Skip to main content

One way to avoid public participation nightmares

You're a decision-maker, with some institution or organization, and there's an issue or project where you want to consult with members of the public. How can you get their input in a way that will be meaningful, in a process that will feel inclusive and collaborative? If the issue is contentious, and you want to gather input without delegating your authority to make the final decision, how can you engage participants in a way that won't feel completely disingenuous?

This is no small task, and is the subject of much research, training, and deliberation amongst public participation facilitators and consultants. More often than not, efforts at public participation are a disaster. Participants can feel as though their input is not considered seriously, are frustrated that their proposals and feedback are not adopted, and practitioners are left with more information than they know what to do with. At worst, trust in the institution itself is eroded.

Trust in the public realm is a growing problem, with current studies reporting that trust in public institutions is in decline. At best, a solid process to include the public in decision-making can increase trust and support for your work.

There are a lot of dimensions to designing and implementing an effective public participation process (for resources and training on the topic check out www.iap2.org). In this post I'm only going to focus on one key consideration: how and whether participants should interact with each other. One of the key failures of many efforts at meaningful public participation is not allowing participants to engage with one another. The institution solicits feedback from each participant, one on one, independent of feedback that is received from other participants. This is depicted by the drawing on the left:


It's far more meaningful, effective, and ultimately collaborative, to equip participants with the opportunity to connect with one another, as well as the institution, through the process. This is depicted by the drawing on the right hand side. Enabling this will empower participants to challenge one another, to adjust their own perspectives, and to explore and reveal new insights about the issue. This is not possible when feedback is collected from participants who are silo'd from one another.

This kind of interaction can be achieved via discussion groups, focus groups, world cafes, or even short term task forces or committees. Irrespective of the outcome of the process, participants can build relationships and learn new things about themselves, their community, and public issues if they can interact with one another through. In addition, this approach gives you, the decision-maker, a kind of filter or initial review for feedback from the public. If each person submits their feedback directly, you are left sorting through massive amounts of input. If, however, participants can review proposals and suggestions from one another, and agree on key principles or concepts to provide as feedback, then they are beginning the review process for you, and refining the items that get put forward as public input.

So let people talk to one another, and be up front with whether and how you'll be using their feedback in the decision-making process. For a great spectrum when it comes to public participation in decision-making, have a look here.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Where do the candidates stand on CAC's?

After the release of our research paper Who's Counting the Dollars?concerning Community Amenity Contributions, we have asked candidates in this year's municipal election for their thoughts on our recommendations.
We will post responses here as they are received.

OneCity Vancouver, Christine Boyle
One of the big ideas that OneCity Vancouver is bringing to this election is our Windfall Power Land Value Capture proposal (sometimes called a land value tax, or land lift tax). You can read more about it in this Vancouver Sun Op-Ed, and more will be released with our platform soon. 

A land value capture wouldn't entirely replace the CAC system, but it would dramatically scale it back by creating a more transparent system for measuring the impact that upzoning or nearby public infrastructure investments have on land value, and then capturing a portion of that 'lift' in value to spend on community priorities (like affordable housing and more robust public transit). In addition…

Why democracy doesn't always require a majority

With the recent referendum in BC on electoral reform, which resulted in not only a defeat at the polls but also an abysmal voter turnout at 42.6% of eligible votes, there have been some renewed calls for policy decisions to be reviewed by a random assortment of voters through something like a Citizens' Assembly. A citizen's assembly would be an alternative, or a complement, to a public vote on a matter of public policy such as electoral reform; rather than putting the matter directly to the public, a random group of citizens would be selected and convened to give their opinion.

Further, over the course of the referendum, other important questions were raised about the process itself: what's a sufficient voter turnout to inform a policy decision? Shouldn't the ballot include the specific details of the voting system being proposed?

All of these questions serve as an important reminder of why democracy entails much more than showing up at a poll booth to submit a vote. A…

Accountability: getting information about public things...to the public

When it comes to democracy one term that gets floated around often is the notion of accountability. But what does accountability actually mean? What does it look like?

Further, in the context of government bodies, elected representatives, and the myriad different organizations that provide civil services in our communities, how does accountability happen? And what's required for a community institution to be able to say it is accountable?

The answer is different, for different institutions. For example, we often focus on the accountability of elected officials and government representatives. But what about Crown corporations, or state companies? In Canada, Crown corporations are publicly held entities that provide a public service, but that are not directly managed or overseen by any elected official. The first federal Crown Corporation was the Canadian National Railway, established in 1922, and there are now a diverse array of publicly owned autonomous public entities in diverse s…