Publishing financial data on public bodies is one thing, translating it into information that citizens can use is another
Transparency for public bodies has traditionally been concerned with freedom of information, access to the democratic process and openness of decision-making. Now the government wants financial data to be included, as part of its plans to increase accountability.
By the end of this month, central government departments must publish details of all spending over £25,000 incurred between April and September this year. Thereafter they will have to publish monthly data by the fifteenth working day of each month. Local authorities must follow a similar process from January 2011 for spending over £500.
This new transparency raises several important issues that the government and councils need to understand and incorporate into their thinking. Managed well, it has the potential to generate powerfully informed citizens, foster accountability in public bodies, and – vitally – harness citizen-power to improve services.
Managed badly, it will lead to little more than the perfunctory publication of datasets that none but the keenest of journalists will study.
Three principles should be heeded if this move is to realise its full potential.
First, data must be turned into information – there is a difference between the two. The trick is for organisations to publish what they should – rather than just what they can – and put it in context. It is only with contextual information that we can make a proper decision about public bodies’ spending habits and value for money. It is interesting to note that the transparency rules cover less than half of actual spending data.
The second principle is to involve the many and not the few. All elected members know that consultation events and council meetings tend to attract the same regulars. It is vital to reach out to the widest possible audience to attract a credible level of feedback. Making the online information easy to navigate, with engaging information presented in a sensible format, is therefore essential.
Finally, public bodies must create channels for the feedback to ensure that it helps shape future choices and leads to positive change – rather than it being used merely for negative observations or to contest the past, as was the case for the MPs’ expenses scandal. It is not enough to just publish the data and consider the job done. The question is: how can this information help us improve our performance?
So, the publication of the data is just the start. The real holy grail is the link between transparency and performance. Publishing data alone will not lead to improvements or citizen involvement or even save money. It is what happens after the data has been published and how organisations communicate and use the information that is really exciting and powerful.
To enable this, a reporting code for public bodies is crucial to ensure that they are following best practice. Future developments in reporting and transparency should be about building on what is already there, to tie in non-financial information to the currently financially biased reporting and reflect the three principles above.
These are principles that CIPFA has long been advocating. In May 2008, we published a discussion paper Telling the whole story: the future of stakeholder reporting in local government. This recommended rationalising the plethora of reports councils already publish to make it easy for users to find important information on the overall performance of a local authority.
The new requirements should form a part of this. CIPFA is updating the Service Reporting Code of Practice, which provides guidance on formal financial disclosures, to include these.
The transparency requirements offer a fresh opportunity for public bodies to involve citizens. If they neglect this chance and simply add to the information already out there, it will be counterproductive. Ultimately, it will not help citizens to properly hold organisations to account for spending taxpayers’ money.
It would be a failure if we missed out on the possible citizen-driven service improvements as a result.
Julian Mund is director of operations at CIPFA. Please email any comments on the issues raised to [email protected]
