Best of the frontline bloggers (week ending 5th 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.

Local government

Graph of doom – fact or fantasy – an alternative perspective

From Mr Reasonable

Posted 1st October 2012

“Barnet Council have been pushing a chart …which has gained the rather unpleasant title “The Graph of Doom” to show how the Council will run out of money for any services other than Adult Social Care and Children’s Services by 2030. This chart has been used in Cabinet documents to justify the need for the One Barnet Outsourcing programme. It has also gained traction in the national press where it is seen as a revelatory document which we should all be accepting as the gospel according to St. Barnet.”

A ‘reasonable and respectable resident standing up for common sense’ in the London Borough of Barnet dissects the infamous (in policy circles, at least) ‘Graph of Doom’ – and shows that the reality is more of a ‘Graph of Choices’ instead.

Disability

Disability issues finally break through at Labour conference

From Diary of a Benefit Scrounger

Posted on 3rd October 2012

“No matter what we did, we had to break the consensus. We had to make sure that the opposition opposed. Just two years ago we had nothing and no-one. Today, we have a very different board to play on. Many will say it is not enough, and of course, they are right. But as a friend once said to me, “Don’t judge on where someone is, judge on how far they traveled.”

Sue Marsh provides a perspective on this year’s Labour Party conference where disability issues finally made it into the mainstream – after a massive effort by campaigners and activists.

Probation

Train crash

From On Probation Blog

Posted on 3rd October 2012

“As I’m writing this, there are civil servants down in London at the Ministry of Justice drawing up contracts for the benefit of private companies such as G4S. How is anyone to feel comfortable or reassured that they are any better than their colleagues over at the Department of Transport in being able to fairly assess the relative merits of different bids, and especially those that have to be measured against public sector bidders?”

Jim Brown speculates on what the West Coast mainline franchising fiasco means for the outsourcing of prisons and probation services by the Ministry of Justice.

Carers

Children shouldn’t be responsible for filling gaps in care

From Carers Blog

Posted on 1st October 2012

“One of the problems we face is that where local authority care budgets are cut, then if someone has care needs, that care still has to be provided by someone – and it inevitably falls to friends and family to provide it. This is hard enough for adults, and we know many are struggling to cope with cuts in services and family finances. We need to make the point crystal clear that it is never acceptable to expect a child to fill the gap in care which is left when services are cut.”

Moira Fraser of the Carers Trust reports back from the Labour Party conference and shares her concern that those organisations working to support young carers are not communicating their messages clearly enough.

Policing

National Police Air Service launches today – lies and spin

From Police Aircrew

Posted on 1st October 2012

“There are some basic facts that need to be cleared up. You wouldn’t think “facts” needed clearing up would you because they are facts; the truth and therefore should be clear to all. Unfortunately Mr Green the Policing Minister has either been misinformed or is not telling the truth.”

Welcome to a new frontline blogger, Police Aircrew. In their first post they debunk the facts that have been presented to rationalise the police helicopter service into the new National Police Air Service. The new service is designed to save £15 million a year; in this post Police Aircrew speculates about further cuts that are coming down the line.

If Michael Portillo forgets you…

From Catemoore’s Blog

Posted on 29th September 2012

“When Michael Portillo looks at a person in a uniform, he sees just that. A person in a uniform. If that person is driving a fast car with blue lights flashing and siren blaring, or if that person is involved in an active arrest, shouting at suspects or perhaps cuffing a prisoner, Michael Portillo’s brain recognises a Police Officer. If that person is guarding a gate or standing on a fixed point or chatting to the public, he just sees a person in a uniform. That person might be an armed officer but could just as easily be a PCSO or G4S guard or security at an airport. His mind does not differentiate any more.”

A ‘woman, mother, wife, carer and retired Met officer’ reflects on how the quasi-official appearance of private security company employees may have affected how the public perceive the police as just another group of ‘jobsworths’.

Previous reads

Here’s another great post published in the last few weeks.

Clustering and Payment by Results: The end of service user centred mental health care?

From The Masked AMHP

Posted on 27th September 2012

“Most mental health service users will be completely unaware that when they are assessed by Community Mental Health Teams or in hospital their mental health problems and symptoms are now subjected to an arcane system known as Clustering.”

The Masked AMHP describes the impact of the use of clustering and payment by results in the commissioning of local mental health services – and argues that the real ‘customer’ under this approach is the new GP consortia rather than service users.

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


Winterbourne View shows that some policies are ‘out of sight, out of mind’

In a previous post we suggested that outsourcing can be a way to protect unpopular policies. In the case of vulnerable adults with learning disabilities, outsourcing has become a way to abandon them in poorly run institutions far away from their families – until scandals like Winterbourne View force us to confront the abuse that this isolation enables. Blaming poor providers is only part of the picture – we also need to look at the bad policy that enables such abuse to happen.

Winterbourne View Hospital was an admission and treatment unit for people with learning disabilities in Bristol, managed by social care provider Castlebeck. A Panorama programme, Undercover Care: The Abuse Exposed, first shown on BBC One in 2011, uncovered the endemic abuse and neglect taking place at the centre. The programme showed footage of one member of staff who trapped a female patient under a chair whilst he watched television; another female patient was dragged from her bed by two male members of staff. The appalling abuse that took place at Winterbourne was only uncovered because a whistleblower, Terry Bryan, was prepared to raise the alarm.

This is not just about one bad provider, however. Following the scandal, the Government asked the regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), to make unannounced inspections of 150 similar learning disability services. CQC found that nearly half of hospitals and care homes are still failing to meet acceptable standards. The degree of abuse at Winterbourne View is sadly not unique either – it follows other recent scandals in NHS care homes for people with learning difficulties in Cornwall and in Merton and Sutton.

Multi-agency working clearly also failed in the case of Winterbourne View, and the Department of Health has called for more joined up working – the usual mantra after such scandals. Avon and Somerset police were called 29 times but failed to observe any pattern or draw any conclusions about the level of incidents at the home. The local Adult Safeguarding Board received 40 alerts over three years but took no action, whilst CQC decided not to follow up the notifications of abuse it received because it assumed that the local Safeguarding Board was doing so. CQC had also inspected Winterbourne View prior to the Panorama programme and concluded that the service met its standards. Vulnerable individuals have been at a centre of a web of public bodies who are all pointing the finger of blame at each other, from the CQC, the local Safeguarding Board, NHS commissioners, to the police and the local hospital.

But this is not (just) a failure of regulation either. Various reports relating to successive scandals have pointed not only to gaps in multi-agency working, but also to poor training, the pay and conditions of staff employed in adult social care, commissioning focused only on procurement rather than managing contracts, and poor representation of the views and aspirations of disabled people and their families. In other words, it’s time we focused on what’s wrong with the policy as well.

Many people assume that the NHS or local authorities provide services for people with a learning disability, but scandals like Winterbourne View highlight that much of the social care system is outsourced to providers who run these services to make a profit. Despite the perception of over-regulation of these services, something is not working if cases like Winterbourne View, Cornwall and in Sutton and Merton continue to emerge – and these are just the ones we know about.

Despite the rhetoric of ‘localism’,  ‘choice’ and ‘personalisation’ that underpins the Government’s open public services agenda, too many adults with a learning disability are still being placed in poorly-run institutions far away from their families and friends. This is the argument of 86 individuals and organisations that wrote a joint letter to Paul Burstow MP, the Minister for Care Services.

Admission to an assessment and treatment unit such as Winterbourne View is supposed to be time limited to complete a new assessment and treatment plan or change medication. However evidence points to the fact that people go in and stay in. The CQC Count Me in 2010 census looked at providers of in-patient learning disability services. It found that 67% of all patients in England and Wales had been in hospital for one year or more, 53% for two years or more and 31% for more than five years. This policy could be characterized as ‘out of sight, out of mind’, which was the theme of a recent report from Mencap in how to stop the neglect and abuse of people with a learning disability.

Many people with a learning disability want to live in the community that they come from, near their family and friends, with support available locally. Mencap and other providers have called for policy changes, in particular the closure of these residential assessment centres, to be replaced by a system of local care and support. One of the problems of Winterbourne View was that in some cases families were actually refused contact or had contact their family member restricted in some way. Abandoning people in long-term residential centres far from their families leaves people feeling very isolated, especially for older people with a learning disability where their parents may be frail or have passed on with family contact left to siblings or distance relatives.

To place one person in one of these assessment and treatment units can often cost in excess of £150,000 per year. Supporting people in their local community would cost significantly less. Large sums of public money are being spent on inappropriate treatment that many people with a learning disability and their families don’t want to access. A wider debate about the policy is urgently needed. If charities, families and people with a learning disability are telling us they would like a different approach to delivering care and support, why is this being ignored? The Government’s recently announced open policy agenda is all about ensuring that more expertise and evidence informs policy, wherever this input comes from. What price genuinely open policy if it might threaten the current lucrative market for outsourced delivery in which services users have little voice?


Making open policy a reality (part 2)

A couple of weeks ago the Government announced its plans for ‘open policy’. In this post and the previous 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 ‘open policymaking’. It has 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 post and the previous post set out how Government can make open policy a reality – staring with a few things that Government should avoid doing.

6. Don’t focus only on generating new policy – improve existing policy

One of the problems with the ‘policy industry’ of think tanks, charities, campaigns and commentators is the restless hunt for and promotion of ‘new ideas’ (what David Walker calls ‘neophilia‘). This competition distracts from a more considered approach to improving policy and public services which focuses on how policies and approaches can be steadily improved and refined, better implemented, delivered and administered – in other words, sufficient time to research, think, reflect, plan and review. Openness should enrich existing policy, not serve only to add more ‘noise’.

7. Don’t focus on new technology – use what we’ve already got (used to)

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. But just as neophilism often results in costly, unnecessary and untested new policy, so technologism tends to assume that new ways of working always require new technologies. They don’t. Wherever possible, Government should use existing technology and platforms. Don’t fall for the tech hucksters, keep it simple (even if it’s not perfect), and focus on the content instead.

8. Don’t listen to the loudest – openness is about hearing quieter voices

Government has said that the open policy agenda is about widening access to policy to individuals and organisations not normally involved. Fairly or unfairly, a certain type of personality comes to mind when you think about the policy industry. But if open policy really is going to reach out, it needs to include the people and organisations who aren’t always so confident in their own perspicacity but have relevant evidence and insights to contribute. Open policy should carve out spaces for the people we don’t usually hear from – especially those marginalised and vulnerable users and communities who rely on public and voluntary services.

9. Support lots of experiments – and do it openly

Like anything new, parts of the open policy agenda won’t work, and the critics and cynics will do what they do best (sneering). But the best way to discover what works is to invest in a diversity of projects so that we find out and learn. The scale of projects is then important. What will kill open policy is ‘too big to fail’ pilot initiatives. What will allow it to grow and thrive are lots of little experiments – and a commitment to keep testing and keep learning.

10. Stimulate a new ‘market’ – then step back

Government should be congratulated for its public commitment to the open policy agenda, but this doesn’t mean it has deliver it all on its own. In part, this agenda reflects what entrepreneurs and organisations outside of government have already demonstrated is possible – from Change.org and 38 Degrees, Mumsnet to the Spartacus Report. There is already an emerging ‘market’ in open policy, one which Government can play a useful role in helping to legitimize, but not one it has to direct itself. If some or most of the platforms and places where open policy gets done are independent from Government, this will also be an advantage – for the integrity, transparency and credibility of open policy, and also for the specific policies it produces.

To some, the open policy agenda might be a gimmick. But we’re confident that in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future we’ll look back and wonder why the way we currently create policy was ever considered ‘normal’, and why we ever thought it was credible that policy was developed largely behind closed doors, by a relatively narrow group of people, many of whom lack direct practical experience of the issues they were creating policy for. These two posts have been about how we can bring forward this future and make open policy a reality sooner – let us know what you think and what we’ve missed.


How could commissioners make greater use of social media?

How could commissioners make greater use of social media? Chris Sherwood, Co-Founder of Guerilla Policy and Director of Innovation and Development at Scope argues that commissioners should use social media as a way to collaborate with citizens to open up commissioning.

In the previous two blogs I have argued that an open, iterative approach to commissioning where citizens and providers collaborate with commissioners will ultimately lead to better, cheaper services.  In this blog I will consider how social media can be utilised by commissioners to achieve this objective.

Social media is an important tool that commissioners are missing out on. As I’ve suggested previously, social media is a way to engage a wider community of people around a particular issue and allows for the discovery of new ideas and networks of people. Commissioning is a complex, multi-disciplinary process, which involves a range of disciplines including research, analysis and evaluation – all areas where social media could play a helpful role. To adopt social media at scale in the commissioning landscape means that the expected skill set and training offered to commissioners would need to change to include social media as a key part of this.

Social media also offers up the opportunities for professionals to collaborate with each other, which has been pointed out in a comment from Alex Kenmure at Camden Council on an earlier blog post. In developing Guerilla Policy, we have considered its potential as a platform to facilitate collaboration between professionals within a sector as well as between sectors. Commissioners, whose numbers are under pressure, often don’t get the opportunity to collaborate and share ideas with each other or with potential providers. Social media could really help in this regard.

As I’ve argued in the first blog in this series, commissioning is often effectively a ‘closed shop’. I was involved in one recent national commissioning opportunity. The funding stream was a brand new one that targeted troubled families, and the government department launched a consultation exercise with prospective bidders on the proposed programme. The programme also involved close cooperation with local government (as they would be the source of referrals), yet they were not involved in this consultation and instead bidders were asked to contact them as part of the four-week commissioning window. The approach to involvement of these stakeholders was weak and rather late in the day, which meant that the ability to influence of the design of the programme was constrained.

Social media could have added significant value here as a cost-effective platform to facilitate a wider discussion between prospective service users, local authorities and providers. This example also points to a wider challenge that Guerilla Policy seeks to address, which is that too often the people who use and provide services are involved to comment (at best) on an already defined agenda rather than being involved in setting the agenda.

How could social media help? The commissioning cycle could be re-imagined as an iterative rather than linear process. The way we commission involves a number of different skills and disciplines, which a linear process could draw out and utilise. Safeguards could easily be built into the process to protect the interests of taxpayers, providers and service users.

This argument isn’t really about specific social media platforms or technologies but rather is about how to open up commissioning to wider participation of a community of interest for which social media could be a valuable tool.  As a starter for ten the following areas of the commissioning cycle strike me as primed for opening up using social media:

  • Undertaking a population needs assessment – could this be crowdsourced? The needs assessment conducted by the public body could be shared publicly as part of the commissioning process with comments invited from the community on the analysis that has been reached.
  • Developing tendering documentation – could suggestions be generated through a community blog site? Could aspects of the documentation (e.g. the outcomes the service is looking to achieve) be shared publicly with comment invited?
  • Scoring and selection of proposals – whilst this is a sensitive area because of commercial sensitivity, could a closed community (and anonymising of bids) be used to crowd source the scoring of bids?
  • Evaluation and monitoring – could users be invited to blog or upload a film to a YouTube channel documenting their experience and feedback on the service commissioned? Social media can play a role as a research tool, e.g. a hashtag could be set up on Twitter and this could be used as a way to trawl for comments and people to be invited.

Community Budgets, which are being piloted in 16 different areas to support families with complex problems (involving 28 different local authorities) and the recent announcement of whole-place and neighbourhood-level pilots, both offer up opportunities to experiment with social media. These pilots are designed to make better use of resources including local knowledge, community assets and voluntary effort, and afford greater control to local people over services. Making use of social media as part of the commissioning process could offer real benefits to these communities.

Ultimately this comes back to culture. Are we prepared to take risks and try something new? Social media can help to open up commissioning. It means that commissioners could involve a wider community ensuring both greater accountability and buy-in to commission services that deliver better outcomes, potentially for less money. Where and how do you think that social media could be applied in commissioning?  What are the constraints and where are the opportunities? Tell us what you think.


Do we need a manifesto for public and practitioner involvement in social policy?

This project – Guerilla Policy – is about developing a movement of people and organisations who use and provide public services, working together to create better social policy. Do we need to write a manifesto?

Our project is based on the critique that much social policy is made by people who have little or no direct experience of the public services and issues that policy relates to – and that this direct experience matters. We’ve put forward ten reasons why we think social policy would be better if it was developed by and with the people who use and provide public and voluntary services – that they have the necessary expertise, experience and insight that good policy development requires. Guerilla is a movement that we hope will serve to bring these people and organisations together in order to create better social policy.

It might sound somewhat portentous, but movements often start with and coalesce around manifestos. Most obviously, we think of political and social movements when we hear ‘manifesto’, but there could also be useful analogies in the manifestos developed by the proponents of open and free software. Here are some examples that in various ways could serve as inspirations for our own manifesto – we’d welcome your own suggestions for other examples, and indeed your views on whether we need a manifesto at all.

  • The GNU Manifesto was written by Richard Stallman in 1985 at the beginning of the GNU free software project, and it became a key document in the free software movement. (‘Free software‘ is where the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software). The Manifesto put forward the reasons and aims of the project, why free software was so important and how it would benefit users, rebutted the objections to free software, and set out how programmers could support the project.
  • The Cathedral and the Bazaar is the book of essays first published online in 1997 by ‘hacker philosopher’ Eric S. Raymond on the impact of open source software on technology and indeed the wider world.  The title comes from Raymond’s analogy for two fundamentally different ways of developing free software: the ‘cathedral’ model in which source code is available with each software release but the code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers; and the ‘bazaar model in which the code is developed over the internet in full view of the public. Raymond argues that the latter approach is better – the more widely available the source code is for public testing, scrutiny and experimentation, the more rapidly all software bugs will be discovered. Raymond’s evangelism helped to persuade Netscape to release their browser as open source software and promoted Linus Torvalds and the Linux project.
  • Out of Netscape came the Mozilla project. ‘Mozilla’ is the everyday name for the free and open source software project founded in 1998 to create a next-generation range of software for the internet, most famously the Firefox browser and Thunderbird email application. The organization was formally registered as a non-profit organization in 2003 as the Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla’s Manifesto sets out the organisation’s principles which it believes are critical for the internet to continue to benefit the public good as well generate commercial activity – the project uses a community-based approach to create world-class open source software and to develop new types of collaborative activities.

Even if you’re not interested in software or in technology generally, these manifestos are worth reading for the revolution in thinking and practice that they represent, and which continues to affect our lives everyday. And of course they also echo and have inspired much of our thinking in this project on how we can collaborate in order to improve social policy.

So, do we need a manifesto? We’ll be discussing this – and exchanging ideas about what this manifesto could include – on our new site. If you haven’t already, register by clicking on the link on the top right, create your profile, and go into the group ‘Developing a Guerilla Manifesto’. We’ll see you there.


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.


Why we need a new approach to developing social policy – 10. It’s the right thing to do

This is the tenth in a series of posts on why social policy should be developed by and with the people who use and provide public and voluntary services. We welcome your comments on the whole series.

In this series we’ve suggested that we need a new approach to developing social policy, one that involves the people who use and provide public and voluntary services in the research and development of policy. We’ve put forward a range of benefits that we think this approach would produce – namely policy that is better quality, more implementable, more representative, more inclusive, more timely, more cost-effective, more innovative, and would help to produce the better public services we want. For these reasons, and because it reflects social and technological change, we think this is the future. There’s one last reason to add to this list: it’s the right thing to do.

Public and voluntary services don’t belong to policymakers or policy wonks. Public services belong to all of us. We pay for them, and although it might not always feel like it, we own them – literally if they are publicly provided services, and figuratively if we rely on them. They’re our GP surgeries and hospitals, our schools and nurseries, our police forces and courts. More than this, we are all public services. Co-production reveals that the people who use services are as critical to their effectiveness as the practitioners who deliver them. Indeed, services wouldn’t exist without the people who use them – they’d just be buildings and equipment and staff standing around.

All of which leads to the point that it’s our policy as well – not one person excluded. This challenges some deep-seated (but rarely articulated) notions about politics and policy – about who has the ‘right’ to be involved in policymaking and who is sufficiently ‘expert‘ to be brought into the charmed circle.

Talking about this project with a lot of people over the past few months, we’ve been encouraged by plenty of positive reactions and offers of support. But we’ve also heard some ‘concerns’. These usually start with ‘yes I love the idea of course, but how are you going to…’, followed by one or more of the following:

  • …make sure that people will want to be involved;
  • …make sure that they will continue to want to be involved;
  • …go beyond the ‘usual suspects’ who get involved in anything;
  • …manage people who are unmanageable;
  • …manage people’s expectations when the world doesn’t change overnight;
  • …find money to develop the project when there’s no money around;
  • …respond when other think tanks don’t like the idea;
  • …react when you realise that no-one actually wants better social policy, rather what they really want is more funding for their prejudices;
  • …produce policy given that practitioners and service users can’t write (this was actually said to me);
  • …feel when you discover that it’s been done before, and by implication, hasn’t worked.

Some, any or all of these ‘concerns’ might be true. Some of them could be considered patronising to what the media refers to as ‘ordinary people’ (i.e. anyone who doesn’t work in the media or isn’t interviewed regularly by those who do). But ultimately, none of these concerns matter. Even if they were all true, it would still be worth trying to develop a new, more inclusive way to create better social policy – because it’s the right thing to do.

No piece of policy will make everyone happy, but then this project isn’t about policy reflecting what practitioners and the public feel, rather it’s about policy reflecting what they know. It’s about policy research and analysis that engages more of the people who know what they’re talking about because they experience the services and issues at first hand. It’s about examining a problem, developing policy options, evidencing the best option, and considering how this option could be implemented most effectively (the kind of thing that few think tanks actually do that often). Not everyone will be happy with the outcome, but everyone should have the right to contribute to the process.

In the main then, as we’ve suggested throughout this series, this project is about harnessing the practical benefits that we think would derive from the greater involvement in policy work of the people who use and provide public services. But then, even if none of these benefits were realised or realisable, even if there were no other reasons to support this approach, and even if the problems and barriers often seemed insurmountable, we still think it would be worth trying – because it would still be the right thing to do. Join us from 1st June if you agree.