View report page

THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COUNCILLORS OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM
FOREST
Mr.Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have the honour to present my report for the year 1967.
During the year the Organisation and Methods teams of the London Boroughs' Management
Services Unit made two more visits, having made one in 1966, and their report which had
been expected in the spring of 1967 became expected in the summer, then the end of the year, and
at the time of writing in May 1968 has still not become available. The effect of this on the
department has been quite serious, as some staff have felt their personal future undecided for
nearly two years now, while an atmosphere of impending change, beginning only one year after the
enormous disturbance of London reorganisation, has not been relieved. Not only so but a number
of important organisational defects, which became apparent soon after the amalgamation of boroughs
had been mostly digested, have remained. At the time of amalgamation staff and work administered
from eight offices were merged into one machine. It is not surprising that the perfect structure was
not built on the first day, but the original structure ossified as no one liked to make changes when
an organisation and methods report was considered imminent, possibly with better but incompatible
recommendations. If we had known two years ago the delay that there would be, we could even
then have improved our structure and procedures to our great advantage before the outside advice
became available.
In this situation the staff are to be congratulated on their co-operative attitude to the
O. & M. teams as each came along and this is perhaps an indication of their general desire that
the department should be as efficiently run as human ingenuity can make it. For efficiency must
be an important aim of a department which seeks to meet demands far greater than the resources
available allow.
Yet it is important to see the difference between efficiency and effectiveness.
Because we all like telling other people how to organize their affairs, mention of
efficiency immediately focusses all attention on administrative procedures and clerical activities,
and everyone starts looking for cuts in clerical staff. This is an almost absurdly one-sided approach
as administrative staff account for less than five per cent of the department's expenditure.
How does one assess the efficiency of a social work department?
Efficiency in the field of prevention is a statistical matter closely related to the funds
one is willing to invest in it. Hundred per cent efficiency in preventing ill health, even if possible,
would be of infinite cost. The more one spends the longer the odds against a high rate of ill health
and social disorder in the borough. Here as in every aspect of social services the local authority
functions must be seen in national perspective. One could save rate-fund expenditure by reducing
the number of public health inspectors, but only at the risk of greater morbidity in the population
with consequent charges on other public funds and loss of national productivity. This is not
efficiency.
One Royal Commission after another has advocated more Health Education, and now the
Health Education Council is being set up. Many studies have been attempted to evaluate Health
Education - a most difficult task. One of the best known conducted in Aberdeen, would seem to
suggest that this borough is spending far too little on this form of prevention.
- 4 -