an article by Gill Kirton (Queen Mary University of London, UK) and Cécile Guillaume (University of Roehampton, UK) published in Work, Employment and Society Volume 33 Issue 6 (December 2019)
Abstract
This article utilises a multi-method case study of the probation service of England and Wales to explore the perspectives of practitioners and their union on how restructuring / privatisation affected the probation profession.
Professionals perceived restructuring / privatisation as ideologically and politically motivated, rather than evidence-based in relation to service goals. Against this context, the article outlines the probation union’s organised resistance, but ultimately its inability to halt the reform.
The findings highlight practitioners’ concept of ‘the death of probation’ created by philosophical opposition to privatisation, but also by the splitting of their profession and the resultant assault on professionalism.
The study underlines the unique aspects of restructuring / privatisation in the specific service domain, in particular those linked to working with a socially stigmatised client group, but it also has resonance for other public service professions facing the actuality or prospect of restructuring/privatisation.
Showing posts with label privatisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privatisation. Show all posts
Monday, 9 December 2019
Tuesday, 7 May 2019
Does Privatisation Reduce Public Deficits?
an article by Beatriz Cuadrado-Ballesteros (Universidad de Salamanca, Spain) and Noemí Peña-Miguel (University of the Basque Country) published in Policy & Politics Volume 47 Number 2 (April 2019)
Abstract
This paper provides the first ever analysis of the two-way relationship between the privatisation of government services and fiscal balance.
It uses data from 22 European countries between 1995 and 2013 to examine the factors that promote privatisation policies and the effects that privatisation then has on public finances.
This is important because privatisation has been promoted by both the European Union and the International Monetary Fund as a way of responding to financial crises, and in an era of austerity it is important to have robust empirical evidence about the extent to which privatisation has achieved this.
Our analysis demonstrates that governments often adopt privatisation policies in the hope of improving their fiscal balances, but that political ideology is important since left-wing administrations are more likely to see it as a means of also restructuring government services.
Abstract
This paper provides the first ever analysis of the two-way relationship between the privatisation of government services and fiscal balance.
It uses data from 22 European countries between 1995 and 2013 to examine the factors that promote privatisation policies and the effects that privatisation then has on public finances.
This is important because privatisation has been promoted by both the European Union and the International Monetary Fund as a way of responding to financial crises, and in an era of austerity it is important to have robust empirical evidence about the extent to which privatisation has achieved this.
Our analysis demonstrates that governments often adopt privatisation policies in the hope of improving their fiscal balances, but that political ideology is important since left-wing administrations are more likely to see it as a means of also restructuring government services.
Friday, 6 March 2015
The role of the public sector in combating inequality
an article by Christoph Hermann (FORBA – The Working Life Research Centre, Vienna and ILO) published in International Journal of Labour Research Volume 6 Issue 1 (2014)
Abstract
In the last decades, the merits of the public sector, including public infrastructures and services, have mostly been discussed with respect to their efficiency. Little attention has been paid to the redistributive effects of public services – despite the fact that equal access to essential services such as health care, education, transport and energy benefits low-income earners more than high-income earners and contributes to social equality.
This has several dimensions:
first, the (cash) value of public services as a proportion of income is greater for low-income households; for example, low-income earners use public transport more frequently.
Second, the public sector provides comparably decent jobs for low-skilled and marginalized workers, and wage inequality tends to be lower than in the private sector.
Third, the public sector guarantees of equal treatment of all citizens by providing the same service for everyone.
However, privatization, marketization and, more recently, the public sector cuts imposed in response to the financial crisis have undermined the redistributive effect of public services.
Full text (PDF 16pp)
Abstract
In the last decades, the merits of the public sector, including public infrastructures and services, have mostly been discussed with respect to their efficiency. Little attention has been paid to the redistributive effects of public services – despite the fact that equal access to essential services such as health care, education, transport and energy benefits low-income earners more than high-income earners and contributes to social equality.
This has several dimensions:
first, the (cash) value of public services as a proportion of income is greater for low-income households; for example, low-income earners use public transport more frequently.
Second, the public sector provides comparably decent jobs for low-skilled and marginalized workers, and wage inequality tends to be lower than in the private sector.
Third, the public sector guarantees of equal treatment of all citizens by providing the same service for everyone.
However, privatization, marketization and, more recently, the public sector cuts imposed in response to the financial crisis have undermined the redistributive effect of public services.
Full text (PDF 16pp)
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
Turning away from the public sector in children’s out-of-home care: An English experiment
an article by Nicky Stanley, Andy Bilson, Nicola Farrelly, Cath Larkins and Julie Ridley (School of Social Work, University of Central Lancashire, UK), Helen Austerberry (Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London, UK) and Shereen Hussein and Jill Manthorpe (Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College London, UK) published in Children and Youth Services Review
Volume 35 Issue 1 (January 2013)
Abstract
This paper reports on the evaluation of an English experiment which, for the first time, moved statutory social work support for children and young people in out-of-home care from the public to the private or independent sector.
Five social work practices (SWPs), independent or semi-independent of local government, were established and evaluated using a matched control design with integrated process evaluation.
Social work teams in the public sector, selected to correspond to key characteristics of the SWP sites, provided control sites. While most SWPs were perceived to be accessible and user-friendly organisations, children’s and young people’s accounts showed no differences between pilots and control sites in terms of workers’ accessibility and responsiveness.
Perceptions of SWP staff’s decision-making were mixed.
SWP staff reported spending more time in direct face-to-face work with children and families but this was attributed to reduced caseload size and a tight remit which excluded child protection work rather than to decreased bureaucracy. SWP staff morale was generally found to be high in terms of depersonalisation and social support, reflecting an emphasis on staff supervision in these organisations.
However, this was offset by slightly higher job insecurity which reflected the precariousness of employment in the independent as opposed to state sector. Staff retention varied between the SWPs, but although children and young people in the pilots were more likely to retain their key worker than those in control sites, they experienced disruption in the move into SWPs and back to public services when SWP contracts were not renewed.
While some SWPs succeeded in reducing placement change rates for children and young people, a policy of switching placement providers to achieve flexibility and savings increased placement change rates in some SWPs.
SWPs did not achieve financial independence from the local authority commissioners with only one assuming full responsibility for managing the placement budget. Payment by results was not used consistently.
None of the commissioners interviewed considered that the SWP model had resulted in savings.
The study highlighted the interdependence of public and private sectors. As small organisations, most of the SWPs succeeded in offering an accessible and personalised service, and public services should consider reorganising to achieve similar outcomes.
However, this evaluation found that contracted-out organisations struggled to provide children in out-of home care with the consistency and continuity they require.
Highlights
► This paper reports on a national evaluation of a policy experiment in England.
► Social work for children in out-of-home care was moved to independent organisations.
► The evaluation employed a mixed methods, matched control design.
► Social workers in the new services enjoyed lower caseloads and greater autonomy.
► Privatisation led to job insecurity and did not increase continuity for children.
Abstract
This paper reports on the evaluation of an English experiment which, for the first time, moved statutory social work support for children and young people in out-of-home care from the public to the private or independent sector.
Five social work practices (SWPs), independent or semi-independent of local government, were established and evaluated using a matched control design with integrated process evaluation.
Social work teams in the public sector, selected to correspond to key characteristics of the SWP sites, provided control sites. While most SWPs were perceived to be accessible and user-friendly organisations, children’s and young people’s accounts showed no differences between pilots and control sites in terms of workers’ accessibility and responsiveness.
Perceptions of SWP staff’s decision-making were mixed.
SWP staff reported spending more time in direct face-to-face work with children and families but this was attributed to reduced caseload size and a tight remit which excluded child protection work rather than to decreased bureaucracy. SWP staff morale was generally found to be high in terms of depersonalisation and social support, reflecting an emphasis on staff supervision in these organisations.
However, this was offset by slightly higher job insecurity which reflected the precariousness of employment in the independent as opposed to state sector. Staff retention varied between the SWPs, but although children and young people in the pilots were more likely to retain their key worker than those in control sites, they experienced disruption in the move into SWPs and back to public services when SWP contracts were not renewed.
While some SWPs succeeded in reducing placement change rates for children and young people, a policy of switching placement providers to achieve flexibility and savings increased placement change rates in some SWPs.
SWPs did not achieve financial independence from the local authority commissioners with only one assuming full responsibility for managing the placement budget. Payment by results was not used consistently.
None of the commissioners interviewed considered that the SWP model had resulted in savings.
The study highlighted the interdependence of public and private sectors. As small organisations, most of the SWPs succeeded in offering an accessible and personalised service, and public services should consider reorganising to achieve similar outcomes.
However, this evaluation found that contracted-out organisations struggled to provide children in out-of home care with the consistency and continuity they require.
Highlights
► This paper reports on a national evaluation of a policy experiment in England.
► Social work for children in out-of-home care was moved to independent organisations.
► The evaluation employed a mixed methods, matched control design.
► Social workers in the new services enjoyed lower caseloads and greater autonomy.
► Privatisation led to job insecurity and did not increase continuity for children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
