The beauty of a series of posts is that you get the chance to see an issue from several points of view (that indeed explains the blog's title). Although the focus of the present series of posts has been a strategy covering half of Scotland’s population for 20 odd years, the underlying question has been whether it had an appropriate “theory of change” and that is the one I want to pursue today.
Of course, no one used such a phrase in the 1970s – nor indeed “managing change” which became so fashionable almost 2 decades later as you can see from the Annotated bibliography for change agents I wrote at a much later stage. But I do remember reading Managing Change and making it stick by Roger Plant when it first came out in paperback in 1989/90. This was indeed the very first book I came across on the topic - and note the date! It was only in the 1990s that the “management of change” exploded into fashionability – with The Expertise of the Change Agent - public performance and backstage activity (1992), for example, offering some fascinating insights. But it was 2000 before Robert Quinn gave us the deeply impressive “Change the World”- which coincided with the outbreak of unrest from social movements globally..
How, then, did Strathclyde Region develop its particular “theory
of change”?
The following
is, I think, a fair description of its key elements -
·
we understood that what we initially called
“multiple deprivation” was a complex phenomenon and that, as put it. “there were no experts” as was evident
when we round the various institutions of higher education to seek their help
·
we knew that this would be a long-term effort
·
we started gradually with a draft deprivation
strategy in 1976
·
which designated 45 areas for priority treatment
·
in which community activity would be encouraged
·
took an experimental approach
·
reviewed progress after 5 years – using community
conferences attended by about 1000 people
·
submitted a draft “Social Strategy for the
Eighties” to a final conference
·
and then to the first Council meeting after the
May 1982 Regional elections – giving it a fresh legitimacy
· realised that the political conditions required a further tweak after another few years with a new dialogue to strengthen partnership with Glasgow District and to develop relations with the private sector
The keywords, for me, are uncertainty, experimental, inclusive, participative,
legitimacy, community structures, openness.
In trying to develop a response we knew we faced
strong resistance from two sources
- first the left within the Labour Party
who argued that economic realities meant that there was nothing that could be
done at a local level (and in this they were joined by Keynesians). Growth and
redistribution were matters for national Government and would have therefore to
await a reforming Labour Government.
The second difficult group was the staff of
the public sector whose loyalties were to their particular profession rather
than to a local authority, a neighbourhood or policy group! And many staff had
deeply-held prejudices about the capacity of people in these areas - and the
desirability of working participatively with them - let alone with other
professionals or local politicians.
How we devised
a policy response - and its focus - had to be sensitive to these attitudes. The
search for policy was also made immediately more difficult by the absence of
any "experts" in the field. We knew there were none within the
Council: and appeals to the local Universities produced no responses in those
days.
We could, however, vaguely see four paths which
had not been attempted –
·
Positive Discrimination : the scope for allocating welfare State resources
on a more equitable basis had been part of the "New Left" critique
since the late 1950s (Townsend). Being a new organisation meant that it was to
no-one's shame to admit that they did not know how exactly the money was being
allocated. Studies were carried out which confirmed our suspicions that it was
the richer areas which, arguably, needed certain services least (eg
"pre-school" services for children) which, in fact, had the most of
them! And, once discovered, this was certainly an area we considered we had a
duty to engage in redistribution of resources - notwithstanding those who
considered this was not for local government to attempt.
·
Community Development : one of the major beliefs shared by some of us
driving the new Council (borne of our own experience) was that the energies and
ideas of residents and local officials in these "marginalised" areas
were being frustrated by the hierarchical structures of departments whose
professionals were too often prejudiced against local initiatives. Our desire
was to find more creative organisational forms which would release these ideas
and energies - of residents and professionals alike. This approach meant
experimentation (Barr; Henderson;
McConnell).
·
Inter-Agency Cooperation : there needed to be a focussed priority of all
departments and agencies on these areas. Educational performance and health
were affected more by housing and income than by teachers and doctors! One
agency - even as large as Strathclyde - could not do much on its own. An
intensive round of dialogues were therefore held in 1976/77 with District
Councils, Central Government, Health Boards, Universities and Voluntary
Organisations: it must be said that considerable time elapsed before there were
material results from this eg it was 1984
before the Joint Area Initiatives in the larger Glasgow Housing Schemes were
up and running and 1988 before central government
was stirred to move.
·
Information and Income-Maximisation : the Region could certainly use its muscle to
ensure that people were getting their entitlements : ie the information and advice
to receive the welfare benefits many were missing out on. The campaigns mounted
in the late 1970s were soon pulling millions of pounds into these areas: and
served as a national model which attracted the active interest of the Minister
at the time (Linda Chalker).
to be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment