Tag Archives: policy exchange

Police and Crime Commissioner elections: increasing engagement in low turnout elections

Posted on by

police, policeman back

On 5 May 2016, voters in 41 police force areas (excluding London) will go to the polls to elect Police and Crime Commissioner (PCCs). During the last PCC election, in November 2012, just over 36 million people were registered to vote in the elections, but only 5.49 million votes were cast (a turnout of around 15%). This is the lowest recorded level of participation in a peacetime non-local government election in the UK.

What are PCC’s?

The Conservative party, who formed one part of the coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, made the introduction of PCCs an election pledge in 2010. Elected PCCs are intended to be the democratic link between the public and the police. The government’s aims in setting up the PCCs were:

  • to form a key part of the localism agenda – giving power over local issues back to local people
  • to replace  the system of police authorities which had existed since 1964
  • to raise accountability, increase transparency and create legitimacy within local level policing

PCCs hire and fire chief constables, control budgets running into hundreds of millions of pounds and set local priorities for policing in their area. But when the role was introduced and the first elections for the posts held in 2012, turnout was disappointingly low . Public knowledge of the existence of the role was limited, as was understanding of the PCCs’ powers and responsibilities.

Supporters of the scheme heralded it as a new age of local policing that was more responsive to local needs. But some critics have questioned the paradox of “independent” commissioners who campaign on a party platform and point to some of the potential challenges of what they call “politicising policing”. Others have questioned the notion of legitimacy when the turnout for the first election was so low and the understanding of the role of commissioners was so limited.

Further to this, as many as 44% of current PCCs are not standing for re-election this time round. As a result, there is some frustration that people will not have the opportunity to judge PCCs on their record. As the elections approach, PCCs have been engaging with local people to try and raise awareness of their roles and of the upcoming election to ensure a better turnout than the first time around.

Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, at 'The Pioneers: Police and Crime Commissioners, one year on'

Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, at ‘The Pioneers: Police and Crime Commissioners, one year on’ Image by Policy Exchange via Creative Commons

The next stage of reform: new powers for PCCs?

In February 2016, the Home Secretary, Theresa May delivered a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank outlining the challenges which have faced PCCs since the elections of 2012 and setting out her vision for their future.

In addition to promoting increased transparency, accountability and cooperative joint working between forces in order to raise standards and cut costs, the government is also seeking to widen the role of PCCs within the criminal justice system. The proposals have still to be outlined in full, but they include collaborative working and strategy creation between Police, schools and the wider criminal justice system. In addition, under the Policing and Crime Bill currently going through Parliament, PCCs will be able to take responsibility for fire and rescue services (where a local case can be made), and to create a single employer for the two services.

It is clear that there also needs to be a discussion about how PCCs could fit within the emerging context of locally elected mayors and the wider devolution agenda. The proposals for devolution for Greater Manchester mean that the role of PCC will be abolished in 2017, and transferred to the mayor once elections have taken place.

Why don’t people vote?

Analysts have suggested that a lack of voter awareness and the November timing of the election both contributed to the lack of interest and low levels of voter participation in the 2012 PCC elections.

Recent changes to voting registration in the UK have resulted in a drop in the number of registered voters, leading some to predict that turnout in this year’s PCC elections will not be much higher than in 2012. However, a surge in people registering for the upcoming EU referendum, may counteract this trend. The fact that PCC elections are also being held on the same day as more high profile local government elections may also encourage more people to vote, although the questions of voter awareness of PCCs’ roles remain.

Other suggested reasons for low turnout  have been the use of the supplementary vote system, and poor candidate engagement during the election campaign. Even after the elections, 1 in 3 people in England were unable to name or recognise their local PCC.

Time will tell whether this situation improves after the 2016 vote.

VOTE

Image by Idox Information Service

 

Idox election services

The Idox elections team delivers innovative, cost effective solutions to meet the changing needs of the UK and international electoral services market. This year, we shall again provide election management services to support the local government and PCC elections in England and Wales and the Scottish Parliament elections.

Eligible voters have until 18 April 2016 to register to vote in the local council and Police & Crime Commissioner elections in England and the Holyrood election in Scotland.The deadline for voter registration for the European Union referendum is 7 June. Further information is available here.

To sign up for our weekly bulletin update relating to the Scottish Parliament elections please email this address).

Also on our blog: Pushing the vote out: how can more people be persuaded to exercise their most basic civic right?

The Government Digital Service: successes, turmoil, and the focus for the future

Posted on by

By Steven McGinty

In April 2011, the Government Digital Service (GDS) was launched to lead the digital transformation of government. The focus was on making public services digital by default (a policy which envisions most public services being delivered online), and simpler, clearer and faster to use.

Their first major project was the development of GOV.UK. It was to act as the primary source for UK government data and would replace a number of existing websites, including DirectGov. Overall, GOV.UK has been viewed as a GDS success story.

In the latest GDS progress report, it was highlighted that:

  • Over 300 agency and arm’s length bodies’ (ALB) websites had been transitioned over to GOV.UK by the end of 2014;
  • The GOV.UK website averaged 12 million weekly unique visitors in the first quarter of 2015 (25th most used website in the UK);
  • The GOV.UK website saw 13.6 million unique visitors and 21.2 million visits in the last week of January 2015 (this was the likely the result of the 31st January Self-Assessment tax return deadline).

However, GOV.UK has not been without its critics. In February, the Register revealed documents that said that the GDS knew that GOV.UK was:

“destroying useful online services and replacing them with trendy webpages bereft of useful information”

One noted failure was the transition of the Home Office visa and immigration site to GOV.UK. According to their own analysis, the GDS did not have a good enough understanding of the users’ needs.

GDS in turmoil?

At the beginning of August 2015, Executive Director of the GDS Mike Bracken announced he was leaving. In an interview, Mike Bracken explained that he was leaving due to the “stresses and strains” of the role. The current GDS Chief Operating Officer Stephen Foreshew-Cain will move up and replace him.

There have also been a number of other senior GDS leaders departing. These include:

  • Deputy Director Tom Loosemore
  • Director of Strategy Russell Davies
  • Director of Design Ben Terrett
  • Head of User Research Leisa Reichelt
  • Transformation Programme Director of the Government Digital Service Michael Beaven.

These changes have led to speculation about the future of the GDS. Last financial year, the service had a budget of £58 million and approximately 700 members of staff. Computerworld have suggested that the GDS could undergo substantial cuts as part of the HM Treasury’s spending review.  If so, the impact could fundamentally change the GDS’ role.

The future

In August, Matt Hancock MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office, reiterated his support for the GDS. He said:

“the work that GDS is doing, and the vision of Government as a Platform, is changing the core infrastructure of shared digital systems, technology and processes.”

The Minister then went on to emphasise that the GDS has extremely talented people and has a lot more to contribute in the future.

In addition, Eddie Copeland, Head of Technology Policy at the Policy Exchange has outlined 5 points of focus for the ‘next phase’ of the GDS. These include:

  • Be guardian of the rules – the government should lead the way in defining the standards of how front-end government IT should work, although should not be concerned about who provides it, whether that’s public or private sector.
  • Focus on the user / citizen experience – the government should focus on providing a positive customer experience and creating online transactions that are needed.
  • Lead on open standards for data – the use of open standards would reduce the technical barriers to sharing information between different systems.
  • Be an informed customer – failed IT projects were often the fault of the government, therefore the government needs to become a smarter, more demanding customer.
  • Scale best practice – all departments should learn from the successes of the GDS, and try to implement innovative solutions where possible.

 Final thoughts

It’s likely that the GDS will play an important role in the continued digital transformation of government services. However, some – including Eddie Copeland – believe that the GDS will become a smaller organisation.  As a result, there may be opportunities for the private sector to get involved in supporting the digital transformation, particularly if they can provide a solid business case.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

Read our other recent articles on digital government:

What’s preventing health and social care from going digital?

Posted on by
Two women using a tablet computer.

Image by Innovate 360. Licensed for reuse under Creative Commons.

By Steven McGinty

In the first of two articles focusing on technology in health and social care, I will be looking at some of the barriers organisations face in adopting digital technologies. Financial pressures such as the reduction in public spending, as well as an ageing society, mean that health and social care will be expected to meet greater levels of demand with fewer resources.

The UK Government believes that the implementation of technology is the solution to helping the health and social care system become more efficient and more effective at delivering patient care. However, before health and social care can reap the benefits of technology, a number of barriers have to be broken down.

Information sharing challenges

Integration has been a main focus of health and social care in England, as well as the devolved administrations. If integration is to work successfully, different organisations must be able to share data securely. At the moment, data is recorded in a variety of ways across a number of different IT systems. We also have a situation where the main method for sharing data securely in local authorities, the Public Services Network (PSN), is not fully integrated with either the NHS in Scotland or England. Eddie Copeland, of the Policy Exchange, suggests that full integration of the NHS with the PSN should be seen as a priority.

Financial costs

The financial costs of rolling out new technology within an organisation can be significant. These costs can include the procurement of hardware and software, internet connections, and the training of staff. For organisations which are undergoing major budgets cuts, it may seem very difficult to justify the investment in technologies, even if there is the potential for savings in the future.

Management issues

The importance of technology in organisations can be underestimated by decision-makers. For example, according to Martin Ferguson, Director of the Society of IT Management (Socitm), the ICT challenges involved in introducing the new Care Act in England are not being given enough priority. He highlights that if organisations are unable to share information safely by April 2015, they risk failing to comply with new reporting regulations.

Local authorities can also have policies that restrict the use of technology. A recent Skills for Care report into the digital capabilities of social care found that local authorities are still wary of certain technologies, including cloud based systems, which can offer low-cost solutions, and social media, which can lead to savings for local authorities if used correctly.

The health and social care workforce

The Skills for Care report highlights that over 95% of staff feel they are confident in basic online skills. However less than a quarter of managers believe that they have staff with enough skills to make use of digital technology. This mismatch means that managers may be hesitant to introduce new technologies over fears that staff may have difficulties in using the technology, as well as the costs associated with staff training.

There is also a suggestion that social care staff may be resistant to the introduction of new technologies, due to concerns that introducing technology may over-complicate things and move the focus away from the patient. As we noted in a recent article on digital services within government, a key part of introducing any new technology is changing the mindset of staff and having effective leadership in place to champion it.

These are just some of the challenges associated with introducing digital technologies into health and social care. In a future article, we will look more at how technologies can be used within health and social care and the benefits they can bring to organisations. We also look at a case study of an innovative technology partnership between Calderdale Council and Idox, which is addressing the shared services agenda in social care.

Further reading: