This issue

– dark side of public innovation
– disinformation and COVID-19
– social housing pathways
– COVID-19 research round up
– evaluation and reform in Indigenous policy
Plus what I'm reading.

Research brief: The dark side of public innovation ​

The positive features of public innovation are well known but its dark side has received less attention. A paper in Public Performance & Management Review explores the potential perverse effects of public innovation and the impact this has on public value. Read our brief on the paper.

Reimagining Government

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us the importance of governments in dealing with a society-wide crisis, but also provided us with an opportunity to rethink how they serve their citizens. ANZSOG and the Centre for Public Impact are Reimagining Government in a series of seven webinars, which brings together senior practitioners, academics and leading thinkers from across the globe.

These thinkers will be guided by the ‘enablement paradigm’ - the concept that the best role for government is not to manage or control, but to create the conditions that lead to good outcomes for society.  The final webinar – Reimagining Government: Where to from here? -  will be held on 13 August and will wrap up the series and chart a future direction for government.

How public communication can respond to disinformation about COVID-19​

The global spread of COVID-19 has been accompanied by a wave of disinformation that is undermining policy responses and amplifying distrust among citizens. This OECD policy brief addresses the challenges posed by disinformation.

The brief draws on a Reuters Institute analysis of a sample of false content on COVID-19. As much as 59 per cent  is based on true information that has been manipulated while 38 per cent  is entirely fabricated. Social media is the source of 88% of the misinformation.

Understanding the challenge of disinformation

COVID-19 disinformation challenges official public health advice. Disinformation threatens the efficacy of, and compliance with, the emergency measures tackling COVID-19. The resulting polarisation and distrust have long-lasting negative implications for government action, democracy and inclusive growth.

From a behavioural and cognitive standpoint, disinformation contributes to an information overload that can crowd out official information. Increasing the volume of official and truthful information will not necessarily be more effective unless this content is made more compelling. It needs to be delivered to audiences through their preferred channels with an understanding of behavioural and psychological biases.

Fighting the “infodemic”

A successful response to the pandemic requires a co-ordinated multi-stakeholder effort to tackle the spread of disinformation. Setting a strong mandate for public communication is key to its effectiveness for combating disinformation and gaining public trust.

Transparent communication is needed which:

• provides citizens with truthful and accurate information
• debunks false or misleading information
• supports a better understanding of public attitudes including fears, concerns and expectations
• engages citizens in a collective response.

‘A pathway to where?’ Reimagining social housing pathways​

This is the final report from an Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute inquiry. The Inquiry set out to understand how social housing pathways can be reimagined for more effective service delivery and policies for people’s housing outcomes.

Key findings

• The demand for social housing is significant and waiting lists are long. Available housing stock has been outpaced by growing numbers of households experiencing housing affordability issues.
• Policies that shape social housing pathways have evolved in response to high demand and decreased supply with a tighter targeting of eligibility and a rationing of housing to those of ‘highest need’.

• Policy implementation has largely been driven by a need to manage the social housing waiting list, rather than ensuring positive housing outcomes (such as housing stability, affordability, security and safety) for tenants and their households.
• Despite policies that seek to increase exits from social housing and decrease waiting lists, 43% of public tenants currently residing in social housing have lived in that tenure for 10 years or more. The proportion of public housing tenants with tenures over 10 years has been increasing over the last decade

Reimagining pathways

Reimagining social housing pathways requires fundamental changes. This means moving away from managing a waitlist by rationing supply to changing the system to construct realistic pathways that best enable positive tenant housing outcomes. The question has to change from ‘How do we decrease the waitlist?’ to ‘How do we improve the housing stability, security and safety of people who are tenants, on the waitlist, or homeless?’

Post-lockdown health risk behaviours

New Zealand’s Te Hiringa Hauora/Health Promotion Agency conducted a post-lockdown survey to assess health risk behaviours. The survey found:

• Drinking habits are returning to pre-lockdown levels for most New Zealanders with two-thirds drinking at their pre-lockdown levels. This means those who were drinking more during lockdown have decreased their drinking, but also those who were drinking less during lockdown have now increased their drinking.
   
• Gambling levels are reported to be less than pre-lockdown across all gambling types, including online gambling.
   
• The proportion of people experiencing moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety has remained the same since coming out of lockdown (16%) but the severity of symptoms has decreased.
   
• Young people, and those who have experienced a change in personal income due to COVID-19, are most likely to be experiencing moderate to severe symptoms of depression and anxiety.

COVID-19 and suicide

An article in the Medical Journal of Australia examines predictive models which look at how suicide rates may change in response to COVID-19.

• Modelling by the Brain and Mind Centre at the University of Sydney anticipates an extra 750 to 1500 suicides per year over 5 years. This equates to an increase rate of 25-50% per year.
   
• A Monash University study estimates an increase of 2761 deaths over a 10-year period. This suggests an increase in suicide deaths of 9% a year, lower than the Brain and Mind Centre estimate.

The different results highlight the potential risks of relying on modelling studies to design suicide prevention interventions. Modelling studies are based on assumptions using data from previous research and there is little evidence from previous pandemics as to their effects on suicide rates.

In addition, COVID-19 differs from previous pandemics. As well as the direct health impacts, there also issues associated with physical distancing measures and nationwide lockdowns.

If you, or anyone you know, needs support in Australia, call Lifeline 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue's coronavirus support service on 1800 512 348. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, call Lifeline 0800 543 354 or free call/text 1737

Evaluation and review as drivers of reform in Indigenous policy​

A Policy Insights Paper from the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) analyses the role of evaluation and review in influencing Indigenous affairs policy. The paper examines four high-level case studies to assess the impact of evaluation in driving reform over time.

The case studies are:

• accessing mainstream programs
• remote housing policy
• the Northern Territory National Emergency Response and compulsory income management
• native title policy.

The analysis of the case studies suggests that the evaluations had:  

• an extremely poor record of substantive impact on strategic policy
• minimal influence on policy outcomes and driving policy change and reform.

Often, evaluations were used as a means of diverting attention from the more significant policy challenges and justifying further inaction. Inaction benefited those interests that were most instrumental in shaping the status quo. In general, it is Indigenous interests pushing for reform and more generalised sectional interests resisting reform or, in some cases, winding back previous reform.

‘Til the next issue

Maria Katsonis