Memorandum of Evidence
1. Introduction
1.1 Camden Council welcomes the Select Committee's
attention to this topic. Many councils, including Camden, have
taken consultation and community engagement far beyond the traditional
and sometimes limited approaches of the past, and we welcome an
opportunity to submit evidence.
1.2 Camden puts community participation
at the heart of what we do. There are many reasons why we consult
and encourage engagement. They are:
— better decision making through consultation
as well as deeper involvement and deliberative input from residents,
service users and citizens;
— better and more tailored services
through feedback, knowledge of preferences and experiences of
service users, involvement in designing services and ownership
of solutions;
— finding joint solutions to problems
that the council, government or service providers cannot solve;
— social inclusion through "voice"
for traditionally excluded groups;
— active citizenship as an end in itself,
and as a means to cohesive and stronger communities;
— complementing local electoral democracy,
making sense of how it works and how people can bring about change;
— developing capacity, social capital
and skills; and
— creating and facilitating connections
between people.
1.3 We have recently joined a number of
"civic pioneer" councils working with the Home Office
on community engagement and we feel we have much experience and
good practice to contribute to this agenda.
1.4 We understand the focus for the Committee's
Inquiry to be consultation (as distinct from other forms of participation)
so we have based our response largely on this area of activity.
However, the distinctions are not hard and fast, and where information
seemed relevant we have included it. Our evidence is structured
around the particular questions set out by the Committee and these
are addressed in turn below.
2. The general effectiveness of public consultation
and its impact on local authority decision-making and possible
ways to improve it
2.1 Measuring and evaluating the effectiveness
of consultation and its impact on decision-making is complex and
challenging. However, in our view it is essential to show people
how their input has made a difference and to check that the ways
that we involve people are inclusive and rewarding.
3. How we assess the impact of consultation
on decision-making
3.1 Camden council has a Consultation Board
chaired by an Executive member for Community Engagement. The Board
approves consultation plans against set criteria including the
methodology to be used and how harder to reach communities will
be involved.
3.2 Following the consultation the Board
systematically captures the outcomes of the consultation and how
the results influenced policies and operational decisions both
within the council and our partner organisations such as health.
3.3 A recent evaluation of 50 consultations
showed positive results. Three quarters of officers who led on
the consultation reported some impact on policy and the same number
said that the consultation had influenced operational decisions.
Around a third said that the consultation had influenced partner
organisations. A smaller number highlighted other positive outcomes
such as improved knowledge of users' views among staff and better
communication between staff and customers.
3.4 Impact on policy focussed on incorporating
consultation findings into plans and strategies. Examples include
youth services provision, Sure Start projects, Homelessness, road
safety and the Children and Young People's Strategy. In some cases
respondents said that new policies or approaches had been developed.
Examples here include eligibility criteria for community care
and housing policy.
3.5 Changes made to the way services were
run as a result of consultation were varied. For example:
— consultation on the Adult Learning
Plan led to changes in courses being offered and where they were
run;
— the housing repairs service re-organisation
led to the setting up of a customer services centre to meet residents
needs;
— the survey of satisfaction with sports
centres led to an action plan to address areas of weakness in
the service and buildings;
— consultation with HIV service users
led to a re-organisation of the social work team and maintenance
of special services for HIV users;
— consultation on unauthorised camping
resulted in better co-ordination of service delivery between environmental
health, housing and education; and
— a three year action plan for the
management of Kilburn town centre was the result of the Kilburn
Partnership Consensus consultation.
4. The effectiveness of consultation methods
4.1 The evaluation also looked at the effectiveness
of the ways that we consult and involve people. In particular,
we wanted to explore people's experiences of the best ways to
involve harder to reach communities. Our general finding was not
surprising: time and resources to involve people early on in the
consultation process and to network extensively will help to make
consultation inclusive.
4.2 Proven effectiveness in involving of
harder to reach groups included:
— working through voluntary and community
sector groups;
— snowballing (asking someone from
a particular group to invite others);
— going out to community groups or
client groups to consult on their own premises;
— sending letters and questionnaires
in advance to be followed up by phone calls and visits;
— recruiting through council projects;
and
— providing training on issues under
consideration (eg Unitary Development Plan).
4.3 Ensuring translation/interpreting in
community languages and appropriate design (eg for young people)
was important in all successful examples.
4.4 A key measure of the effectiveness of
consultation is participants views and we regularly ask participants
to tell us what they thought of individual consultations. We can
provide examples of innovative consultation methodologies that
participants have found rewarding. One example is peer research
where members of the community consult others. This has been used
effectively in a number of local Sure Start programmes to engage
local parents while building skills and knowledge. These issues
are expanded on below in the section on reaching audiences beyond
those who typically participate.
5. Improving what we do
5.1 We are encouraged by the results of
the evaluation of the impact of consultation on decision-making
but we are aware that there is still scope for improvement. Making
sure that people are clear about why they are consulting and how
the results will be used is critical and one of the key aims of
the Consultation Board when approving consultation plans. Consultation
should never be carried out as box ticking exercise as this will
lead to cynicism and decreased levels of participation.
5.2 We also need to let residents know what
the findings of consultation are and how the results have influenced
decisions. It is important that adequate timescales for consultation
are built in at both central government and local levels to enable
an effective process to take place.
5.3 In terms of methodologies our new citizens
panel, CamdenTalks, which consists of 1,800 demographically citizens
will provide opportunities to experiment with different methodologies
and evaluate these. We have already begun a pilot e-participation
project with CamdenTalks members which is being evaluated by the
Oxford Internet Institute.
5.4 Regular surveys provide an overall check
on whether residents think that the council listens to and involves
them. These questions are included in our annual residents survey
and the results provide useful trend data so that we can track
progress. We currently score above the London-wide average but
we still need to improve.
5.5 A further general measure of progress
is provided by our survey to measure social capital in Camden.
This innovative piece of work was first carried out three years
ago to provide a baseline for our community and neighbourhood
renewal strategies. The survey looks at social networks, trust,
levels of civic engagement and social cohesion across the borough
and in neighbourhood renewal areas. We will repeat the survey
in March this year to see if social capital has improved, in particular
in deprived areas. The council has a key role in building social
capital by providing communities with opportunities to participate
in decision-making through consultation and in other ways.
6. How public consultation fits into the
local authority decision-making processes and whether the new
cabinet structures in local government facilitate consultation
and the involvement of constituents in decision making
6.1 We felt that these two areas of the
Committee's Inquiry are closely related and best considered together.
6.2 Much of the consultation that we do
does not involve a direct interface between residents and the
formal decision making structures of the council and this is of
course how it should be. Good practice in consultation involves
diverse methods and a complex web of groups and individuals. Some
consultation is very arms length in order to provide independence
and credibility or to enable members of the community to control
and run the process themselves. The important thing is that the
results of consultation are widely disseminated, embedded in the
policies that are discussed by councillors and taken account of
in the decisions they make.
7. The role of councillors
7.1 Councillors play a major part in how
the council relates to local communities and the changes in council
structures have created distinct roles all which all have community
engagement dimensions.
7.2 As ward representatives, councillors
are key communicators and listeners. Councillors can also be facilitators,
bringing together local communities with partners such as the
health service and police. This is increasingly happening in Neighbourhood
Partnerships. The council doesn't have a uniform model for these
but has some effective partnerships with strong involvement from
local councillors and the wider community. These partnerships
feed into decisions about what local priorities are and how neighbourhood
renewal funding will be spent. Linking partnerships to decisions
about mainstream services is still a challenge.
7.3 The scrutiny function is an important
channel for engagement of local residents in decision-making.
Time-limited scrutiny panels carry out investigations into council
and other public services and each panel has a programme of public
engagement which includes advertising for people to attend or
submit views and evidence on the topic, contacting community and
other groups who have an interest and sometimes commissioning
survey or other research. Panels can and do co-opt members of
the public or relevant organisations as well. In many cases the
consultation and engagement associated with a panel has been substantial
and contributed to the quality of the recommendations produced.
8. Links with formal decision making structures
8.1 In terms of the council's formal decision
making structures we have tried hard to create a system that is
transparent, with opportunities for local people to get involved.
The Executive meets in public and the meetings are webcast. Like
all councils we have a forward plan to enable people to spot decisions
but it has not proved possible to turn this into an easy and popular
tool for keeping tabs on the council. Deputations are taken at
both the Executive and the Overview and Scrutiny Commission (OSC)
with no limit on the number, though the presentations are time
limited.
8.2 We hold Executive Question Times quarterly
in different areas of the borough. Areas are leafleted and people
have opportunities to submit questions in advance and in writing
as well as attending on the night. Turnout is in the order of
30-50 people. The November 2004 Question Time was held in a residential
home to engage older people in particular.
8.3 In general it is fair to say that attracting
people to participate in more formal meetings at the Town Hall
or even in community settings is a challenge. We know it goes
against the grain of how people like to be involved. This applies
as much to the previous council committee structure as to the
present arrangements.
8.4 The citizenship agenda is linked to
improving engagement with decision making structures in that it
is partly about improving understanding of and ultimately participation
in the democratic process. In Camden we have 45 school councils
and other initiatives to make citizenship come alive in schools.
Sixth form pupils shadowed polling stations in recent elections
for example and a visit to Brussels was organised for young people
linked to the European elections.
8.5 We also actively encourage people to
take on governance roles. Camden has held "community recruitment"
events where we encourage people to sign up to become school governors,
participate in scrutiny panels, get involved in a park or library
user group or health issues or even become a councillor.
9. Is consultation part of a continuing process
of communication, information, dissemination and participation?
9.1 There are many different terms to describe
community engagement and when we design ways to consult, involve
and engage we need to be clear about what we are doing and why.
A model that we have used internally as part of good practice
guidance and training for members and officers is the "Ladder
of Citizen Empowerment". This model is used to represent
a continuum of engagement from providing information through to
more intense and ongoing forms of participation up to inter-dependent
control. It has helped us to clarify thinking about the purpose
of particular initiatives but also to understand that consultation
is linked to a wider spectrum of activity all of which needs to
fit together as part of a coherent strategy around community engagement.
9.2 The consultation process itself consists
of a cycle of actions. These include being clear about the purpose
of the consultation exercise, disseminating results and feeding
back to participants about what has happened.
10. Is best practice being developed and
applied well?
10.1 The principles set out above are incorporated
in good practice guidance and training. The council has a set
of consultation guidelines which are supplemented by more detailed
and specific guidance including:
— a comprehensive guide to consultation
and involvement with a particular focus on harder to reach communities:
Creating Partnerships with People. This was developed with our
partners in health and the voluntary and community sector;
— a resource and training pack called
Young Voices which provides ideas and guidance about consulting
and involving young people; and
— guidelines on carrying out surveys
and focus groups.
10.2 These guidelines have been underpinned
by seminars and training to make them more real and allow people
to explore issues in more depth.
10.3 The Consultation Board has taken a
lead role in driving forward the agenda on best practice and in
addition to the initiatives outlined above has sponsored a number
of events to spread good practice. Examples include a seminar
to look at how our Families in Focus initiative engages with local
people on estates and a presentation by MORI on how to engage
residents and use consultation results. We are planning a seminar
this year on how to work effectively with the voluntary and community
sector in carrying out consultation.
10.4 The Consultation Board also produces
a bi-annual digest of consultation results highlighting good practice
and has set up a database of consultation plans and outcomes which
is accessible via the council's intranet.
11. Does consultation reach an audience beyond
those who typically participate?
11.1 Camden is a diverse borough, with many
highly articulate individuals and groups of people who are skilled
and effective in making their voice heard, and other groups that
have far less influence and voice. Consulting and involving harder
to reach communities is a key objective for the council and is
the focus of much of our good practice guidance and the Consultation
Board's scrutiny of consultation plans. We have identified communities
and sub groups within communities who we feel need to be specifically
targeted to overcome exclusion. These communities include BME
communities, people with disabilities, younger and older people
and LBGT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender communities).
11.2 We can point to many examples of good
practice in consulting and involving all these communities:
— peer research involving young women
in consulting other young women about their needs in particular
areas;
— involvement of a small group of young
people in organising and facilitating a conference for a diverse
group of other young people to consult on the Children and Young
People's Strategy;
— recruitment of a 1,800 strong citizens
panel: CamdenTalks with booster samples for BME communities and
young people;
— liaison groups for service users
with particular needs (physical disability and sensory impairment,
learning disabilities, mental health, HIV/AIDS, alcohol services);
and
— a programme of work to engage faith
communities.
11.3 Despite the many examples we can provide
of involvement of harder to reach communities we know that not
all of our consultation exercises do this effectively. Our recent
evaluation referred to above showed that good practice in consultation
always involves devoting the time and resources to be inclusive.
The evaluation also showed that we rely sometimes to heavily on
consultation methods that are not so inclusive such as postal
questionnaires and public meetings. There are no easy answers.
Building capacity within the organisation through good practice
guidance and training is part of the picture. Most importantly
we have tried to develop an organisational culture that places
a high level of importance on community engagement.
| 
