MPs today slammed the coalition for botching its plans to cull quangos, including the Youth Justice Board and the GSCC. The Commons public administration select committee said the coalition has "poorly managed" this whole process, and failed to achieve its two main aims – to improve accountability and reduce spending, meaning the reorganisation could now cost more than it will save. What do people think? Do you agree? Is social care improved without the GSCC or the YJB?
The YJB has had over a decade and has been lamentable. Of the current 10 members only two have any credibilty in the field of Youth Justice and their credentials are tenuous.
Having worked directly with the board (some years ago) I quickly discovered it was, as usual more about public relations with the board, rather than overseeing the system.
From unrealistic National Standards to idealistic Referral Orders, they have consistantly demonstrated how out of touch with reality they are. As for final warnings there was a time when the board demanded a percentage of youngsters had a programme, whether one was needed or not.( Targets)
I could go on but I am tired of repeating myself. My only reservation is the fact that an excellent man (Rod Morgan) resigned from his post as chair in 2007 citing ministerial interference as one of his reasons. What is proposed will mean his worst fears will have materialised.
Jack Straw (Stick) and Ed Balls (Carrot) each had a stake in the YJB which led to unholy rows about direction. Beverly Hughes had a minor role but at least she was married to a YOT manager, whom I assume had some indirect input.
Throw Theresa May and Ken Baker into the equation and the rows between Straw and Balls will seem like a love in.
In Childrens Services, the biggest problem was the lack of direction from Central Government. Let me give you an example.. When Lord Laming completed the Baby Peter review and published his recommendations, central government did not delegate ownership of this to one Quango.
In my region we had various quangos / organisations putting on conferences about the report. C4EO, RIEP, Government Office, LGA, community care, OFSTED, CQC, to name a few were all writing to Directors of Chidrens Services & Senior Managers inviting them to events, confererences. Many with the promise of facilitating sub-regional networking and joint working.
Well... how were people supposed to know which event / meeting / conference to attend? Just trying to work out if you were going to the same one as your colleagues (which was pretty important if you were trying to create a plan) was time consuming! If central government had been a little bit more involved and effective in organising the quangos and giving them delegated tasks which weren't duplicated, it would have been far more effective!
Do we really need many of the quangos? I'm not convinced.
well... thats the big question. If we don't have them, there is a call for them. And when we do have them, people say they are a waste of money. Its the way they are contracted thats the problem. They need clear remits and for the commissioning body to evidence the difference they are making.
If they don't reach targets they should be out.
To date its been a case of here's your money, off you go. With no accountability at all .....
Andy_Pandy: Do we really need many of the quangos? I'm not convinced.
The alternative is more Civil Servants, not "nothing". As the Coalition has discovered and the MPs' Committee has pointed out.
'Jess S' - you have hit the nail on the head, too much duplication and fragmentation and not enough joined-up thinking and action.
Far too many unnecessary and expensive jobs created, often for those unable to effectively hack it within their own Local Authorities!!!
Central Government doesn't do " joined-up thinking and action" - as demonstrated over many, many years!