Pete Murphy, Kirsten Greenhalgh and P atricia Coleman Nottingham Business School

1. Public Administration CommitteeAnnual Conference 2012 The NBS Fire and Rescue Services Research ProgrammeProject 3 – Intervention, Support and Recovery Pete Murphy, Kirsten Greenhalgh and Patricia Coleman Nottingham Business School Nottingham Trent University

2. Fire and Rescue Services Research Programme Project 1 – The New National Framework • Responding to the new Coalition Governments Strategic Review of the National Framework for Fire and Rescue Services 2008-2011. (PM & KG PAC 2010) Project 2 – The IRMP and Service Reconfiguration at local level • The implementation of Integrated Risk Management Planning Process in an Era of Austerity through a case study of the Fire Cover Review in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. (PM, KG & CP PAC 2011) Project 3 – Support and Recovery for FRSs • The development of new engagement, intervention, support and recovery arrangements in the new local delivery environment of self-regulation and self-improvement. (PM, KG and PC PAC 2012).

3. Project 3 – The Research Topic2 ways of looking at it… The development of new “failure and intervention” arrangements for Fire and Rescue Services. or The development of new “support and recovery” arrangements for Fire and Rescue Services. The private sector has takeover, administration, receivership, liquidation and bankruptcy models, only the first three equivalents are available for the public sector.

4. Intervention, Support and Recovery for FRS’s • The development of new engagement, intervention, support and recovery arrangements for Fire and Rescue Services in the new era of self-regulation and self-improvement. • This needs to align with other support and recovery arrangements for other locally delivered public services such as those emerging for local government, criminal justice and in the NHS.

5. House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee 4th Report July 2011“Audit and Inspection of Local Authorities” “There has not been a proper examination of issues relating to performance management, inspection and how to drive improvement in local government. A dispassionate review of public sector performance management regimes, including targets, indicators, inspection methods and their alternatives is long overdue” Sector-led performance management:- “We welcome the LGA's proposals for sector-led performance management. However, they suffer from the limitation that they are optional and there is no formal mechanism to identify poorly performing local authorities, who may choose not to participate. It remains to be seen how vigorously and effectively they are implemented.” Conclusions:- “In implementing these changes, the Government must be mindful of the fact that that devolving power to local government and communities does not absolve it of the responsibility to construct a system which continues to provide accountability for public money and which results in better value for money”.

6. Background to Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPA) and Government Intervention • The paper is based on research into corporate recovery and strategic turnaround in English local government and Fire and Rescue Authorities during the CPA regime operating between 2002 and 2009. • This 1999 Act effectively changed the raison d’être of authorities and obliged “best value” authorities to continuously improve whatever services they were providing for their communities and not merely to carry out the statutory functions placed upon them by parliament or to act at the behest of their local politicians.

7. Background to Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPA) and Government Intervention (cont.) • The 1999 Act also gave extensive and unprecedented new powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in any best value authority that was considered to be failing in their duties. • The process was called ‘Intervention and Engagement’ in Local Authorities and ran from July 2001 until April 2009 • It was called “Improvement and Support” in Fire and Rescue Services and ran from June 2005 until April 2009.

8. Objectives of the Research • Compare and evaluate the models or approaches adopted for intervention in Local Authorities and Fire and Rescue Services during CPA. • Draw lessons from similar experiences in Health, Criminal Justice and other locally delivered services. • Make recommendations for the new Fire and Rescue regime under the current government’s self-regulation and self-improvement performance management regimes.

9. Interventions in Local Authorities prior to CPA • External Auditors - Annual Audit Reports and “Public Interest” Reports of financial impropriety or financial crises or authorities refusal to set a “rate” • External Service Inspections – Education and Social Services (previous but less wide ranging intervention powers existed in Education, Social Services and Benefits) • Scandals, moral panics, ombudsman and whistleblowing inquiries and reports What was different about Intervention under CPA • It looked at the performance of authorities as corporate organisations and not merely individual services • It was predicated on independent external assessment of all authorities • It used a national framework with universal standards and comparator benchmarks

10. Literature Review Main themes • The policy and legislative parameters to Local Public Service Delivery under Labour between 1999 and 2009 (Policy) • Performance Management, Monitoring and Improvement (Performance Management) • Service and Corporate Turnaround and Recovery in the Public Sector (Organisational Recovery) • Intervention, support and recovery arrangements within the public sector (Intervention and Recovery) –and in particular the Local Authority and Fire and Rescue Service Intervention programmes

11. Literature review “Failure and Intervention ” OR “Support and Recovery”

12. Methodology and Methods Methodology • Taking a critical realist perspective and adopting an actor centred approach Methods • Participant Observation • Document analysis of ‘official reports’ • Series of Key informant /Elite Interviews • Ministers and Senior Civil Servants, Lead Officials, Senior Officers and Elected Members from Local Authorities, the Audit Commission the IDeA, and Government Offices • Records from Government Monitoring and Improvement Boards

13. Audit Commission Documentary Evidence from Reports and Inspections Fire and Rescue Services • 2001 - 2011 there were 21 National Studies and 54 Corporate Inspections reports (26 in 2005 and 8 in 2008/09) Local Authorities • 2000 -2011 there were 128 National Reports and 2,014 Inspection Reports

14. Extent and scope of the ‘intervention’ programmes Local Authorities • 78 Cases in all (including the 3 pilots Hull, Walsall and Rossendale and one other pre-CPA case in Erewash) • Districts - 38 out of 238 (9 Poor and 29 Weak) • Counties and Single Tier Authorities - 40 out of 150 (13 Poor, 21 Weak originals and 5 that moved down to Weak and 1 Fair - Lincolnshire CC) Fire and Rescue Services - 8 Cases in all, 7 originals plus Cornwall • County Council (4 out of 13) - Cornwall (Poor), Lincolnshire (Poor), Isle of Wight (Poor) and Northamptonshire (Weak). • Combined – (3 out of 25) Bedfordshire & Luton (Weak), Bucks & Milton Keynes (Weak), Wiltshire & Swindon (Weak). • Metropolitan - ( 1 out of 7) South Yorkshire (Weak). • London - None

15. Emerging features of commonality • Both predicated on Best Value requirement to facilitate continuous improvement and the new intervention powers • Both different from previous serviced based interventions – education, social services, town and country planning, housing benefits • They had similar roles for the Government Regional Offices, for Audit Commission and HMFI/CFRAU, and IDeA • Ministerial oversight with direct reporting to a designated minister • Monitoring, stock takes and regular reporting

16. What was different?Emerging differences and issues • External contractors’ (F&R) v former practitioners and members of Senior Civil Service (LA) • No fire experience v local government experience compulsory • Less intensive (F&R) v more intensive (LA) • Independent views v explicit prior knowledge required • Engagement starts prior to the CPA final report (F&R) v Intervention starts on publication of CPA report (LA). • Unwilling last resort (F&R) v almost automatic triggers (LA) • All “poor” and “week” v mixture “poor” and “week” and “fair”. • Improvement Board v Monitoring Board

17. What are the lessons from the Health Service, Education, and from Criminal Justice? • Ofsted (Nursery, Primary, Secondary, Specialist Adult and LEAs) • Care Quality Commission Health and Social Care • Probation/Prisons/Courts/Police/CPS (particularly Community Safety Partnerships and Police Authorities) • National Audit Office, Scotland, Wales, • Northern Ireland

18. Other sectors and services’ arrangementsLocal Authorities, Health, Welfare, Environment, Police and Criminal Justice • Services with central inspection and investigation arrangements still in place or announced – CQC, Monitor, Health watch Ofsted, HMIC, HMIP etc. • Emerging Audit Commission /Centre for Public Scrutiny – Legacy project on Local Authorities (Statutory Services? Or corporate performance) • LA Discretionary services with self diagnostics and frameworks developed by communities of interest – culture and leisure, regulatory services etc. • Fire and Rescue Services – lessons from past and from Scotland Wales and N Ireland?

19. Some consequences of Audit Commission abolition • No co-ordinator for external Audit and Inspection for LAs (Ofsted, CQC, HMIC etc.) • No Inspectorate for F&R Services for first time since HMCFSI now subsumed in Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor (HMCFI retained in Scotland) • No longer any inspectorates for Benefits, Environment, Housing, Transport, Regulatory Services, Cultural or Leisure Services

20. Questions?