Astăzi, 12.12.12, este una dintre acele zile când ne dăm seama mai acut decât oricând de importanţa planificării serviciilor publice. Rareori înţelegem că acestea sunt o prioritate în viaţa noastră.
Se spune, mai în glumă, mai în serios, că autorităţile noastre au început pregătirile pentru sezonul rece. Acestea se vor finaliza până la sfârşitul lunii martie.
Pe de altă parte, planificarea nu ar trebui, cred eu, să se facă doar prin birouri, având în vedere că problemele sunt în stradă. Fireşte, strada nu se pricepe la toate problemele, deci avem un obiect de studiu aici.
Redau mai jos un text pe care l-am scris în limba engleză (în română nici nu aş avea bibliografie pentru aşa ceva) cu privire la argumentele pentru implicarea cetăţenilor în planificarea serviciului public, lucru care în România lipseşte cu desăvârşire.
Când o să avem noi acele jurii ale cetăţenilor la care mă refer la un moment dat, o să fim altfel de ţară. Până atunci, aceste idei abia dacă pot fi exprimate în limba română, darămite pe limba primarilor noştri.
Involving Citizens in Service Planning
What considerations do public
service managers need to take into account in involving members of the public
in planning public services?
When a public service is planned, there are three
main kinds of considerations a manager should look at. In the first place there
are the reasons for involvement, why is it useful and how can it make sense in
relation to the particular service that is planned. Than, the specific of the
service is to be considered in order to establish the range of involvement and
the techniques that are more appropriate. We can say from the beginning that,
in planning, the specific of the service is mainly related with outcomes
setting and, naturally, with the users and stakeholders. The third type of
considerations is related to special issues about the public that is involved in
the planning of the service. A very clear distinction between these three
factors is hard to be done in the real life as long as they are obviously
interdependent. However, because they raise different kinds of considerations I will treat them separately.
Looking
at the reasons (values and policy)
The need to involve members of the public in
planning is the first thing a manager should consider. In their study from
1981, “The Principles of Normalisation –A Foundation for Effective Services”,
O’Brien and Tyne, referenced by Beresford and
Croft (1993) distinguish five accomplishments due to citizens’ involvement for
effective services. These are: community presence; protecting rights and
promoting choice; recognizing interests and gifts; improving competence;
promoting valued roles; and community participation. It is obvious that not
every kind and manner of involvement can lead to all these benefits, but having
them in mind is very helpful for a manager in shaping the approach to
involvement.
Basically there are two ways of approaching
involvement: the consumerist and democratic approaches (Beresford and Croft,
1993).
The consumerist approach means to perceive
citizens as customers and, as a consequence, frame the issues around them in
terms of “market preferences, consumer rights and product development” to quote
Beresford and Croft (1993). This approach, obviously inspired by the private
sector, has its advantages and its limitations. On one hand, there is not a
better solution to find what people really want than applying the marketing
techniques in which the customers themselves are involved. On the other hand,
unlike the private sector, in public services citizens’ involvement implies a
responsibility which some of the customers do not want to take.
The democratic approach means to understand
citizens in terms of their civil rights and the equality of opportunities.
Consumer Involvement Sub-Group, quoted by Barnes (1997), in the report
“Consumer Involvement and the All Wales Strategy” points out that “consumer
involvement can also act as a lever to start changing the traditional balance
of power between providers and users which has usually operated in favor of the
former”. This shows that the democratic approach, by emphasizing the role of an
increased say and control of the citizens, has in its centre the idea of
empowerment. A rationalist approach which tends to consider citizens as objects
of study rather than active participants leads to an undemocratic
disempowerment.
For a manager is important in this approach to
consider the advantages and the limitations. It has been proven that, even for
the same quality of the service provided, the beneficiaries tend to be happier
when they have the opportunity to choose. But there are also situations in
which people are reluctant to involvement, for example in the welfare service
when, as Beresford and Croft (1993) say the nature of the service “actually
isolate and inhibit them”.
It is important to notice in this context that
the “White Paper on a European
Communication Policy” made by the Commission of the European Communities
(2006) states emphasize the fundamental principles of inclusiveness, diversity and participation of the
citizens along with the empowerment. As stated in the act: “Any successful EU
communication policy must centre on citizens’ needs. It should therefore focus
on providing the tools and facilities – the forums for debate and the channels
of public communication – that will give as many people as possible access to
information and the opportunity to make their voices heard.”
Looking at the specific of the
service (outcomes and stakeholders)
Beresford and Croft (1993) explain that the
involvement of citizens in planning a service is very important for them
because it is preferable to get involve in setting a service than to express
opinions on a service set by someone else. The same authors divide the citizens
in two categories by the kind of involvement they have in planning a service:
reactive and pro-active. People get involved in a reactive way when things have
gone wrong for them and they feel a reaction is needed to redress the service.
When the involvement is constant and consistent, being keen mostly on
preventing wrong things to happen, it is a pro-active one. For a manager, it is
unarguably better to empower and encourage citizens to get involved in a
pro-active way, rather than waiting for their reactions.
The consequence of this is that citizens should
be involved in planning, meaning in setting the outcomes of the service.
Different types of services and of users lead to the specific of the outcomes
that must be considered by managers in involving. For example, Parker, Ward, Jackson,
Aldgate and Wedge (1991), looking at child care services, distinguish multiple
outcomes such as: public outcomes, service outcomes, professional outcomes,
family outcomes and outcomes for children. Every of these requires a different
approach to involvement and has to be considered by public managers. It is
understandable that a stakeholder analysis has to precede the decision about
involvement.
Considering the specific of outcomes and stakeholders is crucial in
choosing the range of involvement and the proper technique the manager will
decide about. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities (1991) defines four
main modalities of involvement, each of them of a different level: informing,
consulting, participating and delegating control. Following the framework of
Willis (2006), in planning, these modalities are applied along these lines:
· Informing
– decide on outcome and inform users
· Consulting
– decide range of possible outcomes, ask users to express views and then choose
outcome
· Participating
– choose outcome in partnership with users
· Delegating
control – users determine choice of outcome
Informing and consulting are seen by some authors (such as Arnstein,
1969) as a form of tokenism, while citizens’ real empowerment occurs in
participation and delegation of power. This does not mean that the firs two
modalities of involvement are avoidable. Depending on the nature of the service
and on its outcomes these could be the most reasonable approaches. My own
experience shows that, in a central governmental agency, developing financial
services for small and medium size businesses, where the outcomes are more or
less disposed by the Government in collaboration with the IMF and the WB, the
managers are responsible rather for the procedures than for the outcomes of the
services. As a consequence, the consultation is the most appropriate modality.
The main consideration in that matter is that
the public is preferable to be involved as much as the circumstances permit.
But, some limitation must also be taken into account. Lindow and Morris (1995) show
that sometimes people encounter problems in making choices for themselves.
Thus, they need the support and the information that are necessary. Also, the
right technique for communicating with them must be chosen by the manager,
whether is listening, observing or testing.
Another form of involvement deserving
consideration is citizens’ juries. Situated somehow between participating and
delegating control, this method was theorized by Professors Peter Dienel and
Ned Crosby and described in detail by Stewart, Kendal and Coote (1994).
Looking at users
The third type of considerations has to do with
the right manner of treating people for achieving the real advantages of
involvement. Briefly, they regard equality, ethics, location and timing, cost
and confidentiality.
Equality dimensions are of high importance from
a democratic standpoint, given that they look upon the imperative of
inclusiveness. These dimensions include gender, sexuality, race, religion,
disability and age. In their research, Franklin and Sloper (2004) show not only
the need, but also the modalities in which disabled children can be involved,
with important results in shaping the outcomes of services. For instance, if an
organization has to deal with people that managers basically do not understand,
such as mentally disabled, specialists must also be involved in the procedure.
Ethics implies issues like respect, openness,
integrity and honesty. For many managers it may seem easier to pretend that
they consult people, just for the record, and, consequently, they simply
manipulate consent. Such practices are dangerous and lead to mistrust and
disappointment from the part of the public.
The time and the place chosen are of a great
importance, as long as they have to offer the opportunity for every citizen
interested to participate in the process. A manager should also take into account
the cost of the process, both for people and for the organization.
Many consultations promise confidentiality in
order to persuade people to get involves, but actually this is not respected
and raises doubts. It is important not to lie about confidentiality.
If these considerations are not taken into
account the whole process of involving faces the risk of loosing its meaning,
given by opportunities and empowerment offered to citizens.
References
- Association of
Metropolitan Authorities (1991) - Quality and Contracts in the Personal Social
Services, London
- Arnstein,
Sherry R. (1969) - "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol.
35, No. 4, July, pp. 216-224
- Barnes
Marian (1997) – Care, Communities and Citizens, Longman, London and NY
- Beresford
Peter and Croft Suzy (1993) – Citizen Involvement; A Practical Guide for
Change, British Association of Social Workers, Hampshire and London
- Commission of the
European Communities (2006) - White Paper
on a European Communication Policy, Brussels
- Franklin Anita and Sloper Alicia (2004) – Participation of Disabled
Children and Young People in Decision-Making within Social Services Departments
in England, Research Works, no. 2004- 2, SPRU, University of York
- Lindow Vivien and Morris Jenny (1995) – Service User Involvement;
Synthesis of findings and experience in the field of community care, York
- Parker, R., Ward, H. Jackson, S., Aldgate, J., and Wedge, P. (eds.) (1991) -
Looking After Children: Assessing Outcomes in Child Care, London
- Stewart John, Kendall Elizabeth and Coote Anna (1994) – Citizens’ Juries,
IPPR, London
- Willis Martin (2006) –
A Model of User Involvement in Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating Outcomes,
Managing for Service Effectiveness handbook
Mihai Cuza