Cash for Consultees? - Is it justified to pay people to take part in consultations?

One of the legacies of the 1990’s was revulsion with so-called sleaze and a raft of anti-corruption machinery such as the Nolan Rules. As a result, those who become involved in public life, or who hold public office, are today conscious of the need to be whiter-than-white and to account for every penny which could be construed as tending to procure a sympathetic hearing for themselves or for causes they support.

This puritanical zeal is reflected in a widespread reluctance by stakeholders and their organisations to become involved in any process that is tainted by funding that could be seen as influencing what they say or what they do. The voluntary sector is particularly alive to this danger, but this scepticism extends far and wide, and has real implications for those who manage consultations.

So, if a mobile telephone Company pays local residents for their time to attend a Focus Group on proposals for a new transmitter mast, will opponents of the scheme cry foul and claim that participants in such an exercise are more likely to say Yes? Even if the sums involved are modest, and extremely unlikely to influence anyone, is this a case where the perception is more important than reality, and where objectivity (rather like justice) has to be seen to be done? But there is another side to the argument. This is the age of consultation fatigue, with ever-more consultors chasing ever-more elusive consultees. If we are to avoid participation being confined to consultation junkies, there may be a genuine need to incentivise the others. Survey firms have discovered the value of providing inducements to increase the response rate; some techniques (please nominate a charity from this list, and we will donate £x if you respond) are far from objectionable on anti-corruption grounds.

Then there is the principle that people should not be out-of-pocket as a result of exercising civic citizenship duties such as an involvement in consultation. Hence the long-standing practice of paying individuals their expenses, though rarely are any loss-of-earnings provided for. Linked to this, but conceptually separate are the funds used for capacity-building. This might include paying groups some of their costs in organising themselves to participate in community involvement initiatives - paying for the hire of the village hall, reimbursing printing costs or even paying for childcare or a crèche.

If these amount to a valuable lubricant with which to oil the wheels of consultation, is it possible to draw a clear distinction between payments to be encouraged and those to avoid?

Until firmer Guidelines are drafted (and the Institute intends to publish some in 2006) the best advice is to minimise payments other than pure expenses, be consistent in the treatment of different groups and test for perceived influence. In other words, if the payments can reasonably be suspected of affecting what people say, then they are best avoided!

Trigger points

• Examine your existing practices, and seek fair and consistent application of your current policy
• Document and publish your policy so as to ensure it is wholly transparent; include in consultation strategy documents and Statements of Community Involvement (SCI’s)
• Let the Institute know if you would like to see a draft copy of the proposed Guidelines when they are available.

This is the 48th 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