Ed, and indeed many others at the Hugo Young Lecture. A good lecture, and the first time Ed has talked about a "people empowered" public service. He is right to talk about how we give people power over the services they own and pay for. Too many public services are delivered in ways that treat the public as passive recipients who ought to be grateful for the service they get.

But he was much less explicit on the issue of who delivers the public service. As Blair would have said "what matters is what is delivered, not who provides the service".

He was critical of private sector provision - and rightly so. He was not clear whether he was still keen on opening up public services to different delivery organisations. As I said to him afterwards, there are thousands of “people-powered organisations". They are called charities and social enterprises. They are able to articulate voice and deliver more citizen focused services. They are the organisations Ed was talking about when he said he wanted professionals to enable people to network. We will continue this discussion he said.

So I suspect a "work in progress". More flesh is needed on how in reality such people powered services are delivered. You
cannot ignore the issue of more diversity of provision and that means councils and other state bodies loosing their right to deliver a service if people powered organisations can do it better. 

A somewhat windy and decidedly wet weekend in Charlbury. Rather cut down on the rambling with the Hound; the mill stream is a lake and our other favourite walk up to Ditchley was far too hard work across deep muddy fields.  

But at least there are signs of coming spring. Our graveyard is set on the slopes of a valley looking out to the Wychwood Forest in the distance. A charming spot in the winter sun. I have reserved my plot here; its becoming crowded so better get in before they make cremation compulsory!

 And it’s high up so no danger of getting my dead feet wet….

Citizens' Rights in public services

Later today I will be at the Hugo Young lecture at the Guardian building along the canal. Ed Miliband MP will be making his first speech as Leader of the Opposition on public service reform. Having spoken strongly on the need for better rights for consumers and tackling unaccountable monopoly behaviour in the private sector, he needed to address just those issues in public services. And judging by the leaks of the speech it will be a good start. I wish him well.

From my many conversations with him when he was Third Sector Minister, I know he thinks deeply about how to expand the role of our sector in public service provision. So I have been disappointed so far that he has not tackled this issue.

In advance I wrote to Ed to argue for a more radical agenda, about entrenching citizen rights in legislation.

I wrote;

Dear Ed,

When you served as the country’s first Minister for the Third Sector, I enjoyed working with you on the very first third sector delivery plan. Great strides were made, but it is now time to go much further if our citizens are to have the public services they deserve.

You will be setting out Labour’s initial ideas on how to take public service reform further at the Hugo Young Lecture on Monday. As you know, I have always been a huge supporter of giving citizens real choice and voice in our public service in order to provide the services our citizens need.

Over the course of this parliament, the Government has made obeisances to this vision. It has extended the rights to challenge and acquire assets and these are strongly supported in our sector. We also welcomed the cross-party support for Chris White MP’s Social Value Act.  Bringing such community and citizen action into our public services should mean that power flows from those at the centre to the users of public services. It should mean that people have a say on the decisions – in health, employment or whenever they are at their most vulnerable – that affect their lives.

However, despite these developments, it will not surprise you to learn that the ambition of the Government’s vision on public service reform has been only partially realised in its delivery. I am writing to you today to urge you to learn from these mistakes as you put together your plan for public services reform.

Crucially, the Government has made two significant errors.

The first concerns monopoly. Public sector monopolies on key services were never the way to empower citizens. However, the breaking open of these monopolies has been managed poorly. Consider the example of the restructured health commissioning system. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 promised to create a locally-led commissioning structure, led by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) with much closer connections to their communities.

Private sector companies have in fact been highly aggressive in their tactics and have cornered the market with their purchasing power.  Government policies have aided and abetted these practices. There is an over-reliance on competitive tendering which has favoured the large-scale private sector at the expense of more citizen-focused organisations. While small and local organisations continue to struggle to get a hearing from CCGs in many cases, recent figures even showed that CCGs have spent over £5 million on legal fees alone to avoid litigation from private providers.

To overcome this imbalance, charities and social enterprises have tried valiantly to work with the private sector. However this has proved extremely challenging at times. In the Work Programme, for example, several private-sector prime providers have been guilty of poor treatment of civil society subcontractors, including failing to refer sufficient clients, and refusing to lessen the degree of financial risk to which subcontractors are exposed. This has seen many community organisations who enter into such agreements being ‘set up to fail.’ It has reduced the diversity and expertise of the provider market as well-regarded, skilled, specialised civil society organisations such as St Mungo’s have been forced to pull out of delivery on grounds of cost, to the immense detriment of those who would benefit from their services.

The result is that there exist now in our country large deserts of disempowerment where large, private companies  dominate service delivery contracts and relegate community-focused providers to the margins. A number of high-profile scandals – including recent allegations of significant overcharging by two major companies - reflect the pitfalls of giving so much responsibility to a handful of private organisations. It reflects the folly of replacing public sector monopolies with private sector oligopolies.

Secondly there is the question of citizens’ rights. Citizens’ rights are both a key component of good public services and a solution to the current problem.

The Government’s Localism Act 2012 gave citizens new rights, such as the Right to Challenge, which provide communities with new opportunities to get involved with their local services. However, these rights and the rhetoric behind them have suffered from a lack of support and follow-through. As the problems with the Government’s public services plans have accumulated, their appetite for serious public service reform appears to have waned.

We need a renewed focus on more developed citizens’ rights in our public services. Paying lip-service to citizens’ rights is not enough. Public services will only empower citizens, build their capabilities and give people control and agency over their lives, if they have a real say in the design and direction of the services they use.

I have been impressed by your rhetoric on citizens’ rights but I want you to go further. I believe that the next Government needs to commission a full review across every area of our public services that should seek outline the scope of citizens’ rights across every interstice. From health to welfare, from employment to justice, and their commissioning, design and delivery.

I suggest that this review give serious weight to establishing two basic rights for citizens and communities.

The first is a ‘right to voice’ for members of the public. ACEVO previously proposed this in our official response to the Open Public Services white paper. This would formalise the principle that citizens and communities should by default have a say in the design and direction of public services through collaborative and community-based commissioning procedures.

The second is a ‘right to choice.’ This right would stress the importance of meaningful choice between different approaches to service delivery - for example, by enabling health care recipients to choose home- or community-based forms of treatment and support wherever possible. These sensitive decisions are best made by individuals and their families, not by bureaucrats.

These rights should made law. They should be enshrined in appropriate legislation, and in statements of practice such as the NHS constitution, which should outline mechanisms for enforcement and redress. I propose that the Crown Representative for the Voluntary Sector be given a clear responsibility for holding government to account for the implementation and delivery of these rights. This would also help ensure that these are developed with citizens in mind, alongside citizen-focused community service providers that deliver genuinely different alternatives for users to choose from.

I believe that robust national leadership is essential if we are to move towards a new, empowering model for our public services. The implementation of public service reform has too often emphasised narrow cost savings rather than the engagement, collaboration and social value that come with truly intelligent commissioning processes. This worked against collaborative, community and citizen-focussed organisations. It has too often worked for large private and public sector interests, against civil society and citizens.

Establishing and promulgating proper rights to choice and voice in our public services will help break the oligopolies accruing around our public services. It will give citizens a real stake and say in the services that matter to them. I hope that you agree and that you will do what is required to realise this important vision.

Yours sincerely,

Sir Stephen Bubb

So tonight I'm looking forward to a renewed commitment from Ed, to citizens and communities and their public services, and to how our sector can deliver exactly that. Strange parallels with David Cameron's Hugo Young lecture a few years back - when he was Leader of the Opposition - on the Big Society. We spoke privately beforehand about ACEVO's work in our 'Replacing the State' project, and he was taken by our ideas. Will be interesting to see how he responds to this evening's speech.

Under attack?

Well, seems a bit like open season this week. The Mail on their hobby horse anti-charity campaign on pay, an excruciating Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on the Charity Commission, and then the ludicrous outpourings of the “Institute of Economic Affairs".

The Mail was particularly poor and biased. It could have referred to the ACEVO "Good Pay Guide" which makes all the points needed about transparency and shows how our sector is responsive and alive to concerns on top pay. If I thought it would go anywhere I'd ask for a Right of Reply.

The PAC report was, frankly, expected. The criticisms were fair but needed to be balanced by a recognition of funding cuts which limit ability to act. My worry is that this undermines our regulator when we need to have a strong Charity Commission. We also do not want a knee-jerk reaction from the Commission that forgets their role in maintaining trust and confidence because they are too busy being the sector police.

The fuss recently about Public Appointments has been fascinating. Dame Sally Morgan was criticising too many political place people being put on quangos and referenced the Chair of the Commission. She could have also referenced the composition of the new CC board. Only one person from our sector. The rest not. And far too many with political links on the right. This does not enhance the credibility of the Commission and if they are wise they will appoint more independent folk from our sector when vacancies occur. We will watch with interest who is appointed CEO. It's been made clear that they do not want to appoint someone from the third sector. We will be watching to see exactly who is appointed and their experience and knowledge of our sector. And I don't just mean giving at the Christmas appeal or a few quid in a raffle.

Then, whilst on my hobby horse, there is the IEA returning to their insultingly termed "sock puppets" diatribe. Of course what they want is for us to shut up. They want us running soup kitchens and keeping stum about the causes of poverty. I have news for them. We shan't.

And how do they square the need to diversify public service provision through more delivery through contracts with the third sector with their diatribe on "taxpayer" funded charities. I look forward to their pamphlet on sock puppet private sector companies like SERCO, A4E or Capita who also have taxpayer money for their contracts to deliver services.

Lastly, a letter my Director of Public Policy sent to 'City AM' after their article on the latest IEA publication. They printed one letter that strongly supported the "sock puppet" people, but seemingly not this one. It is efficient and makes the point well. So I reproduce it here:

Sir,

The Institute of Economic Affairs’ ‘sock doctrine’ theory of charity lobbying [‘How charities lavish millions of taxpayer money on left-wing campaigns’, City AM, 5 February 2014] is fundamentally flawed. Policy-makers should welcome the input of charities. They bring unparalleled expertise and experience to the policy-making process, not to mention experience of issues on the ground.

Charities have always been instrumental in improving public policy. The charitable Anti-Slavery Society led the successful campaign for slavery’s abolition in the 1830s. Each charity must decide how best to use its resources to fulfil its public benefit mission. If a charity concludes that advocating policy change would be an effective means to advance its charitable aims, they have not only a right but a duty to do so.

The IEA has got it exactly wrong: a true ‘sock puppet’ charity would abandon its voice – and therefore its mission – after receiving government funding. It would seek to quell criticism of government action. That thousands of charities are speaking out against the Government on issues ranging from homelessness to the lobbying act - and not the IEA - should lead anyone to question who the real ‘sock puppets’ are.

Asheem Singh

Director of Public Policy

ACEVO – the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations

Indeed! ‎

Events...

It was just one of those things. Supposed to be in Venice for the weekend but partner suffering complications from a gall bladder removal so had to cancel. London instead, and as alternative to moping we went and celebrated at Chez Bruce, South London's top restaurant. Miriam Margoyles was there. That brought back memories; not of Harry Potter though! In 1982 she signed my nomination papers for me to stand for the Council in Clapham Town (the other person signing was that great author Angela Carter!).

Strange to be in London when the PM and President of France were having lunch in one of my favourite pubs, 5 miles up the road through the lovely Wychwood forest from  Charlbury. The swan has a gorgeous position by the river Windrush in the typically charming Cotswolds village of Swinbrook. The pub is owned by the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire - the last remaining Mitford sister. The village Church up the road has the graves of 4 of the other famous sisters, Unity (friend of Adolf), Diana (who married Moseley) Nancy (the author, perhaps best known for the "U and non U" debate and books like "The Pursuit of Love") and Pamela (the farmer). Jessica Mitford was the Red in the family (a member of the American Communist Party) and died in America. She was cremated inexpensively. She wrote that brilliant book about the American funeral racket, "The American way of Death". I went to her Memorial service in London in 1996. A pertinent quote from one of her books is most apposite,

 "You may not be able to change the world but at least you can embarrass the guilty".   

 The PM showed great taste in choosing the Swan. It really is one of the country's most beautiful spots. Go there!

And it being Candlemas I took myself off to All Saints, Margaret St for Evensong and Benediction. A good time for reflection and thinking about a dilemma. I had been asked to talk on the prime 8.10 slot on the Today programme. Not, on this occasion with my ACEVO hat, but as an independent Public Appointments Assessor. It's a role I have been undertaking for some years, where occasionally I chair public appointment interviews and make recommendations to Ministers. People often forget I was an HR Director for 5 years before my current role! The public body appointment process has had some attention over the weekend with comments from Sally Morgan who has been chairing Ofsted. After a lot of reflection, although I was happy to talk about the process and my experience, it had all got too mired in party politics and best to stay out. Unusual for me to turn down a slot on Today, let alone the prime one, but wise counsels prevailed. In fact our public appointments process has great merit which the current row rather overlooks. 

C"est la vie. As they now say at The Swan.