A Primer on Implemen ng Whole of Government Approaches · Public Administration and Helen Johnston at the National Economic & Social Council who generously shared their time and expertise

The Centre for Effective Services connects research, policy and practice to improve outcomes for communities, children and young people across the island of Ireland. Part of a new generation of intermediary organisations, CES is a not-for-profit that helps communities, children and young people thrive.

9 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2Ireland + 353 (0) 1 416 [email protected]

Forestview, Purdy’s Lane, Belfast BT8 7ARNorthern Ireland + 44 (0) 2890 648 [email protected]

www.effectiveservices.org

A Pr

imer

on

Impl

emen

ting

Who

le o

f Gov

ernm

ent A

ppro

ache

s

A Primer on Implemen�ng Whole of Government Approaches

53 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches

The authors of this report are: Anne Colgan, Lisa Ann Kennedy and Nuala Doherty of the Centre for Effective Services.

This report should be cited as follows: Colgan, A., Kennedy, L.A. and Doherty, N. (2014) A Primer on implementing whole of government approaches. Dublin: Centre for Effective Services.

AcknowledgementsThe Centre for Effective Services would like to acknowledge the contributions of Richard Boyle at the Institute of Public Administration and Helen Johnston at the National Economic & Social Council who generously shared their time and expertise. We would also like to thank Mary Doyle (Department of Education and Skills, Ireland), Jim Breslin (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Ireland), Dave Wall (Department for Social Development, Northern Ireland), and Katie Burke and Majella McCloskey of CES for reviewing early drafts of this publication.

Copyright © The Centre for Effective Services, 2014

Published by The Centre for Effective Services, Dublin

The Centre for Effective Services9 Harcourt StreetDublin 2, IrelandTel: +353 (0) 1 416 0500E-mail: [email protected]: www.effectiveservices.organd ForestviewPurdy’s LaneBelfast BT8 7ARTel: +44 (0) 28 9064 8362E-mail: [email protected]

The Centre for Effective Services (CES) is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee (Company Number 451580 and Charity Number 19438 in Ireland). The work of the Centre is supported by The Atlantic Philanthropies and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.

ISBN 978-0-9926269-2-1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the copyright holder.

For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to The Centre for Effective Services, 9 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.









ISBN 978-0-9926269-2-1



mailto:[email protected]:


http://www.effectiveservices.organd


mailto:[email protected]








Contents i

Contents

Foreword ii

Summary 1

Section 1: Whole of government approaches – An Overview 7

1.1 What is a ‘whole of government’ approach? 9

1.2 Why adopt a whole of government approach? 11

1.3 Internationalexperience:Howwholeofgovernmenthasbeenevolvingacross a range of countries 15

Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 21

2.1 Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy 23

2.2 The infrastructure for whole of government work 26

2.3 Challenges for whole of government approaches 30

2.4 AnImplementationScienceperspectiveonwholeofgovernmentapproaches 33

2.5 SummaryandConclusions 36

References 37

Appendices 43

Appendix1:Wholeofgovernmentinaction–ScotlandandNewZealand 45

Appendix2:Structuresusedforwholeofgovernmentwork,theirfeaturesanduses 50

ii APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches

Foreword

Foreword iii

ThemissionoftheCentreforEffectiveServicesistoconnectresearch,policyandpracticetoimproveoutcomesforcommunities,childrenandyoungpeopleacrosstheislandofIreland.Weareworkingto improve the evidence that policy-makers and practitionersdrawontomaketheirdecisionsandalsosupportinghowevidence-informedpoliciesandpracticesareimplemented.

Thisrequiresconsiderableconnectingandjoining-upofsystems,practicesandpolicies.CESstrivestostrengthenthelinksandtheconnectionsverticallyinthesystem,forexample,betweenpolicy-makers,commissionersofservicesandpractitionersattheservicedeliveryend.

OurworkexperienceatCEShastaughtusthatstrengtheningverticalconnectionsisnotenough.Thesystemneedstobe‘joined-up’betterhorizontally.Forexample,thenationalandinternationalevidenceonreformingchildren’sservicesidentifiesinteragencywork as a key ingredient to improving services and eventuallyoutcomesforchildrenandyoungpeople.TheChildren’sServicesCommitteesinIrelandandtheChildrenandYoungPeople’sStrategicPartnershipinNorthernIrelandarekeygovernmentpoliciesgearedtowardsachievingbetterinteragencyworkinservicesforchildren.

GiventherangeofGovernmentdepartmentsthathavearemitforchildrenandfamilies,thereisalsoaneedtoachieveconsiderablejoining-upandintegrationofpoliciesat‘wholeofgovernment’level.Therationaleforwholeofgovernmentworkistoeliminate‘silos’,ordepartmentsworkinginisolationfromoneanother,toachieveseamlessgovernment.Itaimstoavoidhavingdifferentpoliciescutacrossandundermineeachother,andtooptimisetheimpactofgovernmentbyusingalloftheinstrumentsatthedisposaloftheStateinanintegratedwayinsupportofparticularoutcomes.InIreland,oneoftheaimsattheestablishmentofafull,Cabinet-levelDepartmentofChildrenandYouthAffairswastostrengthenitscapacitytocoordinate,influenceand integrate across government to improve outcomes

forchildrenandyoungpeople.ThedevelopmentofBetter Outcomes, Brighter Futures: The National Policy Framework for Children and Young People, 2014-2020 is a whole of government policy framework with a central theme of whole of government implementation.Theneedtoworkacrossgovernmentis also highlighted in the Public Service Reform Plan, 2014-2016.ItplacesahighpriorityoncrucialenablingconditionsforawholeofgovernmentapproachandlaysthefoundationforthisworkacrossthepublicsectorinIreland.

InNorthernIreland,theProgramme for Government, 2011-2015commitstopromotingcross-departmentalworkinginareasthatcouldmostbenefitfromit.Delivering Social Change was set up as a framework tocoordinatekeyactionsacrossGovernmentdepartments to progress work on priority social policy areas.ItistakingforwardanumberofsignatureprogrammesthatbringtogetherseveralGovernmentdepartmentstojointlyfundactivitiesandworktogethertodelivernewwaysofworking.The10-year Strategy for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland represents a coordinated approach across Governmentdepartmentsandthewiderpublicsector.TheCivilServicePractical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland also provides useful guidance for cross-departmentalworking.

The focus of this Primer on implementing whole of government approacheswasinfluencedbytheseGovernmentdevelopmentsandtheexperienceofCESworkingtosupportsystemschange.Thereportlooksinternationallytoestablishhowothercountriesandjurisdictionshavebeenengaginginwholeofgovernmentwork.

Therearerelativelyfewsystematicevaluationsofwhole of government approaches and those that are availablepointtolimitedsuccess.Nevertheless,thosejurisdictionsthathaveinvestedheavilyarecontinuingto commit to this work and take a long-term view to demonstratingeffectiveness.Thepositiveresultsareintheareasofstrengtheningseamlessservicedelivery.

Foreword

iv APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches

CountriessuchasAustralia,CanadaandBritaininparticularintensifiedtheirfocusonthisapproachinthe1990s.InAustralia,NewZealandandScotland,therehasbeenastrongemphasisonintegratedservicedeliverydrivenbywholeofgovernmentpolicy.Othercountries,includingFinlandandtheNetherlands,have adopted a whole of government approach as a centralpartofpublicsectorreform.

Theexperienceofimplementingawholeofgovernment approach in several countries over many decadesandthevaluablelearningthathasemergedisdistilledinthisPrimer.Italsoexploresthebarriersandenablerstowholeofgovernmentworkandthisis where we get to the fundamental elements of theapproach.Thesuccessofjoined-upgovernmentdependsonclearobjectives,politicalcommitment,viablejoined-upGovernmentstructures,strongculturesofcollaborationandincentivestocollaborate.

Asetofpracticalstructuresorarrangementsareneededtomakewholeofgovernmentworkhappen.Short-terminitiativesmayrelyonmoreinformalstructures,whileprojectsintendedtobringaboutsignificantlong-termchangemayneedmorestronglyembeddedsystems.However,thedifferentstructuresareseenashavingstrengthsandweaknesses,andwillalwaysbetrumpedbytheverticallydefinedstructurewhichremainsattheheartofgovernmentmachinery.Therecanoftenbeanoveremphasisonstructurestoachievechangeandwhilenecessary,structuresarenotbythemselvesasufficientingredienttodeliverthiswayofworking.Theymustbeaccompaniedbysignificantchangesinleadershipandinculture,bothofwhichareintegralactiveingredientsinthewholeofgovernmentapproach.Theliteraturedescribesa‘craftsman’styleofpoliticalleadership,onethathastofocusonbuildingandsustainingrelationships,managingcomplexityandinterdependence,andmanagingmultipleandconflictingaccountabilities(Fafard,2013).Awholeofgovernmentapproachisdescribedas‘boundary-spanningwork’,whichcallsfortheenhancementofacollaborativemind-setamongpublicservantsandGovernmentMinisters.

Thiscultureshiftisatthecoreofwholeofgovernmentworkandneedstobeled,supported,prioritisedandincentivised.Itpresentsasignificantchallengefortheexistingsystemsandculture,butresonateswellwiththearticulatedpublicsectorreforminitiativesinIrelandandNorthernIreland.

ThisPrimerexaminesthepotentialofImplementationSciencetosupportawholeofgovernmentapproachinapracticalway.Animplementationframeworkisdescribedtoassistwithboththephasingandsequencingofthework,alongwiththeenablersthatneedtobeattendedtoateachofthestagesofimplementation.Thevalueofthisapproachisthatitisgroundedinsolidresearchandcouldoffersupporttobuildingtheevidencebaserequiredtomeasuretheprogressoftheworkanditsimpact.

Finally,wholeofgovernmentworkingislikelytobeafeatureofthepolicyimplementationlandscapein some form for the future given the increasing complexitiesofmoderngovernment.Thereisasensethat the approach which has interdepartmental collaborationasacorefeatureislikelytobenefitpoliciesandinitiativesacrosstheboard,notjustwholeofgovernmentprojects.Infact,thereisevidencethatawholeofgovernmentapproachisbecomingthenorminpolicydevelopment/implementationandmaybeadoptedas‘businessasusual’.

NUALA DOHERTYDirectorCentreforEffectiveServices

Summary 01

Summary

02 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches

Summary 03

Summary

What is a ‘whole of government’ approach?

‘Wholeofgovernment’isanoverarchingtermforagroupofresponsestotheproblemofincreasedfragmentationofthepublicsectorandpublicservicesandawishtoincreaseintegration,coordinationandcapacity(Ling,2002).Adesireforincreasedeffectivenessandincreasedefficiencygenerallydrivestheadoptionofwholeofgovernmentapproaches.However,untanglingtheconceptof‘wholeofgovernment’iscomplicatedbytherangeoftermsanddefinitionsassociatedwithit.

The case for whole of government approaches

Manybenefitshavebeenassociatedwithwholeofgovernmentapproachestopolicyissues.Thesearegenerallyrelatedtothefollowingissues:

• Outcomes-focused: WholeofgovernmentworkseekstoenableGovernmentdepartmentsandagenciestoachieveoutcomesthatcannotbeachievedbyworkinginisolationandtooptimisethoseoutcomesbyusingalltheresourcesatthedisposaloftheState.

• Boundary-spanning: PolicyimplementationregularlygoesbeyondtheremitofasingleMinister,departmentoragency.Children’swell-being,forexample,dependsonlinkingpolicydevelopmentandimplementationacrossseverallevelsofpublicpolicyandseveralactorswithinandoutsideGovernment.Boundary-spanninginterventionscancrossagencylinestosecurecitizen-centredoutcomes.

• Enabling: WholeofgovernmentapproachestopolicyareseenasenablingGovernmenttoaddresscomplexpolicychallenges,useknowledgeandexpertisewithinandoutsideGovernmentmoreeffectively,andintegratelevelsofGovernmentinsupportofmoreefficientandeffectiveservicedelivery.

• Strengthening prevention:Wholeofgovernmentapproachescanstrengthenapreventivefocusbytacklingissuesfromasystemicperspectiveastheyemerge,beforetheybecomeembedded.

The scope of whole of government work

Wholeofgovernmentworkhasbeenapplied:

• to deep-seated or ‘wicked’ problems,suchaspoverty,healthorhomelessness;• to crises and to strategic challenges,suchasclimatechange,globalterrorismanddisease

outbreaks;• as a means of delivering integrated service deliverytothepopulationasawholeortoaparticular

geographiccommunityortoacommunityofinterest,suchasyoungpeople,olderpeopleorbusinesses.

Wholeofgovernmentapproachescanbecostly.Theirsuitabilitymustbeassessedsincenoteverypolicyimplementationchallengeisamenabletoawholeofgovernmentapproach.Nevertheless,aculturethatfacilitatesinterdepartmentalcollaborationisalsolikelytobenefitprojectsthatdonotnecessarilyrequireawholeofgovernmentapproach.

The international experience

Severalcountrieshavebeenengaginginwholeofgovernmentworkovermanyyears.Canada,AustraliaandBritain,inparticular,intensifiedtheirfocusonthisapproachthroughoutthe1990s.InCanada,Australia,NewZealandandScotland,therehasbeenastrongpushforintegratedservicedeliverydrivenbywholeofgovernmentpolicydevelopmentatthecentreandlinkingcentralpolicy-makingwithlocaldelivery.Other


countries,includingFinlandandtheNetherlands,haveadoptedawholeofgovernmentapproachasacentralpartofpublicsectorreform.

InIreland,variouspublicsectorreformsovermanyyearshavebeenaimedatsupportingwholeofgovernmentworkandseveralwholeofgovernmentinitiativeshavefocusedonparticulargroups,geographicareasandspecificpolicyareas.

InNorthernIreland,theformalguidanceforpolicy-makerspromotesjoined-upworkingasacorepartofallpolicydevelopment.Therehasbeenastrongfocusonpartnerships,bothformalandinformal,asawayofimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy.

What does whole of government work involve?

Wholeofgovernmentapproachesrequireaparticularwayofworking,whichinvolves:

• Joining up at the centre to achieve a shared vision:Wholeofgovernmentworkinvolvesjoininguppolicy-makingatthecentreinsupportofimplementation.Thisisthefeaturethatdistinguishes it from interagency work.Allstakeholdersshouldhavethesamevisionandbuy-intothesamestrategicpriorities;furthermore,theyshouldbeconsultedfromthebeginning(i.e.atthestageofagenda-settingandpolicydevelopment).

• Boundary management:Incomplexpolicyimplementation,theboundariesbetweenGovernmentdepartments,betweenpolicy-makersandimplementationbodies,andbetweenlevels(nationalandlocal,policy-makersandfront-linepersonnel,administrativeandprofessionalpersonnel)mustbemanagedifimplementationistobeeffective.

• Managing interdependencies: Whole of government work also involves recognising and managing theinterdependenciesacrossareasofGovernmentandamonglevelsofimplementation–national,local,professionalandadministrative.

• Shared understanding:Inthecaseofdeep-seatedsocialproblems(so-called‘wicked’problems),suchaspoverty,crimeorobesity,asharedviewamongthestakeholdersabouttheunderlyingcausesoftheproblemisanessentialfoundationforeffectivewholeofgovernmentwork.

Doing whole of government work

Successfulwholeofgovernmentworkdependsonclearobjectives,politicalcommitment,viablejoined-upGovernmentstructures,strongculturesofcollaborationandincentivestocollaborate.Inparticular,engagingsuccessfullyinwholeofgovernmentworkrequires:

• Leadership:Ahighlevelofleadershipatthepoliticalandadministrativelevelisessentialforwholeofgovernmentwork.BothMinistersandseniorpublicservantsneedtobecommittedtotheapproach.

• Culture: Wholeofgovernmentstructuresarenecessary,butnotsufficientforeffectivewholeofgovernmentwork–newculturalcapacities,culturalreadinessandbehaviouralchangeareessential.Keyculturalcapacitiesincludetheabilitytoworkacrossboundaries,buildstrategicalliancesandrelationships,negotiate,managecomplexityandcapitaliseonopportunitiesaffordedbyinterdependence.

• New ways of thinking: Whole of government work requires a re-alignment of understandings aboutgoals,rolesandoutcomes,andashiftawayfromnarrowerdepartmentalobjectives.

• Networked governance:Thisinvolvesnewformsofaccountability,targets,budgetarymanagementsystemsandperformanceindicators.Italsorequiresafocusonmonitoringandevaluationofpolicyimplementationandoutcomes.

• Structures that align with purpose: Whole of government teams and other interagency/ interdepartmentalstructuresmustalignwithpurpose.Themorelong-termtheobjective,the

Summary 05

greatertheneedforformalstructures.Short-termprojectsmayrelyoninformalarrangements,whereasinitiativesaimedatachievinglong-termchangemayneedmorepermanentstructures,includinglegislation.

• New work processes:Theworkprocessesthatmattermostinwholeofgovernmentworkincludeclearandsometimesrestructuredlinesofaccountability,budgetaryparameters,androles,riskmanagement systems and performance management systems that reward whole of government workandwholeofgovernmentreportingarrangements.

• Managing ‘gaps’: Coredimensionsofthelinkagesamongkeyactorstobemanagedaspartofawholeofgovernmentinitiativehavebeentermed‘gaps’bytheOECD(ChabitandMichalun,2009).Theseincludetheinformationgap,thecapacitygap,thefiscalgap,theadministrativegapandthepolicygap.

• Providing supports:Capacitydevelopmentinitiativesareafeatureofwholeofgovernmentworkinseveralcountriesandincludebuildingrepositoriesofsharedlessonsandexperiences,practiceguidelines,jointtraining,networkinginitiativesandaccesstolearninganddevelopmentsupports.

Conclusion

Asignificantbodyofinternationalexperience,learningandinitiativesaboutimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicyhasemergedoverrecentdecades.Thishasresultedinamassiverepositoryof‘howto’material,butadearthofreflective,‘howweactuallydid’material.Thereasonstoadoptawholeofgovernmentapproachremainstrongandsound.However,implementingsuchapproachesrequiresduecareandattentionfromanearlystage.

Thegrowingnumberofchallengestogovernmentstodaythatrequirejoined-upthinkingandjoined-upworking,alongwiththeincreasingcomplexityofgovernmentitself,newtechnologicalopportunitiesandthechallengesofeconomicconstraints–allpointtotheneedforandvalueofwholeofgovernmentapproaches.

Acentralchallengetoinvestmentinwholeofgovernmentworkingistheabsenceofhardevidenceabout‘doesitwork?’(Ling,2002).Thereareseveraljurisdictions,includingCanada,Australia,NewZealand,ScotlandandtheNetherlands,thathaveinvestedheavilyinwholeofgovernmentworkingandarenotreversingoutofthatapproach.However,thereisrelativelylittlesystematicevaluationandthoseevaluationsthatareavailablepointtolimitedsuccess.Nevertheless,theaforementionedcountriesreportpositiveresultsinstrengtheningseamlessservicedelivery,alongsidechallengesinmanagingthecontinuingdominanceofverticallydefinedstructures.Generally,issueswithrealisingandsustainingthebenefitsofwholeofgovernmentappeartobecommonandtheoutcomesareregardedasmixed(deBríandBannister,2010).Thesecountriesreportpositiveresultsinintegratingback-officefunctions,butalsoreportthecontinuingdominanceof‘silos’,politicalbarriersandstructuralbarriers(Fafard,2013).Itseemsthattheverticallydefinedstructureremainsattheheartofgovernmentmachinery,atleastinOECDcountries(ibid).

Wholeofgovernmentworkingislikelytobeafeatureofthepolicyimplementationlandscapeinsomeformforthefuturegiventheincreasingcomplexitiesofthesocialandeconomiclandscape,bothnationallyandinternationally.Thechallengeistofindwaysofmakingitworktobesteffect.ImplementationScienceoffersscope to link the theory and research on whole of government approaches with emerging work on evidence-informedpolicyimplementationtoinformandguidefuturedevelopment.

Structure of report

ThisPrimeronimplementingwholeofgovernmentapproachesispresentedintwomainsections,asfollows:

• Section 1offersanoverviewofwholeofgovernmentapproaches,drawingontheexperienceofseveralcountries.Descriptionsanddefinitionsareofferedandanaccountofthescopeandrangeof whole of government working (Section 1.1).Thebenefitsclaimedforthisapproachtoachieving


thegoalsandoutcomesofpublicpolicyaredescribed(Section 1.2). A high-level account of the experienceandprocessesofwholeofgovernmentworkinanumberofcountriesisprovided(Section 1.3);thisaccountdoesnotsetouttobeevaluativeortodescribehowfartheseinitiativeshavesucceededintheirintent.

• Section 2 providesanoverviewofpolicydevelopmentandpolicyimplementationgenerallyasacontextforthinkingaboutwholeofgovernmentpolicy-making(Section 2.1).Withinthepolicyimplementationframework,therangeofpracticalstructuresandworkmethodsinuseinvariouscountriestodeliverwholeofgovernmentinitiativesaredescribed(Section 2.2).ThescopeofImplementationScienceframeworkstoofferasystematicapproachtowholeofgovernmentpolicyimplementationisputforward(Section 2.3)andsomeoverarchingconclusionsaredrawn.

Section1:Wholeofgovernmentapproaches–AnOverview 07

Section 1: Wholeofgovernmentapproaches–AnOverview



SECTION 1: Wholeofgovernmentapproaches–AnOverview

1.1 What is a ‘whole of government’ approach?

Theconceptof‘wholeofgovernment’hasbeendescribedasan overarching term for a group of responses to the problem of increased fragmentation of the public sector and public services and a wish to increase integration, coordination and capacity(Ling,2002).

Ithastobesaidattheoutsetthatthereisdifficultyinuntanglingtheconceptof‘wholeofgovernment’.Theliteraturepointstothe‘bewilderingblizzardofterms’inuseandthediversityofmeaningsattributedtotheseterms(Fafard,2013).Conceptsareinconsistentandpracticesoverlap,withdifferentterminologiesusedinundefinedways(Halliganet al,2011).

Terminologydiffersacrosscountries.Termsusedinclude‘joined-upgovernment’(inBritain),‘horizontalmanagement/government’(inCanada),‘integratedgovernment’(inNewZealand)and‘wholeofgovernment’(inAustralia).Thesetermshavebeendescribedas‘fashionableslogans’ratherthanprecisescientificconceptsandtheyareoftenusedinterchangeably(Lægreidet al,2013).

Definitionsof‘wholeofgovernment’alsovary.Somedefinitionscaptureoperationalobjectives,suchascoordinationandintegration,whileothersfocusonexpectedoutcomes;yetothersaddressthescopeor‘reach’ofthereformintent,andsomeattempttoaddressalloftheseconcepts.Someexamplesinclude(authors’emphasisinbold):

‘Joined up government initiatives seek to enhance coordination and integration within public sectors that have become too disjointed. They also seek to align incentives, structures and cultures of authority in order to fit critical tasks that cross organisational boundaries’ (TheEfficacyUnit,2009).

‘Whole of Government denotes public service agencies working across portfolio boundaries to achieve a shared goal and an integrated response to particular issues’ (Management Advisory Committee(AustralianGovernment),2004).

‘… coordination and management of a set of activities between two organisational units that do not have hierarchical control over each other and where the aim is to generate outcomes that cannot be achieved by units working in isolation’(Halligan et al,2011).


THE FOCUS OF WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT WORK

AswillbeseeninSection2,thefocusofwholeofgovernmentworkcanvaryconsiderably.Theemphasismaybeon:

• Organisational levels(e.g.interdepartmental,national–local),aswithHealthy Ireland,wheretheCabinetCommitteeonSocialPolicy,chairedbyAnTaoiseach,overseestheimplementationofamulti-stakeholderHealthandWellbeingProgrammespearheadedbytheDepartmentofHealth.

• Particular social groups(e.g.pensioners,immigrants),aswiththeUK’sPositive for Youth initiative,whichreflectsanewapproachtocross-Governmentpolicyforyoungpeopleaged13to19,orIreland’s Disability Strategy Towards 2016, whichisastrategytounderpintheparticipationofpeoplewithdisabilitiesinIrishsociety.

• Policy issue/sector(e.g.transport,education),asinScotland’swholesystemapproachtoyouthjustice,whichsupportspartnerstopromotedevelopmentofawholesystemapproachinvolvingstreamliningandconsistentplanning,assessmentanddecision-makingprocessesforyoungpeoplewhooffend,toensuretheyreceivetherighthelpattherighttime.

• Geographical area(e.g.neighbourhood,country),aswithIreland’sLimerick Regeneration,whichbringstogetherofficialsfromthekeyGovernmentdepartmentsandstatutoryagencies,partnership-basedstructuresatcityandlocallevels,andkeylocalstakeholders.

• Mode of service delivery(e.g.one-stopshop,e-Governmentportal),aswithCanada’sService Canada,whichprovidesCanadianswithone-stop,personalisedaccesstoGovernmentofCanadaservicesandbenefits,orAustralia’scollaborativecasemanagementaspectoftheStrengthening Families initiative.

Inresponsetodiversepurposes,wholeofgovernmentapproachesdifferalsointheirscope–thefocusmaybeintra-governmentormorebroadlyongovernance(boundary-spanningthatcrossesboundariesbetweenthepublic,privateandthirdsectors).


1.2 Why adopt a whole of government approach?

Therationaleforwholeofgovernmentworkistoeliminate‘silos’,ordepartmentsworkinginisolationfromoneanother,andachieveseamlessgovernment.Itaimstoavoidhavingdifferentpoliciescutacrossandundermineeachother,andtooptimisetheimpactofgovernmentbyusingalltheinstrumentsatthedisposaloftheStateinanintegratedwayinsupportofparticularoutcomes.Adesiretoreducecosts(Kearney,2005)andinefficiencies(RoyandLangford,2008)canalsodrivetheadoptionofawholeofgovernmentapproach.Figure1showsthemainfactorsthatdriveadoptionofawholeofgovernmentapproach.

Figure 1: Factors driving a whole of government approach

TheOECDdescribestherationaleforwholeofgovernmentworkasrecognition of the interdependence among levels of government–betweennationalandlocallevels,andamongpeerlevels(ministries,regions,localauthorities):

‘The public sector has become a matrix of crossing perspectives and a key issue rests on the ability to capitalise on synergies between different domains of public intervention. Thus, to accomplish policy objectives in an environment dominated by a criss-cross of vertical, horizontal, or networked contexts, a strong degree of co-ordination is required, as well as an understanding of mutual dependence … in a networked system, each stakeholder depends on the other to meet their individual responsibilities, which collectively help realise a larger goal’ (ChabitandMichalun,2009).

Integrated policy devlopment/

Service delivery

‘Wicked’problems

Strategicenabler

Budgetarypressure

Externalpressures


USES OF A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH

ChristensenandLægreid(2007)state:

‘Approaches can … focus on policy development, programme management and service delivery. Whole of Government processes may be broadly and comprehensively applied, or may be highly specific, or targeted.’

Akeythemeintheliteratureisthatwholeofgovernmentapproachesshouldonlybeusedwherethereisaclearcasethatthisisthebestmeansofachievingthedesiredoutcomes.Wholeofgovernmentapproachescanbecostly,time-consumingandmaynotbethebestapproachforstraightforwardproblems.Indeed,itcanbethecasethatawholeofgovernmentapproachcouldslowdowntheresolutionofanissuethatcouldmoreeasilyandefficientlybetackledbyasingledepartmentoragency(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004).Akeychallengethenistohaveclearcriteriaandgooddecision-makingastowhenandhowdepartmentsjoinup(StateServicesAuthority,2007a,p.29;Whelanet al,2003).

BENEFITS OF ADOPTING A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH

Thebenefitsofadoptingawholeofgovernmentapproachtoapolicyissuecentreonthepotentialimprovementsandefficienciesthatcanberealised(see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Benefits of adopting a whole of government approach

Efficiency

Information sharing

Working environment

Competitiveness

Accountability

Policy cohererence

Costs

Waste

Duplication of work

Conflicting policies

Time needed tocomplete a task

INCR

EASE

S O

R IM

PRO

VES

DECREASES OR REDU

CES


Thesebenefitsareachievedthroughtheabilitytocombineresources,totackleproblemsearlyandthroughotherpracticalbenefitsassociatedwithwholeofgovernmentworking,suchasmoretimelyinformation-sharing.

• Combining resources: Akeypracticalbenefitofawholeofgovernmentapproachisthecapacitytoapplythecombinedresourcesofgovernmenttoahigh-levelnationalgoal.TherationaleissummedupinthiscommentfromtheSecretaryoftheAustralianDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship:

‘Whole of Government solutions are not restricted by the “tunnel vision” of individual agencies. These agencies, who know their own business so well, can unconsciously exclude the interests of other agencies or the unknown consequences of their policy initiatives. This is because they have not engaged with the full range of skills, knowledge, expertise, experience and information held by other agencies with common interests’ (Metcalf,2011).

• Prevention and early intervention: Wholeofgovernmentorjoined-upgovernmentapproachesarethoughttofacilitateactingpreventativelyandpre-emptivelybydealingwithproblemsbeforetheybecometooacuteandcostly(Mulgan,2009).Manyofthewholeofgovernmentinitiativesinareassuchashealthpromotion,obesityandyouthjusticearepromptedbytheevidenceofthebenefitsofpreventiveworkinvolvingmultipleagenciesandstakeholders.

THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH INCLUDE:

• Macro-politicalobjectives.• Aresponseto‘wicked’problems.• Astrategicenabler.• Ameansofmanagingcrises.• Aresponsetoexternalpressure.

Macro/political objectivesOnerationaleforwholeofgovernmentapproachescanbefoundinsomecountriesatabroadpoliticallevel,linkedtostancesofgovernmentsregardingthedeliveryofpublicservices.Theterm‘joined-upgovernment’(JUG)wascoinedbyBritain’sNewLabourGovernmentin1997tocaptureitsemphasisonredressingthefragmentationthatcharacterisedNewPublicManagement(NPM)–‘a reaction to the disaggregation of government and the problems associated with portfolio-driven agendas, working in silos and hierarchical organisational structures’(Drechsler,2005).

FollowingNewPublicManagementreforminNewZealand,forexample,thesystemofgovernmentwasarguablythemostdisaggregatedverticallyandhorizontally.MinisterfromStateServices,TrevorMallard,observedthat:

‘Departments compete against each other to hire the same staff, sometimes to the detriment of the government overall. Some sectors … require major co-ordination from the centre that soaks up resources. There’s an absence of … feedback on whether policies actually work – because the policy advisors work in a department other than the delivery one and the connections between operations and advice aren’t established … In a fragmented system the centre needs to be strong. But – paradoxically … the centre has been struggling for definition’ (citedinBostonandEichbaum,2007,p.152).

Wholeofgovernmentapproacheswerethusseeninsomejurisdictionsasaddressinganeedtore-establishtightercentralanddirectcontroloverpublicagencies,overcomesiloeffectsandthecompetitivementalitythathadresultedfromtheNewPublicManagementstrategy(Halliganet al,2011),aswellasstrengtheningcentralleadership,financialmanagementandlevelsofaccountability.


As a response to ‘wicked’ problemsTheterm‘wicked’problemsdescribespublicpolicyeffortstotacklefar-reachingissuessuchaspoverty,crime,educationandhealth(deBríandBannister,2010).Traditionalhierarchicalgovernmentorganisationshavetendedtofailatdealingwiththecomplexityandinteractionamongmanyofthesetoughsocialandeconomicpolicychallengesfacingsocieties(RoyandLangford,2008).Suchintractablesocialissuesrequirearangeofexpertise(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004).Examplesincludeobesityandclimatechange.‘Wicked’problemsarecontrastedwith‘tame’problemsthathave‘clearmissions,outcomesandsolutions’(Halliganet al,2011).

Theboundariesof‘wicked’problemstodaymaybeexpanding–therangeofissuesthatconstitutesuchproblemsisextensiveandthereforerequiresawholeofgovernmentapproach.AsWilliams(2002,p.104)observes:

‘The public policy landscape is characterised by a host of complex and seemingly intractable problems and issues – community safety, poverty, social inclusion, health inequalities, teenage pregnancies, urban regeneration, substance misuse, climate change and homelessness – an ever-growing and assorted list of community concerns.’

Challengesneedingawholeofgovernmentapproachmaynowbecomethenormandpartofthemainstreamofpolicydevelopment.ThispointisreinforcedinA Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland(OFMDFM,2003,p.5):

‘The world for which policies have to be developed is becoming increasingly complex, uncertain and unpredictable … Key policy issues, such as social need, low educational achievement and poor health, are connected and cannot be tackled effectively by departments or agencies acting individually.’

As a strategic enablerSomegovernmentsseewholeofgovernmentapproachesasaneffectivemeansofdealingwithhigh-levelstrategicpolicyissues,suchasdefenceandnationalsecurity.

As a response to demand for more accessible and citizen-centred service deliveryProbablythemostcommonlycitedexampleofwholeofgovernmentworkandthemostextensiveanalysisofstructuresandprocessesrelatetomodelsofintegratedservicetocitizens.Theseinvolvejoined-uppolicydevelopmentandmechanismsforseamlesslocaldelivery,supportedbyan e-Governmentstrategyandinfrastructure.

Wholeofgovernmentservicedeliverymodelscanfocusoncitizensingeneraloronaparticularcommunity(suchasindigenouspopulations),anindustrysectororcategoriesofindividual,likeyoungpeopleorolderpeople(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004,p.99).

Thepressureforseamlessservicedeliveryisseenascomingfromrisingcommunityexpectationsandassociatedcitizen-centredintegrationefforts,modernisationandadvancesintechnology,andassociatedexperimentationwithnewservice-deliverymodes(RoyandLangford,2008;ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004;Kearney,2009).

As a means of managing crisesPlanningforcrises,suchasnaturalorman-madedisastersormajorhealthpandemics,representarelativelycommonfocusofwholeofgovernment(time-limited)projectwork.

As a response to external pressures

Externaldriverscanincludethecompetitivechallengeofglobalisation(Kearney,2009),theglobalfinancialcrisis(Halliganet al,2011)orresponsestosecurityandterrorism(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004;Kearney,2009).


1.3 International experience: How whole of government has been evolving across

a range of countries

THE CHALLENGE OF INTERPRETING INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Severalcountrieshavebeenengaginginwholeofgovernmentworkovermanyyears.Canada,AustraliaandBritain,inparticular,intensifiedtheirfocusonthisapproachthroughoutthe1990s.InCanada,Australia,NewZealandandScotland,therehasbeenastrongpushforintegratedservicedeliverydrivenbywholeofgovernmentpolicydevelopmentatthecentreandlinkingcentralpolicy-makingwithlocaldelivery.Othercountries,includingFinlandandtheNetherlands,haveadoptedawholeofgovernmentapproachasacentralpartofpublicsectorreform.InIreland,theneedtoworkacrossGovernmentdepartmentsishighlightedinthePublic Service Reform Plan, 2014-2016(DPER,2014),whileinNorthernIrelandtheProgramme for Government, 2011-2015commitstopromotingcross-departmentalworkingintheareasthatcouldmostbenefitfromit(OFMDFM,2011).

Akeypointraisedintheliteratureisthatnotenoughattentionispaidinaccountsofwholeofgovernmentinitiativestounderlying national context;therearebroadgeneralisations,butverylittleextendeddiscussionoftheextenttowhichwhatisbeingdoneisrootedintheunderlyingpoliticalandadministrativesystem,e.g.parliamentarydemocracy,federal,congressionalsystems(Fafard,2013,p.16).Thisisanimportantconsiderationwhenreviewingintegratedservicedeliverycasestudies,giventhehugevariabilityinthelevelsofautonomyandscopeoflocalgovernmentandotherlocalagenciesfromcountrytocountry.Afurtherchallengeinreviewinginternationalexperienceistheabsence of systematic evaluationsofwholeofgovernmentwork.

Theselimitationsmustbeborneinmindinrelationtothefollowingdescriptiveaccountsofcountryexperiences.WholeofgovernmentapproachesinBritain,Scotland,Canada,Australia,FinlandandontheislandofIrelandareoutlinedbelow.AmoredetailedaccountofspecificwholeofgovernmentinitiativesinScotlandandNewZealandaregiveninAppendix1.

BRITAIN

TheNewLabourGovernmentinBritaincoinedtheterm‘joined-upgovernment’todescribeitsplansforpublicsectorreformfollowingits1997electionvictory.Theintentionwastoimprovegovernmentalresponsesto‘wicked’problems,includingintractablesocialissuessuchasdrugabuseandsocialexclusion.

The1999WhitePaper,Modernising Government,calledforthepublicsectortoworkacrossorganisationalboundarieswiththeaimofprovidingmore integrated and seamless service delivery.SubsequentactionplansfromtheCabinetOfficeoutlinedvariousinitiativestosupportjoined-upworking.Atthenationallevel,examplesofsuchinitiativesincludedtheallocationofinter-ministerialportfoliostoMinistersandnewstructuressuchascross-departmentalpolicydevelopmentanddeliveryunitswithintheCabinetOffice.Cross-cuttingpolicyreviewswerealsoundertaken,resultingintheWiring it upreportsforreform.

Atthesub-nationallevel,thecreationofRegionalDevelopmentAgenciesin1999promisedtobringanewfocustoenterpriseandemploymentbyworkingwithuniversities,businessesandlocalauthorities.LocalStrategicPartnershipsbroughtrepresentativesfrompublic,privateandnon-profitsectorstogetherwiththeaimofprogressingsharedlocalobjectives.

TheGovernmentexperimentedwithvariouswaysofpursuingjoined-upworking,leadingtoarangeofmutuallyreinforcingchanges(Mulgan,2009),including:

• A cross-cutting approach to policy-making.MechanismstoachievethisincludedPolicyActionTeams(setupbytheSocialExclusionUnitwithintheCabinetOffice),cross-cuttingreviewsofspendingandtheestablishmentofcross-cuttingunitstocoverissuesthatinvolvemultipledepartmentsandhavebeendifficulttosolve.


• Managing joined-up workingthroughseminars,reports(e.g.theNationalAuditOfficereport,Joining up to improve public services),networkssuchastheNewLocalGovernmentNetworkandtheroleandimplementationofthePrimeMinister’sStrategyUnitintheCabinetOffice.

• Joining up implementation of policiesthroughtoolssuchastrainingandsupportinprojectmanagementandimplementation,theestablishmentofthePrimeMinister’sDeliveryUnit,consolidationoflocalstructures,coordinationofpurchasingthroughtheOfficeofGovernmentCommerceandtheintegrationofservicesthroughportalssuchaswww.gov.uk(Dunleavy,2010).

Therhetoricofjoined-upgovernment(JUG)maybewindingdowninEngland,whereithasbeennotedbyTalbot(citedinMacCarthaighandBoyle,2011)that‘manyJUGdevelopmentsarebeingdismantledwithoutcommentfollowingthe2010election’asthenewCoalitionGovernmentpursuesitsBig Society vision, which focuses on strongercooperationwithsocietyratherthaninternalintegration.

Positive for Youth,launchedin2011,wasanewapproachtocross-governmentpolicyforyoungpeopleaged13to19inEngland.ItbroughttogetheralloftheGovernment’spoliciesforthisagegroupandpresentedasinglevisionacrosstheinterestsofnineGovernmentdepartments.A2013reviewindicatedthatprogresshadbeenmadeintermsofimplementationandoutcomes(HMGovernment,2013).

SCOTLAND

In2006,theScottishGovernmentlaunchedamajorservicetransformationinitiative,calledPublic Value Management,aimedatredesigningpublicservicesaroundtheneedsofserviceusersandcitizens,anddrivingupquality,standards,innovation,creativityandcontinuousimprovement.Ahighlevelofpublicconsultationanddialoguewithallthoseinvolvedindeliveringpublicserviceswasacornerstoneofthereformprocess.

TheScottishapproachtothisredesignofseamlessandcitizen-ledservicesadoptsastanceofpartnership,dialogueandmeaningfulengagementofcitizenswithservicedesign,ratherthantreatingcitizenspurelyasconsumersofservices.Intermsofstructures,asharedknowledgemanagementinfrastructure,joiningupgovernmentandthepublic,isanessentialenablerofintegratedservicedelivery.

TheScottishapproachalsoinvolvesstrengtheningtheroleoflocalmunicipalitiesasfront-lineserviceproviders.ThelongertermaimistoenablelocalauthoritiestobethefirstpointofcontactandtheprimaryrouteintoboththeScottishandUKpublicservice.

TheSnook(2012)reportonCustomer Views on Digital Public ServicesdiscussedthefindingsofaworkshopwhichexploredthethemesoutlinedintheexistingDigitalPublicServiceandPublicSectorICTcombinedstrategy.Theimportanceoftransparencyandco-designwereemphasized,aswastheneedtoexploretheevolvingneedsofusers.

CANADA

Canada’sinvestmentinwholeofgovernmentworksince2000hasbeenprimarilydrivenbytheintentiontodevelopseamless,citizen-centredservicedelivery(TheEfficiencyUnit,2009;RoyandLangford,2008).Amajore-Governmentinitiative,calledtheGovernment On-Line Initiative,waspartneredbytheModernising Services for Canadians(MSC),thepurposeofwhichwastobringtogether170differentGovernmentwebsites.ThisledtothesettingupofService Canada,withtheaimofprovidingaone-stoppointofaccessforcitizenstoallfederalservices.

ThesettingupofServiceCanadawasamajorstructuralreformproject.Oneofitscoregoalsistobuildwholeofgovernmentapproachestoservicesthatenablesinformation-sharingandintegratedservicedeliveryforthe

http://www.gov.uk


benefitofallCanadians.Theintegrationofservicesacrossthelevelsofgovernmentiscentraltothisgoal.

Tosupportthewholeofgovernmentwork,twoCouncilsandanInstituteweresetuptopromoteresearchanddialoguearoundcommonstandardsandapproachestointegratingservicesandtechnologybetweenagenciesandlevelsofgovernment:

• thePublicSectorChiefinformationOfficerCouncilandthePublicSectorServiceDeliveryCouncilbringtogetherservicepolicyanddeliveryofficialstoexchangebestpracticesandcollaborateonservicedelivery;

• theInstituteforCitizenServiceDeliverywasestablishedin2005topromotehighlevelsofcitizensatisfactionwithpublicsectorservicedelivery,mainlythroughuseofresearchandapplicationofinnovative,bestpracticesolutionstosupportqualityservicedelivery.

InCanada,GovernmentdepartmentsandagenciesarerequiredtoindicateintheirReportonPlansandPriorities(RPP)andDepartmentalPerformanceReport(DPR)thealignmentofprogrammeactivitiestoGovernmentofCanadaoutcomeareas.ThealignmentofstrategicoutcomesandtheircorrespondingprogrammeactivitiestothewholeofgovernmentframeworkmakesitpossibletocalculatespendingbyGovernmentofCanadaoutcomeareaandalsotototalcorrectlyallgovernmentspending.AprogrammeactivitycanonlybealignedtooneGovernmentofCanadaoutcomearea.Astrategicoutcome,however,cancontributetomorethanoneoutcomearea.

AUSTRALIA

WholeofgovernmentworkhasalongtrackrecordinAustralia,motivatedstronglybyadriveforintegratedlocalservicedelivery(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004).A1976ReportoftheRoyalCommissiononAustralianGovernmentAdministration(RCAGA)arguedforanewstyleofpubliccitizen-centredadministration.Thefocusofreforminthe1980sand1990swasstructural,involvinglargerportfoliosandstrongerCabinetcapacityforstrategicdecision-making,aimedatintegratingpolicy,programmeandservicedeliveryacrossfederalagencies.

Theconceptofa‘one-stopshop’forservicedeliveryborefruitin1997withtheestablishmentofCentrelink as anintegrateddeliverymechanismforemploymentandincomesupportacrossalllevelsofgovernment.Duringthe1980s,newstructuresandprocesses,suchastaskforcesforwholeofgovernmentwork,tookoverfromtraditionalinterdepartmentalcommittees.Theseprimarilytop-downapproachesgavewayinthe1990stoastrongerfocusoncommunityconsultation,participationandpartnerships.

TheCoalitionofAustralianGovernments(COAG)wasestablishedin1992toactasaforumforconsideringwholeofgovernmentissuesandidentifyingprioritiesforwholeofgovernmentwork.Intheearly2000s,thePrimeMinister’sroleinsettingtheseprioritieswasstrengthenedthroughtheestablishmentoftheCabinet Implementation Unit,withacorefunctionofsupportingwholeofgovernmentwork.AkeyfeatureoftheAustralianapproachhasbeentheprovisionofguidelines for working across boundaries,preparedundertheauspicesoftheManagementAdvisoryCommittee(MAC)–agroupofdepartmentalsecretariesandagencyheads.

WholeofgovernmentinitiativesinAustraliahavespannedawiderangeofpurposes.Prioritieshaveincludedworkandfamilylife,nationalsecurityanddefence,demographics,education,scienceandinnovation,sustainableenvironment,energy,ruralandregionalaffairs,transportandhealth.Specificprojectshaveincluded:

• Australians Working Together(welfarereformpolicyproposals);• GoodnaServiceIntegrationProject(aQueenslandcommunity);• iconsult(aprojecttodevelopasecureelectronicinformationexchangesystemaboutcommunity

consultations–deemedtohavefailed);• NationalIllicitDrugsStrategy;• responsetoBalibombings.


FINLAND

ImprovingthewaygovernmentworkedhorizontallyhasbeenamajorfocusofFinnishgovernmentalreformoverthelastthreedecades.Itwasdecidedthatreformcouldbeachievedwithoutinstitutingformalchangesinauthorityorpowerbetweenorganisations,butratherbyalteringtheworkingmethodsofgovernment.

TheGovernmentsetoutitsagendaintheGovernment Programme,introducedin2003.Thisconcentratesonhorizontalactivityofthegovernmentandidentifiesfourpriorityareas:employment, entrepreneurship, information society and civil participation.Eachareahasitsownprogramme,outlinedintheGovernment Strategic Document,whichfocusesonhorizontalpoliciesandidentifiesthetargets,measuresandconcreteactsrequiredforsuccess,inlinewithfinancialprerequisitesassetoutintheGovernment’sBudgetdocuments.

EachprogrammehasaCoordinatingGroupofMinisters(comprisedofMinistersofallrelevantportfolios)andaCoordinatingMinister,whoisresponsiblefortheoverallGovernmentProgrammeaswellastheirownportfolio.EachprogrammeismanagedbyaProgrammeDirector,whohasnoformalpowerbutrunsanetworkofrepresentativesfromtheparticipatingportfolios.TheProgrammeDirectorhaslimiteddirectfunding,butappropriationsforprogrammepurposesaresetasideinthebudget,usingamatrixtechnique.SuccessofthisprocessreliesonpoliticalwillforconsensusandsupportfromthePrimeMinister.

The Government Strategy Documentprovidesconcrete,quantifiabletargetsforeachareainordertofacilitateevaluation.Thefocusisonoutcomesratherthanoutputs,andthefindingsareusedmainlyforpoliticalratherthanmanagerialpurposes.Since2006,allministriesandagenciesarerequiredtoentertheirperformanceinformationontoaStateInternetreportingsystem,furtherincreasingthetransparencyofpublicadministration(Autero,2006).

EarlyevaluationoftheFinnishwholeofgovernmentreformsuggestedthatithadassistedgovernmenttobecomemorestrategicandresults-focused.Ithasalsoimprovedtransparencyandhorizontalthinkingacrossgovernment(HarrinvirtaandKekkonen,2005).However,amorerecentOECD(2010)evaluationhasidentifiedfurtherareasthatrequireimprovement:

In2010,anOECDgovernancereviewindicatedthatFinlandcouldstrengthenitscapacitytoacteffectivelybyestablishingmorecoherentservicedelivery,improvingplanningandforesightcapacityfromawholeofgovernmentperspective,reinforcinghorizontallinkagesacrossStategovernmentandreinforcingcapacityandleadershipatalllevelsofgovernmenttobettercommunicateandimplementacommonvision.

THE ISLAND OF IRELAND (REPUBLIC OF IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND)

In Ireland,departmentalre-organisations,socialpartnershipandCoalitiongovernmentrequiringmergingofpolicyplatformshavebeenkeyinfluencesonthepolicy-makingprocess(MacCarthaighandBoyle,2011).Anearlymanifestationofjoined-upadministrativestructuresataseniorlevelwastheestablishmentofthecoordinatinggroupofSecretariesGeneraltooverseetheimplementationofamajorpublicsectorreforminitiative,theStrategic Management Initiative(1994),bymeansofaspecificcivilservicereformprogrammeentitledDelivering Better Government(1996)(ibid).Thisprogrammeinstitutedmanyoftheinfrastructuralchanges commonly associated with high-level management of whole of government policy development and implementation,includingCabinetSub-Committees,coordinatingrolesforMinistersandMinistersforState,networksforsharingknowledgeandexpertise,and3-yearstrategicplanswithaspecificrequirementthatjoined-upgovernmentissuesshouldbeaddressedinthoseplans.

In2005,theNESCreportonThe Developmental Welfare Stateidentifiedjoined-upgovernmentasoneof5broadareasofchangeneededtosupportintegrated,person-centredservicesacrossthelifespanofcitizens.Later,in2008,theOECDreportTowards an Integrated Public Service maderecommendationsaimedataddressingthe


absenceofjoined-upgovernment,oneofwhichwastheplantodevelopaSeniorPublicServicesystemtodriveincreasedmobilityacrossthepublicservice.ThePublic Service Reform Plan, 2014-2016prioritisesmanyfeaturesfundamentaltoeffectivewholeofgovernmentworking(DPER,2014).

In Northern Ireland,therehasbeenanongoingemphasisonpartnershipworking.Inthiscontext,‘partnerships’coverawiderangeofrelations,frominformalnetworkingtoformalestablishedpartnerships.Thisreflectstheperceivedvalueofpartnershipsasameansofengagingcommunitiesandbuildinggoodrelations(OFMDFM,2003).IntheProgramme for Government, 2011-2015,theNorthernIrelandExecutive(2011)recognisedthatmakingarealdifferencedemands:

‘effective collaboration and, within the programme as well as working more effectively across Government Departments, we are signalling our intention to work in partnership with the private and the voluntary and community sectors in ways that will deliver tangible outcomes’.

Within the Programme for Government,theGovernmentlaiddownitscommitmenttothepromotionofcross-departmentalworkinginparticularareasthatareinapositiontobenefitmost.Oneexampleofthisisthecommitment to a Cross-Departmental Strategic Framework on Reducing Offending.Further,Delivering Social ChangewassetupasaframeworktocoordinatekeyactionsacrossGovernmentdepartmentstoprogressworkonprioritysocialpolicyareasandithascreatedanumberofsignatureprogrammes,suchastheSocialInvestmentFund(SIF)(see http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/social-investment-fund)todeliversocialchange.TheSIFaimstomakelifebetterforpeoplelivingintargetedareasbyreducingpoverty,unemploymentandphysicaldeterioration.The10-Year Strategy for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland also represents acoordinatedapproachacrossGovernmentdepartments,andthewiderpublicsector,tothedevelopmentof policies that impact on the lives of children and young people (see http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/ten-year-strategy.pdf).

Table1outlinessomecurrentandplannedwholeofgovernmentinitiativesontheislandofIrelandandthekeyactorsinvolved.

http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/social-investment-fund

http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/ten-year-strategy.pdf




Table 1: Whole of government initiatives on the island of Ireland

Policy issue Example Key actors involved

Cross-cutting Healthy Ireland: A Framework for improved health and wellbeing, 2013–2025(RoI)

LifetimeOpportunities(2020) NIAnti-Povertyinitiative

TheCabinetCommitteeonSocialPolicy,chairedbyAnTaoiseach;DepartmentofHealth;Cross-sectoralGroupofotherDepartmentsandkeyagencies;multistakeholderHealthyIrelandCouncil;HSEHealthandWellbeingDivision.

AllDepartments;anInterdepartmentalEqualityandSocialNeedsSteeringGroup,chairedbyaseniorofficialintheOfficeoftheFirstMinisterandDeputyFirstMinister.

Location-based LimerickRegenerationScheme(RoI)

NeighbourhoodRenewalPartnership(NI)

CivicAlcoholProgramme,CityofDerry(NI)1

DepartmentoftheEnvironment,CommunityandLocalGovernment;HSE,GardaíandtheLocalAuthoritiesofLimerickCity,LimerickCountyandClareCounty.

NeighbourhoodPartnershipsestablishedineachNeighbourhoodRenewalAreaasavehicleforlocalplanningandimplementation,withrepresentativesofpolitical,statutory,voluntary,communityandprivatesectorstakeholders.

DerryCityCouncil;PSNI;WELB;PHA;DerryHealthy CitiesProject;public,privateandcommunityorganisationsworkingtogethertotacklealcoholmisuse.

Population-based NationalPositiveAgeingStrategy(2013)(RoI)2

NationalDisabilityStrategy,2013-2015(RoI)3

PathwaystoSuccess(NEET)Strategy,2012(NI)

DepartmentofHealth;DepartmentofJobs,EnterpriseandInnovation;DepartmentofSocialProtection;DepartmentofEducationandSkills;DepartmentoftheEnvironment,CommunityandLocalGovernment;DepartmentofTransport,TourismandSport;NationalTransportAuthority;RoadSafetyAuthority;DepartmentofCommunications,EnergyandNaturalResources;CentralStatisticsOffice.

DepartmentofJusticeandEquality;DepartmentofHealth;HSE;DepartmentofTransport,TourismandSport;DepartmentofCommunications,EnergyandNaturalResources;CommissionforEnergyRegulation;DepartmentofArts,HeritageandtheGaeltacht;DepartmentofSocialProtection;FáilteIreland;OfficeofGovernmentProcurement;AnPost.

DepartmentofEmploymentandLearning;DepartmentofEducation;DepartmentofHealth,SocialServicesandPublicSafety;andvoluntaryandcommunitysector,takenforwardunderDeliveringSocialChange.

Notes:

1 HollywellConsultancy(2013)Challenging Underage Drinking: Pilot Project Evaluation.NorthernIreland:DerryCityCouncil.Availableat:http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/DerryCitySite/files/c6/c6c1d589-18dc-4260-a212-a7ab49ff700a.pdf

2 See http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/National_Positive_Ageing_Strategy_English.pdf?direct=1

3 See http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/NDS_ImplementationPlan_FINAL.pdf/Files/NDS_ImplementationPlan_FINAL.pdf

http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/DerryCitySite/files/c6/c6c1d589-18dc-4260-a212-a7ab49ff700a.pdf

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/National_Positive_Ageing_Strategy_English.pdf?direct=1

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/NDS_ImplementationPlan_FINAL.pdf/Files/NDS_ImplementationPlan_FINAL.pdf

Section2:Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy 21Section2:Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy 21

Section 2: Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy

22 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches22 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches


SECTION2:Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy

2.1 Making and implementing whole of government policy

‘A policy may be a beautiful thing to behold in the isolation of bureaucracy, but what really counts is how the policy is implemented and how it translates into service delivery’ (Metcalf,2011).

Toprovideacontextforlookingatwholeofgovernmentpolicy-making,itisusefultolocateitwithintheframeworkofpolicyimplementationmoregenerally.Implementationcanbedescribedasthecarryingoutofaplanfordoingsomething.Itsfocusisonoperationalisingtheplan,ratherthanwhattheplanis(Burkeet al,2012).The‘implementationgap’occurswhentheintendedoutcomesofaplanarenotrealised.AsWhelanet al(2003)warned,‘Apolicywithoutimplementationisworsethannopolicyatall’.Implementationofwholeofgovernmentinitiativescanfallshortofintentionsandthegapbetweenintentionandimplementationechoesthewiderissueofthe‘implementationgap’inpolicyandpractice.

APPROACHES TO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Theliteratureonpolicyimplementationdescribes‘topdown’and‘bottomup’approaches(StateServicesAuthority,2011),asfollows:

• ‘Top down’perspectivesemphasizethegoalstobeachievedbyaparticularpolicy,decision-makingprocesses,competenciesoftheimplementers,politicalsupportandthesupportofinfluentialleaders.Thefocusof‘topdown’approachesisoncomplianceandmonitoring;policyoutcomesthatdifferfromintendedoutcomesareseenasfailures.Researchstemmingfromthisperspectivetypicallylocatesthereasonsforsuchfailuresinalackofwillingnessamongstaffinfieldoperations,legislativeinterference,otherlevelsofgovernmentandfailureofthird-partyproviderstocomplywithcentralpolicyedicts.

• ‘Bottom up’ perspectivesemphasizetheroleoffront-linestaffintheimplementationofpolicies.Theseperspectivesseektoexplainwhyoutcomesmaydivergefrompolicyintentionsthroughstudyingthebehaviourofactorsintheimplementationchain.Thisapproachbringstotheforetheroleoffront-linestaff,thebehaviourofindividualsandgroups,theimpactofgoodorpoorcommunication,ambiguityanddivergentinterests.Italsolooksattheroleofbargainingandnegotiation.

Otherframeworksintegratetheseperspectives,recognisingthatpolicydevelopmentandimplementationwillhaveelementsofboth.Forexample,Berman(1978and1980)describesmorenuancedapproachesthathighlighttheinfluenceofcontext,circumstancesandtheenvironmentinwhichthepolicywilloperate.

FollowingFixenandBlase(2009),thepioneersofImplementationScience,keysuccessfactorsinpolicydevelopmentandimplementationincludeaclearevidenceandresearchbasetosupportthepolicy,activeconsiderationoftheimplementationchallengesandaTheoryofChangethatmapsthecausalpathway,fromwherethingsaretowheretheyneedtobe(Williams,2002,p.109).Theessentialimplementation‘drivers’areleadership,competencydriversandorganisationaldrivers.Implementationteamshavespecialexpertisewithboththeinnovationandimplementation,andareaccountableforguidingtheoverallstrategy.Monitoringandevaluationensuresthatemerginglearningisusedtoinformthepolicycycleandthatthepolicyimplementationisnotsubjectto‘drift’asotherprioritiesemergeorkeypolicieschange.


INTEGRATING POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Integratingpolicydevelopmentwithimplementationisregardedasanimportantadvanceonmoretraditionalapproaches,wherethepolicydevelopmentprocesswasseparatedfromimplementationplanning.Thisthinkingsitswellwithawholeofgovernmentapproach,whichaimstointegratetheinvolvementofstakeholdersacrossnetworksatnationalandlocallevelinsupportofachievingbestoutcomes.

Therationaleforjoiningpolicydevelopmentandpolicyimplementationcentresonanearlyfocusoneffectiveimplementation,bydrawinginallthoseonwhoseworkthesuccessofthepolicydepends.LessonsfromNorthernIreland’sA Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland(OFMDFM,2003)include:

‘One of the key messages which I hope this guide will help to send out is that policy development should not be seen as the preserve of a few specialists. Those involved at the “front line” of service delivery, whether in schools, hospitals or social security offices, have a vital role in helping to gauge what is deliverable. They have a keen awareness of what really matters to the citizen. In order to develop policies which work in practice, the guide emphasises the importance of engaging those familiar with delivery issues, and service users themselves, early in the process … Whilst organisational and management changes in the late 1980s and early 1990s emphasised the separation of policy-making and policy implementation, more recent good practice in policy-making demands that they be reintegrated into a single, seamless, flexible process’.

Thisviewofthepolicydevelopment/implementationprocessisechoedintheviewsoftheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenshipinCanberra(Metcalf,2010):

‘For the successful involvement of a range of agencies in [policy] implementation and service delivery, it is paramount that those agencies are involved in the development of the policy in the first place … If we do not include other agencies in the development process, a resulting policy may involve things that they do not agree with; obligations they may not be able to deliver on or things that are just plain unlawful or dangerous.’

POLITICS, POLITICAL SUPPORT AND LEADERSHIP

Theroleofpoliticsandpoliticalsupportisakeythemeinpolicyimplementationliterature:

‘It is clear that strong political leadership is required to develop policies on a whole of government basis, meeting the needs of society over the longer term. To do this effectively, a shared vision of the type of society we wish to have in the future, and in particular the vision for the public sector, are fundamental requirements. Political leadership is central to the development of this vision and to achieving its objectives’ (Whelan et al,2003,pp.52-53).

Whenimplementationincludesgovernanceacrossthecycle,frompolicydevelopmenttoimplementationandreview,thepoliticalrolealsoextendsbeyondtheearlystageofdecidingonapolicydirection.Leadershipisseenascriticaltoeffectivepolicyimplementation(Williams,2002).Furthermore:

‘A huge tension inherent in delivering policy reform is the need for public sector leaders to strike the right balance between implementing (or imposing) a given strategic reform versus leaving scope for learning and adjustment in the face of unknown and/or changing conditions for implementing organisations … Leaders must be constantly attentive to all realms: the political, the wider community, the world of implementation partners and, of course, their own organisation and its capacity to contribute effectively’ (StateServicesAuthority,2011,p.9).


AN ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT FOCUS

Anorganisationdevelopmentperspectiveisalsoastrongthemeinpolicyimplementationliterature.Policyimplementationiscentrallyanorganisationalchangechallenge:

‘The greater the change flowing from policy implementation (breadth and amount of departure from current practice), the more demand there will be for significant organisational change’ (StateServicesAuthority,2011,p.8).

Akeydimensionofchangefromthisperspectiveisanunderstandingofandattentiontoculturalfactors,i.e.thenorms,valuesandbeliefsinanorganisation.Culturemaybethoughtofasa‘soft’factor,yetithasbeenidentifiedbyFixenet al(2005)ascriticalinensuringsustainableimplementation.Indeed,accordingtotheseauthors,‘theessenceofimplementationisbehaviourchange’whetherinrelationtopolicyorpractice.

WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Wholeofgovernmentpolicydevelopmentandimplementationdiffersfrompolicydevelopmentmoregenerallyonlytotheextentoftherangeofissues,inputsandstakeholderswhoneedtobeinvolved,andtherelativelymorecomplexpolicyanalysisneededtounderpinthework(Whelanet al,2003).

This convergence of general policy development with whole of government approaches is highlighted in NorthernIreland’sA Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland(OFMDFM,2003,pp.6-7),whichincludes‘joined-uppolicy-making’asoneofthe10featuresofeffectivepolicyworkonanypolicyareaandregardstheabilitytodevelopimplementationsystemsasacriticalskillofseniorcivilservantsinvolvedinpolicydevelopment.Theimplicationoftheconvergenceistopointtotheneedforawholeofgovernmentapproachtobethenorminpolicydevelopment/implementationandtorepresent‘businessasusual’,ratherthanasubsetofwiderpolicywork.


2.2 The infrastructure for whole of government work

CREATING A BOUNDARY-SPANNING INFRASTRUCTURE

Wholeofgovernmentworkisessentiallyaboutspanningboundaries–managingacrossboundarieswithinandbetweenGovernmentdepartmentsandagencies,and,dependingonthescaleandscopeoftheinitiative,betweenlevelsofgovernment(localandnational)andbetweenpolicydevelopmentandpolicyimplementation.

Theliteraturepointstocontrastingstructural and cultural approachestobuildingawholeofgovernmentboundary-spanninginfrastructure(Christensen et al,2007,p.1061).Thestructuralapproachassumeshomogeneityamongdifferentadministrativeunitsandtendstorelyonorganisationalarrangementstocreatethelinkages.Theculturalviewrecognisesthediversityofrolesandcultureswithinadministrativeunitsandsetsaboutbuildingaculturethatsupportswholeofgovernmentwork.Theseapproachesareessentiallycomplementaryratherthanalternatives.

ENABLERS OF A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

Theenablersofawholeofgovernmentinfrastructurecanbeconsideredunderthefollowingheadings:

• structures;• workprocesses;• politicalandadministrativeleadership;• cultureandcapacities;• supportsforcapacity-building.

StructuresForanywholeofgovernmentinitiative,asetofpracticalstructuresorarrangementsareneededtomakeithappen.Thechoiceofthesedependsonpurposeandonthelifetimeoftheinitiative:short-terminitiativesmayrelyonmoreinformalstructures,whileprojectsintendedtobringaboutsignificantlong-termchangemayneedmorestronglyembeddedsystems,includinglegislation,organisationalredesign,newprocessesandnewcompetencies(deBríandBannister,2010,p.12).

Themostcommonlyusedstructuresare:

• interdepartmentalcommittees;• taskforces;• interdepartmentalpartnerships;• cross-departmentalpartnerships;• specialpurposeagencies(alsosometimesknownas‘frontieragencies’).

Incountrieswherewholeofgovernmentapproacheshavebeeninvestedinheavily,thetraditionalinterdepartmentalcommitteehasbeensupplementedbynewerstructures,suchasdedicatedtaskforces,formalpartnerships,specialpurposeagencies,newCabinetcommittees,cross-sectoralprogrammes,circuit-breakerteams and supernetworks (Christensen et al,2007,p.1061).Asnotedalready,themechanismmustmatchthepurposeanddifferentstructuresareseenashavingstrengthsandweaknesses,dependingonthatpurpose.AdetailedassessmentofsomeofthesemechanismsisgiveninAppendix2,basedontheAustralianexperience.

Initiativesaimedatdesigningseamlessservicedeliverytocitizens(e.g.Canada,Australia,NewZealandandScotland)acrossdepartmental,federalandagencyboundariesarecomplexinitiativesthatrequireamove from ‘government’ to ‘governance’sincetheymayhavetoincludenon-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)andprivateserviceproviders.Suchwholeofgovernmentinitiativeshavepromptedtheconceptof‘networkmodels


ofservicedelivery’andafocusoncollaboration,asanalternativetore-organisinggovernmentintosinglelargeunitsand‘wastingtime’onre-organisation(RoyandLangford,2008).

Anywholeofgovernmentworkinvolvingbothverticalandhorizontalboundary-spanningmustbuildstructuresaroundaclearunderstandingofwhereexpertise,authorityandcompetencieslie(Fafard,2013,p.5).Thereisaneedforaclearmandatefortheimplementationstructures.Thenatureofthetask,theaccountabilitiesandtheoutcomessoughtmustbeclearfromtheoutset,otherwisetheprojectislikelytorunintodifficultyatanearlystagewhenboundaryissuesinevitablycomeintoplay.

Work processesEffectivewholeofgovernmentworkdependsonthealignmentofcoreworkprocessessothatthesearesupportiveofawholeofgovernmentapproach.Keyprocessesincludeaccountabilitysystems,budgetsandinformationmanagement,aswellas,accordingtoa2009OECDreport,themanagementofcriticalgaps.

Accountability systems

Dependingontheircomplexity,wholeofgovernmentapproachestendtomakeaccountabilityrelationsmoreambiguous(Filmreiteet al,2013;Whelanet al,2013).Norwegianreformoftheemploymentandnationalinsuranceadministration(whichinvolvedamajorrestructuringatnational,regionalandlocallevels)involvedseveralformsandlevelsofaccountabilityrealignmentchallenges–political,administrative,legal,professional,social,hierarchicalandhorizontal.TheconclusiondrawnbyFilmreiteet al(2013,p.9)isthat:

‘As accountability relations have become more blurred and ambiguous, it seems hard to live up to the intentions and ambitions in the joined-up government approach … A multidimensional accountability approach is needed to handle accountability in a pluralistic political administrative system … but so far, this has not evolved in the [Norwegian] reform.’

Budgets

Oneofthecentralprocessestobedecidedinwholeofgovernmentprojectsishowbudgetsaremanagedandaccountedfor.Therearecontradictoryviewsabouteffectivestrategiesforthispurpose.Somecasestudiessuggestthatsharedbudgetsshouldbeavoidedbecausethedifferentbudgetaryrulesandprocessesaretoodifficulttomanage(Kearney,2009,.p.4).Othersarguefordedicatedfundingforintersectoralprojects,partlyonthegroundsthatwithoutsuchdedicatedfunding,initiativesarevulnerableintimesofcutbacks(Fafard,2013,p.17).

Information management

e-Governmentand‘interoperability’ofdatasystemsfigurestronglyintheliteratureonwholeofgovernmentwork.Thisisespeciallythecasewithregardtointegratednationalservicedeliveryinitiatives,designandimplementationofwhichdependonbuildingsophisticatedinformation-sharingamongprovidersatnationalandlocallevels.Thetechnologicalchallengeandtheexperienceofvariousjurisdictionsinundertakingthisworkiswelldocumentedandrepresentsanareaofstudyinitsownright(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004).

Theliteraturedrawsattentiontothefactthattechnologicaldevelopmentsininformation-sharingareonlypartofthesolutiontowholeofgovernmentworkandcannotaddressthemanynon-technicalchallengesinvolvedinbreakingdownsilos.Inthecaseofseamlessservicedeliverythatisauthenticallydrivenbycitizenparticipationinplanning,theviewisthatthebarrierstocitizenengagementarecultural,organisationalandconstitutional,ratherthantechnological(deBríandBannister,2010,p.4).

Otherworkprocessesregardedasofparticularimportanceinclude(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee,AustralianGovernment,2014):


• anoutcomesandoutputsframework;• effectiveimplementationplanningprocesses;• riskmanagementsystems;• performancemanagementsystemsthatrewardwholeofgovernmentwork;• clearlydefinedrolesandresponsibilities;• specificallydelegatedauthority;• reportingproceduresonawholeofgovernmentbasis;• recordkeeping.

Theliteraturedealsinvaryinglevelsofdetailwithalloftheseprocesses,howtheyimpactonwholeofgovernmentworkanddesignoptions.Thedetailoftheseaspectsis,unfortunately,beyondthescopeofthisreport.

Management of critical gaps

TheOECD(2009)suggeststhatcriticalgapsarisebetweenlevelsofgovernmentinnetworkedormulti-levelgovernanceinfiveareas,namely:information,capacity,fiscal,administrativeandpolicy.Bridgingthesegapsorasymmetriesisseenasbeingatthecoreofwholeofgovernmentwork(ChabitandMichalun,2009,p.20).

Political and administrative leadershipWholeofgovernmentleadershipisseenasaspecialisedkindofleadershipthatenablespoliticianstomanagethecomplexinstitutionalarrangementsthatwholeofgovernmentworkrequires.Thestyleofpoliticalleadershipisreferredtoasa‘craftsman’style–theabilitytoshapepolicyimplementationprocessestobeabetterfitforcommunityneedsbyreshapingmandates,systems,structuresandprogrammes(O’Flynnet al,2011,p.250).Theexpectationsofgovernmentneedtobemadeveryexplicitbytyingcareerdevelopmentopportunitiestothecapacitytoleadandmanagewholeofgovernmentprojects(StateServicesAuthority,2007a,p.ix).Administrativeleadershipforwholeofgovernmenthastofocusonbuildingandsustainingrelationships,managingcomplexityandinterdependence,andmanagingmultipleandconflictingaccountabilities(Fafard,2013,p.8).

Culture and capacitiesThelinksbetweenorganisationalbehaviourandorganisationalperformancearewellresearchedinOrganisationDevelopmentliterature.Notsurprisingly,theselinksemergeasastrongfocusinwholeofgovernmentwork.Commentatorsnotehoworganisationalculturecansupportorfrustratetheachievementofjoined-uporganisationalgoals.Thekeypersonneloperatingininter-organisationalsettingsare‘boundaryspanners’withcertainessentialcompetenciesandtheircrucialroleisoftenoverlookedintheliteratureonwholeofgovernmentworking(Williams,2002).

Thenetworkingskillsoftheeffectiveboundaryspannerincludecapacitytocultivateinterpersonalrelationships,communication,politicalskillsandanappreciationoftheinterdependenciesinvolvedinunderstandingandsolvingcomplexproblems.Empathy,reciprocityandtrust,andacapacitytoseetheproblemfromthesocialandvaluesperspectiveofotherstakeholdersarekeycapacities.Otherspecificboundary-spanningcapacitiesincludetheabilitytomanagethecomplexityandinterdependenceinvolvedinworkingacrosshorizontalandverticalboundaries,andthecapacitytomanagemultipleandpotentiallyconflictingaccountabilities.

Afurtherskillscategoryistheabilitytomanagebyinfluence(Boyle,1999).Thisreferstotheabilityofpublicservantstoanalyseandshapetheirexternalenvironmentsandthemainstakeholderinterests.Achievingchangethroughinfluencingisdescribedasbeingcrucialtothemanagementofcross-cuttingissues.

Collaborationisanotherkeycapacityandittakesonaspecificmeaninginwholeofgovernmentwork.Ratherthanbeinga‘soft’termthatisinterchangeablewithtermssuchas‘coordination’or‘partnership’,collaborationisdescribedashavingstructuralaswellasattitudinalcomponents:


‘[Collaboration is] a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organisations to achieve common goals. The relationship includes a commitment to mutual relationships and goals, a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards’ (Halliganet al,2011,p.85).

Supports for boundary-spanning capacitiesCapacitydevelopmentneedswillvaryaccordingtopre-existinglevelsofexperienceandexpertise.Capacity-buildingneedswillbegreaterwherenewrolesandproceduresmustbecreated.

Initiativestosupportthedevelopmentofacollaborativemind-setamongpublicservantsandMinistersincludeanexpansionofknowledgerepositoriesof‘criticallyanalysedandsharedlessonsandexperiencesamongjurisdictions’(RoyandLangford,2008,p.44),jointventures,pathfinderprojects,employeeexchangesandopportunitiesfordialogue.Peoplearemorelikelytoactcollaborativelyiftheyrealisticallyexpecttohavemanyfuturedealingswitheachother.TheviewthatsuccessfulcollaborationsneedstabilityisechoedbyWilliams(2002),whosuggeststhat‘inter-organisationalcapacityisunlikelytoflourishinorganizationalstructuresthatarebasedonhierarchicalcontrolandpower’.Thisviewposesasignificantchallengetothosewhomustmanagevertical/hierarchicalpolicyimplementationprojects,alongsideandwiththesamestaffwhoareexpectedtoengageinwholeofgovernmentwork.

Movingawayfromtraditionalmanagementtrainingapproaches,toprioritisejointtrainingandnetworkinginitiatives,greaterstaffmobility,supportformanagingculturaldifferencesandaccesstoapaneloflearninganddevelopmentconsultants–theseareseenassomeofthemechanismsforbuildingtheculturalandorganisationalcapacitiesforwholeofgovernmentworking.


2.3 Challenges for whole of government approaches

RANGE OF CHALLENGES

ThechallengesandbarriersfacingwholeofgovernmentworkmirrortheenablersdiscussedinSection2.2.Justastherearestructuralandculturalenablers,therearepotentialblockagesintheseareas.Afurthercriticalchallengeforwholeofgovernmentworkisthedifficultyofevaluatingitseffectivenessanddeterminingwhetherexpectedoutcomesarerealised.

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES

Theliteraturepointstoanabsenceofjoined-upthinkingaboutjoined-upworking.SilosoperatenotonlywithinGovernmentdepartmentsandagencies,butalsowithindifferentfieldsofstudyandpractitionerfocus.Forexample,accountsofeffortstoundertakewholeofgovernmentapproachestohealthpromotionsuggestthatthestudyofandplanningforsuchinitiativespaylimitedattentiontothestudyofwholeofgovernmentinitiativesfromaPoliticalScienceperspective,andargueforcloserintegrationofthesefieldsofstudy–anexampleperhapsofthepotentialofintegratedresearchandplanningworkintheserviceofintegratedgovernment(Fafard,2013).

STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES

Theproblemofmarryingcoordination/collaborationacrossboundarieswithautonomyoforganisationsandwithverticalcontrolappearstobeafundamentaldifficultyembeddedinthestructureofgovernment:

‘Traditional mechanisms of accountability in parliamentary democracy were never designed to cope with multidimensional fragmented policy systems’(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004).

Eveneffectivestructuralreformscanstillleaveofficialswiththeproblemofhowtobridgeverticalseparationandhorizontaldivision(Halliganet al,2011,p.82).

CULTURAL CHALLENGES

Justasculturalchangeisseenasafundamentalenablerforwholeofgovernmentwork,culturalbarriersarethoughttopresentthegreatestobstacle.Indeed,culturalissueswereflaggedbyWhelanet al(2003,p.85)asbeingamongthemostimportanttotackle:

‘Structural change is less important than overcoming the cultural barriers to operating across silos, whether such operations are between two or more departments, between departments and agencies, or even at times within single departments’.

Similarly,Halliganet al(2011,p.94)comment:

‘Horizontal management and whole of government raise significant issues in organization design and behavioural challenges. The obstacles to inculcating cultural change, however, remain substantial. The imperative of the functional principle and the rigidity of organizational boundaries still looms prominently in all countries.’

PRACTICAL CHALLENGES

Atapracticallevel,challengesandbarrierstoeffectivewholeofgovernmentworkincludethefactthatwholeofgovernment:

• Can be very time consuming(OECD,2006). Timeandeffortisrequiredtosustainhealthyworking


relationships,identifysharedgoalsandpriorities,allocateresourcesandworktowardachievingsharedobjectives.

• Requires individuals to put their own agendas aside (OECD,2006). Itcanbechallengingtobalancethedifferentrationalesandperspectivesoftheactorsinvolved,aswellastoclarifytherolesoftheactorsandestablishwhoshouldtakealeadershiprole.Creatingasharedservicemeansthatsomestakeholderswillpotentiallylosepower,influenceandcontrol(Kearney,2009).

• Is difficult to measure in terms of its success.Theissueofwhetherstakeholdersordepartmentshave‘workedwelltogether’israrelymeasuredorrewarded.Itisdifficulttodemonstratethatcollaborationhasbeensuccessful,comparedto,forexample,determiningwhetherasingleGovernmentdepartmenthasreduceditsexpenditure.Therefore,alackofpriorityisgiventohow well Ministers work with other departments (e.g.savingmoneyisvalued,rewardedanddemonstrable–workingwelltogetherisnot).

• May have poorly defined, incompatible goals and frequently involves competing political and community agendas.Itisdifficultfordepartmentstoworktogethercollaborativelyifthegoalsarenotclearlydefinedoriftheirprioritiesconflict.

Otherpracticalchallengesandbarriersinclude:

• lackofincentivestosharedata;• institutional,budgetaryandfinancial‘walls’betweendepartments;• lackoftimeandotherscarceresources;• ‘unintendedrisks,ambitiousagendasanduncontrolledconsequences’(Fafard,2013);• departmentalcultures.

EVALUATION

Giventhecomplexissuesthatwholeofgovernmentapproachestendtotackle(e.g.intractablesocialissues,unexpectedcrises),evaluationisamultifaceted,complicatedprocess.Suchpolicyinitiativeshavetobeviewedincombinationastheyinteractwitheachother,leadingtooutcomesthataremorethanjustthesumofindividualprogrammeoutcomes.Afewexampleswillillustratethepoint.

• In British Columbia,aspartoftheActNowBChealthpromotioninitiative,aBaseline Document waspreparedasaresourcetoolandbaselineforprogrammeplannersandhealthauthoritiesinthemonitoringandevaluationoftheprovince’sprogressonhealthylivinggoalsandpartneredprogrammes(ActNowBC,2006).

• In New Zealand,thenowendedHealthy Eating Healthy Action(HEHA)Strategyexplicitlyrecognisedtheimportanceofevaluationandtheneedtocreateanevidencebasetosupportfutureinitiatives(see Appendix 1).Animplementationplan(2003-2010)wasdevelopedoutliningtimeframes,keyactors,theirrolesandresponsibilities,targetsanddesiredoutcomes.Acompaniondocument,Healthy Eating – Healthy Action: A Background,waspublished,whichprovidedthescientificsupportandrationaleforthedirectionsproposedinthestrategicframework(MinistryofHealth,2004).TheMinistryofHealthalsocommissionedaconsortiumofresearcherstoevaluatethestrategyasawhole.

• In Ireland,Healthy Irelandhasafocusonresearch,toensurethatgoals,programmesandfundingdecisionsarebasedonrobustevidenceaboutthedeterminantsofhealthandbestpracticeapproachesinaddressingthem.Accordingly,thereareplanstodevelopaResearch,DataandInnovationPlanforHealthy Irelandtobuildtheknowledgebaseandensurethathigh-qualityandup-to-datedata,scientificknowledgeandevaluationtoolsareavailabletosupporttheimplementationandmonitoringoftheFramework’sactionsandguidethedevelopmentofnewpoliciesintothefuture.AnOutcomesFrameworkwillalsobedeveloped,specifyingkeyindicatorstounderpineachofthefourhigh-levelgoals.Targetsforquantifiableimprovementswillbeset,


whereappropriate.Regularmeasurementoftheseindicatorswillallowprogresstobeassessedovertime.

• In Scotland,attemptshavebeenmadetomeasureculturalchangeinrelationtotheGetting it Right for Every Childinitiative.Todothis,HMInspectorscarriedoutaprogrammeofvisitsovertheperiodSeptember2011toApril2012toasampleof11EducationAuthoritiesacrossScotland.Theydidthiswiththeaimofexaminingtheextenttowhichtheeducationsystemwascurrentlyusing Getting it Right for Every Child approaches to help ensure that children and families got the righthelpattherighttime.ThetasksoughttoidentifyhowfullyauthoritiesandestablishmentshadembeddedthefoundationsoftheGetting it Right for Every Childapproach.Italsoexploredprogressinimplementingkeyelementsoftheapproach.

However,measuringoutcomesdoesnotnecessarilytellusabouttheculturalchangesthatarenotedinthisdocumentasbeingimportant.InAustralia,theGoodnaServiceIntegrationProjectnotedthattheyhadbeeneffectiveinencouragingchangesinhowGovernmentandGovernment-fundedagenciesdidbusinessintheGoodnacommunity,yettherewereveryfewdefinitiveoutcomemeasurescommonlyutilisedbyGovernmentagenciesthatcouldconclusivelydemonstratethesechanges(CommunityServiceandResearchCentre,2002).

Itseemsevaluationofwholeofgovernmentinitiativesinsomecasesisparticularlychallengingandrequiresafocusedattemptbytheevaluationresearchcommunitytodevelopmethodologiessuitedtotheiruniquefeatures.


2.4 An Implementation Science perspective on whole of government approaches

THE CONTEXT FOR FUTURE WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

InIreland,thePublic Service Reform Plan, 2014-2016prioritisesmanyofthefeaturesthatarefundamentaltoeffectivewholeofgovernmentworking(DPER,2014).ThePlanplaceshighpriorityonserviceuserfocus,strongemphasisonleadershipandcapability,mobilityatseniorlevelsofthepublicserviceandculturalchange.Itunderlinestheneedtoensurerealintegrationandcollaborativeworkingacrossthesystem,withtheSeniorPublicService(SPS)programmeattheheartofthatintent:

‘In line with a commitment in the Programme for Government, the Senior Public Service (SPS) was established “to nurture the collaborative culture needed to tackle the biggest cross-cutting social and economic challenges”, initially across the Civil Service and ultimately extending to the wider Public Service. This entails strengthening leadership and management capacity at an individual level, as well as developing leaders as a shared corporate resource for the system as a whole’ (DPER,2014,p.30).

ThisapproachlaysthefoundationforstrengtheningwholeofgovernmentworkacrossthepublicsectorinIreland.

InNorthernIreland,asoutlinedpreviously,intheProgramme for Government, 2011-2015theGovernmentrecognisedthatmakingarealdifferencedemandseffectivecross-departmentalworkinginconjunctionwitheffectivecollaboration.TheGovernmenthadcommittedtopromotecross-departmentalworkinginparticularareas.

THE POTENTIAL OF IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE

TheCESIntroductory Guide to Implementationhighlightsthepotentialforapplyingsystematicimplementationapproachestopolicydevelopment:

‘Implementation can refer to any innovation … [It] can relate to policy, which involves a series of activities undertaken by government and its institutions to achieve the goals and objectives articulated in policy statements’ (Burkeet al,2012,p.2).

TheStagesandEnablersFramework(ibid,p.9)formsthecoreofanImplementationScienceapproachtopolicyandprogrammeimplementation.Thisframeworkofferspotentialforanevidence-informedapproachtowholeofgovernmentpolicyimplementationbydrawingtogetherthetheoryandresearchonwholeofgovernmentworkingwiththelearningfromImplementationScience(see Figure 3).

STAGES IN A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT-POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Theliteraturesuggeststhatwholeofgovernmentpolicyimplementationbeginsatthepolicy development stage.Itisatthisstagethatpolicy-makerscanascertainthatawholeofgovernmentapproachisagood‘fit’fortheparticularpolicychallengeandlaythegroundworkforsuccessfulimplementationby:

• assessingtheextentoftheinterdependenciesinvolvedinsuccessfulimplementation,bothacross areas of government and also between levels ofgovernment;

• decidingwhethertheextentoftheseinterdependencieswarrantsawholeofgovernmentapproach;

• mapping the stakeholderswhoseworkimpactsonsuccessfulpolicyimplementation(includingNGOsandothernon-governmentalactorswhoseworkcanimpactonimplementation);

• drawing on the expertise and experience of the key stakeholders to help design and develop the policywitheffectiveimplementationinmindfromthestart.


Followingpolicydevelopment,thedetailedplanningcanusefullydrawontheframeworkofEnablersthathavebeenidentifiedforeffectiveimplementation(Burkeet al,2012).

ENABLERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Inawholeofgovernmentcontext,theenablersforpolicyimplementationandthekeytasksassociatedwitheachenablerareillustratedinFigure3.Eachstageisdiscussedbelow.

Figure 3: Enablers for implementation of whole of government policy

Adapted from CES’ Introductory Guide to Implementation (2012).

Stakeholder consultation and buy-in• Identifyallthestakeholdersonwhosework,involvementorcooperationthesuccessof

implementationdepends.• Ensurethatfront-linedeliverypersonnelandprofessionalsarebroughtintothepolicy

developmentandimplementationplanningcyclefromthestart.• Workwiththestakeholderstobuildasharedvisionoftheoutcomes,inparticularasharedviewof

thenatureandcausesofthechallengebeingaddressed,andacommonpictureofthepathtotheoutcomes.

IMPLEMENTATION ENABLERS POLICY DEVELOPMENT POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Stakeholder consultation and buy-in

Leadership

Resources

Implementation structures and teams

Implementation planning

Staff capacity

Supportive culture

Communication

Monitoring and evaluation

Learning from experience

Enablers for Implementation ofWhole of Government Policy

1.Exploring &Preparing

4.Business as usual

3.Implementing &Operationalising

2.Planning &Resourcing


• Developjoined-upthinkingamongallstakeholdersabouttheprocessthroughwhichchangewillbeachievedandthebarrierstobeovercome.

Leadership• SecurepoliticalandadministrativeleadershipofkeyMinistersandseniorpublicofficialsatthe

outsetandacrossthelifetimeoftheproject.• EnsuretheinitiativeisaclearstrategicpriorityofGovernment,withhighstatus.• Createopportunitiesforvisibleendorsementandconstantcommunicationaboutthechange

involvedarisingfromthiswholeofgovernmentinitiative.• Identifyanoperationalleaderorleadershipgrouptodrivetheproject.• EnsurethattheLeadershipTeamdrivingthepolicyimplementationreflectsthenatureofthe

wholeofgovernmentinitiative.• ConstructImplementationNetworkswithappropriateskills,authorityandaccountability.• Provideleadershipsupportsforwholeofgovernmentwork.

Resources• Determinehowthebudgetforthepolicyimplementationwillbesecured,whereaccountability

restsandhowaccountabilitieswillbeshared,ifappropriate.• Identifyandsecurethestaffwiththeskillsetsandexpertiseneededforthework.

Implementation structures and teams• Identifythewholeofgovernmentstructuresthatfitwiththeparticularinitiative.• Ensurethereisaclearmandatefortheinitiativeandthataccountabilityfordeliveringonthe

mandateisagreed.• Workoutthekeyaccountabilitiesandaccountabilityframeworks.• Workouttheareasofexpertiserequiredandwhereauthorityandcompetencieslie.• Assignformalrolesandresponsibilitiesintheinitiative.• EstablishImplementationTeamswithrelevantexpertiseinpolicydevelopmentandorganisational

strategy,expertknowledgeandboundary-spanningskillstoguidetheinitiative.• Includepeoplefromdiversebackgrounds,includingwholeofgovernmentknowledge,organisation

development,relevantspecialistprofessionalbackgroundsandservicedeliveryexperience.

Implementation planning• Settheobjectiveofthewholeofgovernmentinitiativeandtheexpectedoutcomes.• Identifythekey‘boundaries’andinterdependencies.• Maptheinterdepartmental/interagency‘gaps’ininformation,capacities,funding,operational

policies.• DevelopanImplementationPlanforthewholeofgovernmentpolicy.• Developperformanceindicators,targetsandmeasures.• Developaccountabilityframeworksandbudgetaryframeworks.• Jointlydevelopandenterintoformalcollaborationagreements.

Staff capacity• Prepareandimplementthestrategyforbuildingstaffcapacity,includingstaffselection,training,

ongoingcoachingandsupportforboundary-spanningskills.• Identifycareerpathwaysforspecialiststaffwhocanofferexpertiseinwholeofgovernmentwork.• Considerusingapanelofadvisors/mentorswithexpertiseinwholeofgovernmentwork.• Offerjointtrainingwithpeoplefromalltherelevantagencies/units.• Providesupportfordeveloping:

o networkingskills;


o capacitytocultivatecross-boundaryrelationships;o relationshipskillsandcollaboration;o understandingoftheinterdependenciesinvolvedinsolvingcomplexproblems;o supportformanagingorganisationalculturaldifferences.

Supportive culture• Buildandsustainasupportiveandenablingcultureforthepolicythatisbeingimplementedona

wholeofgovernmentbasis.

Communication• Setupacommunicationsplantoensurethatallofthekeystakeholdersinvolvedoraffectedbythe

wholeofgovernmentinitiativearekeptinformedaboutprogress.• Communicatethewholeofgovernmentdimensionoftheworkroutinely.

Monitoring and evaluation• Establisharobustsystemforgatheringdata,monitoringandevaluation,suitedtothechallengesof

awholeofgovernmentcontext.

Learning from experience • Setupformalsystemstocaptureandsharethelearningandexperienceaboutwholeof

governmentwork.• Createandmaintainarepositoryofknowledge.

2.5 Summary and Conclusions

Wholeofgovernmentislikelytobeafeatureofthepolicyimplementationlandscapeinsomeformforthefuture,giventheincreasingcomplexitiesofthesocialandeconomiclandscape,nationallyandinternationally.Astheissuesthatgovernmentsfacetodaybecomeincreasinglycomplex,andastechnologycontinuestoadvancetoprovidenewandnovelwaystointeractandshareinformation,wholeofgovernmentworkingbecomesprogressivelymorenecessary.

Thepotentialbenefitsofadoptingwholeofgovernmentapproachesincludeafocusonprevention,increasedusersatisfaction,betteroutcomesandabetterworkingenvironmentforthoseimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy.Thebenefitsoftheseapproachescanonlyberealisediftheyareimplementedwell.Insuchcases,thebenefitswillbefeltacrossGovernmentdepartmentsandsociety,althoughnotnecessarilyimmediately.

Earlyadoptersofwholeofgovernmentapproacheshavetypicallyrecognisedthebenefitsandhavenotreversedoutoftheirdecisionstoendorsewholeofgovernmentworking.However,thereareimplementationchallengesthatmustberecognisedanddealtwith.TheliteratureonImplementationScienceoffersaresourcetoguidethinkingonhowthechallengesofimplementationcanbemet.Linkingthetheoryandresearchonwholeofgovernmentapproacheswithemergingworkonevidence-informedpolicyimplementationcaninformandguidefuturedevelopments.

Summary 37References 37

References


References 39

References

ActNowBC(2006)Measuring Our Success: Baseline Document.BritishColumbia:ActNowBC.Availableat:http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2006/ActNowBC_Baseline.pdf

Ansell,C.(2000)‘Thenetworkedpolity:RegionaldevelopmentinWesternEurope’,Governance,Vol.13,No.2,pp.279-91.

Autero,A.(2006)Coherent and clear performance information – Does it exist? Paper presented at European GroupofPublicAdministration(EGPA)andAmericanSocietyforPublicAdministration(ASPA)Conferenceon‘Aperformingpublicsector:Thesecondtransatlanticdialogue’,Leuvin,Belgium,1-6June2006.

Boston,J.andEichbaum,C.(2007)‘StateSectorReformandRenewalinNewZealand:LessonsforGovernance’.In:GeraldCaidenandTsai-TsuSu(eds.), The Repositioning of Public Governance.Taipei,Taiwan:Best-WisePublishingCo.

Boyle,R.(1999)The management of cross-cutting issues,DiscussionPaper8.Dublin:CommitteeforPublicManagementResearch.

Burke,K.,Morris,K.andMcGarrigle,L.(2012)AnIntroductoryGuidetoImplementation:Terms,ConceptsandFrameworks.Dublin:CentreforEffectiveServices.Availableat:http://www.effectiveservices.org/images/uploads/file/publications/Guide%20to%20implementation%20concepts%20and%20frameworks%20Final%20for%20web%20v2.pdf

Chabit,C.andMichalun,M.V.(2009) Mind the Gaps: Managing mutual dependence in relations among levels of government.Paris:OECD.

Chuang,E.andWells,R.(2010)‘Theroleofinter-agencycollaborationinfacilitatingreceiptofbehavioralhealthservicesforyouthinvolvedwithchildwelfareandjuvenilejustice’,Children and Youth Services Review,Vol.32,No.12,pp.1814-22.

Christensen,T.andLægreid,P.(2007)‘TheWhole-of-GovernmentApproachtoPublicSectorReform’,Public Administration Review,Vol.67,No.6,pp1059-66.

CommunityServiceandResearchCentre(2002)Case Study: ‘Better Outcomes for Families –Interdepartmental Early Identification and Intervention Model’,inassociationwiththeGoodnaServiceIntegrationProject(SIP).Ipswich:UniversityofQueensland.

deBrí,F.andBannister,F.(2010)Whole of Government: Beyond silos and toward ‘wicked problems’,Proceedingsofthe10thEuropeanConferenceonE-Government:NationalCentreforTaxationStudies,UniversityofLimerick,Ireland,17-18June2010.

DPER(2014)Public Service Reform Plan, 2014-2016.Dublin:DepartmentofPublicExpenditureandReform.

Drechsler,W.(2005)‘Theriseanddemiseofthenewpublicmanagement’,Post-autistic Economics Review,Vol.33,No.14,pp.17-28.

Dunleavy,P.(2010)The future of joined-up public services.London:PublicServicesTrust,LondonSchoolofEconomics.

EfficacyUnit,The(2009)Joined-up Government.Dublin:ResearchDivision,InstituteofPublicAdministration.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2006/ActNowBC_Baseline.pdf

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2006/ActNowBC_Baseline.pdf

http://www.effectiveservices.org/images/uploads/file/publications/Guide%20to%20implementation%20concepts%20and%20frameworks%20Final%20for%20web%20v2.pdf





Fafard,P.(2013)Health-in-All meets Horizontal Government.PaperpresentedatFirstInternationalConferenceonPublicPolicy,Grenoble,France,June2013(unpublished).Availableat:http://www.icpublicpolicy.org/IMG/pdf/panel_61_s1_fafard_final.pdf

Filmreite,A.L.,Christensen,T.andLægreid,P.(2013)Joined-up Government: Reform challenges, experiences and accountability relations,COCOPSWorkingPaperNo.9.Availableat:http://www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/COCOPS_workingpaper_No9.pdf

Fixsen,D.L.andBlase,K.A.(2009)Implementation: The missing link between research and practice,NIRNImplementationBrief1.ChapelHill,NC:NationalImplementationResearchNetwork,FPGChildDevelopmentInstitute,UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill.Availableat:http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-ImplementationBrief-01-2009.pdf

Fixsen,D.L.,Naoom,S.F.,Blase,K.A.,Friedman,R.A.andWallace,F.(2005)Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature.Tampa,FL:UniversityofSouthFlorida.

Frampton,R.,Iu,J.andRodrigues,M.(2006)Evaluating a ‘Bold Experiment’: Whole of Government Policy Evaluation in Indigenous Affairs.Carlton,VIC:AustralasianEvaluationSocietyInc.Availableat:http://www.docstoc.com/docs/32910418/Evaluating-a-Bold-Experiment-Wholeofgovernment-Policy

Halligan,J.,Buick,F.andO’Flynn,J.(2011)‘Experimentswithjoined-up,horizontalandwholeofgovernmentinAnglophonecountries’.In:AndrewMassey(ed.),International Handbook on Civil Service Systems.Cheltenham:EdwardElgarPublishingLtd.(pp.74-99).Availableat:http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/g_emag.lasso?ebook13isbn=9781781001080&title=International%20Handbook%20On%20Civil%20Service%20Systems

Harrinvirta,M.andKekkonen,S.(2005)Government Programme as a subject of performance measurement – Process and politics.PaperpresentedattheAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanGroupofPublicAdministration(EGPA),Berne,Switzerland,31August-3September2005.

Hyde,J.(2008)‘Howtomaketherhetoricofjoined-upgovernmentreallywork’,Australia and New Zealand Health Policy,Vol.5,p.22.Availableat:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613881/

HMGovernment(2013)Positive for Youth: Progress since December 2011.London:HMGovernment.Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210383/Positive-for-Youth-progress-update.pdf

Karré,P.M.,VanderSteen,M.andVanTwist,M.(2013)‘Joined-upGovernmentinTheNetherlands:ExperienceswithProgramMinistries’,International Journal of Public Administration,Vol.36,No.1,pp.63-73.

Kearney,A.T.(2005)Shared Services in Government: Turning private-sector lessons into public sector best practices.Chicago,IL:A.T.Kearney.

Kearney,A.T.(2009)Shared Services in Government 2: Building a platform for better public services at lower cost.London:A.T.Kearney.Availableat:http://www.cisco.com/web/DE/pdfs/publicsector/Shared_Services_Building_A_Platform_For_Better_Services_At_Lower_Cost.pdf

Knox,C.(2003)‘Joined-upGovernment:AnintegratedresponsetocommunalviolenceinNorthernIreland?’,Policy & Politics,Vol.31,No.1,pp.19-35.

http://www.icpublicpolicy.org/IMG/pdf/panel_61_s1_fafard_final.pdf

http://www.icpublicpolicy.org/IMG/pdf/panel_61_s1_fafard_final.pdf

http://www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/COCOPS_workingpaper_No9.pdf

http://www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/COCOPS_workingpaper_No9.pdf

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-ImplementationBrief-01-2009.pdf

http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-ImplementationBrief-01-2009.pdf

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/32910418/Evaluating-a-Bold-Experiment-Whole

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/32910418/Evaluating-a-Bold-Experiment-Whole

http://www.e-elgar.co.uk/g_emag.lasso?ebook13isbn=9781781001080&title=International%20Handbook%20On%20Civil%20Service%20Systems



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613881/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210383/Positive-for-Youth-progress-update.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210383/Positive-for-Youth-progress-update.pdf

http://www.cisco.com/web/DE/pdfs/publicsector/Shared_Services_Building_A_Platform_For_Better_Services_At_Lower_Cost.pdf

http://www.cisco.com/web/DE/pdfs/publicsector/Shared_Services_Building_A_Platform_For_Better_Services_At_Lower_Cost.pdf

References 41

Lægreid,P.,Nordø,Å.D.andRykkja,L.H.(2013)The quality of coordination in Norwegian central Government: The importance of coordination arrangements and structural, cultural and demographic factors.PaperpresentedattheConferenceoftheEuropeanGroupofPublicAdministration(EGPA)StudyGrouponGovernanceofPublicSectorOrganizationson‘Compoundedgovernmentorganization,coordinationandaccountabilityinthefaceofglobalsocietalchallenges’,11-13September2013,Edinburgh,Scotland.Availableat:http://observgo.uquebec.ca/observgo/fichiers/21051_Nwy.pdf

Ling,T.(2002)‘Deliveringjoined–upgovernmentintheUK:Dimensions,issuesandproblems’,Public Administration,Vol.80,No.4,pp.615-42.

ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(2004)Connecting Government: Whole of Government responses to Australia’s priority challenges.Canberra:ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment).

Matthews,A.,Chaplin,H.,Giblin,T.andMraz,M.(2006)Strengthening Policy Coherence for Development in Agricultural Policy: Policy Recommendations to Irish Aid,IIISDiscussionPaperNo.188.Dublin:InstituteforInternationalIntegrationStudies.

MacCarthaigh,M.andBoyle,R.(2011)‘Joined-upGovernmentinIreland:Fromun-strategicchoicestopatrioticimperatives’,International Journal of Public Administration,Vol.34,No.4,pp.213-20.

McKinsey&Company(2010)Making it Work in Government: Perspectives on Transforming Performance in the Public Sector.London:McKinsey&Company.

Metcalf,A.(2011)Whole of government issues in public policy formulation.PresentationtotheCentreforDefenceandStrategicStudies,Canberra,November2011.Canberra:DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,AustralianGovernment.Availableat:https://www.immi.gov.au/about/speeches-pres/_pdf/2010-11-02-whole-of-gov-issues-public-policy-formulation-slides.pdf

Mulgan,G.(2009)The art of public strategy: Mobilizing power and knowledge for the common good.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

NESC(2005)The Developmental Welfare State.Dublin:NationalEconomicSocialCouncil.

NorthernIrelandExecutive(2011)Programme for Government, 2011-2015: Building a better future.Belfast:OfficeoftheFirstMinisterandDeputyFirstMinister.

OECD(2006)Whole of Government Approaches to Fragile States,DACGuidelinesandReferenceSeries.Paris:OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment.

OECD(2010)Finland: Working Together to Sustain Success.Paris:OECDPublicGovernanceReviews,OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment.

O’Flynn,J.,Buick,F.,Blackman,D.andHalligan,J.(2011)‘Youwinsome,youlosesome:Experimentswithjoined-upgovernment’,International Journal of Public Administration,Vol.34,No.4,pp.244-54.

OFMDFM(2003)A Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland.Belfast:EconomicPolicyUnit,OfficeoftheFirstMinisterandDeputyFirstMinister.Availableat:http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/practical-guide-policy-making_-_amend_aug_11.pdf

Roy,J.andLangford,J.(2008)Integrating service delivery across levels of Government: Case studies of Canada and other countries.Washington,DC:IBMCenterforTheBusinessofGovernment.

http://observgo.uquebec.ca/observgo/fichiers/21051_Nwy.pdf

https://www.immi.gov.au/about/speeches-pres/_pdf/2010-11-02-whole-of-gov-issues-public-policy-formulation-slides.pdf

https://www.immi.gov.au/about/speeches-pres/_pdf/2010-11-02-whole-of-gov-issues-public-policy-formulation-slides.pdf

http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/practical-guide-policy-making_-_amend_aug_11.pdf

http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/practical-guide-policy-making_-_amend_aug_11.pdf


Snook(2012)Customer Views on Digital Public Services: Report for Gerry Hendricks The Scottish Government.Glasgow:Snook.Availableat:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00392988.pdf

StateServicesAuthority(2007a)Victorian Approaches to Joined-up Government: An overview.Melbourne:GovernmentofVictoriaStateServicesAuthority.

StateServicesAuthority(2007b)Joined-up government – A review of national and international experiences,WorkPaperNo.1.Melbourne:GovernmentofVictoriaStateServicesAuthority.

StateServicesAuthority(2011)Making public policy stick: Policy implementation literature report.Melbourne:GovernmentofVictoriaStateServicesAuthority.

Walker,A.(2004)‘Understandingsocialcapitalwithincommunity/governmentpolicynetworks’,Social Policy Journal of New Zealand,Issue22,pp.1-18.

Walker,A.(2005)‘Childprotectionandinteragencycollaboration’,Editorial Note,Vol.29,pp.29-37.

Whelan,P.,Arnold,T.,Aylward,A.,Doyle,M.,Lacey,B.,Loftus,C.,McLaughlin,N.,Molloy,E.,Payne,J.andPine,M.(2003)Cross-departmental challenges: A whole of government approach for the twenty-first century. Dublin:InstituteofPublicAffairs.

Williams,P.(2002)‘Thecompetentboundaryspanner’,Public Administration,Vol.80,No.1,pp.103-24.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00392988.pdf

Appendices 43Appendices 43

Appendices

44 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches44 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches

Appendices 45

Appendix1:Wholeofgovernmentinaction–ScotlandandNewZealand

Twointernationalexamplesaredescribedhereofhowwholeofgovernmentinitiativeshavebeenappliedinpractice.TheexamplescomefromScotlandandNewZealand,andconsiderprojectsatvariousstagesofdevelopmentandimplementation.Theaccountsaredescriptiveratherthanevaluative.

Scotland’s Whole System Approach to Youth Justice

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Scotland’sWholeSystemApproachtoYouthJusticeisintendedtoensurethattherightserviceisprovidedbytherightpersonoragencyattherighttimeforyoungpeople.Theapproachappliesacrosstheagerange8-18years.It aims to ensure a consistent approach among agencies and to keep young people out of the statutory systems wherepossible.Itinvolvesamulti-prongedstrategy,operatingatthefollowingtieredlevels:earlyandeffectiveinterventionandsupport;diversionfromprosecution;communityalternativestosecurecareandcustody;effectiveriskmanagementmeasures,whereriskismanagedthroughchildren’shearingsystemratherthanCourt;Courtsupport;changingbehavioursofthoseinsecurecareandcustody;andsupportforre-integrationandtransition.

Theapproachinvolvesarangeofpractitionersworkingtogethertosupportfamiliesandtakingearlyactionatthefirstsignsofdifficulty.Itwaspilotedinanumberofcountiesin2010and2011,andhasnowbeenrolled-outacrossScotland.

TheAberdeenYouthJusticeDevelopmentPilotProgramme,basedontheWholeSystemApproachmodel,ranfrom2010to2012.Materialinthiscasestudyisdrawnfromaccountsofthenationalpolicyframeworks(see below)andtheAberdeenPilotProgramme.

POLICY CONTEXT

The main policy framework is Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC).Thisisthenationalchild-centredframeworkthatrequiresallservices(socialwork,health,education,police,housingandvoluntaryorganisations)toadoptstreamlinedsystemstoworktogethertosupportchildrenandyoungpeople.Theotherpolicyframeworksforyouthjusticeare:

• Protecting Scotland’s Communities(2008),theScottishblueprintforreducingoffendingandre-offendingandenhancingpublicsafety;

• Preventing Offending by Young People: A Framework for Action(2008),whichsetdownproceduresforinteragencyworkingtopreventandreduceoffending;

• Securing Our Future Initiative(2009),whichisthestrategyforcommunity-basedalternativestosecurecare.

STRUCTURES TO DELIVER THE PROGRAMME

StructuresoperateatnationalandlocalleveltosupporttheWholeSystemApproach.

National level• National Youth Justice Advisory Group:Theroleofthisnationalbodyofrepresentativesfromall32


localauthoritiesinScotlandistoactasthelinkbetweenlocalyouthjusticerepresentativeswithintheauthoritiesandtheGovernment,providingaconduitforinformation,policyandnationaldevelopment.Thegroupmeetsquarterly.

• National Youth Justice Strategic Group:Thisgroupwassetupin2007todevelopaframeworkfordealingwithyoungpeoplewhooffendorwhoareatriskofoffending.Membershaveadualrole–torepresenttheirorganisationorconstituency,andtosharetheresponsibilityofdeliveringtheframework.

County level• Steering Group:Atcountylevel,theAberdeenYouthJusticeDevelopmentPilotProgrammewas

supportedbyaSteeringGroup, chairedbyGrampianPolice,withtheremittoensurehigh-levelsupport,beresponsibleforgovernanceandgainhigh-levelbuy-in.

• Strategy Group:Thisgroup waschairedbyChildren’sServicesandmadeupofrepresentativesfromawiderangeofstatutoryandvoluntaryagencies.

• Partnerships:TheAberdeenProgrammeTeamworkedinpartnershipwithAberdeenCityCouncil,GrampianPolice,NHSGrampian,EducationServices,ScottishChildren’sReporterAdministration(SCRA),CrownOfficeandProcuratorFiscalService(COPFS),ScottishCourtService(SCS)andtheThirdSector.

SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES

Thekeysystemsandprocessesthathavebeenintroducedaremainlytheprofessionaltoolsforinteragencyworking.Theseincludeapre-referralscreeningprocess,the‘diversionfromprosecutionprocess’,introductionoftheCourtSupportWorker,aswellasseveralothernewtypesofserviceprovisiontomatchthetiersoftheWholeSystemApproach.

PracticeguidanceforthevariousstrandsoftheWholeSystemApproachisprovidedbytheCriminalJusticeSocialWorkDevelopmentCentre,workingcloselywiththeNationalYouthJusticeAdvisoryGroup.

OUTCOMES TO DATE AND BENEFITS REALISED

TheAberdeenPilotProgrammewasevaluatedin2011andfoundtobesuccessfulonanumberofkeymetrics,includingsignificantreductionsinthenumberofchildrenbeingreferredonbothoffendingandnon-offendinggrounds,andreductioninthenumberofyoungpeopleaccommodatedinsecureorresidentialaccommodation.Theevaluationstressesthatitwas,atthatpoint(2011),tooearlytodeterminetheimpactoftheprogrammeonoutcomesforyoungpeople.Theevaluationandotherdocumentshighlightpositivechangesinprocesses,including:

• alteredrelationshipbetweenYouthJusticeManagementUnitofGrampianPolice(YJMU)andEducation;• increasedcontactbetweenYJMUandSocialWork;• radicalchangesinpolicingpractice;• improvementsintherangeofservicesandbettercommunicationbetweenagencies.

CHALLENGES

EarlyevaluationoftheAberdeenPilotProgrammehighlightschallengescommontoallwholeofgovernmentandinteragencyinitiatives.Theinterimevaluation,carriedoutafterayearofoperationoftheWholeSystemApproachinAberdeen,referstotheneedfortop-downguidancefromtheScottishGovernment;asharedsetofoutcometargetsandindicatorsalignedtotheperformancemetricstrackedbytheprogrammeandthewiderYouthJusticeStrategy,toprovideafocusforalldeliverypartners;andinvestmentinknowledge-sharingplatforms.Theevaluationalsohighlightstheimportanceofapartnership-levelvisiontosupportmainstreaming,effectivegovernanceandasinglesharedbudget.

Appendices 47

New Zealand’s Healthy Eating – Healthy Action Strategy Framework

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The Healthy Eating – Healthy Action: Oranga Kai – Oranga Pumau: Strategy Framework (known as the HEHA Strategy) providedanintegratedpolicyframeworkintendedtobringaboutchangesintheenvironmentinwhichNewZealanderslive,workandplayasthisrelatestonutrition,physicalactivityandobesity.ItwastheMinistryofHealth’sresponseto3ofthe13prioritypopulationhealthobjectivesoutlinedintheNewZealandHealthStrategy(MinisterofHealth,2000).

TIMEFRAMES

The Implementation Plan, 2003-2010 for the HEHA Strategyhada6+yearperspective.Itwastobereviewedafter5years.Themajorityoftheactionsshouldhavebeenimplemented,oratleastinitiated,withinthattimeframe.Itwasrecognisedfromthestartthatprogresswouldhavetobemadeontheactionsinastep-by-stepfashion,dependinginpartontheavailabilityofresources,includingtheappropriateworkforce.

POLICY AREAS INVOLVED

Theworktoimprovenutrition,increasephysicalactivityandreduceobesitywouldrequiremultipleactionsbymultipleplayers,includingtheHealthandPhysicalActivitysectors,aswellasawiderangeofothersectorsasdetailedbelow.

Health sector• MinistryofHealth;• DistrictHealthBoards;• hospitals,clinicalandspecialistservices;• PrimaryHealthOrganisations;• primaryhealthcareproviders;• PublicHealthUnits,non-governmentalorganisations,community-basedprovidersandorganisations

(includingMāoriandPacific)andhealthprofessionals.

Physical Activity sector• SPARC(SportandRecreationNewZealand);• regionalsportstrusts,physicalactivityprovidersandcommunityprovidersandorganisations.

Education sector• MinistryofEducation;• academicsandresearchers,tertiaryinstitutionsandschools.

Other sectors• CentralGovernmentagencies,e.g.SocialDevelopment;Transport;Environment;LocalGovernment;• foodandfoodserviceindustry,includingfastfood,vegetableandfruit,grocery,restaurants;• physicalactivityindustry,includinggyms,weightlossindustry,advertisingandthemedia;• employers/theworkplace.

LEADERSHIP ROLES

TheMinistryofHealth’sSectorCapabilityandInnovationDirectorateformedanInter-Agency Steering Group onHEHA.KeycontributorstotheobjectivesofthisgroupincludedGovernmentagencies,SportandRecreation


NewZealand(SPARC),andDistrictHealthBoards.TheMinistryadoptedanationalcoordinatingrolewiththesecontributorsandotherkeystakeholders.

STRUCTURES SET UP TO DELIVER THE PROJECT

An Implementation Steering GroupwasestablishedtoprovideleadershipandexpertadvicetotheMinistryofHealthduringtheimplementationphase.

InresponsetotheInquiryintoObesityandType2Diabetes,theGovernmentproposedthattheInter-AgencySteeringGroupbeexpandedtobecometheHEHA Sector Steering Group,toprovideexpertadvicetothenewministerialcommitteeforHEHA,ledbytheMinisterofHealth.ThisgrouphasmembershipfromanumberofrelevantGovernmentorganisationsandothers,includingrepresentativesofnon-governmentalorganisations,agenciesforNutritionAction,theChronicDiseasesPeakGroup,membersofMāoriandPacificcommunities,obesityexpertsandfoodindustryrepresentatives.

CrownfundingagreementvariationswereputinplacebetweentheMinistryofHealthandthe21DistrictHealthBoards.ThevariationsincludedspecifyingtheneedforDistrictHealthBoardstocoordinatepartnershipsforHEHAimplementationatbothregionalanddistrictlevel.Thesepartnershipsincluderegionalsportstrusts,theMinistryofEducation(throughSchoolSupportServices)andotherrelevantsectors.

SUPPORTS

The Implementation Plan, 2003-2010wasdeveloped,outliningtimeframes,keyactors,theirrolesandresponsibilities,targetsanddesiredoutcomes.Acompaniondocument,Healthy Eating – Healthy Action: A Background,providedthescientificsupportandrationaleforthedirectionsproposedinthestrategicframework(MinistryofHealth,2004).

WHAT HELPED?

The HEHA Strategywascongruentwithanumberofotherstrategiesandpoliciesunderwayatthetimeofimplementation.TheoverarchingstrategiesforthehealthanddisabilityservicesaretheNewZealandHealthStrategy(MinisterofHealth,2000)andtheNewZealandDisabilityStrategy(MinisterforDisabilityIssues,2000).Nutrition,physicalactivityandobesityarealsorelatedtothedevelopmentofseveraldiseases.Asaresult,therearesynergieswithanumberofotherMinistryofHealthstrategies,including: He Korowai Oranga: Māori Health Strategy and Whakatātaka: Māori Health Action Plan(MinisterofHealthandAssociateMinisterofHealth,2002);Pacific Health and Disability Action Plan (MinisterofHealth,2002);New Zealand Cancer Control Strategy (MinisterofHealth,2003);Reducing Inequalities in Health(MinistryofHealth,2002);Breastfeeding: A guide to action(MinistryofHealth,2002);Child Health Strategy(MinisterofHealth,1998);Health of Older People Strategy(AssociateMinisterofHealthandAssociateMinisterforDisabilityIssues,2002);andAchieving Health for All People(MinistryofHealth,2003).

Particularagencieswereidentifiedtotakepartintheactionsspecified.Milestonesandmeasuresofprogresstowardstheoutcomeswereestablished.

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS

Significantconcernswereexpressedaboutworkforcedevelopmentandtheworkloadthatimplementationwouldcreate,especiallyforthesmall,alreadystretchedMaoriandPacificworkforces,withlittlescopeorresourcestotrainspecialistsinnutrition-relatedinterventionstoaddresstheskillsshortage.

Appendices 49

Despiteabroadconsultationprocess,communicationwithMaoriwasfoundwanting,mostlyduetotheMinistry’slackofnetworkswithlocalproviders,leadingtodecreasedparticipationandpotentialbuy-intotheunderlyingrationaleandstructureoftheHEHA Strategy.

ApotentialunintendedconsequenceofHEHAwasidentifiedinthatitcouldre-enforcethestatusquoorexacerbateexistinginequalitiesbymeetingtheneedsofthosewhoalreadyhavethebesthealth.

OUTCOMES

Earlyactivityincludedthe‘FruitinSchools’campaignandeffortstostopthesellingoffizzydrinksinschoolsandimprovethenutritionalcontentoffoodsoldinschools.In2008,HEHAinitiativesincludedupdatingtheFoodandNutritionGuidelinesforInfantsandToddlersaged0-2,reviewingtheFoodandNutritionGuidelinesforOlderPeople,andlaunchingtheNationalStrategicPlanofActionforBreastfeeding.

EVALUATION

BecausetheHEHA Strategyexplicitlyrecognisedtheimportanceofevaluationandtheneedtocreateanevidencebasetosupportfutureinitiatives,theMinistryofHealthcommissionedaconsortiumofresearcherstoevaluatethestrategyasawhole.

AstocktakeofHEHA-relatedinitiativeswasundertakenacrossNewZealandtoanswerquestionsabouthealthimpactandvalueformoney.In2008/2009,over1,200localinitiativeswereunderwayinNewZealandandseveralnation-wideprogrammeswereinplace.In2009/2010,thedatabasewasupdatedtoincorporatenewprogrammesinitiatedfollowingthecompletionoftheoriginaldatabaseandupdateinformationonthoseprogrammesthathadceased.Atthistime,aswiththefirststocktake,PhysicalActivityprogrammesoutnumberedNutritionprogrammes,althoughacombinedapproachwasstillthemostpopular.Overall,thereremainedaspreadofinitiativesacrossarangeofpolicy,environmental,andotheractivities,althoughthenumbersofthesewerefoundtohavedecreasedsubstantially.


Appendix 2: Structures used for whole of government work, their features and uses

Thefollowingtablesshowthetypesofstructuresthatcanbeusedforwholeofgovernmentwork,someofthefeaturestheydisplayandtheiruses.BasedonConnecting Government: Whole of Government responses to Australia’s priority challenges(ManagementAdvisoryCommittee(AustralianGovernment),2004).

Structure Features

Interdepartmental committees

• Employeesmeetformallyasrepresentativesoftheirdepartments.• Theyareexpectedtospeakwiththeirdepartment’sauthorityandseek

appropriateclearanceforthepositionstheyadvance.• Thescopeofbusinessandmembershipofthecommitteeisdefinedandits

establishmentauthorisedatanappropriatelevel.• Decision-makingisbyconsensus.• Recordsofoutcomesarekept.• Theminimumexpectationistoclarifyoptionsandtoestablishagreedfacts.• Canbeefficientandresponsivetogovernment,butlessusefulforan

agreementoncontentiousissueswherestakeholdersdisagree.• Interdepartmentalcommitteescanbecomeabureaucratichabit.

Taskforces • Taskforcesfocusonjointproblem-solvingforasharedoutcome.• Membershavetimelimitsandobjectivestoprovideaclearoutcome.• Membersareengagedtobringskillsandexperiencestojointproblem-

solving.• Membersaresometimesexpectedtokeeptheirhomeagencyinformed

andengagedinsupportofthetaskforce’swork.• Memberscanbedrawnfromoutsidethepublicservice,aswellasfrom

thedepartmentsdirectlyconcerned,andreflectanappropriaterangeofdisciplinesandexperience.

• Membersarefrequentlyengagedfull-timewiththewholeofgovernmenttaskandworktothetaskforceleader.

• Membersfrequentlyundergoaconsciousseparationfromlineaccountabilitiesinthehostdepartment.

• MembersoftenworktoaCabinetcommitteeofMinisters.• Membersoftenengagewithaconsultativeinterdepartmentalcommittee

drawnfromtheaffecteddepartmentsandconductconsultationswithcommunityorganisations.

• Membersputtheiragency’sinterestsbehindthem.• Taskforcescanbeexpensiveandmayfailtocanvassalltheoptions.• Taskforcesofferparticipantsvaluabledevelopmentopportunities,butcan

distancepeoplefromtheirhomeagencies.

Appendices 51

Structure Features

Interdepartmental partnerships – Joint teams

• Blended,notstandalone,structures.• Employees from two or more departments work together to deliver shared

outcomesinablendedfunctionalorganisationwithanexpectedlifeofseveralyears.

• Noagencyhastheleadroleandjointdecision-makingoccursbetweentheteammanagers,theexecutivesofthedepartmentsandtheMinisters,asappropriate.

• There are appropriate governance arrangements to allow this to happen efficiently.

• FormalfinancialaccountabilityrestswitheachdepartmentforfundsappropriatedtoitandeachdepartmentremainsaccountableunderthePublicServiceActforitsemployees,whocontinuetoworkunderthepersonnelprovisionsoftheirhomedepartment.

• Cross-delegationsenablejointteammanagerstoadministerblendedgroups.

• Toexternalclients,employeesareidentifiedasmembersofthejointteamratherthanintermsoftheirhomeagencies.

• Trustatthehighestlevelisessential.• Jointteamsarecomprisedofemployeesfromtwoagencies,butco-located.• Fundingisappropriatedtooneagency,butdecisionsaboutallocationsare

madejointly.• Jointgovernancemechanismsareneeded.

Cross-departmental partnerships: Agency arrangements

• AnexistingGovernmentdepartmentoragencydeliversservicesonbehalfofoneormoreothers.

• Agencyservicesareprovidedthrough:o coreplatforms;o staffingnetworks;o functions;o skillsets.

• Policyagenciessetstandardsthatprovidersdeliver.• One-stopshopsprovideasinglepointofservice.• One-stopshopsaimtomeetcitizens’demandsforseamlessdelivery.• Thereispotentialforinvolvementinpolicydevelopmentprocesses.

Special-purpose agencies: Frontier agencies

• ‘Frontieragencies’arestructuresthatsymbolisetostakeholdersacoherentwholeofgovernmentapproachtoacontentiousandcomplexissue.

• Theyprovideexpertise,dispassionateadviceandprogrammeadministrationoncomplexissues.

• Employeeswillprobablyderivefromseveraldifferenthomedepartmentsandatfirstmightrepresentpolicyviewspreviouslyinconflict,orwillfocusonthenarrowergroupofexternalstakeholdersthattheydealtwithbefore.


Stru

ctur

eU

sefu

l for

Po

licy

deve

lopm

ent w

here

…U

sefu

l for

Pr

ogra

mm

e de

sign

an

d re

view

whe

re …

Use

ful f

or

Prog

ram

me

man

agem

ent

and

serv

ice

deliv

ery

whe

re …

Use

ful f

or

Cros

s-ju

risdi

ction

and

cro

ss-

sect

or w

here

…

Use

ful f

or

Cris

is m

anag

emen

t whe

re …

Inte

rdep

artm

enta

l Co

mm

ittee

s•

Ther

e is

an a

ccep

ted

factua

land

ana

lytic

ba

se(o

rcom

mitm

entto

developit).

• Mem

bersareautho

rised

tocom

prom

ise.

• De

finition

ofa

reas

of d

isagr

eem

ent a

nd

optio

nsisaccep

table.

• Th

erearesubseq

uent

decis

ion-makingstep

s.

• Th

ere

are

shar

ed g

oals

andacultu

reofjoint

work.

• Th

ereisab

ilityto

resourcedesigneff

ort.

• Th

erearedistinctroles.

• Co

ordina

tionisrequ

ired

inafo

rmalse

tting

.•

Decisio

n-makingby

consen

susisa

ccep

table

ordecision

respon

sibility

restsw

ithm

embe

ragen

cies.

• Pr

oces

ses a

re m

ainl

y consultatio

nan

ddiscussio

n,

notd

ecision

-making.

• Th

erearelead

agencies.

• De

cisio

n-making

respon

sibilitie

sand

urgen

cy

are

clea

r an

daccepted

byallp

artie

s.

Task

forc

es•

Ther

e is

high

gov

ernm

ent

priority.

• Th

ereisacomplex

prob

lem.

• Creativ

esolutio

nsare

requ

ired.

• Th

ereisconten

tion

acro

ss k

ey st

akeh

olde

rs

orwith

ingovernm

ent.

• Th

erearetig

httimelines.

• Th

ere

are

‘turn

key’

projectsfo

rtigh

tly

integrated

multi-

depa

rtm

ent

prog

rammes.

• Th

ere

is a

stra

tegi

c re

view

of p

rogr

amm

e eff

ectiv

enessa

nd

delivery.

• Ti

me

enga

gem

ent i

n th

e pr

ogra

m is

shor

t and

coordina

tionne

edsa

re

high

.•

Priorityprob

lemareasor

commun

itiesareto

be

tackled.

• Clientsfacemultip

le

prob

lems.

• Th

ere

is a

high

leve

l of t

rust

an

d w

illin

gnes

s to

mov

e from

negoti

ation

tojo

int

prob

lem-solving

.•

Therearecomplexissues.

• Ahigh

levelo

fcoo

peratio

nisrequ

ired.

• Go

vernan

cearran

gemen

ts

areclea

r.

• Multid

isciplin

aryskillsa

nd

resourcesa

rere

quire

d.•

Decisio

nan

dexecuti

ve

powercan

bede

fined

.•

Ther

e ar

e cl

ear l

inks

with

line

agen

cies.

• Clientsfacemultip

le

prob

lems.

Inte

rdep

artm

enta

l pa

rtne

rshi

ps:

Join

t tea

ms

• Th

ere

is ne

ed fo

r ong

oing

work.

• It

is of

equ

al im

port

ance

topartners.

• Th

erecanbe

ahighlevel

oftrust.

• Th

ereareclea

rben

efits

in te

rms o

f cos

t or

quality

from

jointw

ork.

• Th

ere

is no

disa

dvan

tage

in

loss

of s

epar

ate

polic

y voices.

Sam

e as

‘Pol

icy

deve

lopm

ent’

• Ti

me

enga

gem

ent i

n pr

ogra

mm

es is

med

ium

tolo

ngte

rm,and

integrati

onnee

dsare

high

.•

Defin

edareasor

com

mun

ity is

sues

are

to

beadd

ressed

.•

Clientsfacemultip

le

prob

lemstha

tnee

dintegrated

solutio

ns.

•Th

ere

is a

high

leve

l of t

rust

an

d w

illin

gnes

s to

mov

e to

jointp

rogram

mede

livery.

•Th

ere

is no

disa

dvan

tage

fr

om lo

ss o

f sep

arat

e Go

vernmen

tagency

bran

ding

.•

Ahigh

levelo

fcoo

peratio

nisessenti

al.

See

‘Tas

kfor

ces’

or

‘Inte

rdep

artm

enta

l Com

mitt

ees’

fo

r pre

fera

ble

alte

rnati

ves

Appendices 53

Use

ful f

orPo

licy

deve

lopm

ent w

here

…Pr

ogra

mm

e de

sign

an

d re

view

whe

re …

Prog

ram

me

man

agem

ent a

nd

serv

ice

deliv

ery

whe

re …

Cros

s-ju

risdi

ction

and

cr

oss-

sect

or w

here

…Cr

isis

man

agem

ent

whe

re …

Cros

s-de

part

men

tal

part

ners

hips

: Ag

ency

arr

ange

men

ts

Not

app

licab

leN

ot a

pplic

able

– se

e ‘T

askf

orce

s’

or ‘I

nter

depa

rtm

enta

l Co

mm

ittee

s’ fo

r pre

fera

ble

alte

rnati

ves

• En

gage

men

t in

serv

ices

is

med

iumto

long

term

.•

Agen

cyoffe

rskey

infr

astr

uctu

re n

etw

orks

orsk

ills.

• Ag

enci

es sh

are

clie

nts o

r tran

sacti

ons.

• Ag

enci

es’ v

alue

s are

compa

tible.

• Th

ere

is a

high

leve

l of

trus

t and

will

ingn

ess t

o co

ntra

ct o

ut p

rogr

amm

e de

livery.

• Th

ere

is no

disa

dvan

tage

fr

om lo

ss o

f sep

arat

e Go

vernmen

tagency

bran

ding

.•

Agen

cies

’ val

ues a

re

compa

tible.

Not

app

licab

le —

se

e Ta

skfo

rce

or

‘Inte

rdep

artm

enta

l Co

mm

ittee

s’ fo

r pr

efer

able

alte

rnati

ves

Spec

ial p

urpo

se

agen

cies

: Fr

ontie

r age

ncie

s

• Th

erearene

wcom

plex

issue

s tha

t req

uire

mor

e extend

edeffo

rtth

ana

taskforcecanprovide.

• Th

ereareconten

tious

issue

s acr

oss a

rang

e of

stakeh

olde

rs.

• Th

esymbo

lismofsep

arate

agen

cyisim

portan

t.•

Ther

e ar

e cl

ear g

over

nanc

e ar

rang

emen

ts to

ens

ure

who

le o

f gov

ernm

ent

approa

ches.

• New

instrumen

tsand

m

easu

res c

ut a

cros

s trad

ition

albou

ndaries.

• Multid

isciplin

aryskillsa

re

draw

nfrom

otheragencies.

• De

liveryan

dprog

ramme

desig

nne

edstobe

tigh

tly

aligne

dfore

ffecti

ve

outcom

es.

• Th

ere

are

clea

r gov

erna

nce

arra

ngem

ents

to e

nsur

e w

hole

of g

over

nmen

t ap

proa

ches.

• M

utua

l sup

port

and

cohe

rencebe

twee

npr

ogra

mm

es in

a

non-maturefie

ldarea

high

prio

rity.

• Th

ere

are

clea

r gov

erna

nce

arra

ngem

ents

to e

nsur

e w

hole

of g

over

nmen

t ap

proa

ches.

Not

like

ly to

be

ap

plic

able

Not

like

ly to

be

appl

icab

le


Notes

Appendices 55










ISBN 978-0-9926269-2-1



The Centre for Effective Services connects research, policy and practice to improve outcomes for communities, children and young people across the island of Ireland. Part of a new generation of intermediary organisations, CES is a not-for-profit that helps communities, children and young people thrive.

9 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2Ireland + 353 (0) 1 416 [email protected]

Forestview, Purdy’s Lane, Belfast BT8 7ARNorthern Ireland + 44 (0) 2890 648 [email protected]

www.effectiveservices.org

A Pr

imer

on

Impl

emen

ting

Who

le o

f Gov

ernm

ent A

ppro

ache

s

A Primer on Implemen�ng Whole of Government Approaches









Documents

A Primer on Implemen ng Whole of Government Approaches · Public Administration and Helen Johnston at the National Economic & Social Council who generously shared their time and expertise