"IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS" - Approaches to engaging people with direct experience of poverty in the development of local child poverty policy ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
“IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS” Approaches to engaging people with direct experience of poverty in the development of local child poverty policy
Written by Sarah Stocks Northern Star Associates www.northernstarassociates.co.uk 07730 567047 Published by: The Poverty Alliance 94 Hope Street Glasgow G2 6PH The Poverty Alliance is Scotland’s anti-poverty network. Together with our members, we influence policy and practice, support communities to challenge poverty, provide evidence through research and build public support for the solutions to tackle poverty. Our members include grassroots community groups, academics, large national NGOs, voluntary organisations, statutory organisations, trade unions, and faith groups. www.povertyalliance.org 0141 353 0440 The Poverty Alliance is recognised as a charity by the Inland Revenue. Reference No: SCO19926 This report was made possible by funding from the Scottish Government. The views expressed in this report may not reflect those of the Poverty Alliance or Scottish Government. About Get Heard Scotland Get Heard Scotland (GHS) is a programme coordinated by the Poverty Alliance and funded by the Scottish Government as part of Every Child Every Chance, the Scottish Government’s Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan. GHS is designed to help people on low incomes get their voices heard on the policies and decisions that most impact their lives and their communities. Very simply, it aims to find out – by holding discussions with people affected by poverty across Scotland and with the organisations that support people affected by poverty – what is working in their community, what is not working, and what needs to change to better support people living on low incomes and loosen the grip of poverty on their lives.
CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 2
Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 4
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 6
Our approach to this research............................................................................................ 6
How could we apply principles of participation to increase
meaningful participation by people with experience of low
incomes in the development of child poverty action reports?.......................................... 7
KNOWLEDGE: How do we share and exchange knowledge
with people who have lived experience of poverty?........................................................... 9
ACTION: How do we ensure people with lived experience
of poverty can take action in local government?.............................................................. 10
CONSCIOUSNESS: How do people relate their
place in the world to other people’s experience?............................................................. 11
Implementing participation in local authorities.................................................................. 13
What practical examples are there of participation in
local policy making which are relevant to the development
of local child poverty action reports?............................................................................... 14
Relational learning pairs between decision-makers
and people with lived experience of low income.............................................................. 14
Participatory research leading to service review............................................................... 15
Mini public...................................................................................................................... 16
Online forum................................................................................................................... 18
Participative review of policy........................................................................................... 19
Panel.............................................................................................................................. 20
Poverty Truth Commission.............................................................................................. 20
Deliberative participatory budgeting................................................................................ 22
CASE STUDY: Renfrewshire.............................................................................................. 23
CASE STUDY: Inverclyde.................................................................................................. 27
12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
How was this report produced? Greater knowledge means including local
Researched and written in 2021 by Sarah people’s perspectives alongside the statistical
Stocks of Northern Star for Poverty data about poverty that is normally gathered
Alliance, this report for the Get Heard by decision-makers. Action in the context of
Scotland project collates learning and policy means solving underlying problems
practical approaches to include people rather than just letting people feel heard:
with lived experience of poverty in local looking to change policy as well as adjust the
policy development. As a change-focused way services are delivered. Consciousness
piece of research, this project analysed is when policy makers, people experiencing
data from local child poverty action reports poverty and the wider population reflect
across Scotland and from 30 interviews with on their own attitudes, coming to a fuller
community activists, their supporters and understanding of their and others’ place in
policy makers. We applied these insights the community, becoming more aware of
through focused development work with different relationships of power. We should
Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Councils, to not expect that any one participatory
increase the channels for lived experience to method could possibly include every person
influence their child poverty policy. and fully develop knowledge, action and
consciousness. Instead, we should look to
What are the key principles of effective
develop programmes of participation which
participation in making policy?
include a number of different interventions in
Participatory approaches must include
concert, allowing people with different needs
an understanding of other dimensions of
to influence through different channels.
poverty beyond money. Participation is not
just about being heard – for expressing Where is participation different from
yourself is not the same as having the consultation? Good participative practice
agency to make a difference to your moves on from just asking people to give
situation. Whilst participatory approaches us their opinion, to enabling them to shape
must include listening to people, they decision-makers’ opinions in the room,
should also aim to make a difference to to being in the room where that decision
those people. Participation needs us to making happens and being part of those
make a long-term commitment towards decisions. One-time contributions from
increasing equality of marginalised people. consultation necessarily cannot allow
For institutions like local authorities who are individuals to weigh up alternatives or
trying to deepen the influence on policy of combine features of different ideas into
people who experience poverty, increasing a coherent approach. We must privilege
meaningful influence is still worthwhile, even relationship over hearing lived experience.
if there are some areas that this influence This means we should involve people, not
does not reach. just gather their stories. The outcomes of
this type of engagement are not merely an
What are the outcomes of effective
understanding of others’ opinions, but the
participation? We can think of good
relationships that they build, the opinions
participation as producing three changes:
that they evolve, and the contribution that
knowledge, action and consciousness.
they make to changing policy.What are some practical examples of • Participative review of policy: people with
participation in local policy making experience of poverty spend time with a
relevant to the development of local worker in interviews and a focus group.
child poverty action reports? The aim of the interviews is to review the
• Relational learning pairs: decision-makers Local Child Poverty Action Report and
meeting 1-1 with people with lived make recommendations about where the
experience of low income. Participants strategy should be changed.
are matched into learning pairs which • Panel: a group of people with experience
meet regularly, with one partner a of low income and willingness to
professional from the council, and advocate for change, act as an advisory
another a person from the community panel for decision-makers. Typically an
with lived experience of low income. advisory panel would provide comment
• Participatory research leading to service on new ideas and provide an opportunity
review: working with the support of skilled to collaborate with grassroots activists,
facilitators and researchers, ordinary acting as a sounding board for a
people with lived experience work as decision-making group.
peer researchers, gather evidence from • Poverty Truth commissions: these
others in their situation, and then begin examine inequality and experiences of
a working group with decisionmakers to poverty, involving people with experience
collectively revise policy and service in of poverty alongside commissioners with
response to findings. decision-making power, experience in
• Mini public: a deliberative, short term business, or academic interests. The
process involving a representative emphasis in Poverty Truth Commissions
group of local people with experience of is on understanding the perspectives
poverty weighing up evidence, leading to of people with experience of poverty,
recommendations for further work. Mini and connecting their expertise to
publics are broken up into two or more decisionmakers, as a way of clarifying
interactive, discursive sessions, which and tackling issues of poverty as they
are designed to give participants enough manifest in a defined local area.
time to talk about and understand the • Deliberative participatory budgeting
issue (dialogue) and then come up with models: create space for participants
suggestions on how to respond to the to talk about the problems they are
issue (deliberation). experiencing and evolve solutions
• Online forum: this gathers together people together. This is a longer term process,
with experience of poverty and the desire rather than a short term competition,
to contribute their experience. They may with participants gathering to discuss
use a private group in a social network, their priorities and evolve ideas, over a
or in a bespoke platform. A facilitator yearly funding cycle.
engages with people around particular
topics, posing questions and gathering
views, which may be general experience
or might be opinions about a service.
34
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for local • Actively make connections between each
authorities to help deepen their piece of participatory work – for example,
participatory practice: encouraging people to consider further
• Ensure that participation leads your engagement by taking part in a follow-up
institution further than simply better group or forum, or showing people how
listening, to changing what they do. there’s been change over time, relating
today’s recommendations to earlier
• Look to increase meaningful influence of results of other processes.
people with lived experience of poverty
in policy development, even if there are • Honour the person who brings their lived
some areas that this influence does not experience and engage with them as a
reach. whole being with influence, not solely as
a story.
• Design programmes of participation
which include a number of different • Give experts by experience the space to
interventions, allowing people with build relationships with people involved in
different needs to influence through decision-making.
different channels. • Put in place helpers who can bridge the
• Work towards approaches which bring gap between those who have learnt how
together sustained groups of local to navigate through the institution, and
people with direct experience of poverty, citizens who have only just stepped into
rather than relying only on third sector the space of local government.
organisations to share their views. • Consider setting up partnership with a
• Resource participation through funding national organisation a step removed
participatory processes that are from local concerns in order to deepen
evolved and staffed by local community and sustain engagement with citizens.
connectors who are trusted by citizens, • Challenge yourself to give more weight
rather than asking these groups to to lived experience. If we consider lived
supply their views through consultations. experience as either partial and biased,
• Provide independent facilitation and or as inauthentic and polished, we allow
support for groups of citizens to meet no space for lived experience to ever be
together as activists over the long term, recognised as true.
beyond any time-limited processes. • Focus on building up relationships with
• Recognise the importance of dialogue people rather than extracting participants
and group reflection, as opposed to for a new initiative.
relying solely on bilateral or one-way • Participation should not be merely
communication between citizens and consultative but influential; rather than
councils. This is because policy is made seeing engagement as taking on views
through refining ideas by different parties of people once at the beginning of a
over time. project, set up opportunities to work
through things with reference to them as
an equal partner, over time.How to run participatory approaches • Dedicate time at meetings to setting
well in the room where they happen: ground rules around sharing lived
• Make pathways to changing policy experience. For example, participants
visible and real for participants as well as are not required to share personal stories
decision makers. and where they do, all participants
commit to listening to understand, not
• Take care to feed back to people how to challenge or respond. It may be
far their influence has reached into the helpful to set expectations that certain
institution as they may not be in those agenda items are about understanding
rooms to see for themselves. experience and don’t require decision
• Work to decode practices which can be makers to defend their practice but to
opaque to people outside the council – listen in order to understand. Other items
such as meeting bureaucracy and wordy later in the same meeting may be to
papers. formulate action and these are the space
to debate or interrogate the practice
• When bringing people into decision
of the council, but not to interrogate
maker’s spaces, consider the ratio of
individuals’ lives.
lived experience to decision makers and
make sure there is a critical mass of • Think about those who are absent as
people from marginalised social groups well as present. Consider where your
to offer support to one another. If they approach doesn’t have participants
are in the minority, they may not be seen who are, for example, parents of young
by themselves or others as welcome or children, or have English as a second
genuinely equal partners, and their voice language, or are learning disabled. How
may be isolated. will this approach link with others to
understand the lived experience of these
• Pay for time of people giving their lived
groups?
experience, either as honorarium for
attendance at processes, or by setting • Give a role to professionals to broker
up contracts as consultants or part-time the knowledge to their colleagues who
workers. are not in the room; and to bring back
to participants an account of how this
• Ensure that helpers and people with
knowledge has influenced others.
lived experience have time to affect
the agenda of meetings and the way
documents are phrased and discussed,
and put time in to brief lived experience
members ahead of meetings.
56
INTRODUCTION
A s part of the Get Heard Scotland project,
Poverty Alliance commissioned Sarah
Stocks of Northern Star to research potential
Authorities have the responsibility, in
partnership with Health Boards, to produce
annual Child Poverty Action Reports.
approaches to engaging people with direct Throughout the development of these plans,
experience of poverty in the development at both the national and local levels, there is
of local child poverty policy. This work was an expectation that there will be engagement
with the 3rd sector and with people who
intended to complement and add to the
have experienced poverty.
Poverty Alliance’s existing programme of
work to engage with people living on low This report reflects the approach of Get
incomes and feed this experience into local Heard Scotland through two strands:
and national policy. by gathering first-hand knowledge from
community activists, their supporters and
The Child Poverty (Scotland) Act sets policy makers about practical approaches
ambitious targets for poverty reduction on to include people with lived experience of
Scotland by 2030. Whilst the actions of poverty in policy development; and secondly
Scottish and UK government will be crucial by working with Renfrewshire and Inverclyde
to achieving these targets, the efforts of local authorities to increase the channels
Local Authorities will also be critical. This for lived experience to influence their child
is recognised in the Act whereby Local poverty policy.
Our approach to this research
As a change-focused piece of research, this Commission’s review of the Local Child
project analysed data from people involved Poverty Action Reports 2019).
in different roles of engaging with lived
• Reviewing published and unpublished
experience of poverty, and also attempted
reports of participatory approaches to
to apply these insights through focused
local policy making in Scotland. This
development work in the particular contexts
included evaluations and case studies
of Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Councils.
produced by third sector organisations,
Here’s some of what we did to gather data: local authorities and health boards in
Scotland.
• reviewing all available local child poverty
action reports for the 32 local authorities. • Interviewing six community activists
Some authorities had produced reports who had taken part in local and national
for both 2018-19 and 2019-20 periods; examples of lived experience testimony.
for others Covid had delayed the second
• Interviewing professionals from a number
report which was not available for the
of voluntary organisations and statutory
period of this research.
agencies, nine involved in policy and six
• Analysing examples of good practice in frontline interventions.
identified by the Poverty and Inequality
• Interviewing nine local council
Commission, Improvement Service
professionals in community engagement
Scotland and the Poverty Alliance,
roles or policy development functions.
such as (See Poverty and InequalityHOW COULD WE APPLY
PRINCIPLES OF PARTICIPATION
TO INCREASE MEANINGFUL
PARTICIPATION BY PEOPLE WITH
EXPERIENCE OF LOW INCOMES
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILD
POVERTY ACTION REPORTS?
P articipation is a recognition that
people experiencing a society which
systematically disrespects them, have the
decisions, over how people think of you,
over your control of your own time. This
means that participatory approaches, to be
right, just as much as people respected in effective, must include an understanding of
society, to have influence over decisions other dimensions of power beyond money.
that affect their lives. Participation is a Someone taking part in a participatory
approach organised by a local authority
fundamental freedom underlying all human
may have to negotiate a number of different
rights, and is necessary for us to live with
inequalities; they may not be on equal
dignity, and to see our rights realised
terms with the people organising the
equally in communities. One of the core approach, and this can lead to mistrust and
expressions of participation is derived from to significant harm unless the organisers
justice-oriented civil rights movements: appreciate how power manifests in different
“nothing about us without us ”, a rallying cry forms for different people.
developed by South African disability rights
One key aspect of power is agency.
advocates. Participation is a way to set right
Participation is not just about being heard
the conditions of society for some of its – for expressing yourself is not the same as
members who are stigmatised according to having the agency to make a difference to your
one or many socially–determined labels: of situation. Whilst participatory approaches must
race, of disability, of sexuality, and of poverty. include listening to people, they should also
Attempts to increase the influence of people aim to make a difference to those people. This
in the services and organisations which means that those who commission community
surround their communities, must take engagement should also look to their own
into account power differentials between power over decisions, and consider whether
marginalised people in communities and what they hear makes any difference to what
those governing them. Poverty is expressed they do. For large institutions, participation
not only as a lack of financial means. Poverty must lead the institution beyond simply better
is also manifest in powerlessness over listening, to changing what they do.
78
We should consider participation as one about poverty that is normally gathered by
attempt to address injustice, but one that decision-makers. Understanding how people
needs us to make a long-term commitment experience the system of local and national
towards increasing equality, rather than services, is equally important as a source
something that can be achieved in a single of knowledge that be used to drive change.
action. Whilst one conception of participation However this knowledge must go deeper
is as a ladder, with different rungs than consultation, which is an approach
representing a progressively better forms limited to narrowly defined topics proposed
of participation, this framing can imply that by authorities, and which doesn’t attempt
there are ideal forms of participation which to understand the interplay of different
are the only legitimate aim. Instead we can services and the broader texture of people’s
understand participation as like someone circumstances.
learning a language; a person doesn’t Action requires attention to solving underlying
learn to speak in a single conversation, but problems rather than just letting people feel
knowing a few more words means they heard; looking to change policy as well as
can communicate better, even if they are adjust the way services are delivered.
not totally fluent. For institutions like local
authorities who are trying to deepen the Consciousness means recognising that
influence on policy of people who experience the attitudes held by policy makers, people
poverty, increasing meaningful influence is experiencing poverty and the wider population
still worthwhile, even if there are some areas are significant. A process of reflection may
that this influence does not reach. As What lead to people understanding their place in
Works Scotland described in their 2017 the community differently, becoming more
evidence review about overcoming inequality aware of different relationships of power.
in community engagement, “the public Consciousness also means acknowledging the
may well hear and be heard, yet they lack stigma and bias held both by individuals and
the power to be listened to and influence present in institutions, and that policy makers
decisions. They therefore have little chance may learn through relationship with people
of challenging or changing things. In some who experience poverty.
cases there may not be equal power-sharing Knowledge, action and consciousness
but there may be real clarity on the level are all integral parts of participation, and a
of power-sharing and an understanding particular participatory method may lean into
of who has a degree of power and control one of these areas more than the others. We
over decisions. This is arguably a key step should not expect that any one method could
in a longer process of reform to open up possibly include every individual and address
decision-making black boxes.”1 all of these areas. Instead, we should look to
So given this understanding that poverty develop programmes of participation which
has more dimensions than money, how can include a number of different interventions,
we make participation that’s increasingly allowing people with different needs to
meaningful to those involved and that’s influence through different channels. Policy
increasingly effective in leading to change? makers should look to build programmes
We can think of good participation as that should balance these three areas, so
holding three things in balance: knowledge, that people understand the experience of
action and consciousness2. poverty better, that change happens, and that
decision-makers learn and are challenged by
Knowledge means including local people’s other people’s perspectives.
perspectives alongside the statistical data
1
Lightbody, R. (2017) ‘Hard to reach’ or ‘easy to ignore’? Promoting equality in community engagement,
Edinburgh: What Works Scotland.
2
Brock, Karen, and McGee, Rosemary (2002) Knowing Poverty: Critical Reflections on Participatory Research
and Policy, Institute of Development StudiesKNOWLEDGE: How do we share and exchange
knowledge with people who have lived
experience of poverty?
Good participative practice moves on from This is one of the reasons why meaningful
just asking people to give us their opinion, participation in local authorities needs to
to enabling them to shape decision-makers’ deepen from consultation, into dialogue,
opinions in the room, to being in the room deliberation and ultimately to influencing
where that decision making happens and decision-making. Participation involves more
being part of those decisions. There are meaningful, multilateral communication as
stages on the way to this – perhaps some well as sharing of power.
sort of asynchronous dialogue as is outlined
In the course of this research, community
below in Aberdeenshire’s online forum;
activists as well as professionals in
perhaps allowing reflection on previous
institutions pointed out that each person
projects’ impact as in the Glasgow appraisal
who takes part in engaging with their
project. Good practice is enabling a broader
local authority has a different experience,
range of people with experience of poverty
is not representative of all other people
to have a greater influence at more stages of
experiencing poverty, and that there may
the process of decision-making.
be different barriers to engagement for
Part of allowing decision-making to be different people. So it makes sense to use a
influenced by the perspectives of people variety of different approaches in concert, to
who have experienced poverty, is the ensure that there are the maximum possible
importance of dialogue and group reflection, range of ways to take part for seldom-heard
as opposed to relying solely on bilateral or people, including those with protected
one-way communication between citizens characteristics. It is unlikely that any one
and councils. This is because policy is of the models laid out in this report would
made through refining ideas by different be sufficient, on its own, to understand the
parties over time. One-time contributions diversity of experience amongst people
from consultation necessarily cannot allow who’ve known poverty.
individuals to weigh up alternatives or
As part of this, we should also actively
combine features of different ideas into a
make connections between each piece
coherent approach.
of participatory work – for example,
Because of stigma, some good practice encouraging people to consider further
encourages anonymous contributions from engagement taking part in a follow-up group
individuals; however there is great value in or forum, or showing people how there’s
a group of people who are engaging with been change over time, relating today’s
one another’s experience and refining their recommendations to earlier results of other
views through dialogue with one another. processes. This was highlighted by many
There is a real disadvantage to people who grassroots organisations and activists as key
are expressing their reality to power, without to ensuring that participation is not tokenistic;
solidarity, as the power imbalance between if participation is meaningful, it must produce
the individuals and the institution is great. a change or a deeper understanding.
910
ACTION: How do we ensure people with lived
experience of poverty can take action in local
government?
When we consider what the local authority learnt how to navigate through the institution,
can learn from people with experience of and citizens who have only just stepped
poverty, we must privilege relationship over into the space of local government? Often
“lived experience”. This means resisting this needs people who are empathetic and
the call to commodifying lived experience have built relationships with local citizens,
as something transactional, in favour of who can walk with them as supporters and
honouring the person and engaging with interpreters, whilst also keeping an eye on
them as a whole being with influence, not the mechanisms of change.
solely as a story. People who’ve been asked
Further to this, it is important to make
to share their story have sometimes felt that
pathways to changing policy visible and real
it’s only their lived experience that counts –
for participants as well as legislators. It’s not
even if the retelling of that story makes them
enough for authorities to say “thanks for your
feel vulnerable or reduces them to a particular
input, we will now consider this and make
circumstance. Community activists stressed
our own decisions.” Local authorities have
that the effectiveness of many participatory
got to make clear which recommendations
processes rests on those experts by
they are following up, and why or why not
experience being given the space to build
they are being implemented. This should be
relationships with people involved in decision-
done both at the wider level of public reports
making. Whilst lived experience testimony
about their engagement activities, and in
is becoming more highly valued as a means
feedback directly to participants who have
of greater knowledge for professionals, it is
contributed their views.
important that the stories not be more highly
valued than the people who tell these stories. There are different roles that local authorities
We should involve people, rather than gather should consider necessary to make
stories, and allow the relationships that they meaningful participation translate into
build, the opinions that they evolve, the change. The first key role is certainly having
contribution that they make to be the reasons independent facilitation and support for a
for doing engagement. It’s not enough to group of activist citizens; secondly there is
just harvest the insight from their story, whilst a role to play as a broker or ally, from within
preventing the person themselves from having the council, to ensure that some change
a place in deciding how and where that story actually follows. There’s evidence that having
makes a difference. partnership with a national organisation
who is a step removed from local concerns
There is a confidence and skill required to
can deepen and sustain engagement with
engage with the bureaucracy of institutions
citizens. For example, Scottish Womens’ Aid
of power. This needs to be acknowledged
carried out research, in partnership with Fife
and supported by councils as they invite
Domestic and Sexual Abuse Partnership,
people to participate. Councils should ask
aimed at improving housing options for
themselves, how can the local authority
women living in Fife. The research was
decode its opaque practices? Who can
carried out by women who had experienced
bridge the gap between those who havehomelessness as a result of domestic abuse. have that power differential; although we
Scottish Women’s Aid found that women have to be careful with local relationships,”
with direct experience of the issue leading commented an interviewee from Scottish
the work was a fundamental factor for Women’s Aid. Organisations which are not
success in this policy development; but so locally based can usefully hold space for
was having a national organisation, not locally local participants, challenge assumptions
based, which could support women directly from local authorities and maintain a focus
alongside Fife Women’s Aid. “The difficulty independent of fluctuations locally. Another
for local groups is the relationship with local community activist with experience in poverty
authority, because they are often dependent truth commissions highlighted the importance
on them for funding: there’s a great power of “a neutral party bringing the two sides
differential. Scottish Women’s Aid don’t together”.
CONSCIOUSNESS: How do people relate their
place in the world to other people’s experience?
Stigma is a real barrier for people to take ascribe personal details to someone else:
part in anti-poverty strategy. Whilst we “this happened to my sister”.
do want to name the reality of poverty in
One community engagement professional
people’s lives, for some it can take quite
interviewed believed that stigma can be
a consciousness-raising process to be
overcome by in place-based participation
able to face the stigma they live under,
which focuses on communities, rather
without personal shame. For example,
than socio-demographic categories –
Aberdeenshire Council found that an online
bringing people along from within their
forum which allowed people to contribute
neighbourhood, rather than defining them
anonymously, worked well for people living
primarily by their income level. Other
in small villages who were concerned that
research on participatory processes have
taking part in in-person anti-poverty work
found the importance of including a critical
would be very visible to their neighbours.
mass of participants from a marginalised
One community activist who had taken part
group, to allow their voice to be heard
in a Poverty Truth Commission described
and to be influential in group discussion.3
how the building up of understanding over
Confidence can also be an important thing
time, between commissioners who had
to bolster for participants; facilitators don’t
experience of poverty and those who were
just run a participatory process, they can
professionals, allowed them the safety to
also be supporters for participants, finding
share their experience, in the context of
ways for them to overcome barriers of status
a relationship. Another activist described
and lack of confidence.
how in a group of people invited to share
their lived experience, some would find it It’s also important to consider the value given
hard to do face to face, and so would use by the policy-making group to certain forms
pre-recorded video to share their story, or of communication, such as telling a story4.
3
James, M. (2008) Descriptive representation in citizens assemblies. IN Warren, E. And Pearse, H (eds) IN
Designing Deliberative Democracy: the British Columbia Citizens Assembly. Cambridge University Press
(pp 106-26)
4
Smith, G. (2009) Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press.
1112
In a participatory approach, are personal unreliable or partial; whilst community
stories given as much weight as very formal activists who successfully manage to break
reasoning which is detached from a person’s into professional discussions are seen as
experience – or are stories dismissed as inauthentic to their communities – “the usual
‘anecdotal’? Decision-makers need to suspects” who are no longer authentic
become conscious of how they dismiss or voices of their community.5 If we consider
value knowledge according to its source, lived experience as either partial and biased,
and the way it is presented. Professionals in or as inauthentic and polished, we allow
local authorities sometimes doubt whether no space for lived experience to ever be
lived experience will be valued as highly as recognised as true.
experience rooted in professional research
The divide between governed people and
or illustrated by statistics. In conversations
those in government can be deepened by
with people working in local authorities,
stigma, but also by the history of people’s
some professionals expressed their concern
engagement with government. People
that lived experience stories would be
can feel that they, as individuals or as a
dismissed by colleagues as anecdotal,
group, have been left behind, and this real
that they would need to translate personal
perception of power imbalance makes it
testimony into a more ‘corporate’ format,
important that local authorities work with
to make it credible by writing it a certain
trusted community connectors. This may be
way with quantitative evidence. Underlying
people from a local authority service or from
this is a genuine concern for credibility
a grassroots local group; what is important,
of evidence – but also an attitude that
said many community activists and
expresses the division between the people
locally-based organisations, is in building
who are involved in government, and those
up relationships rather than extracting
who are not. Sometimes professionals have
participants for some new initiative. Where
been taught that qualitative evidence, which
possible, processes should be rooted
includes testimony, is not reliable, indeed
in existing local organisations or locality
that it’s naïve and illogical, unless it has
groups. Local authorities should consider
been reviewed and expressed by another
resourcing participation through funding
acceptable professional, who can place
participatory processes that are evolved
the correct interpretation on these stories.
and staffed by local community connectors
However the role of qualitative research is
who are trusted, rather than asking these
to bring out new insights that deepen our
groups to supply their views through
understanding – we don’t judge this kind
consultations. This may mean ceding total
of evidence by whether or not it fits with
control of processes, in favour of cultivating
our own experience but to understand
and resourcing long-term relationships which
something new to our experience. There
nurture community activists in their own
is a trap here when professionals demote
communities.
lived experience testimony as being
5
This follows Michael Marker’s article ‘Indigenous voice, community, and epistemic violence: The ethnographer’s
‘interests’ and what ‘interests’ the ethnographer’, in Jackson, A, and Mazzei, L (2009) Qualitative Inquiry
Challenging conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research , RoutledgeImplementing as defending the position of the local
authority, rather than advocating for what
participation in they believed to be right. However other
local authorities professionals described how the veracity
of particular experience was a necessary
During this research, people working in counter to a corporate position statement.
local authorities as well as community To them, the strength of lived experience
activists identified that it is necessary not testimony was that it was not trying to be a
only to listen to the voices of people with general statement, but was something that
lived experience of low income; it is also couldn’t be argued with, as it had actually
necessary that professionals implement happened to a real person. Giving weight
what they learn from these experts into their to that individual’s experience was the very
policy-making. There were a number of thing that was useful to expose policies and
reflections from professionals carrying out practices which weren’t working for citizens.
this role about the best ways to do this. Some professionals and community activists
Since much policy development and service therefore argued that lived experience
reviews are carried out without a fully co- testimony should not be aggregated into
designed process including people with an analysis which removed all details of one
lived experience at every decision point, person’s experience; instead they should be
professionals have found that they needed used as tools to identify problems, which
to mediate the voices of lived experience professionals should then develop policies to
to their colleagues. One professional solve. In this way of working, professionals
described the brokering process needed in local authorities played a role more like an
to communicate the recommendations of ally of citizens, bringing their lived experience
a poverty truth commission to services in into everyday working conversations, and
their local authority. The professional would ensuring that all policy meetings considered
advocate on behalf of citizens, recognising the insight that lived experience could bring
that they couldn’t always secure the them. One pitfall of this approach was that
changes requested by the Commission, but people with lived experience were not able to
attempting to persuade and at least ensuring see how far their influence reached, unless
a good understanding between services and professionals took care to feed back to them.
citizens who didn’t meet. Other professionals Another challenge highlighted by a local
saw their role as an expert witness, authority professional was that changes
representing the external communities who proposed by colleagues may not have
had shared their stories. They would present prevented the problems that people with
testimony and challenge their colleagues to lived experience were able to identify. This
consider the weight of this testimony and professional recounted how having people
come up with their own solutions to fix their with lived experience in a working group
policy, so that the problems raised by the together with professionals, allowed those
stories didn’t happen again. with lived experience to discount proposed
Some professionals found the nature of lived solutions that would not have made any
experience testimony to be a challenge to difference to the situations they had been
their ‘corporate’ way of working and felt in. This shows the gains made by involving
the need to fit these experiences into the people with lived experience in the process
mould of corporate decision papers. This of solving problems, rather than by merely
‘corporate’ way of working was defined asking them to identify problems.
1314
WHAT PRACTICAL EXAMPLES
ARE THERE OF PARTICIPATION
IN LOCAL POLICY MAKING
WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL CHILD
POVERTY ACTION REPORTS?
Relational learning pairs between decision-
makers and people with lived experience of
low income.
How does this work? this idea, where professionals took part
Participants are matched into learning in fortnightly volunteering afternoons at
pairs, with one partner a professional from grassroots projects such as foodbanks,
the council, and another a person from the to build relationship with local community
community with lived experience of low workers, and to increase the professionals’
income. The partners agree to meet up understanding of the problems tackled by
regularly over a defined period of time in these grassroots community projects
the way that suits them – this could be for What does it take to run
coffee, for a meal, for a walk – but one to
successfully?
one, not in a group. The aim is that partners
spend time talking as peers, exploring • Careful matching of participants.
inequalities by bringing their personal • A structured induction.
perspectives to the conversations they
• A facilitator to provide structure and
have. By doing this, people experiencing
ongoing support to pairs.
challenges as a result of inequalities in the
area, are able to share their knowledge • Willingness from participants to spend
directly with those with responsibility for time building relationship.
the area’s resources, so that the decision-
Who else has done this already?
makers are better equipped. The relationship
is set to last for an agreed period, on the In Shetland, the Voices for Equity project
basis of mutual commitment, confidentiality matched 30 community and civic
and respect. A facilitator provides prompts to participants in 15 learning relationships,
help start conversations, keeps in touch with to share experiences and perspectives on
all learning partners and evaluate the impact poverty and inequality. The project did not
of these conversations. Some community aim to directly change policy or suggest
activists were keen on a refinement of areas for improving services. “The Voicesfor Equity project built on acknowledged What does it take to run
theories on learning; that knowledge is successfully?
constructed in interaction with others, and • Staff or partners with skills in supporting
was grounded in the belief that participation ordinary people into peer research.
built on new relationships will discover new
knowledge, insight and understanding.” – • Commitment from participants carry out
Voices for Equity project support research with others.
• Commitment and budget for a working
What’s this model good for?
group with high enough authority to
• Direct contact giving first-hand revise services.
knowledge of inequalities.
• A long-term engagement.
• Considering the wider issues relating to
inequality, rather than focusing on service • The involvement of a national organisation
silos. can help keep the project’s momentum
and policy objectives over the longer term.
• Reducing the gap between the governing
and the governed. Who else has done this already?
• Participation not influenced by group Fife Domestic and Sexual Abuse Partnership,
dynamics. Fife Council Housing Service and Scottish
Women’s Aid worked together on a local
• Engagement over the medium to long participatory action research project aimed
term. at improving social landlords response to
• This particularly helps give policy domestic abuse. Scottish Women’s Aid
makers experiential learning and a fuller facilitated the research, carried out by
understanding of poverty and their place local women with experience of gender-
in power structures. based violence, and who had used Fife
Council’s housing service. The research
Participatory research
found challenges for the service, as officers
had showed negative attitudes and poor
leading to service treatment towards women. Further, women
review
found there were very limited housing options
other than homelessness as a response to
their situation. With support from Scottish
How does this work? Women’s Aid, the Council began a working
Working with the support of skilled facilitators group with the researchers, to identify where
and researchers, ordinary people with policy should be changed so that women
lived experience work as peer researchers. were treated fairly and with dignity. This
They set up a fixed-term project to gather has led to a thorough change of housing
evidence from others in their situation about policy and practice and the collaborative
the conditions they experience, and their working group continues to affect policy
interactions with service providers. Decision- today. It also led at a national level to new
makers then engage with the group about legislation and a key recommendation for the
their findings, and commit to a working Scottish Government to prevent women’s
group with the peer researchers and their homelessness. The Domestic Abuse
supporters, to collectively revise policy and (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 was the
service in response. direct result of the researchers’ work.
1516
What’s this model good for? within certain demographics, who commit
• Focusing on particular services for time over several sessions to discuss a
improvement. particular issue. Participants will be recruited
ensuring there is representation from those
• Using lived experience to affect service- with lived experience of the topic addressed ,
level change where issues are apparent. but with a balanced sample of characteristics
• Genuine transformation of services over from across the identified geographic or
the longer term. community of interest. Facilitators, trained
in the dialogue and deliberation process,
• Building partnerships with local
design a process which allows for input from
organisations.
invited guests with expertise, but also where
• This approach builds strongly on participants can contribute their perspective
knowledge and action. People taking to enrich understanding and create a fuller
part may well understand poverty more picture of the topic. The process culminates
fully, but where the scope of the research in deliberation amongst participants, leading
project is set narrowly – for example, to recommendations for the local authority to
on revising a service without changing take forward.
the policy that the service is set up to
deliver – there may be limits on how Who else has done this already?
far decision-maker’s attitudes towards Aberdeenshire Council ran a Child Poverty
power relations are shifted. mini public, looking at the Free School Meals
System, making recommendations about
Mini public changes to policy to help address food
poverty for children. The Community Learning
and Development team knew through a pilot
How does this work?
holiday food project that there were children
This is a deliberative, short term process in primary and secondary schools going
involving a representative group of local without regular meals. Following this, they
people with a range of perspectives and recruited and ran a mini public to engage
likely experience of poverty weighing up with parents and children with experience of
evidence, leading to recommendations for low income, to understand their experience
further work. Mini publics are broken up into of accessing free school meals.
two or more interactive, discursive sessions,
which are designed to give participants The mini public was held across four
enough time to talk about and understand sessions, two for parents and two for
the issue (dialogue) and then come up with children. Participants were recruited through
suggestions on how to respond to the issue letters to all parents who were eligible for
(deliberation). Mini publics can be facilitated free school meals, followed by phone calls
from neighbourhood or school community which gathered parent’s views about access
level to regional or national level. Their to and take-up of free school meals. From
scope should be more clearly defined than a these phone calls, workers invited parents
poverty commission, looking at for example, who were interested to take part in the mini
food poverty during the school day, or place- public. Workers actively recruited a group of
based use of community facilities, rather than participants balanced across demographic
wider experiences of poverty. Mini publics criteria which included both married/single
rely on random selection of participants people, those employed and unemployed,male and female participants and those for • Guest speakers from local authority with
whom English is an additional language. Many knowledge of relevant policy and practice.
participants had not taken part in community
• Cooperation and data-sharing with the
engagement activities before nor were they
school. In Aberdeenshire, the school
particularly engaged with the school. Workers
shared data of families eligible for free
designed sessions to take into account the
school meals, and took the lead on
issues raised in the phone recruitment calls.
recruiting pupils to their mini public.
Facilitators arranged guest speakers to bring
knowledge relevant to the discussion, and • Wider collaboration – it was clear
participants questioned them. Participants that this was linked in with wider
then formed their opinions and made Aberdeenshire efforts to tackle poverty,
recommendations which helped to improve with involvement from senior level staff as
the administration of free school meals. guest speakers, in approving the project
and in linking participants on to other the
Workers were also interested in wider issues
Local Voices online Forum.
outside narrow scope of recommendations,
gathering understanding about things like • Commitment from local authority to take
freedom of choice in food purchase, the forward recommendations into change,
lack of appropriate information about other or as part of instigating new projects.
benefits. CLD have subsequently taken
What’s this model good for?
forward discussions with Young Scot around
the issue of access to other entitlements • A short term engagement, which is
through the Young Scot card. After running generative of other work – for example,
focus groups, Young Scot are piloting a it may highlight new issues which require
change to the way young Scot cards work new solutions.
in the Aberdeenshire area. Many of the • Involving people who may not have taken
participants went on to be active in the Local part in other engagement processes. As
Voices online forum and pupil participants the recruitment process is intensive this
started a group in the school, running can lead to people who wouldn’t typically
campaigns around poverty. self-select, who then may be motivated
to take part in longer-term processes.
What does it take to run successfully?
• Facilitation and community development • A relatively low-resource option, not
skills – in Aberdeenshire, the Community requiring long term commitment of
Learning and Development team facilitated participants or staff.
the sessions, designed activities, and • Involving a group of people to consider
invited appropriate speakers. together how to respond to a specific
• Labour-intensive selection to ensure challenge; such as low take-up of free
a group of participants who represent school meals.
diversity within a defined target audience. • Making space for participants to speak
• Participant time and compensation: in to decision makers in a relaxed way.
Aberdeenshire, participants were paid • Being part of a wider programme
£50 per session to take part, and pupil of engagement across many
participants were given vouchers for neighbourhoods/schools.
entry and a meal at a local bowling alley.
1718
Online forum who come from diverse backgrounds
including Travellers, lone parents, disability
How does this model work? and English as a second language.
An online forum gathers together people Participants are asked to discuss issues
with experience of poverty and the desire with other people not in the forum and feed
to contribute their experience. They use an back their views. The council also host a
online space, such as private group in a Facebook page, “Parents Come Together
social network, or in a bespoke platform. In Aberdeenshire” which has around
A facilitator engages with people around 2000 families following, and from this they
particular topics, posing questions and organise Zoom interaction sessions with the
gathering views, which may be general wider parent community. On the same page
experience or might be opinions about a they also have a closed group which parents
service. Participants may use usernames to can join called “ Together We Share”. This
keep their true identify confidential. Group closed group is led by parents and joined
members may discuss issues with one by 60 families, where they can share and
another and may be facilitated to join other exchange information helpful to them in a
online groups and meet in real life. safe environment. During the pandemic the
local authority used the forum as a sounding
What does it take to run board for the rapid redesign of services.
successfully? Over the longer term, the worker has been
• Technical support and devices for those able to use the stories shared in the Forum
who may need them. to support learning for local authority
staff that poverty is not a lifestyle choice,
• A facilitator to develop relationships challenging stigma.
offline as well as online, and to support
participant families in their practical What’s this model good for?
needs, such as advocating for them with • People who feel stigmatised by
services. poverty are able to take part in an
• Receptiveness from the local authority anonymous forum – this may be good for
to take account of the learning available communities where people are reluctant
from the stories that are shared. to identify themselves publicly.
• People whose childcare responsibilities
Who else has done this already?
or working patterns prevent them from
Aberdeenshire have developed an online taking part in other opportunities.
forum hosted on their Community Planning
Website. A facilitator with skills in community • Overcoming geographic barriers and
learning and development practices builds some Covid restrictions on meeting.
relationships with participants, meeting • Providing an ongoing source of testimony
with them offline as well as online to help about a range of issues, and a place for
them understand the commitment of the professionals to seek advice from people
participation as well as to support them to with lived experience.
overcome technical barriers. The forum now
has 20 adult and 40 children as members,You can also read
