Provincial and State Governments Editing and Proofreading Services

Provincial and state governments deliver most of what people actually experience from government — the hospital, the school, the licence, the road, the child protection worker — while operating under fiscal constraints they only partly control. Their writing has to work for a legislature, a federal counterpart, a public service delivering at scale, and a public that does not distinguish between orders of government and simply wants the thing to work. The same ministry produces a budget document, a regulation, a service standard and a letter to a family, often in the same week.

We edit what provincial, state and territorial governments produce — ministry business plans and annual reports, budget and estimates documents and their public summaries, cabinet and treasury board submissions, legislation and regulation supporting material, ministerial correspondence and briefing notes, programme guidelines and eligibility criteria, service standards and client-facing content, public consultation documents, health, education and social services policy material, provincial-federal agreement documentation, emergency and public safety communications, First Nations and Indigenous engagement correspondence, and audit and legislative committee responses. Our editors check that eligibility rules can be applied consistently and that public material explains entitlement without requiring a caseworker to interpret it.

Eligibility criteria are the highest-consequence writing a provincial government does, because they determine who receives support and who does not, and they are applied thousands of times by staff who cannot ring the policy author. Criteria drafted as principles — support is available to families "in financial need" or "where the child's circumstances warrant" — produce inconsistent decisions, appeals the ministry loses, and the entirely predictable result that better-informed applicants do better. We rewrite these so each criterion is a test that two assessors would apply identically, so any discretion is identified as discretion with the factors to be weighed listed, so the evidence an applicant must supply is stated with what to do when they cannot obtain it, and so the public version and the staff version say the same thing in different registers rather than saying different things. Programmes written this way spend less on appeals and reach the people they were designed for.

Everything you send is treated in strict confidence, including budget material before release, submissions and correspondence involving identifiable individuals. We are editors rather than policy or legal advisers and offer no view on any policy, entitlement or decision. What we can do is make the writing consistent across a very large organisation and comprehensible to the people it serves.