‘We assumed it would all be fairly straight forward’: Exploring early implementation of the recommendations of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian Journal of Public Administration Pub Date : 2024-04-21 DOI:10.1111/1467-8500.12638
Rebecca Buys, Kate Fitz‐Gibbon
{"title":"‘We assumed it would all be fairly straight forward’: Exploring early implementation of the recommendations of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence","authors":"Rebecca Buys, Kate Fitz‐Gibbon","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label />Over the past decade, royal commissions have been increasingly employed to address some of Australia's most pernicious and persistent problems. However, their recommendations often languish unimplemented. Research on why so many proposals fail to make it into policy and practice is divided. To explore the fraught road from recommendation to reform, this article analyses the early implementation of the recommendations of the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence (Victoria, Australia) from a relational vantage. To do so, this article brings attention to the under‐explored insights of advocates and frontline service providers and their relationship to post‐royal commission reform processes. Their relational accounts of corroborations, contradictions, and contestations move the contemporary predominate question of <jats:italic>if</jats:italic> implementation happens to more nuanced questions about <jats:italic>when</jats:italic> it occurs, <jats:italic>what</jats:italic> is implemented, <jats:italic>who</jats:italic> does it, and <jats:italic>how</jats:italic> it happens. The difficulties participants faced in the early implementation phase of the reforms demonstrate implementation alone is not a panacea for the problems royal commissions face post‐inquiry.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>Improving the implementation of royal commissions’ recommendations requires centring the perspectives of those with specialised knowledge and who deliver related services.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>Recommendations to address challenging social problems need to be designed to evolve, often rapidly, to the constantly changing contexts that they are enmeshed within.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>An implementation for implementation's sake approach risks obfuscating the contestations of what royal commissions find and cementing potentially problematic initiatives.</jats:list-item> </jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12638","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the past decade, royal commissions have been increasingly employed to address some of Australia's most pernicious and persistent problems. However, their recommendations often languish unimplemented. Research on why so many proposals fail to make it into policy and practice is divided. To explore the fraught road from recommendation to reform, this article analyses the early implementation of the recommendations of the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence (Victoria, Australia) from a relational vantage. To do so, this article brings attention to the under‐explored insights of advocates and frontline service providers and their relationship to post‐royal commission reform processes. Their relational accounts of corroborations, contradictions, and contestations move the contemporary predominate question of if implementation happens to more nuanced questions about when it occurs, what is implemented, who does it, and how it happens. The difficulties participants faced in the early implementation phase of the reforms demonstrate implementation alone is not a panacea for the problems royal commissions face post‐inquiry.Points for practitioners Improving the implementation of royal commissions’ recommendations requires centring the perspectives of those with specialised knowledge and who deliver related services. Recommendations to address challenging social problems need to be designed to evolve, often rapidly, to the constantly changing contexts that they are enmeshed within. An implementation for implementation's sake approach risks obfuscating the contestations of what royal commissions find and cementing potentially problematic initiatives.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们以为一切都会很简单":探索维多利亚州皇家家庭暴力委员会建议的早期实施情况
在过去十年中,皇家委员会越来越多地被用来解决澳大利亚一些最严重、最顽固的问题。然而,他们的建议往往得不到落实。关于为何如此多的建议未能转化为政策和实践的研究众说纷纭。为了探索从建议到改革的艰难之路,本文从关系的角度分析了 2016 年家庭暴力皇家委员会(澳大利亚维多利亚州)建议的早期实施情况。为此,本文关注倡导者和一线服务提供者未被充分挖掘的见解,以及他们与皇家委员会后改革进程的关系。他们对相互印证、矛盾和争论的关系描述,将 "实施是否发生 "这一当代的主要问题转移到了关于 "何时实施"、"实施什么"、"由谁实施 "以及 "如何实施 "等更细微的问题上。参与者在改革早期实施阶段所面临的困难表明,实施本身并不是解决皇家委员会在调查后所面临问题的灵丹妙药。为解决具有挑战性的社会问题而提出的建议,需要根据其所处的不断变化的环境进行设计,而且往往是快速设计。为实施而实施的方法有可能混淆皇家委员会所发现的争议,并固化可能存在问题的倡议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge brokering for public sector reform ‘We're trying to get out of here, that's what we're doing’: A Bourdieusian examination of ‘choice’ in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices Issue Information - TOC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1