A comparative study of governance changes on the perceptions of accountability in Fire and Rescue Services in England

Public organizations are increasingly held accountable by multiple institutions and standards. This study explores how key actors perceive accountability changes in Fire Rescue Services England. However, few studies have examined perceptions of where long-established governance arrangements changing. The UK's Policing Crime Act 2017 provided for a new model the form single directly elected commissioner to replace traditional indirectly fire authority. uses comparative case design understand impact on individuals' within each service. It adds wider understanding influences institutional structures actions, it demonstrates that change depending way public services governed. Organizacje administracji publicznej są w coraz większym stopniu pociągane do odpowiedzialności przez wiele instytucji. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przedstawienie jak straż pożarna Anglii postrzega zmiany zakresie swojej odpowiedzialności. Do tej pory niewiele badań naukowych przeanalizowało postrzeganie przypadku istniejących od wielu lat modeli zarządzania. Ustawa Wielkiej Brytanii wprowadziła alternatywny zarządzania strażą pożarną postaci komisarza wybieranego bezpośrednio, zamiast tradycyjnego organu nadzorujacego pośrednio. W tym badaniu wykorzystano porównawczą metodę wielokrotnego studium przypadku, aby zrozumieć wpływ dwóch odmiennych zarzadzania na Niniejszy artykuł wyjaśnia jaki mają strukturach organizacji i działania jednostek, oraz dowodzi, że zmienia się zależności funkcjonujących zarzadzania. sector been constellation standards resulting complex (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015). Although there is greater variety elsewhere, example Europe North America, desire create more through has apparent across many United Kingdom (Murphy et al., 2019a). In Kingdom, local leadership arrangements, including person governance, recently gained traction with introduction mayors Police Commissioners (PCCs) after long period authority representational (Elliott 2022). After decades working one developed different arrangements. England Wales, long-standing “stakeholder” rescue (FRA), made up councilors communities, predominated as governing body vast majority Services, although occasional separate bespoke emerged (Farrell, 2018). More recently, facilitated range collaborative emergency services, an alternative Services. response perceived deficiencies (NAO, 2015; PAC, 2016; May, 2016), legislation encouraged enabled, but did not mandate, PCCs, who single, locally, politicians overseeing police forces, take responsibilities their FRAs become Police, (PFCCs). single-person portrayed UK government increasing services' citizens, part decentralization agenda. addition model, also changed organizational landscape creation inspectorate (His Majesty's Inspectorate Constabulary Services) strengthened focus partners. Few recent changing or may change. Little known about To date, only emerging nature (Ashworth, 2019; Murphy 2019b, 2020), none empirically them relation notions accountability. Previous tend bodies, which senior decision-makers elected, such councils departments. Since most no element, this relationships authorities, central government, other public. Studying enables us increase our knowledge social construction models accountabilities individuals both constrained by. How internal stakeholders context PFCC introduced 2017? approach sought compare influence addressed calls McDonald al. (2022) Elliott administration. article draws empirical findings, interviews groups changes, prospect brought influenced understandings under models. makes two contributions. First, provides insights into flux operate uncertain conditions can shape actors' particular, identifies types explore Second, contributes emerging, still limited, based literature capturing interrelationships organizations. next section gives brief overview then goes examine research context, namely reforms English before outlining methods findings. Finally, discusses findings theoretical implications well identifying some further areas inquiry. field administration, traditionally considered combination classic Weberian-style bureaucracy, hierarchy, rules, law, representative democracy (Lynn, 2001). gradually placed emphasis collective interactions (Torfing 2012) due expectations complex, dynamic, diverse world (Haveri, 2006). Traditional forms recognized less adequate these circumstances, formalistic, exclusive, highly structured nature. Nonetheless, stable particularly times turbulence, gaining modern administration (Ansell 2022; Trondal, administrative practice moved towards hierarchical decentralized Governance management collaboration joint ways seen prominent modes service delivery (Bianchi 2021). These raise important questions around growing salience. Governing boards mechanism strategy widely prevalent internationally, public, private, voluntary (Schillemans Bovens, 2019). sector, role bodies largely strategic direction from those responsible day-to-day operation. There rich maturing discourse featuring health (Peck, 1995; Exworthy Robinson, 2001; Addicott, 2008; Grubnic Cooper, 2019), authorities replaced PCCs (Davies Johnson, 2020) school 2005; Farrell 2017). cases, scholars found be making marginal contributions authorities' planning decision Farrell, 2005), others they were even redundant (Addicott, 2008). contrast, solely forces Wales since 2012, powerful (Eckersley Lakoma, 2022), turn reluctant challenge (Raine Keasey, 2012; 2020). Law enforcement build upon political settlements established when countries formed (Bayley, 1992). Most English-speaking countries, England, States, Canada, Australia policing governance. Similarly, trend law Europe. France Ireland, together authoritarian regimes, remain centralized systems agencies at national level. For example, unique structure, over 12,000 (local city sheriffs), created significant issues (Walker, 2016). comparison, total 43 As result, extent US hindered development consistent all politics sheriffs enforcing (Sampson, 2012). Unlike American operational responsibilities, prisons operation (Baldi LaFrance, 2013). specific crime responsibility generally hold account (Mawby Smith, received limited academic attention. board-style policy Service operated until its replacement 2012. PCC reflects equivalent sheriff Baldi Government claiming needed because dissatisfaction performance lack engagement experience reform was promoted indicate what feasible terms (May, decades, enabling services. Although, adopted policing, little effect Changing raises determine whom servants should report. Accountability cornerstone (Aucoin Heintzman, 2000). web stakeholders, funding inspectorates, users involve broad mechanisms, elections, legislative scrutiny, external audit. Scholars argued nowadays manage combinations multiple, different, changing, often conflicting audiences (de Boer, outside politicized (Willems Van Dooren, 2011). Some argue trying face overlapping likely dysfunctional (Koppell, 2005). attempted classify relationships. Romzek Dubnick (1987) identified four accountabilities: bureaucratic, legal, professional political. bureaucratic accountability, relationship between superior subordinate, subordinate delegated duties. system refers supervisions, whereas legal autonomous parties: agency controlling party agency, impose sanctions. Professional stresses power control hands skilled expert members job agent leaders. constituents. If fails constituents, he she substituted democratic elections (Erkkilä, 2007). Over past relationships, structures, forum formally wields actor (Bovens, 2007), challenged theory practice. New Management market (Pollitt Bouckaert, while post-New initiatives focused horizontal (Christensen, Two main mechanisms government—conformance performance, epitomized financial reporting latter non-financial (Goddard, Ferry Eckersley, relatively international attention, exceptions (Carvalho 2006; Kloot, 2009; Clarke, 2018; 2019b; Spencer Taylor emphasize importance assuring Carvalho (2006) Kloot (2009) tools measures might negatively demonstration communities government. (2021) echo views arguing centrally imposed independent stronger providing than primarily tools. notion prevails literature, conformance delivering (Spencer evidence presented thus far, however, pre-dates 2017, significantly changed. remainder will therefore followed Recent called and, particularly, need detailed evaluation last 20 years FRA county authorities,1 combined authorities,2 metropolitan authorities,3 London (London Commissioner) Manchester (mayor-led system). devolved administrations, Northern Ireland Scotland opted appointed board level, retained model. Figure 1 illustrates Clarke' (2018) work Services' Their regime sector-led assessment comprising “Fire Peer Challenge” (Downe 2018) supplemented assessment. All lesser affected changes. By autumn 2022, had transferred “governance” (at time single-employer arrangement) current patchwork throughout Another aspect establishment scrutiny arrangement His Constabulary, originally 1856 (Cowley re-designated HMICFRS, assess report effectiveness Taken together, intended landscape. 2 legislation, option governed either PFCC. shows HMICFRS Home Office.4 examines explains underpinning article, seeks attempts (Overman Schillemans, Given various perspectives available, concerned concept viewpoints (Bevir, 2009). explored A method help theory-building links micro-level human function macro level (Peters, cases purposively selected (6 out 45 England) maximum variance exist (Table 1). Three three continued rely predominant councilors. purpose names anonymised. county, combined, FRAs. Brigade Greater Authority distinct cannot replicated excluded analysis. unable include ex-metropolitan sample yet established. Within examining former FRA, sample. At writing (one ex-county ex-combined FRAs), On hand, operating differentiate type far possible. Qualitative consisted elements—semi-structured interviews, groups, publicly available documents. Thirty-five semi-structured (Chief Officers (CFO), Deputy CFOs, Assistant Area Managers cases; Heads Finance Human Resources equivalent). Five groups,5 3 Case Study conducted front-line staff own thematically analyzed gain Interviews online using Microsoft Teams March 2020 June 2021, exception group carried person. Each interview took average 49 min, (with 3–5 participants) lasted 69 min. Questions schedule analysis linear, involved constant interplay data coding process refine themes subthemes. recorded, transcribed verbatim imported NVivo, started deductive structure lens (bureaucratic, political, professional) potentially perceptions. original typology used amount unsophisticated available. secondary inductive iterative applied identify 2). Supervision, Statutory documents, Regular meetings Inspections, (Co-opted FRA) (PFCC charge service) Indirect Responsiveness Direct Party allegiance requirements, Council Tax, Reporting (including inspections) inspections), Response, Sector-led assessments (peer review), Collaboration Joint data, documents related contextual information collected websites. included frameworks, charts, statements assurance. NVivo software better case. Bureaucratic involves supervisory wide activities. number stakeholders. scrutinized body. locally determined councilors, individual—either (since Act) mayor—having sole being area (the mayoral scope study). means having ultimate side corresponding authorities. reporting, must produce approved body, Integrated Risk Plan, Annual Statement Assurance plans (Home Office, Plan (or Plan), sets vision, priorities objectives (if joint, service). Generally, PFCCs oversee scrutinize behalf Opinions differed whether body's ability sufficient. common concern expressed among interviewees regarding lots interests, that. Participants attributed poor councilors' inadequate environment. notable integral council (Case 6). cross-functional care, education, health, highways. surfaced mainly reliant officers' expertise, CFOs'. raised concerns FRAs, suggested insufficient statutory set give advice service, ensure performs efficiently best interest community serves. “That isn't coming if doesn't come we almost ourselves, try do.” (Head Assurance, 1) “I think [that] just represented impacts, increases we've got extra there, perspective.” Strategy Organisational Intelligence, 5) presence contributed increased individual already experienced value FRA. participants highlighted tension CFO Chief's independence (CFO matters). Despite independence, agreed added process. When asked unanimous view additional questioning service's decisions. expanded powers reflected meetings, boards, panels, relating performance. newly environment required education within. effective streamlined sources too requirements connections “if somebody died something went wrong, would Chief that.” (Firefighter, 4) Front-line CFOs ultimately anything happens bi-directional relationship, see themselves perceives CFO. Overall, re