Opt-in or Opt-out? - Is this the end for the presumption of total participation?

There have always been debates about opting in or out of things. Forty years ago, it was about trades union membership; two decades later it was about stakeholder pensions; nowadays it is about organ donation. In all cases, it is an argument about whether society presumes a certain course of action, whilst letting individuals do something different. Or whether we let people do what they want – if they want to?

Apply this to public engagement. For years, what we had, in effect, was opt-in consultation. If you were sufficiently interested in a subject, chances were you would find out what was in the offing, and position yourself so as to exert whatever influence you could. If enough people shared a common interest or a specific viewpoint, they would come together either through existing representative groups, or create a special one for the purpose and argue their corner.

This is relatively cheap. Stakeholders self-select. We do not have to spend heavily finding them; in practice they find you. The drawback is, of course, that such a system is biased heavily towards the “usual suspects” and there is, at least in theory, the likelihood that particular viewpoints go unheard. Digging deeper, we discover that these “seldom heard” voices are often those whose interests may be most affected – and we worry that decisions may well be over-influenced by the rich and powerful ...or at least by the well-organised. So recent years have seen commendable efforts to engage with communities as a whole. The language and underlying intent of recent pronouncements by politicians of all parties commit to a more inclusive approach, and virtually every page of last year’s “empowerment” white paper stressed the benefits of widespread civic and civil participation. Okay, so the evidence shows that a hefty portion of the population don’t care for any involvement, but the thinking is that if structures and processes were improved, greater participation is possible – indeed probable.

This is why, these days we tend towards a presumption of total participation. Assume everybody might want to become involved. We’re going to change the one-way system in town; write to everybody! The Fire service call centre needs to be relocated; make presentations to sixteen Councils! We want to change the grants application process; invite every voluntary organisation to a meeting! Etcetera. The “duty to inform, consult and involve ...” – effective in April, encourages this approach; the Institute’s own Consultation Charter also points in the same direction.

But there are snags. Telling everybody everything, and asking everybody ... can cause a communications overload, and certainly contributes to consultation fatigue. Clearly we don’t want to waste resources in tough times by repeatedly corresponding with those who are certain they want no part of any dialogue. So apart from having clever “unsubscribe” buttons, or a variant of the mail preference scheme, we need ways to let people opt-out of such interactions; all of them are cumbersome, and some don’t work at all. The aggressively apathetic get very upset ... but are probably not motivated to do anything about it!

Back we come to variants of the old opt-in mechanisms. Might it be possible to give everyone enough of an idea of those issues where there is scope to contribute and to have an influence, and to offer them an opportunity to signal which of these are of interest to them? Imagine a tick-box. Of these forthcoming consultations, which would you like us to send to you? New technology can help. This facility forms part of what we have recommended as a future model – namely the Stakeholder portal – a website whereby organisations and individuals can register – so they can take part in various engagement exercises.

This approach cannot, of course just rely on eParticipation tools, effective though they may be. There has to be much else in a thought-through opt-in strategy.

The danger is that public bodies facing cash crises in the next few years will stumble towards such changes without sufficient planning. Better to consider various options now, discuss with key stakeholders and think seriously about the merits of different approaches. There is probably no right answer; opt-in and opt-out will be a debate for some time to come.

Trigger points

• Which is the current favoured approach in your organisation? Opt-in to dialogues? Or opt-out ?
• What is the evidence of consultation fatigue among your stakeholders? If there isn’t – can you safely plan on the presumption of total participation?
• Join us to discuss this issue as we square up to the impact of the credit crunch etc in Cost-effective Public Participation in Challenging Times

This is the 131st Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement