Maintaining compliance when regulated engagement scales

regulatory compliance demonstrated by someone with a gavel and legal notice

Regulatory compliance is one of the top concerns for those facilitating engagement activities. Whether that’s a large public consultation, a public meeting as part of a broader planning process, or a city-wide participatory exercise.

Regulations are essential to ensuring these activities are run fairly and consistently, regardless of individual context. That’s why getting it wrong can have very serious consequences, sometimes resulting in legal challenges to decisions made as a result of the activity or activities having to be entirely repeated. Getting it right is sometimes complex however, and that complexity only increases as engagement scales.

How compliance challenges increase as engagement activity scales

If you’re running a single, small-scale consultation with only a few hundred respondents, it is often relatively straightforward to ensure compliance. Even a very small team can often manage compliance through a combination of manual checks and informal oversight.

However, as engagement activity grows, so does complexity, and ensuring compliance becomes increasingly tricky. Larger organisations and public bodies will often run many consultations in a given year, with varied size and structure. Some public bodies will even be running multiple large-scale consultations at once.

Although there are clear standards for good practice when it comes to any engagement activity, the exact requirements around accessibility, data handling and reporting will differ considerably in different contexts. Each set of requirements may seem easily manageable alone, but viewed together can appear very challenging to get right.

There are countless ways which scaling engagement activity could add complexity to regulations. Some common examples include:

When activities are repeated over time

When an engagement activity is repeated over time, the likelihood of inconsistency between activities introduces risk. Even small inconsistencies in how something is worded, how participants are selected, or how inputs are analysed and used can render data unusable.

Over a long period, it becomes difficult to demonstrate that each activity met the same standard unless processes are deliberately aligned and followed consistently over what is sometimes many years.

When there are a large number of respondents

When there are a very large number of respondents, manual data handling becomes more difficult and time consuming. This is also true when using platforms that are not designed to offer sufficient visibility when submissions get into the thousands. Everything from managing consent to ensuring clear traceability becomes more complex with increasing responses.

When different activities are introduced

It is very useful to use a mix of different methods when engaging the public in civic processes. A consultation will often attract a different audience to a deliberative democracy exercise. Surveys, public meetings, workshops or geospatial mapping activities each engage participants in a different way, drawing new audiences and encouraging diverse perspectives. It is therefore an important part of creating an inclusive engagement process to take multiple approaches.

However, using a mix of engagement activities such as introduces unique regulatory requirements with each activity type. Each activity will often require different accessibility considerations, workflows and reporting approaches, increasing the likelihood of gaps if processes are not clearly defined.

When a consultation spans multiple areas

Some regulatory frameworks are specific to certain locations, particularly when it comes to matters that are devolved to regional or local governments. That adds significant complications when running activities that span multiple areas and therefore multiple regulation requirements. It is particularly tricky to do so in a way that adheres to all sets of regulations without introducing an uneven engagement strategy.

When a consultation spans multiple sectors

Similarly, this is true of an engagement type that involves regulations from multiple sectors. For example, a consultation around urban planning has a certain regulatory framework that facilitators must follow. However, if a new hospital is being proposed, there are also regulatory frameworks that apply to proposed changes to NHS provisions. Engagement activities that span sectors must be careful to ensure they are compliant with all relevant regulations.

Manual controls fail to sustain compliance at scale

Many organisations have historically relied on guidance documents and spreadsheets to complete engagement activities, with regulatory compliance relying on individual oversight and interpretations. However, the level of risk associated with this approach increases considerably as engagement scales.

As engagement activity increases, manual controls become brittle. This brittleness could mean:

Existing guidance being interpreted differently by different individuals or teams.
Spreadsheets being duplicated, amended or lost. Version control can become very difficult at scale.
Processes that rely on individual knowledge or experience being lost when an individual leaves a team.

Eventually, this inevitably leads to inconsistency, which could cause significant delays to an engagement process. In the worst case scenario, it could even lead to legal challenges and public backlash at what could be regarded as a disorganised or non-compliant process.

This particular vulnerability has thankfully been significantly reduced in recent years, with the increasing ubiquity of digital engagement platforms. Purpose-built platforms can help to address the challenges above by:

Creating standardised structures for activity setup and delivery.
Creating a ‘one-stop shop’ for information output, activity inputs, analysis and feedback.
Ensuring shared visibility across teams and programmes.

Exactly how digital platforms can ensure compliance at scale is explored more thoroughly later in this article, however it is important to stress that the move away from manual oversight into repeatable, tech-enabled workflows has been crucial to avoiding previously common compliance concerns.

Consistency is a prerequisite for scalable compliance

Good regulatory compliance relies on consistency above all. Statutory requirements rarely change from one consultation or engagement activity to the next - even when the subject does - so when processes vary considerably between projects, it is usually a sign that something is going wrong.

Inconsistency means that those who should have oversight over a process - whether that’s auditors or just those trying to analyse responses - cannot easily compare data. Participants may also find they receive different levels of information or different qualities of feedback depending on which consultation they engage in.

Consistency does not have to mean creating activities that are substantively the same, and in fact having variability to questions or activity types can be essential to capturing a wide and representative audience.

Instead, consistency means having established workflows that control the activity at the regulatory level, which are applied consistently across engagement activities.This includes consistent approaches to accessibility, data collection, analysis and reporting.

System-level consistency reduces risk by ensuring that:

Every consultation meets baseline regulatory requirements.
Evidence is gathered and handled in comparable ways.
Compliance does not depend on individual judgement alone.

Without this foundation, scaling engagement inevitably leads to uneven quality and increased exposure.

Accessibility and transparency risks multiply with scale

‍

Accessibility and inclusivity are vital to the success of any engagement activity. If an activity aims to understand the views of the public or even specific stakeholders, then it is not comprehensive if it excludes sections of the population.

The risk of failing to be accessible (and transparent about accessibility) increases considerably at scale. If one is running a small consultation on a specific planning issue that affects only a few hundred residents, then it is simple to ensure that each of those residents have what they need to ensure that they can take part in the process.

However, once an activity is conducted over a large scale, there is a greatly increased chance of having potential participants who:

Have various physical and mental disabilities.
Struggle to interact with technology or don’t have access to a computer or internet connection.
Do not speak English or struggle to convey complex meanings in English.
Work long or unsociable hours and therefore would struggle with activities planned for specific times of day or requiring a large time commitment.

It is easy to overlook specific needs when dealing with a large consultation where there are a great deal of accessibility requirements, however this is essential to get right, both to ensure that all participants have an equal ability to have their say and to ensure legal compliance.

Why engagement infrastructure underpins compliance at scale

A large-scale engagement activity can be daunting, requiring many steps which each introduce their own risks and requirements. However, it is completely unnecessary in the modern world for every consultation or engagement activity to recreate their own schema from scratch. Instead, digital platforms like Citizen Space can provide regulatory compliance solutions for all activity types.

Citizen Space helps governments, public bodies and local authorities across the world to conduct citizen participation processes. This can be anything from spatial planning, to formal policy consultations to resident surveys.

Infrastructure like the ability to create templates ensures consistency and compliance even as activities scale or are repeated multiple times. It ensures that features that are key to compliance, like privacy statements, demographic tracking or accessibility standards are unchanged across activities.

The nature of the platform gives facilitators easy oversight using custom dashboards, which allows activities to be tracked even when there are large numbers of participants or multiple activities occurring concurrently.

Particularly, the versatility of the platform helps to ensure compliance. Citizen Space as a platform allows information to be given to participants, for participants to respond, data to be analysed and feedback to be given, all in one place. This significantly decreases the chance that information will be lost, processes will slip, or that participants will receive substandard communication.

‍

“Citizen Space does everything we need it to do – it solves so many problems... I cannot conceive how a local authority could deliver consultation or engagement without a tool like Citizen Space.”

- David Porteous, City of Edinburgh Council

‍

Citizen Space is the go-to govtech platform for engaging with citizens, managing large scale citizen engagement activities. If you’d like to learn more about how our software can be used to avoid survey fatigue, book a free demo today.

‍