Deep dive into levels of public engagement
The feedback loop framework is a process for public engagement in decision-making, but it isn’t the only one. Public engagement in decision-making can have various goals and provide local residents with varying levels of impact on the final decision: Are they merely informed of the decision, or do they have the ultimate deciding power (via a referendum)? Depending on the approaches you select, a feedback loop can have varying levels of public participation and offer residents various levels of power. This annex explains public engagement and shares a few widely used frameworks.
The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Federation developed a spectrum for levels of public participation promised by various government processes. This spectrum is increasingly viewed as an international standard. For example, it’s used as a key element in the Simon Fraser University’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue’s Public Engagement Toolkit. Facilitating Power developed a similar spectrum, adding depth and an additional “Ignore” element to the spectrum, denoting the moments when citizens are entirely excluded from decision-making and no information is provided. In addition, Facilitating Power offers examples of methods and activities that support each level of community engagement.
In the Facilitating Power spectrum, there is also an “Impact” rating, spanning marginalization, placation, tokenization, and on to community ownership. Here, Facilitating Power drew inspiration from Sherry Arnstein’s 1969 “Ladder of Citizen Participation.” In the first two steps, the public has no meaningful impact, as the government has already made a decision and is simply aiming to secure public support for it. In the next three steps, legitimacy slowly increases, but the power afforded to the public is counterfeit or fake, as the public is informed (with no opportunity for feedback). Some feedback is solicited (although with no or minimal impact), until in “placation,” public engagement is institutionalized, but officials still control the process. Only in the final rungs of the ladder are power and decision-making actually ceded to the public. Joint committees combining increasing numbers of citizens and fewer officials, increasingly empowered to make decisions and demand accountability, become the basis of citizen control.
Where does a feedback loop fit into these spectra? In the words of Arnstein, “There is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process.” The crux is intent and affording residents clout or actual empowerment. A feedback loop should aim to increase meaningful public engagement and allow residents to make specific decisions. It should not be a means of cynically engaging the public only as a token method of validating premade decisions. This guide aims to help governments move from nonparticipation toward citizen control or from merely informing citizens of decisions taken by the government toward collaboratively solving local problems with public input. Keep in mind, however, that as the level of engagement rises, the technical know-how needed and potential costs – in budget and human resources – also tend to rise. In addition, when considering the scale of your engagement – how many people and communities you will reach and the kind of activities you will use – consider the impact of the decision on communities, the cost of not engaging and the relationship of your outreach budget to the overall project budget. For example, is a survey of a representative sample of community members worthwhile if it will cost almost as much as the piece of infrastructure under deliberation? With the help of this guide, we hope you come to agree that – when it comes to high-impact decisions – achieving the levels of partnership, collaboration, “defer to” and empower are within reach in your feedback loop.
In Table 1, you can reference specific examples of methods for each level of public engagement outlined in the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum.
Table 1: Examples of methods behind each of the levels Inform, Consult and Involve
Inform | What avenues does the government already have in place to inform the public? Consider where information can be posted or communicated, including digitally, verbally or in print. For example:
|
Consult | Then, consider the government’s current methods to compile and track information (especially how they obtain and analyze public input). Typically, a government’s system of sorting and tracking public messages and complaints falls into one of the three categories below:
|
Involve | Finally, does the government have a mechanism for two-way dialogue with the public that involves them in decision-making? This can take the form of digital or in-person communication. For example:
|