SDC Panel

URL

www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/sd_panel.html

CASE STUDY OWNER

Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)

LESSONS LEARNT

Strengths

• This engagement activity benefited from clear objectives and detail on how the results of the consultation would be used;
• A core stakeholder panel was recruited with broad sustainable development knowledge, promoting the conditions for motivated and well-informed debate;
• There was a sense of community amongst panel members: for example, participants could see how many people agreed with their response;
• Users were given more than one means of participating in the consultation online.

Potential for improvement

• More resources could have been put into encouraging more frequent and in depth participation by panel members;
• Offline and online engagement with the panel earlier about what was involved (in the consultation process) could have encouraged members to familiarise themselves with their peers and the SDC consultation process in advance of participation;
• Deliberative elements of panel would have benefited from engagement with government policy makers;
• Availability of other routes by which panel members could engage in the consultation, including via written submissions, offline workshops and meetings.

OVERVIEW

The Sustainable Development Commission is the government’s independent watchdog on sustainable development, reporting to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. Its aim is to put sustainable development at the core of government policy through advocacy, advice and appraisal.

The work of SDC is divided into 10 policy areas: climate change, consumption, economics, education, energy, engagement, health, housing, regional and local government and transport. Each policy area is led by a steering group of Commissioners and SDC staff.

To inform its work, the SDC established a stakeholder panel in September 2006. It has so far recruited nearly 600 members, and aims to recruit a further 400 by 2008. It is a UK-based stakeholder panel – i.e., people are selected for their interests and expertise, rather than as representative members of the public. All panel activity takes place online.

POLICY PURPOSE

One of the main ways the SDC engages with the panel is through online consultations. The aim of engagement using this method is to:

• Allow for breadth and depth of participation and dialogue;
• Provide a transparent means of consultation;
• Offer a systematic method of consultation.

Online deliberative panels are accompanied by an ongoing open forum that is used to discuss concerns relating to the consultation themes.

The consultation being evaluated in this case-study was entitled ‘Redefining Progress’. Themes covered included:

• What should progress mean?
• Economic growth as progress;
• The concept of wellbeing;
• Defining and measuring wellbeing;
• Wellbeing use and implications in policy making;
• Government’s role in shaping progress.

MODEL

There were three structured panel sessions (running for three weeks each) and a simultaneous open forum.

The first session was held in September 2006. Panel members were required to answer a number of open-ended questions, which focused broadly on defining progress and wellbeing. Panel members were entitled to give one answer to each question but they were not obliged to do so.

The second session took place between October and November 2006. Before taking part, participants could read a summary of contributions made by panel members during the first session. They were asked to comment on these and then asked a further set of more focused questions on measuring wellbeing. For the second session, a deliberative forum ran alongside the panel. Its purpose was to allow participants to discuss areas that had not been raised in the consultation questions.

The third (final) session occurred in November and December 2006. Participants were asked to review the points raised in the second session. At this stage, they were also asked to evaluate the consultation process.

Registration was required prior to participation and was limited to panel members.

SDC staff facilitated the discussion, but the website design and panel recruitment were undertaken by a third party external provider, Dialogue by Design, who developed the consultation with the SDC. Dialogue by Design also collected feedback on panel members’ experience of the consultation, focusing on its clarity and the design of the website. The Digital Dialogues research team appended evaluation questions about political engagement onto the feedback survey.

PUBLICITY

Panel members were recruited specifically for the exercise and given an information sheet by the SDC to specify the terms of their commitment when they joined.

The work of the panel is publicised and explained on the SDC website (address given at top of the case study).

OTHER METHODS

The primary means of engaging with the panel is via the online platform, whether
through structured consultations, polling, forums, or sharing information on the SDC extranet.

USER PROFILES

577 registered panel members: 61.5% were male, 33.5%, female. 5% did not specify gender.

Panel members were asked about their political engagement outside of the panel. All were politically engaged, but some forms of participation were more popular than others:

Efficacy amongst panel members was high: over 80% of the feedback survey’s respondents said that they felt that their involvement in political processes could have an impact.

Visiting policy-related websites was a popular activity, but only 10% ran (as an organisational or individual activity) a policy-related blog or discussion forum. Around 80% believed that online consultations are a credible way for policy makers to engage with the public. Almost 90% said that they would recommend participation in web-based consultations to others.

USAGE TRENDS

318 members (from 577) participated in the first panel session.

130 members participated in the second session – 34 of whom had not taken part in session 1.
147 participants contributed to the third session.
In the forum, 18 contributors made 43 posts. These posts were within seven threads, of which four were initiated by the SDC and three by panel members

USER FEEDBACK

Participants were asked for feedback on the forum and their experience of using it (rating was done on a scale, with 1 being ‘poor’ and 5 being ‘very good’). Evaluations are represented as percentages below:

As can be seen from the above chart, respondents were positive about the format of consultation and the design features of the website.

Respondents were less favourable, generally, about the open forum which ran alongside the structured panel sessions.

DETAILED FEEDBACK

This SDC panel presents an alternative method of engagement to many of the other case studies in our sample. Whereas other case studies have opted to try to engage a general or self-selecting sample of public stakeholders, the SDC has built a panel of defined expert, professional stakeholders.

Given that the panel meets online (means that) greater numbers can be brought together more regularly than is possible offline. The consultation structure allows for a broad range of relatively in-depth views to be discussed. Having a defined group also helps to create the conditions in which an engaged and interactive community can develop between the participants (and SDC staff) over time.

In online engagement, there is a tension between providing too much structure and not providing enough: too little and contributions fail to meet the objectives of the process; too much, and the ability to express opinion is reduced, or removed. This consultation alternated between broad topics in the first session and specific topics in the second: the process proved disorientating for some panel members, who were also concerned about the time commitment required for participation.

Meanwhile, some stakeholders expect to have a reasonably high level of contact with policy makers. While the SDC’s style of consultation develops a holistic approach to complex deliberations, an online panel with a range of stakeholders restricts the extent to which the individual member’s expert view is heard. Online deliberations may, therefore, be deemed by some to be a less effective means of engaging with policy than traditional channels.

FOLLOW UP

The results of the consultation can be found on the SDC panel website (address provided at top of case study).

Since the end of the consultation on wellbeing, the SDC has run a further discussion forum on tidal power (which received 59 posts). The forum was used to scope out key issues and identify potential stakeholders.

The SDC is planning to run future online consultations and forums with the panel, and is exploring other ways of harnessing the internet to enhance engagement.