Context and Origins

Before considering the nature of public sector PR, it is worth identifying the organisational make-up of the sector. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) defines the public sector as comprising central government, local government and public corporations. It comprises organisations that deliver one or more services to stakeholders and that are not primarily operated in a commercial manner.

The operations of central government include the work of bodies such as the National Health Service. It is usual for public sector services to be funded through a form of taxation or levy, although this is not always the case. For example some local authorities operate leisure facilities or cultural services (such as theatres) that exist in direct competition with similar services in the private sector. According to ONS figures about 5.7million people worked in the public sector in 2012 (ONS 2012).

The public sector is a dynamic entity that constantly evolves in response to the political climate and the environment in which it operates. At the core of the sector are the directly elected democratic bodies and the organisations that exist in response to their policy decisions. Nationally these are government departments, ministries and their executive agencies. Regionally, there are devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. More locally these are councils that exist at a range of spatial levels to serve communities. In many places there are often two or three tiers of local government, comprising county councils, district councils and parish councils.

The UK’s largest employer is the National Health Service which employs around 1.5 million people. While in practice the service comprises a range of differently constituted local or regional organisations, the past decade has seen a significant growth in the role of public relations in the National Health Service. The advancement of the engagement agenda has moved hand-in-hand with the growth of health service public relations. Legislation that came into force in 2003 placed a duty on certain NHS organisations to involve and consult people about changes to services. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 subsequently clarified and strengthened these duties. Delivering these duties has significantly increased the role of public relations within NHS organisations.

The public sector also includes within its scope the police, fire and ambulance emergency services and often a complex arrangement of partnerships designed to coordinate the work of different public sector bodies in delivering coherent public services to a geographic area or other audience.

Arguably the public sector also includes bodies known as quangos – an acronym for quasi-autonomous non-government organisations. Such bodies are set up by government to deliver specific policy aims or services at arm’s length from political control. Such bodies have grown significantly in number over the past 20 years although the number has been in decline since the 2010 General Election (Cabinet Office 2012b). The public relations functions of quangos vary in size and scope with the larger organisations maintaining significant public relations operations to help them communicate with recipients of their services to and other stakeholders.

Theoretical Considerations

Since the early twentieth century public relations has played an increasingly important role in the public sector. Indeed it has been argued that the public relations profession owes in part its origins to the press agentry in both national and local government in the UK.

L’Etang (2004) identifies the origins of the profession as arising from ‘developments in local government, both in terms of the growth of public relations work and in terms of the professionalisation of civil servants’.

Nationally, the Crombie Committee was set up in 1947 to establish terms of reference and to advise on the creation of a professional group of civil servants to provide the necessary links between government and the media. The Crombie Report set out the role of the information officer. There were four objectives:

• to create and maintain an informed opinion about the subjects with which each department deals;
• to use all methods of publicity where suitable to help the department achieve its purpose;
• to assist and advise in all matters bearing on relations between the department and its public;
• to advise the department on the public’s reaction to the policies or actions of the department.

The information officer envisaged by Crombie was not regarded as anything other than a press officer and there was no hint of the enormous range of responsibilities that now make up public sector PR.

Harvey (1995) identifies six objectives for public relations in contemporary local government within the sector. These include a responsibility for ‘corporate character and identity’ as well as an extremely broad remit to keep customers informed about the activities of the organisation. He also identifies a specific role for responding to criticism of the organisation, identifying the balance of organisational communications, particularly in media relations, and being responsive to media agenda that is critical to the organisation. Harvey’s observations are also relevant to the broader public sector, particularly those parts of the sector that are politically led.

Harvey also identifies an important internal role for communications. As the professional communicators within an organisation, comprising a myriad of professional, skilled and semi-skilled workers, it falls to the communicators to educate colleagues about the value of communicating with customer groups and the importance of being responsive to customer needs and opinions.

The first five roles identified by Harvey are relatively tactical in nature. They are primarily focused on supporting the organisation’s activities with a communications response. His final objective articulates the strategic value of communications which is becoming increasingly important and recognised among professional observers (Karian and Box 2007).

These objectives reflect the breadth of challenges that exist in public sector communications. For them to be fulfilled successfully modern day public relations practitioners working in the public sector typically use two broad types of proactive public relations campaigns: public information campaigns and public communications campaigns (Yeomans 2006).

The distinction between these two types is that ‘information’ campaigns involve one-way (sender to receiver) communications, while ‘communications’ campaigns involve two-way communications (sender to receiver to sender). It could be argued that the growth of social media and citizen-led journalism is blurring the distinction envisaged by Yeomans.

Information campaigns, by virtue of their one-way nature, fit into Grunig and Hunt’s public information model of public relations (Grunig and Hunt 1984). This characterisation is reinforced by the requirement for accuracy in public sector communications which is consistent with the importance of truth in the public information model.

It has also been argued (Dozier et al. 2001) that public communications campaigns can be considered as examples of two-way asymmetric communication, where the sender’s intention is to influence knowledge, opinions and actions of the target audiences. The increasing responsibilities of the public sector to engage with publics and stakeholders are likely to support increased two-way asymmetric communication and in some cases development of new two-way symmetric communications.

Practical Aspects

One of the distinguishing characteristics of public sector PR compared to other areas is the complex nature of the stakeholder landscape in which it operates. The political dimension does not exist in private sector public relations yet it is core to the business of public sector PR, whether directly in the case of central and local government or indirectly in the case of the broader sector.

Professionals working in public sector PR have to be constantly aware of the political context of the organisation’s operations and decision making. The way a policy or service is perceived among the voting electorate is an important environmental factor that communicators must consider, yet that perception often arises from politically led beliefs or emotions as well as more rational drivers such as quality of service or outcomes delivered.

The universal nature of many services provided – for example roads – leads to overlapping stakeholder groups. While all road users can be considered stakeholders for Highways England (a government-owned company with responsibility for managing the core road network in England) or a local authority’s highways services, those users will also be members of other stakeholder groups.

In many areas the combined public sector dominates the employment market. For example, employment in the public sector is higher than the UK average in both the north-east and north-west of England. These two regions combined have 642,000 people working in the public sector, representing 20 per cent of employment in the regions. The UK average public sector employment rate is 18 per cent (Rhodes 2014). In such areas one stakeholder group – service users – overlaps heavily with another – employees. This leads to a complex environment in which public relations must deliver targeted and relevant messages effectively as part of its work. The size of the public sector in such areas can also have an impact on public relations in the private sector as there will be more public sector contracts available for public relations services in these areas.

In the local public sector conflicting communication goals can easily arise, especially if local public sector organisations such as councils and the police are not working effectively together. For example, without well-planned partnership working, a local police force may be striving to promote its work and contribution to a local community through publicising its work dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour, while a local council may be trying to improve the reputation of a local area. While the two goals need not be mutually exclusive, they can easily lead to conflicting messages for stakeholders and ineffective public relations.

Central Government

Central government is made up of ministerial departments, non-ministerial departments and a number of executive agencies. Most departments and agencies have their own teams responsible for public relations. These departments are staffed by civil servants who are politically neutral and implement the policies of the elected government. Ministers are also able to appoint a number of special advisors who do not need to be politically neutral. Their responsibilities can include advising on public relations issues.

Historically the most established centre for public relations within central government was the Central Office for Information (COI). Originally set up in 1946 from the production division of the Ministry of Information, including its regional organisation and film unit, COI was set up to provide services for all government departments at home and overseas (COI 2011).

In 1990, COI Communications was established as an Executive Agency and has developed into the government’s specialist agency for buying publicity and marketing services on behalf of government departments and agencies. By using its aggregated buying power, COI Communications can get the best price for the publicity materials needed by these clients. COI staff also advise client departments on selecting creative options and improving and evaluating campaign effectiveness.

In April 2002, the COI further expanded its role. The chief executive became the government’s chief adviser on marketing, communications and information campaigns, reporting directly to the Director of Communications and Strategy at 10 Downing Street. In addition, the Regional News Network and Distribution Service transferred to the Government Information and Communication Service in the Cabinet Office and the COI was tasked with conducting more departmental research into understanding hard-to-reach audiences, such as the socially excluded. The COI also managed mass media campaigns on behalf of the government and in 2004 spent £189 million on advertising.

Following the 2010 general election a review of government communications recommended the closure of COI and its replacement with a new structure for the planning and delivery of government communications (BBC 2011). Government expenditure on advertising and marketing had been reduced by 68 per cent after the election. The reforms were intended to remove bureaucracy in the delivery of government communications by allowing individual departments to deal directly with external agencies, rather than through the COI.

The role of Executive Director of Government Communications is the most senior communications professional in the Civil Service. The role is based in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, providing professional leadership to all government communicators. Former Westminster City Council Director of Communications and Strategy Alex Aiken was appointed to this role in January 2012 to drive forward the creation of the Government Communications Service as the successor to the COI (Cabinet Office 2012a).

The second Government Communications Plan, published in 2013, provides an overview of the communications activities of every government department, how the effectiveness of government communications is measured and how delivery structures changed following the demise of the COI (HM Government 2013).

The major changes that were set in motion by this plan included:

• creating the new Government Communication Service to replace the COI;
• mandatory evaluation to track effectiveness and justify value for money in the government’s PR spending;
• aligning departmental communications strategies with government priorities to reduce the potential for conflicting PR;
• revising and improving communications spending controls to help reduce unnecessary PR spending;
• improving governance through a new Government Communication Board to approve major initiatives;
• creating group communication structures to align work of departments and their major arms-length bodies to reduce silo working in different parts of the central public sector;
• integrating social media and digital channels within all communications functions, including the press office, recognising the changes in the news media environment that required a different form of engagement by government communicators.

The reforms were a major change in the way the UK government approached delivery of communications and helped modernise central government PR. Some observers highlighted the importance of the relationship between public sector communications and policy. The Institute for Government noted that ‘Communicators do best when they are able to see where a policy won’t work from a public communications perspective and can challenge it’ (Institute for Government 2013). This recognises that the role of communicators in public sector PR includes providing context and feedback to policy makers to help shape policy, as well as communicating the outputs of the policy making process.

Public sector communications and marketing also has a role in the delivery of government policy, particularly through the use of social marketing. This discipline has grown in prominence as a branch of marketing that is focused on delivering public good from marketing rather than the commercial benefits that sit behind much conventional marketing theory.

One of the key facets of social marketing theory is the application of social psychological theory and behavioural economics to delivering change in people’s behaviours – understanding the thought processes people go through that lead to changes in behaviour for personal or public good.

The principles of social marketing are consistent with underpinning notions of public relations. Bernays (1928) identified a role of public relations as ‘engineering public consent and organising the habits of the masses in order to create social order’. While his terminology may not sit comfortably with current language, his meaning is entirely compatible with the concept of social marketing.

An example of a campaign that emerged from social marketing thinking is the nationwide Change4Life initiative. It aims to prevent people from becoming overweight by encouraging them to eat better and move more. It uses a variety of approaches including marketing and public relations to achieve this.

Changes to national and local responsibilities for public health after the 2010 general election in the UK facilitated the creation of the Public Health England Marketing Strategy 2014 to 2017 (Public Health England 2014). This document set out an ambitious programme of social marketing, communications and engagement to support challenging public health goals. It represents a good example of crosssector delivery of such an initiative, through the involvement of PR practitioners in central government, local government, health and the private sector.

Local Government

Local government in the UK is a complex structure of authorities responsible for different types of services. In many large cities all local government services are provided by borough councils (London) or metropolitan councils (other large cities outside London). Outside these areas there are unitary authorities that provide all local government services to a given area, while in other areas there are a further two tiers of councils that work together to provide services. These are county councils and district councils.

The Local Government Acts of 1986 and 1988 form the basis of the legal constraints placed on public relations for local authorities. These and the subsequent legislation mentioned below were introduced by the Thatcher government, which sought to limit the powers of local government. The 1986 Act prohibits local authorities from issuing political publicity. A separate account of expenditure on publicity must be kept, and publicity is defined as ‘any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public’. The 1988 Act set out the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether any publicity material is considered to affect public support for a political party. In December 1987, the Local Authorities (Publicity Account) (Exemption) Order was passed, setting out what items could be excluded from the account. The original definition of publicity was so broad it could have been taken to cover any correspondence or message, so making the account meaningless.

In 1988, the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity was published, covering content, style, subject matter, costs, dissemination, advertising, recruitment, publicity about individual members of an authority, timing and assisting others in providing publicity. The code urges a responsible approach, and that content must be relevant to the functions of the local authority. Cost-effectiveness is emphasised. The need for local authorities to publicise and explain their policies and decisions is recognised, but a warning is given about the use of public funds to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy. ‘Objective, balanced, informative and accurate’ are the keywords. The careful targeting of information is recommended, but at the same time information should be made available to all those who want or need it.

However, one of the challenges of implementing the code for many years was the lack of guidance relating to the internet. The provisions of the code were stipulated before the widespread adoption of the internet as a communications channel and local government public relations officers had to interpret the code’s applicability to internet communications themselves.

In October 2010 the Department for Communities and Local Government launched a consultation about major revisions to the 1988 publicity code. The new code came into force in early 2011 (DCLG 2011). It set out seven principles that local government public relations must comply with. These stipulated that public relations should be lawful, cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate, have regard to equality and diversity and be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity.

There are no restrictions on publicising comments made by council officers, but publicity about individual members of the authority is currently limited to those who represent the council as a whole, such as the mayor or the leader of the council or a particular committee. The proposed new publicity permits council PR to promote the work of any elected member, regardless of whether they hold a position of authority within the council.

Publicity that deals with controversial issues cannot be issued between the notice of an election and polling day – this time is known colloquially as the purdah period. During this period the activities of local government PR practitioners are curtailed and an enhanced awareness of the potential political sensitivities of PR is required. However, the purdah period does not prevent PR that supports the day-to-day operation of a council, such as communications in an emergency situation or about the operation of a specific council service.

The Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 set out a salary level above which staff become politically restricted. Officers would have to resign from their jobs before announcing an intention to stand for election as an MP, MEP or local councillor. There is no other sector of public relations that finds itself with such a range of rules within which it must operate. Any local resident can challenge local authorities and their public relations officers in the courts or through the district auditor (Fedorcio et al. 1991).

One of the most controversial issues concerning local government public relations for many years was local government publications – typically newspaper or magazineformat printed communications produced by councils. These publications are typically delivered to residents’ homes or available to pick up for free from locations such as libraries, leisure centres and garages. Publishing such a magazine has been one of the recommendations of the LGA Reputation campaign since 2005 (LGA 2005).

In 2009 LGCommunications published research looking at local authority publications (LGCommunications 2009). It showed that 94 per cent of councils produce either a council magazine or newspaper (66 per cent produce a magazine, 28 per cent a newspaper). Almost two-thirds of publications carried advertising for council-run services or for private sector companies.

The research also looked at nationally available research into resident satisfaction with their councils and identified trends for councils publishing their own newspapers or magazines. It showed that the longer a council has a publication the better informed and satisfied their residents are. The results also suggested that shorter less frequent publications have more impact for most councils. The optimum frequency of publication appeared to be no more than one publication every quarter.

The Newspaper Society, a trade body for local media, has campaigned extensively for restrictions on local government publications since early 2008 (Newspaper Society 2008). It claimed that local government newspapers and magazines represent unfair competition to local commercial media through competing for advertising expenditure against commercial rivals. The society also raised concerns about the lack of transparency of expenditure and performance of local government newspapers and magazines. It consistently called for restrictions on such publications to protect local commercial media.

Following early representations on the issue, the government’s Digital Britain report, published in summer 2009, noted ‘the adverse impact on local newspapers of the increasing role of local authorities in taking paid advertising to support local authority information sheets’ (BIS 2009). The Audit Commission was subsequently asked to investigate local government publications and published its findings in January 2010 in a letter from Chief Executive Steve Bundred (Bundred 2010).

While noting that its remit to examine the issues was raised more broadly by critics of council publications, the commission produced seven conclusions from its research:

• Over 90 per cent of councils produce a regular publication, but almost of all these are published once a month or less often.
• 47 per cent of council publications contain private sector advertising of some sort.
• Only 5 per cent of council publications contain statutory notices and 6 per cent contain recruitment advertising – reflecting the frequency of most publications being impractical for the timely publication of such notices and adverts.
• Around one-third of one per cent of council spending (£257 million) in 2008/9 was recorded as being on communication with the public, although the commission recognised the limitations of this methodology as much expenditure is not coded accurately or consistently between different councils.
• Claims about value achieved by communication spending are not well supported by evidence.
• Councils should review their editorial policy to ensure that it is politically neutral and publicly defensible. The political neutrality should be inherent in council publications to ensure they comply with the publicity code, but the editorial policies of council publications are more flexible and dependent on local circumstances.
• The current framework for accountability provides adequate safeguards against misuse of public money for political ends – reflecting the strength and effectiveness of the existing provisions of the publicity code in preventing politicians from unduly influencing the content of council publications for political means.

In the 2011 version of the local government publicity code, councils were limited to producing a newspaper or magazine a maximum of four times each year. According to the Audit Commission’s research this meant around a quarter of councils needed to reduce how often they published their magazines. They claimed this would reduce their ability to communicate effectively with the residents they provide services for and would increase the cost of their communications as they would be forced to use more expensive ways of reaching residents.

The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents the interests of councils, argued that council publications provided information about councils, their services and the democratic process (LGA 2009). This information used to be provided by local newspapers, but as circulations decline and newspapers no longer send journalists to council meetings to report on proceedings regularly, the amount of coverage of council issues has reduced. Councils argued that their own publications are replacing this coverage, although their critics suggest that such coverage is not objective and does not replace the role of the media in scrutinising the democratic process.

While the change in the publicity code and budgetary pressures led many councils to reduce the frequency of their publications, a small number of councils continued to publish magazines or newspapers more frequently than quarterly. The 2011 code was not legally enforceable which meant the government was unable to effectively take action against those councils. Consequently in 2014 the government made provisions in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill 2014 to allow the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to take steps to enforce the publicity code.

The Reputation Challenge

The consistent challenge for local government public relations has been managing council reputations and increasing satisfaction rates in line with the increasing performance of services. In 2005 the LGA undertook research that showed perceptions remained where they were ten years ago (LGA/MORI 2005). Most respondents thought that councils were low profile, remote and bureaucratic. Only 1 per cent would talk favourably about their councils unprompted, while 22 per cent would be critical if asked; another 8 per cent would be critical without being asked. Only 5 per cent thought they knew a great deal about what their councils did.

While there was no substitute for excellent service delivery, the research also found that good communication had a greater effect on a council’s reputation than issues such as council taxes. Twelve core actions in the two areas of environmental issues and communications were found to have the most effect on reputation. These were:

PR in the NHS

Kuteev-Moreira and Elgin (2004) provide a thorough account of the considerations that corporate communicators in the health sector need to take into account. They refer to Ansoff and McDonnell’s two communication strategies: consensus building and building implementation. Both necessitate consulting stakeholders and informing them about the progress of change. They suggest that corporate communications is central for successful implementation of change in European health care systems. The diversity of internal audiences, from senior managers, clinical team members, physicians and service staff to volunteers, is matched by that of external stakeholders. The latter may include patients and primary service users; organisations representing patients and service users; non-care customers who rent space, such as florists; contractors; health authorities; regulators who evaluate the service; partners such as primary care organisations and diagnostic services; suppliers; and competitors. Reputation plays a fundamental role in assisting or damaging staff recruitment.

The media is a central stakeholder here also, interested and aware of critical events. The main stories covered are problems: management failures, clinical errors, professional corporate conflicts, staff shortages and hospital-originated pollution such as incinerator combustion. Corporate communication is carried out in an environment of constant scrutiny, where service provision is balanced with resource scarcity.

Kirdira (2008) considered the role of public relations in creating brand reputations for health services. He argues that hospitals use public relations activities to achieve competitive differentiation, to engage with stakeholders and to create a strong hospital brand and culture. He also notes the importance of public relations in achieving recommendations for new patients from those that have already been treated by the hospital. This role for public relations has increased as successive policies have increased the role of patient choice in the NHS – in an environment where the patient is able to choose where they are treated, the reputation of the health care provider and the effectiveness of its public relations will be very important in the financial viability of the hospital or service provider.

The size and complexity of the NHS and the institutions that make it up presents a challenge for public relations. Tony Ellis, Head of Communications at Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust describes how a national issue can affect public relations at a local level:

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduced major structural changes into the NHS at all levels that has radically affected the work of PR practitioners in the sector. The reforms created a range of new commissioning and provider institutions within the NHS and increased the role of private sector provision within a more competitive marketplace.

Provider organisations within the NHS have needed to act in a more commercially competitive environment to ‘win’ business from commissioning organisations. This has meant that PR practitioners in provider organisations have increasingly adopted marketing and PR strategies more akin to the private sector.

Meanwhile the political focus on variations in quality of care provided in different parts of the NHS and in different geographical areas has meant a challenging environment for reputation management in the sector. Like elsewhere in the public sector, PR in the NHS has had to recognise its role in managing reputation as part of the broader patient experience, moving beyond the traditional mode of message broadcast and media relations.

Future Challenges

While the 15 years leading up to the general election in 2010 were a period of growth for public relations in the public sector, the profession has had to embrace significant change in the nature of public relations and the context in which this activity has taken place.

The need to reduce the public sector budget deficit means that all parts of the sector are being forced to scrutinise their activities and scale back or cease many things they do. Politicians in all tiers of government have committed to protecting frontline services as much as possible from the impact of spending cuts. The public is unlikely to consider public relations a frontline service compared to, for example, nurses, police or rubbish collections. This means that the public relations profession must improve its ability to empirically identify what it contributes towards delivery of a particular public service.

Public relations within the sector is not unaffected by reductions in spending. The challenge of the public sector budget deficit is too great for that. However without being able to demonstrate the value of public relations in outcomes that contribute directly to the delivery of public service, the profession may be vulnerable to more extreme cuts than otherwise would have happened.

However, the nature of change is not purely internal to the sector. The rapid adoption of social media presents some unique challenges for public relations in the sector. Direct communication between public sector organisations and those they service is more important than ever before because of the network effect of citizens connected via social media. While remaining important, the traditional focus on media relations is less important than before for reputation management. The most enlightened parts of the sector have recognised that the management of PR cannot differentiate between mainstream media and social media.

The prominence of social media also challenges those working in public relations to clearly identify their role in managing social media use within the organisation. Social media does not fit comfortably within the remit of a single team or department within a public sector organisation, yet it is becoming an important driver of reputation and source of information for citizens. Because of this, public relations practitioners within the sector must gain the skills and knowledge to be able to advise about the use of social media and develop policies that allow the public sector to use and engage with citizens using social media while safeguarding corporate reputation and meeting the standards expected of the sector.

Internal communications has also been an area of increasing focus for public sector PR; recognising the size of the public sector workforce represents an opportunity to shape reputation and generate behaviour change to deliver policy. This has led PR practitioners to embrace integration between previously disparate disciplines within public relations and with other professions such as HR.

Figure 15.1 Northampton County Council You Choose – diagram summarising campaign feedback

Source: Used by permission of Northamptonshire County Council.

Figure 15.2 Residents speaking to council representative at Brackley roadshow, March 2010

Source: Used by permission of Northamptonshire County Council

Figure 15.3 The Edinburgh Tram

Source: Used by permission of The City of Edinburgh Council

Figure 15.4 Facebook response

Source: Used by permission of The City of Edinburgh Council