Engaging the Public

1. Engaging the Public

2. Overview • Consultations today are undergoing an evolution not a revolution where online outreach is an enhancement to traditional face-to-face initiatives. • Nanos eConsultation Case Study • Lansdowne – Multi-mode consultation with interlocking research. • Key Learning's

3. Evolution not Revolution

4. Evolution not Revolution • The Internet and Web 2.0 technologies have not displaced traditional consultation mechanisms (such as face-to-face) but they have enhanced the consultation process in terms of: • Geographic Reach - can cost effectively be national in scope and reach out to rural and hard to reach populations). • Time Accessibility – can be open 24/7 and hence provide stakeholders with a greater degree of convenience to share their views. • User Generated Influence – because the format is more user driven where the eConsultation facilitates discussion threads, stakeholders have more flexibility in exploring topics. • Enhanced Content – the online platform allows for content to be dynamic (movies, resource library, pictures, etc.). • Improved Metrics – online consultations allow for a more granular mathematical examination of key points of agreement and disagreement .

5. Enhanced Consultation Outcomes • The most effective consultations are multi-mode and multi-faceted: • Multi-mode – they integrate in-person and on-line engagement strategies to maximize participation in terms of geography and time and enhance the stakeholder experience through multi-media interaction. • Multi-faceted – they integrate the learning's from the consultation process with opinion research (of the public or stakeholder community) to properly contextualize opinions. • The online consultation provides nuance and depth of understanding while the opinion research benchmarks the scope of opinions held.

6. The Web 2.0 Advantage • User-focused web development and web design are become increasingly prevalent methods of communication. • They: • Facilitate communications between users – bring content to life; make it dynamic. • Participation – allow people to work and create together; use technology to harness the collective intelligence of your community and promote transparency. • User-centered design/content/ - usability makes it easy for the participant, informing them of what’s new, what’s popular and what’s the highest rated. • We are seeing a shift in power to users and the general public as they shape public discourse on an even higher level.

7. Nanos eConsultation Case StudyLansdowne Partnership Plan - Public Engagement

8. Case Study: This is an example of a project with many complementary research elements in support of a public consultation process. Our objective for this project was to gather feedback through a variety of methods (including an eConsultation) to gauge the input of Ottawa residents on a controversial design proposal to redevelop Lansdowne Park. Page 8

9. Case Study: METHODOLOGY Focus Groups - Four focus group discussions were conducted in Ottawa on September 16th and September 17th, 2009. Two groups of eight participants each were conducted with residents who lived outside the Capital Ward and two groups of eight participants each were conducted with residents who lived in the Capital Ward. Each session was 60 minutes in duration and was conducted in English. The sessions included a mix of primarily English and primarily French speaking participants. There was also a mix of male and female participants as well as a mix of age groups. eConsultation – The eConsultation was conducted on behalf of the City of Ottawa between September 28th and October 11th, 2009, and elicited 4,420 comments from participants. Readers should note that participants were self-selected. Public Opinion Survey - Random telephone survey of 1,003 Ottawa residents was conducted between October 17th and 19th, 2009. The random sample was stratified to ensure proper proportionate representation from each of the 23 wards in Ottawa. A random survey of 1,003 responses is accurate 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Open House Comment sheets - A total of 844 comment sheets were provided by the City of Ottawa to Nanos Research. Each comment sheet included eight sections where citizens could provide feedback – respondents did not necessarily provide feedback in all eight sections. Ottawa 3-1-1 - A total of 411 individuals contacted Ottawa’s 3-1-1 system to share their views. Comments were made without prompting and merely reflected the feedback provided by individuals who contacted the Ottawa 3-1-1 service. Page 9

10. Case Study: ACTIVITY 1,003 randomly selected residents participated in a public opinion survey. 4 focus groups were conducted prior to the consultation. 4,420 comments posted on the Lansdowne eConsultation website. 81,498 visits to the Lansdowne eConsultation website. 1,039 registered participants in the Lansdowne eConsultation. 27,544 comment ratings were made on the eConsultation site. 844 comment sheets were submitted through the open house sessions. 411 comments were submitted through the City of Ottawa’s 3-1-1 service. Page 10

11. Case Study: • KEY FINDINGS • AWARENESS more than nine of ten Ottawa residents had heard of the proposal (92.5%). • IMPRESSION residents in Ottawa are more likely to be neutral on the proposal, with marginally more residents having a negative rather than a positive impression of the proposal (22.5% negative, 18.7.% positive, 49.6% neutral, 9.1% unsure). • PROXIMITY the closer you lived to Lansdowne the more likely you were to have a negative impression of the proposal (i.e., Centretown 44.2% negative, 8.0% positive; Kanata 21.9% positive, 9.5% negative). • KNOWLEDGE the greater one’s self described knowledge of the LPP the more likely you are to have a positive impression (all Ottawa 5.2 out of 10, high knowledge 6.2, medium 5.3, low knowledge 4.3). • ACTION residents are more likely to think that it is time to move forward (53.1% move forward, 40.8% no rush, 6.1% unsure). The top unprompted piece of advice “just do it/so many delays” (23.2%). Page 11

12. Case Study: • DIFFERENCES BY CHANNELS • Open house comments were against the proposal (57.0% opposed, 39.2% in favour, rest neither). • 3-1-1 submissions were favourable in 53% of the cases and unfavourable in 28.2% of the cases. • eConsultation participants were generally negative or concerned about the LPP. For example, in the vision for Lansdowne section (which attracted 41% of all the comments in the online consultation) participants who opposed the proposal outnumbered supporters by three-to-one. Page 12

13. Effective Consultations • Engage stakeholders on their terms – The more opportunities you have to engage (in-person, online) the better the likely consultation outcomes. • Focus on measurable metrics – Develop metrics in advance of the consultation start (activity, intensity of discussion, ratings, geographic representation, etc.). • Analyze the discussion both qualitatively and quantitatively – Use tried and true research techniques (comment coding) to enhance your qualitative analysis with a quantitative overlay. • Use multi-mode engagement techniques – Triangulate and validate consultation findings through the use of in-person, online and research initiatives.