Joint chief executives can make place-shaping a reality

April 20, 2009

Anna Turley, Deputy Director, NLGN
Public Servant

The heralded vision of ‘one public service’, where local agencies come together seamlessly to deliver more cohesive, joined-up, and unified local services has taken another step closer to becoming a reality this month. Hammersmith and Fulham have become the second local authority to announce they are to operate a joint Chief Executive and integrated management team for both the local authority and the Primary Care Trust.

Herefordshire are the only other area in the country to have done this, announcing their joint-appointment at the end of 2007. Joint appointments such as these provide a real opportunity for local services to reduce duplication, ensure policy and delivery coherence for a local place, and encourage joint-commissioning of services that can ensure more efficient, effective customer-focused delivery.

While Hammersmith and Fulham have built their reputation on efficiency and sound financial management, in the increasingly tight fiscal climate faced by the public sector, more strategic co-ordination of this kind could become widespread as local authorities seek to reduce costs (and tackle ever-increasing pay levels) and streamlines services. The integration of the management team in this instance, as well as the merging of top level appointments may have substantial implications for improving business processes and efficiency drives.

Moreover, the implications for improving service outcomes could be great. Good partnership working has already become a way of life for local public services, as we are already starting to see the effects of closer working through Local Strategic Partnerships and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, for example. The new Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) will play its part in driving this vision further, as the assessment framework will provide a snapshot of how effectively local agencies are working together to deliver local people’s priorities. It is clear that joint-commissioning on services such as children and adults services and health, for example, or planning and leisure has a substantial impact on the outcomes for a local area, and joint-appointments and integrated management teams could provide a fail-safe way of delivering on the CAA vision for joined-up local service delivery.

Public services will be held to account collectively for their impact on local outcomes, as the CAA will look across councils, health bodies, police forces, fire and rescue services and others responsible for local public services, which are increasingly expected to work in partnership to tackle the challenges facing their communities. The need to deliver outcomes-based policy is likely to encourage more joint-appointments of the kind we see in Hammersmith and Fulham.

However, there is a danger in greater partnership-working that accountability becomes blurred. It is vital that local authorities develop their position as ‘primus inter pares’, playing a growing role in the leadership and strategic oversight of local public services. Councils have an opportunity, indeed a responsibility, to become the true place shapers visualised by Lyons and joint-appointments are a good step in this direction.

This approach should also be encouraged across other public services. The Home Office’s approach to increasing the accountability of the police was flawed precisely because it sought to impose separate forms of local accountability by direct elections to police authorities. We would argue that the existing local governance should be better used and extended across public services, and that there should be greater co-ordination and integration of strategic service leadership, rather than creating new, disparate lines of accountability. Could we see, for example, joint appointments for local authority chief executives and police authority chief executives? We are some way off that yet, but it poses an interesting debate.

However, while the extension of executive local authority reach across public services shown by the announcement by Hammersmith and Fulham, is very welcome, this in itself does not necessarily encourage sufficient accountability. The reason why local authorities should be the ‘first among equals’ locally is precisely because they are democratically elected by the local community and understand the concerns and priorities of local people. Non-executive governance arrangements are key to successful local services. The extension of non-executive local authority governance into PCT boardrooms should be the next step in ensuring greater local accountability and better services for citizens.

Joint appointments and the integration of management teams are important first steps. Placing local authorities at the heart of local public service provision in this way can make place-shaping a reality.


Explore More