by Gerald Wistow
Over 40 years ago, the eminent social psychologist Donald T Campbell, complained that excessive commitment to policies had prevented proper evaluation of Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ reforms. Campbell urged social scientists to engage with policy makers to ensure that they appreciated the value of evaluation and did not allow its political risks to preclude its thorough application. His comments are just as relevant today.
I am grateful to Stefanie Ettelt for drawing my attention to a quote from Campbell’s 1969 paper, ‘Reforms as experiments’. In it, he declares: ‘If the political and administrative system has committed itself in advance to the correctness or efficacy of its reforms, it cannot tolerate learning of failure. To be truly scientific we must be able to experiment. We must be able to advocate without that excess of commitment that blinds us to reality testing.’
These sentiments spring to mind when reflecting on the piloting of individual budgets for adult social care (now called ‘personal budgets’) – an initiative allowing people to control their own social care provision – that took place from 2005. This process highlights the risk that powerful advocacy within government can still lead to what, from the perspective of evaluation, might be considered excessive commitment and so obscure the ‘reality testing’ that evaluation is supposed to provide.
I was a scientific advisor from 2005 to the individual budgets policy team at the Department of Health, providing advice and support through all stages of the evaluation. At the time, policy processes were being modernised and made more professional. The New Labour mantra, ‘what matters is what works’, meant policy makers were supposed to favour analysis over ideology not least through experimentation and evaluation in advance of universal national roll out. The Modernising Government White Paper (1999) emphasised that evaluation should have a clearly defined purpose with criteria for success established from the outset, that evaluation methods should be built into the policy-making process from the beginning and that learning from pilots should be interpreted and applied.
A key starting point for the formal introduction of individual budgets was the implementation of the ‘Valuing People’ White Paper (2001) which established the central importance of people with learning disabilities being treated as full citizens rather than being excluded from living normally in society. Its four key principles were rights, choice, independence and inclusion.
The Department of Health established a ‘Valuing People Support Team’ to help local authorities and the NHS to implement these principles. In 2003, the Team formed a partnership with Mencap, known as ‘In Control’, to implement a process of ‘self-directed support’ which was piloted with limited evaluation in six local authorities. The pilots were designed to enable people with learning disabilities to assess their own needs, write their own care plans and organise their own support. The background to this initiative was the need for people with learning disabilities to have greater opportunities to secure more flexible and individualised services because of the low take-up of direct payments (one per cent of all community care packages in around 2003). At the time, some 75 per cent of all money on learning disabilities was still being spent on three traditional, institutional services – residential and nursing home care and day care.
In Control quickly became an organised movement which penetrated national and local government (almost every local authority in the country soon signed up to its programme). By 2005, it had also allied with the physical disability movement which had been working with the Cabinet Office to develop a national strategy that included proposals for a programme of individual budgets. The concept envisaged that individuals would be able to combine into a single budget all the different funding streams to which an individual might be entitled – such as social security, housing, access to employment and social care. Individuals would be able to use such a budget on the basis of their assessed needs to purchase the services that they thought most suited those needs. This fitted in with the principles of improving social care services, scoring high on choice, control and independent living.
So by 2005 we had had proposals for individual budgets that were coming from the heart of government, from the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, the Department of Health and the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). It was in the 2005 Labour party manifesto and, during the General Election itself, Downing Street wrote a scoping paper on implementation. All of these champions envisaged a process of piloting and evaluation would be necessary and appropriate. In January 2005, the Cabinet Office had described individual budgets as a radical initiative, which would take time to get right, but which would be progressively implemented and, subject to evaluation and resource availability, would be rolled out nationally by 2012. However, by March, the DWP was saying it would be rolled out nationally by 2010.
There remained in these narratives the possibility of failure – everything was subject to evidence that it worked. Evaluation was part of the Government’s risk management – the risk of introducing a radical change that some people strongly supported but whose workings remained unclear. It also appealed to sceptics by saying, ‘Let’s do it progressively, let’s evaluate, let’s make sure that it works’.
The Treasury also had considerable interest in what the programme would cost to introduce, its outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared with conventional approaches to service delivery. This last requirement drove the evaluation design so that its core element was a randomised controlled trial (RCT). There was also a process evaluation of factors that facilitated and inhibited implementation but the central focus at the outset was to evaluate how the costs and outcomes of individual budget pilots would compare with standard service delivery arrangements.
Although RCTs were widely regarded in DH as the gold standard for evaluation methodologies, especially for clinical interventions, other government departments were less comfortable with the idea that trials were appropriate in the context of individual budgets. The DH implementation support team, and some local staff, shared these concerns and particularly questioned the ethics of denying some participants in the trial access to individual budgets in order to provide comparisons with those who received such budgets.
Meanwhile, the evaluators soon realised, as is often the case, that the intervention to be evaluated was poorly specified. With the policy team, they had to ask: What is an individual budget? How is it allocated? What’s the operating system? How is need to be assessed? How would an assessment of need be converted into a financial sum that someone had available to spend on their care and support? Fortunately, from one point of view, ‘In Control’ had developed a model in their earlier six pilots that not only filled the vacuum but effectively became the intervention to be piloted and evaluated.
Then, in 2006, a new Minister moved the goal posts and announced that, in his view, the inherent value of individual budgets was not in doubt and that he had decided that the initiative should be rolled out nationally from 2010. The evaluation still had an important role, but it would now advise on how best to implement that decision rather than provide evidence to inform whether such a decision should in fact be made. So the RCT continued, but it was undermined. Sites felt more reluctant to identify participants in the study who would not receive a service that had now been ministerially endorsed. Recruitment to the study was slow and, with systems change lagging behind the evaluation timetable, some participants had not received services for the full follow up period before the pilots ended.
The evaluation reported on time and found that people in receipt of budgets, and their carers, reported greater independence and control over how care was provided. Individual budgets were slightly more cost-effective for some (but not all) groups of people. In addition, the implementation of individual budgets had important implications for staff roles, training and the management of funding streams.
In practice, the evaluation was conducted at the intersection with politics, policy-making and implementation. Ministers wanted to prove they could deliver change in what were their frequently short periods in a particular post. They were also influenced greatly by their own informal networks, including in the case of the second minister, his own previous experience of social care services and knowledge of the ‘In Control’ model.
The Department of Health implementation support team who were helping the local sites to implement individual budgets, were also closely associated with ‘In Control’ and its operating model for individual budgets.
The experience of implementing the individual budget pilots demonstrated how the value base of health and social care competed with arguments about technical rationality underlying the modernising government and public sector reform agendas. The former values emphasised the rights of older people and people with disabilities to have greater control over their lives while the latter argument required evidence to demonstrate the benefits of such control, or at least the costs and effectiveness of an intervention which more anecdotal evidence already appeared to support in advance of results being available from the DH commissioned independent evaluation.
As Russell and colleagues (2008) argue – and the individual budgets example supports – policy-making in practice is more a ‘formal struggle over ideas and values’ than a systematically structured search to find and apply the best evidence of what works. As the same authors also underline, there is no single ‘right answer’ to be identified in the messy world of policy-making but only ‘more-or-less good reasons to arrive at more-or-less plausible conclusions’.
It is sometimes argued that policy makers need better understanding of evaluation but it is perhaps no less true that evaluators need better understanding of policy-making and political processes. There are, for example, some givens in public policy which inevitably and necessarily impact on the conduct and interpretation of evaluation. These givens include the impact of electoral and financial cycles as well as electoral and bureaucratic politics. There are also multiple actors and stakeholders, some of whose actions and influence within policy processes are less apparent than others. For example, for policy researchers there are fascinating questions about how the radical concept of individual budgets was developed and rolled out universally within less than a decade. How a small and newly established organisation such as ‘In Control’ was able to achieve the transformation of national social care policy and service delivery guidelines so rapidly and subsequently begin to extend its model into the NHS is, in itself, an evaluation topic of great interest and relevance to policy researchers.
As for social policy evaluators, these reflections underline the advice of Donald Campbell cited above from another era of social policy transformation. Moreover, in an inherently political clash between values and evidence, the roles of evaluators can perhaps usefully be summarised as being to provide challenge which is both rigorous and sustained; to serve as professional sceptics where others are the professional advocates of change; and, finally, to suspend belief in the absence of independent analysis.
About the author
Gerald Wistow is Visiting Professor in Social Policy within the Personal Social Services Research Unit at LSE. This blog is based on a presentation that he gave at the meeting ‘Evaluation – making it timely, useful, independent and rigorous’ on 4 July 2014, organised by the Policy Innovation Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in association with the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the Public Health Research Consortium (PHRC).
This blog was first posted on the Policy Innovation Research Unit blog.