Originally published 24 July 2012. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Public service planners are facing a very awkward dilemma.
If they adopt an optimistic view of available public expenditure – and assume a slow return to economic growth, they can limit proposed changes to public services to those that are necessary to balance the books over the medium term. Just enough cuts to get us through what remains of the latest recession!
If they are pessimists, and are fearful of dark clouds on the financial horizons, they will look for more drastic changes that could sustain services through more turbulent times. Scary scenarios will certainly alarm the public, but Managers may conclude that they cannot escape the grim realities!
But what happens if Managers adopt an optimistic outlook, but the pessimists prove to have been right all along? For the latter, their plans – difficult as they may have been to accept – will prove to have been soundly based! But what happens to those whose optimism proves misplaced?
Presumably what happens is that, unhappily, they knuckle down and prepare for a fresh round of service changes. Hopefully, recent experience may be helpful; longer term potential savings or innovations may have been identified earlier, but postponed for another time. Maybe technology can help or, indeed, behaviour change by service users. But let’s assume the worst and that a new wave of painful change has to be considered – what then?
The consultation narrative will, in effect, say “Much as we hoped that our previous proposals would have secured the service for years to come, sadly it was not to be and ... “. This would be the preface to a set of proposals - but those proposals, like most service changes, will have dependencies and consequences. “If we withdraw this particular service, the alternative will be...”
Only this time around consultees will turn around and rightly point out that promises to fund new or alternative provisions may not have been kept. “You were over-optimistic” they will argue; “You must have known that there was a risk you couldn’t keep your promises” or “We were misled”. This is not just a theoretical possibility – it is real. Let us consider a few examples:- • Proposals to reduce rural bus services. “We will cut this service but promise we will retain that one ...!” • Reducing hospital beds - “We will provide an alternative through community or local authority social care services...” • Rationalising Fire Stations – “We propose to provide cover from this neighbouring centre...” • Changes to Youth Services – “Instead of organising these activities ourselves, the Council will commission these charities to provide ....” • Care of the disabled – “We intend to provision services from the private sector..”
Now supposing – just supposing - that it is these assertions that now have to be reconsidered, what does it do to the credibility of the organisation? Will there be a reaction to the effect that, “How can we believe any commitment made by these Managers?"
Equally likely is that we will hear more of the Thin-end-of-the-wedge argument.
It goes like this. “If we allow them to get away with this small change – even though it really is a modest change, they will come back and do something more drastic in a couple of years time”. We hear it constantly in the NHS. Clinicians, unhappy that some specialist services are centralised and so withdrawn from a local hospital, will convince their patients that anything that reduces the service portfolio of the site is a threat to its long-term viability. Campaigners fight for the status-quo in the belief that once the current pattern of provision changes – they are on a slippery slope to further and less acceptable change.
And the lessons for consultations...? • Over-optimism risks long-term damage to your credibility • Despite short-term unpopularity, the problems of being pessimistic are more manageable that being optimistic • Maybe more can be done to forewarn consultees about the risks inherent in some proposals • It is best to be transparent, and thoroughly open about the assumptions underpinning a consultation
Trigger Points
- What assumptions are being made by your organisation in its business planning?
- How realistic have you been with consultation proposals or options?
- In discussions with stakeholders – how transparent are you regarding the risks inherent in your proposals?
- Have you been subject to the ‘Thin end of the wedge' argument. If so, how do you combat it?
This is the 216th 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