Like many public sector organizations, in the past decades the Dutch judiciary has come to adopt New Public Management (NPM) practices and processes. In this article, we analyze this adoption from a management and organizational control perspective. Using data from a large survey among Dutch judges, we see a “mismatch” between the nature of the NPM-inspired management control systems and the work-related experiences of the judges and inquire into the consequences thereof for judicial work and organization.
LINK
In May 2018, the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 (Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten, Wiv) will enter into force. It replaces the previous 2002 Act and incorporates many reforms to the information gathering powers of the two intelligence and security services as well as to the accountability and oversight mechanisms. Due to the technologyneutral approach, both the civil and the military intelligence services are now authorized to, for example, intercept communications in bulk, hack third parties, decrypt files, store DNA or use any other future innovative technology. Also, the national security legislation extends the possibilities for the indiscriminate collection of data, and for the processing, storage and analysis thereof. The process leading to the law includes substantial criticism from the various stakeholders involved. Upon publication of this report, an official consultative referendum is being organized on the new act. The aim of this policy brief is to provide an international audience with a comprehensive overview of the most relevant aspects of the act and its context. In addition, there is considerable focus on the checks and balances as well as the bottlenecks of the Dutch intelligence gathering reform. The selection of topics is based on the core issues addressed during the parliamentary debate and on the authors’ insights.
Background: To be accountable to laws and regulations, healthcare professionals spend more than 40% of their time on administrative tasks. The Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act (CMHA) was introduced in Dutch mental healthcare in 2020. It was hypothesized that this legislative amendment would raise the administrative burden for some care professionals. Pilot studies in 2020 and 2021 visualized the exponentially rise of the administrative burden for care professionals, especially psychiatrists due to the transition. However the total response was too small and not generalizable. Aim: gain more nationwide insight in the hypothesized raise of administrative burden of psychiatrists due to the implementation of the CMHA. Method: Under the leadership of an advisory board of three medical director psychiatrists, a Likert scale questionnaire was further developed to investigate the administrative burden of psychiatrists in the Netherlands before and after transition. Open-ended questions provided the opportunity for feedback from the psychiatrists. The study was supported by the Department of Medical Directors (DMD) of The Netherlands Psychiatric Association (NPA). Results: all mental health institutions members of the DMD of the NPA received an invitation to participate. 14 institutions (total N=158) responded. The data show a significant change in the time spent on administrative tasks, the usefulness of the administrative actions, the fit for use and ease of use of supporting systems. The forementioned all decreased significantly after the implementation. Conclusion and discussion: Psychiatrists spend more time on administration than before the legislative amendment instead of helping vulnerable patients. None of the institutions has been able to use the transition to its advantage given the time spent on administrative tasks and the usefulness of these tasks. This is an unacceptable development in the field of mental health in the Netherlands and should be addressed to those who are responsible for the decision making, especially policy makers. These results show that the introduction of the CMHA have made the field of Dutch mental health an impossible area to work for. , Administrative burden, Legislative amendment, Public governance, Information Management
MULTIFILE
