Sequential consultations - Current practice may struggle to deal effectively with major service changes

There may well be too many consultations. And they often overlap.

But in truth they just reflect the reality that decision-making is itself complex with interdependencies that make it unusual for any subject to be placed in a watertight box without being influenced by or itself influencing other decisions.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the current preoccupation as to how to consult and involve citizens about spending priorities in public services. Thanks to Peter Headland’s recent research, we now know a lot more about the way Councils in England have approached the problem. We know, for example, that online surveys were used by almost half of his survey respondents, that public meetings are still popular and that Councillors are significantly involved in the process.

But there are some specific challenges over timing, and also over the substance of consultations – especially where they involve major changes in public services. If we ask the public about its general priorities – a top-level cutting of the financial ‘cake’ - it is possible for elected members to receive a really useful ‘steer’ as to where it should preserve, and where it maybe can reduce funding. Many public bodies have done this and have used this output to inform their decisions as to whether to spread the pain equally – through much-criticised salami-slicing – or whether to focus new budgets according to citizen priorities.

So far, so good. Entire departments may be given aggregate budgets that may involve significant change, and it is at this point that proposals may need to be shared with those who are affected so that their detailed views can be considered. This is where problems can arise.

Earlier this year, Birmingham City Council adopted controversial plans to change social care arrangements affecting many thousands of vulnerable people. There was considerable consultation, but in a judicial review, the Council was held to have acted unlawfully. Although the case turns substantially on its failure to have ‘due regard’ to the Equalities Impact assessment, there are important lessons for those organising a sequence of dialogues on service change.

What happened here was that as over time the Council moved from some uncertainty as to the level of savings it had to achieve to a very specific set of numbers and some highly detailed proposals with costed savings attached to them. Almost inevitably, it found itself launching a consultation on details before the previous more generalised consultation had closed. There was confusion as to what exactly the proposals might mean, or what savings were predicted to accrue. Confusing amendments and clarifications had to be issued mid-consultation, and consultees were complaining that they could not understand the proposals well enough to comment on them.

One must be sympathetic to hard-pressed officials, who are having to hold discussions with anxious stakeholder groups on services changes that are essentially ‘work in progress’. Maybe it is a mistake in these circumstances to adopt the traditional formal consultation approach; twelve weeks consideration of a written document when the numbers change day-by-day may not be the best way to secure the right amount of involvement. Instead of a sequence of consultations, is there a case for setting up a more flexible and fast-response mechanism that would be more fit for purpose.

There are many alternatives. Co-production techniques have a role to play here, as do specialist panels or even focus groups. New technology options can be effective, especially for rapid-response ‘closed loop’ discussions. But if Councils, Health Trusts and other public bodies persist with consultative models that cannot accommodate the dynamic state of the agenda, there will be more cases like Birmingham.

The journey from general budget parameters to specific service change proposals is tortuous, but the necessary consultations require a sensitive sequence of properly-informed dialogues. It’s difficult, but a challenge most public bodies cannot escape.

Trigger points

• Do you need to re-think your approach to Budget-related consultations?
• Have you yet designed your consultative arrangements for the 2012-2013 Budget?
• The Birmingham case will be featured in our forthcoming Seminar – Legal Challenges to Consultation.
• Peter Headland of Luton Borough Council recently surveyed 50 Councils, and his findings were considered at our Summer Roundtable on 25th August at the Centre of Excellence. Due to the importance of the issue and demand for places.

This is the 194th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement