From ‘poor parenting’ to micro-management:coalition governance and the sponsorship of arm’s-length bodies in the United Kingdom, 2010–13

The delegation of public tasks to arm’s-length bodies remains a central feature of contemporary reform agendas within both developed and developing countries. The role and capacity of political and administrative principals (i.e. ministers and departments of state) to control the vast network of arm’s-length bodies for which they are formally responsible is therefore a critical issue within and beyond academe. In the run-up to the 2010 General Election in the United Kingdom, the ‘quango conundrum’ emerged as an important theme and all three major parties committed themselves to shift the balance of power back towards ministers and sponsor departments. This article presents the results of the first major research project to track and examine the subsequent reform process. It reveals a stark shift in internal control relationships from the pre-election ‘poor parenting’ model to a far tighter internal situation that is now the focus of complaints by arm’s-length bodies of micro-management. This shift in the balance of power and how it was achieved offers new insights into the interplay between different forms of governance and has significant theoretical and comparative relevance. Points for practitioners: For professionals working in the field of arm’s-length governance, the article offers three key insights. First, that a well-resourced core executive is critical to directing reform given the challenges of implementing reform in a context of austerity. Second, that those implementing reform will also need to take into account the diverse consequences of centrally imposed reform likely to result in different departments with different approaches to arm’s-length governance. Third, that reforming arm’s-length governance can affect the quality of relationships, and those working in the field will need to mitigate these less tangible challenges to ensure success

The ombudsman, tribunals and administrative justice section: a 2020 vision for the ombudsman sector

This article analyses the growing role for ombudsman schemes in the UK administrative justice system following the Government reforms post 2010. It argues that the ombudsman institution is perhaps the one example of an administrative justice body that looks set to emerge stronger over the period. But the ombudsman sector needs to guard against complacency, as the demands, expectations and publicity placed upon it are all likely to increase

Transforming Women’s Rehabilitation? An Early Assessment of Gender-Specific Provision in Three Community Rehabilitation Companies

Following the implementation of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms expanded the offender management market to include several private providers, known as Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The TR reforms have been the subject of intense debate since the outset. Political, academic and campaign-group commentary has critiqued the rapid implementation of the new agenda and examined its likely impact on existing services (particularly those run by the charitable sector). A growing body of research has also questioned the likely impact of the legislation on community provision for women, a field already beset with precarious funding streams. Lamenting the ‘lack of strategic focus’ on women, a recent review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) revealed that ‘dedicated funding for women’s community services has virtually disappeared, and provision is mixed and uncertain’ (2016a: 4). Drawing on 36 interviews conducted with probation officers and practitioners (keyworkers) working for women’s services, this paper validates such concerns. While the supposed subjects of an established government strategy, it is particularly regretful to report such findings in the tenth anniversary year of Baroness Corston’s seminal report

Rolling back the prison estate: The pervasive impact of macroeconomic austerity on prisoner health in England

Prisons offer policymakers an opportunity to address the pre-existing high prevalence of physical and mental health issues among prisoners. This notion has been widely integrated into international and national prison health policies, including the Healthy Prisons Agenda, which calls for governments to address the health needs of prisoners and safeguard their health entitlement during imprisonment, and the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 concerning reducing inequality among disadvantaged populations.However, the implementation of the austerity policy in the United Kingdom since the re-emergence of the global financial crisis in 2008 has impeded this aspiration. This interdisciplinary paper critically evaluates the impact of austerity on prison health. The aforementioned policy has obstructed prisoners’ access to healthcare, exacerbated the degradation of their living conditions, impeded their purposeful activities and subjected them to an increasing level of violence.This paper calls for alternatives to imprisonment, initiating a more informed economic recovery policy, and relying on transnational and national organizations to scrutinize prisoners’ entitlement to health. These systemic solutions could act as a springboard for political and policy discussions at national and international forums with regard to improving prisoners’ health and simultaneously meeting the aspirations of the Healthy Prisons Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals

Immaterial boys? A large-scale exploration of gender-based differences in child sexual exploitation service users

Child sexual exploitation is increasingly recognised nationally and internationally as a pressing child protection, crime prevention and public health issue. In the UK, for example, a recent series of high-profile cases has fuelled pressure on policy-makers and practitioners to improve responses. Yet, prevailing discourse, research and interventions around child sexual exploitation have focused overwhelmingly on female victims. This study was designed to help redress fundamental knowledge gaps around boys affected by sexual exploitation. This was achieved through rigorous quantitative analysis of individual-level data for 9,042 users of child sexual exploitation services in the UK. One third of the sample was male and gender was associated with statistically significant differences on many variables. The results of this exploratory study highlight the need for further targeted research and more nuanced and inclusive counter-strategies

Public sector commissioning and the third sector: Old wine in new bottles?

Public sector commissioning has risen rapidly to prominence as the central mechanism for the ‘purchase’ of services in an increasingly mixed economy of public services in the UK and this has wide-ranging consequences for non-state actors including those in the third sector. Academic consideration of commissioning has been rather fragmented, concerned with particular service fields or sectors. This paper provides an overview, with a focus on the relationship between the state and the third sector. The paper begins by questioning whether commissioning is really ‘new’ or a continuation of exist- ing trends around procurement and contracting and whether it constitutes a genuinely transformative relationship between the state and third sector. It considers some core debates about the likely impact of commissioning on the third sector and its relationship with the state. In doing so, the paper advances two main arguments: that commissioning remains highly fragmented in policy and practice, between different localities and scales of government; and that there is a tension within commissioning policy between the ‘rhetoric’ of the ‘full cycle’ approach based on needs assessment and planning, and what appears to be an emerging reality of resource-constrained, large-scale and Payment by Results-based contracting. These raise real concerns for organizational and service quality outcomes

Why Parliament Now Decides on War: Tracing the Growth of the Parliamentary Prerogative through Syria, Libya and Iraq

Research Highlights and Abstract: Precedents set in debates over Iraq, Libya and Syria established a new parliamentary prerogative, that MPs must vote before military action can legitimately be launched. Tony Blair conceded the Iraq vote to shore up Labour back-bench support, because he was convinced he would win, and because he was unwilling to change course regardless. David Cameron allowed a vote on Libya because he believed parliament should have a say, because UN support meant he was certain to win, and to gain plaudits for not being Blair. Cameron then had to allow a vote on Syria despite its greater political sensitivity. He mishandled the vote, and lost, and felt constrained to pull out of mooted military action. Collectively these three precedents comprise a new constitutional convention, which will constrain the executive in future whether the law is formally changed or not. Parliament now decides when Britain goes to war. The vote against military intervention in Syria on 29 August 2013 upheld a new parliamentary prerogative that gradually developed through debates over earlier actions in Iraq and Libya. While the academic community and much of the British political elite continue to focus on the free rein granted to prime ministers by the historic royal prerogative, this article argues it is critically constrained by its parliamentary counterpart. It traces the way political conditions, individual policymaker preferences, and the conventional nature of the unwritten British constitution allowed parliament to insert itself into the policymaking process without the consent of successive governments. It concludes that MPs will in future expect the right to vote on proposals to deploy the armed forces overseas, and that the legitimacy of military action will depend on the government winning such a vote

Putting victims first? : a critique of Coalition anti-social behaviour policy

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy was not pursued by the Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government with the same vigour as their New Labour predecessors. Where developments did take place a clear shift in emphasis was apparent, with the needs of ASB victims elevated to the forefront of policy. This article critically appraises two major developments that showcase the Coalition government’s attempts to overhaul ASB policy to ‘put victims first’, namely: the changes to call handling and case management processes, and the Community Trigger, which forces the authorities to review their responses to complaints of ASB in circumstances where victims feel they have been ignored. These particular policies aim to prioritise victims’ needs; however, it is argued the new victim-focus: is diluted by competing Coalition ASB agendas, demonstrates little connection between rhetoric and reality, provides limited redress for all victims and fails to coalesce with established attempts to tackle perpetrators of ASB