Eckersley, P

Lakoma, K

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)

NARRATIVES AND EVIDENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM:EXPLAINING CHANGES TO THE GOVERNANCE OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICESJUC Annual Conference 2019Northumbria University17 September 2019@peckersley@KatarzynaLakomaDr Pete EckersleyKatarzyna LakomaNottingham Trent UniversityOVERVIEW OF PRESENTATIONIntroductionEvidence and narratives as tools for achieving changeResearch questionsThe case of P(F)CCs in EnglandConclusionsTHE DIFFICULTIES OF IMPLEMENTING ORGANISATIONAL AND POLICY CHANGE Organisational change - change in formal structure, organizational culture, and goals, program, or mission (DiMaggio and Powell 1991).Organisations and individuals are trapped in ‘iron cages’ of bureaucratic rationality (Weber 1905; Ashworth et al 2007)Policy change is also difficult, because previous initiatives create powerful client groups that benefit from existing arrangements and can ‘lock-in’ decision-makers (March and Olsen 1989; Pierson 2000)Yet policy change does happen sometimes, and scholars have developed numerous theories to try and explain it (Weible and Sabatier (2018)Which factors contributed towards change in our study? What strategies did key actors adopt to try and introduce their preferred policies? EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING (EBPM) Role of EBPM: to keep politicians and policymakers honest by holding them to high standards of evidence and reason (The Reinforce school; French 2019)The main factors affecting use of evidence: availability and access to information, costs, timing and opportunity, policymaker research skills, good relationships between researchers and research users (Oliver et al., 2014; Cairney 2016)Comprehensive rationality Bounded rationalityAn objective and comprehensive account of the relevant evidenceThe evidence is contested; scientific evidence is one of many sources of informationThe policy process is centralised and power is held by a small number of policymakersThe policy process contains a large number of influential actorsPolicymakers understand the evidence in the same way as scientistsPolicymakers base their decisions on a mixture of emotions, knowledge, and shortcuts to gather relevant evidence. Comprehensive rationality vs bounded rationality (Cairney 2016)NARRATIVESNarrative refers to a discourse form in which events and happenings are configured into a temporal unity by means of a plot (Polkinghorne, 1995: 5).Narratives are especially likely to be of significance during times of strategic change (Dunford and Jones 2000). Language is heavily impacted in this process. Narratives are powerful mechanisms for confirming actors’ perceptions -they can create ‘information shortcuts’ or heuristics that support existing worldviews (Crow and Jones 2018)Narratives may exhibit only tenuous links with objective reality (Llewellyn 2001), and often involve the construction of a separate reality that simplifies the real-world situation. But they can have substantial power to influence and shape future developments (Weiss 2018). NARRATIVE POLICY FRAMEWORKDISSECTS NARRATIVES TO ALLOW US TO ALLOCATE DIFFERENT ROLES TO PHENOMENA, INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS WITHIN THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS AND THEN ANALYSE THEM INDIVIDUALLY. Narrative Policy FrameworkSetting – the basic conditions and assumptionsCharacters – villains, victims and heroesPlot – sets out relationships between the characters and causal linksMoral – this story shows why we need to adopt this policyJones and McBeth 2010RESEARCH QUESTIONSWhat is the evidence used to support changes to the governance of fire and rescue services?What are the dominant policy narratives used to support these changes?(a) What are the supporting change narratives?(b) What are the opposing change narratives? Why and how do policymakers seek to deploy these narratives?What does this tell us about the role of politics in policymaking?THE CASE OF P(F)CCSSince 2017, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have been able to make a case to assume responsibility for the governance of fire and rescue services within their force areas and become Police, Fire and Crime Commissioners (PFCCs)The 2017 Act requires an assessment (i.e. a business case submitted and approved by the Home Secretary) of why this reform (i) is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or  (ii) is in the interests of public safety METHODS7 business cases (Essex, Northamptonshire, West Mercia, North Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, Staffordshire and Hertfordshire)Ex post inductive coding exercise of publicly-available documentation  the business cases,  results of public consultations,  independent analyses by the CIPFA,  local media reports,  the minutes of local council and Fire and Rescue Authority meetings.CONSULTATION RESPONSES IForce areaAgree DisagreeResidentsElected repsFRS staffPolice staffCouncils ResidentsElected repsFRS staffPolice staffCouncilsNorthants 57% 63% 92% 62% 35% 30% 4% 5%West Mercia64% 33% 37% 0 36% 67% 67% 8Cambs 53% 3 n/a n/a 0 39% 1 n/a n/a 2Herts 52% 11 n/a n/a 1 34% 0 n/a n/a 3Consultations to seek approval for PCC decision to opt for Governance model: i.e. no other options presentedCONSULTATION RESPONSES II1 – no benefit 2 3 45 – significant benefitRepresentation 42% 18% 15% 11% 14%Governance 34% 8% 10% 18% 30%Single employer 45% 13% 15% 12% 15%EssexStaffordshire North YorkshireElected repsFRS staffPolice staffResidents Public/VCS Overall Online Residents FRS staffPolice staffOverallNo change 42% 60% 41% 49% 34% 49% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aRepresentation 12% 19% 5% 10% 13% 11% 40% 22% 27% 48% 29%Governance 32% 12% 26% 23% 30% 22% 48% 61% 59% 27% 55%Single employer 14% 9% 28% 18% 23% 17% 12% 17% 14% 25% 15%In favour OpposedCambridgeshire & Peterborough1 Conservative-controlled district council3 Conservative MPs1 Conservative combined authority mayor Cambridgeshire CC (Conservative-controlled)Peterborough Council (Conservative-controlled)1 then-Conservative MP (who now sits with Change UK)Cambridgeshire & Peterborough FRSEssexEssex CC (Conservative-controlled)Southend Council (Conservative-controlled)Thurrock Council (No overall control)2 Conservative-controlled district councils17 Conservative MPsHertfordshire1 Conservative-controlled district council 11 Conservative MPsHertfordshire CC (Conservative-controlled)2 Conservative-controlled district councils1 Liberal Democrat-controlled district councilNorth Yorkshire1 Conservative-controlled district council North Yorkshire CC (Conservative-controlled)City of York Council (no overall control)5 Conservative-controlled district councils2 district councils with no overall controlNorth Yorkshire FRSNorthamptonshire3 Conservative-controlled district councils4 Conservative MPsNorthamptonshire FRS1 Labour-controlled district councilStaffordshire2 Conservative-controlled district councils6 Conservative MPsStaffordshire CC (Conservative-controlled)Stoke-on-Trent Council (no overall control)2 Labour-controlled district councils1 district council with no overall control2 Labour MPsStaffordshire and Stoke on Trent FRSWest MerciaWorcestershire CC (Conservative-controlled)Herefordshire Council (Conservative-controlled)Shropshire Council (Conservative-controlled)2 Conservative-controlled district councils2 Labour-controlled district councils1 district council with no overall controlHereford and Worcester FRSShropshire FRSCURRENT STATE OF PLAYTwo PFCCs approved without much controversy (Essex and Northamptonshire). In both cases there were clear local problems that needed to be addressedTwo PFCCs approved in the teeth of local opposition (Staffordshire and North Yorkshire) Two PCCs got the Home Office’s approval after judicial reviews (Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Mercia) CIPFA reviews of business cases were inconclusive: due to a lack of robust evidence, they neither corroborated the arguments for reform nor dismissed themHertfordshire PCC abandoned his proposal (along with seven other PCCs who considered change)So, given that there was substantial opposition to change in some areas, how did PFCCs try to convince other actors to support their reform proposals?WHAT IS THE NARRATIVE/STORY AROUND POTENTIAL CHANGE?  Finance Democracy Performance "Savings" narrative (supportive) "Cuts" narrative (opposed) "Accountability" narrative (supportive) "Power grab" narrative (opposed) "Collaboration" narrative (supportive) "Ain't broke" narrative (opposed) Setting Insufficient resources Insufficient resources Lack of scrutiny and accountability PCC wants more power Lack of coordination Problem 'invented' by PCC Villains Not specified Central govt Current governance arrangements PCC Current structural arrangements PCC Victims  The public The public The public The public The public The public Heroes PCC Front-line public servants PCC None: there is no problem to fix PCC None: there is no problem to fix Plot  Governance model will save money Better funded public services Elected PFCC will make services more accountable  Think about who should be in charge of public services Governance model will improve joint working Improved joint working Moral PFCC Trust your public servants PFCC Many heads are better than one PFCC There are more important issues facing fire and police services  PROBLEM NARRATIVES“There would be direct benefits from adopting this [governance] option realised through accelerating estate consolidation opportunities” (PCC for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough)“I would suggest that democracy and accountability is improved by having a directly elected Fire Commissioner rather than appointed local councillors acting as an FRA.” (PCC for West Mercia)“The change to single governance will enable new ways of working that will benefit our communities and our emergency services alike.” (PCC for West Mercia) “More opportunities for early intervention and prevention work. Greater value coming from quicker and easier sharing of information.” (Northants)COUNTER-NARRATIVES“I am deeply concerned about the proposals for ‘estate rationalisation’. This clearly indicates the closure of local police stations and locating the services in Fire Stations.” (Councillor, Staffs)“Both need more money. No need to work together” (West Mercia)“Services provided by the Fire Brigade have been operating effectively. Therefore why risk this?” (Cambs)“The Commissioner’s Local Business Case does not make a compelling argument as to why it is necessary to adopt the Governance Model to address the stated shortcomings in the pace and scope of collaboration between the Police and the Fire and Rescue Service.” (Member of the public, North Yorks)“The two work together at the moment and if something is not broken why change.” (Northants)CONCLUSIONSNarratives were often much more powerful than ‘evidence’ in shaping decision-making - and easier to deploy to win argumentsNarratives are more about politics, evidence is more about policyWe found that elected representatives can exercise significant influence over policymaking. This may be particularly relevant to smaller policy subsystems Policymaking is not a purely technocratic exercise. This could mean the resulting policy is badly designed and difficult to implement, because it may be based on a simplified version of reality. But is it a more democratic way of deciding what government does?THANK YOUpeter.eckersley@ntu.ac.ukkatarzyna.lakoma@ntu.ac.uk

Narratives and evidence in public service reform: explaining changes to the governance of fire and rescue services

http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/37755/1/14903_Lakoma.pdf

Narratives and evidence in public service reform: explaining changes to the governance of fire and rescue services

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)