The Campaign Company Blog

From Elliptical Galaxies to Potholes......

I have previously mentioned Grid Republic as a social network for a scientific or medical purpose, whereby a community of people across the world get together to use their spare computing power to do distributed computing with a capacity in terraflops - ie very big - through a rather clever screensaver download.

However this is a passive form of science where one just allows one's computer to be used for a wider purpose.

Yesterday evening I discovered Galaxy Zoo - a far more exciting piece of scientific endeavour where you can directly contribute to the scientific work online.

In this case you are helping astrophysicists to map distributions of various types of galaxy (elliptical and spiral are the two broad forms, but there are lots of sub-groups) by joining the online team (now 115,000 strong since the project started in July 2007) assessing photos of over 200 million objects taken by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). This will assist with a far greater understanding of the lifecycle of galaxies, many of which go through mergers to move from spiral to elliptical - our own Galaxy's probable fate.

Whilst computers can be used to assess many things, when it comes to indistinct photos of two merging galaxies edge on to earth view the eye and the brain are still superb tools. However the sheer amount of data being generated means scientists and their students do not have the time to do this themselves and should they be wasting their discovery time anyway?

This is a project where anyone online at home can help.

You need no prior knowledge to take part in the work. Once you join Galaxy Zoo you are given simple online tutorials and in order to start assessing pictures you then take a short online test where you have to get 8 out of 15 pictures right - this is because they get up to 35 people to look at each photo and then recheck any disagreements between viewers.

Having passed the test you can then assess photos. For someone like myself who spent every non cloudy night from the age of 10 to 11 outdoors in the evening doing astronomy, this is a much warmer experience and could get quite addictive in a Sudoku sort of way! I did 45 galaxies last night and have resisted doing it tonight only so I could blog about it.

Apart from its benefits to astrophysics, I have started to think whether such a system could be used in other more terrestrial areas of activity.

A few came to mind:

• Assessing the millions of earth satellite photos to identify issues such as climate change and land use. On a more local level TCC has a project called Carbon Crime Stoppers and I wonder whether a photo assessment system could work with that?
• It could be used for community engagement where residents could both submit and assess street scene photos that either other residents had taken of the Council regularly took from its front-line staff going about their daily duties with handheld PDA's. This of course would be a culture change for local government where it effectively employed teams of online resident non-professionals. However creating resident buy in with the prioritisation of street scene issues could be a great way of developing community cohesion in the future.
• Assessing biodiversity in local authority parks and gardens through the taking and assessment of photos. Again this could bring together communities in worthwhile projects.

The above are just tentative thoughts and I would welcome further suggestions.

What is interesting is that this sort of project could give young people a strong and empowered role in any local activity. Galaxy Zoo says it has young people from 8 years old upwards assessing photos.

Therefore in years to come both science and community cohesion could strongly benefit from online communities collaborating to solve problems. What might have started as project to understand galactic evolution could be just the thing to massively expand the collaboration between local authorities and the communities they represent.

Do as I say, not as I do?

We were recently engaging with a community where they were asked to express their views broadly for or against an issue. The issue as such was one where people in the office would also take differing views, if only for a spot of light-hearted banter.

The point I made in our discussions was that what was far more interesting was that those who were critical also expressed their views on the benefits and the same applied vice versa. Very few people were either completely for or against on this issue where you could actually express a clear yes or no. Clearly the depth of our engagement showed that people hold complex views on the subject..

I think one of the interesting areas that one discovers within community engagement is the difference between what people say and their actual behaviour: eg people say they disagree with something and then, when given the choice, behave somewhat differently.

We see this in people's views and actions with recycling, gambling, healthy living, using big shops when they say they really prefer smaller local shops etc. The current debate on the future of local post offices is a good example. People say they want a local one but usage is declining as people vote with their feet and use other service provision - some on the internet..

Some of this may be due to people weighing up incentives against what they perceive to be commonly held views. Thus we see people say they like their community to stay the same and will oppose an over-development next door to them, but if a developer offers them £50,000+ on top of the value of their property they don't then say "no, this will ruin the neighbourhood I am moving from, so I won't accept this extra money.

Organisations like the RSA are currently studying the dichotomy between views and behaviour as a driver for challenges such as "private activity, public despair", which we have previously blogged and its an area that there will clearly be more debate. As we are discovering in some areas we are working in, people have very complex views on "entitlement" both for themselves and others. The challenge for politicians and society is how much should we actually restrict people's choices and potentially damaging behaviour or how much should we debate with it in a slower process  of engagement?

In other words - how far do civil liberties go and how possible is it to impose one approach to areas of personal behaviour in a single state, let alone a complex global society where some people in future may see their on-line community as far more important than their local community. .

I used to think you could impose such an approach but now I am not so sure?

This is why social marketing is such an interesting area with much wider applications than what it is being used for at present and why I think TCC are well positioned to be at the centre of that..

I suspect it goes back to the point I made at the beginning that people rarely hold a single view on these issues (see The Political Brain for more info - it has much wider application than politics) and that immediate influences at any point in time are really important.

Googling Alone! - A quick way to assess local social capital

You may have heard of the book Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam where he surveys the decline of social capital and suggests how it can be revived. The evidence base is generally drawn from American sources, however the points he make are very much applicable to other developed democracies.

Putnam conducted a lot of research for his book, but many working in their community trying to assess social capital for their area do not the time or the academic resources Putnam had.

Perhaps there is a web 2.0 solution?

If you are reading this article, there is a good chance you use Google or another good web search engine. If you use Google a lot you may be aware of many of its search facilities. One of the most interesting is if you type a full postcode in you get many internet entries associated with that geographical area.

As someone who was a Councillor for 20 years, I was fortunate in having a pretty good understanding of the social geography of my area. As a result recently I started typing in postcodes for some of the wealthier areas of my borough and some of the poorest.

The results were reasonably predictable. In areas that were quite wealthy you would find postings for people who ran their own businesses or were in community groups. In poorer areas you would generally find websites that related to wider public sector bodies but little community or small scale enterprise activity. At times I found up to 10 times as many pages for a relatively well-off residential road with no other facilities compared to a poorer area of flatted social housing.

Of course some might say it is all about access to home computers between poor and well off areas and that in poorer areas it is the mobile phone that has much more usage. A fair point. However in this much more connected world access to and participation on the internet can be a reinforcing factor for developing social capital in wealthier areas. The fact that the gap is so wide in the number of Google pages is a useful proxy indicator for quickly assessing levels of basic social capital and social connectedness.

What can we do about this?

One idea I had was that Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP) could trawl every postcode in their locality and ensure they are connected with every group listed. I suspect there is good software that can automate much of this process. This in itself might go some way to increase the overall stock of social capital across a local authority area as more groups and individuals would be connected to key local stakeholders. A far-sighted LSP might even seek to connect people within a community together through encouraging the development of geographical based social networking software similar to Residents HQ that I have previously blogged about.

Another thought was for Local Strategic Partnerships to identify 10-20 postcodes with low Google pages and perhaps conduct a pilot survey of them regarding internet access. It may be that residents are not using free facilities in local libraries? Some extra publicity and perhaps even the sort of doorstep engagement that TCC recommends for many projects could be easily provided. This could be linked to an offer of simple computer training.

This sort of approach might go some way to connecting people up and creating the sort of network effects that can perhaps start to increase the stock of social capital in some poorer communities.

An E-Bowl of Sugar!

An interesting new approach to social networking, which is normally associated with widely dispersed communities.

This time it is to reinforce a real geographical community.

Residents UK is a social network site for people living within modern blocks of flats to communicate with each other. In other words people don't ignore their neighbours or have a chance meeting on the landing but actually move in and check out who lives in the block and who might share an interest with them or who can help them.

It will be interesting to see whether it takes off and whether developers of these blocks encourage it? The danger is that it might increase social segregation by making such electronically "gated communities" even more cohesive and less connected with surrounding poorer communities.

I would therefore love to see a local council kit out one of its own housing blocks with home computers and encourage people to join a local block social network - a sort of "e-tenants association". Could such a network go some way to tackle the generally lower levels of trust in poorer communities and perhaps enhance community cohesion?

The Death of Communities?

The Independent on Sunday has coverage of a study by the Prince's Trust about community decline. The report claims that a third of people are predicting the death of their communities as traditional social networks decline in the face of rapid change in the composition of communities.

The report claims that:

"Most people believe the days of face-to-face contact are numbered, with 65 per cent saying that people in the future will have more contact through the internet than in person. Almost one in 10 Britons, nine per cent, admits to failing to meet other people socially on a weekly basis. And 15 per cent go a week without speaking to any of their neighbours."

More significantly from a community cohesion perspective the report claims that:

"Poorer communities are the least confident about the future of their community and the least satisfied with life in general. More than one in five people here said they had not spoken to a neighbour for at least a week, while eight per cent have not spoken to a neighbour for at least a month."

The Independent also reports on laudable actions by government and the voluntary and private sector to support those poorer communities. Whilst one can always argue for more resources, a more important issue is how we use existing resources better. Two things come to mind:

• Investing in community assets so they draw in a wider community of people to increase social interactions and strengthen social networks.
• Supporting people in the community to act as local champions and advocates - perhaps through a relaxing of some inflexible benefits rules to enable them to be better supported in the work they could do talking to a range of local people.

TCC, working with the New Deal for Communities (NDC) Network as well as with local authorities on community cohesion, has come to the view that it is investment in some of those smaller changes that can make a bigger change in the long-run.

If we are to either sustain or rebuild social networks and community cohesion, it can only be through engaging with the people in a community and helping them to identify the shared challenges that face them and their neighbours. Only when you identify those challenges can you create a potential for dialogue across other cultural and social barriers.

Shameless Marketing

The Chatsworth estate is heading for its second election (remember shopowner Kash was elected to Chatsworth Council at the end of series 3) and this time, if I've viewed the preview clips correctly, this gritty Mancunian housing estate will be electing their own Young Mayor.

As a programme, that I'm a great fan of, which has taken social commentary to, occassionally unbelieveable, dramatic heights I can't help wondering what might be in store for our candidates and what the writers have decided should be the moral tale told with this next election.

Previews of story lines for the episode (5) suggest that 'Debbie spots a chance to provide free egg and chips to everyone on the estate' (courtesy of the Radio Times) - could it be a bribe to help her chosen candidate get elected? Well, like me, you'll just have to wait and see whether the writers have decided that participation in elections should be equated with spoils politics - even if the spoils, in true Shameless style, is free egg and chips.

On a more serious note though, well done to the Shameless team for a piece of Shameless marketing for youth empowerment and participation. With any luck there'll be new young mayors or young leaders springing up in local politics all over the country - joining those already in post in places like Lewisham and Newham. And, as its the biggest focus in the UK for all those politicos this year, we can only hope that the candidates for this years London Mayor and Assembly elections are tuning in and thinking of new ways to involve young people, not yet able to legally vote, in the decision making that affects their lives.

Private Optimism, Public Despair - What can we do?

It has been long known that there is a general perception gap between what people might think of their local hospital and what they think of the NHS in general.

Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA, writing in the New Statesman has talked about these difficulties but goes much further with an important and insightful article which looks to the future. He says:

"This perception gap is not restricted to public services, as a recent BBC poll on families confirms. Some 93 per cent of respondents described themselves as optimistic about their own family life, up 4 per cent from the previous time the survey was conducted, 40 years ago. Yet more people - 70 per cent, across race, class and gender - believe families are becoming less successful overall."

He also adds to the point by Polly Toynbee, that we have blogged, on the lack of advocates to tell good news in the public services when it happens:

"In the burgeoning industry of reputation management, it is generally argued that people are much more likely to tell others about bad experiences of services than good ones (5:1 is the usual ratio)."

He argues that trends such as the rise of individualism and the decline of some forms of collectivism combined with the rise of pretty much self-organising global capitalism moving at a rapid pace have created this private optimism and public despair, adding that:

"Globalisation is the gravity of modern society: an unstoppable force that will knock us over if we try to defy it."

Since the collapse of the cold war two systems in 1989 no single person or authority is in control even if some parts of the world are more powerful than others.

He points out that people still see the same broad problems as they did 100 years but now see rapid change as a challenge and seek greater comfort in those close to them.

However, he strikes an optimistic note saying that people are more affluent and healthy and yet there is a danger of some missing out on the celebration:

"Progressives want the world to be a better place. We bemoan its current inequities and oppression - yet if we fail to celebrate the progress that human beings have made, and if we sound as though the future is a fearful place, we belie our own philosophy. Instead, we need to address a deficit in social optimism that threatens the credibility of our core narrative."

Addressing social optimism is clearly a project for everyone. We have previously blogged about Richard Layard's case for increasing overall happiness and David Cameron has talked about the government having a mission to improve people's general wellbeing.

Matthew Taylor makes the case for a New Collectivism to tackle what he describes as the social optimism deficit:

"It is in working with others on a shared project of social advance that we can be reconnected to the sense of collective agency so missing from modern political discourse. It is the attitude of the spectator that induces pessimism, the experience of the participant that brings hope. The problem is not that change brings fear and disorientation (there's nothing new in this), it is that we lack the spaces and places where people can renew hope and develop solutions."

It was challenges like this that brought TCC into being and where we try to assist organisations. He then refers to the sort of change making we should all be attempting together:

"The institutions of the new collectivism must be devolved, pluralistic, egalitarian and, most of all, self-actualising."

This is the sort of approach that this blog argued for and it good to see the arguments so well set out here. He gives a number of examples of where this happening:

"Today, there are signs of a yearning for new ways of working together. There is the growing interest in social and co-operative enterprise and the emergence of new forms of online collaboration. Gordon Brown's citizens' juries are a tentative step in the right direction, albeit without much fun or risk-taking..."

and

"Tackling climate change offers a fascinating opportunity to interweave stories of action at the individual, community, national and international levels."

TCC is working in places like EC1 in London on increasing recycling whilst linking it firmly to the whole issue of climate change through initiatives that engage with young people.

He concludes by making a call for people to build the institutions of the new collectivism:

"Despite the huge impersonal forces of the modern world, people are prepared not only to believe in a better future, but to work together to build it......This potential will be fulfilled only when we provide spaces for collective decision-making and action that speak to the same vision of collaboration, creativity and human fulfilment that progressives claim to be our destiny."

Many of these new institutions of this new collectivism already exist: NHS Foundation Trusts, New Deal for the Communities (NDC's) aspiring to run community assets, social networking sites like Ning, Facebook and Myspace. These are a different set of institutions to perhaps those of the 1945 welfare settlement, but they are a potentially strong mixed economy of institutions nevertheless, and they and other new institutions need support to build a collaborative new collectivism for the future.

In addition there is also challenge for long established institutions, such as local government, to respond to this agenda and to ensure they can relate more effectively to the places where people are optimistic such as within the family unit, whatever size or shape it now comes in. That also means they have to make themselves more accommodating to the places that people are optimistic so they can engage within that space.

Institutions, in whatever form they come and new or old are the arguably finest piece of (social) technology we have created. The Saturn 5 may have put men on the moon, but it was the institutions of the state and their agencies and contractors that put that immense machine together, and educated and trained the men for that mission. Institutions or whatever age encourage collaborative and collective action so as Matthew Taylor has stated the more we strengthen them through peoples involvement in them the more likely we are to rebuild trust and social optimism.

Spieling about health

A fascinating article in today's Times ''Spiel at the wheel?'' discusses how taxi drivers are being harnessed as word of mouth marketeers, with an interesting example about one cabbie promoting the delights of a holiday in Bangkok following a 5 days all expenses trip to Thailand! And - as people become more and more overwhelmed by traditional forms of advertising confronting them in every aspect of their day to day lives - new and different approaches such as 'word of mouth' marketing are having increasing appeal.

This is absolutely our experience at The Campaign Company. In our work with NHS organisations - particularly foundation trusts - we have done considerable work helping Trusts build their membership communities. (Working with over 50 Trusts we've recruited over 160,000 public members - about 1 in 5 of the current public membership) We've found that traditional forms of advertising - the leaflet, the poster, the join on-line form have limited impact. People are much more responsive to a direct ask - particularly one-to-one. And we take this a step further by encouraging 'member get member' recruitment and the development of 'Membership Champions'. Someone who has already joined will be be a powerful advocate to their friends, family and those in groups and organisations they belong to. They'll know how and when to get attention and be able to hone the message to the person they are talking to - because they know them well. And they will be listened to - because they are trusted and known to them - the 'word of mouth' approach in the FT context!

And in their foundation trust members, NHS Trusts have a fantastic resource at their disposal - these people are so well placed to become the 'word of mouth' advocates not just about membership but about the Trust itself - health marketeers! And as 'Patient Choice' becomes more of a reality - Trusts must embrace their FT members as a key element of their marketing mix. These are the people out there in the community; they are the people in the pubs, clubs, workplace, playgroups, bus queues, school gates. Of course - not every member is a 'word of mouth' marketeer - the trick for the Trust is to learn more about it's members - segment and stratify - and find those who are. Then it's about building the relationship - giving them the information and then sinply 'getting them talking'!

And taking this a step further - these people are just so well placed to pass messages back - let the Trust know about the things going well - but more importantly provide quick feedback about things not going so well.  Bad news always spreads so much faster than good news - so Trusts need as many mechanisms as possible to get that valuable 'early warning'! 

Making Disempowerment History?

Quite a significant speech today from Nick Clegg, the new Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on reform of the public services.

Whilst most coverage will focus on his comments on schools, hospital and taxes, a significant theme of the speech was his comments on community empowerment. The Lib Dems have generally been strong promoters of devolution to local government and local Councillors, but Clegg went further saying:

"This also means embracing a wider understanding of empowerment: not just of local authorities and politicians, desirable though that is, but of pupils, patients and parents too.

Individual power must be an everyday thing, not just reserved for the moment a vote is cast in the ballot box."

This again strengthens the consensus in this area, thus making it easier for the government to move forward with wide public support.

The strengthening of Local Strategic Partnerships to increase joined up public services locally is one important aspect of public sector reform, but this must be combined with empowering local communities to take control of their local institutions and work together with such Partnerships to solve local problems. Not just hospitals and schools, but also smaller community assets. TCC has worked with residents in New Deal for Communities (NDC) areas, young people and with Hospitals developing their membership to make the aspirations of politicians for "pupils, patients and parents" to exercise their "individual power" as an "everyday thing", a reality.

Power to the People - but do they really want it?

The world of participation and engagement is awash with industry terminology and catchy phrases but experienced practitioners will know that realising progress in empowerment and in devolving any kind of real power to the people is still an uphill struggle regardless of the language you use.

American colleagues wax lyrical about their state proposition system where the man and woman in the street get the final say, through referenda, on policy issues of the day. Don’t misunderstand me I’m not an advocate for referenda. I am however an advocate for people who are affected by policy decisions being given an opportunity to have a greater say in their design and delivery. I’m not suggesting revolution just evolution.

I detect a willingness in Whitehall to embrace the devolutionary and empowerment agendas – pilots in participatory budgeting; the new duty to involve in the local government and health sectors in England and Wales - but would ask whether a majority of the great Britsih public are actually willing to take the opportunities and responsibilities that these agendas offer the man and woman in the street.

The British psyche is a paradox between the desire for strong leadership and the longing to be listened to. We are never more vocal than when telling decision-makers what they’ve done wrong but rarely want to be those decision-makers who are so often the target of mistrust, abuse and, on occasion, outright loathing. It’s a vicious cycle and one that is a challenge to break as the very people who shout loud when things go wrong are the same people who need to be encouraged to be, in their own eyes, at the other end of the abuse that people like themselves dole out.

There are encouraging signs on the horizon - the levels of participation by young people as candidates and as electors in the Young Mayor elections in the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham and the numbers of signed up members of Foundation Trusts in the Health Sector - but more innovative thought and approaches are required by public sector organisations on how they can encourage the man and woman in the street to be party to the decisions rather than just party to the criticism of them.