|
To
what extent does the Best Value Framework incorporate community-based
approaches as described in Haywood (1994)? The
notion of community is as Haywood (1994) posits ‘a notoriously
slippery concept’ and as such is often rather difficult to pin down,
perhaps in part due to its’ political appeal as a buzz word for
political point scoring or vote catching.
Haywood suggests community as both a value and descriptive term.
A descriptive term in the sense of referring to a particular group of
people and value focusing on the work with such communities. (1994:13) A
plethora of community based approaches are offered by Haywood
encompassing ‘Top down’, ‘client—led’ and ‘Partnership’,
(1994) however this essay will focus on the community in terms of its’
participation within the decision-making process. Haywood does suggest
that rather than an ‘arms length’ approach, ‘Democratic/public
influence [is] exercised via a mixture of representation and direct
democracy – more extensive public/consumer involvement in
decision-making.’ (1994:12) Moreover the ‘community approach‘, “…is
intended to facilitate and enhance the ability of members of the public
to achieve a greater voice in decision-making processes (via direct user
and community participation in management and consultative processes,
committees and forums, ‘going local’ and management schemes, etc.”
(Haywood. 1994:10) Haywood
is not the only author to posit the necessity for such participatory
measures, Torkildsen also suggested that unless the public is directly
involved in the process then this presupposes that the planners know
more about what the people want than the people do themselves. He goes
on to suggest, “…public consultation remains invaluable in gauging local feeling and opinion. Not only is it politically desirable to consult the people the provision of leisure facilities is intended to serve, but more important, the planning process itself is incomplete unless people are consulted about there leisure needs and demands, their perception of existing facilities and services and their expectations of future provision.” (Torkildsen. 1999:193.) Such
prudence has been attempted by the Labour government which unveiled
its’ strategy of Best Value in 1999. This strategy is structured
around the notion of the 4 C’s; Challenge, Consult, Compare and
Compete, due to the constraints of this easy particular focus will be
given to the ‘Consult’ element of Best Value. The aim of Best Value
is to replace the existing Conservative notion of Compulsory Competitive
Tendering (CCT). Although not in operation until April 2000 and by the
Governments’ own admission may take 10 years to fully implement, 40
initial pilot schemes have been in place. (DETR. 1999.) This piece of
work will draw upon the information contained within the White Paper
Modernising Local Government – ‘In Touch with the People,’ and
examine the schemes for leisure and recreation of York City Council,
Leeds City Council, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, Exeter City
Council and Portsmouth City Council. This
essay will attempt to examine how Best Value incorporates Haywood’s
(1994) notion of community in terms of decision-making, discussing the
relative merits encompassing forms of participation such as surveys,
questionnaires, voting and public meetings. The
underlying theme of Best Value can be considered as one of ‘inclusivity,’
further more the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions (DETR) in its White Paper on the subject (Modern Local
Government – In Touch with the People.) suggests that
“This strategy is to build councils which are in touch with
their local people and get the best from them.” (DETR.1999.) Leisure
and recreation is often not a stand-alone service in that is finds
itself under the umbrella of Lifelong learning (Plymouth CC) or culture
within the Local Authority. Further, there is no statutory obligation to
provide any leisure or cultural services although the Government clearly
expects every local authority to have a local cultural strategy.
(Warwickshire. 1999.) Best Value may be considered as an attempt to
build a better framework in which the community may become involved in
the decision-making. Councils
under Best Value have to identify opportunities for local people (the
community) to become involved in the decision-making process and
outlines them in their Performance Plans. Both Portsmouth City Council
and York City Council asked the community for their views in the form of
surveys for users and non-users of their leisure facilities. The latter
named this ‘Talk About’, which comprises of randomly selected
residents filling in a questionnaire. Although as Torkildsen (1994)
suggests this can have a very poor response rate, often between 5-15%
and does appear to be rather general in its approach especially if you
were after specific users of a facility. (Torkildsen.1994) Portsmouth
City Council used this style for gathering information on its Parks and
Recreation programmes but due to the randomness of the survey it could
be suggested that the target audience may have been missed altogether,
especially when the pluralisation of society in general is considered.
Thus it first appears to facilitate Haywood’s ‘Top down’ approach
but with no real aim or thrust his ‘outreach approach fails to
materialise and the ‘direct’ approach is lost in a generalisation. Warwickshire
County Council has carried out a number of resident surveys and other
types of consultation such as the 1998 ‘Your Borough, Your Say’
questionnaire in their newsletter North Talk. This listed the
Council’s proposed priorities and plans for 1999/2000 and sought the
publics’ views. It did
however ask for the publics top three most important areas of concern
and as such leisure or recreation was not even in the frame when matched
against public safety, environmental issues and pollution.
(Warwickshire. 1999.) This
can appear rather reductionist or a bit of a second-guess by the state,
thus reaching out to the community but with pre-conceived ideals. York
City Council and Portsmouth City Council however, conducted a
‘Residents opinion survey,’ a face-to-face or door-to-door survey of
the local community, which does go someway towards inclusivity but again
this is a ‘top down’ approach. At
this juncture it is important to understand that councils should not be
considered experts in the field of market research and as such it would
seem more accurate to engage the services of a professional organisation
who it could be argued are more likely to get the correct information,
answers which the local council may not always like or agree with
therefore, shifting slightly from a ‘top down’ to a more
‘client-led’ approach. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council and
Birmingham City Council chose to employ the services of the outside
agency MORI (Market and Opinion Research International) who conducted
face-to-face interviews with selected members of the public. This form
of consultation can often be expensive and time consuming which was
probably why it was handed over to a professional company but again the
downside may be the extra tax burden to the public for finding out such
information. Although the argument here is it is still ‘top down’ as
long as the state initiates the process. The state is almost caught in a
catch 22 situation where they could be waiting indefinitely for the
community to come forward with their demands or they can attempt to be
pro-active and initiate contact, which will facilitate all the negative
aspects of a ‘top down’ approach. Thus
engaging the community via the survey or questionnaire in itself does
not necessarily suggest that the correct element of such a community has
been reached or that they are able to articulate what they want or need
and unless the questions are completely open such a process will always
be open to criticisms regarding the limitations of choice on offer. As
such merely asking the general public what they want is not necessarily
a community-based approach per se. However there are similarities here
with Haywood’s ‘Top down’ approach but even here there are
problems with paternalism and interpretation by the host authority.
(1994:32) Arguably
better forms of participation are ‘focus groups’, ‘regular user
group meetings’ or ‘citizens juries’ which are more akin to
Haywood’s client-led approach which he suggests ‘come nearest to the
community ideal.’ (1994:34) Although, it may lead to the traditional
council meeting style bureaucracy to be merely transformed from the
chamber to the public domain. Leeds
City Council implemented a ‘Youth Forum’, which actively sought the
views of young people in terms of focus groups with an annual ‘Youth
Conference’ who reported to the Young Persons Steering Strategy Group.
In this model many departments including Leisure had to produce annual
action plans taking into account the views of the Youth Forums. Whilst
this appears to be a major plus it is still initially a ‘Top down’
approach but can facilitate a kind of a ‘partnership’ approach
providing it retains perceived credibility. Failure of such credibility
can plummet the group into merely the realms of a talking shop if the
ideas of the group are not implemented. On the other hand this system
often fails, Torkildsen (1994) suggests, because of unrealistic
expectations of the group in terms of finance and space something that
Haywood (1994) fails to mention. This type of participation can be less
leading in that a questionnaire has set questions to be answered and the
focus group although having a set agenda facilitates the input of other
topics or questions. Voting
at elections is another form of public participation which can be the
ultimate form of decision-making in that individuals and parties can be
voted in and out of office depending on their suggested policies or
their track record. However this system is available only every three or
four years and does rely on the candidate being true to their words once
they are in office. Referendums are another form of voting suggested by
the DETR to be introduced at local level for major decisions allowing
the community to directly choose providing the choices are not limited
of course. It may be suggested however that the public is suffering from
voting lethargy considering that electoral turnout is so poor with only
29% of people actually voting during the local elections of 1999
(Electronic Telegraph. 1999.) and as such makes any framework or
facilitation to encompass the community in the decision-making process
more than challenging to say the least.
The Government via Best Value recognises this and has
investigated the broadening of the electoral procedure. This would take
the form of electronic voting (internet), mobile polling stations,
voting over a number of days and entire elections by postal vote. (DETR.
1999.) Easing the ability
to vote does not necessarily generate more interest, if it is difficult
to be inclusive when electing the Prime Minister, in that approximately
only a third of the electorate actually votes leaving the majority two
thirds who have no input, then how can any existing system call itself
inclusive? Equally, it could be argued, why pander to the lethargic two
thirds who some may say have rescinded their rights to be involved in
the decision-making process of democracy. Again a ‘top down’
approach is witnessed, the choices are only those offered by the state,
they are managed. It may be suggested that only proportional
representation would be totally inclusive for the whole community. Community
involvement in the decision-making process is arguably one of the
mainstays of Best Value although how this is facilitated or what kind of
approach should be used is not clear. On the one hand councils under
Best Value have a statutory duty to provide ‘…consultation and
engage with their local community…’ and on the other it suggests
‘…Government does not propose to specify the form such consultation
should take.’ (DETR. 1998.)
Add to this the assessment, which takes in to account how the
public is consulted as criteria for meeting Best Value or Beacon council
status and the Local Authorities could be forgiven for being at least
confused, at best apprehensive. Best Value does appear to be an attempt
to increase the communities’ participation in the decision-making
process furthermore making the decisions makers accountable in terms of
the consultation process assessment (DETR. 1998.) should force councils
to offer participation more readily to the community as a whole.
Although how this is done is open to conjecture and will not be
successful if paid lip service too or facilitated via gimmickry such as
the Plymouth City Councils ‘tea with the leader of the council.’
(Plymouth People. 2000. p15.) This form of participation offers tea and
biscuits with Tudor Evans (Council leader) for randomly selected members
of the public, which does appear to serve little other purpose than to
catch the headlines in the local press. In
summary the majority of opportunities available to the public within
Best Value rely on them being offered by the Local Authority, even the
general elections only allow democracy once every four years. All forms
of participation are slightly lead by the local authority in terms of
the questions or the kinds of people asked as well as the conclusions
drawn from such information and therefore participation is controlled or
limited. This does seem rather reminiscent of old forms of rational
recreation in that only certain forms of recreation are deemed
affordable or acceptable but now this has changed to include the type of
consultation information deemed acceptable. However the altruistic
alternative, which could only be an open questionnaire or forum with an
agenda set by the floor would take an enormous time to analyse, a
solution that may not sit well on the shoulders of many in what could be
suggested a ‘quick fix’ era. After
examining many Best Value schemes it may be suggested that leisure and
recreation is still suffering from its discretionary label. Will
councils have the time, extra resources or want to provide a
discretionary leisure service that has a statutory duty to adhere to the
complex system of Best Value? Other mandatory services such as housing,
employment, fighting crime, and public safety will obviously draw
greater attention and therefore take precedence over leisure or
recreation. Due to such natural prioritising and, the infancy and
complexity of Best Value, leisure could probably be one of the last
services to change totally to Best Value if at all. The knock-on effect
will be that the ‘inclusivity’ afforded by the new Best Value
strategy in the form of participation in decision-making process could
well be put on hold for possibly up to ten years. This could suggest
that society as a unit has not ascended far enough up Maslows Hierarchy
Pyramid in that basics needs of Best Value physiology and safety are not
yet fulfilled and therefore thoughts of leisure are still far from the
minds of many. Such
vociferous information gathering may well cause less interest in voting
among the electorate in that they may feel that their input is going to
be asked for anyway via surveys and opinion polls about their local area
and rather than trek down to the polling station they could wait at home
for the council to come to them. Sceptics might suggest that this is
facilitating a ‘top down’ approach rather than
‘client-led’ although I would suggest it should be looked
upon as a partnership between the state and the community with
permanently open lines of communication. Participation
by its very nature relies on the avid interest and input from the local
community. Interest has been generated over the years for the Poll Tax,
Duty on fuel, Animal and Gay rights but no real protests for leisure and
recreation. There could be the suggestion that the public appreciates
and understands the minor significance that leisure and recreation has
within the grand scheme of things. How often this input is called upon
and when, is not clear but the over-ridding aspect of opportunity is
there to be taken up, if rather limited and controlled. The evidence
however, in terms of public voting at least, is contrary to this and the
notion of inclusive participation seems unattainable leaving the way
clear for groups with the loudest voice ruling the decision-making
process as has been seen in recent times with the fuel protestors. References
Exeter
City Council. BV Performance Plan
Summary. [online.] Available from: http://www.exeter.gov.uk
[Accessed 31 October 2000] DETR
– Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. 1999. In
Touch with the People. HMSO; London. DETR.
Exeter - BV Performance Plan.
[online.] Available from: http://www.local.detr.gov.uk/research/bvsummar/exeter1.htm
[Accessed 31 October 2000] DETR.
Portsmouth - BV Performance Plan.
[online.] Available from: http://www.local.detr.gov.uk/research/bvsummar/portsmouth1.htm
[Accessed 31 October 2000] Haywood,
L. 1994. Community Leisure and
Recreation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemenn Ltd. Oldham
Metropolitan Borough Council. Results
of BV pilot area community survey. [online.] Available from: http://www.oldham.gov.uk/best_value/results/
[Accessed 01 November 2000] Portsmouth
City Council. BV Performance Plan
– Leisure . [online.] Available from: http://www.portsmouthcc.gov.uk/BVPerf
[Accessed 31 October 2000] Plymouth
People. 2000. Plymouth City
Councils Performance Plan Summary. Media relations unit;
Westcountry Publications. Torkildsen,
G. 1999. Leisure and Recreation Management – Public
consultation. E&FN Spon; London. The
Telegraph. Issue 1509. Straw backs weekend voting in poll reform.
[online.] Available from: www.telegraph.co.uk
[Accessed 22 October 2000] Warwickshire
County Council - Performance Plan. [online.] Available from: http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk
[Accessed 31 October 2000] City
of York. 2000. Best Value
Performance Plan 2000/2001. HMSO; London. |