UK Government experience in Performance Framework Reform Max Everest-Phillips, Director UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence International Symposium on Excellence in Public Service/Public Administration, New Delhi, 7-9 October 2014

Characteristics of ‘performance frameworks’ All governments have a framework One size does not fit all It is a journey Each step/innovation must achieve something All improvement means change Frontline services are delivered at the frontline Outcomes that matter often cross departmental barriers Outcomes are co-produced Data can drive improvement but only if it leads to action All change needs managing (Ray Shostak, Dec 2013)

An example of a ‘performance framework’ Openness and transparency Accountability and responsibility Objectivity Independent assessment Dynamic site: real data, real time Accessibility 24/7 Simplicity and clarity Credibility to Parliament and the wider public Shared responsibility for outcomes-based performance (with our partners) Sharpening focus - driving improvement (From ‘Scotland Performs’ – 10 guiding principles) The Scotland Performs website measures and reports progress on Government in Scotland's priorities, set out in the National Performance Framework. This webpage sets out the 10 guiding principles for assessing and reporting progress on Scotland Performs. It also explains, how these principles are applied in practice to the analytical and technical considerations required to enable progress to be measured and reported.

Department of Education Department for Transport Driving performance: Ministries or the centre of Government? DELIVERY PARTNERS Local Authorities Police Forces Executive Agencies NHS Trusts The Third Sector CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Department of Health Home Office Ministry of Defence Department of Education Department for Transport & other departments Downing Street, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury (including PMDU/IU) Key principles of the strategy for public services embedding value for money across the public sector, to ensure that record levels of investment are translated into ongoing improvements in outcomes and service quality, and to release the resources needed to meet new priorities in the decade ahead; In Austria – the government’s approach to increasing efficiency included: focussing on key cross-government priorities, through a strengthened performance management framework which galvanises departments to work together in tackling long-term challenges; e.g. climate change, child poverty responding to the needs of users, by shifting accountability of services to the communities and citizens they serve, and by exploiting new technologies and delivery mechanisms to make services more accessible and convenient for consumers.   UK Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) role since 2001: Delivery = implementation of government policies and public services. Relentless and holistic focus on delivery recognising that setting a target is not an end in itself. 35 staff, roughly 1 person per PSA, Staff seconded from government departments, consultancies, regulatory bodies (Audit Commission), front-line managers Jointly accountable to PM and Chancellor, based in HMT Ideally, would want it not to need to exist How was ‘performance budgeting’ defined? “any budget that presents information on what agencies have done or expect to do with the money provided”

A framework for managing outcomes: ACCOUNTABILITY with consequences To President/Prime Minister To Parliament By Institution By Individual Government Strategy Goals/Ambitions For parliamentary period Set Whole of Government PRIORITIES (for Years1/2/3) Policy, Objectives and Targets by and across Ministry Government Non Government Delivery Partners Programmes, Objectives, Milestones, Deliverables Institutions and Individuals Aligned as Government Plan BUDGETING FOR RESULTS (multiple years) Programme budgets against results Unit costing Monitoring Efficiency Joint procurement ……. MONITORING, CAPACITY BUILDING and INTERVENTION CULTURE Outcomes focus Data rich Can do Real time monitoring Reform SKILLS Problem solving Cost benefit analysis Engagement Evaluation ACTION When off track The broad direction of policy came from the Party’s manifesto and the programme of Parliamentary legislation, but specifics within these were driven by policies and priorities of the government and its individual departments and agencies Approaches to financial management and efficiency (i.e. value for money) was based on the ‘Budgeting for Results’ approach Transparency, generally, and accountability to specific institutions, depending on the individual agency or role were considered key pillars of this framework Monitoring, capacity building and intervention were considered key targets, and the approaches deployed included: impacting on work cultures within government departments and agencies, and developing skills within staff to take forward the initiatives being driven from the centre. Outcomes for and with citizens

Role of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU): Unblocking Delivery Obstacles Performance Policy Performance Monitoring Capacity Building & Cross Govt Learning on Delivery Reporting: Prime Minister Secretaries of State Senior officials The Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit was established in June 2001 to monitor progress on and strengthen the UK Government’s capacity to deliver its key priorities across education, health, crime and transport. The Unit reported to the Prime Minister through the Head of the Civil Service (the Cabinet Secretary). The Unit was abolished in 2010. It was headed by the Prime Minister’s Chief Adviser on Delivery, who was initially Professor Sir Michael Barber. He left in mid-2005 and was replaced by Ian Watmore, the head of the Cabinet Office Delivery and Transformation Group, in January 2006. Following Ian Watmore's departure in mid-2007, Ray Shostak CBE was appointed to the lead the unit. The Unit worked in partnership with the HM Treasury, 10 Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and stakeholder departments within the Government of the United Kingdom, to assess delivery and provide performance management for the Government's top public priorities. From 2006 to 2010, the Unit was also jointly responsible for monitoring performance across all the indicators in the Public service agreements. The Unit was abolished by the Coalition Government in October 2010, with remaining staff re-allocated to the Performance and Reform Unit in HM Treasury. Public Service Agreements were also abolished in June 2010.   In terms of Performance Management, the key functions of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) included: Unblocking delivery obstacles i.e. progress reviews, problem solving, follow-up work with and brokering between government departments Developing and implementing Performance Policy i.e. Performance Frameworks, Excellence, cross-departmental working Capacity building and Cross-government learning on delivery, i.e. knowledge management, departmental delivery units, networks and training, etc. Performance Monitoring, i.e. Data tracking and reporting

Monitoring UK Public Service Agreements (PSAs) 1998 to 2007: A single system for public accountability and internal ‘policy’ performance management Delivery Agreement based on budget and outcomes Clear accountability architecture (official/ministerial) Range of national indicators that interfaced with local providers – including targets (i.e. what success looks like) A focus on cross cutting public service outcomes Constant monitoring of progress Programmes to develop capability Increase in frontline staff and citizen engagement PMDU support to Departments to analyze and unblock obstacles Alignment with the sub-national framework Unblocking obstacles when performance off-track What are Public Service Agreements? Since their introduction in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), Public Service Agreements (PSAs) have played a vital role in galvanising public service delivery and driving major improvements in outcomes. Building on this success, the Government worked with frontline professionals, the public and external experts to renew the performance management framework for the next decade. The culmination of this work was the announcement in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (CSR 2007) in October 2007 of 30 new PSAs. These set out the Government's highest priority outcomes for the CSR 2007 period, 2008/09 to 2010/11. Each PSA was underpinned by a single Delivery Agreement, shared across all contributing departments, and developed in consultation with delivery partners and frontline workers. They also described the small basket of national outcome-focussed performance indicators that were be used to measure progress towards each PSA. A subset of indicators also had specific national targets or minimum standards attached. Details were set out in the relevant Delivery Agreement. All other national indicators were expected to improve against baseline trends over the course of the spending review period.

A change of approach – 2010 onwards: From ‘BIG GOVERNMENT’ To ‘BIG SOCIETY’ State Citizens Civil society DECENTRALIZATION Citizens Civil society State Much of the 2010 General Election was fought around the issue of the recession and the public borrowing deficit. However, whilst economic policy was highly salient, there was little fundamental difference between the parties over what needed to be done. All three of the major parties accepted the need to cut the deficit through reducing public expenditure. What the response to the crisis did reveal was fundamental differences between the parties over the role of the state and the relationship between the state and the market. Labour's answer to the crisis was increasingly a traditional Keynesian and social democratic response whilst the Conservatives raised the prospect of the ‘Big Society’ as a mechanism for reducing the size and scope of activity of the state.   According to the Coalition Government (in power in the UK since 2010) ‘Big Society is about shifting the culture – from government action to local action. It is about equipping people and organisations with the power and resources they need to make a real difference in their communities. This idea stems from the premise that throughout UK’s communities there is a great appetite and untapped potential for involvement in local initiatives and people do want to make a difference in their area. It was perceived that what often stood in the way and takes the time is the unnecessary bureaucracy – red tape, filling in countless forms. Instead it saw a key role for civil society. The Government’s focus was meant to be on making it as easy as possible for civil society organisations to help shape and deliver UK public services, making it easier to set up and run a civil society organisation and to get more resources to the sector. The Government announced a new taskforce, run jointly between Cabinet Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which looked specifically at the issue of cutting red tape, and reducing the amount of regulation, monitoring and reporting imposed on charities, social enterprises and voluntary organisations. In addition, the Government committed itself to training 5000 Community Organisers across the country. These people would be in the frontline to facilitate local action and give support to groups looking to come together to tackle identified problems. Choice and competition increased Payment by results introduced Democratic accountability enhanced

Reflections on the future: We have a much better understanding of ‘what works’ in this space Numerous countries trying similar approaches But the DNA is hard to change Approaches are not finding it easy to hop between countries Need to find solutions that alter the way Government thinks Political leadership is key Incentives and culture probably more important

Our approach at GCPSE: Excellence in public service means delivering effective, efficient and equitable basic services We believe, that achieving excellence requires: Effective political economy dynamics A strong sense of purpose A clear vision, and A pragmatic flexibility These form the basis of four core themes that anchor GCPSE’s agenda: Cooperation between political and administrative leadership Motivation of public service officials Capacity for long-term Planning, Foresight and Complexity Innovation We at GCPSE consolidate the best thinking on public service policies, strategies and institutional innovation from around the globe and share it with senior policy makers worldwide. We do this because strong public services are often societies’ most powerful development resource. A strong public service can build institutions that play a huge role in enabling people to fulfil their potential within an environment where their ideas, actions and society as a whole can flourish. Operational since December 2012, the Centre was founded by the Government of Singapore and UNDP. It represents a unique collaboration. Singapore is a global leader in public service excellence, which has been a driving force behind the nation’s rapid economic and social successes. The country’s achievements provide inspiration for others seeking to build a professional public service with integrity, diversity and a focus on clients and results. Co-operation between Political and Administrative Leadership Development is hampered if political and administrative leaders do not co-operate. A lack of trust, poor co- ordination, as well as differing motives and time horizons often militate against achieving a collaborative relationship. Where trust is built and objectives are aligned, this interface becomes effective. Motivation of Public Service Officials Public sector ethos matters. Superior and sustained performance depends on attitudes, emotions and ambitions, not just economic incentives. Where public officials are highly motivated and have a sense of empathy with the populations they serve, individual outputs are of higher quality, their approaches are more innovative and development outcomes are more inclusive and sustainable. Capacity for Long-term Planning, Foresight and Complexity Policy makers face a diversity of challenges and wicked problems that add to the uncertainty and complexity of their task. Making sense of the complex and organic nature of today’s development challenges requires the ability to scan and analyze the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead and to respond with visions and adaptive long- term plans. This is crucial for public service resilience and its ability to deliver results in a complex, fast changing environment. Innovation In the face of today’s public service challenges, public officials need mind-sets and processes that are innovative and flexible. This will allow adaption and experimentation, empowerment to think and act differently (e.g. complexity theory, design thinking, horizon scanning), collaboration and engagement (e.g. social innovation), and continuous improvement of capabilities (e.g. action learning). The innovation potential can be realised when knowledge, ideas, experimentation and collaboration come together.

Our approach: A cohesive theory of change The GCPSE Approach   GCPSE participates in and enriches the wide-ranging global development debate. At the same time, it focuses on its core themes to offer a cohesive theory of change depicted by a triangle with politics, administration and society as its apices, centred on trust and accountability. Change is best carried out when there is congruence in the relationships between the administrative, political and societal spheres. This is only possible when trust and accountability permeate this space. Drivers of integrity and service orientation will then propel public service towards excellence. GCPSE leverages on UNDP’s presence in more than 170 offices in developing countries, regional centres and headquarters, working with them to catalyse positive change in public services.

Thank you Thank you everyone for listening. And thank you too, to the UNDP India office for inviting me to present at this, the first International Symposium on Excellence in Public Service/Public Administration, and to Sumeeta Banerji – Assistant Country Director & Head (Democratic Governance) for her sharing some very useful resources. In making this presentation the impressions of two former civil servants has been most illuminating – first, Ray Shostak, who headed the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit and Performance Management and Member of Treasury Board of HM Treasury since October 2007 till the Department was abolished in 2010, and second – Jitinder Kohli, who spent 15 years in the British Government, including as Head of Productivity and Structural reform at the Treasury, where he led major reforms of the United Kingdom’s microeconomic framework to improve underlying productivity performance.