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.
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.
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
04 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
06 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
08 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches
Section 1: Whole of government approaches – An Overview 09
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).
10 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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).
Section 1: Whole of government approaches – An Overview 11
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
12 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
Section 1: Whole of government approaches – An Overview 13
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.
14 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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).
Section 1: Whole of government approaches – An Overview 15
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.
16 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
• 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
Section 1: Whole of government approaches – An Overview 17
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.
18 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
Section 1: Whole of government approaches – An Overview 19
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.
20 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
Section2:Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy 21Section2:Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy 21
Section 2: Makingandimplementingwholeofgovernmentpolicy
22 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches22 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches
Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 23
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.
24 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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).
Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 25
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.
26 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 27
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):
28 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
• 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:
Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 29
‘[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.
30 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 31
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,
32 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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.
Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 33
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.
34 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
Section 2: Making and implementing whole of government policy 35
• 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;
36 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
38 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches
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.
40 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches
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.
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.
42 APrimeronImplementingWholeofGovernmentApproaches
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.
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
46 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
48 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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.
50 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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.
52 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
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
54 A Primer on Implementing Whole of Government Approaches
Notes
Appendices 55
56 A Primer on Implementing 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.
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
Recommended