PUBLIC DEMAND / INTEREST FOR TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNEMENT

OVERALL KEY POINTS

  • The Cabinet Office consultation, Making Open Real data, set out the opportunities to transform the way the government and society work for the better through transparency and making more data available.
  • There appears to be public support for greater transparency in Government through publishing good quality information on Government and public body matters, such as convictions andsentencing decisions.[1]The public believes that transparency in Government can bring improved efficiency and increased public trust and confidence in Governmental decisions.[2]However, the responses to the Cabinet Office consultation also highlighted some concerns for example in terms of cost of making the data available, and potential risks to data quality (e.g. through premature publication of data)[3].
  • Freedom of Information requests can be seen as an indicator of appetite for government data and information, although it should be noted that many FOI requests may be from organisations and media who have an interest in these areas. FOI requests to major departments of state have steadily been increasing, with a 4 per cent increase in FOI requests between Q3 2010 and Q3 2011- Ministry of Justice received 835 FOI requests in Q3 2011, a 14% increase since Q3 2009.[4]In addition, government departments receive and deal with several non FOI requests and some of public data and information is already routinely published.
  • However, although the public appear to want access to government data and information, greater transparency is unlikely to lead to an increase in public trust in the government if they do not trust the information and statistics. Based on the BCS 2010/11, just under four out of ten people (38%) said that they trusted crime statistics produced by the Home Office, with around a third (34%) saying that they distrusted them (and the remainder unsure).[5]Therefore about openly publishing Government data may not be sufficient; public confidence in Government data also needs to be improved.
  • In terms of the Ministry of Justice matters, the public appear to want straight, easily accessible facts and ‘non-spun’ information about action to tackle crime, what happens to criminals and why – both nationally and locally.[6]There is also some evidence to indicate that there is a relationship between feeling informed about the CJS and confidence in how effective the CJS is performing[7].

In order to inform the evidence base on transparency in Government an internet search for studies, consultations and reviews was carried out: In addition to a literature search by the library. Information on this topic was quite scarce. This section provides information about studies, consultations and reviews on public demand for government data and information.

CABINET OFFICE (2012)- MAKING OPEN DATA REAL: A GOVERNMENT SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

The Cabinet Office run a public consultation, Making Open Data Real between August and October 2011. The consultation set out some of the opportunities that exist to transform the way government and society work for the better through the effective use of transparency and open data. There were 247written responses to the consultation and a further 217online comments via data.gov.uk. Responses to the consultation were received from a wide range of sectors: public bodies, businesses, local and national government, and NDPBs.

Across the responses, there was widespread support for transparency and open data, though there were divergent views on how ‘Open Government’ might be realised.Opinions on the extent to which public funded organisationsshould be required to comply with future open data obligations, varied from full compliance to compliance being inline with funding received.

Concerns were raised regarding the resource implications of future open data obligations, particularly on smaller organisations, who highlighted that data quality may be negatively affected by ‘premature’ publication of data. Many respondents noted open data will lead to performance and efficiency improvements in participating organisations – by driving improvements in the accuracy and quality of data held, meaning less resource is directed towards improving data in the future. Many respondents agreed the potential benefits of open data outweigh any future costs associated with the agenda

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (2011) - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: STATISTICS ON IMPLEMENTATION IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2011)

This bulletin presents monitoring statistics for a total of 43 central government bodies, including all major departments of state.

Across all the monitored bodies covered in these statistics, a total of 11,829 “non-routine” information requests were received during the third quarter (July to September) of 2011 (Q3) – an increase of 4 per cent on the third quarter of 2010. Departments of State accounted for 65 per cent of all requests received by monitored bodies in Q3 of 2011. The Ministry of Justice[8] received 835 requests in Q3 of 2011, a 14.1 per cent increase since Q3 of 2009

While there has been a considerable quarter-on-quarter variation, generally there is an increasing trend in the number of requests received over the past three years.

While the number of FOI requests received can be seen as an indication of appetite for government data and information, it should be noted that many requests may be received not from the general public but organizations, businesses and media. In addition, much of government data is already routinely published and many requests for data and information are received as non-FOI requests.

Figure 1: Numbers of Freedom of Information requests received by Departments of State and other monitored bodies, quarterly from Q3 2009

LOUISE CASEY (2008)- ENGAGING COMMUNITIES IN FIGHTING CRIME – CASEY REPORT

Louise Casey’s reviewdrew on a wide range of evidence: This included: examination of existing research; surveys with representative sample of the general public (questions placed in omnibus surveys – 10,969 respondents); the ‘Have your say’ questionnaire (online and postal – 1,502 respondents); discussion events with community activist (606 respondents); postal survey of community activists (400 respondents); online survey of CJS staff (944 respondents) and group discussions with public (57 respondents).

The Casey review highlighted the need for CJS agencies to provide good quality information to communicate to the public on criminal cases, sentencing decisions and on what happens to offenders. For example, nine out of ten people who responded to the Casey review’s ‘Have Your Say questionnaire (2008), said they were not told enough about outcomes of arrests (Casey 2008). The Casey review believed that providing more information to the publicwill help increase awareness, trust and confidence in the CJS and sentencing.

Based on the review, the public want straight, easily accessible facts and ‘non-spun’ information about action to tackle crime, what happens to criminals and why. The public do not just want statistics, but more meaningful information that is relevant to where they live and available regularly.

IPSOS MORI (2009) - SENTENCING – PUBLIC ATTITUDES SURVEY FOR NCJG (UNPUBLISHED[9])

Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 1,810 respondents to find out about their level of confidence in the CJS.[10]

Respondents thought that it is important that they are provided with information about sentences given in England and Wales and locally (67 per cent and 65 per cent consecutively).There is a relationship between feeling informed about sentencing and levels of confidence in the CJS, with 70 per cent of people who were not confident the CJS is effective, also reporting feeling not informed. In comparison, 59% of people who are confident the CJS is effective also reported feeling not informed. Forty two per cent of (all) respondents believe knowing more would have a positive impact on their confidence in the CJS.

The public strongly believe that information about the sentences themselves should be in the public domain. The top 3 sources of information the public said they would like is:

-What Kind of sentence people convicted of crime have received (83 per cent);

-Information about the sentence length or conditions of the sentence (81 per cent);

-What is being done to rehabilitate people who have been convicted (76 per cent).

IPSOS MORI (2008)- CLOSING THE GAP

IPSOS MORI collated and analysed existing evidence on public attitudes to the CJS. The evidence examined included surveys and research carried out in-house. But they also drew on other sources such Home Office reports, where relevant to back-up their data.

Evidence examined showed that the public are sceptical about the use of data to ‘spin’ the government’s message and believe that government simply pick and choose statistics to fit their aims or story. Politicians are one of the least trusted groups and so this scepticism is heightened if it is a politician that is using statistics to make a point.

People who feel more informed about a crime issues are more confident in the approaches being used to tackle them:

Further evidence from experimental studies has found similar results, that attitudes can be changed through providing more information:

-Research from 2002 found that providing information (either in a booklet, video or seminar) led to both increased levels of knowledge and increased confidence in the CJS;[11]

-In 2004, researchers provided a sub-sample of people participating in the British Crime Survey with a booklet containing information about crime and sentencing. They reported modest increases in knowledge and confidence, with for example, respondents who had received the booklet more likely to see the CJS as being effective in reducing crime, bringing the guilty to justice and meeting the needs of crime victims[12]

SINGER AND COOPER (2008) - INFORM, PERSUADE AND REMIND: AN EVALUATION OF A PROJECT TO IMPROVE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

A trial was carried out providing people with an information booklet containing key facts about crime and the criminal justice system at the national and their local level. A telephone survey including BCS questions was used to establish levels of public confidence before and after the booklet was distributed. A series of focus group interviews was also conducted involving 49 participants. The aim of these follow-up interviews was to provide an insight into why people’s confidence did or did not change during the experiment for both recipient and control groups.

A significantly higher proportion of those receiving the booklet, compared with those in the control group who did not, demonstrated greater knowledge of crime levels. Booklet recipients were more likely than non-recipients to think that current sentence lengths were appropriate. Compared with controls, those receiving the booklet increased their level of confidence by a margin of nearly five percentage points in response to the question whether they thought the CJS is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice.

Suggested improvements to the original design by the focus group was to consider the use of numbers alongside percentages to avoid accusations of spin; the provision of information relating to the whole CJS process rather than discrete (and potentially biased) aspects of it; reference to failures as well as successes to lend credibility; and finally, the use of cameos to maximise human interest.

SOLUTIONS- CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT (UNPUBLISHED[13])

Six focus groups were carried out in 3 geographic locations, with 42 respondents spilt according to: empty nesters / retired (x2); singles (x2) and those with children (x2). Ten follow-up interviews were carried out (no information on how these interviews were spilt up)

This qualitative research found that the more local a crime is the more serious and relevant it is considered to be by respondents. Less ‘serious’ crimes (such as graffiti, drink disorderly, car crime etc), increase in importance the more locally they occur. Subsequently, there is a higher interest in convictions informationrelating to low or mid-range seriousness, as well as anti-social behaviour, where they are locally relevant.Convictions relating to serious offences (such as burglaries, drug dealing, knife offence etc) are of general interest, and high concern if occurred locally. Those who lives in areas where ASB and crime are more of a problem[14] are more interested generally than those from ‘better’[15] areas.

Respondents often feel that little information about convictions is available or being reported. Most respondents are generally interested in hearing about local criminal convictions, but interest can vary. It was found that information about convictions can help to reassure respondents that actions are being taken against offenders.

Respondent wanted brief information about local convictions, and about the person who have committed the crime - which comes direct to them, such as information in local papers, community meetings, available in place people frequent e.g. GP surgeries, etc.Overall, a combination of stimulus elements emerged as popular way of delivering this information:

-Photographs of convicted offenders

-Strong language focusing on justice

-Clear, concise facts

-Leaflet-length overall

-Leaflet style, with other related articles alongside convictions information

HOME OFFICE (2011)- PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME, ENGAGEMENT WITH THE POLICE, AUTHORITIES DEALING WITH ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND COMMUNITY PAYBACK: FINDINGS FROM THE 2010/11 BRITISH CRIME SURVEY - SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME 1 TO CRIME IN ENGLAND AND WALES 2010/11

The British Crime Survey (BCS) is a large, nationally representative, face-to-face victimisation survey in which resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of crime in the 12 months prior to interview. New questions were added to the 2010/11 BCS to assess levels of trust in official statistics. Respondents are asked about their opinions on official crime statistics and whether they trust those produced by the Home Office.

The level of trust in official statistics was mixed, with 38 per cent of people saying that they trusted crime statistics produced by the Home Office and 34 per cent saying that they distrusted them (and the remainder unsure). The police were most trusted to present crime figures in a fairand balanced way and politicians were least trusted.[16]

Respondents are asked to give reasons for their trust or distrust in official crime statistics. The most common reasons given that implied distrust in statistics were that crimes are difficult to count, define or measure (18%), the figures are misrepresented or spun by politicians (16%), figures alone don’t tell the whole story (15%) and the Home Office/Government can’t be trusted to produce figures (15%). Of the reasons for trusting crime statistics, the most common was that the Home Office/Government can be trusted to produce the figures (16%), similar to the number who expressed the opposite opinion. Other reasons given for trusting official statistics included having heard or read something good about the figures (4%) and trust from personal experience (4%).

Trust and use of official statistics is related to perceptions of crime. Respondents who trusted official statistics were nearly three times as likely to think that crime had gone down nationally over the last few years as those who distrusted official statistics (11% compared with 4%). Those who had used online crime maps in the last 12 months and who lived in a relatively low crimearea were more likely to think that crime in their local area was ‘lower than average’ thanthose who had not (83% compared with 65%). However, there was no relationship between useof crime maps and perceptions of crime in relatively high-crime areas.

REFERENCES:

Cabinet Office (2012), ‘Making open data real: a Government summary of responses’

Casey (2008) ‘Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime – Casey Report’June 2008

Home Office (2011), ‘Perceptions of crime, engagement with the police, authorities dealing with antisocial behaviour and community payback: findings from the 2010/11 British Crime Survey - supplementary volume 1 to crime in England and Wales 2010/11’

IPSOS MORI (2009) ‘Sentencing – public attitudes survey for NCJG’ Unpublished July 2009

IPSOS MORI (2008) ‘Closing the gap: Crime and public perceptions’

Ministry of Justice (2011) ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Statistics on implementation in central government Q3: July - September 2011’

Singer and Cooper (2008) –‘Inform, Persuade and Remind: An Evaluation of a Project to Improve Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System’ (Ministry of Justice Research Series 15/08)

Solutions (2009) – ‘Criminal Convictions: Communications Project’ UNPUBLISHED

Page 1

[1] Cabinet Office 2012, Casey 2008, Solutions 2009 UNPUBLISHED

[2] Cabinet Office 2012, Casey 2008, IPSOS MORI 2008

[3] Cabinet Office 2012

[4]MOJ 2011

[5] Home Office (2011)

[6] Casey 2008, IPSOS MORI 2008, IPSOS MORI 2009 UNPUBLISHED; Singer & Cooper 2008, Solutions 2009 UNPUBLISHED

[7] IPSOS MORI 2008, IPSOS MORI 2009 UNPUBLISHED & Singer & Cooper 2008

[8] Figures include requests received by HM Courts and Tribunals Service where they were referred to the department’s Data Access and Compliance Unit.

[9] Not aware of why this is unpublished – data cannot be shared externally.

[10]The survey was based on quota sampling

[11] Chapman, B., Mirrlees-Black, C., & Brawn, C. (2002) ‘Improving public attitudes to the criminal justice system: The impact of information’ Home Office research study 245. London: HO.

[12] Salisbury H, (2004), ‘Public attitudes to the criminal justice system: The impact of providing information to BCS respondents’ Online Home Office Report, London: HO

[13] Not aware of why this is unpublished – data cannot be shared externally.

[14] Refers to how common the offences are to occur – but no detail given by authors on the boundaries for defining 'common'.

[15] The authors offer no description of what is a ‘better’ area – could mean an area with less of a ASB / crime problem

[16] Note the trust in Home Office crime statistics is higher based on the BCS than other surveys have shown it is possible thatresponses may be influenced by respondents knowing that they are being interviewed on behalf of the

Home Office.