In a recent article in the Guardian, Jane Dudman reflects on a think tank report by the Institute For Government (IFG) on the process of outsourcing public services. The report entitled Making Public Service Markets Work suggests that the Government and Civil Service does not cope very well with the transition of service delivery, particularly where this is needed at a local level, demanding the involvement of a broad range of providers. One example in the report is that of Probation Services and the transfer of tagging contracts to two major providers who were not managed sufficiently well and in due course both G4S and SERCO emerged as being deficient. Yet the Government is looking for a large number of much smaller contracts for some of the services they want to see outsourced. If they cannot control two large contracts, then as IFG is arguing, the civil service will need to substantially improve their game to deal with the future plans.

There are a number of issues that the Government and we as their employer need to consider:

In the cut and thrust of policy discussions in Parliament far too much energy is expended on confrontational debates based on competing ideologies and too little on the nature of any change itself and assessing the time and cost of implementing these changes. It is relatively easy to change pieces of paper and write policies although the Parliamentarians can sometimes make this an ordeal in itself. By comparison making major changes to public services takes years and requires many willing hands and feet. It may seem that a G4S or SERCO solution is an easy and quick one, but for various reasons these are not suitable for most of the changes ahead. The worst of all worlds as the Government has already experienced with some DWP changes is to commission large providers to work with small local agencies to deliver services. This leaves the Government unable to direct the local provision and paying  management fees to organisations that may not fully understand what is happening on the ground. It is clear that the failure to engage effectively with probation staff is at least one of the areas where more work is needed if the reforms are be enacted with any success.

The commissioning of local services is something of a science in itself, and whilst there is some way to go, local government have committed resources to finding new ways of working over the last few years in areas such as provision for children and families and adult social care. Alongside this, the recently elected Police and Crime Commissioners are now beginning to establish commissioning structures. It seems bizarre that the Ministry of Justice is not planning to work in a manner that complements the potential shared commissioning arrangements that is best practice in some areas of the UK. This would maximise the opportunity for jointly commissioned activities and allow the cost of the commissioning process itself to be shared across a number of service areas.

Finally, even local government has much to learn about the culture of the voluntary sector and small to medium size businesses. The problems often emerge in the details of processes, that point towards using clumsy bureaucracy trying to manage innovation. One example is where local government decides they want to encourage partnership activity across a number of organisations helping to spread the risk and strengthen the innovation for a particular service. However the forms in use were not designed with a partnership in mind and because the process must take place with a degree of separation from the commissioners the desired partnership bids are bound to fail. Another example is where SMEs are expected to have a certain level of insurance cover in order to enter a tender process. Because entering the process takes time and there is no certainty that the businesses will win the tender, the businesses either withdraw from the process or else spend money on Insurance cover they may never need. Often this is because the tender conditions are set with the largest possible contracts in mind, and not tailored to meet the specific work on offer. Again a failure to enter into meaningful dialogue prevents this sort of failure from being rectified.

As we enter a period when our Probation Services are about to undergo a seismic change, it seems that Damian Green has either not read the IFG report or is too arrogant to stop and consider what he needs to do to ensure that his reforms stand any chance of success. In his mind he has already finished the hard work and now it is down to others to deliver, his only role is to force the reforms through. However there is too much evidence that the delivery is at serious risk of failure for us as tax payers to sit quietly by and hope for the best.