Avoiding the Pitfalls of Insufficient Engagement Practices
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Hannah Lebovits, Amanda Clark and Ashley Nickels
March 25, 2020
Local residents have a significant amount of expert knowledge. They maintain broad and deep networks and yield tremendous power in local democratic processes. As such, buy-in from residents is an essential element of local governance. Public administrators often engage in a number of civic engagement tactics to ensure that community members have an opportunity to share their perspective and co-produce positive outcomes. However, when these practices are not developed with an eye towards equity and inclusion, they can often fall short.
The Pareto principle argues that roughly 80% of outcomes stem from 20% of causes. If we could suggest a Pareto Principle of Engagement, we’d guess that many local government officials would agree that 80% of the calls, emails, public comments and other various forms of engagement in a local community often come from fewer than 20% of the residents. And, rest assured, those 20% of residents are often more than capable of keeping local governments on their toes. But research on local council meetings indicates that attendees who voice their concerns are often white, middle-class male homeowners; a group that is already significantly privileged by existing local governmental processes.
In an effort to increase engagement, cities across the country have sought new and innovative practices. These include customer relationship management systems (such as 311), participatory budgeting practices and participatory city planning efforts. Many cities and other public entities have also invested in online tools and portals to allow them to receive and measure feedback.
Yet, these approaches may be insufficient in their attempts to draw more engagement. We refer to this gap as, “Insufficient civic engagement.” The “incomplete” state recognizes that the governmental body is attempting to reach more residents and consider more viewpoints yet might continue to fall short.
Insufficient civic engagement, in our view, stems from two interdependent issues: historical inequities in local spaces and a disconnect between the institutional and technical nature of government and the nature of community as a social and sense-making framework.
The principle of equity, a key pillar in public administration, argues that those who start at a place that is below, behind or farther from others have a right to additional efforts to place them at the same end result. Unfortunately, because of the historical inequities that are layered into local spaces, insufficient engagement can exacerbate existing tensions between communities and local governments.
On top of that, the divergent natures of governmental agencies and communities can make engagement even more difficult. We do not see these natures as diametrically opposed to each other. Indeed, communities can adopt very specific and institutional practices and governmental bodies can engage in deeply thoughtful and iterative processes. Rather, the utilization of a body of practices can create a feedback loop that places local governments on a trajectory that values only certain types of knowledge, seeks to avoid conflict and refrains from making broad statements and commitments.
Here, we suggest several ways that local governments can endeavor to move towards more complete practices. We focus on five interdependent strategies, though there are countless others.
- Embedded PA: Local governments should not assume they know what the “problems” that need to be addressed even are, much less that they have all the answers. Officials need to spend time in the community, building trust, remaining accessible, and observing before making plans.
- Procedural equity and beginning with engagement: Organizations often come to the masses after plans have already been made. Engagement, then, is a tool to encourage buy-in for an existing plan. For communities that have historically been marginalized from planning and development efforts, this practice does not communicate to residents that their insight is valuable. Instead, local governments should seek out ways to ensure that the procedures that lead to plans are equitable and inclusive.
- Attention to language, place, time and topics: How local governments word or frame issues; set meeting locations, times and days; and their handling of sensitive matters can determine how accessible and inclusive engagement really is. By limiting jargon, making meetings at times and places when/where people naturally meet, and ensuring that sensitive issues are addressed with community members, local governments can make the process more accessible.
- Service equity and the focus on results: When engagement does not translate to clear changes in outcomes, residents can feel that their insight was disregarded, or worse—used against them.
- Participatory institutional design: Local governments should identify ways to not only engage residents, but consider opportunities to delegate authority over some decisionmaking processes to residents, providing technical advice and education. This requires thinking about expertise differently and trusting and valuing community knowledge. It is a win-win–local governments and community agencies engage in robust civic education to a range of community members and they, in turn, benefit from the expertise of local knowledge.
As Susan Gooden and Grant Rissler suggest, local administrators are, “Social equity first responders.” Civic engagement can be seen as a frontline activity—it sets the stage for many of the internal and external operations. Local administrators can promote equity through engagement, by engaging in more complete engagement practices.
Authors:
Hannah Lebovits is a PhD candidate at Cleveland State University, where she studies the relationship between governance, spatial structures and social equity. She is also the program manager for the Growing Democracy Project, a program aimed at fostering civic and political engagement. @HannahLebovits
Amanda D. Clark, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of political science at Nova Southeastern University. She is currently researching social movements, community development, and the U.S. policy process. @adclark_phd
Ashley E. Nickels, Ph.D., is assistant professor of political science at Kent State University and co-PI of the Growing Democracy Project. Her work focuses on urban politics, local governance, and community using a social equity lens. @AENickelsPhD
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
Avoiding the Pitfalls of Insufficient Engagement Practices
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Hannah Lebovits, Amanda Clark and Ashley Nickels
March 25, 2020
Local residents have a significant amount of expert knowledge. They maintain broad and deep networks and yield tremendous power in local democratic processes. As such, buy-in from residents is an essential element of local governance. Public administrators often engage in a number of civic engagement tactics to ensure that community members have an opportunity to share their perspective and co-produce positive outcomes. However, when these practices are not developed with an eye towards equity and inclusion, they can often fall short.
The Pareto principle argues that roughly 80% of outcomes stem from 20% of causes. If we could suggest a Pareto Principle of Engagement, we’d guess that many local government officials would agree that 80% of the calls, emails, public comments and other various forms of engagement in a local community often come from fewer than 20% of the residents. And, rest assured, those 20% of residents are often more than capable of keeping local governments on their toes. But research on local council meetings indicates that attendees who voice their concerns are often white, middle-class male homeowners; a group that is already significantly privileged by existing local governmental processes.
In an effort to increase engagement, cities across the country have sought new and innovative practices. These include customer relationship management systems (such as 311), participatory budgeting practices and participatory city planning efforts. Many cities and other public entities have also invested in online tools and portals to allow them to receive and measure feedback.
Yet, these approaches may be insufficient in their attempts to draw more engagement. We refer to this gap as, “Insufficient civic engagement.” The “incomplete” state recognizes that the governmental body is attempting to reach more residents and consider more viewpoints yet might continue to fall short.
Insufficient civic engagement, in our view, stems from two interdependent issues: historical inequities in local spaces and a disconnect between the institutional and technical nature of government and the nature of community as a social and sense-making framework.
The principle of equity, a key pillar in public administration, argues that those who start at a place that is below, behind or farther from others have a right to additional efforts to place them at the same end result. Unfortunately, because of the historical inequities that are layered into local spaces, insufficient engagement can exacerbate existing tensions between communities and local governments.
On top of that, the divergent natures of governmental agencies and communities can make engagement even more difficult. We do not see these natures as diametrically opposed to each other. Indeed, communities can adopt very specific and institutional practices and governmental bodies can engage in deeply thoughtful and iterative processes. Rather, the utilization of a body of practices can create a feedback loop that places local governments on a trajectory that values only certain types of knowledge, seeks to avoid conflict and refrains from making broad statements and commitments.
Here, we suggest several ways that local governments can endeavor to move towards more complete practices. We focus on five interdependent strategies, though there are countless others.
As Susan Gooden and Grant Rissler suggest, local administrators are, “Social equity first responders.” Civic engagement can be seen as a frontline activity—it sets the stage for many of the internal and external operations. Local administrators can promote equity through engagement, by engaging in more complete engagement practices.
Authors:
Hannah Lebovits is a PhD candidate at Cleveland State University, where she studies the relationship between governance, spatial structures and social equity. She is also the program manager for the Growing Democracy Project, a program aimed at fostering civic and political engagement. @HannahLebovits
Amanda D. Clark, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of political science at Nova Southeastern University. She is currently researching social movements, community development, and the U.S. policy process. @adclark_phd
Ashley E. Nickels, Ph.D., is assistant professor of political science at Kent State University and co-PI of the Growing Democracy Project. Her work focuses on urban politics, local governance, and community using a social equity lens. @AENickelsPhD
Follow Us!