Before authorizing a feedback loop approach for your particular problem or issue, you will need to consider to what extent and how public engagement is already happening in your community. How and when does the local authority talk to residents, and how and when do residents talk to the local authority? Answering these questions will help the local authority determine the focus and scope of the feedback loop approach.

The specific methods employed in your feedback loop process will depend on how the local authority currently communicates with and learns about issues from the public, any gaps in that communication, and available skills and resources to be able to realistically implement new methods. You might start by looking at the relevant legal framework or obligations on public consultation that apply to the local authority. These will set out what should be happening and can be compared against existing practices (what is happening).

What should be happening: 

Is there an existing legal or administrative obligation to conduct public outreach or consultations for policymaking? Yes/No

Yes:

Is the local authority meeting those obligations? Yes/No

No:

See “What is happening”

Yes:

Great! Consider whether a feedback loop could expand or improve the local authority’s current processes.

No:

A feedback loop could be useful if there is a required obligation and public input is missing or not effectively listened for or used.

 

 

What is happening: 

Is there an existing two-way public outreach process that already collects and responds to public feedback? Yes/Yes, but consultation is extractive/No

Yes, the government collects and responds to public input (two way)

Yes, but consultation is extractive (unclear impact on decision)

OR

No, the government only communicates to the public (one way)

What are the characteristics of this two-way process?

  • When does it occur? 
  • On what issues? 
  • For what purpose? What governance process does this feedback feed into or influence – a budget, plan, strategy or something else? 
  • Who is responsible for it? 
  • How is public feedback recorded or documented? 
  • Does the local authority respond to the feedback? If so, how? 
  • Who in the public is reached? Are men and women reached in similar or equal numbers? Is it “usual suspects” (people who regularly contact or engage with government) or a more diverse group?

In the following steps, consider how this process can be used as a starting point for a feedback loop – either as a model to be duplicated to other issue areas or as a foundation to be expanded and built on. 

How does the government communicate with the public? 

  • Does the local authority regularly provide publications or updates to the public about its work or programs?                        
  • Does the authority have a formal way to receive one-off complaints and suggestions from the public?                        
  • Where do these communications take place (e.g., in city hall, at public meetings, online)?                        
  • When do they take place (evenings, during the workday, weekends, at any time)?                        
  • Who receives the communication? Are some people more or less likely to hear from the local authority? Why (gender norms, lack of internet, rural, language barrier)?                        
  • Are these locations and times conducive to broad participation and inclusion – such as for people with caregiving responsibilities? Or persons with disabilities? Working-age people? People who live outside the town center?                         

If there are only informal ways to reach local officials (using personal connections, with no formal tracking of requests, etc.), and public updates are rare or vague, then the feedback loop process can help establish a more solid and broadly participatory basis for decisions. Similarly, if communications reach few residents and are rare, the following steps offer guidance on more inclusive methods.

These and other considerations will help you to understand how close the local authority already is to using two-way dialogue and citizen participation in decision-making. Is the local authority missing information or not hearing from certain groups? Perhaps it already collects plenty of information, but the data is hard to use since it is not stored or managed efficiently.

Overall, the key question at this stage is to identify whether there are ways to adapt and expand pre-existing channels of communication to integrate elements of the feedback loop process. If so, this will save you from needing to “reinvent the wheel.” Instead of starting a new public engagement process, you can take an existing one and expand the number of residents involved, create time or space to hear feedback from the public, add a more systematic method of recording feedback, or simply build in a step to respond to the collected feedback to explain potential actions. Consider leveraging pre-existing mailing lists or channels for public updates (radio, newsletter, public hearings). Can these move from being means of informing the public to means of collaborating with residents and ensuring they have a voice in decision-making? (See Box 4 on levels of engagement).

Remember:

Throughout the process, the local authority must avoid making public participation and feedback collection tokenistic. To the greatest extent possible, citizen priorities must be centered as driving government action.34 Meaningful government responsiveness means public feedback is taken seriously and consistently applied; in short, collecting feedback is not a “one-off.”

Footnotes

34 Rosemary McGee, From ‘Feedback Loops’ to ‘Responsive Governance’ - Making All Voices Count (Making All Voices Count, 2014), Link.

Previa Anterior