Ways that policy is carried out

When someone in public service says “services are not the only, or even an important, part of what we do” it’s a good opener for a conversation about policy intent, as well as what end users are actually trying to get done.

I’ve been showing some of the tangible things that government establishes, starts, changes or stops, in the name of achieving the intent of a policy. Because it’s true that there are many different ways in which policy intent can be carried out, and not all of these are services. Yet it’s also true that some teams only recognise the activity that they or their organisation do, as a stand alone process, rather than as playing a role in how well an end to end service or wider system performs.

Other people have already sought to define policy making more clearly. This excellent post by Policy Lab sets out the different styles of government intervention and options for ways of operating — I used their categories here. Paul Maltby brilliantly describes what policy and digital people might learn from each other. Lawrence Grinyer defines policy here and the Institute for Government has examined policy making in the real world (PDF)

Ways that policy is carried out. Thanks to James Reeve and others for contributions.

• The intent of policy. A statement about what we’re trying to bring about. Informed by citizen and business needs, ministerial direction, stakeholders, wider government or organisational strategy and user needs.
• Legislation and regulation. Sets out what should or shouldn’t happen, how and when. Everything from laws, regulation, practical rules for specific situations, guidance and standards for what good looks like.
• Informing and influencing. Campaigns, advertising, nudge type activity, work with communities and specialists, or work to build, develop or use reputation to influence. For example, NHS apps.
• Initiatives and interventions. Assess and change how something works or make something available. For example, merge providers, establish new bodies or invest capital in new ways — say, buildings or other infrastructure
• Funding providers. Provide money and resources for third parties to operate something. Can include issuing guidance for operating, standards for what good looks like, or rules to apply. Decide who or how to fund, set the rules, and monitor performance. For example, central government funding Local Authorities, OFSTED.
• Commissioning and procuring work. Request or buy products and capability. For example, technology, training, advisory services, frontline work or support.
• Services. Create and operate ongoing services as end users would know them, whether online or through other channels, and whether in-house, partially or full outsourced.
• Taxes and subsidies. Levies on individuals and organisations to fund things of shared public value, or other measures to encourage, discourage, attract or avoid.
• Pricing, payments and other incentives. Set out how much things cost, levels of payments to be made and details (frequency, period of time). For example, cost of passport or driving licence, salaries for teachers, nurses, and other supported labour markets, payments to citizens to support self-sufficiency.

This diagram makes an obvious connection between what we do (the rules, schemes, programmes, initiatives etc) and what we’re trying to achieve (the intent, the outcomes). Of course the items here aren’t mutually exclusive — there are relationships between them. To bring about a change you’ll likely have a whole set of things happening at any one time. For example, creating or reviewing legislation, of which the intent may be enacted through a new service, for which you need a campaign to tell people about it, and a form of market intervention that means introducing accreditation for providers.

How we carry out policy — or how we achieve policy intent?

If we can articulate the overarching intent of a particular policy clearly, ‘all the things we are doing’ can be seen as a portfolio to be managed, improved, radically changed, tweaked or stopped. Considering things like: Which mechanisms are likely to have greater impact for a given situation? What has been tried before and where? Do we wish to mandate something or just guide ? The level of investment we’re willing to make. How it would be best to operate it. What are the right levels of control or autonomy and with how much ease do we want to be able to make changes if it isn’t working? How would we conceive of it all performing well — what would we see if it did or did not? What are the kinds of problems we’re tackling, and therefore, opportunities to change things for the better? And if it’s a service, what type of service works best for this kind of situation?

These kinds of decisions will have an impact on well the intent is achieved and how well placed government is to make changes if it’s not.