Perhaps a major feature of joined up policy is that it joins up with
other policies. It links up with fundamental approaches - such as the
State as master or servant. If I believe in the State as master, with
voters saluting the notion of democracy every few years, I will probably
find the prospect of JUP fairly inconvenient. Far better to keep
agencies and organisations as separate little empires that can supervise
the behaviour of the people and make decisions about what is in their
best interests, all things considered.
If I believe in the State as servant ("to rule truly is to serve"), then
the first step has to be to find out what the people want and how to
provide it. Keir Gale points out the importance of including the service
user. Paul Spicker refers to the "rather ambiguous relationship between
joined up working and issues of democracy and accountability" which has
me wanting to know more.
The shortcomings of unjoined-up working are well documented. Tragic
outcomes in child protection. The provision of unwanted, unused and
often duplicated services wasting resources which could be better
deployed. People having to find their own way round the unsignposted
tangle of service profferings, often deemed not to qualify for anything
at all. Yet there are obvious reasons for not "celebrating the new
rhetoric". The removal of duplication may lead to job losses, the
shrinking of little empires, the potentially uncomfortable working
practice of actually listening to the service users. There have been
references to the obstacles to joined up policy, such as Keir Gale's
list (to which I would add the agendas of different occupational
cultures) and Tim Clark's suggestion that competition is a serious
barrier to JUP (I need some enlightenment on that one).
Could joined up policy be a finite project merely aimed at producing
policy outcomes to support party political rhetoric? Or could it become
an ongoing interactive process, promoting social inclusion, developing
citizen awareness and involvement, enhancing our culture. JUP's history,
as a means of informing the present, might show us the lessons of past
mistakes. (Paul Spicker says it went "into abeyance" and I wonder what
the reasons were. Anne Hollows has had various explanations for the
enjoinder to "work together" locally not being mirrored at governmental
level in the early 90s and I wonder what they suggested.)
Erica Woods
|