Memorandum by Vivien Lowndes, Lawrence
Pratchett and Steve Leach, De Montfort University
ENHANCING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
AND RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES
2. REPORT
ON SURVEY
FINDINGS
3. LOCAL
AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVES
ON PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
4. CITIZEN
PERSPECTIVES ON
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5. CONCLUDING
COMMENTS
Questions and general discussion are invited
OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
To provide an up-to-date picture of the nature and
scope of public participation in local government (via a survey
of all local authorities in England)
To investigate the views of local authorities and
citizens on participation initiatives (via case study research
with contrasting local authorities)
To develop guidance for local authorities on enhancing
public participation, covering the selection, implementation and
evaluation of initiatives
NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES OF PARTICIPATION
- Raising unrealistic expectations (32%)
- Slower decision-making (25%)
- Introduces additional costs (15%)
- Added burden for members/officers (15%)
- Issues captured by groups (15%)
- Emphasises parochialism (8%)
- Undermines electoral process (5%)
- Danger of "consultation overload" (2%)
PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Only 30% of respondents recognised this as an issue
- Young people (30%)
- Citizens from ethnic minorities (29%)
- Local business people (7%)
- Tenants (esp. private sector) (6%)
- Single parents (4%)
- Women (4%)
- People with disabilities (4%)
LOCAL AUTHORITY PERSPECTIVES ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
- A challenge to the representative role of councillors?
- Moving towards "fitness for purpose"
the balance between "strategic" and "ad hoc"
approaches
- Avoiding "consultation overload" and
working with other agencies
- The circumstances in which consultation is inappropriate
- Learning from experience—formal or informal
evaluation?
- Evaluating outcomes—education and social
capital as well as direct impact
- Dangers of raising expectations that can't be
met—"you can't please all the people all the time"
- Responding to apathy and social exclusion
- The increasing use of area arrangements as a
focus for participation
- The potential for authorities to marginalise
the public participation agenda
CITIZEN PERSPECTIVES
1. Why do citizens participate?
The big issue
Self-interest
Natural joiners
Invitees
Participation strategies should:
- address citizens' stated priorities
- mobilise and work through local leaders —
formal and informal
- invite people — don't wait for them to
come forward
2. Why don't citizens participate?
A negative view of the council
Lack awareness/information
Lack of council response
"It's not for people like me"
Participation strategies should:
- combine "customer care" and "citizen
education"
- be clear about scope and limitations
- produce and "sell" results
- mix many methods to be inclusive
3. Participation in practice
Different people like different approaches
The process counts — incentives to participate
Outcomes are hard to specify
Evaluation is important (and lacking):
- impact — "has anything happened?"
- value for money — "has it been worth
the money?"
- sustainability — "are they still talking
to us?"
DEVELOPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Seek "fitness for purpose" in selecting
participation methods to meet different objectives, and reach
different citizens
Develop a strategic approach to ensure different
methods complement each other, and influence final decision-making
Introduce systematic monitoring and evaluation
(involving citizens) to clarify costs and benefits
Analyse benefits in relation to social capital
and social inclusion as well as service improvement
Develop an inter-agency and issue-led approach
to ensure "joined up" public participation
| 
