Best of the frontline bloggers (week ending 26th October 2012)

We love public and voluntary service bloggers. At their best, they capture the day-to-day reality of public services in a way that Westminster-commentators can’t – and they have the real expertise and insights we need to improve social policy. Here’s our selection of the best frontline blogs we’ve read this week. Do send us your suggestions for great posts we’ve missed – and those frontline bloggers we should follow in the future.

Welfare

A4E? Who are they? What are they about?

From The Big Picture

Posted on 23rd October 2012

“What are A4E up to next? Well according to David Cameron they would make an ideal company, along with our old friends G4S, to become involved in the process of Rehabilitation… The scheme will see firms such as G4S and A4e, along with charities and voluntary groups, offered cash incentives to put offenders back on the straight and narrow. We already give these companies enough money, and now we’re going to give them more? Do they have a proven track record?”

Retired and Angry, retired from the Metropolitan Police Service, examines the recent history of A4E – and doesn’t much like what he finds.

Carers

If it works, break it

From Ned Ludd Carer

Posted on 24th October 2012

“Surely, if the carers and service users find these services valuable, that should count for a lot. But in the world of cuts, they don’t care what works, what’s valuable. They just want the overspend caused by their own unrealistically low budget reduced.”

Ned Ludd, carer, gets angry when ambushed by his local council’s plans to cut personally valuable “getting a life services”.

Social care

People with dementia need an independent voice

From The Age Page

Posted on 25th October 2012

“For a variety of reasons, most older people are unable to complain or express a view on the type and nature of care they need or want to receive. Worst of all perhaps, most are unable to influence the quality of service they have every right to expect or how or where to lodge complaints, if they have any.”

Sarah Reed reflects on the ambitions in the Government’s dementia strategy, and suggests this means we need to ensure that those who struggle to speak for themselves can be heard.

Education

This much I know about…an alternative to the English Baccalaureate Certificate

From John Tomsett

Posted on 21st October 2012

“If Jeremy Hunt announced a backward-looking reform to appendix operations which would be hugely invasive and leave patients in hospital for a fortnight (such as I experienced in 1977), the medical profession would deride him. Why aren’t we deriding Gove over his EBC proposals, which are the educational equivalent?”

Headteacher John Tomsett argues that educationalists need to begin an urgent campaign to provide an alternative to the Government’s proposals for an English Baccalaureate Certificate.

Things to know about ED Hirsch and the ‘Common Cultural Literacy’ idea

From Laura McInerney (@miss_mcinerney) writing on lkmco

Posted on 23rd October 2012

“ED Hirsch’s ‘Cultural Literacy’ has become quite popular in England this week due to him featuring on a Radio 4’s Analysis and also being the subject of a blog by Daisy Christodolou, Managing Director of The Curriculum Centre. Hirsch is the man who wrote the book ‘Cultural Literacy’ which he followed by creating ‘Core knowledge‘ an age-ordered curriculum with an emphasis on facts that, if taught correctly, he argues will give children the most important cultural knowledge. But to understand his work it helps to understand its American context, as the reason for his popularity in the States is really quite different to the way his ideas are being framed in the debate here in England.”

In this post Laura McInerny describes Hirsch’s model of ‘cultural literacy’ and its roots in the US – and questions how appropriate it is for the UK.

Policing

Re-offending – ‘Payment by results’ will not work

From Inspector Gadget

Posted on 22nd October 2012

“I have read the PM’s plans for ‘payment by results’ in terms of the re-offending rates of prison inmates with interest. This will not work. A bit like trying to use the wrong gate, ministers need to listen to police on this one. I’m sure it will be shown to have worked, but it won’t work for the simple reason that these days, criminals only go to prison in the first place if they are persistent offenders.” 

Inspector Gadget argues that the use of payment by results won’t work to reduce re-offending. He speculates that this idea probably came from a think tank who in turn have been sponsored by an organisation with an interest in securing ex-offender rehabilitation contracts. Inspector Gadget argues that the most effective way to deter ex-offenders from re-offending is a lengthy stay in a closed prison, preferably far away from home.

‘Re-inventing the wheel’ or just ‘Strapping two u-turns together’

From MinimumCover

Posted on 24th October 2012

“I want us to be bold and imaginative about transforming policing and the wider criminal justice system to save time and money and deliver a better service for the public. These are the words of our ‘beloved’ Home Secretary which she used to describe her latest improvement to the way Police investigate and prosecute offences. This bold and imaginative move introduces the power for Police to independently charge a number of offences that currently require consultation with the CPS.”

MinimumCover welcomes reforms to charging powers – but questions whether Theresa May can call these proposals ‘bold’ or ‘imaginative’ when they return powers that the police used to hold previously.

If you’re a frontline blogger, do send us your latest blogs on policy issues or posts from the past that you’re particularly proud of, and they could be included in next week’s round-up. Get in touch with us at: info@guerillapolicy.org or via Twitter @guerillapolicy and @guerrillapolicy


We don’t need secret recordings – the policy establishment’s disdain for public service workers is hidden in plain sight

“Best you learn your f***ing place. You don’t run this f***ing government. You’re f***ing plebs. I’ll have your f***ing job for this.” So ranted the Government’s Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell to members of SO6, the Diplomatic Protection Group guarding Downing Street, according to the Sun newspaper. Unlike Mitt Romney’s recent remarks we don’t have the secretly-recorded video footage, but whether Mitchell said these exact words doesn’t matter. The policy establishment’s disdain for public service workers is there for all to see – just look at their policies and how they develop them.

Andrew Mitchell claims he actually said: “You guys are supposed to f***ing help us.” Whatever his actual words, Mitchell’s tirade was especially tasteless given that the group of officers he swore at included a female officer, just over 24 hours after the murders of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes in Manchester. It’s also pretty special to verbally abuse the people who spend their working lives protecting you. Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, said it was “hard to fathom how someone who holds the police in such contempt could be allowed to hold a public office.” Unfortunately, it’s not that hard to fathom at all – indeed such attitudes appear to be the driving force behind much public service reform over the past 30 years or so.

Much commentary has focused on the class dimensions of ‘Gate-gate’ (and whether or not Mitchell uttered the apparently politically lethal word ‘plebs’). As the Sun Says: “It is something a smug, fabulously-rich snob might say to belittle his badly-behaved butler. And as such it reinforces the view that millions of ordinary hard- working voters already have …That Britain is run by an upper-class clique — happily slapping VAT on pasties and freezing pensioners’ allowances while handing tax cuts to the super-rich.” Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph wasn’t alone in noting the potential toxicity of the incident to the Tories, but also that such behaviours aren’t unique to one party: “Labour is declaring itself appalled, though frankly that’s a bit rich from the party whose previous leader failed to shake the copper’s hand outside No10 and called an old lady a ‘bigot’.” Such incidents are cock-ups; they also indicate an underlying elitism and detachment prevalent in the political establishment.

Unlike Mitt Romney’s “47 per cent” remarks, we don’t have video footage (yet) of what Mitchell said. But like Romney, what the police offers claim Mitchell said to them represents an essentially dismissive attitude to working people – a worldview described by Paul Krugman in the New York Times this week with reference to the Romney video: “…the modern Republican Party just doesn’t have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party’s affection is reserved for “job creators,” aka employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families.”

Much the same attitude seems to be prevalent in the policy establishment here regarding public service workers – that they are somehow ‘failures’ for not having had the entrepreneurial zeal to have established their own internet marketing companies (or something equally socially productive), having decided instead to fritter away their time serving others – educating children, treating patients, cleaning streets and so on.

In the case of Mitchell’s outburst, we don’t need to see the video footage from Downing Street’s security cameras, since the policy establishment’s view of public service workers is hidden in plain sight. If the policy establishment had a greater genuine regard for the people who provide public services, they might deign to engage them in working out how public services can be improved, and especially in how policy is developed such that it supports this improvement. Instead, public service workers are more typically regarded as the ‘problem’ to be resolved (and as interests to be battled) – part of the obstructive ‘state monopolies’ that need to be broken up, rather than sources of expertise and insight that should be recognised and respected. This explains why all the main political parties would like to ‘liberate’ public sector workers so that they run their own providing organisations as part of a competitive market in public services – at least then they might join the vaunted ranks of the ‘wealth creators’, albeit at a lowly rank.

The issue then is not so much social class as the types of social occupation now common in the political establishment. It’s probably not a coincidence that both Mitt Romney and Andrew Mitchell have backgrounds in management consultancy – Romney in Boston Consulting before moving to Bain, and Mitchell as a Senior Strategy Advisor for Accenture. In this respect, both are typical of a political establishment that comprises people who have never worked in public services but nonetheless feel they know how services can be ‘made’ to work better by (re-)ordering those who do.

Perhaps then the most helpful reaction to Mitchell’s outburst has been from an unnamed Cabinet minister, who suggested to the Telegraph that he should consider volunteering to work alongside police for a few days as a penance. “It’s what you do in this sort of thing, isn’t it?” the minister said. “A few days in a high-visibility jacket with the cops could be just the thing for Andrew.”


Best of the frontline bloggers (week ending 21st September 2012)

We love public and voluntary service bloggers. At their best, they capture the day-to-day reality of public services in a way that Westminster-commentators can’t  and they have the real expertise and insights we need to improve social policy. Here’s our selection of the best frontline blogs we’ve read this week. Do send us your suggestions for great posts we’ve missed – and those frontline bloggers we should follow in the future.

Health

A rare shaft of light

From The Jobbing Doctor

Posted on 15th September 2012

“Anna Soubry, the new junior minister at the Department [of Health], is reported to say that the Government screwed up by not engaging with the professions. She is right, although they never really intended to win hearts and minds: we are not idiots and could always see what was planned. This comment is a shaft of light in the murk of the plotting to break up the NHS.”

The Jobbing Doctor, a GP working in a large industrialised conurbation outside London, argues that the Government health reforms are not about empowering the professions but a detailed and planned assault on the service – supported by all the main political parties and a ‘tiny list of supporters’ to provide cover.

Education

A new summing-up

From Scenes from the Battleground

Posted on 16th September 2012

“The central contention of this blog is that our state school system is simply not good enough. It does not provide a decent quality of education for the vast majority, and most would avoid it if they could afford to. Too many people with power over education are content to provide a service that they would not think good enough for their own children.”

A dumbed-down curriculum and teaching methods, the ‘behaviour crisis’, and bureaucratic and incompetent management: the problems facing the education system as described by an ‘utterly dissatisfied’ secondary school teacher – and what the future holds.

Social care

Consulting on the CQC

From The Not So Big Society

Posted on 20th September 2012

“For a regulator to have public confidence, the public have to know what they do, what they are responsible for and what they are not responsible for. …Inspectors could have a greater visibility online and using broader social media to communicate with the public – not just through PR people. I want to know what inspectors do every day. I’d love to see a regular blog from an inspector (without needing to mention any specific services but just with broad themes – generally frontline blogs are more interesting than management blogs!)”

Ermintrude, a ‘social worker by trade but so much more’, reviews the new draft strategy for the health and adult social care services regulator the Care Quality Commission – and argues for a much more people-based approach.

Disability

Care is care. Let’s stand together for political and social change

From The Caregivers’ Living Room

Posted on 19th September 2012

“The thing is …we are all sitting around here talking about big ideas like nurturing leadership in our disabled youth population and whether we should lobby for more disability arts initiatives. What I think we should talk about is whether in ten years time, there will be anyone around to wipe our bums. I believe we are heading toward a time when giving care will be devalued and we will all end up being warehoused in institutions with lousy care and no one will notice.”

Donna Thomson, former actor, director and teacher, now parent to a disabled son and with a ‘second career’ as a disability activist, reflects on the challenge she once heard in a meeting of activists – and the need to think like a movement in order to achieve political and social change for the good of families and the future.

A perfect storm

From Welsh Wallace

Posted on 17th September 2012

“…according to the new test for the benefits I wasn’t disabled. I could pick up a pencil off the floor (regardless I had to feel around for it for a good five minutes first). I can walk (regardless I can only stand for about 5 minutes before my spine gives out) but enough in their words to walk from a taxi to an office. …So because I passed these “tests” I was refused on those grounds for disability benefit. Being blind was not an issue because I could still walk so with that logic walking a few steps enabled me to see where I was going, to read letters, to cross the roads without danger just as any sighted person could. It was a miracle! I was cured!”

A powerful post on what it’s like to ‘walk in the shoes’ of a blind man – and to undergo the disability test when you’re having a very bad week.

Welfare

Universal Credit – how is this simplification?

From DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts)

Posted on 16th September 2012

“Overpayments under the new system will not be subject to the same rights of dispute which currently exist, so many claimants simply won’t be able to properly contest an unfair decision. When government is asked about the problems all of this creates they stick to script and tell us all how ‘work pays’. The emphasis on work is backed up by an assurance that simplifying the benefits system makes it more possible to transition from welfare to work; the new highway for making the transition is Universal Credit which we are all told is ‘on track’.”

Universal Credit is meant to merge all working age benefits into a ‘single streamlined payment.’ Not according to this detailed analysis it doesn’t, originally from the MyLegal forum.

Previous reads

Here are a few more great posts from the past few weeks.

Welfare

Problem?

From This is My Blog

Posted on 12th June 2012

“The big line being pushed by our beloved government this week is about “problem families” and the need to “crack down” on them. …So what makes a “problem family”? How do we define the country’s “worst scumbags”?

Mary, a 30-year-old knitter living with her husband, a robot vacuum cleaner – and ME – finds the Government’s definition of ‘problem families’ uncomfortably close to (her childhood) home.

Policing

The high price of cutting costs

From Minimum Cover

Posted on 5th July 2012

“…there is sometimes a huge chasm between the headline saving and the bottom line cost. Some officers, including me, have resorted to sorting these types of issue at their own cost on more than one occasion. It’s just what we do to keep things running smoothly.”

M.C.’s blog – a “mixture of personal experience, factual accounts, [and] a modicum of fiction here and there to ease the literary process and protect the innocent” – reflects on how ‘cost-savings’ have turned replacing a 29 pence light bulb into a kerfuffle costing £100.

Standing outside the fire

From Cate Moore’s Blog

Posted on 12th June 2012

“I am telling you to play clever. And safe. You do not need to shy away from your ideals and the things that you care passionately about. Indeed you are letting the public down if you do. Speak truth, speak it fairly and speak it pleasantly.”

A retired policewoman encourages other officers to use social media to comment on government policy – but to do it carefully.

If you’re a frontline blogger, do send us your latest blogs on policy issues or posts from the past that you’re particularly proud of, and they could be included in next week’s round-up. Get in touch with us at: info@guerillapolicy.org or via Twitter @guerillapolicy


Open policy needs people to step outside of institutions to tell the truth

Christopher Hitchens used to evaluate the credibility of any person or organisation by their willingness to cite ‘evidence against interests’, that is, to acknowledge facts that are contrary to their own position. It’s a good test – and one that many policymakers, commentators and think tanks would fail regularly. With this in mind, we should challenge our own view that social policy would be better if it was informed by the people who use and provide public services – after all, doesn’t the Hillsborough cover-up show that we can’t trust bodies such as the police not to put their own interests before the public interest?

We’ve argued previously against the view, promoted in particular by right-wing think tanks and commentators but implicitly taken up by much of thinktankland, that public sector workers and ‘user groups’ need to be largely ignored in policy development because they are inevitably self-interested and self-serving. Our view is that social policy would be better if it was informed by the expertise, experience and insight from the frontline.

In the case of Hillsborough, as the publication last week of the report of the Independent Panel confirmed, the police engaged in an extensive and coordinated cover-up of the truth. This went all the way to the top of the South Yorkshire Police. Chief Constable Peter Wright authorised the alteration of police statements to delete words like ‘chaos’, ‘fear’, and ‘confusion’ in criticism of the police operation, in order to enable the police and others to blame Liverpool supporters for the disaster. 164 police statements were altered in the wake of the disaster, and 116 of these received substantial changes to remove comments “unhelpful to the force’s case.”

The coroner also took blood alcohol levels from all of the deceased, including children, to try to draw a link between the late arrival of fans and heavy drinking. Perhaps most sickeningly of all, police officers carried out computer checks on those who had died in an attempt to impugn their reputations. As one comment on the Liverpool Echo‘s website asked last week: “How could such a cover up have happened? So many different authorities getting away with lies. And to get away with it for so long is simply astonishing. They must know the hurt and the pain that they have caused for so long. And still they continued to hide behind the lies, carrying on with their own lives and careers.”

This type of behaviour is not confined to the police of course. NHS staff have abused and neglected patients, and hospitals have tried to cover it up and threaten whistle blowers. Charities have mistreated and ignored the vulnerable adults and children they claim to care for. Public sector trade unions have bullied their own members and failed to represent their real views and interests; they have also stopped managers from dealing with poorly performing employees or from improving services for the public. Given this, why should we listen to the people who provide services? Won’t they always represent their own interests first?

The problem is institutions, not individuals. There will always be some people who act badly and harm others, including inevitably in public services. But only badly led and managed organisations can effectively legitimize such behaviour and try to silence those who challenge it. When we argue that the people who provide public services should have a greater role in policy, we don’t mean a stronger role for those organisations such as large charities or trade unions that can already promote their views to policymakers, rather we’re talking about the individuals on the frontline who are ignored not only by policymakers but also sometimes by the organisations that claim to represent them.

Could the Hillsborough cover-up ever happen again? Some columnists have suggested that the ‘forensic transparency’ now offered by mobile phones and Twitter would make it much more difficult and that there is a danger of over-reacting to scandals such as the Hillsborough cover-up by not trusting any public institutions. But the best mainstream media article of the week for me was by Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph, who recognised the broader implications:

“Over the years, the police have been one British institution that has proudly stood comparison with the very best in the world: unarmed (though less so than they used to be), impartial, independent and largely incorruptible. Perhaps that was always a naive caricature; but it was a view so deeply ingrained in our national psyche that we were unwilling to give credence to powerful evidence that suggested otherwise. However, it was not only the police who let down the Hillsborough families: the very institutions that most of us trust to get to the bottom of things – the courts, the media and Parliament – were all culpable.”

This is perhaps a rather middle class view – many working class communities have always had a less trusting view of the police – but it’s a strange week when the Guardian tells us to ‘go easy’ on the establishment and the Telegraph reminds us to be ever-watchful of those in power.

Surely the Hillsborough cover-up demonstrates that policy can’t be left to the establishment – that arrogance and remoteness breeds bad policy and leads to tragedy (as Daniel Taylor argued in the Observer yesterday). It reinforces the importance of the individuals who provide public services having a much greater voice in policy, so that they can speak freely and honestly outside of institutional interests and constraints.

Perhaps what’s most frightening about institutional power is not its ability to make evil decisions but its collective capacity for ignorance regarding of the effects of those decisions. The answer to the question from the commentator on the Liverpool Echo site is that such ignorance comes most easily to those remain safely distant from the consequences – another reason why we should listen more closely to those at the frontline, both service users and providers, rather than the policy establishment. As C. S. Lewis wrote:

“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of Admin. The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid dens of crime that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see the final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”


Best of the frontline bloggers (week ending 14th September 2012)

We’ve written before about our love of public and voluntary service bloggers, and how we’d almost always rather read a dispatch from the frontline than largely warmed-over opinion from a Westminster-centric commentator. At their best, frontline bloggers capture the day-to-day reality of public services in a way that others can’t  including the dirty, difficult, and sometimes dangerous experiences that make for real expertise and the insights we need to improve social policy. So here’s our selection of the best frontline blogs we’ve read this week. Do send us your suggestions for great posts we’ve missed – and those frontline bloggers we should follow in the future.

Policing

Dishonor Among Ranks

From The Custody Record

Posted on September 10, 2012

“The actions of such officers tarnish us all and transcend through time to today. As an honest cop I am fed up of holding up my principles and morals for inspection only to have them cast to the ground and shattered by individuals intent on giving the police a bad name. There was no room for you then and there is no room for you now. Get out of the job.”

In the wake of the release of the Hillsborough report, one copper reflects on the divided loyalties that are sometimes provoked by working at the frontline of policing.

Suicide prevention

From Mental Health Cop

Posted on September 10, 2012

“The Government will today publish a new 10-year strategy for suicide prevention.  …what we can already say is that it will need to re-address gaps which we have existed for years and which we know are spoken of, time and again. I also fear that it will be unable to address the underlying political, social and economic issues which we know contribute to suicide levels, alongside medical and psychological factors.”

On World Suicide Prevention Day, Mental Health Cop explains why the police are often put in the position of responding when personal crisis becomes a public emergency.

Social care

In the shoes of Karen (2)… a daughter’s insights into life in a care home

From Whose Shoes

Posted on September 11, 2012

“In order to safeguard vulnerable adults, I have felt the need to share this with the management at [this care home], but this is addressed to you directly so you might develop some understanding of the impact of your words and your attitude on people’s lives. It seems only fair to tell you myself.”

Here’s a moving and challenging post from ‘Karen’ (who tweets as DazeinourLives). Karen’s mother has dementia. Here Karen shares a letter she wrote complaining about an incident she witnessed in the care home whilst visiting her late father.

Education

How is it possible that no-one in England knows what a C-grade answer looks like?

From LKM

Posted on September 11, 2012

“Somewhere Gove is sitting waiting to pounce on this to make a reform announcement and I am sure we will rake over his changes time and again. But among all that analysis I hope that someone asks him thisHow will the new reform help teachers know what C (or B, or A) grade quality is? Because if teachers don’t know then we are the blind leading the blind, and no matter how ‘rigorous’, or dull, or comparable-to-Singapore our new qualifications are, there is still the same risk of this happening all over again.”

After it was revealed that OFQUAL did in fact ask at least one exam board to reconsider their GCSE boundaries, many questions can be asked, including: How is it possible that no-one in England can agree what a C grade English GCSE answer looks like?

Probation

Smoke and mirrors

From On Probation

Posted on September 11, 2012

“Payment by Results is the coalition government’s new wonder answer to everything, in fact just like the Private Finance Initiative was to the last Labour administration. Of course the latter has proved to be an utter disaster… But so attractive is the idea proving to politicians as being the next ‘magic bullet’ that the idea is being rapidly promoted everywhere and before any research as to its effectiveness is concluded.”

Welcome to the personal thoughts of Jim Brown, an ‘ordinary probation officer’ struggling to come to terms with constant change, whilst trying to do a useful job for society. In this post, Jim explains why Payment by Results is just a new ‘smoke and mirrors’ way to run public services – yet another futile attempt to get more for less.


Making open policy a reality (part 1)

A couple of weeks ago the Government announced its plans for ‘open policy’. In this post and the following post we suggest how it can make open policy a reality.

As part of its recently published civil service reform plan, the Government has committed itself to promote ‘open policymaking’. This includes:

  • commissioning policy development from outside organisations such as think tanks;
  • crowdsourcing questions to shape the definition of the problem (not just consulting on solutions);
  • using ‘Policy Labs’ to draw in expertise from a range of people and organisations and test new policies before they are implemented;
  • making more data available freely so experts can test and challenge approaches effectively; and
  • using web-based tools, platforms, and new media to widen access to policy debates to individuals and organisations not normally involved.

Most significantly, the plan announced a new “presumption in favour of open policy making, with policy developed on the basis of the widest possible engagement with external experts and those who will have the task of delivering the policy”.

This project, Guerilla Policy, is about how policymaking can be (and needs to be) re-thought for the age of mass participation, social networking and media, and open online collaboration – in particular, how these offer the possibility of getting more frontline voices into policymaking. So we obviously support the open policy agenda, and we think that government, so often characterized as being resistant to new ideas (especially where these ideas are likely to challenge the power of government) should be congratulated for thinking about how to open-up policy and for its bold public commitments to put this into practice.

Despite the widespread cynicism about politics and politicians today, then, we should take the Government at its word and seize this opportunity. This post and the next post are about what Government needs to do to make open policy a reality – and the role the rest of us can play.

1. Make open policy itself open and transparent

Government has set out its ambitions for open policy. Putting this agenda into practice should start with open policy itself, which is to say how the agenda is developed, how opportunities for funding and support are designed, down to how individual projects are selected and commissioned. An open policy agenda designed and determined behind closed doors would not only be ironic – it would be a missed opportunity to develop and extend the current proposals. Government could start with an open forum to discuss and co-design the open policy agenda.

2. Demonstrate how this is different from consultation

It would be tragic if open policy becomes the new consultation, that’s to say distrusted, devalued, and discredited. As stated in the reform paper, an important part of open policy is that those outside government can define problems, not just express their view on proposed solutions. Government needs to signal how open policy marks a fresh start. This doesn’t mean abdicating responsibility for setting policy objectives, just avoiding preempting the answers. One way for Government to do this would be to establish two or three ‘open policy challenges’ – competitions for potential policy solutions for difficult issues – and to see what happens.

3. Crowdsource the evidence on what works for crowdsourcing

‘Policy’ is obviously not one process but a set of related activities. As the US researchers on government innovation William D. Eggers and Rob Hamill recently pointed out, there are at least five roles that crowdsourcing could play in government – competitions, crowd collaboration, voting, labour (‘micro-tasking’), and funding. Government needs to breakdown the various stages of policy – from agenda-setting and development, to implementation and evaluation – and identify what approaches to openness might be most appropriate at each stage. It doesn’t have to start from scratch – it should ask the community of those interested in and supportive of open policy to help gather the research and case studies of what’s already been done, what’s worked and what hasn’t. In the spirit of crowdsourcing, we can help.

4. Make sure that open policy is open to new participants

There’s little point to open policy if it merely becomes a new way to generate policy from the same old suspects. New voices could deliver new (better) ideas, insights and evidence. Government has said it wants open policy to widen access to those people and organisations not normally involved. Two ‘rules’ might help to ensure this. Firstly, make it a requirement of individual projects and proposals under open policy that they engage seriously with typically marginalised people and organisations – especially those who provide or experience services at the frontline. Secondly, support and enable these people and organisations to engage in policy directly themselves – for example, if you want to generate new ideas about how to improve a public service, commission some service users and practitioners to work with you.

5. Deliver an early result

The biggest barrier to open policy – and especially our collective belief in it – will be Government’s preparedness to act on the outcomes. Without a notable ‘win’ – say, a crowdsourced policy passed into law within a couple of years – the armchair cynics will reassure themselves that they were ‘right all along’. The flip side of Government setting out such a bold agenda is that every time it falls significantly short it’ll be called on it. The Spartacus report – one of the inspirations for this project – was born of an angry reaction to a botched and seemingly disingenuous government consultation. Government can do better, and it should.

This is a really important agenda that could be potentially be very radical. The challenge is in how the agenda is developed from now on, and in the spirit of the proposals we believe that this is best done open and collaboratively. In the next post, we put forward five more ways that Government can make open policy a reality. In the meantime, what do you think about the open policy agenda? Do you agree with Government’s ambitions for this agenda – and how would you propose putting it into practice?


Put your name on policy – blog with Guerilla

We’ve got lots of plans for the next few months as we develop Guerilla Policy. Our ambition is to create a movement of people and organisations who use and provide public services, working together to create better social policy. This is just the start. One of the things we’d love to do is create a hub for frontline practitioners and service users to blog about their work, their experiences and how they think policy needs to change.

We’ve written before here about our love of public and voluntary service bloggers, and how we’d almost always rather read a dispatch from the frontline than (largely) warmed-over opinion from a Westminster-centric commentator. At their best, frontline bloggers capture the day-to-day reality of public services in a way that no-one else can, including the dirty, difficult, and sometimes dangerous experiences that form the basis of real expertise and so the insights we need to improve social policy. For example, read BendyGirl‘s writing on the reality of welfare reform at Benefit Scrounging Scum (shortlisted for the 2012 Orwell Prize). These blogs are often highly informative, contentious, challenging, and sometimes as dull as real life – which after all is the reality of life at the frontline.

These bloggers often engage directly in policy issues, but from a practical, pragmatic and informed perspective that could surely be incorporated into policymaking before we’ve wasted millions of pounds (and harmed people’s lives) introducing policies that are destined to fail. So much ‘professional’ commentary is dominated by that week’s ‘inside baseball’ nonsense, to the exclusion of how policy effects real lives and how it could be improved. Frontline bloggers make policy real, sometimes uncomfortably so from the perspective of policy wonks – which is probably why their views aren’t usually invited into national policy debates (Guardian Professional Networks is a notable exception, along with parts of the trade press).

We want to put the real insiders where they belong – at the centre of policy. What we’re looking for are practitioners and services users who can provide a real-life perspective on policy – just as BendyGirl does on the reality of welfare. It doesn’t matter if you don’t consider yourself an expert – in fact, we’d prefer it if you didn’t (self-proclaimed ‘expertise’ often denoting an arrogance and insularity from other viewpoints).  It doesn’t matter if you don’t know the ‘right’ words, because writing that’s worth reading doesn’t depend on anything other than your proximity to the reality of public and voluntary services. And it doesn’t matter if you can’t write for us every week (you have a life to live and a job to do, after all) – we’d prefer it if you posted when you have something to say and a bit of time to reflect.

If you already blog, we’d love to syndicate you here and hopefully add to you readership. And if you’ve never blogged before, why not give it a go – your voice deserves to be heard as much as anyone else’s. If you’re interested or have any questions, just fill out the form below and we’ll get back to you asap. We can’t pay you – but we can help you to put your name on policy.