Public Value and Participation: A Literature Review for the Scottish Government

CHAPTER FOUR WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION AND WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS?

4.1 Having looked at some of the theoretical merits of a more participatory system of governance we now turn to some of the specific benefits for public service organisations. Opinion Leader Research identifies the following advantages for organisations and citizens ( OLR, 2005).

The benefits of participation

Benefits for the organisation:

• The process helps to build respect and generates trust between groups and individuals;
• It can lead to better quality decisions as citizens have a good sense of their needs and offer a source of valuable information, which public managers might otherwise overlook;
• The organisation is held to account by the public, thereby strengthening its legitimacy and encouraging greater transparency and openness;
• It enables different groups to share the issues they face and come to a better understanding of the different perspectives involved;
• Media value - it can generate interest and raise the profile of the organisation, as well as potentially generating more support.

Benefits for the citizen:

• Education - participation can be a learning experience;
• Fostering a sense of respect, value and responsibility;
• Understanding the tradeoffs that policy makers need to make and therefore developing realistic expectations of what can and cannot be achieved (or 'refining public preferences');
• Citizenship and ownership - being a good citizen can enhance a sense of belonging and ownership over a service or organisation.

4.2 Collectively, the benefits of public participation are considered to be the creation of more effective and responsive public services following a deliberative exercise that leads to refined public preferences. Participation therefore fits with the idea of modern government as more than just 'delivering' a service (Cabinet Office, 2007a). In other words, consumers, citizens and communities all have a role to play in creating effective public services, alongside public bodies themselves.

Assessing the impact of participation

4.3 While these goals are admirable, we might reasonably ask whether public participation has delivered its promise. In Scotland, the then Executive commissioned a number of studies to evaluate the effectiveness of public participation. However, the political agenda has changed significantly since most of these were carried out, with the signing of the Concordat between COSLA and the Scottish Government and the introduction of Single Outcome Agreements in November 2007, in addition to the Government's move to Best Value audits since 2003 (see section 3.9 for further details).

4.4 The Concordat established a new relationship between the Government and local authorities and represented their agreement on a package of measures. Central to this is the creation of a Single Outcome Agreement ( SOA) between each Council and the Scottish Government, based on 15 key national outcomes agreed in the Concordat. These reflect established corporate and community plan commitments across Scotland's Councils and Community Planning Partnerships. Equally important, progress on the agreed outcomes for Scotland as a whole is contingent on progress being made at local level. This new arrangement should therefore contribute to creating better links between local needs, circumstances and priorities and national outcomes. Moreover, Single Outcome Agreements and a reduction in ring fenced resources over time means that there will be more flexibility in how local authorities allocate resources. In effect, this agreement has served to enhance the role of locally elected councillors in governance in Scotland. These changes are therefore likely to have a significant impact on the relationship between central and local government, and how local needs and views are accounted for, although it is clearly too early to assess their impact. This should be borne in mind when considering the evidence on the effectiveness of participation, which is discussed in the following sections.

4.5 The literature on measuring participation has focused predominantly on quantitative issues by looking at who participates and how often they are involved. Mapping of the Scottish Executive's civic participation activities in 2004 indicated that almost 200 policy initiatives had incorporated some form of participation, with the most common form of activity being written consultation (Nicholson, 2005a). Despite this level of activity, a Scottish survey of public attitudes to civic participation showed low awareness of mechanisms used by the Scottish Executive for consultation (Hope and King, 2005). The findings can be summarised as follows:

• Few people felt well informed about the work done by political representatives: knowledge of local councillors' work was highest and that of MEPs was lowest.
• The majority of respondents had no contact with any elected representative in the previous year. However, one in eight had contacted a councillor, more than had contacted any other representative.
• A majority of those questioned thought that the government should consult on issues that were part of its manifesto but two thirds also agreed that there is no point in participating because the decisions had already been made.
• The two main barriers to participation were low awareness of opportunities to take part in consultation and scepticism about the value of consultation. The only significant factor that would encourage participation was more information.
• Almost 50 per cent of respondents had not heard of any of a number of official mechanisms for disseminating information and consulting on issues. However, the websites of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament were well known.

(Hope, and King, 2005)

This suggests that, in spite of a much-reported lack of trust in politicians, traditional mechanisms for public engagement (such as contacting a councillor or MSP) in the decision making process are best known to the public.

4.6 Since public participation is seen as both a means to achieving particular goals, and also as an end in itself, it has been suggested that success should be measured in terms of the propensity to effect change, as well as the empowering impact on individuals and communities and the quality of the decision making process (Morrissey, 2000). There are some discouraging findings with regard to effecting change and empowering communities. Taylor (2003) cites evidence which shows increased levels of participation when small-scale projects are implemented, but much less evidence of involvement at the agenda-setting stage. Nicholson (2005a) also reports that only 45 per cent of civic participation that took place in 2004 was thought to have 'highly influenced' or 'very highly influenced' the policy initiative in question..

4.7 Tracking the effectiveness of different forms of participation is problematic, given the lack of systematic evidence (Bound et al. 2005, Nicholson, 2005a). Demonstrating that an increasing number of people are involved in participatory activities does not necessarily mean that all will be given equal access to the decision making process, for instance. Furthermore, since the process of participation is one of continuing deliberation and discussion, perceptions will be different at different stages in the process. Much will also depend on the motivations of the managers who have initiated the process. Some may still be inclined to hang on to power and be rather suspicious about allowing those without expertise to influence decisions. Are they really committed to a more deliberative model or are they just ticking a box demanded by a higher authority? Citizens will be able to identify whether they are engaged in a genuine exercise or not and their views about the effectiveness of participation will be shaped accordingly.

4.8 The mix of people that are involved in participatory activities is also a key indicator of its success. Research suggests that community activists, often referred to as 'the usual suspects', tend to get involved in area-based initiatives (Goodlad et al. 2004) and that those belonging to the hardest to reach groups in society continue to be excluded. In other words, without careful handling a participatory exercise may simply empower the well educated and articulate those who already have a voice (Mackinnon et al 2006). Of course these problems can be avoided and every effort should be made to encourage participation from all sections of the community (how this can be done is outlined in chapter five). Moreover, bad practice can lead to disengagement and is likely to put participants off taking part in the future:

'…negative attitudes to community involvement lead to poor engagement practices, causing increased hostility, decreased trust and poor experience and outcomes not only for communities, but also for officials and politicians, thus further reinforcing negative attitudes and behaviour' (Morris, 2006).

It is therefore important to address obstacles to effective participation, which include lack of clarity of purpose, inconsistency, participation overload, organisational culture and power relations.

Barriers to participation

Clarity of purpose

4.9 Clarity of purpose is essential to effective participation. It is important to ensure that the agenda can then be implemented satisfactorily and that everyone understands the process to which they are contributing (Involve, 2005). This often fails to occur because:

• There is a lack of awareness about the standards that should be followed when involving individuals or communities. There is a balance to be struck between excessively rigid national guidelines and allowing so much flexibility that 'anything goes' (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2004).
• Not enough attention is currently paid to the performance of bodies other than local authorities in relation to participation and there is a lack of systematic evidence about the effectiveness of different forms of participation (Bound et al 2005).

4.10 If participation takes place after budgets have been set this evidently has implications for the range of proposals that can be considered and the likelihood that participation can affect change. This is only problematic if the limitations of the exercise have not been made clear to participants. A recent report recording citizen perspectives of public services found that decision-making activity was often seen as an exercise in telling the public what had already been decided, or 'rubber-stamping' consultation on decisions that had not yet been made public. In the words of one participant:

It's [currently] just a pseudo-accountability. They will come and ask people what they think and then they just go and do what they were going to do anyway' [Edinburgh, 25-34 year old man] (McCormick et al, 2007).

4.11 In spite of this cynicism there are indications that the public remain willing to take part in future government consultations. A study of public attitudes to participation in Scotland found that half of those who stated there was no point in participating still considered it likely that they would participate in future Scottish Executive consultations (Hope and King, 2005).

Inconsistency within institutions relating to terminology, approach and commitment

4.12 Inconsistencies within organisations about the terminology used to describe participation, a failure to join up different initiatives and a lack of high level commitment are all significant barriers to effective participation.

• Terminology - Variations in terminology and a lack of common language can be confusing for members of the public and other stakeholders, making it difficult to understand what is involved in participatory processes. This is part of a wider question about whose views it is that are being sought and which groups or organisations are asking or being asked to participate; citizens, consumers, service 'users', stakeholders, communities and the public are commonly referred to, but little attempt is made to explore the considerable differences (and overlaps) between these definitions. Defining communities, for instance, is a notoriously complex task, as they can comprise geographical locales, communities based on nationality, religion, ethnicity or class, or those defined by particular interests. Testimony from senior civil servants in Whitehall and community activists attests to the fact that 'community participation' is understood and applied differently by different statutory bodies, and by different officers within those statutory bodies (Morris, 2006).
• Joined-up approach - While adopting one single approach to public participation is unlikely to be effective (Brennan and Douglas, 1999) ¹⁵ the sheer diversity of existing initiatives can cause problems, both for community members and for statutory bodies. A fragmented approach to community consultation and engagement was found amongst the majority of Scottish councils surveyed by McAteer and Orr (2006). Whilst there continues to be a lack of co-ordination between the initiatives run by individual departments or services, there is danger of repetition, under-utilisation of resources and of over-burdening or confusing participants.
• High Level Commitment - the Panel on Community Participation across the UK Government, established to explore the varied understandings of community participation by national government, found that there was a picture of inconsistency within departments and across national government; a failure to embed a 'participation culture' within non-compliant councils and unelected statutory agencies; and a patchy, short-termist approach to resourcing participation (Morris, 2006). This supports the argument made in section 3.17-18 that without commitment and leadership from senior politicians and managers, it is unlikely that the outcomes of participation will have much impact.

Participation overload

4.13 The increasing popularity of public participation has also led to claims of 'consultation fatigue' or the impression that the public is being consulted at every turn without any visible impact upon the decisions that organisations or government make (Morris 2006). Members of the public are understandably reluctant to get involved in participatory research or decision making where there is evidence that this has previously failed or caused delays (Morris, 2006). Box 4.1 provides an example of the effects of repeatedly asking participants to participate in research that does not lead to visible change.

Box 4.1: Examples of participation overload

Participants in Butt and O'Neil's 2004 survey of Black and Minority Ethnic Older People's views on Research Findings revealed participants' frustration that new research aimed at understanding their views often repeated questions that had been put to them 15 years previously by another generation of researchers. Interviewees' sense of frustration was aggravated by the fact that there was little evidence that the original research had brought about a great deal of change.

4.14 A balance needs to be struck between involving the public sufficiently to ensure that government actions reflect their preferences and are seen to be legitimate, and overburdening the public with questions and forms of involvement that are properly the concern of elected representatives and officials (Keaney, 2007). This returns us to the question of how much impact participation has:

'Researchers, and the managers who commission work, know that not enough is being done with the answers that people have given us. If the outcome of being asked about our views and experiences was that things got better, would anyone really complain about being consulted?' (Allen, 2005) .

4.15 One way of avoiding consultation fatigue is to establish partnership working with groups of users, community groups or selected members of the public on a longer-term basis so that their views are collected regularly rather than only through one-off consultations, which involve time and effort on the part of participants. It is also possible to centralise consultation in an organisation, thereby reducing the number of consultations without reducing the number of issues covered. This also means that questions on various issues can be asked in one go. Taking the precautions like this to avoid participation overload is vital to ensuring participatory success, although getting an organisation's internal backing for public participation is equally important.

Professional and Organisational Culture

4.16 The internal culture of an organisation, particularly those based on a hierarchical model, may act as a significant barrier to participation of any kind. Too often the case for participation has to be made in the context of an institutional assumption that participation is unnecessary. Understanding of, and support for, engagement at managerial level is therefore instrumental. The least effective examples of participation are those involving the press or PR departments, suggesting that public participation is simply a communications or marketing exercise (Involve, 2006).

4.17 Within many public services professional culture is based on the assumption that professional opinion takes precedence over amateur, local or lay opinion informed by experience. Difficulties arise when the balance between the manager and the public's role becomes unclear raising issues about who, ultimately, is accountable.

Power relations and accountability

4.18 A common problem with many participatory techniques is, as we have already noted, that they are open to 'capture' by narrow interest groups. This is linked to the wider issue of whether participatory structures are legitimate, transparent and accountable. Unless these conditions are met then lay people involved in representative forms of participation can be vulnerable to the charge that they are unrepresentative and lack legitimacy.

4.19 Challenges to community advocates' legitimacy most often arise where those advocates question the views of elected or appointed officials. This can be seen to be a 'participation catch 22'; the fact that a community member is actively engaged in decision making brands them as 'un-representative' precisely because, unlike their peers, they are involved and are therefore seen as atypical or dismissed as the 'usual suspects'.

4.20 Unequal power relations reinforce the problems described above. Service users who do want to get involved in decision making face real difficulties where 'the system' is not open to dialogue or challenge. They are simply less powerful (particularly in terms of resources and information) than the public managers they are seeking to influence, and may therefore find it difficult to engage (Mackinnon et al, 2006). Participative processes can only work effectively if public managers are alert to this power imbalance and make an effort to build the capacity of those communities whom they wish to involve. This is not an easy process but, as we have seen, the dividends are large.

Balancing accountability and promoting participation

'I suppose what we haven't really resolved yet is how far public involvement goes. How far does the public say 'that's your business, it's not for me to decide'. In fact, when you push people into priority setting, there comes a point where they say 'that's your judgement, that's what you're paid to decide'. Director of Public Health speaking about decision making in the UK, quoted in Newman et al (2004)

4.21 This quote highlights the importance of getting the balance of responsibility for decision making right between elected representatives and public managers, whose job it is to take decisions on the public's behalf and the public that they serve, who have a better understanding of their own needs and preferences and are likely to be more familiar with how services work on the ground. Whilst it is public institutions, and ultimately ministers, who will be held to account for how public money is spent, if the public is to have a greater and more sustained influence over decision making, there are difficult questions to be answered about how if and how the public should share responsibility for the decisions made and, more controversially, for any resultant failures.

4.22 To some extent this is a question that can never be successfully resolved; there will inevitably be a penumbra of uncertainty about where deliberative democracy should end and representative democracy take over. Of course, there are some clear cases: budget decisions, big strategic choices and the handling of policy dilemmas must be the responsibility of politicians and public managers. We might say that the only solution is to 'learn by doing', to be clear about the objectives, transparent in process and open about the extent to which citizens can influence outcomes. Sometimes mistakes will be made and sometimes a participative process may fail, but the risk is worth taking if only because the status quo is widely recognised as unsatisfactory.

Summary

• Public participation can produce demonstrable benefits to both an organisation and to citizens by ensuring that the different perspectives of those involved are heard and understood. At its best, this process generates trust and fosters greater organisational transparency and accountability.
• It is difficult to accurately assess the effectiveness of participatory activities, particularly if it is acknowledged that much of its value lies in the process itself.
• Successful public participation relies as much on those in power believing that this process is a valuable part of public service management, as it does on the willingness of members of the public to engage.
• Evaluating the costs and barriers to successful participatory activities involves weighing up many different factors and understanding the trade-offs between them. The fundamental barriers to effective participation are: a lack of clarity of purpose; inconsistent use of terminology; the risk of participation overload; the difficulties of getting organisational backing; and the issues surrounding accountability.