Originally published 5 May 2009. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
One of the myths about consultation is that it is a defined one-off event that starts and finishes ... and that’s it.
Now some consultation exercises do have those characteristics, but these are comparatively rare. Questions requiring considered input from the general public or technical stakeholders seldom emerge from thin air; there is usually a context and history bringing us to where there is a need for dialogue. That is why we need decision-takers and policy-makers to have a well-developed sense of who’s affected by what they do, and the contacts to ensure that relevant views are gathered. So, stand-by to hear about a really important initiative which could have a major impact upon the way senior civil servants and possibly policy-makers throughout the public sector do their work.
A few weeks ago, the Sunningdale Institute – managed by the National School of Government, published an important report about Reconnecting Policy Making with Front Line Professionals. Entitled Engagement and Aspiration, it makes the case for major changes in the training and processes adopted by policy-makers, so that they spend more time talking to service delivery people before developing and implementing new initiatives1 . One of their main ideas is the concept of the ‘networked public official’ whose job it is to ensure that all relevant voices are heard. Hence, to quote the authors, “Who is in the room?”
Great stuff, no disagreement in principle; but shouldn’t this have been happening all along? All three versions of the Government Code of Practice on Consultation have promoted the principle of identifying and engaging stakeholders, and although Sunningdale illustrates the many failures to do so, it does not provide a convincing explanation of why the Code isn’t observed well enough.
In reality there are good reasons why engaging the front-line is more difficult than it sounds. Firstly, who precisely is the front line? And who credibly speaks for them? Do we include their Managers? Or those who pay for them? Consider the DCSF’s current spat with the Headteachers Union. Is this group totally representative? And are there other viewpoints lurking but less clearly articulated?
Secondly, where radical policies are being considered, the front-line is often viewed as being most resistant to change. They are often defenders of the status quo, and engaging with them in the earliest stages of policy-making may arouse unwarranted anxieties and even harden attitudes unnecessarily. This may delay rather than accelerate policy development.
Then there is the time factor. Civil servants seem browbeaten by Ministers whose timescales are often driven to satisfy media or Parliamentary deadlines that are getting ever shorter. The Sunningdale authors plead for these to be more patient so that policies can mature with the benefit of more considered engagement. Great objective, but how achievable can this be, as the socio-political kaleidoscope rotates ever faster?
None of these arguments are show-stoppers, but whether at local or national levels, getting the right people in the room is going to be a higher priority than ever as the recession unfolds its inevitable consequences on the public purse. If we needed to carry public and stakeholder opinion with us when times were good, and money was spent, how much more critical may it be to involve them when cuts are made, and services rationalised or de-commissioned?
People working in front-line services can be heard ... without inventing the entirely new approach that Sunningdale proposes. The previous Tuesday Topic (Time and Place – No 134) explored how new technology enables communities of interest to flourish and have an impact, and the truth is that better adherence to the existing Consultation Code of Practice, plus better use of this new technology could quite easily achieve much that the National School of Government’ recent Study envisages.
1 The Sunningdale Study proposes an approach called Apogee – ‘Aspiring to Policy that is Grounded in Evidence and Experience’
Trigger points
- The Sunningdale Report, Engagement and Aspiration: Reconnecting Policy Making with Front Line Professionals.
- The Consultation Institute has just published a Briefing Paper - No 17 – Beyond Sunningdale. This contains a detailed commentary on the Sunningdale Study, and considers potential ways of moving forward. This Briefing Paper has been sent to all Institute members, and is available to non-members upon request.
- Join us in a one-day event on Technologies for Participation in London on May 21st where a number of the themes explored in this and Topic 134 will be considered further.
This is the 135th 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