Proposals for the Jersey Policy Inclusion Framework

STATES OF JERSEY

PROPOSALS FOR THE JERSEY POLICY INCLUSION FRAMEWORK

Presented to the States on 20th October 2022 by the Chief Minister

STATES GREFFE

2022  R.145

REPORT

Introduction

1. Action  2  of  the  Council  of  Minister's  100  Day  Action  Plan  includes  a commitment to undertake a project to set out how Islanders can better engage with government, what information is available and how  government can improve. To address this, an internal review of the data and information which is  currently  available  to  Islanders  and  how  this  can  be  improved  so  that information on government services and policy is provided more effectively has been undertaken. The Engagement and Information Improvement review has made several interim findings, and these will be set out, in full, in a report which will be published in November 2022.
2. A key outcome of this review is the development of the Policy Inclusion Framework (the "Framework"), which consists of policy engagement good practice guidance and a policy engagement toolkit. The proposed Framework is based on an engagement pyramid structure and will be supported by a package of further resources and training for relevant government officials, with the  purpose  of improving  engagement  with  Islanders  and  ensuring  that decisions are more sensitive and responsive to their concerns. Information on the  objectives  and  operation  of  the  Framework  are  set  out  in  this  paper, alongside a timetable for its implementation. These proposals will be subject to a full public consultation prior to the Framework being implemented in early 2023.

Policy Inclusion Framework: Executive Summary

3. This provides a summary of the structure of the proposed Policy Inclusion Framework. Full draft guidance can be found under Annex C.
4. Structure of the Policy Inclusion Framework:

5. Summary Guidance

Background

6. The Policy Inclusion Framework fits within an overall model for engagement which is being developed to ensure that Government is open, accountable and transparent. This engagement model is summarised below:

7. The implementation of this new engagement model (which includes the Policy Inclusion Framework) aims to increase public trust in Government.[1] The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identified five  drivers  that  can  influence  trust:  integrity,  responsiveness,  reliability, openness and fairness. This would indicate that policy responses which are in line with these values would support the level of trust which Islanders have in the Government. This would include ensuring that information is open and accessible to all, that Government is accountable to Islanders for the decisions it makes, and that decision-making is transparent and responds to the views and needs of Islanders.
8. The Policy Inclusion Framework addresses the States decision of 28 April 2022 to adopt paragraph (b) P.65/2022, as amended by the Council of Ministers, which provides:

"(b)  that  clear,  agreed  criteria  for  the  preparation  of  initial consultations on policy or legislative proposals and detailed proposals for legislation should be established, and to request the Chief Minister to commission officers to draw up proposals for this, with a view to a report being presented to the States on the outcome of the work by no later than 30th September 2022."

9. The Policy Inclusion Framework will act as the criteria referenced above in setting out who, when and how to engage with the public on policy matters. However, the Framework goes beyond initial consultation and accounts for engagement in its broadest sense, from the observation of public opinion to highly involved, deliberative processes, in order to inform policymaking from the ground up.
10. Public engagement describes "the practice of involving members of the public in  the  agenda-setting,  decision-making,  and  policy-forming  activities  of institutions responsible for policy development".[2]Engagement' encompasses a myriad of activities which facilitate participation in policy development beyond just formal government consultations, all of which serve to create a dialogue between government and the public it serves. Effective engagement

produces  better  solutions  and  increases  trust  in,  and  endorsement  of,  the decisions government makes.

11. Public engagement is key to creating solutions that are robust and responsive to a community's needs. It allows citizens to be involved in policy design and decision-making processes that affect or interest them, while also allowing policy makers to gather perspectives on a problem, test and refine ideas, develop more  robust  solutions  and  build  legitimacy  for  contentious  or  complex decisions. This is not only good practice, but key to building trust with citizens and delivering better outcomes3. While decisions that arise from open and collaborative processes may be perceived as more credible, public engagement may also be considered as tokenistic and counterproductive if carried out ineffectively.
12. Effective engagement involves taking a principled approach. Examples of such principles include:

• Engaging early in the policy process

• Being open and transparent

• Focussing on meaningful, genuine engagement

• Being responsive and consistent throughout the policy process

• Being flexible and adaptable

13. While  engagement  should  be  as  inclusive  as  possible,  the  Government recognises that some voices in the community are less heard than others and seeks to address this. The Policy Inclusion Framework will therefore provide Ministers and officials with a high-level structure for engagement with the community and lesser heard voices. Other initiatives included under the 100 Day Action Plan, which will feed into the overall engagement model, are the development  of  standards  for  ensuring  that  children  and  young  people participate in decision making processes, and the establishment of an Older Persons Living Forum to ensure that older Islanders have a say on matters that affect them and the Island as a whole.
14. Examples of highly collaborative public engagement include participatory and deliberative engagement methods. Participatory methods provide opportunities for  citizens  to be  involved  in  decisions  (for  example,  co-production  and crowdsourcing),  while  deliberative  methods  focus  on  quality  of dialogue, allowing ideas to be discussed over time in inclusive and representational forums, such as the Older Persons Living Forum.
15. In the past, Jersey has used deliberative bodies to consider key, contentious or challenging areas of Government policy and to recommend solutions, including the Citizens' Jury on Assisted Dying and the Citizens' Assembly on Climate

3 Community engagement | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC)

Change. Less intensive, but nonetheless important, methods of engagement allow Government to observe and be guided by public opinion on various issues, such as surveying and carrying out generic focus groups.

16. A  Public  Account  Committee  (PAC)  2022  report  (Jersey:  PAC  report 14/2/22P.A.C.1/2022) recommended the continued use of Citizens' Panels, Assemblies and Juries, concluding that they had been valuable in assisting Government  decisions'  in Jersey.  However,  it  also  identified  scope  for improvement. Recommendations included:

1. "that  the Government  of  Jersey  commits to  additional  learning  to develop internal exercise to improve value-for-money when seeking to establish future deliberative bodies. This will also allow Islanders to engage with and learn about deliberative processes in greater detail";
2. "that  the  Government  of  Jersey  develops  a  policy  toolkit  to  aid Ministers  in  understanding  the  establishment  and  operation  of deliberative bodies, and to help identify the most suitable form of deliberative body to use for each respective policy issue, and to develop additional processes to guarantee institutional listening in respect of the outcomes of each deliberative body"; and
3. "that the Assisted Dying Citizens' Jury should be used as a model of best practice when establishing future deliberative bodies."

About the Policy Inclusion Framework

17. As set out in the table in paragraph 3, the Policy Inclusion Framework is being developed as part of the open' strand of the Government's overall engagement model. The purpose of the Framework is to provide a structure to help ministers and officials understand who to engage, how to engage, and when to engage with the public in policy development processes  across Government. The Framework will be accompanied by a package of guidance and resources to support its application, including the structured participation and inclusion of the following groups:

• Children and young people

• Older people

• Less  heard  groups  (including  Islanders  with  disabilities,  ethnic minorities and individuals for whom English is a second language).

18. The structure of the Policy Inclusion Framework can be illustrated via the Engagement Pyramid, below:

19. The pyramid structure helps assists Government to understand how to engage people at different levels. Low intensity engagement sits at the bottom, while high intensity engagement sits at the top. Low intensity engagement is more generic and wide-reaching (for example polling, website traffic monitoring and informal focus groups). The lower levels play an important role in routine communications and temperature-checking public opinion, while high intensity engagement (such as citizens' assemblies and deliberative workshops) goes deeper in understanding citizens' views on an issue and producing solutions that stick. It also recognises that there is no substitute for the human touch' when it comes to designing policy.
20. The  Framework  will  be  accompanied  by  internal  guidance  to  ensure  that officials know who, when and how to engage with the public on policy matters. The guidance is high-level and based on the Engagement Pyramid structure and good practice principles. This guidance will supersede existing Government consultation guidance currently provided on www.gov.je, though key principles will remain.
21. The content of the draft Framework guidance is set out below, with full draft internal guidance for each of the Engagement Pyramid levels set out in Annex

C.  

Annex C – Policy Engagement Good Practice Guide (Internal)

1. Introduction/purpose of the guide
2. Guidance for observing (public opinion)
3. Guidance for endorsing (policy proposals)
4. Guidance for contributing (to policy development)
5. Guidance for producing (policy solutions)
6. Guidance for inclusive engagement
7. Good practice principles – accessibility

viii.  Good practice principles – data protection

9. Good  practice  principles  –  engaging  early  with  Scrutiny  and  the Assembly
10. Good practice principles – research ethics

22. Annex D contains an engagement design tool template, which is designed to help policy makers decide whether community engagement is appropriate and, if so, what form or forms of community engagement to adopt. The contents of the draft design tool are set out below.

Annex D -The Policy Engagement Toolkit (Internal and External)

1. Engagement Design Tool template
2. Engagement Assessment Tool template

23. These are initial, outline proposals for the Policy Inclusion Framework. The Engagement Good Practice Guide and Engagement Design and Assessment Tools will be subject to a full public consultation from October 2022. This consultation will be conducted in line with the guidelines set out in the proposed Framework. Public feedback on these proposals will be considered fully before the final Framework will be published by Council of Ministers in March 2023. The Framework will be rolled out alongside a package of training for policy officers on the Framework. The timetable for delivery of the Framework is below:

Current Practice in Jersey

24. The Government of Jersey already utilises a range of methods to engage with citizens on policy matters. This includes public communications (social media posts, posters, banners); surveys; focus groups; workshops and, more recently,

citizens' assemblies and juries. Examples of Government undertaking formal public consultations (that is, periods where citizens are engaged to provide their feedback and input on a proposal or an issue that affects them) include the recent Bridging Island Plan, Mental Health Strategy and Putting Children First projects.

25. The Government has a range of established forums and bodies through which feedback is sought and fed back to officials, including:

• Citizen's assemblies and juries (e.g. Citizen's Jury on Assisted Dying and the Citizen's Assembly on Climate Change);

• Youth Parliament;

• Cluster groups (representing mental health; children and young people; older adults; learning disabilities; equality, diversity and inclusion; homelessness; cancer and social enterprise). These groups are comprised of practitioners and third sector representatives, with some input from service-users;

• The newly established Older Persons Living Forum.

26. The Government also engages with citizens via a local network of third sector organisations, charities and forums. These partners assist Government in undertaking consultation activities by distributing surveys, facilitating focus groups and linking communities with relevant Government officials. Examples of these partners include:

• Jersey Library, Highlands College and Jersey Sport;

• Community organisations and charities such as Recovery College; Salvation Army; Caritas; Mind; Shelter Trust; Autism Jersey; Friends of Africa; Liberate and Les Amis;

• Community forums such as Care Ambassadors and the Care Survivors Network; and

• Professional forums such as the Motor Traders Association and Sustainable Finance Group.

27. Between June 2018 and April 2022, 114 consultations were published on gov.je across all areas of Government policy, but crucially there were marked differences in how these were undertaken:

• Some of those consultations asked for Islanders' views to be provided by closed-question online survey, whereas others asked for long-form written views via email;

• Some consultations invited any interested Islanders to present their views face-to-face in workshops or meetings, whereas others selected representative samples and focus groups to elicit views;

• Most consultations were published only in English; and

• Most consultations did not collect data to monitor the diversity of respondents.

28. As different means were used to ascertain the views of Islanders across all consultations, there is no centrally held information on engagement by Islanders across all Government consultations, including the methods of engagement deployed, as well as the frequency, reach, response rate and public satisfaction in engagement efforts. Nonetheless it can be assumed that the views of those for whom English is a second language, those who do not access the internet and those who are not already politically engaged are, despite well intentioned effort, likely to be less heard.  
29. Having  compared  Jersey's  current  practice  with  best  practice  in  other jurisdictions (see Annex B), an identified gap is polling (i.e. the continuous monitoring of public opinion through mass surveying). Polling would assist Government in understanding public opinion on a broad range of issues, in turn allowing Government to assess its priorities and how policies might be received. Polling can be undertaken in a several ways, including:

• outsourcing data collection and analysis to a private polling service;

• combined  public/private  polling  (e.g.  data  collection  is  handled externally, while the analysis is handled internally); or

• a polling function which is "in-house" to the Government.

30. The drawbacks of polling include cost and data becoming quickly outdated. Other factors for consideration are:

• Frequency of polls;

• How data is collected (via phone, email, online or in-person contact);

• Random sampling (which would be more representative, but likely more costly and therefore less frequent) vs. the polling of a panel (which can be done more frequently and cost-effectively, but with less representative results);

• Outsourcing to a private polling service or establishing an in-house polling function; and

• Ensuring the reliability of data.

31. That the Government does not undertake polling is a diagnosed deficiency. In future,  options  for  a  structured,  centralised  approach  to  observing  public opinion will be explored, in order to provide ministers with information about issues that matter most to Islanders.
32. It should be noted that some forms of public engagement are resource-intensive, and it would not be practical nor proportionate to expend significant resources on all public engagement exercises. Engagement is not one size fits all' and should be tailored to the individuals it seeks to involve. This may include

deploying  bespoke  engagement  methodology,  producing  accessible consultation materials (i.e. translating into other languages and providing easy read  and  braille  versions),  doing  consistent  outreach  work  (including  at unsociable hours or holiday periods) and maintaining feedback loops with stakeholders and communities. Again, it would not be feasible to deploy these methodologies in all cases as there is not an infinite capacity to carry out public engagement to its maximum potential and efficacy.

33. The  burden  of  engagement  and  consultation  on  respondents  is  also  a consideration. An incohesive, unstructured engagement strategy can lead to the over-consultation of certain groups. This can result in consultation fatigue', perceived  tokenism  and  subsequently  disengagement,  particularly  when feedback loops are not consistently maintained. It can also result in the same voices being heard during consultation exercises, which does not provide a representative response to an issue.
34. Conversely,  the  under-consultation  of  certain  groups  is  a  challenge.  High quality engagement captures the views of all sections of society and must take proactive steps to reach less heard groups', including children and young people, older people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities. Engaging with these groups may involve consistent outreach work, providing additional supports such as interpretation and translation, developing of bespoke materials, complying with online accessibility standards4, collaborating with third sector organisations  and  providing  incentives  for  citizens  to  participate  in consultations. This requires a significant investment of time and resource. Engagement with less heard groups' should be done in a way that seeks to understand  and  builds  trust  over  time.  Collaboration  with  third  sector organisations and establishing representative forums can be particularly helpful to this end, but these should not act as a proxy for citizens' voices.
35. The Framework addresses this by providing a structure and guidance for who, when and how to engage with the public on policy matters, based on analysis of current practice and best practice in other jurisdictions (Annex B). The accompanying  draft  guidance,  set  out  in  Annexes  C  and  D,  will  provide resources  and  tools  to  assist  Government  officials  in  designing  effective, inclusive and accessible engagement strategies, encompassing highly intensive, participatory consultation methods to less intensive, observational engagement methods. This will ultimately support the development of policy that is more responsive to Islanders' concerns and produce solutions that stick.

4 Accessibility standards (gov.je)

Annex A - Wording of P.65/2022 (Amended) and P.64/2022 (Amended)

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

b) that clear, agreed criteria for the preparation of initial consultations on policy or legislative proposals and detailed proposals for legislation should be established, and to request the Chief Minister to commission officers to draw up proposals for this, with a view to a report being presented to the States on the outcome of the work by no later than 30th September 2022.

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to make the following amendment to the Standing Orders of the States of Jersey, with effect from 22nd June 2022 Standing Order 128 [Privileges and Procedures Committee: terms of reference] In paragraph (i), after the words "to the States" insert the words – ";

(j) to appoint a Sub-Committee, comprising at least two members of the States who are ministers or assistant ministers, and at least two members of the States who are not ministers or assistant ministers, to:

• keep under review the machinery of government;

• follow up on the implementation of the recommendations of previous reviews of machinery of government; and

• report its findings and recommendations to the Privileges and Procedures Committee and Council of Ministers from time to time, in order for its report to be presented to the States".

Annex B – How Other Jurisdictions Engage

The  Policy  Inclusion  Framework  has  been  developed  following  analysis  of  good practice in other jurisdictions, which also take a range of approaches to community engagement. Examples include engagement via the traditional media, social media, government websites, drop in' sessions, newsletters, conferences, and public education programmes. Methods of engagement from elsewhere may be grouped into four broad categories:

1. Zero, or very little, engagement - some jurisdictions do not have a tradition of public consultation. This can be because they regard it as burdensome or a waste of time, or because they do not have a tradition of democracy. For example, about a third of the 138 countries that conducted consultations on economic regulations  did  not  adopt  consultative  practices  throughout  the  entire government.
2. Traditional democratic engagement – most governments engage with the public  via  online  formal  consultations,  public  meetings  and  occasional referenda.  For  example,  in  recent  years  Wales  has  conducted  public consultations on numerous issues in the form of documents published by the Welsh government and public meetings relating to a vast array of regional and local issues. This is also the normal method by which third sector organisations consult.
3. Moderate innovations and adaptations in democratic engagement – this includes citizens' juries and citizen's assemblies, which have recently been implemented in Jersey. Wales has also used a citizens' jury to determine what individuals care about in terms of social care, while Germany has some 120 standing citizens' assemblies and citizens' juries which focus on a wide range of issues. In these cases, participants are randomly selected, paid and given care allowances where necessary. Other methods employed by modern democracies include drop-in sessions; newsletters and public education programmes; market research techniques (including paid engagement); online public meetings and social media.
4. Disruptive democratic engagement – this involves creative and collaborative means of engagement, including community panels (whereby the public are engaged  in  the  selection  and  design  of  projects);  experts  by  experience (consulting stakeholders who have lived experience of an issue); community- engaged design (supporting groups who work closely with the community); inclusive by design' (devising innovative engagement methods such as a youth voice competition or parliamentary style debate); humble government' (where governments accept that they are fallible and work on consensus-building); and deliberative polling (ascertaining informed public opinion over a period of time to determine public policy). These methods, implemented by some UK local authorities such as Lambeth and Southwark, focus on inclusivity, community, innovation, consensus and transparency.

Annex C – Policy Engagement Good Practice Guide

1. Introduction

This guide is designed to support  colleagues in implementing effective, inclusive engagement based on the Engagement Pyramid model proposed in this document:

This includes guidance and resources for each level of the pyramid, as well as points of good practice. This is then built upon in the Engagement Tools in Annex D.

The engagement process begins with good design – a project timeline should allow for effective,  inclusive  design  and  planning,  and  should  have  full  commitment  from decision-makers to ensure the agreed strategy is implemented effectively. This guide aims  to  assist  colleagues  in  designing  their  engagement  strategies,  providing  a framework for who, when, and how to engage with the public on policy matters.

 Note that the engagement process should be tailored to the individuals you are trying to engage. It may therefore be necessary to carry out engagement activities at unsociable hours (I.e. evenings and weekends), to host meetings in convenient locations such as community centres, and to avoid planning engagement around busy or festive periods such as Christmas or summer holidays. The engagement process should also be made as accessible as possible throughout. See section (vii) for good practice principles when it comes to accessibility.

2. Guidance for Observing (Public Opinion)

3. Guidance for Endorsing (Policy Proposals)

4. Guidance for Contributing (to Policy Development)

5. Guidance for Producing (Policy Solutions)

6. Guidance for Inclusive Engagement

When engaging with the public, we must ensure that our activities are as inclusive and accessible as possible, which involves the consideration of the following groups:

• Children and young people

• Older people

• Other  less  heard  groups  (including  Islanders  with  disabilities, ethnic minorities and individuals for whom English is a second language).

Consider the following measures when planning inclusive public engagement:  

• Stakeholder Mapping - Identify and prioritise relevant community issues and stakeholders (including organisations), their interests, and ways in which their interests impact those of the relevant body doing

the engagement. This allows for the beginning of a relationship to be formed with the community.

• Inclusive Design - Policy should be inclusive by design and by default. As a practical first step when considering methods of community engagement, ask yourself the who' why' and how' of inclusive thinking:

Who might have difficulty complying with what we are asking them to do?

Why are we asking them to do it that way? And;

How should we modify our procedures in order to enable them to participate?

Enabling and empowering lesser heard voices to participate in the engagement  process  will  result  in  more  informed,  responsive policymaking. It is also best practice to specifically invite people to request any reasonable adjustments on the grounds of disability when participating in surveys, focus groups, workshops, assemblies, etc.

• Maximising Participation - When dealing with key or contentious issues or a developed policy proposal, aim as high in the pyramid as reasonably practicable (I.e. the contributing' and producing' levels). This will help lesser heard communities feel involved and valued in the policy development process. Accessing these communities can be difficult, but made easier with the support of community facilitators and champions. They can help build relationships  across  existing  and  new  communities,  working  with individuals to identify issues and develop solutions. Empowerment may look like allowing these communities to guide policy projects, with Government providing support via a monitoring or advisory role.

• Engaging Lesser Heard Voices  

Children and young people: Interactive displays are good for getting young people and people who have never participated in  engagement  work  involved.  Social  media  which  are regularly  updated  are  good  for  providing  information  to younger people who are active online. The type of social media site can also target different audiences; Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn all have different audiences.

Older  persons  and  individuals  with  disabilities:  When engaging  with  individuals  who  have  additional  needs, provisions  should  be  made  to  support  participation  in surveys/polls and focus groups/workshops. This may look like providing  an  Easy  Read,  Braille  or  transcribed  version  of materials, and inviting support workers or carers to support participation  in  meetings.  Some  engagement  will  be  more

suited to being held online, while others will be more effective

in person. Efforts should be made to ascertain the needs of individuals and adjusting the engagement strategy accordingly.

Speakers  of  other  languages:  When  issuing  surveys  or hosting focus groups and workshops (online or in-person), materials should be provided in additional languages as far as possible. For meetings, an interpreter should be provided to support participation. This may be a Government colleague or a community volunteer.

• Building Community Networks - Establishing strong, constructive and open links within the community will help build a fund of expertise, knowledge and specialist contacts, and sustain dynamic relationships with stakeholder groups. This will provide greater opportunity for lesser heard voices to have their say on matters that affect them and the Island as a whole. See the table below for examples:

7. Good Practice Principles – Accessibility

When engaging with the public, ensure that there are appropriate supports in place for all citizens to participate in engagement activities. This involves producing  accessible  communications  and  consultation  materials  as  far  as possible (i.e. translating into other languages or providing easy read and braille versions), adhering to online accessibility standards and arranging for support workers and interpreters to attend focus groups or workshops where required.

 Note that easy read' refers to the presentation of text in an accessible, easy to understand format. It is often useful for people with learning disabilities and may also be beneficial for people with other conditions affecting how they process information[1]. See the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities website for how to create an easy read document.

You can also contact your departmental Comms lead for advice on making engagement activities more accessible.

viii.  Good Practice Principles - Data Protection

 All engagement exercises will engage the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 to an extent. Before undertaking any engagement exercise, you must consider the impact that any proposed activity will have on people's data. For example, personal data may be disclosed when completing a survey or when requesting qualitative feedback in a focus group or workshop. You should ensure that personal data is collected only on a need-to-know basis and is processed and stored securely.

The completion of a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) screener form is mandatory for all types of engagement, and will inform whether you need to complete a full DPIA based on the engagement you are carrying out. Prior to completing a DPIA screener, you must consider how people's data will be processed and stored and ensure that this will comply with the law.

Contact your departmental Data Governance/Protection Officer for advice.

9. Good  Practice  Principles  -  Engaging  Early  with  the  States Assembly & Scrutiny

 It is important for those considering community engagement to consult with the States Assembly and Scrutiny panels early in the process. This should help ensure that the community engagement and policy creation part of the process are completed far enough in advance for specific proposals to be presented to the States Assembly and scrutiny panels in a timely manner; i.e., with enough time for adequate scrutiny and debate and for any proposed reform to be implemented by the desired deadline.

Consulting with the States Assembly and Scrutiny panels involves providing broad details about the project at hand and ascertaining, in so far as this is possible, when the States Assembly and scrutiny panels would need to receive any proposals for them to be implemented by a particular date. Engaging with the States Assembly and Scrutiny panels should be an ongoing process; those planning  community  engagement  should  inform  the  States  Assembly  and Scrutiny panels if there is a significant unforeseen delay in the community engagement process that might affect the submission of proposals to these bodies, and work together with these bodies to ensure a mutually agreeable revised timeline.

10. Good Practice Principles – Research Ethics

The purpose of research ethics is to ensure that parties involved are protected from  harm  and  that  engagement  or  consultation  activities  are  carried  out ethically. This is particularly important when consulting on contentious or sensitive policy matters.

The key ethical values to be considered when undertaking any engagement or consultation activities include the following:

• Veracity/integrity

• Privacy (including dignity and autonomy);

• Confidentiality (including data protection and accuracy);

• Informed consent and transparency; and

• Beneficence and justice.

Before undertaking any engagement or consultation activities, ensure you have considered the ethical implications of your engagement strategy or policy proposal. If your activities are likely to engage any of the above principles, you must consider how they could be adapted to uphold these values or mitigate risks such as data protection (or even distress to individuals). This should involve convening a group of officials to consider your engagement strategy and to agree whether it should be amended to accord with ethical values. Following a meeting to consider the ethical impact of your engagement activity, you should record the outcome of the discussion and the rationale for your proposed method of engagement.

Annex D - The Policy Engagement Toolkit

1. The Engagement Design Tool

 The purpose of the engagement design tool template is to help policy makers decide whether community engagement is appropriate and, if so, what form or forms of community engagement to adopt – that is, WHO to engage, WHEN to engage, and HOW to engage. It provides a structured method for making decisions, with links to useful resources, bringing transparency to the process. Considering the five basic matters outlined below, with reference to specific relevant questions, should collectively help you determine whether community engagement is appropriate in relation to a specific policy project and, if so, the role and level that it should play as described in the Engagement Pyramid model.

5 Factors to consider when designing an engagement strategy:

It is important to consider how much trust there is between the community and Government in this context and what factors might have contributed to this situation. The greater the level of trust that the community places in Government, they may be less likely to engage. However, communities may also expect to be involved in decision-making processes, particularly when an issue directly affects them.

• Based on the available evidence at this point, how important is this issue likely to be to the community?

The more important it is to the community, the more likely it is that they will want to engage with the policy creation process and to expect to play a substantial role in it.

• On the available evidence at this point, how controversial is the issue?

If the issue is not controversial, then community engagement may still be important to test policy proposals but engagement at the higher levels of the Engagement Pyramid may not be appropriate.

• Is there a danger of engagement fatigue? Is public opinion already clear about the issue (for example, because of a related community engagement project)?

It is important to avoid unnecessary community engagement; this can waste the time of all concerned and alienate those who might otherwise have been willing to help with other policy projects. Community engagement is not always needed simply because a project will affect the public.

• What are your resources and is there time for public engagement?

Policy-creators need to be realistic about their resources in terms of expertise, staff time, and money. It is important to consider appropriate levels of payment that may be necessary to facilitate inclusive community engagement. Further, there is not always time for public engagement: some policy matters require an urgent response.

it is necessary to bear mind that there may be other interested parties with valuable perspectives to share, given the defined scope of the project.

It is important to be inclusive and design any community engagement process to have as few barriers to participation as possible, bearing in mind that some groups could be harder to  reach  than  others.  Effective  community  engagement  involves  the  widest  possible participation from relevant parties and dealing with representatives from the various groups involved.

Identifying PEOPLE involves considering questions such as:

• Who would be interested in this issue?

• Who is impacted by this issue and what is the extent of this impact?

• Who, if at all, represents these groups?

• Which groups could be hard to reach?

There is no absolute rule about the level and type of engagement that is appropriate in relation to the answers to these questions. However, the level and type of appropriate engagement, as outlined in the Engagement Pyramid, will typically vary according to the level of interest in the matter at hand and the degree of its impact on a stakeholder. Thus, key stakeholders may be involved at the level of producing, whereas those with an interest but who are not directly affected might be involved in endorsing.

2. Engagement Assessment Tool

Effective policy creation requires evaluation of any community engagement process on an ongoing basis and after the project has concluded. There are various  forms  of  assessment  criteria,  but  they  share  common  elements. Evaluation through a structured and consistent use of a set of questions, such as this set from the International Association for Public Participation, would be helpful here: