Expert interview:Chief Executive 2
From Future of Local Services to the Public
Contents |
Overview
This is the summary of an in-depth interview conducted by Ipsos MORI with a leading Chief Executive (of a London authority) about the future of local services as part of the LGA/HSC futures project, 2008. As all interviews and workshops for this project were conducted under Chatham House rules, the respondent's identity is not disclosed and some references have been anonymised or omitted to preserve confidentiality.
Current challenges in service provision
Definitions of ‘quality’ in the provision of services.
Identifies a shift from an emphasis on professionals ‘doing the job’ to those with ‘system authority’ specifying what is to be done. ‘System authority’ defined by whoever identifies ‘quality’ in the provision of local government services – in this case, this is controlled by what the Audit Commission ‘says will be the key lines of enquiry’.
Also identifies definitions of quality in public service provision within the interaction between ‘regulator’, ‘deliverer’ and ‘consumer’,
"I think that there are three arenas where quality might be defined. There’s between the customer and the deliverer. There’s in the mind of the deliverer informed by professional practice and values. And there’s in the mind of the regulator… who tends to give a higher priority to things like accountability, regularity, consistency, value for money, those things, which speak more to the public interest, which is rarely in the mind of the person receiving the service."
Currently there are contradictions between conceptions of ‘the nudge’, ‘empowerment’ and the political process
Current challenges are discussed in terms of their relationship to, ‘the state influencing individual behaviour’ and the relationship of this to systems of ‘power, authority and influence’. There is some ambiguity here in that while the language used suggests that the state needs to exert an influence over individual behaviour, there are also notions that a particular challenge exists in achieving a buy-in from the public on what is done in their name;
"we’re all facing these big issues about how we can get people to do the right thing so that the consequences for others are mitigated…and I think the understanding that a local state and a national state which influences human behaviour is the bedrock of civil society is now non-negotiable, people have got a settlement around that. The first part, being ordered to support capitalism was the rule of law, and the rule of contract, and now we have next generation assumptions about personal behaviour being subject to the rule of law and influence of your neighbours."
The big challenges going forward are getting people to value what’s done in their name, and to feel influential over it, and comfortable with it, and feel it’s legitimate, which presumably is what Hazel Blears calls empowerment.
Key to resolving these apparent contradictions are developing the public trust. However, contradictions are also identified in that the drives to a consistency in the delivery of the public services which creates trust are in fact ‘inimitable to the political process which is about change’.
"I think change destroys trust, because what trust is based on is predictable behaviour, and people understanding what the rules are, and getting used to systems over long periods of time, and adjusting their behaviour to be broadly compliant".
And where you’ve got constant changes then I suspect that people’s motivation to be compliant is reduced. What do we do about knife crime? They keep changing the rules every five minutes. That doesn’t seem to me to be conducive to making a settled position about how we maintain social order.
An interest in the process of change and a focus on ‘nudging’ the general public into specific patterns of behaviour is identified as linked to the rise of ‘managerialism’ in the delivery of public services,
"I think we live in more managerial times and I suppose that’s close to being your nudge version of the future, which is that we’re all managers now, and managers do get interested in the internal workings of change rather than bringing forward big new radical proposals... There’s belief in heroic management, I think there’s a belief in a more purposive management, which is perhaps more realistic than heroic management, and heroic management’s a kind of public presentation of that."
Challenges for members
- To be consistent.
My illustration of that is that I think that we have felt the ability to be more authoritarian over aspects of local life in that we will bear down on things like Sky dishes in conservation areas, because we hold a very confident view of the community interest, and it has led to problems over consistency. For example, a local debate about whether to introduce a smoking ban, when Liverpool were thinking about an early introduction of the smoking ban in public places, my members would never have done that on a practical basis, why do it in one borough in London? But also on a moral basis, that that is a matter for the central government, not a matter for local government. So there are aspects where we cling to our, the need for people to have personal freedom, and there are aspects where we assert the need for neighbours to have some control.
Significant changes in the ‘external world’ and future challenges
Several issues were mentioned in terms of significant changes external to the world of local government which are likely to impact on the delivery of local services:
- The changes in communication/technology
- A growth in inward migration (particularly London)
- A wide diversification of ‘publicly acknowledged’ forms of family and personal lifestyle
- Diversification within community groups and weakening community ties
- An increased likelihood of acts of terrorism
- Increased environmental pressures
There is also an acknowledgement that in rural areas notions of community and neighbourhood are impacted by trends such as the growth of people owning second homes in these areas. It is argued that this general diversification results in communities in which individuals do not necessarily identify with one another;
"the idea that it’s a group of people who share a common identity, have some things in common… is less obvious to be found. There are probably still some places like that, but more places that have a wider range of people. And all the implications of that, people have less buy in to where they live, they see themselves as citizens of a multiple affiliation, citizens of a wider area, and so on, and so forth."
The trend toward a diversification of individuals in a community is also identified as existing in urban areas,
"We do have very obviously super rich people, and people who have opted out, so they’re even, their income position is not relatable to the welfare net, safety net, because they may not be in the country legally, they’re probably, they could be illegally sub letting, they could be working outside the tax system, and they could be involved in the fringes of crime. And that’s not one or two people, and I think I’ve probably got some hundreds odd people who have chosen that kind of pattern for themselves. So we wouldn’t be the only person in an urban area like that, but we’re not the only area, but we’re certainly one of the areas. And that’s a much more stretched social ladder than I think perhaps we would have been used to 15 years ago."
The diversification of community groups is linked to an increased possibility of grievances being acted upon by small numbers of people.
Notes
Background
In local government for 30 years
First half in personal social services
Chief Exec for the last 11 in a number of councils.
How characterise current situation for local services to the public
- Most of his career, aim was to ‘do your best’.
- But in second half, this became ‘do it right’, and the definition of ‘right’ was taken away from professionals and given ot others.
- Loss of faith in professionalism – which is a beast with its ups and downs.
- ‘Systems authority’, for example Steve Bundred. Takes away debate on quality.
- One of the great challenges has been getting the authority to appreciate local services to the public. This why NHS budget doubled.
- Complicated alchemy: there needs to be something more than instrumental delivery
- Customer, and delivery agent
- What’s in the mind of the delivery agent
- What’s in the mind of the regulator – who speaks to the public interest.
- Not separate. Ven diagram of three overlapping spheres.
- Sarkorsky: All challenges relating to the state are about influencing individual behaviour
- Welfare state as a utility – eg picking up rubbish
- Power/authority/influence and local people. Changing behaviour relevant across race relations, noisy parties, dog mess
- Public trust, getting people to value what’s done in their name. Being influential and legitimate.
How feel about all of this ?
- Optimistic. We’ll muddle along. There won’t be any great changes under a new government
- Europe
- Shared issues in developed economies: how get people to do the right thing? How mitigate the consequences of people doing the wrong thing?
- Used to be a world of law and contracte. Now focus on personal behaviour and the nudge world.
- Shouldn’t drain all of this of political debate, but this will be at the edges.
- Trust issue will torture politicians. Still experimenting to find out what produces trust.
- Trust tends to go with predictable behaviour, whereas political process is about change.
- Eg for political positions about knife crime.
What have been watershed moments since 1997?
- Blair offered a new commitment to publicly funded services, and there is a new consensus on the volume of public expenditure.
- Got away from annual round of decision making of what to do less of, and into world of how improve.
- But local government very different to what it was in ’97. Or ’87.
- Also a lot more quangos
What about inspection?
- Performance regime key. More managerial now.
- Future will be more nudge
- Growth in improvement industry and in heroic, more purposive management.
- And which has therefore been beneficial: managers noticed and well rewarded.
What have been the shocks of the last ten years?
- Technology and the speed of communication. Growth in remote communications. Phone used to be ringing all the time. Now hardly at all. All email
- Urban development: rapid population movement into cities
- Mix of family types, and much wider range of lifestyles
- Who would have predicted a gay married man leading the LGA?
- Joining things up is now part of the management culture. Previously would have thought in terms of administration/co-ordination/alignment.
- Growth of second homes
- Evolution of the neighbourhood, so no longer corresponds to a common identity or a similar range of incomes.
- People have multiple affiliations. Less buy in to where live.
- Social ladder stretched, and the super rich have opted out of society.
- Obsessed with lifestyle issues – obesity, tobacco, drinking, skin cancer, exercise.
- Members: It’s a hard challenge to be consistent.
- Ability to be authoritarian ‘no sky dishes in conservation areas’, but would never have introduced the smoking ban. This had to be central government.
- Priorities: the quality of the environment and the public realm , and the ‘previous labour’ priorities of ‘social relief’
Projecting forward to the issues of 2018
- Terrorism: people with group grievances, coupled with access to technology. Animal rights as well as faith issues.
- Crime will mutate towards group grievances – gangs, etc. Corresponding to weakening community ties
- Climate change No one knows what
- How wealth trickles down the generations: paper coming out on adult social care
- Technology will be even more influential. More and more ….. manipulation of data. Not necessarily predictable.
- Being able to see where money spent.
- Commoditising public value
- If we keep treating them as customers, start to act as customers.
- Elect more
- Celebrity culture and politics mix
Are you pessimistic or optimistic?
- Not pessimistic, apart from climate change and terrorism.
- Welfare state in the sense of a safety net will continue.
Optimistic headline for 2018?
- 80% of residents in local referendum support inflation plus increase in local taxes, again
- Pessimistic headline
- Big brother loser elected as local police chief
Looking at drivers
- Population older – that’s a good thing
- Fuel protesters, that’s about empowerment
- Mayors – okay
- Empowermnet won’t stall
- Disadvantages of stretched socio-economic differences
Hopes for the future
- Free up more routes for success – ambition and opportunity.
- Local welfare state keeping pace with inflation
- Very rich people developing social consciousness. Increase in philanthropy
Innovations
- Personal health improving: all live longer
- Better educated
- More personal freedom – wider range of lifestyles
- Churches continue to fall away.
- Decline in social stigma, and increase in personal choices
- Doing the right thing and being socially responsible
- Good that getting less parochial – part of the information age
- Not many radical ideas
- Potentially interesting: changes in land use planning. Having a greater say in what happens round the corner
- Semi-organised, more interested in comms – eg school governors
- Direct payments
- Used to think social services offered care, and quality of relationships.
- If becomes transactional, lost care element. The person to person relationships.
- Networks connecting people with similar issues – where it works it will be good.
Things we haven’t discussed –
- trade unions, people who don’t want to work.
