Impact case study database

Cheeseman has changed UK policy in respect of electoral monitoring and approach to elections. His work on democracy has also changed the way that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) works with civil society on legislative scrutiny and has significantly contributed to changes in the way that democracy promotion programmes are managed.

1. Transforming policy through the UK Government’s (FCO) adoption of ‘deep election monitoring’

The FCO has changed its approach to election monitoring, adopting a new model of ‘deep election monitoring’ (DEM) that was developed by Cheeseman [C1; F2]. The DEM approach provides international donors advance warnings of likely ‘trouble-spots’ and improves the efficacy of their interventions [F1]. This approach combines the expertise of UK researchers with country experts, and is regarded as best practice. For example, the UK High Commissioner for Kenya and the Head of Governance for DFID/FCDO Kenya, describe DEM as a model “for the real-time use of external evidence in international policy-making” [C2] and “for how the British government can engage with policy-makers to try and ensure more credible, peaceful and inclusive elections” [C3]. That this is so is further evidenced by its adoption in other countries, including Nigeria [C4] and Ethiopia [C5]. Through this method, international donors, including the UK Government, are better able to understand key electoral risks and so design more effective interventions. This has in turn helped to better manage electoral controversies in countries with a combined population of over 300 million [C2, C3, C6].

Two examples of countries where the DEM has been successfully used are Kenya and Malawi:

• The DEM was utilized in the 2017 Kenyan election, resulting in a more effective international response [C2, C7]. Significantly, the DEM helped — along with broader international and domestic efforts to deter violence — to reduce the number of fatalities linked to the election from more than 1,000 in 2007 [C7] to 92 in 2017. The DEM was used to predict that the election would result in a narrow and disputed victory for the incumbent. Through regular reports and face-to-face briefings with the UK High Commissioner, the researchers advised Western aid donors to establish effective conflict resolution mechanisms ahead of election day [C3]. These included back-room channels for private negotiations between the leading candidates and investments in local peace programmes.

• Malawi pursued a similar approach ahead of the re-run presidential election of 2020. The DEM “played a role in persuading President Mutharika and the ruling party to allow high quality elections and ultimately accept defeat” [C6] — sparing the country the mass demonstrations that resulted in the death or serious injury of over 60 people following the disputed 2019 poll. In order to design interventions to prevent a repeat of the 2019 elections — which were nullified in the courts amid accusations of electoral manipulation — Cheeseman teamed up with leading Malawian researchers to advise the UK High Commissioner and DFID’s Senior Governance Adviser over a period of three months [C6]. This involved drawing on the lessons from How to Rig an Election [R1] to identify the most likely areas of electoral manipulation [F1, F2], identifying key messages to dissuade President Peter Mutharika from pursuing these strategies, and drafting statements for the High Commission to communicate these messages both publicly and privately [C6].

1. Improving quality of legislative scrutiny by changing how the Westminster Foundation for Democracy works with civil society

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has changed its approach to strengthening legislative accountability by integrating civil society partners in this area of their democracy promotion work for the first time [C8, C9], resulting in improved quality of legislative scrutiny in six of their partner countries that are home to over 170 million people (Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Nigeria, Albania and Kyrgyzstan). The Westminster Foundation for Democracy — the UK’s premier democracy promotion organization that is funded directly by the UK Government with an annual budget of over £7 million — has changed the way it works with civil society groups since 2018 following research-based advice from Cheeseman and Dodsworth [F3]. From then, civil society groups became a core component of their strategic plan [C8]. The WFD’s Head of Research confirmed the significance of this new approach, which “explicitly integrates civil society partners for the first time” [C9], enabling WFD to work with a broader range of political and technical groups to strengthen legislative committees and provide parliamentarians with greater access to information, enhancing accountability in new democracies [F4]. As a result, since 2018 WFD has been spending around £2 million of its budget more effectively [C9]. In turn, this has facilitated greater strengthening of democratic processes and institutions than was previously possible and delivering “tangible benefits” [C9] to the legislatures and civil society groups that the WFD supports in 30 developing countries with over 400 million citizens [C8].

This NGO influence came about after the WFD invited Cheeseman to establish the Political Economy of Democracy Promotion project as a collaboration between WFD and the University of Birmingham [C10]. In 2017, the researchers and WFD identified how best to work with civil society and manage political risk as two areas in which academic research could benefit the organization, subsequently producing a working paper on each topic [F4]. The trust built up through the project enabled the key findings to be quickly incorporated into WFD programming, leading to the investment of funds in a way that more effectively leverages the influence and information of civil society groups.

1. Changing the management of democracy promotion programmes

The WFD have implemented a fundamentally new approach to its own internal programme management. Cheeseman and Dodsworth’s work on portfolio approaches was used to restructure the way the WFD selects and monitors programmes, so that their risks and potential benefits are considered as a group rather than on a case-by-case basis [F3]. As a result, the WFD has been able to keep democracy promotion programmes running even in extremely difficult cases in which countries have undertaken an authoritarian turn, as in Venezuela [C9]. WFD estimates that this has improved the quality of legislative scrutiny, and hence improved government policy in key areas such as the budget and healthcare for over 170 million people across six countries [C9].

The impacts of this case are threefold: (1) In a dramatic u-turn, the UN reversed its policy and took responsibility for the cholera outbreak in Haiti. This sets a precedent and has ramifications for all subsequent UN actions; (2) Through the adoption of the human rights-based Resolution Summit Framework, UN policy has been transformed; (3) Reparation has been made to the Haitian people through the creation of a $400 million trust fund. This has led to improved public health outcomes in the communities most affected by the epidemic.

1. Reversed UN policy on responsibility through a court challenge

In December 2016, the UN General Assembly recognised “that the United Nations had a moral responsibility to the victims of the cholera epidemic in Haiti” [F1, F2; C1]. Speaking in French and English, as well as, for the first time in such circumstances, in a non-official UN language, Haitian Creole, the UN Secretary-General issued an apology to the people of Haiti, expressing that the organisation “simply did not do enough with regard to the cholera outbreak and its spread” [C2].

This was a reversal of policy with regard to UN responsibility to which the University of Birmingham’s work was pivotal [F3]. This was done in an amicus curiae brief, submitted in May 2014, in support of the lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) in the US courts ( Georges et al. v. United Nation) [C3]. The human rights-based approach, which deemed the UN accountable for the Haiti cholera crisis, and underpinned the brief was developed by Lemay-Hébert and Freedman [F2]. The specific challenge failed in the US courts, but it helped to elicit a new willingness from the UN for a resolution outside of court. In a statement released by the Secretary-General on the 19 August 2016 (a day after the court decision), he describes both regret and a moral responsibility of the UN and international community to eliminate cholera and states that he is “actively working to develop a package that would provide material assistance and support to those Haitians most directly affected by cholera” [C2]. Such willingness represented a fundamental shift from the UN’s original position and reversed the position, eventually leading to the 2016 apology and acceptance of responsibility.

This amounts to unprecedented recognition “that the United Nations had a moral responsibility to the victims of the cholera epidemic in Haiti, as well as to support Haiti in overcoming the epidemic and building sound water, sanitation and health systems” [F1, F2; C1]. This is a substantial reversal of policy, a rejection of UN immunity, and it has set a precedent for accountability, apology, and reparation.

This reversal sets a precedent and has long-term ramifications for public policy and legal accountability that are likely to be significant.

1. Transformed UN policy through the adoption of the Resolution Summit Framework as a lobbying tool

Lemay-Hébert and Freedman convened a Resolution Summit at the University of Birmingham in December 2015, attended by experts from the UN and NGOs, where they designed and agreed a framework ( the Resolution Summit Framework). The framework was based on the human rights approach advocated by Lemay-Hébert and Freedman and intended to be acceptable to the UN, its Member States, and Haitian victims. The framework called for three actions [C4]:

1) an apology from the UN to the people of Haiti;

2) preventive measures to avoid future deaths and suffering;

3) financial compensation for the victims.

That Lemay-Hébert’s and Freedman’s work was crucial is confirmed by experts who attended the summit and attested that “the Birmingham project has been instrumental in helping to achieve a resolution acceptable to all parties” [C5a].

The framework subsequently served as a campaign tool to engineer policy change, equipped representatives with a research-based human rights argument for reparative justice, and encouraged a coordinated approach to raising the issue. The framework was adopted as the IJDH’s official recommendations to the UN to guide their actions on reparations in Haiti. Lemay-Hébert, Freedman, and NGOs, including the IJDH and Partners in Health, lobbied to have the framework adopted.

In March 2016, at the UN Security Council, the Security Council member states were asked to support the framework and to adopt a coordinated approach to review the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). That policy-makers recognised the importance of the issue is evidenced by the changes in policy discourse. For example, in the MINUSTAH review, which was the first discussion of cholera as a human rights issue in the Security Council, the UK representative specifically acknowledged that “more needs to be done to defend the vulnerable people of Haiti against cholera and rid Haiti of that pervasive disease” [C6, p. 11]. In the same debate, Peru and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, speaking on behalf the Group of Friends of Haiti (11 states) and CARICOM (14 states), respectively, also expressed unanimous support for a change in UN public policy concerning cholera in Haiti [C6, pp. 23, 29].

Recommendations contained in Lemay-Hébert’s and Freedman’s research [F1–F4] and outlined at the Resolution Summit [C4, C5a-c] were cited extensively in the report by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in August 2016. The report criticised the UN’s handling of the cholera epidemic, in particular “the refusal to address the human rights violations that have occurred […] as a result of the cholera epidemic” and pushed for the Secretary-General to change his position on the issue, recommending the three-part Resolution Summit Framework as a new policy direction [C7]. The Special Rapporteur explicitly acknowledged that “ the framework that was produced at the Birmingham workshop has informed the approach taken in terms of the three aspects needed to resolve the disputes” [C5c].

In September 2016, Lemay-Hébert and Freedman wrote to the UN Secretary General, to reiterate the recommendations made in the Resolution Summit Report. The letter was co-authored, with other key legal, health, and human rights experts, and it proposed that the UN’s Haiti cholera “response must include a public apology, compensation for victims, and full funding for cholera elimination” [F4; C8]. According to one of the participants at the workshop, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Partners in Health, this lobbying effort ‘contributed to a changed approach to remedying the situation’ [C5b]. In December 2016, after years of silence, the UN General Assembly adopted the three recommendations contained in the Resolution Summit Framework developed in Birmingham.

3. Through the introduction of reparations, in the form of a trust fund, Haitian public health and patient outcomes have been improved

In addition to the Secretary-General’s apology, the UN announced that a trust fund worth $400 million would be mobilised to provide access to justice and reparations to those who had suffered as a result of the epidemic. Evidence that the UN had reversed its policy on accountability and the eradication of cholera is the establishment of the UN Haiti Cholera Response Multi-partner Trust Fund.

Supported by donations from UN member states, to date this has raised $20.5 million, of which so far around $14.2 million have been distributed to provide collective reparations to Haitian communities affected by cholera [C9a]. Following the recommendations of the Resolution Summit in Birmingham, the UN Haiti Cholera Response Multi-partner Trust Fund has two tracks:

• Track 1A: Intensifying immediate efforts to cut transmission of cholera and improve access to care and treatment;

• Track 1B: Addressing the longer-term issues of water, sanitation, and health systems;

• Track 2: Developing a proposal for a package of material assistance and support to Haitians most directly affected by cholera.

The UN Special Envoy for Haiti reported that “the Fund has allowed international partners to respond to some of the most immediate needs” of citizens affected by the outbreak [C9b].

Initially, the Fund supported the consultation of communities most affected, reflecting the call for an enhanced understanding of victims’ needs in reparative processes as found in Freedman’s and Lemay-Hébert’s research [F4]. Following the successful conclusion of pilot projects initiated on the basis of this consultation, $6.7 million have been allocated to projects covering 134 local communities (those hardest hit by the epidemic) [C9a] and providing material benefits to many thousands of Haitians affected by the epidemic [C9b–d].

Alongside this direct assistance provided to affected communities (Track 2), the Multi-Partner Trust Fund has also allocated resources to “intensifying support for cholera control and response” (Track 1). Since 2018, more than $3 million have been spent on projects focused on ending the transmission of cholera, improving access to care and treatment, and addressing infrastructural issues in Haiti by increasing provision and access to healthcare, sanitation, and high-quality water [F4].

The UN’s new commitment to intensify support for cholera control and response [F2, F4], and the disbursements from the Trust Fund, have improved public health and patient outcomes within the country [C9b–d]. For example, interventions from the Pan American Health Organization, who received funding from the Trust, led to a drop from around 352,033 suspected cases in cholera at its peak in 2011 to less than 100 per week by 2018. They also recorded an incidence rate for 2018 of 25.5 cases per 100,000 people “which is the lowest recorded incidence since the beginning of the outbreak” [C10]. Two years later, at the fifth meeting of the advisory committee of the Trust Fund on 20 May 2020, the Special Envoy for Haiti shared data indicating zero laboratory confirmed cases of cholera and zero deaths for 16 consecutive months.

Professor Kataryna Wolczuk has transformed the way in which the European Parliament and European Commission use and implement the Association Agreements (AAs) for the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries. Her sustained engagement with these institutions has been influential in changing their approach to their relationships with EaP countries, despite a backdrop of political volatility in Moldova and Ukraine. Specifically, she has shaped policy decisions and policy development of the European Parliament, and changed the practice of the European Court of Auditors with regard to EaP countries.

1. Influencing the European Parliament’s policy decisions in relation to the Eastern Partnership Countries

Wolczuk has influenced changes in policy decisions and legal acts of the European Parliament in two ways:

1. Wolczuk has enabled relevant members of the European Parliament to focus attention on the context and needs of the EaP countries [C1]. Her recommendations on how to promote reforms in the AA countries have been explicitly incorporated into three Resolutions of the European Parliament [C2a–c]. These key legal acts, which set out how the EU will implement the AAs in the EaP countries, now include specific recommendations from Wolczuk centred on improving the institutional architecture of AA countries and creating organisational capacity and processes to implement the agreements [F2, F4]. The Secretariat of the European Parliament confirmed this, noting that “the findings of [Wolczuk’s] study have been duly taken into account in several EP reports and resolutions and have informed discussions” and that “Prof. Wolczuk’s research has been and remains instrumental for the work of the EP in relation to the Association countries” [C3].

2. Wolczuk’s recommendation of using the Support Group for Ukraine (SGUA) as a model for other associated countries [F4, C4] has also been adopted in the Resolutions and Reports by the European Parliament, who have called on the European Commission and the European Union External Action Service (EEAS) to set up groups for Moldova and Georgia [C2a, #53; C2b, #11]. The SGUA has been essential to bring concentrated expertise to support reform in Ukraine and in helping the government to start applying the recommendations outlined in the AA implementation reports. Therefore, the commencement of similar groups is of vital importance to provide the governments of other associated countries with similar levels of support.

The uptake of Wolczuk’s recommendations in these areas were the result of her close work with the Secretariat of the European Parliament and presenting her research findings to the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, the largest committee in the European Parliament, of which they then requested a report [C4].

1. Significantly influencing policy change within the European Commission and European Parliament from monitoring progress to state rebuilding

A significant policy change within the EU has been informed by Wolczuk’s work. Specifically, instead of focusing on the adoption of EU rules in implementing the strategy, the policy’s central focus has shifted towards prioritising state-building in Ukraine [F2, F4]. The Deputy Director-General for European Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations recognised the importance of Wolczuk’s work to this change, stating that “the EU’s novel support in Ukraine is verging on transformational not only for Ukraine but for the EU’s role as an international actor” and emphasising that “this brings invaluable lessons and experience for the EU’s role in the Eastern neighbourhood and beyond” [C5]. This approach came from Wolczuk’s contribution through the seminars co-designed and delivered with multiple Directors-General of the European Commission, as well as the co-authoring of a paper with the Deputy Director-General for European Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations [C5]. This approach has been central to the work of the SGUA, who have since 2015 adopted the view “that the profound reform of the public sector was necessary”, a reflection of Wolczuk’s findings [F4; C6]. The importance of this approach has been confirmed in the key policy planning document of the von-der-Leyen Commission since 2019. This confidential list of policy priorities, prepared for the College of the European Commission (consisting of all EU Commissioners), justifies continued funding for the SGUA with a specific reference to Wolczuk’s research [R6; C7].

Wolczuk has stimulated policy debate within the European Parliament, particularly the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, resulting in a shift of the discourse around AAs. Previously, the focus had been on the progress of the AA’s implementation in different sectors, such as energy and transport, but this has now transformed to emphasise state weakness as being the key impediment to their implementation [F2]. This has enabled policy makers working in this area to shift focus from the “export of EU rules” to the AA countries to the need to build state capacity as a pre-condition to implement these rules [C8]. This has fed into the European Parliament’s reports on the implementation of the AAs [C9a–c], which now explicitly call for “a focus on capacity in terms of human resources and expertise, to ensure full implementation of relevant legislation and the monitoring thereof” [C9a, p.3].

1. Changing the policy and practice of the European Court of Auditors

Wolczuk has assisted the European Court of Auditors (ECA) in changing its practices on the audit of the EU’s assistance to Ukraine. The ECA, the EU’s independent external auditor responsible for evaluating EU’s assistance to any ‘third country’, conducted their audit of Ukraine by collecting in-depth information and focusing on the results of the EU’s assistance, as recommended by Wolczuk [F5]. While previously the focus of the audits was on procedural compliance which merely sought to import EU ‘best practice’ to Ukraine, the focus now is explicitly on the substance of the projects and ensuring that an audit is focused on the effectiveness of the projects and how well they are tailored to Ukraine’s needs. A member of the ECA acknowledged the need to change the methods adopted in previous audits, stating that “we understood that EU best practices was not necessarily a solution for Ukraine” [C10], in line with Wolczuk’s research findings. The ECA’s staff consulted with Wolczuk in September 2019 at Chatham House in London, stating their intention to enact her recommendations on how to improve their auditing process for Ukraine as a reason for the meeting taking place. During the meeting, the auditors focussed on the nature of corruption in Ukraine and what is needed to eradicate it in order to “achieve a better understanding of local context and learn from past successes and shortcomings” [R3; C10].

Through the research, we have changed understanding within public bodies of what a good public servant is, and what qualities and aptitudes they need to effectively perform in the contemporary context, leading to clear changes to workforce planning and HR practice. We have also influenced the concept of what a good public sector leader is, and how they are developed and trained.

1. Changing understanding about the qualities and aptitudes of public servants

We have transformed the blueprint of what a ‘good public servant’ is. Before our intervention there was a tendency in many public bodies to value technical and expert skills over generic, softer skills [F1]. This perception made it hard for some public servants, despite having a range of skills, to influence change or enact leadership. We have shown that this old model is ineffective and outdated, and a new model of a public servant is needed, one which values: ‘soft skills’ [F1], engagement with citizens [F2], flexibility rather than role expertise, enabling the ‘resource-weaver’ [F2], and collaborative and reflective leadership [F3, F4]. So effective has this intervention been that the Local Government Association (LGA) has become a champion for the 21^st Century Public Servant, describing it as “ a blueprint — looking at skills, values, and identities of the future public service workforce” [C1a]. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport cited the research in its Enabling Social Action report, as an example of leadership and culture change [C2].

Our model is being taken up as best practice nationally. The open source website, which provides practitioners quick and easy access to our materials in an accessible and appealing way, has had 84,006 views from 41,027 visitors [C3]. With a social enterprise, we developed 21stC Public Servant playing cards which are a training tool to stimulate culture change in organisations. 422 packs have been sold to date.

That the model is changing practice is shown by the fact that, in 2018, at a 21st Century Public Servant conference run by the LGA, over 100 councils shared examples of how they used this work [C1b]. An external evaluation, commissioned by the University of Birmingham, found that local authorities describe adopting the model as a culture change, “ introducing a different way of talking about who we are and what we do”, “building it into our DNA” [C4]. One council reported, “We developed a whole new set of values and behaviours based on [the research]” [C4]. Another council reported distilling the framework into six values: “these are on our screen savers […] and on our lanyards” [C4; F1]. “Significant changes in working practices and a major investment in staff training” were reported in a council’s own appraisal of the impact [C5].

As a result of the take up of our model, workforce planning has changed in a third of English higher-tier local authorities (cities and counties), reaching a combined workforce of 407,000. For example, job descriptions have changed, to better fit the mixed roles which staff are undertaking; as one respondent said: “It has influenced our job descriptions a lot — they are now more generic and outcome-based” [C4; F2]. 35 councils are using the research to inform new roles and skills [C4; F1, F2]. One council reported “we are redesigning our HR function and [the research] is in the centre of that”. Another council said it is “us[ing] the concepts extensively to underpin our overall approach to people management and investment” [C4]. The evaluation of the impact of the 21st Century Public Servant research found that its impact overall been “ extensive” and that, for a small number of councils, the impact has been “ profound” [C4]. A quarter of councils are able to evidence specific benefits to their organisation from the research. For metropolitan boroughs, 39% report significant benefit [C4].

The widespread change in practice driven by the research is now being systematically embedded in a national scheme. This ‘Partners into Practice’ scheme, which we have developed with the Local Government Association, enables local authorities to assess how far their staff are displaying the characteristics of a 21st Century Public Servant, and to develop staff against this benchmark. This work began in 2016, when a national 21^st Century Public Servant steering group was convened by the LGA, with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), the Public Service People Managers Association and representatives from health, police and fire organisations. This resulted in a commissioned podcast and publication ‘Walk Tall’, explaining to public service organisations how to embed 21^st Century Public Servant principles in frontline work [C6; F2]. According to the then Head of Workforce for the LGA, “The reason we commissioned the ebook Walk Tall was because we were really impressed by the fantastic research that the University of Birmingham did to develop the concept of a 21st Century Public Servant” [C1c]. The Partners into Practice scheme has been trialled by two councils (Wigan and Colchester), with a combined workforce of over 10,000 staff. The trialling period has spanned the Covid-19 pandemic. According to Naomi Cooke, current Head of Workforce Strategy for the LGA, “We have piloted it with two local authorities who have confirmed that this has been really helpful to them in encouraging staff to work differently and to engage better with communities. In particular, they found it helped the Covid-19 response by encouraging staff to take more autonomy and trust their communities. One council told us that the 21stC Public Servant approach was “spot on” when it came to dealing with Covid.” [C1b]

1. The 21st Century Public Servant framework has transformed leadership development and training of public service leaders

We have changed the understanding of what a good public service leader is and how they should be developed and trained. Prior to our research, the traditional model of a charismatic hero leader was prevalent within public sector organisations [F2]. Our research has challenged that model and affirmed the importance of dispersed, collaborative and agile leadership. As one senior manager said “Our lightbulb moment from the research was that effective leaders can be anyone” [F4; C4]. Of the 59 councils who reported a “significant benefit” from the 21st Century Public Servant framework, 47 councils said the most significant benefit was leadership development [F3, F4; C4]. The framework is “help[ing] leadership teams to think about how they operate in a different world”, reported one council. Our influence has been on elected leaders as well as appointed managers. A partnership with regional workforce body North West Employers led to the co-creation of a 360-degree feedback tool for councillors. This has been used by a network of North-West councils to identify and address the skills development needs of elected council leaders [C7].

National government has welcomed our intervention, with Mangan invited to join the Expert Advisory Group for the Cabinet Office’s National Leadership Centre. Our research underpins the curriculum of two key programmes specified in the 2019/20 Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the LGA to improve the skills of the local government workforce in England [C8], and a third leadership programme commissioned by Public Health England [F4].

• The Society of Local Government Chief Executive’s (SOLACE) Total Leadership programme has been redesigned using our framework. This programme develops senior public service workers’ skills to enable them to become local government chief executives [C9a; F4]. According to the SOLACE Head of Leadership, the research, “has resonated so directly with practitioners at all levels of organisations. I have noted in particular that it has had an impact on helping individuals both to see themselves as leaders in their organisations, and to see the values of collaborative leadership” [C9a]. From three cohorts of 45 each, nine participants have secured their first chief executive role, eight as council chief executives and one as chief executive of a national education organisation [C9b].

• The LGA’s National Graduate Development Programme (NGDP) has been redesigned on the basis of the 21^st Century Public Servant framework. This prestigious national programme, equivalent to the Fast Stream for the Civil Service, recruits up to 200 graduates joining local government each year; recruited on their potential to become senior leaders. Feedback from participants illustrates our impact; for example, one participant stated “the NGDP has given my career in Local Government a strong start and is helping me become a ‘21st Century public servant’ with greater commercial awareness, diverse experience, flexibility and strong collaboration skills” [C1d; F2].

• The 21^st Century Public Servant Leadership Programme for Aspiring Directors of Public Health was first commissioned by Public Health England in 2016, and was awarded to the University of Birmingham because it wanted our framework to be the basis for the programme. The programme has since been re-commissioned twice. The programme is given as a best-practice example in an NHS Improvement Report [C10]. To date, 45 people have participated in the programme across two cohorts, with the main outcome for them being the ability to apply the principles of system leadership into their work [F4]. Follow-up data on participants of this programme found that from the first cohort, six have been promoted into the Director of Public Health role, with two others securing deputy director roles, since completing the programme [confidential material, available on request].