1. The Government Communication Service: Building a communication function fit for the future
This Chapter analyses the governance and structures for public communication in the UK central government. It provides recommendations on how they can be strengthened to empower the function and adapt to transformations in the profession. Using the OECD analytical framework for public communication as the basis for this study, Chapter 1 begins by reviewing the official mandate and expectations for the function in the UK. It proposes ways to enhance the mandate for communication, chiefly by more explicitly acknowledging its policy role and two-way dialogue with citizens. In a similar vein, Chapter 1 looks at how the function is empowered within government. This is through the representation of senior communicators in key decision-making forums and the use of evaluations to demonstrate public communication’s value-added. Chapter 1 concludes with a discussion of the ongoing transformations in the profession and its landscape as well as the implications for capability, skills and ways of working. It summarises key challenges and considerations to future-proof the Government Communication Service (GCS), starting with the implementation of its ambitious reform strategy.
“Communication is one of the four main levers government has to affect change, alongside legislation, regulation and taxation” (GCS, 2022[1]). The UK has come a long way towards matching this statement with the actions to prove it. As the central government body in charge of public communication, GCS has been building a mature and professional function to deliver on this vision and is undertaking further reforms to meet even more ambitious objectives.
As outlined in the OECD’s international report, Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward (2021[2]), public communication (referred throughout as the communication function) is the government function of delivering information, and listening and responding to citizens in the service of the common good. It is distinct from political communication, which is linked to political parties or election campaigns. The OECD’s report reiterates that public communication can support improved policy outcomes, and better and more democratic governance but it requires transitioning away from a traditional understanding of communication as a press office function and leveraging it strategically for the public good.
This goal aligns with the mandate for the function in the UK and what GCS leadership has been pursuing for over a decade. It is also the backdrop to a comprehensive strategy to enhance the profession’s governance and capability.
Public communication has to navigate a media and information landscape in the UK and internationally that is fractured by and vulnerable to polarising and false narratives (see Chapter 3). Rapid digital transformation is testing communicators’ ability to adapt their skills and ways of working. The hardship resulting from years of health, geopolitical and economic crises combined with policy adjustments following the UK’s departure from the EU have sapped public confidence. This has increased the urgency and difficulty of reconnecting with citizens. These are core challenges that require a greater focus on strengthening public communication within the UK’s policy agenda.
Taking stock of the progress made so far, the future ambitions for public communication, and momentous changes to the information ecosystem, this Public Communication Scan of the UK seeks to analyse the function in the UK and opportunities to strengthen its contributions to better policy, governance and, ultimately, democracy.
This section introduces the analytical framework upon which this report is based. It then gives an overview of GCS and presents the governance and structures for public communication across the UK government. Finally, it discusses where communication sits as a government function and how it can become more empowered throughout the public sector as a lever of positive change.
Understanding how public communication contributes to better policies and governance
Public communication is a core function that fulfils three primary roles in government and in service to democracy. These are:1
Inform the public, who can participate and provide input on matters of public interest.
Support the design, implementation and evaluation of policies and services.
Build trust in public institutions and help further social cohesion by:
These three primary roles help break down the contribution of communication to democratic governance into more concrete terms and provide a useful basis for understanding how this plays out in the UK.
To analyse the function and how it performs these roles, the OECD has developed an analytical framework, which is illustrated in Figure 1.1 below. The framework (based on a programme logic model) illustrates how a set of inputs and a set of processes or activities carried out by public institutions produces communication outputs that generate desired outcomes in the audiences (i.e. the individuals and groups that receive and interact with the information, in this case the UK public). In turn, these outcomes contribute to positive impacts linked to policy goals, improved trust, and democratic resilience.
This Scan focuses on analysing structural inputs, communication processes and activities within UK public institutions at the level of the central government. It assesses how the function is set up and governed, and how communication directorates work towards fulfilling their mandate across government. The resulting analysis and recommendations focus on how communicators and policy makers in the UK government can enhance their capabilities, approaches, and practices to ensure the public communication function maximises its potential to create better outcomes for citizens.
Methodology
This Scan was developed based on an OECD survey of 12 government departments, 30 qualitative interviews with governmental and civil society stakeholders and a review of government documents.
A first round of interviews was conducted by the OECD Secretariat and public officials from Canada and Finland acting as peers during a fact-finding mission in London in December 2022. Additional interviews were conducted between January and April 2023.
The governance and structures of public communication in the United Kingdom
Over the past century, since the initial creation of the Department of Information during the first world war, the public information function in the UK government has gone through multiple iterations, evolving its organisational structure and expanding its competencies. Today, GCS is the structure in charge of the civil service function for public information, support for policy delivery, and the enhancement of the practice of communication.
The creation of GCS in 2013 was motivated by improved efficiency of government communication with a “strengthened centre”, greater collaboration across government departments, and improved professional standards (McKenna, 2018[3]). This is consistent with the international trend for centres of government to be more active in steering and leading governance and cross-government policy such as communication (OECD, 2018[4]). Prior to GCS, the Government Communication Network was the first body to convene press officers from the then Government Information and Communication Service, which was staffed with professionals from other disciplines such as marketing (Sanders, 2013[5]).
Repeated changes to the government communication apparatus and its role over the years reflect a parallel evolution in the information ecosystem. This spurs innovation in the practices and diverse skillsets required for sophisticated communication. The proliferation of communication-related disciplines and increase in the number of government communicators – growing from a postwar staff of around 2 000 in the late 1940s (McKenna, 2018[3]) to a force of 7 000 civil servants today (GCS, 2022[1]) – has strengthened the case for more centralised co-ordination of the function to ensure activities remain streamlined. Estimates of this expansion do not account for the role of politically appointed Special Advisors (SpAds), who are commonly brought in by ministers to support their own communication and work alongside civil servants.
The GCS’s central structure and leadership sit at the centre of government within the Cabinet Office2 and are staffed by civil servants. Beyond the Cabinet Office, GCS has a membership-style structure that encompasses the profession across governmental bodies. As of 2022, it comprised teams across 46 government departments (24 ministerial and 20 non-ministerial) on top of over 300 public entities commonly referred to as arm’s-length bodies (ALBs)3 (GCS, 2022[1]). The membership model refers to an organisational system where GCS leadership sets cross-government communication priorities and provides resources to units within departments and ALBs, whose communicators are members of GCS and the profession alongside their departmental affiliation (GCS, 2020).
GCS benefits from a solid management structure. It has been enhanced by recent reforms such as the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer to lead the organisation, reporting to the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary (GCS, 2021[6]). The CEO of GCS works with departmental Directors of Communication to raise professional standards for communication within government, oversee central funding, and lead on recruitment panels (GCS, 2022[7]). The CEO also works alongside a Senior Leadership Team of Executive Directors who together manage high-level work streams on the transformation of the function and delivery of strategic priorities. Central to these is the multi-annual strategy “Performance with Purpose” (hereafter the “GCS Strategy”), which outlines a comprehensive agenda of internal reforms and planning for the future of GCS that stretches from 2022 to 2025 (discussed further below and in Box 1.4).
The leadership team works with internal teams of senior managers that make up a GCS Strategy Programme Board to ensure the timely and effective delivery of its 2022-25 reform Strategy. A new External Advisory Board of key stakeholders was formed in 2022 to make recommendations on reforms and strategic directions. A GCS People Board has been established to focus on professional development and staff management, in line with the relevant pillar of the Strategy.
These dedicated bodies highlight a commitment to accountability within the GCS hierarchy. This is also visible in the emphasis interviewees placed on continuously proving the value of communication, which has earned growing recognition, as discussed in the following section.
Ultimate responsibility and accountability for GCS rests with a Minister within Cabinet Office. A separate GCS Board that groups the Service’s leadership and representatives from Departments and experts reports instead to the UK’s Civil Service Board, although it has an advisory role. A GCS Ministerial Board chaired by the responsible Cabinet Office Minister endorses amendments to the Government Functional Standards on Communication (hereafter “the Standards”), which define the mandate for this function. It also approves annual communication plans and oversees implementation of reforms to GCS (UK Government, 2021[8]; GCS, 2022[9]).
The official mandate for public communication: The Functional Standards on Communication
The Functional Standards document sets out the purpose for public communication and expectations for its consistent management in any given public institution, as described in Box 1.1. It is the core instrument for the function’s governance. This type of document is common to a range of horizontal governmental functions, including project delivery, analysis, or use of digital, data and technology.4
While the Functional Standards have a primarily organisational focus, defining procedures for internal administration, they also provide some grounding on the overarching objectives of the function. The Standards emphasise that public communication is a means to effectively deliver and implement government policy objectives. The document refers to the importance of providing audiences with information to help change behaviours and make choices, and of building the public’s trust in the government and its services. In this respect, it aligns with the role of public communication as outlined in the OECD Analytical Framework described in Figure 1.1.
The 2.0 version of the Communication Functional Standards was released in 2021 and has been frequently updated. It provides guidance and direction to those involved in developing, managing, and delivering communication; those commissioning communication activities; senior leadership and board members within organisations; permanent secretaries; directors-general; and third parties engaged in public communication.
It defines its purpose as “to set expectations for the management and practice of government communication in order to deliver responsive and informative public service communication that supports the effective delivery of HM Government policy and priorities, and assists with the effective operation of public services”.
The document has a detailed focus on the governance and management framework for GCS, and the roles, oversight and reporting within organisations’ hierarchies. It states that an annual government-wide communication plan should define communication priorities. The 2019-2020 plan highlighted how the GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland campaign maximised economic returns from trade, tourism, inward investment, exports and education (GCS, 2019[10]) while the 2021-22 plan focused on how communication could help deliver the government’s aim to “Build Back Better” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (GCS, 2022[11]). The 2023-4 plan focuses on the five priorities of the Government and includes additional objectives such as public sector recruitment and support for public services (GCS, 2023[12]).
This cross-government plan sits alongside organisational communication plans developed by each department or agency that outline how communication supports the effective delivery of both the wider government, and the organisation’s own policies, priorities, and public services. There is a focus on providing “outcome-based metrics” to define objectives to be achieved through communication.
The Functional Standards determine the range of communication disciplines that all entities ought to cover within their teams: strategy, marketing, media relations, external affairs, internal communication, behaviour change, crisis communication, partnership marketing, capability and capacity, brand, and writing.
The Standards set out a blueprint for key stages in the life cycle of a campaign, from the definition of objectives to audience insight, strategy, implementation, and evaluation. In defining these key steps, the document reiterates that the purpose of campaigns is to “be linked to a clear objective so that their impact can be evaluated”. It further states that campaign objectives should be measurable and achievable, focused on “outcomes not outputs, and related to changing attitudes and/or behaviour”. The practice of gathering insights about the audience (referred to as “audience insights”) are required to set out strategic approaches. The document determines that five to ten percent of total campaign expenditure should be allocated to evaluation.
Source: UK Government (2021[8]), Government Communication, Functional Standard, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/government-communication-functional-standard/; GCS (2023[12]), UK Government Communication Plan 2023/24, https://communication-plan.gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/; GCS, Government Communications Plan 2019/20, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/government-communications-plan-2019-20/; GCS, UK Government Communication Plan 2021/2022, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/uk-government-communication-plan-2021-2022/.
The Functional Standards could benefit from a more explicit framing of public communication’s contribution to democratic principles and, especially, dialogue with citizens. Such framing is increasingly found in the communication policies and official mandates of other OECD Members, such as those noted in Box 1.2. References range from an emphasis on the importance of taking citizens’ views into consideration when developing policies (Government of Canada, 2016[13]) to safeguarding the public’s right to information (Government of the Netherlands, n.d.[14]) and establishing a dialogue between citizens and governments (Government of Norway, 2009[15]).
Defining the role of communication in fostering an informed public, facilitating constructive democratic debate, and supporting greater government accountability and public trust could help consolidate an elevated understanding of the function and its value to democracy. In parallel, embedding public communication in the UK’s Open Government5 agenda could reinforce its role as a vehicle for openness and engagement (for more details see Chapter 2).
For instance, the lens of the citizen as the interlocutor and beneficiary of communication is often implicit in the Standards and could be further emphasised. The document includes only limited references to understanding citizens’ needs to achieve government objectives. For example, marketing is defined as “a range of techniques that help fulfil operational and policy objectives, by effectively understanding and meeting the needs of citizens” (UK Government, 2021[8]). Similarly, “stakeholder engagement” is noted as serving to “gather intelligence to inform internal thinking and provide early warning of issues which might need to be addressed” (UK Government, 2021[8]).
A larger focus on listening and dialogue with citizens is important for enabling better policy outcomes and greater public trust. One way to ensure this focus is shared and translated into practice is to clearly define it as a goal in the Standards. It should serve as a mandate to which communicators and public managers are held to account. In this respect, there is scope for the document to be more prescriptive and elaborate further how communication can facilitate these goals and do so beyond the specific setting of a campaign.
The Government of Canada’s communication activities are governed by the Policy on Communication and Federal Identity. Among its key objectives, it explicitly refers to citizen engagement, noting that it aims to ensure that “The Government of Canada considers the views and interests of the public when developing policies, services, and initiatives”. The policy also underlines the link between communication and public trust, stating that the government, “has a responsibility to communicate with Canadians to help protect their interests and well-being”. Its other objectives include ensuring that communication is non-partisan, that they cater to the diverse communication needs of the Canadian public, that they are standardised and cost-effective, and that the country’s official languages (English and French) are equally projected. Accountability for compliance with the policy and its implementation rests with deputy heads, who are the most senior official in each department.
Alongside this policy, there is also a Directive on the Management of Communication, which contains regulations for communication activities across multiple disciplines, including advertising, social media and web, media relations, public opinion research, consultations and events. This is implemented and assured by Heads of Communication within each department, and the Directive explicitly sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Heads of Communication within each department.
In the Netherlands, the Government Communication Policy explicitly refers to the public’s right to government information, which is set out in the Constitution and the Government Information Act. The policy also underlines citizens’ right to communicate with their government, and notes that the government must involve the public in different stages of policy making.
In Sweden, there is a Communication Policy for the Government Offices, which serves as guidance for day-to-day work. It explicitly underlines the link between public communication and governance, stating: “how well a democracy functions is determined to a great extent by citizens’ knowledge and access to facts, assessment of consequences, positions and arguments”. It further emphasises the links between the legitimacy of government and citizens’ understanding of its work, which is facilitated through dialogue and transparency.
In Norway, the constitution contains provisions relating to public communication within its Article 100 on freedom of expression, noting that “the authorities of the State shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse”. There is also a Government Communication Policy that establishes two purposes for government communication: “getting the message out to those who need it” and “establishing a dialogue between the citizens and the government”. It emphasises that government communication should be characterised by openness, with the communication policy laying the foundations for democratic participation and public debate. The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (and from 1 January 2024 the Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance) has responsibility for the policy, with individual government agencies responsible for its implementation.
Source: Government of Canada (2021[16]), Directive on the Management of Communication, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=30682; Government of Canada (2016[13]), Policy on Communication and Federal Identity, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=30683; Government of the Netherlands (n.d.[14]), Government Communication Policy, https://www.government.nl/topics/government-communications/government-communications-policy; Lovdata (2023[17]), The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-05-17; Government of Sweden (2022[18]), Communication Policy for the Government Offices, https://www.government.se/contentassets/733006124df143acbc8ae762aa61a42f/communication-policy-for-the-government-offices.pdf; Government of Norway (2009[15]), Central Government Communication Policy, https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/fad/vedlegg/informasjonspolitikk/statkompol_eng.pdf.
There is a similar opportunity to emphasise the role of communication in enhancing government transparency.6 Although the Standards state that communication should be “open, transparent and informative”, these terms are not qualified any further. Yet they are important elements for building and maintaining public trust in the function and institutions, as Chapter 3 discusses.
Finally, it would be helpful to acknowledge in the Standards document the function’s role in countering mis--and disinformation, and the attributes of communication (such as transparency) that enable it to do so (for instance, see the OECD Principles of Good Practice for Public Communication Responses to Mis- and Disinformation, included in Chapter 3). While guidance on this issue is available through dedicated frameworks and strategies such as the RESIST 2 Counter-Disinformation Toolkit (GCS, 2021[19]) and the Wall of Beliefs (GCS, 2022[20]), its recognition within the Functional Standards would help formalise the function’s responsibilities within a co-ordinated multi-disciplinary response to mis- and disinformation in defence of democracy.
The Functional Standards are edited and revised by the GCS leadership and approved by a ministerial board. As such, they provide an agile instrument to update and improve the governance of the function in light of reform efforts underway. The document similarly sets out oversight structures to ensure its provisions are monitored and complied with, such as the reference to impact assurance, requiring that organisations have a “defined and established approach” (UK Government, 2021[8]).
Interviews conducted by the OECD specified that the CEO of GCS is also responsible for monitoring compliance with the Functional Standards, alongside a Civil Service Board composed of senior civil servants. These mechanisms could be codified further to favour standardisation of this monitoring process for each institution and help reinforce the function’s value across government.
Furthermore, parliamentary or stakeholder involvement in the periodical revision and monitoring of the documents could be a valuable addition to the Standards. External validation could offer an additional layer of democratic accountability for a function that can sometimes still be perceived as politicised or manipulative from the outside (Garland, 2021[21]; Sanders, 2013[5]). Particularly in a context of declining trust in media and information, such open and consultative ways of reviewing the mandate for public communication can help reinforce its credibility and legitimacy. These aspects are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.
GCS standards of practice and key frameworks
Alongside the Functional Standards, which provide the overarching framing for the governance of communication, GCS has invested significantly in codifying and articulating standards of practice across most disciplines of the profession. Specific aspects of the function’s governance are elaborated in a range of “models”, frameworks and guiding documents (see Box 1.3). These range from the Modern Communication Operating Model 3.0 (MCOM), to the OASIS Guide to Campaign Planning, (GCS, 2020[22]) the Emergency Planning Framework, (GCS, 2018[23]) and the RESIST 2 Disinformation Toolkit and more.
GCS has published and continues to update a wide range of frameworks and guidance to set standards for various communication disciplines. Among these, some of the main documents include:
The Modern Communication Operating Model (MCOM 3.0), which sets out the specific skills, capabilities, and practices needed for effective public service communication. It includes the disciplines of Data & Insight, Digital, External Affairs, Internal Communication, Media, Marketing, and Strategic Communication.
The OASIS guide to campaign planning sets out a series of steps to ensure government communication campaigns are “effective, efficient, and evaluated.” The steps include objectives, audience insight, strategy/ ideas, implementation, and scoring/evaluation.
The Crisis Communication Operating Model provides a template for preparedness and response to a crisis, with a focus on ensuring continued public trust in government and guidance on the recovery phase.
The RESIST 2 Counter-Disinformation Toolkit aims to reduce the impact of mis- and disinformation through strategic communication. The key steps outlined within the toolkit are recognising mis- and disinformation, early warning (identifying vulnerabilities), situational insight, impact analysis and strategic communication.
Source: GCS (2023[24]), Modern Communication Operating Model (MCOM 3.0), https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/modern-communications-operating-model-3-0/; GCS (2020[22]), Guide to Campaign Planning: OASIS, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/marketing/delivering-government-campaigns/guide-to-campaign-planning-oasis/; GCS (2023[25]), Crisis Communication Operating Model, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Crisis-Communications-Operating-Model.pdf; GCS (2021[19]), RESIST 2 Counter Disinformation Toolkit, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/resist-2-counter-disinformation-toolkit/.
Among them, MCOM 3.0 represents the most comprehensive guidance for communication units and is an essential blueprint for carrying out the function to a high standard. As the Functional Standards on Communication, MCOM (in its 2.0 version) defines the purpose of communication in operational terms as “Changing behaviours for the benefit of society; Operational effectiveness of public services; Reputation of the UK and responding in times of a crisis; Explanation of government policies and programmes” under the acronym “CORE” (GCS, 2019[26]). The Model carries a strong customer or citizen focus. Linking these purposes and citizen-centric language more explicitly with democratic principles can help to reinforce this lens in the day-to-day work of communicators across government.
Collectively, these documents are a pillar of public communication’s governance in the UK and represent significant efforts to institutionalise and consolidate disciplines and practices. They raise the bar for public communication’s efficiency and impact with regard to policy objectives. GCS guidance and frameworks stand out internationally as an example of sector-leading practice, reflecting its leadership’s ambition for excellence. Interviews with communicators at all levels of government indicated that these frameworks, toolkits and guidance are highly valued resources. They appear to be routinely applied to inform day-to-day communication activities.
The Cabinet Office role in guiding whole-of-government communication and reform
The GCS team within the Cabinet Office performs a core co-ordination role in carrying out whole-of-government communication. Co-ordinating with the communication unit in the Prime Minister’s office (commonly known as 10 Downing Street or “Number 10”), GCS ensures that the UK government is speaking with one voice (GCS, 2022[9]). In doing so, they combine the development and updating of the aforementioned frameworks and guidance with support on specialist capacity, collaboration and training.
This centralised co-ordination style is characteristic of the British system of government, but it has also been heralded as a potential model for other countries looking to centralise communication and resources. A strong steering function in the centre of government can support better policy cohesion and alignment with the executive agenda, which is recognised by the OECD’s research (OECD, 2018[4]). Not only does this enable greater coherence in the messages audiences receive, it can also facilitate cross-government support for priority activities within specific ministries or teams, and fosters an environment conducive to the sharing of good practices among peers (OECD, 2021[2]).
The relative uniformity of co-ordination tactics mentioned by the various departments surveyed indicate that the process is consistent and harmonised across government. Findings from the survey indicate that departments co-ordinate their communication activities across government through frequent meetings between department representatives and the Cabinet Office, and co-creation and delivery of priority activities with the Cabinet Office. This contributes to whole-of-government strategy developments and the sharing of monitoring and analysis reports on audience insights and public discourse (see Figure 1.2).
Despite additional steps and processes involved, co-ordination methods in place are deemed effective in facilitating whole-of-government communication and creating efficiencies. Eight surveyed departments characterised co-ordination of communication between departments and the Centre of Government as “effective but demanding”: the degree of co-ordination can create some additional tasks and delays, but respondents insisted this is mostly compensated by better outcomes and efficiencies overall.
Interviews indicated that vertical siloes between departments are often a barrier to carrying out citizen-centric, integrated communication on cross-cutting issues. Senior departmental communicators interviewed appeared acutely aware that the public perceives the government as unitary and that a positive customer journey and experience is essential to achieving policy outcomes. Yet they recognise that examples of successful cross-government collaboration are fewer than desired due to budgets and internal obstacles. There is further complexity in the case of devolved nations and subnational administrations, where it can be hard to draw lines between policy domains that fall under devolved versus national authorities, and which differ across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, according to interviews.
Despite this, several communicators have mentioned positive examples of inter-departmental co-ordination and collaboration in recent years – notably around the pandemic response and cost-of-living crisis. Breaking down these siloes was a welcome target of the GCS 2022-25 Strategy, with a pillar on collaboration (see Box 1.4). This has been demonstrated in numerous joint campaigns carried out by GCS, examples of which are discussed in Chapter 2.
Greater co-ordination and efficiency are the focus of significant reforms to GCS in recent years. These are being complemented with actions envisioned in the 2022-25 Strategy. Reforms have ushered in new leadership and contributed to a 55% reduction in the central Cabinet Office team, ending years of consecutive staff growth (CSW, 2023[27]). The restructuring was noted in the 2022-2025 strategy as a way to create a “smaller, more joined-up Government Communication Service” (GCS, 2022[9]), which was welcomed by some observers (Cain, 2021[28]; Urban, 2023[29]). Conversely, most surveyed departments stated that existing resources and available staff capacity made implementing the official mandate for communication a challenge, particularly when combined with the expanding range of issues and specialised disciplines teams are expected to cover.
Restructuring has not amounted to reductions across the board as departments and ALBs retain responsibility on personnel decisions (GCS, 2022[9]). Survey responses indicate that trends in departments’ team sizes differ, but a majority have increased specialised communication roles (Figure 1.3). Interviews broadly confirmed the move towards more specialised profiles, particularly in the disciplines of digital, insight and analysis. This is not surprising given the accelerated transformation of the profession, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]). Ensuring the right capacity and skills is vital to the function and remains a priority for GCS leadership. Despite the central downsizing of GCS, plans to meet the challenge of a transforming profession deserve praise and ought to be accomplished, as discussed in the last section of this chapter.
Note: N=12, multiple responses possible.
Source: OECD survey of UK government communication offices at departmental level, 2022.
Note: Note: N=12, single choice answer.
Source: OECD survey of UK government communication offices at departmental level, 2022.
The GCS Strategy multi-annual reform strategy has five overarching goals:
Improve the ability of communicators to work together to address top challenges.
Grow capabilities to leverage technological transformation for the public good.
The strategy is broken down into three pillars, each matched by a set of commitments that aim to solve challenges within each pillar.
The first pillar is ‘Collaboration’, with key points of action including the creation of a strong cross-Government communication strategy, grounded in shared audience insights, data analysis, and effective evaluation. Aiming to break down siloes and institutional barriers to deliver joined-up campaigns, the pillar includes the design of a new central GCS operating model and creating more opportunities for GCS members to connect with one another.
The second pillar is ‘Innovation and improvement’, which aims to respond to the changing nature of the communication landscape by encouraging every member of GCS to drive innovation and improvement within their own day-to-day practices. Priority areas for action include improving digital, data and content; harnessing technology to improve impact, including through the publication of a GCS Innovation Strategy and GCS Data Strategy; improving efficiency throughout GCS, and maintaining public trust through the highest standards of propriety and ethics.
The third pillar is ‘Great People’. This pillar highlights the need for a re-evaluation of approaches to learning and development, career progression, and professional accreditation, driven by ongoing changes to the world of work and employees’ expectations of their employers. The strategy indicates this would be achieved through raising professional standards, attracting, recruiting and retaining talented communicators, building brilliant functional leaders, creating a diverse and inclusive GCS, and creating careers across all four corners of the UK.
The OECD Report on Public Communication (2021[2]) highlighted empowering the function as one of five key principles for rendering it more effective as a lever of government. In many of the 46 countries studied in the Report, there was a gap between the understanding of public communication’s role, its actual implementation, and the resources allocated to it. This section looks at how GCS and communication offices across government are becoming more empowered to contribute meaningfully to government objectives and fulfil their potential to bring value for citizens.
As highlighted at the beginning of this chapter, GCS is working towards breaking legacy misperceptions of communication’s role, which are common to many OECD countries (OECD, 2021[2]). As a result, it is increasingly valued across government thanks to its effort to demonstrate impact. This process has been underway for a number of years owing to the aforementioned efforts to raise quality and demonstrate impact. Previous external reviews of government communication have noted “something approaching disdain for media and communication matters” among some observers (UK Parliament, 1998[31]) and “inconsistencies between departments on the significance attached to the communication function” (Phillis, 2008[32]).
While significant progress has been made to improve the recognition of communication within government, evidence collected through this Scan indicates there is still some way to go to ensure communication’s value is maximised. One important way is its positioning within administrative hierarchies. Since October 2021, the function has benefitted from a revamped structure with the new role of CEO on par with the grade of Director-General in the UK civil service policy function.
Similarly, interviews conducted as part of this Scan showed an upward trend in the involvement of senior communicators in key decision-making forums across government departments. For instance, eight of the twelve departments in the OECD survey indicated their Director of Communication (DoC) participates in their institutions’ Executive Committee (ExCo) meetings, along with Director-Generals, other top civil servants and ministerial advisors. Three respondents noted participating only in situations where communication decisions are concerned, and another noted that reporting to leadership happened in separate settings (Figure 1.4). These findings broadly align with accounts from the interviews, which show some discrepancy in which levels of the departmental hierarchy DoCs typically report to, and their representation among senior leadership.
Several senior communicators remarked high-level visibility and influence was a recent development. Interviewees have repeatedly cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a watershed moment where the strategic importance of communication, and the complexity of leveraging it effectively, were truly understood by policy makers, politicians and stakeholders. Some noted benefitting from an elevated role as a result, and said they were consistently included at the highest level of decision making in cross-governmental initiatives, such as in the implementation of lockdown measures and COVID-19 vaccine delivery.
Whereas the overall picture points to a trend for greater empowerment of the communication function and the recognition of its strategic and practical importance for government, this development is not to be taken for granted. Efforts to ensure this trend is not reversed are equally valuable. It is notable that when listing top challenges and strengths in the survey, departments mentioned high-level recognition of communication under both categories.
Rather than being a protocol requirement, DoC’s participation in ExCo meetings remains at the discretion of senior officials, often the Permanent Secretary (the most senior civil servant) in each department. Lines of reporting can similarly affect this access to the organisations’ leadership, for instance, some DoCs report to Director-Generals instead of directly to the Permanent Secretary.
The inclusion of communicators in ExCo meetings often results from ministerial or political-level attention to communication and media, seemingly out of consideration for reputational concerns. This was noted by a number of departmental communicators interviewed, who indicated that ministers are often among those most interested in hearing DoCs’ views of how a given policy would be received by the public. However, interest at the political level of departments can reinforce a focus on the reputation management aspects of the function, at the relative expense of more operational types of communication.
In particular, interviews with communicators stressed that the onus lies on each DoC to “fight for a seat at the table”. In this sense, there was unanimity in placing emphasis on the need to continuously demonstrate value and challenge misperceptions. Such a system can be overly vulnerable to changes in personnel, in the event that a department’s hierarchy is not receptive to DoC’s arguments for involvement in the ExCo or similar, or the latter is unsuccessful in advancing the case.
Formalising the role of communication in the departmental hierarchy could help consolidate gains in its empowerment. This could be achieved by defining reporting lines in the Functional Standards. This would match the document’s existing formal requirement on evaluation of communication activities, which interviews highlighted is a proven means for continuing to challenge legacy assumptions that have long worked to discredit communication.
Evaluating communication impact to demonstrate value
The strong focus on evaluation and placing evidence at the centre of communication strategies has been recognised by the GCS leadership for some time. By producing sound evidence of the impact of communication activities, GCS has been able to gradually change how it is seen by the rest of government. As a result, it has become empowered to continuously adjust, improve, and innovate to pursue more ambitious objectives. GCS’s leadership has repeatedly stressed that if communicators are not able to prove their added value they stand to lose budget and resources, and hence their ability to support the government’s work.7
Thanks to sustained investment in developing and expanding its methodology, UK government communicators have become acknowledged as leaders in evaluation. Data from the OECD’s international report (2021[2]) supported this favourable comparison with the international status quo. GCS has developed several frameworks and guidance documents on evaluation, with a focus on strategic communication and campaigns. The updated Evaluation Framework 2.0 (GCS, 2018[33]) includes metrics for measurement tailored to different campaign types, along with guidance on calculating return on investment (see Box 1.5). It emphasises the importance of setting ‘C-SMART’ objectives: ones that are challenging, specific, measurable, attainable, and relevant – also included within the OASIS campaign planning guide (GCS, 2020[22]). Both documents notably recognise the importance of setting metrics relating to desirable outcomes such as changes in behaviour, attitudes and awareness levels.
The GCS Evaluation Framework 2.0 is primarily aimed at paid campaign activity, which is characterised by typically having one of three objectives: behaviour change, recruitment, and awareness. Each of these has a set of recommended evaluation metrics, divided into four categories: inputs, outputs, outtakes, outcomes.
The Framework focuses on empirical measurement by ensuring that objectives contain three elements: a baseline, which should include a numerical prediction of what will be observed if no communication activity takes place; a numerical forecast of the difference that the campaign activity will make (over a defined period of time); and an explanation, with existing evidence base, used to justify the level of change that is being targeted.
It states that during the evaluation process, which should be ongoing throughout the campaign to ensure continuous optimisation, actual outcome data should be compared with targets set in objectives. Outtakes will also be compared with these objectives, and the causal link between the outtakes and the outcomes should also be considered.
Source: GCS (2018[33]), Evaluation Framework 2.0, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/evaluation-framework/.
This guidance seems well-consolidated in practice. Eleven departments that answered the survey indicated that communication activities are typically evaluated at set milestones, as defined in communication strategies, and after completion of the activity. All but three also noted evaluating at the piloting stage. All departments additionally claimed to carry out evaluation across a wide range of metrics: from reach and volume of coverage, to changes in awareness of a given topic, in behaviour, in public discourse, and in uptake of a given public service (see Figure 1.5).
This approach is valuable as it represents a departure from the still-prevalent practice in most OECD countries of measuring communication success only in terms of communication outputs (such as volume of media coverage, reach of digital content and interaction rates) rather than communication outcomes (such as behaviour change or perceptions change), which correlate more closely to overall impact (OECD, 2021[2]). This emphasis has been dubbed by Macnamara (2023[34]) as a “media-centric, rather than an audience-centric, approach” that leaves unanswered what the consequences of the communication are.
However, while evaluation of communication activities may be effective in measuring how far public communication is creating an informed public and supporting policy delivery from service uptake and behaviour change, the extent to which audiences feel satisfied8 with information they receive is not commonly measured. This may have implications for public trust. This will be explored in further depth in Chapter 2.
The Government of New South Wales, Australia has developed an evaluation framework for advertising and communication that links communication inputs (such as baseline data collection, focus groups, literature reviews) to activities (such as creative design, media buying, journalist relations), outputs (such as social media posts, paid advertising, events), outcomes (such as recall, awareness, interest, attitude change) and finally impact (such as inquiries or registrations, revenue, quality of life). It lists methods by which outputs can be measured, such as media metrics, content analysis, website data, in addition to highlighting ways of measuring outcomes, such as through surveys, interviews, and social media qualitative analysis.
Through this comprehensive matrix, a process of evaluating communication and advertising at every stage of its development and delivery is outlined, which directly links activities to policy outcomes, thus demonstrating the impact of communication.
Source: NSW Government (n.d.[35]), NSW Government Evaluation Framework for Advertising and Communication, https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Evaluation%20Framework%20Implementation%20Matrix.pdf
As the next Chapter of this Scan will discuss, enabling dialogue and a feedback loop with citizens is an important objective that communication can facilitate. There is an opportunity to build relevant metrics of interaction and responsiveness to evaluation designs. In the survey, only four departments indicated that audience satisfaction is commonly evaluated. This can ensure opportunities for interaction are built into communication plans and that they are used to improve the communication itself and feed into policy.
The communication profession and information ecosystem have undergone significant transformations in the last decade, which many governments are still grappling with (OECD, 2021[2]; Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]). Rapid digitalisation has revolutionised information consumption habits and enabled each individual to reach many more with their content – which was previously exclusive to the news and entertainment media (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]). The opportunity for governments to reach and engage with citizens at scale is greater than ever before. These aspects are elaborated in Chapter 2.
Succeeding in such a complex and changing environment comes with challenges: traditional communication methods and tactics are losing efficacy, and governments are under growing pressure to match and outdo innovations in other sectors.
Recent leaps in generative artificial intelligence (AI) such as ChatGPT have made automated content creation a reality. And, big data analytics allow audience insights to be gathered and audience segments to be targeted with high precision (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]).
The rise of platforms giving users personalised experiences has made it “easier (and cheaper) for the government to reach specific segments of the population, but harder (and more expensive) to reach everybody at once” (Urban, 2023[29]). Citizens are accessing information from a more diverse range of platforms than ever before that cater to their specific preferences. This provides opportunities for highly precise targeting. Simultaneously, fewer channels have an audience that is genuinely widespread and diverse. This is a challenge for reaching multiple groups at once. COVID-19 has been a further catalyst for change. It has accelerated governments’ uptake of innovative practices for more citizen-centred communication against a backdrop of worsening mis- and disinformation (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]).
Novel technologies come with new and urgent ethical questions. Institutions need to address them if they are to maintain their social license to employ these technologies responsibly without public fears of manipulation or surveillance. These questions, discussed in Chapter 3, require updated guidance, which recent surveys have found communication professionals unprepared for (Zerfass et al., 2020[36]; Macnamara et al., 2021[37]).
Likewise, information technologies and innovation in communication call for advanced and diverse skills sets across communication teams so that they are able to seize innovation opportunities at scale (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]; Zerfass et al., 2020[36]). The potential these innovations have for communicating directly and effectively with citizens warrants investment in professionalising and future-proofing the function.
Changes to the communication profession and its wider ecosystem have been front of mind for GCS leadership and communicators across government. Seven of the twelve surveyed departments recognised that the nature of the communication function, expectations of it and challenges they deal with have changed “significantly” (see Figure 1.6) over the last five years. This is not surprising since this is the period in which communicators experienced the COVID-19 pandemic, exponential growth of mis- and disinformation, and a rapid shift to image, video and audio as primary content formats across communication channels.
Note: Note: N=12, single choice answer.
Source: OECD survey of UK government communication offices at departmental level, 2022.
While they recognise and emphasise the challenges in adjusting to this new environment, communication directorates in UK government departments maintain a positive outlook for their teams. Six out of 12 surveyed departments considered their communication unit to be “highly agile” in adapting to transformations in the field and seizing innovation. The other half answered that they can sometimes struggle to update approaches but have managed to navigate challenges.
Interviews broadly corroborated this finding: communicators often recognised their achievements in growing their departments’ insights and digital capabilities, for example, but were similarly candid about the progress still to be made. Across the board, communicators recognised some “pockets of excellence” and innovative examples in the use of digital tools, data, and behavioural insights, but they were cautious not to claim these were representative of the modus operandi of their departments or wider government communication.
This relatively encouraging picture is due in part to the emphasis the GCS leadership places on professionalisation and skills. Models, frameworks and toolkits have proliferated, covering all communication disciplines. The broad acknowledgement of the Modern Communication Operating Model (MCOM), for instance, suggests it helped shift expectations for the performance of a professional communication unit. As noted in the GCS 2022-25 strategy, MCOM has been updated to include a dedicated focus on digital. This reflects the growing centrality of this specialist discipline and the need to integrate it accordingly.
GCS has introduced a career framework centred around the skills of different disciplines (GCS, 2021[38]). MCOM disciplines encompass Strategic Communication, Digital, Data & Insight, Marketing, External Affairs, Media and Internal Communication.
Underpinning these models and structures is a drive to build a skilled and capable workforce. To this end, GCS is developing talent and upskilling communicators at all levels of seniority through training programmes. The Government Communication Academy is one such established endeavour, similar to training centres established by other OECD Members (see Box 1.7). The Academy has been expanding its offer of different formats of learning and development activities for the GCS membership.
In line with commitments in the GCS 2022-25 strategy, the GCS Advance capacity-building initiative will combine different streams of training from the apprentice level up to the leader (GCS, 2023[39]). As of September 2023, the Advance initiative launched a pilot programme aimed at the “practitioner” level. It offers comprehensive online training courses across all the core communication disciplines, improving and expanding on the existing Academy offer. Once scaled in 2024, the programme will address some priority competency areas identified in this section as needing further development. These include AI in communication, data and insights, and digital communication. Beyond the “practitioner” level, a diversified offer to be rolled out between 2024 and 2025 will complement this training to develop cohorts of experts and prepare experienced technical experts for leadership positions. This aspect will respond to the pre-existing gap in tailored learning identified in the survey of departments conducted for this Scan (see below).
In the UK, the Government Communication Academy includes the GCS curriculum and standards of professional practice, courses and events, information about relevant professional bodies and mentoring opportunities. Members of GCS are required to complete a specific portion of learning and development every year based on these materials. The new GCS Advance “Practitioner” programme is likewise offered online and will reach 1 200 learners per year from 2024.
Conversely, in Canada, the Communication Community Office (CCO) is the body that supports federal government communicators with training and guidance across a range of communication disciplines. The CCO’s programmes sit alongside resources offered through Canada’s School of Public Service, which offers government-wide cross-discipline training, including a dedicated Digital Academy designed to help public servants develop the skills needed to thrive in the digital age.
In the Netherlands, the Academy for Government Communication supports government communicators with professional development opportunities and provides a network for knowledge-sharing. It also carries out training for policy professionals, in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Public Administration training centre.
Source: GCS (2021[40]), About the Academy, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/academy/about-the-academy/; Government of Canada (2022[41]), Learning Opportunities for Communicators, https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/communications-community-office/learning-opportunities-communicators.html; Government of the Netherlands (n.d.[42]), Organisation, https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-general-affairs/organisation.
Survey responses validated that training is in place for all the main competencies, including newer disciplines such as data analytics, behavioural science and counter-disinformation. According to one interview, over 2 000 staff have received digital communication training to date. However, responses also indicated that the training offer has historically been the same regardless of seniority and experience although diversified levels are supposed to have been put in place in the implementation of the GCS Strategy. This training gap may be a barrier to developing the highly specialised profiles that interviews highlighted are in high demand, as noted below. Generic training may also be less fit for ensuring that senior leaders, who may have built their career prior to the recent transformations in the field, are up to speed with the cutting-edge of the profession and able to lead it forward. This is particularly important for their role in setting their teams’ culture and openness to innovation (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]).
The other pillars of GCS’s effort for professionalisation are its apprenticeships, mentoring schemes and talent programmes for government communicators across different grades of seniority. Six such programmes are listed on the GCS website.9 One external interviewee noted that such programmes are regarded as highly effective for attracting young talent and building foundational skills whereas schemes for leadership and more experienced staff could be improved, an area GCS has recently addressed. On top of these initiatives, interviews revealed that it is commonplace for communicators to have worked in different departments and agencies over the course of their careers. This exposure to different teams and issues can be an asset to facilitate collaboration and the transfer of good practices across institutions.
GCS has also introduced the informal roles of “head of discipline” for all areas of communication. Heads of discipline are top experts in a particular specialisation of the profession (such as Data and Insights, Marketing or Strategic Communication) working in Cabinet Office or other departments. They assume a cross-government responsibility to cultivate this expertise and put it at the service of the rest of GCS by driving improvements and mainstreaming good practices across its membership. According to interviews, heads of discipline similarly lead the design and delivery of training sessions on their specific areas of focus.
Despite these extensive initiatives, and due in no small part to the “inherent dynamism” of the communication field (GCS, 2018[43]), capacity and expertise in some important disciplines could be further enhanced. Surveyed departments cited staffing-related issues 10 times while noting their top challenges. Interviews confirmed the survey responses that identified pressures on team capacity linked to high staff turnover and low access to certain skill profiles. Factors sometimes outside the control of DoCs and GCS leadership such as lengthy clearance processes for civil service recruitment and a highly competitive labour market also mean that reforms outside of the training realm may be necessary to address the skills shortage.
Skills and specialisations in the areas driving innovation are among the most urgent that GCS could further develop. Asked about the stage of advancement of teams’ digitalisation and working methods, the 12 surveyed departments were split, with only two considering themselves ‘advanced’ (Figure 1.7). Interviews confirmed varying levels of proficiency in this respect. Recent analyses validate that GCS “is still lacking in digital, broadcast and data visualisation skills” (Urban, 2023[29]), echoing the GCS 2022-25 strategy’s own acknowledgement of this challenge. Market competition for data and digital skills was highlighted across interviews and surveys as an issue standing in the way of expansion in this domain. This raises considerations of how to best organise these specialist capabilities so that they support the widest possible range of communication projects.
Note: Note: N=12, single choice answer.
Source: OECD survey of UK government communication offices at departmental level, 2022.
The GCS 2022-25 multi-annual Strategy offers a comprehensive and forward-looking response to the interconnected challenges of attracting and maintaining a highly capable and professional workforce that can help GCS achieve its objective “not merely to keep up with the pace of change, but to actively lead the way” (GCS, 2018[43]). The strategy reveals a solid grasp of the same issues that emerged across OECD interviews and literature as well as providing targeted plans to address them. In particular, GCS management’s response to the need to attract and retain top talent is captured in the strategy pillar on “Great People” and its emphasis on “purpose”.
Expanding professional development and accreditation is an important focus of the strategy. It is a central objective along with the review of talent schemes, dedicated strategies for “talent and succession planning”, greater internal diversity, and a branding exercise to promote the “GCS people brand” and future offer (GCS, 2022[9]). The GCS strategy and interviews with leadership stressed the intention to build the brand incorporating a values-based approach to promote the function’s social impact and gain an edge over employers in other sectors.
The emphasis on purpose and positive impact of communication as a factor for attracting new talent is commendable. It would help to attract professionals motivated to make public communication ever more effective and could contribute to an impact- and citizen-centred culture within teams. However, in order to achieve this, the GCS leadership may need to address, among other issues, external perceptions of the politicisation of the function (which is discussed in Chapter 3).
According to several interviews with both government communicators and external observers, public communication in the UK can sometimes be associated with political messaging and reputation management rather than work to “change our world and people’s lives for the better”, which GCS champions (GCS, 2022, p. 23[9]). Interviewees claimed that this deters potential candidates who would otherwise give up higher salaries for a career that gives them a sense of purpose. Such observations add weight to considerations in Chapter 3 on building the reputation of and trust in public communication.
Focusing innovation efforts to bring about a more citizen-centred public communication
After being disrupted by the rise of social media, large-scale mis- and disinformation, and increasing “datafication”, the communication field is now on the threshold of a new wave of disruption brought on by recent developments in AI. It is a top priority of the GCS senior leadership team to be prepared for this change, as acknowledged in interviews with the OECD. As in many governments across the OECD and beyond, UK communicators are working to close gaps in their uptake of digital communication practices while scanning the horizon for potential innovations that can transform their operating environment or make them more effective. This section identifies key avenues that could support innovation in the pursuit of a more citizen-centred public communication.
Innovation is high on the GCS leadership’s agenda and is a pillar of the 2022-25 Strategy. The current CEO has committed publicly to directing a greater proportion of the GCS budget towards innovation alongside a plan to publish a dedicated Innovation Strategy by October 2023 (CSW, 2023[27]). The latter will focus on identifying how GCS can streamline tasks and increase efficiency through automation, following on from the government’s existing National AI Strategy (GCS, 2022[9]).
Interviews with top officials indicated a focus on the growing potential for applying AI and big data solutions to shift towards the “mass personalisation” of content and messages. At the time of writing, GCS was preparing to introduce its own large-language model (LLM) to act as a virtual assistant and support a wide range of communication tasks.10
OECD research indicates that, in the field of communication, innovation can often be taken as synonymous with technology. However, there is a risk that this focus clouds the underlying objective of innovating – which for governments is to find more efficient and effective ways to generate better outcomes for citizens (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]; OECD, 2021[2]; 2019[44]; 2022[45]). In this sense, innovating public communication means finding new approaches and solutions that can reach more and diverse people with relevant information and meaningful opportunities for interaction. For example, Chapter 2 calls for innovating how institutions gather insights to understand public preferences and attitudes. This can inform policy making and enable two-way communication by leveraging traditional and digital feedback channels in new ways.
Such an understanding appears to be shared by some senior GCS officials, but there is scope to reinforce it and embed it further in the organisational culture. This can, for example, be achieved via outputs linked to the innovation pillar of the GCS 2022-2025 Strategy, with greater emphasis and articulation of how innovations ought to improve citizens’ experiences.
The COVID-19 pandemic made this a central paradigm to drive improvements in the function around the world. This crisis acted as a catalyst to experiment with new channels and tactics, and mainstream practices that make communication more inclusive, responsive and compelling (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]). UK communicators have been leaders in seizing some of the new approaches and innovating practices based on the latest industry trends. Interviews and survey responses also indicate that departments are making important efforts to develop more precise insights and leverage digital channels to target audiences’ needs (which is the focus of the next chapter).
Nonetheless, improvements in the gathering and management of data can pave the way for new and better ways of working. This can also set communicators up for success as a new wave of transformations in the field accelerate.
Working with data and making the most of it emerged as challenges in surveys and several interviews with communicators. Data on anything from audience characteristics and trending topics of discussion to sentiment, attitudes, and behaviour on a specific issue are at the heart of an evidence-based and citizen-centred outlook for public communication (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]).
Although communication teams across departments indicated using insights sources extensively, many expressed awareness of the limitations of their approaches vis-à-vis the potential ways they could leverage larger and more varied sources of data and evidence. Some teams, for instance, reported advanced research and data analysis operations within their department. In two cases these were well-integrated with the research capabilities of policy and delivery teams. Others indicated struggling to move past the status quo and over-reliance on public polling.
Two issues were raised as the main barriers to effectively leveraging data for public communication. The first relates to how data is managed within and across institutions. Interviews revealed that often the issue is an excess of research and data that is spread across different departments, teams and even within different parts of the communication unit. However, interviews noted such data is often kept in siloes, reducing other teams’ visibility over what information is already available or relevant. These siloes also apply to communication teams across government, as noted in the GCS 2022-25 Strategy (GCS, 2022[9]).
Some suggested it can be easier to commission new research than navigating existing scattered data. Where data is better integrated and accessible, on the other hand, teams point to the challenge of making sense of it and extracting relevant and actionable insights from the vast trove of information.
This latter challenge with data analysis links to the second main barrier, namely capacity and proficiency in data analysis within communication teams. Not enough specialists are in place at the advanced end of the spectrum, and it appears from interviews that too few communicators are adequately proficient in interpreting and using data to inform their work. Some interviewees remarked that, at present, the community of expertise remains too small in comparison to the importance of data analysis in all communication operations. The high demand across the labour market for advanced data skills makes it difficult to recruit externally. This means that the GCS might need to further cultivate this expertise as part of its talent development schemes.
Nonetheless, notable steps in this key area of innovation are underway. Eleven of the twelve surveyed departments reported their teams currently receive training in data analytics or data science. Steps are additionally being taken to raise internal standards and provide guidance in how data is leveraged for more efficient and effective communication. A commitment in the GCS 2022-25 strategy promises a GCS Data Strategy in 2024, drawing on the UK’s existing National Data Strategy to address data-sharing and ethical safeguards in its handling. In this regard, GCS can consider the OECD’s recommendations for the “Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector” (2019[46]) and the example of Denmark (see Box 1.8).
The question of ethics is an especially important one, particularly when privacy rules are concerned. The backdrop of personal data extraction and lax privacy rules that preceded recent waves of regulation has dented public confidence in how their data are used (Alfonsi et al., 2022[30]). This is accentuated by the negative connotations that often linger around the communication sector, with implications for their social license to operate. The OECD Trust Survey found that 52% of UK respondents characterised the government as likely to only use their personal data for legitimate purposes, with 32% characterising this as unlikely (OECD, 2022[47]). This indicates a measure of confidence in existing data regulations among the majority of the public, but points to sizeable groups who remain concerned.
The GCS strategy recognises the need to build trust in the function. It can achieve this in part by being open and transparent about what data it uses and how, and the precautions that are taken to handle it responsibly. The OECD Trust Survey also highlighted that governments’ efforts to inform the population about how their personal data are processed, stored, and used is an important aspect of government reliability, which is a driver of trust (OECD, 2022[47]). Transparency is similarly core to the UK’s existing National Data Strategy, of which ethics is a cross-cutting element.
Launched by the Danish government in 2013, the Basic Data Program allows data collected in unique registers across different institutions to be easily accessed and combined through a single platform, the Data Distributor. Containing information on Danish citizens, companies, property, buildings, geography, and climate, the Data Distributor facilitates efficient access to and use of basic data for private and public actors alike.
The Basic Data Program and the launch of the Data Distributor serve three core objectives:
Standardisation: Standardising data from different sources so it can be easily combined.
Quality: Ensuring that data is accurate, complete, and updated.
Distribution: Distributing data and support through a single platform to make it easily accessible.
Above all, the Basic Data Program allows public officials to access and reuse data collected by other institutions. Prior to the launch of the Basic Data Program, the challenge of navigating public data ownership often meant that officials would re-collect data for their own use. Sustaining multiple registers for the same data, however, was recognised as inefficient, expensive, and prone to error. The new system prevents duplication as it prohibits public authorities from requesting data from citizens that is already featured on the platform. At launch, the Basic Data Program was projected to result in an annual decrease in public expenditure of DKK 260 million (EUR 35 million) from 2020 onwards.
Source: SDFI (2022[48]), Basic Public Data, https://eng.sdfi.dk/data/basic-public-data; Danish Ministry of Finance (2012[49]), Faktaark – Grunddata; EC (2019[50]), Danish Basic Data Program, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/wikis/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=533365971.
Ultimately, genuine innovation will depend on how data, content, channels, old and emerging technologies are applied in new and useful ways to solve problems. In this respect the ambition of the GCS leadership to establish a “GCS innovation lab” and work with the Open Innovation Team11 across government is a welcome one (GCS, 2022[9]). Innovation is often the product of collaboration, and some departments have pointed to ways they foster an enabling environment for new ideas.
Several surveyed departments noted taking part in cross-government best practice and skill-sharing networks on areas including strategic communication and digital. Similarly, departments noted interacting with external partners and industry leaders through the likes of contracted projects and external conferences to source expert advice and research in the sector. One of the departments also specified having a dedicated Digital Strategy Team, whose remit includes assessing available technologies to enhance insights-gathering. UK communicators are also active in international networks of practitioners that enable the flow of ideas and expertise across borders.12
Finally, together with the pursuit of “mass personalisation” of communication, the next frontier for innovating the function could be to develop better practices and opportunities for “mass conversation”, providing expanded opportunities for two-way interaction with citizens at scale. This can serve as the basis for gathering continuous feedback that can inform policy, services and the information citizens need, which is the focus of the next chapter.
Currently, communication teams rely on focus groups and similar methods for a qualitative understanding of public sentiment or the efficacy of a given message. The use of interactive platforms, such as direct messaging apps or chatbots could offer additional opportunities for UK communicators to increase interactions, based on research for this Scan.13 While there are limitations to these solutions, notably concerning the digital divide, expanding the avenues and frequency of direct interactions can eventually contribute to more meaningful two-way communication.
The Government Communication Service’s (GCS’) 2022-25 Strategy is a blueprint for meeting the function’s most difficult challenges in the medium and long term. Staying on track to deliver on each of these commitments is a welcome priority, and progress by late 2023 showed that 75% of commitments in the Strategy have been fulfilled.
The Government Functional Standards on Communication are a powerful instrument to support the institutionalisation of core communication practices. They could be used to consolidate a common understanding of the function’s contribution to democracy. There is an opportunity to articulate explicitly how communication ought to be trustworthy and responsive to public needs, or how it should foster meaningful engagement with policy through a larger emphasis on listening and dialogue. This focus could be emphasised in the Modern Communication Operating Model (MCOM) 3.0, as the primary resource for communicators.
The multiple structures and advisory bodies that support the GCS leadership are a valuable asset but could be made more inclusive of key stakeholders. GCS could consider expanding the representation of stakeholders on relevant Boards to ensure that the perspectives of more diverse users and beneficiaries of public communication feed into top-level decisions.
GCS has an important task of breaking organisational siloes and supporting more integrated cross-government initiatives. This could be achieved by providing greater incentives, in line with the commitments under the “Collaboration” pillar of its strategy.
The empowerment and recognition of communicators varies across departments and with changes to top officials. GCS could support Directors of Communication (DoCs) in gaining access to and trust of top decision makers by formalising lines of reporting within departments and offering leadership training.
Securing talent and building capacity in specialised areas of communication, such as data and insights, are key priorities. Efforts underway to expand training and development opportunities are essential to the effectiveness of communication teams in this rapidly transforming field. New training could be more actively promoted to ensure widespread uptake.
Innovation and modernisation are high on the GCS leadership’s priorities and communication teams are generally agile and open to change. There is an opportunity to focus on exploiting new technologies to enhance meaningful engagement and interaction with citizens, and improve how departments listen to and tailor approaches to specific segments of the population.
GCS could support innovation through the development of communication “sandboxes” (or experimentation labs). It could also incentivise creative exchange among teams and communities of specialists under the heads of disciplines to foster innovation and the spread of good practices across its membership.
Ethics and trust ought to be at the forefront of innovation, as acknowledged in the GCS Strategy. GCS leadership has an important task to ensure innovation and experimentation happens in parallel with updated ethical guidance.
References
[30] Alfonsi, C. et al. (2022), “Public communication trends after COVID-19: Innovative practices across the OECD and in four Southeast Asian countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cb4de393-en.
[28] Cain, L. (2021), “Modernising the Government Communication Service”, Institute for Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/modernising-government-communications-service.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2023).
[27] CSW (2023), “‘Deciding where to cut staff was hard’ – Simon Baugh on restructuring GCS and reacting to once-in-a-generation events”, Civil Service World, https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/deciding-where-to-cut-staff-was-hard-simon-baugh-on-restructuring-gcs-and-reacting-to-onceinageneration-events.
[49] Danish Ministry of Finance (2012), Faktaark – Grunddata.
[50] EC (2019), Danish Basic Data Program, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/wikis/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=533365971.
[21] Garland, R. (2021), Government Communications and the Crisis of Trust From Political Spin to Post-truth, Springer.
[25] GCS (2023), Crisis Communication Operating Model, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Crisis-Communications-Operating-Model.pdf.
[39] GCS (2023), GCS Advance, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/gcs-advance/.
[24] GCS (2023), Modern Communication Operating Model (MCOM 3.0), Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/modern-communications-operating-model-3-0/.
[12] GCS (2023), UK Government Communication Plan 2023/24, Government Communication Service, https://communication-plan.gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/.
[7] GCS (2022), Governance and Leadership, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-leadership/ (accessed on 29 March 2023).
[1] GCS (2022), Government Communication Service: Our Strategy for 2022 to 2025, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/about-us/government-communication-service-our-strategy-for-2022-to-2025/ (accessed on 14 February 2023).
[9] GCS (2022), Performance With Purpose: Government Communication Service Strategy, Government Communication Service, https://strategy.gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/gcs-strategy-2022-25.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
[11] GCS (2022), UK Government Communication Plan 2021/2022, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/uk-government-communication-plan-2021-2022/.
[20] GCS (2022), Wall of Beliefs, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/the-wall-of-beliefs/#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9CWall%20of%20Beliefs%E2%80%9D%20aims,emphasise%20the%20interdependency%20of%20beliefs.
[40] GCS (2021), About the Academy, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/academy/about-the-academy/.
[38] GCS (2021), Career Framework, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/career-framework/.
[6] GCS (2021), “First Chief Executive for the Government Communication Service announced”, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/news/first-chief-executive-for-the-government-communication-service-announced/ (accessed on 29 March 2023).
[19] GCS (2021), RESIST 2 Counter Disinformation Toolkit, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/resist-2-counter-disinformation-toolkit/ (accessed on 29 March 2023).
[22] GCS (2020), Guide to Campaign Planning: OASIS, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/marketing/delivering-government-campaigns/guide-to-campaign-planning-oasis/.
[10] GCS (2019), Government Communications Plan 2019/20, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/government-communications-plan-2019-20/.
[26] GCS (2019), Modern Communications Operating Model: A Blueprint for Government Communication, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GCS-MCOM_Blueprint_for_government_communications.pdf.
[43] GCS (2018), 5 Trends in Leading-Edge Communications, Government Communication Services, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/5-Trends-in-Leading-Edge-Communications.pdf.
[23] GCS (2018), Emergency Planning Framework, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/emergency-planning-framework/.
[33] GCS (2018), Evaluation Framework 2.0, Government Communication Service, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/evaluation-framework/.
[41] Government of Canada (2022), Learning Opportunities for Communicators, https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/communications-community-office/learning-opportunities-communicators.html.
[16] Government of Canada (2021), Directive on the Management of Communication, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=30682.
[13] Government of Canada (2016), Policy on Communications and Federal Identity, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=30683 (accessed on 29 March 2023).
[15] Government of Norway (2009), Central Government Communication Policy, Norwegian Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/fad/vedlegg/informasjonspolitikk/statkompol_eng.pdf (accessed on 29 March 2023).
[18] Government of Sweden (2022), Communication Policy for the Government Offices, Office for Administrative Affairs, https://www.government.se/contentassets/733006124df143acbc8ae762aa61a42f/communication-policy-for-the-government-offices.pdf.
[14] Government of the Netherlands (n.d.), Government Communications Policy, https://www.government.nl/topics/government-communications/government-communications-policy (accessed on 29 March 2023).
[42] Government of the Netherlands (n.d.), Organisation, https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-general-affairs/organisation.
[17] Lovdata (2023), The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, Ministry of Justice and Public Security, Government of Norway, https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1814-05-17.
[34] Macnamara, J. (2023), “A call for reconfiguring evaluation models, pedagogy, and practice: Beyond reporting media-centric outputs and fake impact scores”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 49.
[37] Macnamara, J. et al. (2021), Asia-Pacific Communication Monitor 2020/21: Strategic Issues, Competency Development, Ethical Challenges and Gender Equality in the Communication Profession, Asia Pacific Association of Communication Directors/European Public Relations Education and Research Association, http://www.communicationmonitor.asia/media/APCM-2020-21-Report.pdf.
[3] McKenna, A. (2018), 100 Years of Government Communication, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/100-years-of-Government-Communications-History_Alexander_McKenna.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2023).
[35] NSW Government, (n.d.), NSW Government Evaluation Framework for Advertising and Communication, New South Wales Government, https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Evaluation%20Framework%20Implementation%20Matrix.pdf.
[47] OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, OECD, Paris.
[45] OECD (2022), “OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en.
[2] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[44] OECD (2019), Declaration on Public Sector Innovation, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0450.
[46] OECD (2019), The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en.
[4] OECD (2018), Centre Stage 2: The Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/report-centre-stage-2.pdf.
[51] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438 (accessed on 27 April 2021).
[32] Phillis, B. (2008), Appendix 3: Call for Evidence, UK Parliament, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldcomuni/7/711.htm.
[5] Sanders, K. (2013), “The strategic shift of UK government communication”, in Sanders, K. and M. Canel (eds.), Government Communication Cases and Challenges, Bloomsbury Academic.
[48] SDFI (2022), Basic Public Data, Danish Agency for Data Supply and Infrastructure, https://eng.sdfi.dk/data/basic-public-data.
[8] UK Government (2021), Government Functional Standard - GovS 011: Communication, https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/publications/government-communication-functional-standard/ (accessed on 13 January 2023).
[31] UK Parliament (1998), The Government Information and Communication Service, Select Committee on Public Administration, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmpubadm/770/77006.htm#n25.
[29] Urban, J. (2023), “Government communications in 2023 and beyond: How to make government communications more effective”, Institute for Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/government-communications (accessed on 17 March 2023).
[36] Zerfass, A. et al. (2020), European Communication Monitor 2020. Ethical Challenges, Gender Issues, Cyber Security, and Competence Gaps in Strategic Communication. Results of a Survey in 44 Countries, https://www.communicationmonitor.eu/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/ECM2020-Results-ChartVersion.pdf.
Notes
← 1. The above roles for public communication have been elaborated by the OECD Secretariat and validated in discussions with representatives of Member and non-Member countries and selected experts who participated in the OECD Experts Group on Public Communication in June 2022.
← 2. The Cabinet Office is the government department responsible for supporting the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers – secretaries of state and other senior ministers chosen by the Prime Minister from members of the House of Commons and House of Lords.
← 3. ALBs in the UK comprise a wide range of public sector agencies and service delivery entities that are directly or indirectly under the responsibility of government departments. Some are executive agencies, such as the Met Office or HM Prison & Probation Service; others are non-departmental public bodies, such as the Environment Agency; and others are non-ministerial departments, such as HM Revenue & Customs or Ofgem.
← 4. See GOV.UK for more examples: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/functional-standards.
← 5. The OECD defines open government as “a culture of governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth” (see the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[51])).
← 6. The OECD Report on Public Communication (2021) notes that communication “can enhance active transparency (understood as the obligation of public institutions to disseminate information without citizens having to request it). […] In this way, communication complements and potentially expands the reach of policy or legal frameworks, such those related to Access to Information, that are designed to disclose information both proactively and reactively.”.
← 7. Remarks delivered during the 5th meeting of the OECD Experts Group on Public Communication, 27 September 2022.
← 8. Satisfaction could be measured in terms of relevance, ease of access, understandability and timeliness of the communication, for example.
← 9. See for instance the schemes featured under the GCS website’s careers page: https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/career/progress-your-career/ (accessed on 13 March 2023).
← 10. Speech delivered by Simon Baugh at the Government Communication Service Leadership Event, 21 September 2023.
← 11. The Open Innovation Team is a government unit that works on a project basis to support entities in the public sector with finding innovative solutions to meet their objectives. For more details see https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/open-innovation-team (accessed on 31 March 2023).
← 12. Such as the Club of Venice, the OECD Experts Group on Public Communication and Working Party on Open Government, NATO Strategic Communication Center of Excellence, etc.
← 13. For instance, only one of the twelve departments surveyed claimed to use direct messaging or chat functions.