In addition to leadership, capacity building and governance structures, collecting and publishing data was an important element of organisational scrutiny and a key principle underlying the Duty469. Recording and reporting on data such as an equalities breakdown of service users or the BCC workforce was arguably needed to justify priorities with a published evidence base, could support a range of activities to enable implementation of equalities-related objectives, allowing for identification of inequality between groups, prompting decisions about where to target resources and equalities-related initiatives and evaluating progress.
6.2.1.3.1 Data collection to identify service needs
In systems theory terms, data collection and monitoring were important for facilitating communication. This was important for local actors to understand and interpret ‘events’ within the localised conditions of the BCC ‘subsystem’, and act accordingly. Data collection was, therefore, an essential element of reflexive law
469 Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (2012), ibid.
Page: 187
which might be used to identify inequality within and between groups, and BCC’s processes utilised equalities data in several ways, including the provision of performance indicators and to support policy decisions. However, I would contend that the use of some data for policy-making could be problematic.
Firstly, as I detailed in the ‘illustrative examples’, statistical data relating to BME children, disabled children and lone parents was presented alongside workless households as evidence to support the decision-making process for children’s centres, and to emphasise these as disadvantaged groups in need of children’s centre support. The use of qualitative service-user data was not discernible and supporting data was primarily quantitative which did not support any further awareness or discussion around the service needs of particular groups. This, as I have stated, simply showed the concentration of groups who were recognised as disadvantaged, for example, BME people, single mothers, etc. I would argue that, without any nuanced understanding of the reasons individuals engage with a service - which can differ according to their circumstances - it was impossible to plan how the impact of service cuts might be mitigated in the way which BCC EIAs required.
Single parents were identified as a specific service-user group within the EIAs for the ‘illustrative examples’, and by differentiating them it was implied that they have different needs from other types of family. However, no qualitative information was used to identify ways in which, as a group, the loss of particular services might impact them. As I identified earlier, when discussing those who were categorised as a generalised ‘disadvantaged group’, within which I identified single mothers, such categorisation can be problematic, as it potentially creates a stigmatised group by labelling them without any further contextualisation. As this study has identified, single mother service users were able to describe a range of features which made facilities more useful or accessible than others due to a combination of barriers. I would argue, therefore, that it was important to develop some understanding of service use needs for this group which could only be gleaned with some detailed qualitative enquiry and which allowed some exploration of the complexities of constraints and enablers to service use.
Furthermore, the imposition of ‘top-down’ systems for resource allocation, such as the use of postcode, restricted some data collection to specific areas and excluded others who might be in need. As identified in section 4.2.2.2, this impacted on single mother service users for whom postcode was not a true indicator of their circumstances. Those affected were arguably a type of ‘hard to
Page: 188
reach’ group, as they are not identified within any quantitative assessments. As a result, there were likely to be fewer structures in place to identify if these women were in need, and also, fewer mechanisms available to support outreach to make those living in the locality aware of any support which was available to them.
Finally, stakeholders involved in deliberations for the Equality Plan470 had identified a need for monitoring the numbers of members of protected groups to identify patterns of need and better target resources, recommending the use of disaggregated data for achieving this. Such data was published in 2014, for example, an equalities profile of men and women outlined disaggregated data around women, men and lone parents471. The council subsequently published annual population reports which highlighted key demographic changes, although these did not provide disaggregated data showing the relative positions of individuals within and across protected groups which might show progress or identify areas where action was needed. Should BCC publish the objectives needed for monitoring equalities strands, to be within the required range for compliance with the Duty, ie, four years, the next set would be due in 2018. If this is produced, it would meet the requirements of the Duty, however, arguably it would not be a useful comparator for analysis of progress in achieving greater equality given the considerable shift in the economy and change of political and economic landscape and given the extensive organisational adjustments which local authorities have undergone since 2013/14. Therefore, I would argue that these statistics are not sufficient to drive action which is effective and responsive to organisational needs.
A similar concern was shared by other public authorities who implemented a more frequent, two-year reporting cycle to be better able to respond to the changing environment472. In respect of data monitoring and publishing, therefore, I would argue that, despite complying with the Duty’s requirements and adhering, to an extent, to Hepple’s mechanism which relates to self-scrutiny, data monitoring and
470 Bristol City Council (2012e). Draft Equality Plan Feedback from stakeholders 2012,
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33163/Draft%20Equality%20Plan%20Feedback%
20from%20stakeholders%202012.pdf/f9b61220-d794-46e7-a588-e2547fd2aa27 [Retrieved 15/10/2015].
471 Bristol City Council (2014m). Equalities Profile, Men and Women Living in Bristol,
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33107/Equality%20Profile%20Men%20and%20 Women%20(Sex).pdf/13970c78-7353-4cac-8c86-11641123c0b3 [Retrieved 7/10/2015].
472 See, for example the Care Quality Commission, http://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/our-strategy-plans/equality-human-rights
Page: 189
publishing are areas which BCC could better develop to support a greater understanding of service user need.
6.2.1.3.2 The use of performance indicators (PIs)
BCC also used data collection to monitor equalities-related activity through PIs.
These were established within the Equality Plan and applied to a range of functions, including the monitoring of internal functions such as, improving workforce diversity and external indicators such as satisfaction levels of specified groups with protected characteristics and the services they used. In addition, measures were included to reflect the Duty’s aim of supporting participation for underrepresented groups in public life, recording one metric, for example to collect data on the percentage of people who felt they could influence local decisions.
As discussed in relation to equalities data in the previous section, metrics may provide an indicator to monitor areas of concern, but I maintain that qualitative data are also needed to understand underlying reasons for change. The PI relating to the percentage of people who felt they could influence local decisions, for example, increased from 24% in 2012 to 26.9% in 2013/14. Although this showed a slight improvement, overall it also suggested that there are some issues with citizen involvement which cannot be understood by metrics alone. Moreover, as for equalities objectives, progress on PIs was published online in 2013/14 and would not be due again until 2018, with this long gap meaning that the available figures were outdated and therefore even more difficult to interpret.
That is not to argue that these metrics had no value: if there were no measurement at all in place, there would be no basis for understanding where gaps might be to provide a focus for action. As no PIs were set within the BCC Equality Plan for single mothers, for example, there were no means by which any gaps in service need could be measured; goals set for remedial action; nor any progress monitored to address these. Furthermore, by putting in place indicators for a particular group, I would argue that this establishes them as a higher priority which underpins the embedding of important cultural norms and encourages a focus of organisational aims.
At the level of the council, then, there were some limitations to the type of data that was being used. This included reliance on high-level, quantitative data for use in decision-making which did not necessarily inform decision-makers on the ways in which different types of service user might need to access services; top-down
Page: 190
mechanisms of allocating resources which excluded some groups from data monitoring; and the rapidly changing landscape which means that objectives can become out of date. Performance indicators highlighted areas of concern, and though published infrequently were still of value for identifying gaps and providing a focus for action. Having looked at the data at the level of BCC which was produced for those purposes, I now address the use of data which was produced,
‘on the ground’ to target service user need more closely at the level of individual service provider.
6.2.1.3.3 Localised data and reflexivity
Data collection and monitoring were used regularly by service providers at a localised level to provide targeted support at individual provider level for groups facing disadvantage, though the data was not published or made available outside of these organisations. The local authority, for example, required children’s centres to collect ongoing demographic data on disadvantaged or marginalised groups within their locality, and this was used to direct day-to-day operations, allowing service providers to better understand service-user priorities and therefore drive localised policy. Within this data collection, single mother service users were included and prioritised as a target group. The local authority requirement to produce these reports was one way to stimulate a localised approach at the level of the service delivery organisations. This, I suggest created a ‘ripple effect’ of reflexive mechanisms, ie, that the Duty sent stimuli to BCC who reacted by establishing a structure for service provision and reporting. This structure was then communicated to service providers and, in turn, acted as stimuli for provision of services which met local need.
The data collected by the early years service providers involved in this study primarily comprised quantitative equalities data, for example, a breakdown of gender, ethnic group or single parent status. Some qualitative feedback was also collected in relation to day-to-day progress, such as feedback on personal development interventions with service users and ‘learning journeys’ of individual children. Service delivery organisations reported using this data to provide personalised support based on individual circumstances and also to better identify their target groups and improve their outreach activities.
BCC set the boundaries around the locality within which children’s centres operated. However, the centres had some control over their own community priorities and in this respect were also able to reflexively adapt to meet local need rather than simply deliver standardised services. As evidenced by this study,
Page: 191
service delivery organisations also took a role in feeding suggestions for activities back ‘up’ to the local authority, which they described as being a proactive response prompted by their desire to further promote an equalities agenda. These actions impacted on the council’s priorities on occasion, when they redirected resources to support additional initiatives in support of particular disadvantaged groups. One provider, for instance, secured additional funding, with examples of the target for this work including outreach activities and educational workshops for a local refugee group whom they had identified as needing additional support.
As I discussed in section 2.2.3, a key mechanism within systems theory describes legal rules as being introduced into other ‘systems’ to act as ‘irritants’ which can trigger a set of new ‘events’. I would argue that the formalised requirements introduced by BCC through service delivery agreements acted as such ‘irritants’
for the service provider systems to change organisational behaviour. In addition, I suggest that this shows an example of duality, in that the activity triggered within the service provider organisations prompted them to further identify localised disadvantaged groups, whose needs were not being adequately met. As a response, they delivered a reciprocal ‘irritant’ to the BCC system, and re-configured BCC resources showing how such reflexive mechanisms can operate to transform existing structures.
Interviews with individuals involved in early years service delivery emphasised how they interpreted much of their work through an equality ‘lens’, with inclusivity and accessibility for potentially vulnerable groups, such as children from particular BME groups or single parent families, as a central concern and a prevailing discourse of the importance of ‘fairness’. Some stakeholder interviewees pointed out that a need to be inclusive was a long-standing principle in the early years sector. From a systems theory perspective, this indicated that, when the positive duties were introduced, the early years sector was already sufficiently sensitised to equalities issues to have internalised cultural norms and therefore a ‘language’
in place relating to equality and inclusivity. Drawing on Giddens’ concepts, this may have demonstrated the importance of existing, discursive ‘rules’ which involved visible structures such as quality standards, a statutory framework, equality standards and targets; as well as tacit norms which had become internalised by those working in the sector through leadership and training. The sector was therefore able to interpret and absorb the requirements of the duties.
I would further argue that this showed where adaptive, reflexive mechanisms
Page: 192
could become embedded with existing organisational processes and operate more successfully than the imposition of rigid, ‘top-down’ structures.
Although data collected by service providers was not in the public domain, it fed into BCC data collection to monitor its service provision functions internally and, I suggest, constituted a further form of internal scrutiny as it allowed the local actors to monitor the sectors of the population being reached by their services. Data relating to the BCC overall, was published online. In exploring this it became apparent that statistics relating to the local authority’s performance and progress could be a prompt for action as these served as a way to translate ‘events’ ‘on the ground’ and could be useful ‘evidence’ for campaigning or other interest/self-organised groups. In the next section I look at this and other roles which interest groups and local actors might play.
6.2.2 Involvement of interest groups
Returning again to Hepple’s required mechanisms, the involvement and engagement of ‘interest groups’ were identified as important for reflexive law to operate successfully. In the context of BCC, these included employees (for example, through staff-led groups) and service users but also community groups and other bodies who took a role and advised, educated, or acted as watchdogs.
Such involvement was important for bridging the gap between institutions, providing local expertise and challenging existing assumptions, as well as providing forums for equalities communities to participate in decision-making processes. The following sections explore the role of interest groups and other actors in these contexts. Firstly, the discussion focuses on the BCC budgetary consultation exercise.