Informed decision-making, community engagement and participation workstream report

Appendix two: Outputs from work stream group work sessions

The following images from Google Jamboard, a collaborative interactive whiteboard, give examples of the journey of collective thinking, sense-making and collaboration that the work stream membership has been on. These insights were captured at the start of the work stream process and have been built on throughout as the thinking has refined and developed.

The outputs from all workshops have informed the contents of this report to the IAG.

Question: What are the key ingredients needed for a proactive, inclusive & accessible framework for public involvement?

People & Resources

• Identified roles and responsibilities throughout the process
• A blend of current public & community stakeholders and “generic” community reps
• People have an understanding of the subject of the subject and can speak to the detail about the subject
• Thoughtful contact strategy
• Guiding principles which are clear
• Creating safe spaces locally i.e. people can discuss in their homes, communities, town halls in social groups
• Inclusion budget from outset
• Consider the power dynamics and relationships between facilitators and participants, and participants themselves, to ensure all views all heard.
• Neutral trained facilitators to work with groups of public
• Skills in accessibility – BSL, Easy Read, language
• Nominated support person/s whether for helping with participation or mental health i.e. particularly for sensitive topics
• Costs/budget for getting people along. i.e. vouchers, reward system mechanism for people’s time 

Process

• Costs/budget for getting people along. i.e. vouchers, reward system mechanism for people’s time 
• Actively barrier free proactive engagement
• Practical ways to measure outcomes of engagement
• Be clear – we’ve asked a question, make sure and feedback and plan for it from the start
• A process which inspires public confidence
• Possible use of the National Standards for Community Engagement
• Engagement is a powerful – plan for how to proactively use it when making decisions
• Meaningful timescales
• Independent research element on the process as a learning tool & accountability mech
• Making sure we feedback to those participating
• Process needs to include enough space & time for discussions, thinking, learning (& breathing room) smaller groups & different ways of participating i.e. through writing discussion, voting
• Informative, space for questions and answers- use of experts, deliberative
• Feedback loops to the public & honesty- why has something happened or not happened? I.e. change in priorities or budget?
• Ensuring engagement isn’t tokenistic

Culture & Leadership

• Ensuring engagement isn’t tokenistic
• Ethos and approach for engagement within the organisation
• Understanding & use of trauma informed approaches – could there be training that comes along with the framework?
• Building in accountability- how can public hold decision makers to account?
• Clarity of purpose
• Honesty about potential public/community influence
• Accountability mechanism
• Engagement should not be a “tick the box” exercise. Make it meaningful and incorporate into how technology is developed
• Motivation strategy- what are the ideas that deliver buy in from diff stakeholders with very diff starting points?

Question: What processes of best practice exist already [from Scotland & beyond!] which could help influence approaches taken in this space? What do we need to ensure the IAG is aware of?

• A lot of examples within the Tech for Good space
• Scotland AI strategy public engagement: https://www.scotlandaistrategy.com
• Citizen assemblies- representative sample of the public informing and using expertise of police to share with the public. Public can set the priorities.
• The matter – young people running a newspaper as a response to a question by an organisation & developing skills https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/case-study/matter
• Participatory planning https://urbanbelonging.com/
• Climate assemblies
• Deliberative inquiry models utilising ongoing evidence and citizen input
• Policy Lab
• Equality in Community Engagement: A scoping Review of Evidence https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/scot.2021.0374
• Audit Scotland led comm Empowerment guidance
• Could co-production be useful – at least for scoping strategic development
• Incentivising involvement and meeting all out of pocket expenses 

Question: thinking about delivering any meaningful public engagement around emerging tech in policing, what expertise & experience would you say is critical and desirable?

Critical

• People with lived experience
• Considering unintended consequences for tech use in policing https://doteveryone.org.uk/project/consequence-scanning/
• Using the public’s language/ meet them at their level to inform and gain informed views and recommendations in return.
• Internal understanding of colleague attitudes & tech readiness

Desirable

• Internal understanding of colleague attitudes & tech readiness
• Possibly building on existing mobilised citizens – e.g. former citizens assembly members?

Question: Thinking about diversity & inclusivity, what can we advise the IAG about how to do this well from the very start?

External factors

• Intersectionality
• Engagement designed with users from the start
• Co-design with people  
• Sortition recruitment?
• Ensuring inclusion of lived experience
• Ensure lived experience is captured and included
• Focus on an equalities & human rights, intersectional approach to participation activities/initiatives
• Steering group
• “Sounding board”.

Internal factors

• Steering group
• “Sounding board”
• Ensure staff are confident and have capacity to include equality, diversity and inclusivity in their work.

What are your hopes & fears for any future public engagement exercise to explore emerging tech in policing with Scotland’s people?

Hopes:

• Engagement becomes empowerment
• Participants understand the engagement and what their contribution is used for
• Engagement based on outcomes – what people want and need rather than what an organisation needs
• Help build genuine consensus between cits and SG/Police about innovation in policing
• Participation & engagement becomes more meaningful to build communities and create more trust and stronger decisions.  

Fears:

• Resistance
• Extractive engagement – where we seek to capture people’s views but people don’t get anything out of the engagement
• There’s no feedback loop or real honest around what happens next
• Unconvincing processes which inhibit citizen empowerment.