Public Participation Flashcards
Arnstein’s “Ladder of Citizen Participation”
In 1969, Sherry Arnstein wrote about citizen involvement in planning processes, describing a “Ladder of Citizen Participation” that depicted public participation ranging in different degrees from high (Citizen Control) to low (Manipulation), in three broad ranges of:
- Citizen Control
- Tokenism
- Nonparticipation
Only in the upper three rungs of the ladder (Partnership, Delegation, Citizen Control) are the public fully empowered in the planning processes and decisions that affect them. This does not mean that the use of techniques represented in some of the other rungs may not be appropriate, depending on the situation. For example, “informing” may be appropriate when making the public aware of new services, upcoming events or festivals, or a road closing.
IAP2 Framework of Public Participation
Inform: (Providing data/information)
Consult: (Obtaining Public feedback)
Involve: (Working with the Public)
Collaborate: (Partner with the Public)
Delphi Technique (Policy Delphis)
o TOOL: A method of obtaining consensus by a group people (often experts) without the need for a face-to-face group meeting. The process involves several round robin iterations of participant responses (or rankings) to a questionnaire(s) and results in continued tabulation and dissemination until additional rounds don’t result in significant changes (or a consensus result is reached). During the round robin responses, the experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the previous replies of other members of their panel. It is intended that during this process that the range of the answers will narrow and the group will converge towards the “correct” answer (consensus – e.g. “Who is the world’s current premier environmental planner?”).
o ADVANTAGE: Inexpensive, no assembly needed; time and space not an issue. Can be done anonymously so that people whose answers differ substantially from the norm can feel comfortable expressing themselves. A Delphi process can be especially useful when participants are in different geographic locations.
o DISADVANTAGE: Time can be lengthy, often little or no face to face participation by stakeholders. Keeping participants engaged and active in each round may be a
Fishbowl
- TOOL: A group meeting where a small group of decision makers (6-10) do their work in a “fishbowl” circle so that the public can openly view their deliberations. In an open fishbowl, observers can become participants, swapping places with those within the fishbowl, or one or more chairs are left open for “visitors”. In a closed fishbowl, observers can’t change their roles.
- ADVANTAGE: Transparent decision making. Decision makers are able to gauge public reaction in the course of their deliberations. In an open fishbowl, citizens can serve as a check on planner or officials’ biases, & contribute ideas & alternatives. Often useful for vetting “hot topics” or sharing ideas or information from a variety of perspectives.
- DISADVANTAGE: The roles and responsibilities of the decision makers and the public may not be clear.
Samoan Circle
- TOOL: A leaderless, but often facilitated, meeting similar to fishbowl planning that stimulates active participation and is intended to help negotiations concerning controversial issues. A professional facilitator is used to welcome participants and explain the seating arrangements, rules, timelines and the process. People are seated in a circle within a circle, with only those in the inner circle allowed to speak. The inner circle needs to represent all major viewpoints present, and those outside the circle are to remain silent unless they join the “inner circle”. Someone wishing to speak stands behind a chair; this signals those already in the circle to relinquish their chairs.
- ADVANTAGE: Can be used with 10 to 500 people (i.e. large groups). Works best with controversial issues.
- DISADVANTAGE: Dialogue can stall or become monopolized. Observers may become frustrated with their passive role.
Crowdsourcing
- TOOL: In its simplest version, it is a form of online and web-based public participation in public planning projects based on the idea that the internet allows individuals to think creatively about planning problems and put those suggestions up for review by
their peers. In its broadest form, it can be used for even newer uses such as crowd review, crowd response, crowd democracy, citizen science, and crowdfunding.
* ADVANTAGE: It can encourage large scale public participation as individuals can participate at their own leisure and similar ideas can be aggregated for review. Allows public leaders to become aware of commonly supported ideas.
* DISADVANTAGE: It can miss sections of the public without web access or knowledge of the planning issue under consideration (e.g. elderly, fiscally poor, poorly educated, homeless).
Visioning (Oregon Model)
VISIONING
1. Where are we now? [Descriptive Information/Community Values]
2. Where are we going? [Trend information/Probable Scenario]
3. Where do we want to be? [Possible-Preferred Scenarios/Community Vision]
ACTION PLAN
4. How do we get there? [Goals, Strategies, Action/Action Agenda & Profile]
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
5. Are we getting there? [Action Plan implementation/Community Benchmarks]
Charrettes
- TOOL: Also known as a “Design-In”, the charrette process is an intensive, interactive problem solving process with meetings convened around the design or development of specific plans, useable with small to medium-sized groups. Typically, trained design and technical experts work with local officials, community groups and stakeholders over a period lasting from one day to a couple of weeks, addressing a specific issue or development proposal that faces a community. Charrette participants, often breaking out into multiple smaller groups, work together to design/draw up solutions that address the issue/project that has been identified to be address (e.g. urban redevelopment site). The keys to a successful charrette are in its pre-charrette preparation in ensuring the necessary stakeholders and public are invited; in developing and providing a sufficient level of technical information at the beginning of the charrette; in having good technical staff support available throughout the process; and in allowing sufficient time to reach consensus and provide the necessary documentation of the consensus for later implementation. A charrette often includes the following components:
1. Definition of project/issue to be resolved, including technical background
2. Assignment of small groups to discuss associated issues and start development of potential alternatives (i.e. usually one proposal per small group)
3. Use of technical staff to provide supporting data and answer technical questions during the small group process
4. Development of design proposals to address project/issue
5. Presentation and group analysis of small group final proposals
6. Refinement and consensus development of recommended final approach - ADVANTAGE: Visually expressive and a useful tool to promote visual idea development, and the generation of “visions of the future”.
- DISADVANTAGE: Stakeholders may not reach a consensus (nor be considered representative by the larger public if they do); a charrette takes longer and can be more expensive to undertake than other participation tools; and the process requires an experienced leader knowledgeable in the technique. Invited participants and timing can be critical to the process and the invitation selection process needs to
focus on ensuring maximizing interaction and broad participation. The intended goals of the charrette must be clearly made to all participants, so that expectations do not exceed potential outcomes.
* WHEN TO USE: For small to medium-sized groups to design or develop specific visual plans for a specific project/issue, typically as a one-time effort. Charrettes should not be used to replace the standard planning process which occurs over much longer timeframe. Charrettes should be used to address a specific, problematic or controversial project/issue, whose resolution then complements the standard planning process.
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
- TOOL: A citizens’ group, typically a long-term standing committee meeting regularly, appointed to represent the ideas and attitudes of local groups, with the purpose of advising a governmental planning agency or policy-making body on community impacts, such as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
- ADVANTAGE: Can provide valuable input on proposed issues that will affect citizens, especially if representing a diverse cross section of the community. Additionally, committee members and planning agency/policy-making body are typically meeting with multi-year appointed community members, who are knowledgeable with the issues and processes of the committee and can better address complex issues and their impacts on the community in depth over time.
- DISADVANTAGE: Unless huge (and 20-30 members is usually the limit), a citizen advisory committee is unlikely to be able to represent all community viewpoints, especially for the myriad of minority and low-income members a large community may contain. Strongly opposing members may create a tense working environment for the advisory committee. Advisory committees can be costly and staff/resource intensive.
- WHEN TO USE: Citizen advisory committees are typically either formally required by law (e.g. federally mandated CAC for MPOs) or desired by a public body for their citizens’ input. A citizen advisory committee looks at projects from the impact they have on the community and not the feasibility of a project which is more the role of a technical advisory committee (TAC).
Neighborhood Association
- TOOL: A typically voluntary, grassroot group of neighbors and businesses who advocate, or organize activities, for a neighborhood, often with elected leaders and voluntary dues. Unlike Homeowner Associations, they typically do not have the legal authority to enforce particular building, parking and landscaping rules and regulations within their boundaries. Instead, they advocate for changes and improvements such as neighborhood safety, beautification and social activities, and may be involved with the development of neighborhood land use plans.
- ADVANTAGE: Local governments will often recognize neighborhood associations for special participation in the planning process, or involve them in their policy making as a known group of people experienced in dealing with the local government.
- DISADVANTAGE: Individuals may claim the neighborhood association doesn’t represent them, especially in situations where representation on the neighborhood association is not an open or neighborhood-wide elected position.
- WHEN TO USE: Usable by neighborhoods that have commonly held community interests and concerns, which contain individuals and activists willing to become involved.
American Assembly
- TOOL: Associated with Columbia University and President Eisenhower, the American Assembly process is a form of town hall meeting in which selected representatives debate and vote upon a final document on a major issue of focus. Typical steps include:
1. Prior to the meeting, a steering committee selects participants and obtains funding, selects topics, prepares background analysis
2. The meeting is scheduled for 2 ½ – 3 days
3. 1st day – Opening plenary followed by initial breakout into small groups on selected topics
4. 2nd day – Small group “browbeating” to consensus by breakout group & topic
5. OVERNIGHT – Staff works to consolidate small group efforts into a consensus document/recommendations for 3rd day consideration
6. 3rd day - Closing plenary; voting for consensus or changes to the draft final document/recommendations - ADVANTAGE: Can handle large, diverse groups (even 100+), and results in a voted on consensus document.
- DISADVANTAGE: Small group efforts can be dominated by strong personalities. Potential for staff steering of outcomes. Expensive.
- WHEN TO USE: To develop consensus recommendations from a large group of diverse stakeholders on major, often controversial topics.
Nominal Group
- TOOL: The Nominal Group technique is designed to promote facilitated group consensus involving problem identification, solution generation, and decision making. Although the technique is often used for small groups (9-12), it can be utilized for larger groups when time is less of an issue and well-experienced facilitators lead the effort. Typical steps include:
1. PRE-EVENT
1. Define issue & prepare background paper (to help trigger questions)
2. Select knowledgeable members (stakeholders, experts, etc.) for the event & provide background to selected members
2. AT THE EVENT
1. Instruct members on procedures and expected outcomes (reach agreement on outcome representing consensus), followed by four subsequent rounds:
2. THINKING ROUND: Each individual in the group silently generates ideas and writes them down (brainstorming).
3. NOMINATING-RECORDING ROUND: Each member gets to present (nominate) their ideas without debate, and the group members engage in a round-robin feedback session to concisely record each idea (often on a flip chart sheet taped up on the wall).
4. CLARIFYING-DISCUSSING ROUND: Each recorded idea is then discussed to obtain any needed clarification from the nominating member (sometimes these questions can be written up on sticky- notes placed on the idea written up on the flip chart so that all questions on an idea can be raised/discussed at the same time). Following clarifications, the ideas can be further discussed in a round-robin that allows each member to provide input.
- VOTING ROUND: Individuals vote privately on the priority of the ideas (typically by ranking the ideas – e.g. selecting 5 of the ideas, ranking them 5 to 1; or by each member having a very limited number of votes that they can use to vote for just one idea or spread the votes out over multiple ideas – sometimes this is as simple as having three-to-five sticky dots that can be used by each member to vote on clarified ideas on the flip chart sheets). The group’s “consensus” decision is determined based on the resulting ranking.
* ADVANTAGE: The process allows for the development of a clear consensus, while providing an equal opportunity for everyone to fully participate in the process and avoids domination of the discussion by a single individual. The process helps promote both the open discussion and development of creative ideas from all the participants, and a consensus based on the membership rankings. It typically encourages participants to focus on issue resolution through constructive problem solving based on the group’s proposed ideas.
* Nominal Group can be used either quickly (for a single subject; single day), or over a much longer timeframe (for more complex, multiple issues; even over multiple years), as the technique is fairly flexible in its use.
* DISADVANTAGE: Typically only used with smaller groups (9-12), although it can be modified to be used with larger groups (25-30), if well facilitated and time limitations are not an issue. Nominal Group requires advance preparation, and its use is often limited to a single topic (again, except where well facilitated and time is not a limit). The technique is best used with selected individuals knowledgeable about the topic under consideration (which often eliminates other members of the general public), and requires the use of a good facilitator, which can limit its application. Although the process results in a ranked consensus, the process may silence a minority opinion, and result in a consensus based on the lowest common dominator.
* WHEN TO USE: Nominal Group is best used for reaching small group consensus on a controversial single topic when there is a need to have equal input and participation from all participants.
Town Meetings (Direct Democracy)
o TOOL: A town meeting is a form of direct democracy, used primarily in New England and to a lesser degree in some western and mid-western states, where residents of the town (or school or water district) typically meet once a year and act as a legislative body, voting on operating budgets, ordinances, and sometimes other matters such as pending zoning and land use decisions. State statutes vary by state on how these town meetings operate and what matters they can decide on.
o ADVANTAGE: Citizens directly make the decisions that affect their lives. For the citizen, this involves issues of participation in the process; transparency of governmental operations and actions; cooperation with others in the process; responsibility to stay abreast of issues and vote; and accountability for the result of their decisions.
o DISADVANTAGE: Town meetings can sometimes polarize the community and be dominated by the positions of eloquent speakers. With town meetings only occurring once a year, it can be a slow moving form of government, especially when involving land use decisions. Low participation can result in decision making decided by a minority of the citizen population or special interests.
