An outstanding community engagement process can make your organization or government's city planning or problem solving projects more likely to make it all the way through plan implementation. You can use innovative online community surveys and other techniques to build informed public participation in the process.
Good developers also want to understand positive methods for community engagement in the town planning process, even when dealing with an individual property.
I have been involved in several hundred plans for downtowns, neighborhoods, towns, and cities, and in some public and private regional planning projects also. Almost every time the problem has been that the people at the top want to control the outcome!
If you are part of the public, unfortunately you often have to work hard to have an open community engagement process that you can influence at several points and in flexible ways.
It took a long time for me to want to move away from the older term, citizen participation, to citizen or civic or community engagement.
But I love the notion that people not only have their bodies present to participate, but also that their minds or hearts are engaged with the subject matter.
The move from the word citizen to the word community might be less fortunate, as sometimes institutional and corporate interests have more influence now than they should have.
The International Association for Public Participation does excellent work around the world in researching and describing a process of public decision making, using the continuum of:
Here informing implies the least involvement of people in decisions that affect their futures, and empowering grants the greatest say in decision-making.
Notice that community engagement entails steps 1, 2, and 3 above.
If you're interested in how public participation plays out across different cultural contexts, you should see the association's excellent research on public participation across cultures.
If you're a community person and you've been invited to a sham community engagement process, certainly attend and do what you can. But if you have the privilege of being able to participate in an open-ended discussion or design process, consider yourself lucky and make the time.
Let's divide the different types of community engagement processes under broad headings below, with some tips for conducting or participating in each.
The primary event at an open house style event for the public is the ability of the public to look at displays and interact with designers and planners. Often the results already are cooked, and if you're a public participant, your job is to apply the rubber stamp or be able to articulate why not.
So open houses may or may not be good methods of interacting with the community, depending on whether the designers are willing to listen to and learn from opposing points of view.
The concept that busy people can attend at several different dayparts is a definite advantage. I like the 4-8 p.m. range in my particular community. In that community, this translates to "before dark," "after work," and "after dinner" timeframes. In your location those may or may not be from 4-8 p.m., depending on lifestyles and time of year.
If your venue is such that you can leave an exhibit in place for several days, and you have a way to collect feedback through electronic or paper means, that's even better.
The fact that people may choose to spend a short or long time at the open house is its advantage, and try not to dull that by expecting people to sit through a lengthy presentation.
If you must feature a "sage on the stage," or else people won't be able to understand the options, make it brief and announce beforehand when the presentation will occur.
If you can make a self-explanatory exhibit, though, so much the better. If you need a presentation that repeats itself as an explanation, that will work fine. But my experience is people won't pay much attention unless the screen dominates.
If you can work in a little public participation game as a form of voting, that can be very useful.
I particularly like "budgeting" exercises, whether or not the subject is money. I can't recommend often enough allocating people an imaginary $1,000 or some number a household can relate to, and asking them to divide it among the various types of programs you could offer.
If you like, you can place constraints on this method of community engagement. For example, tell participants they must allocate at least $364 for office help, but they can allocate any amount over that if they wish.
If the subject is visual, plan a feature to switch off the left brain and engage the right brain. A little art or music off the topic can serve to stimulate community engagement in a design endeavor that's essentially an art project.
I like maximum maximum planner and community engagement with each other in dialogue, so the more individual conversations planners can hold, the better.
In the open house format, one of the advantages is that you can forestall discussion from the floor if you wish. You may choose to allow informational questions after a presentation, if any, but don't entertain discussions between audience members.
On the other hand, if you're a planner, letting citizens get into discussions with one another around the displays can be very useful.
Many governments are required by law to hold public hearings as a method of public participation in particular types of legal actions, commonly including development approvals, zoning matters, and formal adoption of plans.
If you wish to hold a public hearing about a plan, do it near the end of the process when you think most concepts are fully developed and you need to do a check to make sure community engagement is still positive.
An alternative would be to conduct a public hearing at the very beginning of a project and use it to build community engagement. This is truly a bottom-up approach. If you do this, it's important to hold a meeting at the end of the community planning process so you can report back how you addressed the topics of concern at the first public hearing.
Less formal meetings commonly are better for obtaining true feedback and building long-range community engagement. Many are intimidated by the mechanics of a public hearing, including being sworn in, having to sign in, having to state your name and address for the record, being tape recorded, being recorded for local cable television, and all kinds of things that may occur.
If you are able to hold a meeting within the affected neighborhood, and can conduct it without any reference to any procedures except perhaps Roberts Rules of Order if things get out of hand, that's best.
At the meeting, the person who will be doing the majority of the decision-making about what is written into the plan should be either in attendance or facilitating the meeting. If he or she is a poor facilitator, and gets stuck in filibustering for or defending his or her own ideas, choose someone else.
Allow the plan-maker to sit on the podium, but let someone adept at working the audience make sure that everyone is recognized and awarded an appropriate amount of time.
If you have topics you definitely want to hear about, prepare and distribute an agenda and go down the list. Don't leave it to chance that an important topic will be mentioned.
These meetings will be different depending on whether you are just starting a planning effort or whether you are fairly far along. At the beginning you can afford to ask extremely open-ended questions, and you should.
Ask imagination-inspiring questions. Model possibility thinking and emphasis on community assets rather than problems. If your crowd is participatory, divide them into small groups of 6-8 people and let each group discussion. Have each group select a spokesperson and report back to the group. This is an excellent method of assuring that everyone who attends feels that the community engagement process was genuine.
If your neighborhood association is participating in a planning process where the format is unknown to you, rehearse key community members so they will perform well in whatever open-ended and divide-and-conquer tactics the planners might use against you. If you're on the community member side of a community engagement process that seems skewed toward a pre-determined end, you'll need to play smart.
If you're in charge of the planning process, only call a gimmick-less public meeting for discussion when (a) you really don't know what people think and would like to start a dialogue, (b) you're in a community where community engagement is something of a sport (you know who you are), and/or (c) you think people will definitely be opinionated about the topic.
Having to spend half an hour in a small group where no one really cares about the topic is almost as boring as having to sit through an hour-long public hearing.
If you're facilitating a meeting and have turned to small groups with questions to discuss, maps to mark up, play money to divide, or little people to assign to blocks, wander around animatedly talking to folks and gently assuring that what they're doing is relevant.
If the sponsors are in a little huddle, out in the hallway on your phone, or looking bored, why do you think the people will be excited about your community engagement task?
Finally, if you need a really intense planning process, especially one that is oriented toward visual decisions, consider the charrette methodology.
Surveys run the gamut from phone to paper to Internet-based. If you can afford a professional or at least an experienced person to help you word the survey research, that would be best. Anyone with a master's degree should have some notion of how to write a questionnaire.
A good survey provides information about public opinion, but it doesn't necessarily inspire people community engagement. So consider carefully what you need--information or participation.
Let's take the survey administration methods one at a time:
Since neighborhood leaders seem less familiar with keypad polling than other methods, we will say a bit more about those. Ask the questions that people are afraid to answer aloud, for fear of angering the powers that be.
Usually you rent the keypad gadgets, and you have one for each participant. On a screen you typically put up a question with multiple choice answers. Then the participants vote on their keypads, and most systems have a way of instantly displaying the answers.
Sometimes it's even possible for the meeting organizers to change their minds about what questions to ask as they go through the meeting, based on previous answers.
For all survey methods, balance whether you need a forced choice of answers, in which you want to form multiple choice questions, or whether you're really fishing for attitudes or new ideas. Open-ended questions (such as "What would you change about the neighborhood?") are best when you don't want to artificially limit responses.
Truthfully, open-ended questions are a better community involvement and engagement process, but more work to tabulate.
Consider also whether the information you need is word-based, number-based, or picture-based.
For visual information, you may want to ask people to participate in a visual preference survey or other visualization exercise. This survey asks people to choose between at least two photos in desirability, and may ask open-ended why questions or closed-ended questions about the choices.
Visually-oriented learners and communicators will respond to illustrations that planning consultants can create with various software, or even to 3-D visualizations that appear to allow you to walk around or through a prospective development or streetscape.
If you've never used a visual preference survey as community involvement in your area, you can use this technique simply to perk up interest. We all like to look at pictures, and doing so appeals to the intellectually lazy.
The federal government now requires transportation visualization techniques as part of the planning process.
Field trips are enormously useful community engagement processes, when teamed with other methods. If people are lukewarm about a plan or planning concept, you may need to bus them to the study area and have them get out and walk around to see things from a different perspective. Many people, particularly the kinesthetic learners, come alive when they can walk in an area.
Field trips also are helpful as a bonding experience for an advisory committee, an eye-opener for those who usually don't visit undesirable neighborhoods, or as a geography primer if you are covering a large scope.
Otherwise the experience will be valuable in either getting everyone on the same page or accentuating exactly what the differences of opinion are. Many folks and some ethnic groups really are quite bad at reading maps and understanding spatial relationships, so allow them another opportunity to master that information.
The field trip also is useful as a way of "ground truthing" a nearly complete plan. It's a way of checking whether people really believe what they have been saying. If dissent arises on an adventure trip, you need to return to broad community engagement.
The other field trip that I really advocate is a trip to a nearby but unfamiliar location where a technique under consideration can be demonstrated. This may not be a short trip.
If you are in a smaller city and can take a two-hour bus drive to a larger metro area to see three different examples of streetscapes when you are contemplating a streetscape project in your smaller city, the trip will really solidify opinion and illustrate new concepts.
Sometimes a trip from one city to another is warranted. If you have the budget and a nearby city has an example of what you are considering or would like to happen, the trip will be well worth it.
Another use of the out-of-town trip for those who have access to various examples right at home is that it can help break a deadlock. When you visit another city, shared experience tends to build bonds among people.
The drawback to field trips of all types as community engagement is that the degree of advance planning required is quite high, participation is limited, and costs per participant are high unless your field trip is appropriate for a procession of private autos.
Quickly many innovative ways to use websites or web-based groups to inform and provide community engagement with people who wouldn't attend a meeting. You could build a Facebook Page and drive people to it with advertising. You can start a Google Group for discussion. Both should be initiated with photos, data, and information about the process and who's running it.
A website just for the plan or project can be built, with forum-style commenting allowed. Remember people are ruder and cruder on the Internet, especially if anonymous, so maybe just like at your hearings, you require sign-in.
For collecting geographic information or spatial planning, get creative with Google Maps.
One discussion and forum model that is gaining traction very quickly, and which was designed for local governments in particular, is called Mind Mixer. Together the four of us know of three wonderful results from the use of this site.
You'll have to see it, but it involves a point system with higher points for suggestions and a lesser number of points for "seconding" or commenting on an idea. It's quite versatile and presents an organized way to launch topics, discussion, and on-line voting.
Focus groups are used extensively in marketing, but they can be very useful in planning. Of all the techniques, the focus group really does need professional administration if you can afford it. If not, have an educated leader in your own group read up on the technique and lead the group.
The idea is to find a representative group, or group of contrasting individuals representative of the whole community, and invite them on one occasion to one place for a discussion. Pre-determine what questions will be asked.
Preferably ask questions you don't know the answers to. Choose this technique when you want to ask "why" in depth. Literally a facilitator can ask a person why they feel a particular way and then ask further follow-up why questions until there is deep knowledge of the "why" of a situation.
Another good use of the focus group technique is when you really have no idea how people analyze or organize a situation, decision, or investment. After two hours of good probing, you'll know. And you might be able to weave a great story.
The advantage is that you don't need many participants (8-12 will be fine) to obtain information in depth.
A focus group shouldn't substitute for more widespread community engagement and citizen participation on an important planning question, in my opinion, but when you want detailed information about why a particular attitude might be surfacing, it's hard to beat.
A final idea is borrowed from the public health field, which is having some success with what the Annie E. Casey Foundation calls the trusted advocates model. Casey Foundation grantees hired trusted community members to reach out to community members to expand health care services to particular populations.
Subsequently the City of Seattle hired planning outreach liaisons to talk with specified populations and language groups to obtain input into neighborhood plan revisions. This process, in which trusted and minimally trained community representatives were recruited to conduct non-traditional outreach, did expand greatly the involvement of people who do not usually appear at public meetings and such. An academic review of the project concluded the the city missed an opportunity though when it decided to consciously segregate this effort from the traditional public outreach that occurred in the same time period. We think this process might become a model for some other situations, however.
Others have borrowed from this technique as well. Regardless of how you do it, try to expand your outreach both for a specific plan preparation project and for the long term.