Catherine Durose

Revisiting Lipsky: Front-Line work in UK local governance.

Lipskys work on ‘street-level bureaucracy’ drew attention to the significant contribution to policy making made by front-line workers. This article revisits Lipskys seminal analysis to explore whether contemporary front-line work in local governance presents a challenge to the ‘street-level bureaucrat’ characterisation. Since Lipskys analysis, local government has been the subject of extensive reforms which have eroded traditional structures. In order to make local governance work, front-line workers need to be entrepreneurial to innovate and work the emergent spaces of local governance. This research uses an interpretive analysis to explore how front-line workers understand and relate their everyday work through storytelling. Front-line workers articulate a series of strategies which they employ to enable them to build relationships with the community. The article concludes that the emergent spaces at the periphery of local governance require front-line work that is less like ‘street-level bureaucracy’ and more like ‘civic entrepreneurship’.

Neighbourhood Governance: Contested Rationales within a Multi-Level Setting – A Study of Manchester

Abstract ‘Neighbourhood’ is a long standing concept in local governance which was re-energised as part of the post-1997 New Labour policy paradigm. This paper builds on the work of Lowndes and Sullivan which identified four distinct rationales for neighbourhood working – civic, social, political and economic. The utility of the framework is explored through primary research in Manchester, UK. The research shows that different rationales are held by actors at different locations within the complex system of multi-level governance within which neighbourhood policy is made and implemented. Neighbourhood approaches to urban regeneration exist within a congested governance environment. In Manchester, regeneration has been strongly driven by the self-styled ‘Team Manchester’ who have provided an urban entrepreneurial vision for change in the city. Significantly, however, interventions at the neighbourhood level have shown potential for creating opportunities for citizen and community dissent and empowerment not subsumed with the narrative of the entrepreneurial city. Lowndes and Sullivans framework provides important analytical building blocks and illuminating tools for understanding neighbourhood approaches. This research points to the merit of a dynamic approach recognising competing perspectives and contested agendas.

Governance and Collaboration: Review Article

Rod Rhodes (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability , Open University Press 1997. Gerry Stoker (1998) ‘Governance as theory: five propositions’, International Journal of Social Sciences 50 , 1, 17–28. Helen Sullivan and Chris Skelcher (2002) Working across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services , Palgrave. Janet Newman, Marion Barnes, Helen Sullivan, and A. Knops (2004) ‘Public participation and collaborative governance’, Journal of Social Policy 33 , 203–223. From a term used largely within political science in the mid-1990s, ‘governance’ has become a key conceptual and analytical convention adopted by social policy, largely because of its usefulness in examining questions that are key to the discipline: citizenship; welfare rights and responsibilities; accountability; legitimacy and partnership working. Clarence and Painter (1998) have constructed a useful characterisation of public policy, identifying a shift in emphasis from hierarchies, to markets and now to collaboration. Networks, ‘joined up’ governance and partnership working are now central in both policy practice and analysis. These processes are not new, but New Labour have clearly expanded and accelerated them. For New Labour, collaborative working is now perceived as central in their response to key policy challenges: improving public services, tackling social exclusion and revitalising local democracy. These processes are now evident at all levels of policy making from supranational organisations such as the European Union down to neighbourhood-based initiatives. It appears that we are moving from the closed, unitary system of government of the Westminster model to a more open, decentralised system of governance. Our conceptions of citizenship have accordingly shifted, from one based on representation to one based on active participation, particularly within local communities. Governance is an issue which concerns all levels of government and citizen participation, from international-level World Bank concerns about commitment to efficiency and accountable government, to highly devolved localised urban regeneration partnerships.

Assessing best practice as a means of innovation

Abstract This paper argues that Best Practice and innovation are different, if related activities, with Best Practice being just one of the means by which organisations can innovate. After reviewing the literatures on innovation diffusion and policy transfer, this paper reports the findings of two surveys of Best Practice in English local authorities on, respectively, regeneration and community safety. The paper finds that innovation is related to the CPA, but use of Best Practice is not; that greater capacity affects both innovation and the use of Best Practice; and that there is little link within authorities in the degree of innovation between policy sectors. In evaluating the use of Best Practice, the paper finds that local authorities encounter problems with assessing whether Best Practice is appropriate for their authority and judging whether Best Practice is in fact best practice. With Best Practice guides, the key problem is the difficulty in assessing whether the practice is as effective as the guides suggest and whether it would really work in a particular authority. The paper concludes that more effort could be made to ensure that readers of Best Practice guides can find out how the innovations really work and how they can be adapted to local needs.

Generating 'good enough' evidence for co-production

Co-production is not a new concept but it is one with renewed prominence and reach in contemporary policy discourse. It refers to joint working between people or groups who have traditionally been separated into categories of user and producer. The article focuses on the coproduction of public services, offering theory-based and knowledge-based routes to evidencing co-production. It cites a range of ‘good enough’ methodologies which community organisations and small-scale service providers experimenting with co-production can use to assess the potential contribution, including appreciative inquiry, peer-to-peer learning and data sharing. These approaches have the potential to foster innovation and scale-out experimentation.

Beyond 'street level bureaucrats' - re-interpreting the role of front line public sector workers

Abstract Traditional understandings of public policy implementation have emphasised front line workers operating in hierarchical bureaucracies. This perspective now faces multiple challenges ‐ theoretical, empirical, and analytical ‐ that all emphasise the limitations of this approach in understanding the role of the front line public sector workers operating under contemporary governance arrangements. This paper explicates these challenges and uses them to frame an exploration into how front line workers in the contemporary governance arena articulate their understandings of the traditions and dilemmas they face in the re‐constituted public sector. The paper argues that front line workers are able to manage these dilemmas to produce locally appropriate and pragmatic solutions that respond to national policy priorities. This presents a new rationale and narrative of front line public sector work.

Governing at arm's length: eroding or enhancing democracy?

Publisher Rights Statement: Checked for eligibility: 12/08/2015. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy edited version of an article published in Policy and Politics. The definitive publisher-authenticated version [Durose, Catherine; Justice, Jonathan; Skelcher, Chris. Policy & Politics, Volume 43, Number 1, January 2015, pp. 137-153(17)] is available online at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/pap/2015/00000043/00000001/art00008?token=0055139ec066720297d76345f7b6e2b467a7363 422c2b6d3f6a4b4b6e6e42576b642738be949b10b1dc09 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557314X14029325020059

Dos and don’ts for involving citizens in the design and delivery of health and social care

Purpose – Involving communities, citizens and service users in the design and delivery of public services has long been a key aim of government policy and arguably has it never been more important than within times of austerity. Yet, whilst acknowledging the importance of engagement, many health and social care organisations struggle with this in practice. This paper sets out some guiding principles for engagement. Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws on conversations at a series of events in 2013 which brought together researchers, those charged with delivering on government policy at the local level and active citizens, to debate and explore evidence and practice on how to involve and mobilise citizens in local decision making in a time of austerity. Learning is distilled from these events to provide a useful guide for working effectively with communities. Findings – As with any issue as complex as this, there is no magic bullet, quick fix, simple check-list or solve-all tool. Like doing anyth...

Designing public policy for co-production: Theory, practice and change

Introduction: Why is redesign of public policy needed? Chapter One: Possibilities for policy design Chapter Two: Conventional policy design Chapter Three: Co-productive policy design Section One * Challenges and Change Within Conventional Policy Design: Can crisis ever be good for policy design? ~ Katy Wilkinson Challenges in policy redesign ~ Paul McCabe The hidden politics of policy design ~ Simon Burall and Tim Hughes Designing policy for localism ~ Robert Rutherfoord and Lucy Spurling Creative disruption for cultural change ~ Toby Blume Section Two * Vision in Co-Productive Policy Design: Establishing principles for value-driven policy ~ Teresa Cordova and Moises Gonzales Doing politics to build power and change policy ~ Jess Steele Participatory action research and policy change ~ Brett G. Stoudt, Maria Elena Torre, Paul Bartley, Fawn Bracy, Hillary Caldwell, Anthony Downs, Cory Greene, Jan Haldipur, Prakriti Hassan, Einat Manoff, Nadine Sheppard and Jacqueline Yates Section Three * Grammar in Co-Productive Policy Design: Using technology to help communities shout louder ~ Phil Jones, Colin Lorne and Chris Speed Generating community conversations ~ Amina Lone and Dan Silver Policy design as co-design ~ Michaela Howell and Margaret Wilkinson Using mediation to resolve conflict ~ Maura Rose Chapter Four: Debating co-productive policy design Chapter Five: Governance for co-productive policy designs Epilogue: Co-producing research.

Everyday stories of impact: interpreting knowledge exchange in the contemporary university

Research into the barriers of getting evidence produced by academics into policymaking processes has often highlighted the lack of research on academics and what they do, as compared to what policymakers do. This was most recently highlighted in a systematic review of the literature (Oliver et al, 2014). This paper reports on research carried out with academics who were tasked with producing evidence reviews for the UK Department for Communities and Local Government based on research funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. Using a novel co-produced methodology the academics were interviewed by an academic and a UK civil servant, with the analysis carried out by both. Using an interpretive approach, the findings identify specific meaning-making stories or practices that were enablers or barriers to producing evidence suitable for policymakers. The paper identifies three areas that affect academic behaviour at the nexus with policymaking: career biographies; disciplinary background; and the contradictory institutional pressures on academics. We conclude by arguing for a more collaborative approach between academics and policymakers. The co-produced approach also allowed us to identify the need for policymakers and civil servants to learn more about the different drivers of academics and the ways in which they work.