Here in the UK, a huge scandal has blown up in the government’s face recently. The so-called Windrush generation are members of the former British Empire in the Caribbean who came to the UK after the war at Britain’s request. They were wanted to help rebuild Britain. And they made the UK their home. They worked, had families, paid taxes and made a difference. They are British and recognised as such since an act in 1971. Approximately 500,000 came to the UK (including from other countries such as India and Pakistan). Now as they reach retirement, they have fallen foul of successful measures taken by the government to make a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. They are not illegal but are caught out by the rules – they have to prove they are not illegal and not all have been able to do so. There are tragic stories in the news of people being detained, deported, denied work, housing, healthcare even though they are British. The country has been horrified – how on earth is this possible?
As more and more leaks out, it is becoming clear that metrics are an important part of the story. The government has been desperate since 2010 to reduce immigration. They have been proud of creating a hostile environment for illegal immigrants and deporting them if they cannot prove their right to be here. And some of the Windrush generation have been caught up in this. It has emerged that the Home Office had a target to forcibly return around 12,000 illegal immigrants per year. These outrageous examples of deporting British people with the right to be here are included in that total and help the department meet the target. With huge pressure to meet a target, people will try their hardest to do so – whatever the means. If you had a target to deport illegal immigrants and your job (or bonus) depended on it then what would you do? How sympathetic would you be to someone who could not prove they were legally here?
Metrics can drive the wrong behaviour as well as the right behaviour. The country is appalled at the way these people have been treated including newspapers who are normally strongly supportive of the government. This was clearly the wrong behaviour – being driven to meet a metric target. And the evidence of these cases has been there for several years. But the target was always more important.
This is the wrong use of metrics. They should not be used at the exclusion of thinking and compassion. Whatever metrics you use, they can drive the wrong behaviour – always look behind them to understand what is happening. Ask the right questions. If the metric is improving, ask why. Ask how. Is it driving the right behaviour or are there negative consequences? Think.
Thanks to a free press, these stories have come into the open and the government has apologised and taken action to reverse the injustices. But these injustices should not have happened in the first place and some people’s lives have been turned upside-down. The lesson – use metrics carefully and thoughtfully and watch for them driving the wrong behaviour.
A great book that makes clear the use and abuse of metrics in the public sector is “Systems Thinking in the Public Sector” by John Seddon.
Picture: kmusser
Text: © 2018 Dorricott MPI Ltd. All rights reserved.
Some questions (both from this post and referred posts):
– Windrush folks arrival cards destroyed in 2010 – and the deportation rush started in 2010 – is it a coincidence?
– it is about 70 years now since the Windrush arrival – why wouldn’t anyone of the “arrivers” ever consider dealing with the paperwork, at least for their kids? could it be that it had been never required – but was it the right thing? are the nations with the mandatory paperwork – albeit creating more “ongoing burden” for their citizens – actually creating better legal base for certain decisions (like in GCP – whatever is not documented has not happened)?
On the opposite note – UK visa application is the most complicated and requiring the most information from the visitors – even before 2010…
Thanks for your comment, Oleg.
In the UK, we don’t have identity cards (as much of Europe does). The assumption always used to be that people tell the truth – and you need evidence to dispprove them. For example, when we vote we don’t need to prove our identity. It seems that in recent years this has been turned round in some cases and illegal immigrants is one of those areas. Now you need to prove you are NOT illegal rather than authorities needing to prove you ARE illegal. This is a significant change and I think is how these people have got caught up. Proving they were legally here was never required before.
And interesting comment about GCP – the burdon of proof is likewise on those running the trial to prove they have done it correctly rather than regulators to prove they have not.
The old nurses adage of “not documented, not done” seems to apply here for “undocumented immigrants”. Guess we are playing by different rules now…yes a sad day.