Non-Government Sector in Australia - Example

Running Header: Non Government Sector Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Policy implementation through devolved government 3 New Approaches 5 Performance management 7 Capability of public service 8 Accountability 11 Performance management 15 Conclusion 16 Work cited 17 Introduction Australian government has a history of providing services to the public through other sectors. Like majority of developed countries, this aspect of devolved government has significantly gained complexity, scale and scope. This paper discusses the challenges that come along during the implementation of the devolved government. The areas that are a challenge to the government during implementation are the support of non-government providers, providing of policy delivery which is effective, the protection of citizen trust and satisfaction, building capability of public service, management performance which is effective and accountability. Devolved government does involve the usage of the non profit making organization and the private sectors by the public sector for the delivery of public services and goods. Devolved government do occur via a range of financial support and contractual mechanisms that are used to accomplish public ends like grants and contracts; loan guarantees and loans, voucher systems and subsidies; measures of taxation; private organizations that are established publicly; and ventures of private/public partnership. The essay primarily focuses on the challenges of devolved government involving the funding of the government of non-government organizations (NGOs) for the delivery of the public services. Policy implementation through devolved government The growth in devolved government has led to wider diversification of public sector modes of delivery. It has not been clear what constitutes public sector. This has led to a more and more difficult situation to the public sector. Policy issues are at the center of agendas where the government frequently goes beyond boundaries of traditional organizations which requires integrated feedbacks that are inter-jurisdictional and inter-agency (e.g. indigenous affairs, homelessness and climate change). These issues do call for change of behavior and the lively engagement of communities and individuals. During the same duration expectations of the citizens are seamless and growth of customized delivery of services. The implications from this advancement to public administration from traditional approach are significant. The government agencies and public service will be examined more on their knowledge and skills in corresponding implementation technique and policy challenges by finding out which delivery mode performs best for a number of policy issues and in which environments. This subsequently requires a policy which is very strong, strategic skills and leadership all over the Australian public service supported by a profound related understanding of the environmental forces and significant issues at play. It also requires a very tough focus on evaluation and test, risk acceptance, preparedness to innovate, outcomes and uncertainty (Goldsmith and Eggers 65). At the center of examination on how to provide services effectively and efficiently is the matter of how to give services for the interest of the public and gain publicity. The idea of public value have been highly developed as technique of thinking about and goals evaluation, public policy evaluation and provision as a measure of activities assessment supported or produced by the government. Harmonizing implementation approaches i.e. market approach, devolved government and direct delivery to a specific policy issues there must be a consideration the want to guarantee public value. While issues of policy requiring the emphasis of local engagement, innovation and flexibility have regularly forced the government to make use of the devolved government and also making the delivery of the direct government more innovative. The larger usage of the devolved government arrangements and using other sectors has really helped the public sector to come up with new grounds for service delivery capability. The usage of the devolved government has resulted to various challenges in different areas such as equity and access, protection of the consumer, security, privacy, accountability and other policies which can be handled satisfactorily via the specifications of the funding agreement or contract and arrangement of performance management. The services are performance measured and specified to the appropriate levels of required degree of control and identified risk tolerance. There are a number of providers established and markets that have the capability to carry out delivery keeping in mind market maturity and the competence for network design or for managing and administering the contractual and funding agreement. There has been a mixture of approaches needed and in particular where there are jurisdictional players, and multiple agencies and provision of multiple services to the same citizen like the provision of aged and indigenous care services. There has been a composite networks comprising of devolved delivery and express public delivery operating along with market approach elements. New Approaches Just like the mode of management to policy implementation has diversified and evolved, so the structure of public administration must also change. We cannot make an assumption that the public sector structure has been recognized to maintain the traditional bureaucratic means of public administration will have to maintain adequately other delivery arrangements. New methods for accountability are necessary which do call for a very strong planned leadership. Serious attention should be prearranged to the implications of the public service shift, where necessary from a working to a much enabling position and operations in policy settings which are referred to as ‘hollow state’. This term could be used to imply the division between provision of services and government services financing with the writer giving the argument that there is a requirement for a new approach to performance management and public sector (Kamarck 15). There are a number of public value scopes which are central to this approach and ensuring that the probable realization advantages of devolved government. Accountability measures are made in-to design and scope, and upfront resolution coming up with the approaches of implementation. They are customized to the policy matter at the moment, suitably balance the requirement to be responsible for the usage of the public property and the attainment of the required results and performance, and the inclusion of enough terms for external scrutiny. The external scrutiny they are based on comprehensible understanding of the accountabilities and responsibilities of the type of project is being sponsored and diverse players, the stringency of the control necessary and the level of tolerance of the risk, the level of flexibility and specificity related to the service or product to be sponsored and whether the results are developed or are preset locally within the decided parameters. These arrangements are based on agencies being responsible and taking responsibility for the implementation and design of the devolved preparations and for the general results of the network, the organization of shared outcomes and goals and the management performance of the individual providers. Where the program comprises of local innovation and flexibility in the accountability arrangements and plan of measures require maintaining an approach which is adaptive, then arises the need for the assurance of a very powerful local governance capability and arrangements, and common commitments on parameters and objectives and strong intelligence of common goals. Considerable planned attention is directed to the framing and choice of the most suitable funding mechanism irrespective whether is other forms of financial support agreement, grand or contract for reflecting accountabilities provision. Evaluation and review processes are made into use particularly where systems which are adaptive and networks which are complex are really involved. Scrutiny which is from external sources is customized to the type of the exercise by putting focus on the quality of management and the risk framework, the way it is managed, the control mechanisms appropriateness, how it is designed and how it is applied. Consideration at the service-wide level is given to the guidance provision on accountability management in different performance modes and approaches which are varied to release information on devolved government concerning the learnt lesson and challenges to avoid, coming up with evaluation competence, attention to be focused on the respective uses of financial support arrangements, grants and contracts, development of strategic conversation on the convenient implications that come up with accountability, predominantly in relation to initiatives which do involve the devolution of making decisions powers and those that rely on collaboration of the community. Performance management Performance management preparations for the support of result delivery through and with non-government provisions are built into the design of upfront approaches for the reason to secure proper use and accountability of public resources. They are customized to continuous drive improvement and the production of improved outcomes from the user view point and interest of the public. The results measure to any possibility recognizing that the input and output indicators might be suitable depending on the situations. They are used only after a reasonable clarity is achieved as to the position of the indicators and the connection between stated policy results and the indicators. The level of the tolerance of the risk and control is expressed and used to strengthen the situation of performance indicators. Indicators are inclined to the purpose and nature of the service or product being funded and based on the potential impact of the requirements of the performance capacity on the capability of performance and providers overall is addressed and recognized. Reporting requirements of performance are rationalized as much as possible more focus put on the information that is required for the initiative operation and effective management to ensure that mechanisms, content and timing are developed in discussion with the stakeholders and user friendly but not counterproductive. Measures of performance and reporting systems are analyzed and adjusted regularly when need arises (Lenny 33). In performance management, development of skills is an area recognized for project investment and design. An approach which is strategic is taken for improving performance overall through advanced systems. Information systems which are effective on performance are put in place to enable comparative data performance to be tested and developed in discussion with the stakeholders. There has been a joint deliberation of the impact of the requirements of reporting and multi-source funding on ordinary non-government provisions. The considerations are given to encourage information distribution and debate on the application and design of different kinds of performance systems and metrics, evaluation, research and sharing of both positive and negative experience and incorporation of the challenges of performance management in devolved government guidance and settings on hoe they can be met in relevant information and growth programs. Capability of public service Capability requires devolved government for the public sector from enabling other than mode of doing, by having the ability to deliver through and with others, alignment of organization skills, culture and ICT leading to the requirement for latest forms to manage the public sector and to improve its delivery. The organizational management does provide a very strong planned direction which is aided by corporate services which are business focused. Enough business subject and intelligence area knowledge is withheld by agencies to allow them to monitor the ongoing implementation and development. A very strong capability do exist in the contract management and design and much widely in managing other grants and financial support administration issues which do include the attention to the organization of integrity matters and conflict of interest that may occur in an environment which is more commercialized ( Kelly, Mulgan and Muers 13). A very strong capability also do exists in the design of the system for recognizing the challenges involved in combining many layers into a management for a service delivery which is seamless, a procedure which must be well-versed by an understanding which is well evidence based and readiness for adaptation and trial. Skills in relationship management, network building and system thinking are supported, valued and developed through improved mobility, development and recruitment between sectors. Connectedness and integration is plan which is a critical element with incorporation approaches including government as incorporator, third party as integrator and prime contractor as integrator. Supportive management systems have been put in place including; sophisticated network systems which require large investment of capital, stakeholder engagement and a very strong administrative attention, a very strong plan, operational capacity and project management. The considerations are particular to fostering knowledge development in the design of the system and management of the network as well as planned leadership in facilitating a society of sharing experience and practice and learnt lessons, the focus is also on commissioning of knowledge and their development and leadership as well in devolved government and how to perform proactively in this manner, addressing the shortages of ICT skills and making approaches which are collaborative to system development and mobility encouragement and exchange among the sectors. When the government puts into use the devolved government, it has to protect the public confidence which is a major part of the management and design of the delivery systems and accountability to the public. The approaches are put in place to ensure public scrutiny, sustainability and continuity, service control and means of redress when the outcome is not as expected, giving the users of the services right of entry to information which is meaningful and to ensure service delivery which is seamless which is designed around the circumstances and experience of the society. The testing of the society experience and satisfaction, the use of lively feedback for the improvement of the services, ongoing implementation and system design are very crucial fro the development. The consideration is directed to the testing means of joined up government and co-ordination from the society point of view, development of evaluation and research to know how they work and using which policies, giving emphasis to the larger use of Australia of the Canadian Common Measurements Tool and the encouragement to the use of the Web 2.0 type of technology to improve citizen engagement and feedback (Frederickson 48). A very effective opinion loops are well established between delivery of policies and development. The approaches are used for ensuring the implementation is aligned and consistent with the objectives of the policies which include congruence and foster goal clarity, provision of reinforcement and selection through management performance regimes. The approaches that are adopted are aimed to guarantee that development of the policies are well informed through ground experience and intelligence which do include means of interchange and mobility, evaluation, collection of user and provider views and means for interaction with the members. The other challenges do arise when it comes to the support of not for profit organizations and non-government providers. A customized approach is made which do include provision for professional support, training, provision for information, sharing of better practice and experience, making sure that reporting requirements are in order and mean to assist source competence. There has been good understanding of non-government provisions, challenges they themselves present and face, their potential and the results the government get when they do business with them. The consideration is that the do provide a much better understanding of the issues of the third sector and the potential that is there for collaboration of work, the support for the relationships that are productive in the public sector. Accountability The present framework of accountability and framework were made having in mind the traditional means of government official procedure. Devolved government does bring about additional levels of challenge and complexity which do involve more diffuse, longer responsibility and relationship chains. Many response of the policy require innovation and flexibility regardless of the implementation approach at the delivery point, implying a level of open-endedness which in normal circumstances will not get along easily with the traditional accountability methods (Kevin 88). While the change in the rules has led to developments which are important more basic accountability reconsideration mechanisms and concepts are required. The question which arise as result of this do include; given the varying type of the public sector on delivery, are the traditional approaches adequate on accountability for dissimilar implementation methods available? The other question is will the traditional methods allow sufficient accountability and transparency in regard to the public fund usage while supporting innovation and high performance and will they allow for conventional making of decisions and avoidance of risk. How these approaches are applied in reality need to be considered in decisions on policy accomplishment tools and the formation of new type of devolved government. The delivery of accountability must be a component in the upfront plan stage for the formulation of policies. Several considerations should assist to focus on the dissimilar scopes of accountability i.e. who is supposed to be accountable to whom, how and for what reasons. When coming up with the arrangement of the accountability for the devolved government one has to put into considerations how the responsibilities are different in the chain of accountability. The providers will be responsible for their usage of the resources that are placed against the necessities for the arrangement of the funding. The agency of funding has a wider accountability for the function of the network in general and the release of the total policy outcomes. The delivery of the service may be paramount and do form a major part of the service itself (Moran 30). The means of supporting accountability will differ with respect to the policy issue used, circumstances and the context, specificity and degree of control that is required. The transparency concerning the level of the risk tolerance in use as well as knowing who is responsible for the management of the risk will be very crucial in the determination of the nature of control and degree to base on. The approach to be adopted will differ depending on the scale and nature of the program where it fits on the tolerance on the risk. There are several factors to be put into account which might include; how and whether complicated fundamentals of networked governments are concerned, whether the work out do involve the supply of human services and whether the standard of the services are involved and if the involvement is there, is the compliance assured, what the non government agent is to paid to deliver and is this clearly defined and whether the required results are achieved or the non-government organizations in place are given authority and flexibility to work out local solutions. To address these issues very well it depends on those on the implementation panel by being understandable what type of activities are there and which are being funded and the approaches to designing accountability. These approaches normally differ depending whether the funding of the program is directed to product which is specific, service which is specific, social good or capacity and whether the methodology or the process are directed to meeting the approved results. For these cases, the authority which is making decisions about the resource allocation and customization of responses which can be shared or devolved with non-government providers. There is an always an element of system adaptability and policies on community co-production. In these circumstances of community policy arrangements have to be put in place to while there is a safeguard of the public money and also the support of evolving and adaptive approach, innovation and local discretion with local responsibility and ownership to the forefront. These arrangements are normally termed as joint accountability (Michael 156). The main elements comprise of; the maintenance and establishment of shared and negotiated commitments, strong sense and parameters of trust and congruence in the relationship, there is a streamlined coverage that ensure the materials used are steady with the objectives which have been agreed but not restrictive of local discretion, flexibility and arrangement of effective devolved governance which do provide reassurance on setting of priorities and management of resources. There is also evaluation to make sure the program is working properly to ensure the general objectives are achieved and to identify learning which can be used in the continuous improvement and necessary recalibration. There are several approaches used and irrespective of the approach used, the government agency is the one that is accountable and responsible for the management, establishment and design of effective arrangements and the performance of the initiative or the network. There is also the responsibility of the implementation of management approach and effective risk identification. The responsibilities of accountability evaluation do make an assumption of increased importance and more commonly in the settings of the devolved government. This is in particular where the mechanisms of accountability would be transitionally put into focus and when the general results and performance of the dissimilar components need an assessment (Chapman 24). The evaluation plays a key role in coming up with lessons from experience, thus do support continuous development and informing policy growth of the future. There has been an increased reliance of the devolved government thus better acknowledgment of the implications of having the accountability and coming up with more customized and diversified approach is necessary. This do call for planned conversation among the government leaders, external scrutiny agencies and policy designers about how to come up with and meet the requirement of accountability while nurturing innovation and outcome orientation, framed on the argument of improving the society value through the correct use of public resources. Performance management The performance management of devolved government is very important for both service improvement and accountability perspectives. It can be cumbersome to get it right and by not doing so it can have serious cost within the circumstance where the performance management is still a challenge to the traditional bureaucracies (Mulgan 45). There has been an increased focus on the public administration internationally concerning the performance management for the purpose of reinforcement in Australia by the introduction of a budget which is performance based and an outcomes and results framework. Strong monitoring and reporting systems will be necessary the provision of the basis of appropriate scrutiny and accountability thus optimal value is ensured in the usage of public resources. The systems have to be kept as operational as possible to minimize the administrative burden on the delivery of services and innovation constraints. The challenges that can arise are reporting requirements which are erroneous and hampering of efficiency, administrative burdens which are unnecessary being introduced to communities, recipients and service providers arising from the repetition among the departments in shared financial support arrangements and divided applications of accountability requirements of each individual and also the bodies which rely on many financial support sources, the moderately small risk exposure of the small grants is no taken seriously as other big grants are treated, the need for annual applications for programs that are carried on year after year even when the changes are very little in the funding organizations. The ability to comprehend how the new individual mechanism and arrangement are working will be very crucial. Managing performance needs the capability to make adjustments and define performance so that performance and learning are increased. This also requires systems to be put into place that do sustain learning from experience through the distribution of performance information. Conclusion The public sector does deliver policy results for the government through dissimilar implementation methods i.e. government by market, devolved government and direct delivery. The devolved government has its own challenges as well as potential benefits. It involves the restructuring of the public sector to a much enabling one with great implications to the public sector capability, culture and structure. Customized methods of performance management and accountability are necessary to sustain the devolved government. Organizational positioning and a very strong leadership is required for ensuring necessary cultural orientation, systems and skills are present. The financial support to a cultural institution through aid arrangement is different from running a complicated network of many players in handling disadvantages and sustaining social enclosure at the local level. The main challenge is to come up with new ways to support public confidence, performance and accountability while giving way for locally made solutions and innovation to meet the agreed results. The ways to provide for joint accountability and local governance will be essential to initiatives targeted for coming up with more and new sustainable ways of handling well known social policy challenges. There are a number of issued to solved if the possible benefit of the devolved government are to be achieved. Work cited Australian Public Service Commission, State of the Service Report 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia 5.8 (2008): 20-42 Chapman J. Systems Failure, London: Australia University press, 2002. Frederickson. G. Measuring the Performance of the Hollow State, Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2006. Goldsmith S. & Eggers W.D. Government by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector, Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Hon. Kevin Rudd MP. Address to Heads of Agencies and Members of the Senior Executive Service, Parliament House, Canberra: Great Hall, 2008. Kamarck E. C. The End of Government … As We Know It. Making Public Policy Work, 6.2 (2007): 16–18. Kelly, G., Mulgan, G. and Muers S. Creating Public Value, An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform, 4.3(2002): 2-15. Moran, T. Splicing the Perspectives of the Commonwealth and States into a Workable Federation, Annual Conference on Federalism, 2.3 (2008): 7-36. Michael N. The Public Services Industry in the UK, New York: Oxford press, 2008. Mulgan R. Contracting Out and Accountability, Canberra: Australian National University (2008). Read More