The Campaign Company Blog

"We've Got the Power?"

TCC has posted a lot about the White Paper on Community Empowerment when it was still developing. We are pleased to that it is is now published and commits to:

• A local authority duty to promote democracy
• An extended duty to involve covering most crucially Police Authorities
• A £7.5 million Community Empowerment Fund
• £2 million in opportunities for people with disabilities to volunteer
• Extending mentoring and befriending
• A pathfinder "Take Part" programme on Citizenship education for adults
• £70 million "Community Builders" scheme to support independent multi-purpose organisations
• A duty on Council's to respond to petitions
• An extension in participatory budgeting to all local authorities
• Modest incentives for voting
• More Neighbourhood Councils
• Extensions of Neighbourhood Management by Council's and partners
• More "community justice" and pilot projects in "community payback" by young offenders
• The establishment of the Tenant Services Authority to strengthen the rights of tenants of affordable housing
• Direct access and shadowing by  young advisors of ministers and elected mayors
• A £6 million national institute of youth leadership
• Youth internships with Councillors
• Making it easier to have a directly elected Mayor
• More discretionary localised budgets for Councillors to act as a community leader on
• A new Asset Transfer Unit to help local communities act on the the Quirk Report
• A national framework for Community Land Trusts and 14 pilots

Whilst the debate on community empowerment will continue, the most important aspects at this stage of the process are:

• The additional monies that will be available. This is important in pump priming local activity. 
• The Asset Transfer process being strengthened. This area needs support to encourage demands to come from below, in order to realise the ideals of the Quirk Report. Any body should itself be made accountable to the bodies representing community groups such as the Development Trust Association and the recognition given to Community Land Trusts could also strengthen local communities.

Some organisations have expressed the concern that white paper is giving giving individuals rather than communities "control". However we at TCC think the proposals are actually the sort of approach that we have been advocating and acting upon for years. We recognises that to empower communities you need to empower individuals first. Community groups shouldn't feel threatened by this - they should feel genuinely empowered by it.

In saying the above we recognise this is an unfinished agenda. A lot is being proposed, but there is a lot more to consider. For example the need to make make Police Authorities and PCT's more accountable to the communities they cover is clearly now next on the agenda.

As a result rather than than just passively promoting the document, surely we should not just be talking to ourselves but instead organising a serious public information campaign by all engagement practitioners from across all the various sectors. We should not just leave it to the DCLG but collectively promote it. This would maximise its impact and its benefits to the public in the run up to it being approved as well as pushing public bodies to organise more pilots in advance of it.

The DCLG has produced postcards promoting the white papers key elements. Perhaps we should ensure they have a much wider distribution than usual?

Richard Wilson, the Director of Involve commented on need to treat community empowerment similar social networking software. In the same way that the web 2.0 makes many services as ubiquitous as electricity, we now need the scope for communities of interest, whether geographical or interest group, to be able to plug into democratic structures in the same way that one can plug into an online system. The fact that vast numbers are now mobilised by Facebook for social events shows the potential for involvement.

Finally we should add that the White Paper seemed to gain a reasonable degree of consensus from the main political parties. This should mean legislation happens quicker and there is a degree of stability to bed down some of the proposals.

 

 

Cohesion requires patience

When it comes to community cohesion the important thing to remember is what you are aiming at. You need to achieve an outcome where nobody feels uncomfortable or unwelcome in their own neighbourhood and where people are respectful towards each other.  Then you can start to build a shared vision and a sense of community. The benefits of diversity will become obvious in time - a greater tolerance of difference and much more local creativity in the community as innovators are drawn to the rich mix of cultures that co-exist. Celebrating these benefits might be where you want to end up but assuming that widespread tolerance exists at the outset may cause problems and inter-ethnic tensions. The world is changing quicker than any other time in its history. It is changing at a pace that many people are not comfortable with. Any attempts to increase the pace of change will bring about a negative reaction.  Community cohesion requires an effort to manage change at a pace that carries most people along from the existing communities, new communities and the authorities. For community cohesion to work the three different groups need to take steps towards each other. It is as important that all three sides are being seen to making these steps, rather than assume a single direction of travel by everyone at the same pace. Should any of these sides not be playing their part, then the whole process will stall. If they  are being forced to move too quickly they will react. Speeding up the process for one of these groups may  build resentment and distrust from others.  People will cling to what they know and what they are comfortable with. There is then a danger that the gap between the communities becomes wider than the continents that previously separated them.  This is the space that extremists thrive.

Wikis for Consultation

On Tuesday David Evans (MD of The Campaign Company) and myself presented to the Consultation Institute conference 'Technologies for Participation'

The event was being run in conjuncture with ICELE (The international centre for excellence in local democracy) and featured a host of speakers from local authoriities, local strategic partnerships, software vendors and other across the consultation and engagement spectrum.

A one of the presentations which were of particular interest included Steve Jarman, head of research at Cardiff City Council whose doing some interesting work around setting up a 'Data Observatory' for Wales, creating a consultation portal, 'E-Consult' and webcasting. Steve was giving clear direction that no single technological approach but instead a mixed methodology forms the basis of a successful use of technology in consultation.

The Campaign Company session focused on the use of wiki's for consultation, the presentation is available here.

Key points included:

• Wikis are most suitable where the audience is already engaged in the subject
• Wikis work as a part of a wider engagement strategy which includes appropriate methods to access and support every section of the audience
• Wikis are by definition a 'bottom up' platform, the struture and direction will be defined by the users. In light of this the organisation running the project has to be prepared to cede much of it's control to the audience
• Whilst hopefully the wiki will be driven by the audience, it will require continual moderation, support and training to ensure it is focused and accessible

In many ways Wikis offer very different opportunities to traditional e-consultation tools. The have the ability to creat community, bring policy makers and service deliverers together with service users and communities in a way a e-petition or voting handset can't. However to achieve this it has to be directed at the right audience, around the right issue and with the right support

Memo to Local Authorities: "Make me smile (come up and see me)"!

A useful report published today from the Young Foundation on the wellbeing and happiness agenda and empowerment. It adds strength to the case against the low aspiration agenda for the Community Empowerment White Paper argued by some who do not wish to leave their comfort zone and which I have previously blogged on.

The report presents evidence to make the case for three hypotheses:

• that wellbeing is higher in areas where residents can influence decisions
  affecting their neighbourhood
• that wellbeing is higher amongst people who have regular contact with
  their neighbours
• that wellbeing is higher in areas where residents have the confidence to
  exercise control over local circumstances.

TCC experience working with local authorities and their local strategic partners also seems to confirm these hypotheses. The insight we gather through social marketing for Primary Care Trusts (PCT's), provides a slightly different angle in looking at this issue, but also seems to confirm the case being made.

In saying this, I don't fully agree with Richard Layard's arguments over the happiness issue and that you can improve things across the board to similarly match the rise in GDP. For example any complex human society will have sadness at various points in life such as a family bereavement and other stressful episodes that happen such as divorce or bankruptcy. Nevertheless the public and voluntary sector can do much to help the least happy 10% through the recently agreed extra expenditure on talking therapies in mental health.

Whilst some of the wellbeing and happiness agenda may be ambitious at times, surely part of the empowerment agenda should include an attempt at increasing wellbeing. If a local authority can't always make people happy all the time, surely it can try to empower residents to increase local human interactions that in themselves will "make people smile a bit more". This can even be be measured in how people react to a local authority in surveys and qualitative local discussion groups.

TCC have worked for local authorities such as Newham where we have developed community engagement programmes for Neighbourhood Forums along the lines of "shared challenges" such as local community led "Clean Sweeps" of Neighbourhoods. Watching whole families of all ages and from very diverse backgrounds turn up to don their luminous jackets and work together to litter pick local public spaces, in my experience, puts a smile on most people's faces!

The forthcoming Community Empowerment White Paper should address well-being issues and assist local authorities in putting a smile back on the faces of their many local communities!

Making the most of your Governors

The latest analysis commissioned by Monitor indicates Foundation Trusts are making real progress in bringing local accountability to the NHS. This is fantastic news for hospitals and healthcare services and the communities they serve. Real people are finally feeling they are having a real influence on decisions that affect their healthcare. But what makes for a successful Trust? The answer lies in the Governors...

A successful Trust recognises that it's Board of Governors are, or should be, at the heart of their future plans. If FT's are about giving people on the front line more freedom, and patients more choice, then Governor's have a crucial role to play. They become the watchdogs where the Government has stepped back, and they become the hospital's advocates to the public, assisting in patient choice.

But this is a new role, even those that have been in place longest have really only been operating under their current set-up for a few years at most. Many have never done anything like this before. Indeed, it is questionable whether there has ever been a role like this before!

Monitor highlight that 4 out of 5 Governors are now clear about their roles and responsibilities, around half have exercised their statutory powers and many feel that they can adequately represent the needs of their constituents. But the real key to the success of the Governors is in the relationship they are able to build – and maintain – with the Trust Board.

At TCC we have found that empowering Governors to be effective in their roles requires offsetting high aspirations with realistic management of expectations. A committed, enthusiastic group of Governors is useless if their Board doesn't listen to them. Likewise, a Council of Governors ready to make executive decisions on the remuneration and allowances of the chair and executive board, for instance, is ineffective if they don't understand the roles and pressures of those they are keeping in check. It is vital that Governors are supported in their roles by the Trust Board, that they are given all the information and tools they need in order to be effective.

The next step, inevitably, will be to mobilise the Governors in helping create an engaged and active membership base for their Trusts. Where the focus has been on numbers, more numbers, attention is now shifting to engagement. Sustained membership recruitment will always be a concern for Trusts as patients continue to exercise their choice or move away from the area, and it will be the role of the Governors to keep their interest and to keep them involved. Creative communications techniques that are effective at getting information moving in both directions will be crucial where budgets are already stretched.

Building Capacity and Building Communities.

We’ve been working with a London Local Authority on their ward based approach to community involvement. Ward residents will meet three to four times a year in assemblies chaired by councillors but coordinated by the community to make decisions and recommendations to the council. It is a new approach with new structures. We are engaged in delivering training and capacity building with councillors and coordinating group members as the structures bed in. The training has a bit of a twist though; we are supporting it through the use of a Wiki space.  

The Wiki is a multi purpose space; it is first of all a source of training material provided by TCC but it also allows participants to add content. The content can be anything from personal experience to a best practice article, all of which are up for discussion in a forum that is simple to use. In essence, as the work of the assemblies develops participants will be able to share experience across all of the boroughs wards.  The ward basis for community involvement is given a borough wide dynamic through the use of the Wiki.

Time will tell if it can deliver a true on-line community.

Social Networks and Information Design

Social Networks
Diverse and ever growing this web of connections is hard to track and observe. The aquiring and representation of this information is no easy task. Many different ways of designing and encompassing this information have been created with different effects and outcomes that are effective or confusing.

The task is to first decide what you want to demonstrate and explain, then acquire the information that will be needed, then decide on the medium of where it will be communicated and design the method of display.

Below is an extensive and direct solution to showing social groups that exist within the context of friends and the networks that they generate. Where the lines group together you can see that a social group has formed.

With Information like this you can then breakdown their origin and impliment a process and method to communicate with this obvious and collective of people. A key to a successful campaign surely then to target your markets efficiently and effectively and with tools like this and specialist specific and relevant methods of information design you can begin to make the most of your data.

Below are a few more examples of social networking tools

http://nexus.ludios.net/view/Nicholas_Bushby/HjqDbvcRjHwv/?dark=0

http://nexus.ludios.net/view/Nicholas_Bushby/HjqDbvcRjHwv/?dark=1

I can get some satisfaction.....but is that enough?

Ask Ben Page, of Ipsos MORI - the company who tend to do a lot of local government polling - what he thinks is required and he will say that the polls his company conducts for Council's show that if local government focuses on improving communication with the public, they will show increased satisfaction with services and the evidence he provides is compelling.

However the proposed Community Empowerment Bill is likely to raise the bar over not just satisfaction requirements across services but also develop the duty to involve. As reported in an earlier posting it provides the opportunity to create a "balanced scorecard" for the public and other stakeholders to judge local government and health commissioners, not just in terms of satisfaction, but also in terms of real involvement in developing and improving services.

This is important since over the past 20 years local government services, whether education, health and social care, environment or housing is managed in a much more arms length way. The role of the corporate centre in local government has therefore become more of an enabler and increasingly a performance measurer and improver. However the Bill now provides the opportunity for the corporate centre to develop a much greater empowering agenda.

Some might argue that people are broadly satisfied and only a minority want to get involved more - again that is what the polls that measure satisfaction in local government seem to show.

Who are this minority? Ask Ipsos MORI again: they are social and political influencers. By their nature they impact on the opinions and participation of others. Local Government needs to engage with and involve this minority as they can influence the views and social behaviour of others - a key area for local government and health commissioners in the coming years.

Communications on its own will not achieve this. Personal engagement on the doorstep, in the community and on the phone can both identify who the influencers are and develop a deeper ongoing relationship with them.

Over the coming months we will expand on this theme to demonstrate why there should not be a "poverty of aspiration" in empowering people and why a draft Community Empowerment Bill provides a unique opportunity for those in the cross-party consensus who do not have any low expectations of the public, to develop the involvement agenda much further!

 

 

Time to end the poverty of aspiration over engagement?

There does seem to be a worrying trend from people who should know better to attack the proposals in the Community Empowerment draft bill as not being of great relevance to an apathetic public. This was the case made by David Walker of Guardian Public Magazine writing in Guardian Society today.

Sometimes you expect to come across a poverty of aspiration within poorer communities but it's depressing to hear it from the editor of a journal read by many public sector professionals.

The argument seems to go: "If people claim to be generally satisfied with their public services just let sleeping dogs lie".

Just as modernisation is occurring in specific services such as health and education, the community empowerment bill is promising similar modernisation in public engagement. This will create a new "balanced scorecard" for public services that doesn't just measure public satisfaction, but also measures public involvement.

Of course we also need more emotional intelligence from public servants in dealing with the public - that requires additional training programmes as well as feeding back to staff the views of the public in real time . However that still doesn't far go enough. And we shouldn't be satisfied with a 33% turnout at local elections. But there is a clue in the fact that during the Poll Tax era it reached nearly 50% and that in the recent Boris v Ken contest there was a significantly increased turnout of in the mid forty per cent mark in London. We know people will engage if the issues are important and the choices are clear.

David Walker  compares "cold" local election voting and "X Factor" reality shows. But he draws the wrong conclusions. Why is reality show voting (when it is done properly and not rigged!) popular? It's because people actually feel empowered in the context of what they are taking part in. They are not just passively watching but collectively creating programme content and in effect "writing the script for the following week" by determining who comes back. How often does that happen in local government? Just as important as the immediacy, is that the results of their voting appears in the popular magazines they read and also provokes a conversation the next day around the water cooler. Where is the equivalent infrastructure in the public services that encourages this debate around a decision? You can't simply do it with a glossy leaflet!

He also confuses antagonism for creative tension over the issue of "personalisation v collectivism". I think he is far too pessimistic. This creative tension dates back to when humanity first created societies of towns and cities which allowed both public spaces but also individual endeavour.Of course there will be political choices that need to be made over resources for places like sport centres. But why is there a contradiction between this and allowing local communities to build up a wide range of locally owned community assets? Why should such choice be restricted to an existing building or facility? It could also include land for development too where the debate could be what they use it for. More affordable eco-housing v a new community centre? If local democracy is just seen as a remote Council making decisions for people, of course voter turnout will stay at 33% but we know that regeneration and stock transfer ballots are far higher so the potential is there to help people feel they have a much greater stake in their community.

The Community Empowerment Bill gives us an opportunity to build on the current relatively rare three-party consensus that exists to do something quite exciting in the coming year. Whilst we need to be realistic, we should not start off pessimistic.

Empowerment to the People!!

Richard Wilson Director of Involve has posted an article on the Guardian Blog about the "empowerment gap" and gives an excellent overview of how the government has sought to tackle it over the last decade.

I commented on it and made 3 points, which I expand on in much greater detail here:

• As Richard points out there has been a lot of progress, but as a result of many of these initiatives being driven by individual government departments through the relationship with relevant local agencies there has been uneven empowerment development across public sector bodies within localities. So for example, some sections of local government (eg, planning) may be far ahead of other departments in the local authority as well as compared to other local bodies like Primary Care Trust's (PCT's). There would be nothing wrong with this if it were a conscious decision arising out of collective local priorities, but this has actually emerged through many, sometimes unconnected, decisions made at various times in separate Whitehall departments. The next stage could be to develop a combined empowerment agenda at Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) level, to enable local public sector and voluntary bodies to advance together and become collectively more accountable to the communities they serve. Ways to achieve this might include: LSP's to jointly commission single public engagement units in each local government area which would benefit from economies of scale with duplication of savings ploughed back into more engagement; agreeing common local standards to various consultations; strengthening the scrutiny function in local government as well as perhaps even developing a formal scrutiny function for MP's over their own local public services?
• Capacity building is vital and part of this requires greater investment in community leadership support and training at a local level. This should not just be aimed at Councillors but should also be targeted at less well-off communities. TCC has already done work on developing local community champions for communities covering specific policy areas like recycling, but also in a wider role. This approach can help develop the local leaders of the future and widen their representativeness and diversity. This would be a broader approach than rely simply on the electoral process in a locality to throw up a small number of individuals who might then receive training from their local authority. Early intervention here can widen the pool of local leaders thus helping to build wider local trust in institutions.
• TCC, in working with PCT's, has discovered that in reviewing services there is an issue around "low expectations" whereby people may say a service is fine because they have no way to compare it with the equivalent in another area: eg you may find that people say they are happy with GP services, even when they do not compare well with somewhere else. This can also be linked to the wider "Delivery Paradox" whereby people say they are satisfied with their local service, but feel the same service is as a whole declining. So far the government has generally relied on league tables and delivery incentives from the centre to drive up some improvement, but if expectations are low in the first place, there is much less local pressure from below on organisations to improve. Greater local democratic accountability is clearly part of the solution, but is probably not enough on its own. Training up "expert residents" in local communities to learn more about what is happening elsewhere and be able to assert themselves as part of a wider community champion scheme might be a way forward to help build a critical mass for higher local expectations. We have formal twinning between Council's in different countries across Europe and even with the developing world, why don't we have twinning within the UK so Council's twin with other Council's to share knowledge and good practice with much of the work being done online to ensure value for money. Most local authorities will have historic connections with many others across the country so the decision over who to twin with could be quite an interesting process in its own right. Twinning could also be taken further so good practice is shared between twinned LSP's and therefore services in areas like health are twinned too.

Increased social capital makes for a more socially cohesive society. Community Empowerment provides an opportunity to challenge complacency at the local level, whilst making people feel they can influence more at a national level.

As Richard says in his article, we don't need countless repeat measures to tell us that. What we need is to use the current broad political consensus in this area to make some clear progress in wider local empowerment in the coming years!