[Sandra Bell]

Hi

Here at Nottingham City Council along with the main report we have started to produce a summary version of each of our major reviews (normally 2 sides of A4) which highlights what we set out to do, who we spoke to and our key recommendations. We've received some really positive feedback on these so far. We've also commited to using Plain English and are looking at ways of reducing the length of our major reviews to make them more accessible.

If you wanted to see any of our summary reviews let me know and I will email you some examples.

Sandra

[Mohammed Ahad]

A vexing issue, but simple to rectify, is jargon. Try to ensure all acronyms are defined at first point of use. Other examples of jargon replaced with plain English wherever possible.

Ask yourself "Who understands the meaning of this phrase?"

[Nick Beale]

Dave Mckenna Wrote:We would like the reports produced for our scrutiny boards to be a focus of interest outside of board meetings ... At the same time we would not want to see reports 'dumbed down'.

I'm sure I've as many writing blindspots as anyone but I don't think it's "dumbing down" to write in everyday English. A report may still be complicated (some issues just are) but there really is little need to say "key stakeholders" when you mean "interested parties"; or "our strategic focus will be" instead of "we will concentrate on"; "engage with" for "talk to"; "executive summary of key points" instead of "summary." If you never use the word "key" (except for the thing that opens a lock) you're halfway there.

[Dave Mckenna]

Thanks for the replies so far.

(Now trying to write without using jargon...)

So... what we need to do is make sure each report has a really good summary and that jargon is avoided.

Anyone have any ideas about getting officers from other departments to produce reports for scrutiny without jargon? This is probably the biggest problem. Is there a guide or accepted set of standards we can point to? Or do we just have to act as the jargon police? Is there a test that can used for 'readbility' with scores that we can use to highlight the good report writers and shame the bad ones?

So many more questions... but that's scrutiny for you I guess...

[Dave Mckenna]

Have found this work done by the Vale of Glamorgan scrutiny on plain language - links through to a plain language and style guide. Looks spot on!

http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/our_co...argon.aspx

[Jack Latkovic]

Personally I think the idea of a summary document to accompany reports is a good one. The public are likely to be interested in what problems have been identified and what solutions are being proposed but should be spared the minute details. In reality it would be very difficult to write a full report in such a way that a wide audience are likely to read it. Objectively I can say that having compiled the last two CfPS Library Monitors' that reading 70 page reports with 50 recommendations takes real stamina. A punchy summary document would surely resonate with the public and serve as a press release to the media.

I think the point Dave makes about signposting is important as there is not much point in making a document accessible if nobody outside the council is going to read it.
I would be interested hear what steps (apart from uploading reviews into the CfPS reviews library) people are taking to ensure their reports have maximum public exposure.

Finally, I think it should be acknowledged that writing accessible documents that are free of jargon is actually quite difficult. The Audit Commission have been talking up their attempts to make OnePlace accessible to the public by using plain English so that may be a useful benchmark for you http://oneplace.direct.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx

[Nick Beale]

Dave Mckenna Wrote:Have found this work done by the Vale of Glamorgan scrutiny on plain language - links through to a plain language and style guide. Looks spot on!

http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/our_co...argon.aspx

It is good but they still managed to get in an "overarching"!

[Dave Mckenna]

In true scrutiny style here is a follow up to the earlier comments.

We have now introduced a short public summary at the start of every report that goes to one of boards.

It covers purpose, content, what the councillors are being asked to do and the lead member / officer / report author. At the same time we are promoting the council's clear writing guide.

It is surprisingly challenging to fill out these sections and even more challenging to convince colleagues to drop phrases like 'commissioning process' and 'appropriate vehicle'.

It may be that this is a cultural challenge that is just a little to big for us!

[Nick Beale]

Dave Mckenna Wrote:It is surprisingly challenging to fill out these sections and even more challenging to convince colleagues to drop phrases like 'commissioning process' and 'appropriate vehicle'. It may be that this is a cultural challenge that is just a little to big for us!

The next cultural step is to drop "challenging" and say "hard"!

[Keith Gordon]

Lets all get on a solve problems rather than resolve issues, surely its just as commendable