Governance and decision-making processes in local government: Opportunities for evidence inputs and stakeholder involvement in local authorities
Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Background The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has increased investment in research and evaluation of and by local authorities. This article aims to close gaps between research, policy and practice in local authorities by analysing core governance and decision-making processes, ways in which different types of evidence could feed into those processes and potential measurement approaches. It also lays a foundation for future comparative analyses of decision-making and evidence use. Methods Within-case comparative analyses of three core, recurrent governance and decision-making processes: key decisions, Scrutiny Committee reviews and Regulatory Committee decisions (licensing and planning). Examples are drawn from a member-led, local authority with a Leader and Cabinet model of governance, where all members are elected every four years. Results Each process has specific requirements and varies somewhat in the types of evidence considered, although all three often draw on local evidence of need, publicly available guidance and resident feedback. All three processes involve elected councillors and council officers. Local authorities may also have procedure rules which allow members of the public to ask questions and make comments at meetings. Scrutiny Committee reviews tend to follow an annual cycle, whereas key decisions and Regulatory Committee decisions are ongoing but must adhere to specified timelines. Conclusions Evidence reviews, information on needs, alternative interventions and projected financial, legal, equalities and climate implications are particularly relevant and more feasible than large scale primary data collection, given timelines. Although reports and meetings where decisions are made are open to the public, what evidence is cited and discussed at these fora likely underestimates what may have informed a decision. Future comparative analyses would help to understand the extent of variation within and across processes and types of government institutions.
Source: NIHR Open Research
Institution: London Borough of Islington
Language: English
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
Awards: G1383246676, G5008652868
OpenAlex ID: W7204273612