Probation Board of Northern Ireland Consultation - Revision history

Jjh: /* Scope of consultation */

2008-01-13T17:08:41Z

‎Scope of consultation

Jjh: /* Assessing the impact of PBNI Change */

2008-01-13T16:53:13Z

‎Assessing the impact of PBNI Change

Jjh: /* Case Overview */

2008-01-13T16:52:07Z

‎Case Overview

Jjh at 16:41, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T16:41:09Z

Jjh at 16:39, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T16:39:24Z

Jjh at 16:29, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T16:29:52Z

Jjh: first stab

2007-09-21T17:12:28Z

first stab

New page

One of the people who came to our Armagh workshop in April 2005 worked for the Probation
Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI). We met with Mary Coffey and Louise Orr on 5 Aug. 2005 to
discuss their coming consultations. The PBNI was planning to run a consultation on changes to
the locations of probation offices, and reporting centres, across Northern Ireland. Consultants
had recommended nine alternatives ways of reducing the number of offices they had to
maintain. The PBNI would like to gather data on the impact of the changes on:
· Partners groups under NI section 75,
· Political parties, councillors, community groups, and
· Individual offenders
They had had a number of problems with previous consultations:
· There was a low response to calls for public meeting in newspapers.
* No response from some partner groups.
· Little interest in filling out surveys.
· There were no representative groups for offenders42.
· It was difficult to engage with individual offenders due to low literacy, numeracy and
other learning difficulties.
This last point is a substantial challenge to any consultation process. Many offenders had left
school early, and spent many periods in prison. This had left them functionally illiterate.
Perhaps they could read a few words on a road or shop sign, and text short messages from
mobile 'phones, but not compose paragraphs. Can such people access some electronic
communications technologies? Are there ways of using e-consultation technologies with them?
The project team suggested a number of technologies that could be used in their consultations
with organisations. As for the ex-offenders, we suggested running some experiments or
usability tests to find out which technologies they can use. Now these e-consultation
components would, if accepted, only be a small part of an overall consultation. The consultation
managers at PBNI spent some time over the autumn on designing and planning the consultation,
with the help of the Consultation Institute (represented by Stratagem in Ireland). The
Consultation Institute pointed out the disadvantages of consulting on only one out of nine
options.43 The consultation dates needed approval from the PBNI corporate managers, their
board, and the Northern Ireland Office, so there was a long delay before the consultation
process and schedule was approved. In the end, the PBNI ran a conventional consultation,
without any e-consultation component, between 10 March and 2 June 2006.44 In that
consultation they ask for views on the positive and negative of their preferred option only: but
the final questions ask for alternative suggestions. Rather than introducing a new technology for
consulting with offenders during this major consultation, they agreed to work with us to do a
usability test of an e-consultation technology with ex-offenders.

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 These e-consultation components would, if accepted, only be a small part of an overall consultation.
-The consultation managers at [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] spent some time over the autumn on designing and planning the consultation, with the help of the Consultation Institute (represented by Stratagem in Ireland).
+The consultation managers at [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] spent some time over the autumn on designing and planning the consultation, with the help of the [http://www.consultationinstitute.org/ Consultation Institute (represented by Stratagem in Ireland)]).
 ===The beginning===

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ===Assessing the impact of PBNI Change===
 In response, the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] wanted like to gather data on the impact of the structural changes on:
-* Partners groups under the Equality Act [http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/section_75 Northern Ireland Act 1998, Section 75],
+* Partners groups under the [http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/section_75 Northern Ireland Act 1998, Section 75, securing equality for all],
 * Political parties, councillors, community groups, and
 * Individual offenders

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 The [http://www.pbni.org.uk/index/publications/consultation.htm Consultation section of the PBNI website] sets out their plans in details.
-===Learing from previous consultations===
+===Concerns arising from previous consultations===
 The [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] had had a number of problems with previous consultations:
 * There was a low response to calls for public meeting in newspapers.
-* No response from some partner groups.
+* There was no response from some partner groups.
-* Little interest in filling out surveys.
+* There was little interest in filling out surveys.
-* There were no representative groups for offenders42.
+* There were no representative groups for offenders.  [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ NIACRO], a voluntary organisation working to reduce crime and its societal impact, would provide such services rather than representing offenders.
 * It was difficult to engage with individual offenders due to low literacy, numeracy and
 other learning difficulties.
-This last point is a substantial challenge to any consultation process. Many offenders had left
+===Concerns with certain stakeholders===
-school early, and spent many periods in prison. This had left them functionally illiterate.
+The point, "difficult to engage with [participants] due to low literacy, numeracy and other learning difficulties" is a substantial challenge to any consultation process.
 Perhaps they could read a few words on a road or shop sign, and text short messages from
-mobile 'phones, but not compose paragraphs. Can such people access some electronic
+Many offenders had left school early, and spent many periods in prison. This had left them functionally illiterate. Perhaps they could read a few words on a road or shop sign, and text short messages from mobile 'phones, but not compose paragraphs.
 communications technologies? Are there ways of using e-consultation technologies with them?
-The project team suggested a number of technologies that could be used in their consultations
+However, can such people access some electronic communications technologies? Are there ways of using e-consultation technologies with them?
 with organisations. As for the ex-offenders, we suggested running some experiments or
-usability tests to find out which technologies they can use. Now these e-consultation
+The [http://www.e-consultation.org/ project team] suggested a number of technologies that could be used in their consultations with organisations. As for the ex-offenders, we suggested running some experiments or usability tests to find out which technologies they can use.
 components would, if accepted, only be a small part of an overall consultation. The consultation
-managers at [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] spent some time over the autumn on designing and planning the consultation,
+===Scope of consultation===
-with the help of the Consultation Institute (represented by Stratagem in Ireland). The
+These e-consultation components would, if accepted, only be a small part of an overall consultation.
 Consultation Institute pointed out the disadvantages of consulting on only one out of nine
-options.43 The consultation dates needed approval from the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI]corporate managers, their
+The consultation managers at [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] spent some time over the autumn on designing and planning the consultation, with the help of the Consultation Institute (represented by Stratagem in Ireland).
 board, and the Northern Ireland Office, so there was a long delay before the consultation
-process and schedule was approved. In the end, the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI]ran a conventional consultation,
+===The beginning===
-without any e-consultation component, between 10 March and 2 June 2006.44 In that
+The Consultation Institute pointed out the disadvantages of consulting on only one out of nine
-consultation they ask for views on the positive and negative of their preferred option only: but
+options (i.e. ex-offenders).
-the final questions ask for alternative suggestions. Rather than introducing a new technology for
-consulting with offenders during this major consultation, they agreed to work with us to do a
+The consultation dates needed approval from the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] corporate managers, their board, and the [http://www.nio.gov.uk/ Northern Ireland Office], so there was a long delay before the consultation process and schedule was approved.
 usability test of an e-consultation technology with ex-offenders.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===Background===
+==Background==
 E-consultation is often criticized on the grounds that different groups of people do not have equal access to electronic communications technologies. They may not be able to afford Internet access at home, or have the skills or confidence to use Internet facilities in libraries, community centres or cybercafés. As a general criticism, it is a weak one.
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 In this case example we discuss what can be done to improve accessibility and usability for some of these groups.
-===Case Overview===
+==Case Overview==
 During a previous workshop in April 2005 we met a member of the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ Probation Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI)]. This stimulated interest in studying a case with the PBNI.
 So, we met with Mary Coffey and Louise Orr on the 5th August 2005 to discuss their upcoming consultations.
-The PBNI was planning to run a consultation on changes to the locations of probation offices, and reporting centres, across Northern Ireland. Consultants had recommended nine alternative ways of reducing the number of PBNI regional offices they had to maintain.
+The [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] was planning to run a consultation on changes to the locations of probation offices, and reporting centres, across Northern Ireland. Consultants had recommended nine alternative ways of reducing the number of [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] regional offices they had to maintain.
-In response, the PBNI wanted like to gather data on the impact of the structural changes on:
+===Assessing the impact of PBNI Change===
-* Partners groups under the Equality Act [[http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/section_75 Northern Ireland Act 1998, Section 75]],
+In response, the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] wanted like to gather data on the impact of the structural changes on:
 * Political parties, councillors, community groups, and
 * Individual offenders
-The [[http://www.pbni.org.uk/index/publications/consultation.htm Consultation section of the PBNI website]] sets out their plans in details.
+The [http://www.pbni.org.uk/index/publications/consultation.htm Consultation section of the PBNI website] sets out their plans in details.
-The PBNI had had a number of problems with previous consultations:
+===Learing from previous consultations===
 * There was a low response to calls for public meeting in newspapers.
 * No response from some partner groups.
@@ Line 28: / Line 30: @@
 * It was difficult to engage with individual offenders due to low literacy, numeracy and
 other learning difficulties.
 This last point is a substantial challenge to any consultation process. Many offenders had left
 school early, and spent many periods in prison. This had left them functionally illiterate.
@@ Line 37: / Line 40: @@
 usability tests to find out which technologies they can use. Now these e-consultation
 components would, if accepted, only be a small part of an overall consultation. The consultation
-managers at PBNI spent some time over the autumn on designing and planning the consultation,
+managers at [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] spent some time over the autumn on designing and planning the consultation,
 with the help of the Consultation Institute (represented by Stratagem in Ireland). The
 Consultation Institute pointed out the disadvantages of consulting on only one out of nine
-options.43 The consultation dates needed approval from the PBNI corporate managers, their
+options.43 The consultation dates needed approval from the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI]corporate managers, their
 board, and the Northern Ireland Office, so there was a long delay before the consultation
-process and schedule was approved. In the end, the PBNI ran a conventional consultation,
+process and schedule was approved. In the end, the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI]ran a conventional consultation,
 without any e-consultation component, between 10 March and 2 June 2006.44 In that
 consultation they ask for views on the positive and negative of their preferred option only: but

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 13 January 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	===Background===
		+	E-consultation is often criticized on the grounds that different groups of people do not have equal access to electronic communications technologies. They may not be able to afford Internet access at home, or have the skills or confidence to use Internet facilities in libraries, community centres or cybercafés. As a general criticism, it is a weak one.
		+
		+	The most common consultation technique used in Ireland is to write a long document (40, 50 or even 200 pages) in an inaccessible language. This discriminates against those with little time, and those who do not have very high reading skills.
		+
		+	Few e-consultation techniques will be so exclusive. From the beginning, we have proposed e-consultation techniques as complementary to traditional approaches, rather than replacements. Each technique can reduce participation: but the groups excluded are different. However, no matter what you do to make electronic access simpler, there are still people who will find it difficult to participate.
		+
		+	In this case example we discuss what can be done to improve accessibility and usability for some of these groups.
		+
		+	===Case Overview===
	One of the people who came to our Armagh workshop in April 2005 worked for the Probation		One of the people who came to our Armagh workshop in April 2005 worked for the Probation
	Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI). We met with Mary Coffey and Louise Orr on 5 Aug. 2005 to		Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI). We met with Mary Coffey and Louise Orr on 5 Aug. 2005 to