Public Engagement: Perspectives and Experiences in North America

1. Public Engagement: Perspectives and Experiences in North America Tina Nabatchi, Ph.D. Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs Syracuse University tnabatch@syr.edu

2. Defining Terms • Civic Engagement: refers to the public’s role in civil society • Public Engagement: techniques and methods that bring people together to address issues of public importance • Direct Public Engagement (DPE): processes that allow members of the public (i.e., those not holding office or administrative positions in government) to personally and actively exercise voice such that their ideas, interests, concerns, needs, and values are incorporated into governmental decision-making

3. Who is Doing DPE and Why? • Leaders & Managers • Practitioners & Consultants • Academics & Researchers • To generate changes in government and policy making • To get work done, make decisions, get closure, and generate support on a specific issue • To deal with an immediate political peril • To seize a policy window • Most DPE processes are episodic, not embedded in government decision-making routines

4. For What Issues is DPE Used? • DPE is being used at the local, state/provincial, and national levels to address a broad range of policy issues: • Immigration, Race, & Difference • Public Finance & Budgeting • Land Use & the Environment • Public Safety & Public Health • Schools & Education • Science & Technology • Poverty & Economic Development • And others … • See www.participedia.net

5. Variations in Direct Public Engagement • DPE may vary by: • Setting • Engagement Mechanisms • Process Design Elements • Convener • Purpose and Goals • Size • Types of Participants • Participant Recruitment • Participant Preparation • Communication Mode • Named Methodology • Locus of Action • Specificity of Recommendations • Connection to the Policy Process • And other elements

6. Views of Legislators and Administrators • Most legislators and administrators recognize the importance of public engagement, BUT they • Have “horror stories” about public participation • Have never seen strong DPE processes • Need to see and understand the political and administrative logic of DPE • Want evidence of “success” before they change their engagement practices • Administrators feel constrained by the law…

7. The Legal Framework for DPE in the US • Federal Level • Administrative Procedure Act • Federal Laws, Executive Orders, Agency Regulations, Guidance, and Policy Memos • Open Government Initiative • State and Local Level • “Home Rule Acts” • State Legislation on Administrative Procedure • Specific State Mandates • The current legal framework encourages compliance, not an examination of broader implied authority

8. The Outcomes of DPE • Research shows that well-designed DPE processes can have benefits for: • Individuals • Administrators and Legislators • Communities • Policy • Governance • However, poorly designed processes can be harmful to people, communities, policy, and governance

9. Lessons Learned from the North American Experience • Design matters. • Those wishing to use DPE must think carefully about both systems and process design. The most important design choice is deciding on the goal(s) for DPE. • Citizens need and want to be engaged. • Citizens’ capacities and expectations about DPE have changed. They want to shift from a parent-child dynamic in governance to an adult-adult relationship. • The support of leaders is critical. • To affect real change, political, administrative, and civil society leaders must buy into and support DPE.

10. Lessons Learned from the North American Experience • Articulate the “logic” of DPE. • Generating support among politicians, administrators, funders, and citizens requires communicating clear, meaningful incentives and gains that can be had from DPE. • DPE works better when it generates a “critical mass.” • Politicians want DPE to translate into votes, and participants want DPE to translate into policy change. This requires numbers. • Laws must support DPE. • Administrators want/need explicit legal authority to convene DPE processes, otherwise they will revert to minimalist approaches.

11. Lessons Learned from the North American Experience • Evaluation must be built into DPE from the start. • Evaluation is critical to demonstrating the success, viability, and meaningfulness of DPE. But, evaluation is unlikely to occur unless it is explicitly required and resourced. • There are limitations to this work. • Many examples of DPE are “noble failures” because of poor design choices or because they were temporary efforts aimed at entrenched problems.

12. Lessons Learned from the North American Experience • There is the need to embed DPE in decision-making structures. • Temporary DPE is insufficient. “Wicked” problems require sustained engagement using a range of activities that reinforce and complement one another. • There is a need to build a civic infrastructure for DPE. • We need to strengthen networks, build the capacity to respond in real-time to needs and calls for DPE, and create regular opportunities and arenas for embedded DPE.

13. Additional Resources • Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC): http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/ • International Association for Public Participation (IAP2): http://www.iap2.org/ • National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD): http://www.ncdd.org / • LogoLink: http://www.logolink.org • Everyday Democracy: www.everydaydemocracy.org • Public Agenda: www.publicagenda.org • AmericaSpeaks: www.americaspeaks.org • Global Voices: http://www.globalvoices.org/ • National League of Cities: www.nlc.org • Kettering Foundation: www.kettering.org