An examination of community involvement in the governance of local services, with an emphasis on the role of public officials.
The role played by public officials in community engagement has important effects on the extent to which community views can influence local services. This study explores the experiences and views of public officials, comparing a local authority, a police service and a Primary Care Trust in one part of London.
The research examines:
This study examines community involvement in local services with an emphasis on the role of public officials – officers and managers employed by public bodies.
A variety of measures have been introduced in recent years to encourage public engagement in local governance.
The role played by public officials – paid officials employed by public bodies – is important in affecting the extent to which community views can have an influence.
This includes the way public officials interact with communities and their role in influencing what happens to the views expressed. The research explored this through a case study of one London borough (Haringey).
The attitudes, identities and feelings of public officials influenced the extent of their community engagement, the types of engagement that they preferred and the extent to which they took the 'results' on board. They expressed a range of feelings, related to organisational context and personal experiences. Officials were a diverse group and did not always see themselves as distinct from the community they were trying to engage. Some expressed a personal identification with the community or as an advocate of the community. Others said they were committed to professionalism and carrying out good quality community engagement, often among more senior managers and those responsible for designing engagement. Another group of officials spoke of the personal enjoyment and satisfaction they derived from community involvement.
While almost all officials were positive about community engagement in principle, there was more uncertainty about putting it into practice. Sometimes officials wanted to limit community input to issues that the public could 'easily understand' such as day-to-day operational issues rather than strategy or policy. Some also expressed scepticism about the value of community participants' views; they were seen as unrepresentative or self-interested:
"You end up with people who have their own agenda for wanting to be involved in something, rather than perhaps, you know, regular people at grassroots level who haven’t got a vested interest."
Another widely held preference was for working with 'informed participants', i.e. those who were aware of the issues involved and the constraints that officials were working within. These attitudes can potentially exclude certain voices and issues from shaping the agenda of local public services.
Officials used a variety of informal processes, behaviours and skills that facilitated engagement. These included:
The skills and capacity of officials shaped the kind of interactions that took place in engagement settings. Engagement was less effective if these skills were lacking.Officials felt it was particularly helpful to engage with people through an ongoing dialogue. It provided them with an opportunity to feed back on the results of earlier engagement and allowed community participants to develop a better understanding of the issues involved.
Organisational context shaped officials' ability to undertake engagement and act on its outcomes. Five key factors included:
Resources were a critical factor. Both those planning services and those carrying out engagement expressed frustration at the way in which resource constraints limited engagement. However, there were clear contrasts between the organisations. Within the Safer Neighbourhoods structure in the Metropolitan Police, community engagement is a high priority and is resourced accordingly. Housing and children and young people’s services also had resources and staff dedicated to engagement. Resources were much more limited in the PCT, particularly in the context of recent financial cutbacks, so engagement practices were often undertaken by partner organisations.
More 'creative' engagement techniques were required to reach disadvantaged or marginalised communities, which had particular resource implications in terms of staffing and time. One response was to 'piggy back' on the engagement processes and resources of other organisations. Health staff had done this successfully and there was considerable scope for further partnership working.
Officials felt that there was a need for both specialist engagement roles and mainstreaming engagement responsibilities within organisations. This combination worked well in housing (see Box 1 below). Performance incentives for both individuals and organisations to prioritise engagement were crucial in enabling engagement to take place. Despite Government attempts to strengthen the local accountability of the NHS, in practice PCT officials experienced conflicts between the demands of local communities and the pressure to meet central performance targets.
Staff across organisations felt more supported and empowered to carry out and act on engagement when it was championed by senior managers. Support 'from the top' was thought to 'trickle down' throughout organisations; it facilitated internal cooperation around engagement; and helped ensure that officials were not side-tracked by other roles and responsibilities.
Box 1: ‘Embedding involvement’ in housing
In Homes for Haringey (the organisation that manages council homes in the borough) there was a specialist resident involvement team, but also attempts to embed engagement throughout the organisation. For example, Involvement officers supported the development of residents’ associations, but the day-to-day work of consulting and working with residents’ associations was undertaken by mainstream tenancy management staff. Similarly, mainstream senior managers chaired panels in which resident representatives and officials planned policy and practice on specific service areas. This was felt to be effective in ‘embedding involvement’ throughout the organisation.
Officials felt it was necessary to have a diverse range of engagement structures and practices, for different organisational contexts, different purposes and to engage different communities. They rejected a 'one size fits all' approach to engagement practice, but also felt that the many current structures lacked coherence. This was reinforced by organisational restructuring, which affected engagement in all the service areas to differing degrees. Officials felt there needed to be a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to community engagement locally.
Some officials reported that community influence was more effective in shaping the delivery of services and managers often struggled to find effective mechanisms for community engagement to feed into policy or strategy. There was a lack of co-ordination between local neighbourhood and wider area-level structures.
Officials felt that formal community involvement in decision-making on boards and panels was sometimes ineffective because community participants had little control over the agenda. Officials felt these structures worked better where there were effective routes for broader community influence to feed into them. It was felt that this happened effectively in the police (see Box 2 below) and in housing. Informal dialogue allowed community participants more leeway to get their own concerns onto the agenda, although there were challenges in how far those views were able to influence policy and practice. Some officials acted as advocates or champions of community views within their organisations to ensure that community views were put on to the agenda of senior decision-makers.
Box 2: Ward consultations and ward panels in the police
Each Safer Neighbourhoods team had a ward panel, which provided a structure for maintaining accountability to the local community by deciding and ratifying local policing priorities. Local police teams presented a range of possible priorities to the panel based on the results of ward consultations, which got a good representation of resident views in a variety of ways (including ‘Have a Say’ days outside schools, supermarkets, transport hubs or places of worship; public meetings with interactive crime-mapping events; and visits to community organisations). Ward panels, consisting of residents, councillors and other local service officials, then selected local priorities and monitored police progress in meeting them.
Officials had a range of purposes for carrying out engagement. They did not use engagement methods unquestioningly, but thought about the purposes and tried to adopt appropriate techniques. Still, there was sometimes a lack of clarity about the purposes of engagement, who should be involved and their role, particularly where participants had a place on engagement structures as a 'community representative'. Numerous different definitions of 'representative' were found, which were often contested. In forums where participants were seen as 'stakeholders' or 'partners' there were fewer tensions because participants were valued for their skills or expertise rather than their representativeness. Structures that were unclear about community members' roles – and their legitimacy – could result in tensions between the expectations of different parties. Better training could provide greater clarity for those involved in designing community engagement processes. However these issues also need to be negotiated in a collaborative way between different participants on the ground.
The implications from the research suggest some ways in which public officials might be better supported in conducting and acting on community engagement.