This is the first of four essays that explore components in
a public realm provision transformational process.
They are published here in draft format for discussion. When
completed all the essays will be published on the RnR Organisation web site.
This first essay provides an outline of definition and
issues within a transformational process. Subsequent essays will explore the
Current and Possible public realm ecosystem, Component Two, Supply chain
development (Wave Impact) within public realm funded programmes, Component Three
and the link between term used within commissioning and tendering and the ‘absolute’
definition, Component Four.
We have used the term component as a title for each essay as
we believe to identify transformation within public realm activity we need to
identify specific ‘components’ within the current activity as well as
clarifying terminology used.
A fifth, and final essay will bring together all the issues
outlined in the first four, exploring how they can influence transformation
within public realm services.
These essays will influence the focus and activity of RnR Organisation
in the future.
To comment or discuss content please contact RnR.Organisation@gmail.com
______________________________________________________________________
Component
One – Definitions and issues
Public realm, public service,
transformation, and the issue of palimpsest.
Public service to public
realm
The first element of this
component is the terminology we use throughout this and subsequent essays outlining
other components in transformation.
The primary
task in a service transformation process is distinguishing the service
provision, the funding source, and the describing terminology used in such a
process. In projects that are part of a ‘welfare provision’ it may be obvious
who is providing the funding; however, it has become more difficult to identify
who is providing the service.
The creation
of internal markets, private finance initiatives, academies, commissioning,
tendering and contracting have created a wide variety of service
provision.
The strategic development of provision is still the remit of national
government, through a departmental delivery system. Some activities are the
responsibility of local government, but such roles have diminished due to
funding structures. Increasingly, the local authority structure is used to
deliver national government policies through commissioning and contracting, as
part of the ‘open and free market’.
The principle
of commissioning within public expenditure increases the number of organisations
involved in service and project delivery, thus widening the ‘public sector’
concept to accommodate neoliberal principles that an open and free market
increases choice and maximises the ‘benefits’[remuneration] of public
expenditure.
Services are
delivered through commissioning and procurement processes, or by selling off
services through a bidding process through a variety of ‘conduit vehicles’. Organisations
or companies are still funded by public funds, but are they public services?
The ‘market’
delivered activities are still referred to as public services, irrespective of
the provider or the route of any excess/profit from the activity.
To encompass
the myriad of processes of delivery of services we in RnR Organisation use the
term ‘public realm’ services, services whose source of finance is derived from
the ‘public purse’. We use this term so that we can discuss the transformation
of ‘products or services’ delivered by organisations to beneficiaries,
irrespective of the organisation or process that delivers the service. The
service remains within the public realm, accessible in the same way, or with
some changes. It is not, however, a public service delivered by staff employed
through a public body. It is delivered by a variety of organisations and
companies, some of whom may be community run social enterprises, reinvesting
any excess, or others where part of any ‘public’ funding is retained as
excess/profit, not employed for its project function but distributed to
shareholders or owners.
Acknowledging this difference is not just one of semantics
but an acknowledgement of the changes in the public funding pathway. Whereas
local Authorities and councils used to provide a wide range of services their
role has, over a number of reforms, been modified into that of a facilitator
/provider of commissions.
Transformation
clarification of public service remit
The second
element explores the potential for innovative or novel transformation, given
the reforms that have taken place over the past twenty years.
As if the
reforms undertaken by the Thatcher and subsequent governments were not enough,
the term ‘transformation’ continues to be used within an almost continuous process
of restructuring services.
The current
‘transformation’ agenda therefore exists within an environment which views
public services, developed and provided by national or local government
departments, as a thing of the past.
Public realm
funding, national government expenditure, however, continues to be spent, in
silo departments, within a linear decision making process, ensuring that
political strategy and values are implemented to operational programmes into
the ‘market’ through a commissioning process. fig 1
So what
exactly is being transformed? Who is leading that transformation, and what is
the perceived outcome of such reforms? Given the austerity budgets since 2011
it would be simple enough to suggest that a neoliberal, free market, public
expenditure reductionist agenda is in the ascendancy.
Transformation,
in such a climate, and after such major reforms and the ‘selling off’ of
services, would seemingly finish what is left of public sector delivered
funding, if not public realm services all together.
Yet, in this potentially
darkest hour for public realm services, we would contend that there is an
opportunity to truly transform how National and Local government services as
well as other publicly paid-for services can be delivered, thus utilising
public funding and transforming the role of public bodies as enablers and
facilitators
Historical context, terminology and purpose
To begin the
exploration of such a transformation we need to ask three questions to address
the historical context, to challenge some terminology and to identify a remit/purpose.
1.
What
are public services? - a brief one paragraph explanation!! Beginning with
the 1601 Poor Law, financed from property owners, the process had a geographic
focus, in those days parishes - not to alleviate poverty, but to control the 'lower orders', and to reinforce a sense of social
hierarchy. There were amendments throughout the subsequent centuries, expanded
by the creation of Local Authorities and associated Acts that added
responsibility for roads, water, electricity, gas and education. Their growth
and subsequent decline is well documented.
2.
Who
are the stakeholders? Are we customers? Both these terms have been recently adopted
and are widely used within service planning and delivery. Do individual
stakeholders have different perceptions of public services, what is delivered
and what, as recipients, is expected? Can a beneficiary of a service, a
customer, also be a participant in delivering that service?
In
public realm services the answer is yes, but the majority of planning provides
a distinct separation between provider and recipient. In the way the two terms
are used is there a difference between stakeholder and customer? We would argue
that there isn’t.
By
adopting such nebulous terminology there is a danger of developing services
within restricted ‘stakeholder / customer’ categorisation, separating/compartmentalising
those involved into those who deliver, and those who receive. It becomes a
deficiency service model, with recipients who have defined problems that need
resolving, by those with the skills to resolve. In developing such programmes
within ‘silo department’ funding sources, stakeholders/customers/providers
become compartmentalised into simplistic pigeonholes: problem, provider and
recipient. Funding follows this formula.
There
is no scope in this model for considering how to fit ‘stakeholders/customers’
into more than one category, to consider the possibility that an individual may
participate in more than one role within a service - a provider can also be a
recipient, and can fit into a number of categories.
3.
More
difficult in ‘welfare services’? Given
the breadth of public expenditure it may be more difficult within ‘welfare’
provision to identify role(s) and remit(s). While infrastructure projects,
roads, water etc. are easy to define within measurable outcomes, delivery of
welfare services, personal development, care, etc., can be more subjective.
Services are developed to ameliorate identified issues and problems - services
designed within a deficiency model.
Compartmentalisation of problems leads
to subjective deficiency definitions, and thus provides project titles such as ‘Troubled
Families’, ‘People with Multiple and Complex Needs’, ‘Disaffected communities’
etc. These are projects developed within a deficiency/‘medical model’,
delivered by staff frequently recruited from a specific social class,
potentially delivering a “we know best” programme.
Dichotomy in the development and delivery
process
The
deficiency model delivery and the development of stakeholder/customer
involvement create a dichotomy in the development and delivery process.
Providers input and views can outweigh those of the recipient, thus reducing
the impact of stakeholder involvement making any co-design and production
activity meaningless.
Community assets
Later
components in this series will explore the role, not of distinguishing between
recipient or providers but rather of recognising and developing individuals as
‘assets’ within communities, and incorporating such practice, and ultimately
resources, in developing a neighbourhood (community) support process and
provision.
Transformation
- an issue of palimpsest*?
The last
element acknowledges that no transformation of public services takes place on a
blank canvas, but on an existing blue print that is drawn and re-drawn over the
years. Current service provision bears the marks of historical development and
delivery, previous processes and incarnations, the potential, perceivable and
the unachieved, impossible to remove or wipe clean.
Public sector
reform/transformation is undertaken within the data it gathers from the silos,
data from its services, related to problems it has identified, and solutions it
wishes to impose. It is influenced by fiscal constraints of public funding - such
activity is promoted as reform and restructuring which, in itself, is
potentially disproportionally influenced by those employed to deliver the
process, protecting their status and income.
Terms such as
‘co-design’ or ‘co-production’ are used to augment ‘stakeholder’ involvement in
service development - service development that remains fiscally restricted,
silo data-driven and output orientated.
True reform
We believe
that true reform, even within fiscal restrictions, is possible, if driven by
decision making using a wider range of processes and data. Such reform or
transformation has to be built on previous and current activities, but the
‘components’ outlined in this series of essays forming the core of a
re-thinking, the transformation of provision.
We believe that participants in such delivery should be from
as wide a range as possible and include the process of accumulating as much
data and ‘skilled assets’ as possible, in order to redraw any current
‘blueprint’ of how public realm expenditure impacts on individuals, not only at
a service delivery level but also at a neighbourhood and community level.
* Palimpsest noun [ C ] - /ˈpæl.ɪm.sest/ /ˈpæl.ɪm.sest/
A very old text or document in which writing has been removed and covered or replaced by new writing - something such as a work of art that has many levels of meaning, types of style, etc. that build on each other;
(fig1) Current
Model, linear Process
Words and images ©
2017 
No comments:
Post a Comment