Accountability of public services in Scotland: baseline evidence review and analysis

1. Executive Summary

Introduction

1. This Executive Summary presents the main findings arising from research of the Current Landscape of the Accountability of Public Services in Scotland. The research was commissioned by the Scottish Government’s Consumer and Competition Policy Unit, on behalf of Scottish Ministers.

2. The research was commissioned to inform work progressing in Scotland on the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The OGP is an initiative that involves governments around the world who aspire to make their government more effective and responsive to people who live in their country. Scotland joined OGP in 2016, and the nation’s current Action Plan 2018/2020 reaffirms the Scottish Government and Scottish Civil Society Network commitment to valuing openness, accountability, transparency and public participation. One of five commitments is: Commitment 4 - “improving access to accountability of public services - a citizen's journey”.

3. Through its OGP Action Plan the Scottish Government, in partnership with civic society and others, seeks to reduce the complexity of how public services are held to account, increase people’s awareness and understanding of how services are held to account, and simplify the landscape for people to navigate. A Collaborative Working Group has been established, comprising a range of State and civic society partners who will support delivery against Commitment 4 over the next two years.

4. The research was primarily desk-based, and was supplemented by a workshop with members of the Collaborative Working Group (i.e. the original signatories).

Public Services Provision in Scotland

5. The research explored what is understood by the term “public services”, and identified the main providers of public services in Scotland. Public services are hugely diverse, and span everything: from criminal justice (e.g. courts, prisons) to education (e.g. schools, colleges, universities); from emergency services (e.g. Fire Service, Police, Search and Rescue) to environmental protection; from early years to enterprise and skills; from health to public transportation and transportation infrastructure; from social care to waste management (e.g. wastewater, solid waste, recycling); from the water supply network to telecommunications and other utilities.

6. There are many thousands of organisations, agencies, and groups that deliver public services in Scotland. The scale, diversity, and complexity of public service provision cannot be under-estimated. It includes for example: local authorities; nurseries; primary and secondary schools; colleges and universities; regional NHS Boards; independent health care providers; registered care services; public bodies directly under the control of the Scottish Government; registered social landlords; and registered charities. Public service providers in Scotland are subject to external scrutiny from one or more organisation.

7. Key considerations for the work of the Collaborative Working Group are that:

• there needs to be recognition of the difference between public services and the public sector;
• not all public services in Scotland are delivered by the public sector;
• the “public nature” angle is important – so as not to exclude some services when defining what is understood by the term public services (e.g. education services provided by colleges and universities, some care services); and
• there is a need to ask people/public what they understand by the term public services.

Overview of Accountability

8. The research explored what is understood by the term “accountability” in its broadest sense, and in the context of this research. The starting point is that there are different types of accountability, and it can also mean different things to different people.

9. Accountability is considered an important pillar of good corporate governance. In this respect, accountability provides the necessary levels of assurance that an organisation will be assessed or evaluated on their performance related to something for which they are responsible. In the context of this research, accountability is how answerable organisations involved in the delivery of public services are for their actions to key stakeholders, including people (i.e. public assurance). Accountability centres on how public services are held to account for their decisions, spending, and actions. Essentially, accountability in the context of public services, among other things, relates to the following terms (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Accountability

10. Accountability of public services is important for a whole host of reasons. It provides a mechanism to monitor conduct and to hold organisations to account, and provides people with information to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of an organisation’s conduct and a means to raise concerns. It helps prevent the abuse of power and provides a mechanism to learn from failure and from past experience.

11. Strengthening accountability in public services is a key policy priority. This is likely in response to a potential perceived lack of trust and confidence among people, alongside a desire to transfer more power to people and communities, and to encourage greater public participation and engagement in the design, delivery and management of public services. This is at the heart of the Open Government agenda, and forms part of a larger, long-term culture change across government and other public bodies.

12. Key considerations for the work of the Collaborative Working Group are:

• the focus should be on administrative accountability. In practice this means the systems in place that uphold that accountability and performance of services. It is important to focus on the system in place to deliver a public service effectively – the “public function” of a public service, including the ethics, codes of practice, and performance standards that inform quality of output;
• it may be most relevant to consider the “what and why” of decision making, as this can encourage continuous improvement and learning (i.e. accountability is not a fixed state, it is something that evolves and develops through engagement between actors, and can act as the catalyst for change to improve outcomes). It is not a means for punitive action or punishment;
• at its heart, accountability is about power dynamics. Accountability of public services is about redressing the power balance between State and civic society, to ensure people who use public services feel confident and are able to influence how those services are delivered to best meet their needs; and
• there is a need to ask people/public what they understand by the term public services – and their views on how to improve access to the accountability mechanisms of public services, about what the barriers are, and how to break down any barriers.

External Scrutiny Landscape

13. The research undertook a review and mapping exercise of the scrutiny and regulatory body landscape in Scotland, including how they involve people in their work. All scrutiny bodies have mechanisms in place to involve and engage people, however, the nature and extent of approaches is varied. Some, but not all, have an Involvement and Engagement Strategy (or similar). Such a strategy might be considered an example of good practice, as these documents set out explicit organisational objectives and priorities around how regulatory bodies will actively look to involve and engage the public, and commitments to publicly report and evidence progress. These strategies typically highlight the importance of having different ways for the public to become involved, and recognise that some people might want lighter touch engagement, while for others a deeper level of involvement might be desired.

14. Over the years regulatory bodies have sought to ensure that greater levels of information and data are in the public domain. With regards to the Public Participation Spectrum, this largely falls under “Inform”. This is in recognition that openness, transparency and accountability of public services is crucial in building and maintaining public trust and confidence in those services. Access to information typically spans traditional methods (e.g. publications, leaflets, newsletters, e-bulletins), and a growth in the use of other methods to engage a broader audience (e.g. blogs, podcasts, social media, videos, live streamed events). Given differences in people’s preferences for receiving and digesting information, there will always be a need for a blended approach to information provision.

15. An inform, education or awareness raising piece is important for delivery of activity under OGP Commitment 4 because previous research (albeit somewhat outdated) has found, the public have limited awareness of scrutiny organisations and processes, and are familiar with some but not all external scrutiny bodies. While “inform” does not provide any opportunity for public participation, it does serve a useful purpose in terms of improving access to accountability. It does this by:

• providing people with the information they need – e.g. to understand the accountability framework; and
• allowing people to then make their own mind up about if and how they might become involved.

16. All regulatory bodies “Consult” the public (and others) in some shape or form. There are some good examples of meaningful consultative approaches, for example, the refinement of regulatory approaches and frameworks. Some bodies also undertake their own consultations on a particular subject matter or issue – and good practice is to publish the consultation findings/analysis. The importance of regulators closing the feedback loop is critical. Others promote or publicise other organisations’ or agencies’ consultations.

17. Some scrutiny bodies have extensive mechanisms for involving and engaging people in their work – which align to later stages of the Public Participation Spectrum (Involve, Collaborate, Empower). This includes “panels” of service users which ensures regular two-way dialogue/contact between service providers and users. They have a number of benefits including providing early indication of emerging concerns and difficulties, and sounding out new ideas or proposals. It is good practice to produce and publish Consultation Reports (i.e. key findings, how feedback has/will been used, what actions have/will be taken).

18. Another good example includes the identification, training, and use of members of the public in the monitoring and inspection process. For example, it is recognised that service users will be empathetic when they speak directly with other people/service users, and in some cases can use their own shared experiences.

19. There are wider good examples of regulatory bodies involving members of the public in the review of draft publications, promotional materials, and website content to ensure that materials in the public domain are accessible and user-friendly.

20. From a review of the regulatory body websites’, there does not appear to be any evaluation evidence around the effectiveness and/or impact of different methods of public involvement and engagement. However, remote tools will be most cost effective and have the potential to achieve a greater “reach”. That being said, this should not be at the expense of more in-depth mechanisms (e.g. face-to-face engagement) that allows for deeper levels of public engagement and participation (and influence).

21. Regulatory bodies have various duties placed on them – some report directly to the Scottish Parliament, others report directly to the Scottish Government (this includes attendance at relevant committee meetings). All have a common set of mechanisms in place that aim to ensure that they, as organisations, are held to account. This includes publishing a wide range of information spanning Corporate Plans to Annual Reports and Accounts, and on Freedom of Information and access to information to Complaints Handling.