IFG - Covid-hit public services could be further disrupted by government targets
Government targets in public services may do more harm than good, warns a new paper from the Institute for Government.
The government has added new targets to existing ones across key public services such as the NHS, schools and the police, which it hopes will improve performance in those services hit by the Covid-crisis.
But new IfG research, reveals the way that targets have been used for easy wins, have ignored important issues and manipulated data. For example, the government’s target to process 100,000 coronavirus tests a day by 30 April 2020 was only achieved by encouraging testing of low-priority cases and reclassifying what counted as a test.
The report cites examples within the NHS and police to show how targets can also create overwhelming amounts of paperwork, with staff focusing more on filling in forms than helping the public. And those delivering public services can be demotivated by working to targets, rather than using their professional judgement.
But if planned well, targets can improve performance. The report shows how the four-hour A&E waiting time target resulted in a 14% reduction in the proportion of people dying within 30 days of attending A&E. Nor is scrapping targets always right: for example, pupils in Welsh schools fell behind those in England after the Welsh government did away with school league tables.
To ensure that new targets are not counterproductive, the Institute for Government recommends that the government:
- develops targets in partnership with those responsible for meeting them
- carefully considers the data that is needed, how this is collected and how it will be used to avoid creating unnecessary paperwork for frontline staff
- reviews targets regularly and amends or scraps them if they are having unintended consequences.
IfG programme director and report author Nick Davies said:
“Designed well, targets can focus minds and resources and improve the quality of services. But too often the government has got it wrong, picking targets that demotivate skilled staff and focus services on paperwork not people.
Targets will only ever be appropriate in certain circumstances. They can be particularly effective at raising minimum standards but are very unlikely to deliver the world class public services promised by the government."
Notes to editors
Latest News from
Pay is important, but it is not the only factor contributing to high staff turnover: The King's Fund response to the NHS staff 3 per cent pay rise22/07/2021 14:35:00
Richard Murray, Chief Executive of The King’s Fund, commented on the government’s decision this evening to offer NHS staff a 3 per cent pay rise, as recommended by the independent Pay Review Body
IFG - UK government's Shared Prosperity Fund risks damaging trust in union22/07/2021 14:20:00
A new Institute for Government paper warns that the UK government’s post-Brexit UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) – replacing EU ‘structural funds’, to be launched in April 2022 – risks damaging trust between the UK and devolved administrations and undermining the UK government’s key objective of binding the four nations of the UK closer together.
IEA expert responds to ONS government borrowing figures21/07/2021 14:20:00
Julian Jessop, Economics Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on the government borrowing figures for June published by the Office for National Statistics
IFS - No relief for Rishi Sunak as he prepares for Spending Review: lower-than-expected borrowing likely to prove only temporary21/07/2021 13:05:00
Despite improving public finances this year, the Chancellor is likely to have very little room for manoeuvre in his forthcoming Spending Review. That is because while the economy is recovering more quickly than expected at the March Budget, this may not translate into a permanent improvement in the economic outlook.
Adam Smith Inst - National insurance hike: a crushing betrayal and attack on younger and poorer20/07/2021 15:20:00
ASI’s Head of Government Affairs John Macdonald, responded to reports suggesting the Government will increase national insurance to fund a social care expansion
National Insurance hike “yet another burden on working age people”, says IEA expert20/07/2021 14:20:00
Professor Len Shackleton, Editorial and Research Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on the planned increase in National Insurance
Civitas: Former Social Security Secretary’s plans to let elderly insure against the need to sell homes to pay for Social Care to be debated in parliament14/07/2021 16:25:00
Given the new Health and Social Care Secretary’s commitment to set out “the general sense of direction” of his plans to reform social care “quite soon”, a former Social Security Secretary (1992-1997), Lord (Peter) Lilley has introduced a Bill to enable homeowners to insure against having to sell their homes to pay for social care, at little or no extra cost to the taxpayer.
JRF: Planned cuts to Universal Credit will hit incomes of millions of households unable to afford a minimum living standard14/07/2021 14:38:00
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Research in Scoial Policy at Loughborough University publish the annual A Minimum Income Standard for the UK in 2021 report.