Case Studies
We
have selected three case studies to highlight how we approach different
types of projects
If you would like further information or have any questions or queries please get in touch with Liz Daone at liz@pollinationcampaigns.co.uk
Managing Involvement
This case study looks at a Stakeholder Jury model of involvement. This technique has been developed by Pollination Campaigns to involve stakeholder groups in the development of policy or managing a process of change within an organisation.
Stakeholder Juries are a particularly good involvement technique where an organisation is already in contact with a large number of 'interested' groups of people such as trade unions, organisations of disabled people or community forums. They also work well when an organisation is trying to involve people with a range of access needs.
Both the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and the Disability Rights
Commission (DRC) have used Pollination Campaigns to set up and facilitate
Stakeholder Juries to develop their Disability Equality Schemes.
The advantage of a Stakeholder Jury is that it enables people with a variety of experiences, identities and communication needs to engage with an organisation on an equal basis. Based loosely around the principles of a Citizen Jury this involvement mechanism aims to involve in high-level decision-making.
Unlike the Citizen Jury model, a Stakeholder Jury draws people who already have experience, opinions or a formal relationship with an organisation. This is a key difference as Jury members can consider in some detail a specific issue or course of action. They can provide recommendations and influence an action plan. Stakeholder Juries are also in a good position to monitor the outcomes resulting from the Jury.
Each Stakeholder Jury is designed slightly differently to meet the needs of the Jury and the host organisation, but the principles remain consistent.
Candidates for a Jury are selected based on a map of existing and potential stakeholder groups. This naturally often includes people drawn from groups an organisation may not have developed a relationship with.
Jury members are invited to attend one, or a series of events to consider a specific course of action. The events are managed by an independent facilitator whose role it is to ensure that the Jury come to a considered conclusion on the issue or course of action.
The exact format of the Jury will depend on the question being asked but it includes evidence provided by 'witnesses' on the background to a course of action. This is followed by a facilitated and detailed question and answer session of 'defendant' from the organisation who is proposing the course of action to be considered. Although designed to be non adversarial the process does enable Jury members to challenge both decisions and the rational that lies behind them. Finally the Jury spend some time drawing up recommendations based on their deliberations and the evidence they have heard. These recommendations can then be published along with comments by the host organisation. Where an organisation disagrees with a Jury they are expected to give a rational as to why.
A potential disadvantage of any group involvement technique is that one view or perspective can dominate. Stakeholder Juries reduce this risk as they draw together people who have existing views or perspectives on an issue. Careful management is however needed to make the most of a Stakeholder Jury and to ensure it operates accessibly.
Although Citizen Juries can work well there has been some criticism they are used to gauge opinion rather than to enable people to influence an organisation at a strategic level. Stakeholder Juries minimize this risk by involving people who already have a level of knowledge on an organisation. All the stakeholders are in effect ‘experts’ but this expertise can be based on personal experience as well asformal membership of an organisation or a job role.
Unlike traditional committees, juries work through a process of facilitated collaboration that is aiming at consensus view. Every person's view or perspective carries equal weight. This can change the power dynamic of how decision are made. People who may have been marginalised in other involvement structures can suddenly have a significant role in shaping the jury’s recommendations.
Delivering Engagement
This case study highlights that it is possible to engage with decision-makers on complex or hidden issues if the process is managed in a way that is accessible and open. Many of the techniques we have developed to engage seldom listened to groups in decision-making processes are also applicable to other types of organisations, bodies or individuals.
Since July 2007 Pollination Campaigns has been working for UCL's, Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre (DCAL). DCAL is a world class academic research centre that brings together leading Deaf and hearing researchers in the fields of sign linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience.
DCAL is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
A requirement of this funding is to demonstarte how their
academic research has an impact on policy makers, opinion formers, the
media and business development. This is not easy to do when other more
vocal organisations, many who take a medicalised approach to deafness,
are competing for the same policy space.
Pollination Campaigns has helped DCAL establish relationships with key government departments through engaging in the development of ideas and policy in relevant areas. For example, DCAL recently submitted a response to the Department for Communities and Local Government's Green Paper on the Single Equality Bill, highlighting equality issues for Deaf children.
As part of this approach it was also important that DCAL could demonstrate to the Deaf community and the wider political environment that it listens and responds to the needs of Deaf people. To do this Pollination Campaigns worked with DCAL to facilitate a competition for Deaf young people. The competition called 'It's my future: Being Deaf in 2018' asked young people for ideas on what future research in deafness may achieve. The winners of the competition attended an awards ceremony at the Houses of Parliament in March which attracted many Parliamentarians and representatives of influential bodies.
Although there is some way to go to ensure that decision-makers make the most of DCAL's research, Pollination Campaigns have helped DCAL to set up a radical programme of engagement that will continue over the next few years.
Targeting Communication
This case study highlights that by using accessible information, local marketing
and perseverance it is possible to create a successful communication strategy
aimed at people that are often described as hard to reach.
Learning disabled people and people with mental health conditions are two groups of people that are often described as hard to reach. (We tend to use the term 'seldom listened to' to describe these groups as they often tell us that they are very easy to reach, its just most organisations don't know how to go about contacting them and when they do, they ignore what they have to say.)
As part of Closing the Gap: the Disability Rights Commission Formal Investigation into Health Inequalities, we were asked to ensure that learning disabled people and people with mental health conditions responded to the research surveys. It was vital to the overall project that disabled people could be heard within the process but previous research had relatively few people taking part.
To achieve a significant number of surveys were returned, we recognised that a diverse spectrum of stakeholders had to be reached. Like most people, filling in surveys is not a top priority for learning disabled people or people with mental health conditions, so we needed to make sure that ownership of the process was shared amongst organisations that they engaged with and listened to. Care had to be taken in structuring how people would be asked to complete the survey and how they could return the information to the researchers. By working with a broad range of community groups, service user networks and large voluntary and statutory organisations, almost 1500 surveys were returned from individuals who wanted to tell the investigation about their experiences. This was significantly more than had been anticipated at the start of the process.
Pollination Campaigns was also asked to reach out to General Practitioners
and other members of the medical profession. Although they are rarely described
as hard to reach (or seldom listened to) it was important that front line
primary care medical staff could also contribute to the research by completing
a survey on their experiences.
We recognised early in the process that many of the potential barriers that stop one group of people responding to a survey are applicable to another. Learning disabled people may require information in Easy-read but medical staff also need to be able to process information quickly and efficiently. By using very similar process to those that we used to target disabled people we were able to gain the input of over 300 medical stakeholders.
Page
updated: 31/03/2008