Contracting for outcomes?

In July 2011, David Cameron explained his government’s approach to reforming Britain’s public services. His themes were not dissimilar to those of Tony Blair and, contrary to expectations perhaps, those of Gordon Brown. In 2007, Brown’s speech on public service reform spoke of “developing a service that is personal to the citizen's needs, and to the citizen's wishes… greater choice, greater competition, greater contestability… greater local accountability”. Cameron promised more of the same but with a new twist. He explains: “One of the biggest levers of accountability we’re bringing in is payment by results. If providers have good ideas to get people off alcohol or drugs, or get them back into work for the long-term, we’ll say great, come on in…but you’re paid according to the outcomes you achieve. Show us the results and we’ll show you the money.”

The micro-management that the Conservatives had criticised in previous governments was replaced by a more strategic approach, one focused on the outcomes the public care about. Nearly three years later, however, it’s increasingly clear that payment by results (PbR) may be a beautifully simple idea but it is not a panacea for the problems that beset cash-strapped public services. Last month, research by the Institute for Government and Collaborate, a think tank set up last year to promote cross-sector collaboration, highlighted the concerns of some service providers and commissioners...

Read on at Ethos Journal

Ethosis aimed at public sector leaders, politicians, academics and policy specialists debating the future of public services today.