Citizens can deal usefully with organisations who take care to resolve misunderstandings, neglect and emergencies.
Meanwhile, such organisations see citizens’ views on trends, practicalities and lived experiences, as valuable in informing their work. This is mainly in stemming haphazard work; in adapting to changing external conditions, in fulfilling research and development initiatives, or in harnessing aspirations. All is irrespective of any statutory obligation on organisations for ‘public engagement’.
Citizens can valuably report on occurrences in practice, usually without conflicting interest in securing public contracts. They can diligently raise community costs with planners, and constructively challenge conventional wisdoms. They can usefully provide continuity, so inform organisations and governments whose staff regularly move on. And citizens can see where:
- Better marketing, documentation, training or statistical sampling could ease progress.
- Certain activities could enable cultural and intergenerational integration.
- Derelict buildings could be conserved or demolished as currently making an area dangerous.
- Regulations and official inspection systems should be strengthened for better safety.
Grassroot community groups can also offer valuable public views, as can some university research and also charities, especially where individuals’ views are shared in video clips as exampled by Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland.
Recognising unwillingness to volunteer views
But willingness to volunteer views wanes. This may be after encountering service disruption or shortages, or being passed between many service points due to ‘difficult to categorise needs’. Willingness to respond even to ad hoc invitations to raise worries may now be limited as many potential volunteers ask why they should reply to consultations and surveys, or attend meetings and focus groups, when constructive ideas are not noted for consideration and action, even on dire needs such as for public toilets? Or when authorities do nothing with views which they seek, including on proposed plans for a new school or parking?
Why offer views which are immediately discounted as being ‘anecdotal case details’ or ‘misinformation’?
Why speak out when likely results may only be publicity stunts and misleading soundbites?
Why struggle to get views heard when this seems to depend upon securing the backing of some elevated person, perhaps with a high social media following, who then often misrepresents citizens’ actual views?
Why bother when the over-powerful undermine good well-established services provided by locally-based groups? Or when minds are closed due to fixed ideas, such as on the ‘undeserving and deserving poor’? Or when citizens help to produce tried and tested resources for public information, which are not then made available? Or when confidentiality aspects fail to allow for frank exchanges? Or when meetings are allowed to be hijacked by someone with hidden interests, perhaps in securing an official planning permission?
Citizens’ unwillingness to volunteer views now corrodes the capacity of publicly-funded bodies even to provide public reassurance.
Building willingness
Nations need to sort their policies on public participation which seeks citizens’ views so to build willingness. This is essential as as such views help to ease an economy’s capacity to fund ongoing public services.
Nations need to:
- Set ministerial responsibility for public participation at Treasury/Finance level, or perhaps within Public Sector Reform, rather than in any Equalities-related portfolio.
- Encourage a workplace ethos where overseeing and mentoring do foster meaningful communications and do develop abilities to stem haphazard work needed to sort misunderstandings, neglect, emergencies and unsafe practices, such as corridor care.
- Clarify that public participation which seeks citizens’ views is separate to inviting citizens to undertake repeated voluntary activity, perhaps to digitalise archives. Neither form should illegally pre-set regular hours.
- Stem fear of redundancies and budget cuts when calling for transparency, participation and collaboration by clearly stating aims to eke resource by curbing incidence of haphazard work.
- Develop salient briefings for public agents and civil servants specifically on the learning from public views.
- Establish a system of recognition for staff who do build trust and better reputation by such learning.
Budgeting for public participation
Lastly, work involving citizens must be budgeted to avoid disappointment due to dwindling contact after initial enthusiasm. Adequate budget enables views to be sought and considered as required from across cultures and generations, and volunteers to be recruited to replace those leaving due to changing personal circumstances.
Sufficient budget also enables ideas to be logged for consideration in due course. This helps to forge good reputation, as proven by one local authority who, when bidding for significant funding for regeneration projects in its focus neighbourhoods, also included some small-scale wishes raised by non-focus localities.
Ro Pengelly has long gathered and presented business-related views and public perspectives to commercial concerns and public bodies. This was while working in commercial software services and publishing, and continues in her retirement.