This document discusses improving collaboration between academics and local policymakers. It identifies challenges like academics being seen as slow and politicians wanting quick solutions. Both groups want evidence-based policy and assurance that interventions will work locally. The document suggests approaches like joint research teams, business cases addressing concerns, and early testing of ideas to build confidence in longer-term approaches. The goal is enabling politicians to publicly support evidence-led programs for vulnerable groups despite budget cuts.

1. www.hertsdirect.org
Academics, Commissioners and local
Councillors
Working together for better policy
Jim McManus
Director of Public Health

2. www.hertsdirect.org
Major issues for academic work to be adopted
• What approaches enable politicians to be
comfortable publicly and privately with
scientifically led interventions and
programmes in public services for highly
vulnerable populations?
• How do we get political buy-in to spend and
investment against a background of 25%
reduction in spend?

3. www.hertsdirect.org
Starting Points
• Commissioners and local politicians essentially make policy at
local level.
• They are – or ought to be – big customers of evidence from
academic research
• Some issues in concerns of both academics and commissioners
which, whilst legitimate, can act as barriers to others
– Academia seen as status conscious, research takes years
– Commissioners find implementation sometimes difficult
– Academics find commissioners unresponsive or want things
too quickly
• The research process and policy process are usually not well
articulated to each other

4. www.hertsdirect.org
Both academics and policymakers seem to want
• Greater use of evidence in priority setting and
programme work
• Re-assuring political sensitivities
– Prevention and Prioritisation can deliver
• “Evidence in the real world”
– Clear roadmap for combining evidence
with political aspirations of elected
politicians
• Did it work?

5. www.hertsdirect.org
Methods – Policy Case Study
• Identification of candidate projects to demonstrate
benefits of increasing use of scientific/public health
approaches
• Trialling different ways of enabling politicians to
• Parallel semi-structured assessments of officers
and politicians in acceptability and utility
• Financial assessment of benefits to organisation
led by Finance

6. www.hertsdirect.org
Questions from Councillors and
Commissioners
• Assurance – how do we know your idea is any
better?
• Scientific evidence alone rarely satisfies
politicians when there is large financial risk
• Deficit models – scientists assume we do not
understand science
• Early success and political cycle
• Accountabilty – “we may well understand you,
we just have other priorities”

7. www.hertsdirect.org
What Politicians/Commissioners really want
from academic research
• Implementability
• Assurance of quality of work and evidence
• Assurance of financial risk
• Scientific evidence alone rarely satisfies
politicians when there is large financial risk
• Deficit models – academic should not assume
commissioners do not understand science,
commissioners should not assume academics
do not understand implementation

8. www.hertsdirect.org
Suggested Approaches
• Getting to know each other and build
relationships
• “Think and do” tanks combining academics
and policymakers on research priorities
• Summary business cases addressing
evidential and assurance issues
• “So what” briefs about your research written
by politicians for other politicians
• User and citizen co-production of proposals
• Independent statement or scrutiny
• Early warning and debate before going into
public domain for decision

9. www.hertsdirect.org
The Big Question...
• How do academics get buy in for longer term
solutions when there is a need for short term
delivery
Tentative Hypothesis...
• The assurance that comes from quick
wins and early signs an approach works
builds political confidence in longer-term
approaches