Public sector leaders are pessimistic over the impact of cuts

Amid a sustained period of reduced spending, the government has ambitious plans for public services. While the recent ‘Open Public Services’ white paper may have eased the pace of change, the government still expects to see many of the functions of the state moved downwards, to the local level, and outwards to the private and not-for-profit sectors.. Social enterprises, clinical consortiums and free schools are just some of the new models of service delivery anticipated to take over many of the functions of public bodies.

Key to making its plan a success is convincing those whose job it is to implement these changes of the virtues of this approach. Our new poll of 338 leaders drawn from central and local government, non-departmental public bodies and the health and education sectors by Ipsos reveals deep concern about the impact of the cuts.

Budget cuts are – by some distance – seen as the most important issues facing the public sector by its leaders. And despite George Osborne recently reaffirming the government’s plans to reduce spending, those who advocate slower cuts in spending outnumber those who say it is important to cut spending quickly by almost three to one, which is identical to the balance of opinion among the general public (Source: Economist/Ipsos Budget Poll).

More specifically, nearly two-thirds of public sector senior managers and directors within the public sector do not think that the government’s policies will improve the state of public services in the long term and concern is particularly pronounced within the education and health sectors. Again, these findings put public sector leaders in line with the general public, who are similarly pessimistic about the future of public services.

This idea that the public sector is concerned about the enduring risks and implications of lower budgets chimes with the findings of research Ipsos conducted for Zurich Municipal at the end of 2010. This showed that many leaders in the public sector would like more time to plan how to spread budget reductions and consider their long-term impact.

However, while there is obvious unease at the speed of change within the public sector, there is some support for the substance of the government’s proposed reforms. Overall, leaders are divided on whether they agree with the government’s objectives and priorities for their sectors, but underlying this there is a great deal of support for greater public control of services and more autonomy for local providers.

Moreover, there is some support for – or at least little opposition to – the government’s flagship Big Society idea. Those who think it will be a good thing for their sector outnumber those who think it will be a bad thing by three to one, although a similar proportion think it will make no difference. (It should be noted however, that our fieldwork took place before the recent English riots and the greater prominence this gave to plans to mend Britain’s ‘broken society’.)

The government can draw further encouragement from the fact the local government sector, central to the success of the concept, is the most supportive of the Big Society. This all suggests the government may yet manage to bring along public service leaders in its drive to implement thorough reforms amid economic gloom.

However, It may be of concern for Mr Cameron – although perhaps not a surprise – that Whitehall itself has yet to fully embrace plans to shift control from the centre, with a significant minority unconvinced that local service providers should have more control over how public services are provided locally. As under New Labour, overcoming these tensions between the centre and frontline services will be key for the Coalition.

Reforming public services – especially structural reforms on the scale the government is proposing – is never easy. Doing so against a backdrop of reduced budgets and sluggish economic growth is doubly difficult. Reforming services without the full support of those whose job it is to drive through change is almost impossible.

So although there is support for many of the principles underlying the government’s reform agenda, as the spectre of cuts hardens into reality and continues to dominate the minds of leaders it will remain difficult to convince them that all these changes can be made without damaging public services.

I welcome your comments below.