@media print { .callout-box { border: 1px solid #000; /* Black border for visibility in print */ padding: 15px; /* Padding to create space inside the box */ background-color: #f9f9f9; /* Light background color for contrast */ margin: 20px 0; /* Margin to space out the box from other content */ box-shadow: none; /* Remove any box-shadow */ } } Print Friendly and PDF

While feedback should become the norm, your team should not constantly request public priorities at a rate faster than they can realistically be resolved. Listen for necessary data to establish priorities, and then use less-intensive means – such as town halls, public meetings and roundtable discussions – for dialogue and codesign solutions. Provide regular public updates on the progress. Collecting data on public priorities more than once a year is likely unnecessary. As a rule of thumb, if you’re spending more time and effort on identifying priorities and collecting information from the public, you’re likely not spending enough time addressing those priorities and communicating progress updates.  

Box 34. Learn from experience – Moldova and Slovakia

In Moldova, mayors and local councilors repeated the steps of the process at different times. For example, mayors would issue surveys and questionnaires when they needed new information or to set priorities based on new events. After four years, one mayor reported that his team had delivered on the priorities set out by residents; his team therefore intended to send out a new questionnaire to solicit new ideas for municipal initiatives. Importantly, successful mayors and local councilors maintained communication, consistently sharing updates and letters with the public so that residents understood the priorities and current focus of the municipality. 

In Slovakia, the Institute’s partners in local authorities planned to reimplement their door-to-door canvassing feedback loop after a year. This year would give them time to make progress on the priorities residents had shared over the previous months. However, in the intervening period, they intended to remain in touch with residents on these priorities through public meetings and regular government communications. This approach fit their team’s needs and context – the door-to-door process had been lengthy and time-intensive and had generated many actionable public comments. The teams wanted time to address existing feedback, with periodic updates, before repeating the canvassing exercise.

End of step checklist:

  • Hold a reflection session and generate an after-action review.
  • Prepare to iterate the feedback loop as needed.