1 / 10

Maurice Sunkin and Kerman Calvo Essex University Berlin, July 2007.

The Impact of Judicial Review Litigation on the Quality of Local Services in England: An Emerging Theoretical Framework. Maurice Sunkin and Kerman Calvo Essex University Berlin, July 2007. Lay out of presentation. 1. Introduction to Problem. 2. Our Project

fieldsv
Download Presentation

Maurice Sunkin and Kerman Calvo Essex University Berlin, July 2007.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Impact of Judicial Review Litigation on the Quality of Local Services in England:An Emerging Theoretical Framework Maurice Sunkin and Kerman Calvo Essex University Berlin, July 2007.

  2. Lay out of presentation • 1. Introduction to Problem. • 2. Our Project • 3. The paper: Consequences of the Hillingdon Judgment • Overview of Judgment • 4. An Emerging Theoretical Framework.

  3. 1. Judicial Review and Quality • Service providers ought to strive to comply with the law. Jr may guide them in this endeavour (Halliday, for instance). • Authorities are also increasingly expected to meet non – legal goals: namely, to be efficient, and to be responsive to the needs of clients and users. • The question is, thus, twofold: • Is a commitment to legal compliance sufficient for authorities striving to maximise the quality of their services? Assuming a negative answer to this question: • Does jr have any implications for the quality of local services when the measures of quality consist of factors beyond legal compliance?

  4. 2. One Goal, a threefold strategy • Is there a significant association between prevalence of jr litigation (both challenges and substantive decisions) and the achievements in quality by local authorities in England and Wales? • How do (specific) local authorities react to their levels of litigation? • Reactions to the different stages of the litigation process • Organizational, procedural and substantive outcomes • The clout of test cases.

  5. 3. The impact of the Hillingdon judgment • What we needed: A relevant jr case with implications for delivery and quality of services across the board of local authorities. • Strategy: observation of the implementation of the judgment. • Has service delivered changed? • Has it changed in the direction suggested by the Court? • Has the quality of the services provided for “unaccompanied asylum seeking children” (UASCs) improved as a result of the judgment? • This is work in progress

  6. Overview of the judgement • What are the duties of Las to UASCs? • Maximum or Minimum level of protection under children protection legislation? • Rights for services after leaving care? • Court, against the will of the Authority involved, indicated that, on a general basis, UASCs should be afforded the maximum level of support. • A holistic approach: a “vision of quality”? • “before trying to “pigeon hole” the assistance given by the defendant into any particular statutory formulation, it is important to see what the claimants needs actually were and what the defendant actually did to meet those needs”. • Authorities have to adjust to the new framework. But are they doing so? And are standards of care improving?

  7. Compliance Org Outcomes Quality Standards of care go up A) NEW POLICY: 70 % of Las now routinely classify UASCs as s.20 cases Organizational Change Standards of care remain the same Judgment Standards of care go down B) NO NEW POLICY: 30% of Las still classify UASCs as s.17 cases NO CHANGES

  8. An Emerging Framework (I) • Plurality of Outcomes of jr Litigation • Organizational • Procedural • Substantive • Two scenarios in relation to quality • Las do not comply. Changes in quality are unlikely • Las “want” to comply with the law. Quality, then, might or might not go up. • Whether or not the courts have “visions of quality” matter. • If courts do not incorporate visions of quality, full legal compliance can leave standards of service untouched.

  9. Quality and Compliance go together • Courts incorporate a vision of quality. • Facilitating conditions are present • Compliance leaves quality unscathed. • Courts do NOT incorporate a vision of quality. • Quality and Compliance compete. • Organization interferes (Halliday) • Expansion of duties not matched with resources

  10. An Emerging Framework (II) • The implementation process is affected by • Definition of Legal duties (judgement and/or the Law) • Financial constraints • Strategic orientation of authority • Political orientation of authority • Organizational capacity of authority • Two questions for the future • 1. Are the factors affecting compliance equally determining quality? • 2. Does it matter whether Authorities win or lose?

More Related