News & Insights

Beyond Sunningdale – A Consultation Institute response to The Sunningdale Institute Report for the Cabinet Office

 

‘Engagement & Aspiration: Reconnecting Policy Making with Front Line Professionals’

Introduction

In March 2009, the Sunningdale Institute published a Cabinet Office commissioned Study to examine how to ensure better engagement and connection with front-line professionals in the design and development of policy.

It was prepared by Sir David Omand, the former Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, Professor Ken Starkey of Nottingham University Business School and Lord Victor Adebowale.  It is entitled Engagement and Aspiration: Reconnecting Policy Making with Front Line Professionals and is available for download at http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/downloads/EngagementandAspirationReport.pdf

This Consultation Institute believes this to be a very important document that may influence the thinking and best practice of civil servants and others for years to come and raises interesting issues and opportunities that are relevant to our mission. This Briefing paper summarises the main thrust of the Sunningdale Study, provides a commentary upon it and offers suggestions for moving forward.

The Sunningdale analysis

2.1    The Study takes its cue from the Government’s stated objective to move away from a top-down, target-driven culture towards a more bottom-up, user-driven approach, and where the ‘empowerment’ of citizens is seen as a key element of the package. This has already featured in previous documents including the recent Cabinet Office paper Excellence and Fairness: Achieving World Class Public Services (also March 2009)1

2.2     Having articulated this goal, however, the Study suggests that Government is yet to work out how to make this happen. Business as usual in Whitehall has led to a measure of frustration that the change of direction is not really happening, and that public service reform will therefore be put at risk.

2.3     It records a litany of regrettable practices from premature announcements (“often to meet media management pressures”), inadequate preparation of legislation, opposition from key stakeholders , conflicting initiatives  and the challenge of ever more arms length delivery bodies being managed down ‘vertical’ departmental management chains. Although few of these are really new, the Study concludes that “there is a pressing need to re-invent policy making for the modern era”

1 http://www.hmg.gov.uk/workingtogether.aspx

2.4     The Study then makes a strong case for involving front-line professional service delivery staff (and presumably the organisations that employ them) both in the development of new initiatives and in reviewing the effectiveness of existing policies. Best practice examples that are commended include the DWP ‘Pathways to Work’ policy and a DCSF Children and Young Persons’ Workgroup Strategy. It concludes:-

“Policy makers in departments will thus have to become expert at accessing both Evidence and Experience to ensure that policies are formulated on the basis of the best possible quantitative modelling of outcomes incorporating data on citizen behaviours, needs and aspirations, and to ensure that practical knowledge on the front-line of what is likely to work in practice, and how services should best be reconfigured to meet the needs of the citizen, is captured. (Par 20. Page 16)

2.5     To implement this change, the Study recommends a new approach called – in shorthand – Apogee which stands for Aspiring to Policy making Grounded in Evidence and Experience. It wants a massive re-orientation of civil service training to incorporate this new idea, and as a means of tackling deep-seated cultural resistance to such an approach. The authors want to see policy makers as ‘high energy networkers, mobilising, engaging and energising partnerships across government, local government and the front-line professionals themselves.’ This, they see encapsulated in the phrase ‘the networked public official’

2.6     The Study examines lessons from the private and third sectors, and among these is the realisation that best practice allows new initiatives the time to be fully researched and prepared – ‘You have to slow down to go fast’. It infers that Senior Managers in the private sector are more realistic about the time-lags between new initiatives being announced and results appearing on the ground.

2.7     Finally, the Study illustrates a variety of examples and techniques that can be used to exploit the new Apogee approach, and many of these are very interesting and worth pursuing. They include ‘day a month’ visits to the front line, ‘back to the floor’ experiences, secondments, recruitment policies, consultative forums and the use of Web 2.0 applications to share information.

2.8     There are 11 recommendations. They are:-

Support to and from Ministers

  1. Make ‘front-line insight’ a compulsory part of all policy advice to Ministers on public service reform, to match and complement the increasing use of ‘customer insight’.
  2. Make time and space to develop and formulate long term policies in partnership with key stakeholders (community and professionals).
  3. Ensure relevant front-line staff are engaged in the design of policies that they will be responsible for implementing before public announcements and formal consultations.

Policy making ethos and structures

  1. Re-shape policy work in support of the new principles of Public Service Reform, and so ensure it is ‘fit for purpose’ for current and future policy challenges and their complexities.
  2. Organise policy teams so they have access to relevant insights, information and networks; set up specific arrangements to capture, develop and disseminate front-line thinking.
  3. Seek out ideas and practical experiences to improve the policy –

optimise use of existing networks and develop routes to new sources of front-line information.

  1. Increase awareness of conditions at the front-line within departments.

Incentives, skills and capabilities

  1. Policy making skills and capability to have a stronger emphasis on connecting with and drawing professional insights from the front-line.

Communicating with the front-line

  1. Capturing local professional pride in their work and public service ethos.
  2. Ensuring policies are accessible and understandable.

Learning

  1. Ensure an active circle of learning between the front-line, intermediaries and central Whitehall departments so that relevant insights in both directions are captured.

From Engagement & Aspiration, pp 9-10

Commentary

3.1     It is, at first glance, surprising that a paper of this kind is necessary at all. To propose that Government policy-makers should have regard to their likely impact when delivered by front-line public agencies would be viewed by most people as a statement of the patently obvious. Upon second glance, however, this may be a timely reality check upon working practices that may have neglected an important dimension of the policy- making task. It is difficult to argue that the need to involve the front-line is a newly discovered requirement, but the authors make an effective case for urgency.

3.2     Evidence-based policy-making has been around for some time, and it can be argued that all we need is for this to be implemented properly. The Consultation Institute has argued that many Government consultations have been inadequate and ineffective, with the Code of Practice frequently ignored and un-policed. Indeed, only one aspect of the Code that has been monitored – and even that, badly. This is the requirement to take 12 weeks. Had the Code been implemented properly, it is inconceivable that policy-makers could forget or neglect to consult front-line implementation staff. The Sunningdale Study may inadvertently excuse this behaviour by implying that there is a deep and significant mystery that has hitherto not been appreciated. There isn’t! It’s just that the existing rules have not been applied properly.

3.3     Even if there may be an argument as to what – if anything – is added to evidence-based policy-making by the Apogee approach, there can be little doubt that improvements must be made to current policy-making practice and that involving front-line professionals is high on the list of priorities. The Study refers to known examples where a failure to do this caused problems, (e.g. the NAO Report on Individual Learning Accounts) and we believe that even more case studies of this kind will need to be assembled in order to convince sceptics that there is a worthwhile return on this investment.

3.4     We agree wholeheartedly with the Study’s core assumption that we are here dealing with a profound culture change, and that some traditional values and beliefs within the civil service will appear to be challenged by the implications of this change. The switch in emphasis from analysis to action is correctly identified as one such change, but with this comes an increase in risk-taking which paradoxically, is one of the factors that have become more prevalent …as a result of neglecting to talk to the front line!

3.5     Much of the thrust of the Study is towards a new emphasis on stakeholder management. We are aware that some Government departments have instigated audits of stakeholder opinions, and that Stakeholder Relationship Managers are being appointed in some organisations. Techniques such as stakeholder mapping and the complex data management issues arising from modern relationship tracking will need significant effort, and should form part of the Apogee or similar programme of training.

3.6     We particularly like the idea of ‘who is in the room’ in policy-making, and would like to this fully developed. The Consultation Institute has always regarded one of the key benefits of consultation to be its ability to widen the range of people, organisations and interests heard when decisions are taken. The problem with this concept has always been that consensus is not always the main objective at the policy formulation stage, or indeed at other stages. Taking account of more people and interests can dilute the thrust of new initiatives, add complexity and take longer. The alternative of course, is to reduce the numbers involved at the initial stages, but then conduct a thorough and inclusive consultation to tease out the details that may need refinement.

3.7     The question of timescales lies at the heart of many problems that the Sunningdale Study addresses. It is not enough just to demand that everything slows down and that more time is somehow manufactured to allow the more considered policy-making it advocates. In fact this runs counter to the prevailing, if regrettable trend towards ever-faster policy cycles. Media pressures, cited above, may indeed accelerate announcements and precipitate rapid option appraisals, but we know of nothing that will make these go away. We think any proposals for change must go with the grain of reducing cycle-times, and not wish them away. Fortunately there are ways this can be done (see below)

3.8     An understated issue, touched upon in the Sunningdale Study, but requiring further research is the extent to which policy-makers have fought shy of engaging front-line staff for fear of arousing premature anxieties – if not outright opposition. Change is often perceived as threatening, and it takes much proficiency in consultation, negotiation and mediation to smooth the path of step-change contested alterations in people’s behaviour. For politicians with a mandate, it can be intensely frustrating to wait for a process of involvement with interests groups who are deeply opposed to change to work through to a conclusion. More engagement with the front-line can make policy-making far more difficult!

3.9     The Study applies to Central Government, but we believe it raises issues that are as relevant in other parts of public administration. In fact, engaging the front-line is an important objective for many Executive Agencies, Non-departmental public bodies and, particularly for local authorities and local service providers. Ideally, any new approach to policy-making would be designed to apply equally to all of these. Regrettably we are not convinced that the language and content of the proposed Apogee idea would translate successfully to these other organisations.

Moving forward

4.1     Despite reservations, we believe that the Sunningdale Study provides an excellent opportunity to look again at some of the shortcomings of current practice in policy-making. Whether or not the Apogee suggestion is taken forward, there is certainly a need to strengthen officials’ grasp of stakeholder management and consultation.

4.2     We visualise two possible scenarios:-

  1. a) Full support for the Apogee proposal by the Civil Service Steering Board, the Delivery Unit and the No. 10 Policy Unit. In this case, we believe the challenge will be in devising a roll-out plan that will be effective but also resilient to possible re-thinking in the event of a change of
  1. b) Hesitation to commit funding on a programme whose aims may not be immediately comprehensive at a time of deep cuts in public expenditur

4.3    In the first case, we believe that much existing best practice on engaging the front-line can be assembled and incorporated into the teaching materials needed to put flesh on the Apogee bones. The Consultation Institute would be happy to work with the National School of Government on this. We are wary of building yet more toolkits of dialogue methods – a favourite way of encouraging public engagement – as they frequently leave policy-makers overwhelmed by the vast range of available techniques, but with little budget, time or assistance to implement them. In our view, there is no effective alternative to traditional classroom-style training, masterclasses or action-centred learning.

4.4    In the second case, all is not lost, for we believe that much can be achieved to meet the goal of the Sunningdale Study. This can happen if urgent steps are taken to improve the practice of Government consultations in general, and if the timescale problem is properly addressed. Two years ago, when the BERR Department reviewed the Government Code of Practice on Consultations, we submitted a paper

(https://www.consultationinstitute.org/research/download_reports.asp?doc=full&rpid=29 ) on the need for a fast-track option for those issues where policy-makers could not accommodate the prescribed 12 week period. The thinking behind this is that most Government consultations are focused on stakeholder organisations where e-consultation techniques are in regular use, and provided safeguards were introduced, a brief but high-quality dialogue could be conducted.

4.5    Another important improvement that could be implemented without necessarily adopting the full Apogee approach would be to establish better mechanisms for continuous consultation. The Sunningdale Study commends the Regional Forums established by the NPIA, and of course there are hundreds of consultative bodies littered across all Government departments. But a more modern and robust application of stakeholder management would involve looking at some of these and re-architecting them; far too many are the result of historical accident and not all prove their worth as effective conduits of opinion and instruments of genuine dialogue. The Consultation Institute sees these ‘permanent’ mechanisms as being particularly significant at a time when budgets may not extend to the number of wider consultations that Departments have recently instituted.

Overall conclusion

There is an unanswerable case for greater involvement of the front-line in policy development, but it is not a panacea, and will not necessarily lead to more consensus.

Better adherence to good consultation practice would, of itself address the main issue, and there may not a need for the proposed Apogee approach.

In any event, there is now a need for the Civil Service Steering Board to consider its options and to consider whether now is the time for such a fresh initiative for civil servants in Central Government.

The issue of engaging with front-line staff is, however wider and if a new, branded approach is to be adopted, there is a case for making it applicable to the public sector as a whole, and using it to re-vitalise permanent consultation machinery that is overdue for a makeover.

Note

This paper has been prepared by Rhion H Jones, Programme Director of The Consultation Institute, with assistance from colleagues at the Institute and one of its Associates, Davy Jones.

This is the 17th Briefing Paper; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement

More news

police
Shopping Basket
Scroll to Top

Your membership questions answered

View our frequently asked questions or contact our dedicated account manager for further support.

You can reset your password here. If you’re still having issues, please send us a message below.

We have many ways you can pay for your membership.

  • Credit card
  • Online
  • Invoice
  • PO
  • Monthly

You can renew/upgrade your membership here.

To find out more, send us a message below.

You will receive a reminder email from our dedicated membership account manager 4 weeks before your renewal date. This email will contain all the information you need to renew.

You can also renew your membership online here.

You can update your contact details here. Alternatively, please send a message to our membership account manager below.

Please send a message to our membership account manager below. 

Still need support?

Our dedicated Membership Account Manager is on
hand to assist with any questions you might have.

Request a callback

Leave a message and our team will call you back

"*" indicates required fields

Name*

Send us a message

We’ll be in touch with you soon.

Name(Required)
Email(Required)