This issue

– when the public deliberates on policy design  
– engaging clients in commissioning   
– creating social connectedness 
– vaccine hesitancy report card 
– whistle while you work 
Plus what I'm reading.

Research brief: When the public deliberates on policy design 

What role can deliberative democracy play in policy design? An article in Policy Design and Practice explores this question in an experiment where a random sample of citizens discussed four policy proposals. The findings show citizens can produce unique forms of policy knowledge when deliberating on policy. Read our brief on the article.

Engaging clients in commissioning 

An Evidence to Action Note from the NSW Department of Communities and Justice identifies strategies for authentic client engagement when commissioning government services. Based on a review of current research undertaken by University of Newcastle researchers, the analysis identified several lessons. 

Lesson 1: Draw on existing groups and networks to recruit clients 

It can be challenging to recruit clients to participate in commissioning. Clients may have limited time, experience and resources. They could also be navigating complex personal circumstances. Partnering with groups that already work with, or are led by, clients can address these challenges. One way is to encourage joint tendering or partnerships between: 

• client-led groups who have strong local knowledge and relationships; and  
• experienced service providers who have strong service delivery and administration capacities. 

Lesson 2: Effective client participation requires good preparation 

Engagement in forums that are dominated by professionals can be daunting. Clients are much more willing to make a substantial effort if they are clear about their role, its purpose and the impact on decision making and services.  

Lesson 3: There are opportunities for engagement throughout the commissioning process

Ideally, client participation should be ongoing throughout the different stages of the commissioning process including: needs assessment, policy development; strategic planning, procurement of services, performance monitoring and evaluation. Research found clients felt their engagement was more effective when they were involved from the earliest stages. 

Lesson 4: Make it as easy as possible to engage 

Human services’ clients are often those people who are the most marginalised and vulnerable. These are also the people whose voices are least frequently heard in policymaking, program design and service delivery. Rather than perceiving clients as hard to reach, policymakers and service designers need to ensure that their engagement opportunities are easy to access. 

Creating social connectedness

This report from the Social Innovation Research Institute looks at the foundations and conditions for social connection within communities. It examined public infrastructure places and spaces within four local government areas as well as user experiences. 

Why social connection? 

Social connection is an outcome of community-based planning given its ability to positively affect health and wellbeing at the individual and community level. Social connection is fundamentally concerned with interactions between individuals. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of establishing and maintaining healthy social connections, at the individual, community and societal level. 

A framework for social connection 

The research suggests the following key principles in building infrastructure to facilitate social connection. These recognise infrastructure and a place-based approach as critical but also include activities and people as connectors. 

1. Focusing on critical components including spaces, places, activities and community connectors. These optimise opportunities for social connection. 
2. Developing a foundation of safe, accessible places that provide a mix and choice for community engagement. 
3. Ensuring the presence of ‘incidental’ or ‘bumping’ spaces that allow for meeting new people. 
4. Facilitating activities that include problem-solving, negotiating and working on purposeful tasks that give best chances for people to meet, build relationships and trust  
5. Identifying opportunities to build (new) collective social identities - a shared identity of living in the same place is an ideal place to start to build a shared identity  
6. Understanding the outcome of connection is best nurtured as a by-product of other purposeful activities. 

This framework is represented in Figure 1. 

New research from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic & Social Research finds recent COVID-19 outbreaks have reduced vaccine hesitancy but specific targeting is still needed. 

Key insights 

• The NSW and Victorian outbreaks have significantly reduced the rate of vaccine hesitancy across Australia, from 33 per cent at the end of May to 21.5 per cent of the adult population as of 23 July. 
• NSW has the lowest rate of vaccine hesitancy at 14.6 per cent, down from 32.9 per cent at the end of May. The outbreaks are clearly changing some people’s minds about getting vaccinated, especially in NSW. 

• 9.7 per cent of Australian adults are still unsure about getting vaccinated as of 23 July, compared to 15 per cent at the end of May (14.3 per cent in NSW). This is the group most likely to be affected by policy. 
• 11.8 per cent of Australian adults remain unwilling to get vaccinated (7.6 per cent in NSW), compared to 18 per cent at the end of May (18.6 per cent in NSW). 
• Even during outbreaks, high rates of vaccine hesitancy persist amongst those aged 18-44 (28.8 per cent) and those in Queensland (30.9 per cent) 
• Policies to reduce vaccine hesitancy need to be carefully targeted at populations most vulnerable and most likely to transmit the virus, as well as geographic areas with the lowest vaccination rates. 

What causes employees to whistle while they work? ​

This paper won the 2020 Sam Richardson Award for the most influential paper published in the Australian Journal of Public Administration. It examines the impact of corruption, organisational culture and employees’ work attitudes on internal whistle-blowing in the APS.   

The research drew on the APS Employee Census and respondents who reported having witnessed corruption in their organisation (3,495 out of 96,762). 

At a glance 

• APS respondents who had observed situations involving fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful disclosure of government information and perverting the course of justice had generally blown the whistle in their organisation. 

• Respondents’ whistle-blowing behaviour were not affected by observations of theft of official assets. One explanation is that employees differentiate corruption from theft with theft seen as a dishonest behaviour. 
• While respondents were willing to blow the whistle for most types of corruption, they were reluctant to do so for nepotism and cronyism. They may perceive these forms of corruption as being more subjective and harder to identify.  
• Whistle-blowing is found to be less prevalent in a hierarchical organisational culture. Respondents who perceive that rules and procedures govern what people do in their organisation are less likely to blow the whistle. 
• Active observers of workplace bullying (those who have blown the whistle after witnessing someone else being bullied) were three times more likely to also internally report corruption than inactive observers of bullying.  

1. Tribal gridlock

This Inside Story article, by former Grattan Institute chief executive Professor John Daley, argues a new kind of tribal belief is increasingly blocking policy reform. These are beliefs that some policy positions are simply right. Often these beliefs aren’t based on any consistent view about one value over another. Rather, they’re the result of history and political battles won or lost. 

2. Mental disorders are brain disorders – here’s why that matters

Within psychology, there is a debate over whether or not mental health disorders are also brain disorders. A neuroscientist explores the debate in an article from Psyche. In treating mental health disorders, both medication and psychological therapy can change the biology of the brain.  

‘Til the next issue

Maria Katsonis