Gifford - Meaningful Participation

Meaningful ParticipationAn activist’s guide to collaborativepolicy-making

by Gayle L. Gifford

Meaningful

ParticipationAn activist�s guide tocollaborative

policy-making

by Gayle L. Gifford

Meaningful ParticipationCopyright©

1999 by Gayle L GiffordPublished by

C Effect PublicationsAdditional copies may be obtained from::

Cause & Effect Inc.178 Ninth Street

Providence, Rhode Island 02906United States of America

All rights reserved

ISBN 0-9707857-0-4

Table of Contents

Preface ....................................................................................................... 3

Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 5

1. How to use this handbook ......................................................... 7

2. The basics � why voting isn�t enough .................................. 9

3. Two ways to make policy ......................................................... 12

4. Who has a stake? ......................................................................... 17

5. How does power affect public participation? ............... 22

6. Communicating to find common ground ........................ 28

7. How to create collaborative solutions .............................. 32

8. Dealing with science and risk .................................................. 44

9. When not to collaborate ......................................................... 48

10. Summary ....................................................................................... 51

References ............................................................................................. 54

Order form ........................................................................................... 63

Meaningful Participation

3

A guide to collaborative policy-making

This handbook is for organizers and activists.

My own activism was born in the adversarial arena of the1960s and ‘70s, where citizens and their interest groups had fewoptions to influence public policy. We could lobby. We could vote.We could run for office. Or we could take action outside theelectoral system through demonstrations, peaceful witness ornonviolent direct action.

When I went to work for a grassroots environmentalorganization in 1990, I discovered that my vision of action waslimited, that there were many other ways for interest groups tohave significant influence on their government.

This non-governmental organization (NGO) was extremelyeffective influencing local decision-making. Though legislativelobbying was important, it wasn’t enough. Policy-making fre-quently took place in the nooks and crannies of government -during routine interaction with administrators, at public hearings,while writing regulations and in their implementation. Techniquesof influence included informal dialogue, watchdogging regulators,issuing special reports, and engaging local bodies like zoningboards.

After more than 20 years of activism, I realize thateffective citizen action requires us to carry two sets of tools in

YPreface


4

our change toolbox –cooperation and confrontation. Fortunately,more and more, government agencies and private industry areparticipating in collaborative policy making. There are also agrowing number of professionals in the field known as publicparticipation. Most professionals are hired as employees orconsultants to government or private industry. They spendcountless hours training their clients or facilitating and designingpublic participation processes.

But who is training the public in public participation?Where do we, as citizens and as staff and volunteers of NGOs,learn to engage in meaningful collaboration?

By including the public in meaningful deliberation, ourcommunities can create better public policy. But to do this, allparties need to share the skills of collaboration. This handbook isdesigned to begin that process, to help balance the power rela-tionships in public participation and to provide activists with aframework to reflect on their work.

It would be very difficult to write a handbook that antici-pated every situation that might arise in a multi-party collabora-tion. Instead, I approached this work from the framework ofmodern complexity theory. By recognizing and understanding afew basic patterns that underlie our behavior, we can gain theinsight we need to make ongoing adaptations to changing situa-tions.

This handbook is a continuing work, a first draft in ourlife’s work to create better, more humane, sustainable publicpolicy.

You will write the next chapters. I welcome your feedback.

Gayle L. Gifford

5

A guide to collaborative poiicy making

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWithout Antioch New England Graduate School, this hand-

book would never have come into being. Thanks go to facultymembers Marsha Greenberg, Steve Guerriero and Robert Goddard;to my friends and fellow students Bob, Ellen, Jack, Jeanne, Sue,Joanne, and Jeri; and a special thank you to Tom Webler in theDepartment of Environmental Studies, for his enthusiasm for meand this project and for his reflection and expertise on this disci-pline.

The frameworks developed by other public participationprofessionals and theorists provided critical background for thecreation of this handbook, including works by James Creighton,Bojinka Bishop, David D. Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, Barbara Gray,Annemarie and Hans Bleiker, and the International Association ofPublic Participation.

This book was also influenced by the organizing perspec-tive of Saul Alinsky, the change writings of Will McWhinney,feedback from environmental advocates and public participationtheorists, and reflection on my own experience as an activist.

I owe a great deal of thanks to the individuals who re-viewed and commented truthfully on this work, and for whose lifeexperience I am deeply grateful: Tom Webler of Antioch; WenleyFerguson and H. Curtis Spalding of Save The Bay; Donald Strait ofthe Connecticut Fund for the Environment; Eugenia Marks of theAudubon Society of Rhode Island; Bojinka Bishop, for both herwork and her comments; and Alison Walsh (and anonymous re-viewers) at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1.

I’d like to thank my mentors who taught me how toorganize: Sidney Peck, Robert J. S. Ross, Carol Bragg and JerryElmer.


6

My love and thanks to my family: my children, Emma,Alexander and Samuel Howard, for their independence; my motherElsie Forster for instilling in me the belief in a better world and forthose mysterious maternal genes which have never allowed me toremain silent in the face of injustice; and my husband and col-league, Jonathan W. Howard, for his support, critical perspective,design and production.

Finally, thank you to the men and women I have knownboth inside and outside of government and to the countlessothers who have traveled with and before me on this Renaissancepath to social justice.


7

How to use

this handbookChapter 1

The adversarial model of policy-making -- wheresome interests win and some lose -- has stopped manya bad decision and a number of good ones. Yet, whoreally wins if a controversial ruling leaves a communitydivided and bitter? Costly legal battles often followcontroversy, consuming precious human and financialresources.

Across the country and around the world, gov-ernment officials and even private businesses areexploring ways to engage both supporters and critics.They are flocking to a new policy-making approachcalled citizen engagement or public participation.

Workshops and handbooks have been written totrain professionals in public participation. Consultantsare advising business and government.

This handbook is designed for the public, or atleast that segment of the public which engages inpolicy-making as volunteers or staff of non-

8


governmental organizations. It may also be of valueto individual citizens acting alone, although theseunaffiliated individuals are not the primary audience.

This handbook does not teach how to organize.It does not discuss media campaigns or the best lob-bying techniques. It does not seek to provide ananswer to every situation which might arise.

Instead, it outlines a few basic principles whichunderlie effective public participation. With thesetools, you will be able to recognize and advocate formeaningful engagement. If you are already experi-enced in collaborative policy-making, this handbookcan serve as a vehicle for reflection on your currentpractice.

In the handbook, you’ll find a few useful “pro-cess” tools to improve your participation. You’ll alsofind questions to help you negotiate the thornyspaces of when to collaborate and when not.

Underlying this handbook is a belief that if youhave a better understanding of the principles of col-laborative policy-making, you’ll be more effective andable to adapt more rapidly to changing situations. Itsgoal is to help you become an equal partner withgovernment and business in creating a meaningfulprocess of public deliberation — to which we allaspire.


9

The basics �why voting isn�t

enoughChapter 2

Although this section will seem elementary tomost activists, it is worth restating some basic prin-ciples of our democracy.

We are a country built on law. These laws arecreated by legislators, signed by the chief executiveand then implemented by the agencies of the execu-tive branch.

Citizens have two primary ways of influencingthe creation of those laws.* First, they vote for thecandidates who best reflect their points of view. Sec-ondly, they tell elected officials through lobbying –acting as individuals or through interest groups

Executive Branchcarries out the law

Legislative Branchcreates the law

10

what laws they need and how to vote. Both votingand lobbying are essential roles of a responsible citi-zenry in this democracy.

Once laws are passed, most citizens assumetheir job has ended and that legislation will ad-equately protect their concerns.

Yet there is wide room for interpretation in theenactment of law.

• Agencies must design regulations to guide theimplementation of the law.

• Agencies may fail to enforce existing regula-tions.

• Agencies may make exceptions to regulations.

• Laws may impact the lives of individuals whodon’t vote in that district, lack voting privilegesor voted with the minority.

In fact, an awful lot of policy-making thataffects us does not directly involve legislation:

• A private school receives a zoning variance toconstruct a new multi-towered dormitory in aresidential community.

• A new highway will pass through a rural part oftown.


*Of course, there is a third branch of government, the judiciary, whichinterprets the meanings of laws and upholds or invalidates them.While it plays a major role in policy-making, this handbook focuseson ways to affect the legislative and executive branches beforeseeking relief through the courts.


11

• The health department is proposing newregulations for uninsured patients.

• A school district is developing curriculum fornon-English speaking students.

Throughout, government officials are expectedto make decisions which represent the best interests ofthe public. But which public’s interest?

Given this diversity, it seems unreasonable to expectthat government officials can possibly know all of theways that their policies will affect individual lives. Asa result, you may find that your interests have notbeen adequately represented when a final decision ismade.

You can see that in this complex and rapidlychanging world, voting isn’t enough. You also need toinfluence decisions that are made outside the ballotbox. This handbook is designed to help you do thatbetter.

We often have different interests.

Interests are shaped by the unique circumstancesof your life, including:

• where you live and work

• your current family situation

• your income, education, class, gender, race andethnicity

• your scientific, spiritual and political beliefs


Policy-making usually happens in one of thefollowing ways (Gray 1989):

AdversarialMany of us are experienced in the adversarial

process of policy-making. An action is proposed. Everyinterest lobbies decision-makers for their position.Whoever has the most power wins (see page 25). Theaggrieved parties try to stop or reverse the decisionthrough a lawsuit or new legislation.

CollaborativeIn this approach, diverse interests work

together to find common ground. The decision-makerrecognizes that it does not have all the answers butneeds to involve responsible citizens and interestgroups to help find better, more lasting solutions tocommunity problems. Here, interests are engaged inmeaningful consultation and may even be asked toparticipate directly in decision-making.

Two ways to

make policyChapter 3

12


13

Although we have less experience with collabo-rative policy-making, government agencies from thelocal to the national level are beginning to recognizethe value of citizen input and collaboration. Interestand consumer groups are demanding that they betreated (in the best case) as full partners and at leastconsulted before major policy decisions are made.

Today, environmental leaders serve on federalcommissions. Health consumers are invited to partici-pate in designing new regulations. Even many largecorporations have created citizen-advisory committeesto guide decision-making.

As an activist, participatory policy-making maybe a dream come true. But how do you recognize thereal thing from half-hearted or even phony effortsdesigned to claim that the public was consulted? Andif the ideal of collaboration hasn’t reached your localofficials yet, how can you assure that your interestswill be heard and considered before decisions aremade?

Public Participation is the emerging practice ofengaging constituencies in collaborative policy-making. By understanding what is involved in publicparticipation, you can begin to create a processtoward meaningful participation.

So what is Public Participation?Let’s start with a definition:

In other words, public participation is a way forcitizens to purposefully influence the ongoing rules anddecisions of government.

Public participation is based on the belief thatwhen informed citizens influence the decisions whichaffect their lives, communities can make better publicpolicy which has widespread and lasting support.

Public Participation is also known by other names:

¿ Citizen involvement

¿ Multi-party collaboration

¿ Citizen engagement

¿ Stakeholder engagement

¿ Consumer involvement

¿ Consumer engagement

¿ Community-based problem solving

Public participation

¿ is the active involvement of informed citizensin government decision-making outside theballot box,

¿ ensuring that citizen needs, concerns andvalues are represented in policy and action.

Meaningful Participation14

What makes public participation meaningful?A genuine public participation program

embodies these values:

More standards of public participationThe International Association for Public Partici-

pation, known as IAP2, promotes the ethical practiceof public participation among its members, who in-clude individuals from government, private consultingfirms, academia and non-governmental organizations.

IAP2 has developed a set of core values ofpublic participation for its members. You may want toshare these core values with your local officials.

TruthfulPromotes accuracyand authenticity in

fact and spirit

CompetentResults in better

decisions

Broad-basedRepresents the

diversity of interests

ResponsiveConsiders and isinfluenced by

contributions ofparticipants

DeliberativeProvides enough time for

contemplation and thoughtfulresponse to a variety of

perspectives

FairAcknowledges

biases and worksto create a level

playing field

OpenCreates accessible

and public processesfor information-

sharing and delib-eration


15

16


IAP2 CORE VALUES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

« The public should have a say in the decisionsabout actions which affect their lives.

« Public participation includes the promisethat the public’s contribution will influencethe decision.

« The public participation process communi-cates the interests and meets the needs ofall participants.

« The public participation process seeks outand facilitates the involvement of thosepotentially affected.

« The public participation process involvesparticipants in defining how they participate.

« The public participation process providesparticipants with the information they needto participate in a meaningful way.

« The public participation process communi-cates to participants how their input af-fected the decision.

Reprinted with permission of

International Association for Public Participation


Who has a stake?Chapter 4

The term stakeholder is used to describe thepeople and organizations who will be affected by adecision. Public participation programs are designedto involve these stakeholders.

In order to have influence in collaborativepolicy-making, you need to establish your position asa stakeholder.

You are a stakeholderif...

you stand to gain or lose

by the decision or action

17

18


You stand to gain or lose when:

¿ Your health, safety or quality of life is involved.

¿ Your livelihood is affected.

¿ Your community will change.

¿ Your use of an area will change.

¿ Your future will be different.

¿ Something of value — tangible or intangible— will change.

It is important to know the interests andpositions of the other stakeholders who will beaffected by a decision. You’ll find yourself aligned oropposed to different stakeholders as you attempt toinfluence policy.

You can identify the other stakeholders byanswering these questions:

ü Who else will gain or lose by this action?• What do they gain?• What would they lose?• How powerful are they?• Are they potential allies?

ü Who has knowledge or skills to help find thebest solutions to this problem?

ü Who has the power or resources to block orimplement the final decision?


19

ü How sympathetic are these stakeholders to yourinterests?

Different stakeholders may have varying levels ofpower in their ability to influence decisions. You’llfind more about power in the next chapter.

When agencies consider whom to consult, theysometimes view stakeholder interests in a series of

concentric circlesbased on thedegree to whichthey are affectedby a decision.

Inner circle:stakeholders mostdirectly affectedby the problem,e.g. consumers ofa service orneighbors in thepath of a newdevelopment.

Middle circle: stakeholders who are secondarily af-fected or may have the final say in the decision; e.gChamber of Commerce or legislators asked to approvea bond issue

Outer circle: general public.

Other impacts

Secondaryimpact

Directimpact

20


Often, stakeholders in the innermost circle willbe more actively consulted than stakeholders in theouter circles. It is to your advantage to be consid-ered a stakeholder in the inner circle.

Stakeholders perceived to be in the middle andouter rings still may have a substantial amount ofpower over the final decision. They can serve as alliesor opponents to decisions created by the inner ring ofstakeholders.

Here’s an ex-ample of how thisworks. A nationalcorporation wants tobuild a new retailstore near a residentialneighborhood. Theinner circle might con-tain the owners of thecompany as well as theimmediate neighbors represented by a neighborhoodassociation. The middle circle could include technicalconsultants like the town planner or traffic engineeror members of the city council. The outer circle mightinclude other citizens of your town who would like to

Town officials

Citizens

Builder,Neighbors


21

shop at the store or who would benefit from new jobsand taxes.

But consider the issue again. Other interestsmay also be at stake. For example, the land on whichthe company is planning to build is important habitatfor a state endangered species. Now, both state andnational environmental interests consider themselvesstakeholders in the inner circle.

Because the level ofimpact isn’t always soclear, and becausestakeholders frequentlychange over time,you’ll need toconstantly reevaluatethe interests andpower of the other

stakeholders.

Town officials

Citizens

Builder,Neighbors

EnvironmentalGroups

Remember:Stakeholders maychange over time


22

How does poweraffect public

participation?Chapter 5

Your ability to be an effective participant ingovernment decision-making is a function of yourpower. You need power in order to be recognized as alegitimate stakeholder and also to influence howdecisions will be made.

There are many kinds of powerToo often, power is seen as negative or mono-

lithic. Yet there are many types and sources of power.Here are eight types of power to consider :

AuthorityThis power comes from the rights society be-stows on an individual through a formal posi-tion. For example, legislators have authority tomake laws, judges to make legal decisions,government agencies to enforce regulations.

(from: Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal, Copyright (c) 1997 by Jossey-Bass,Inc. Reprinted by permission of Jossey-Bass, Inc. a subsidiary of John Wiley andSons, Inc.)

23

Information and expertiseThose holding information, skills or knowledgeabout a particular situation or issue are verypowerful. This is one reason why scientists orexperts often have a great deal of influenceover government decision-making.

RewardsStakeholders who can deliver rewards like votesor money can be extremely powerful. Althoughcharitable tax-exempt organizations are prohib-ited from engaging in political activity, they canlobby, educate and mobilize citizens aroundissues.*

CoercionThis power rests on the ability to block, force,or punish. Government can apply force throughthe police or military. Activists have used boy-cotts, strikes, lawsuits or even media exposure.

Alliances and networksStrong relationships and networks can help youbuild your other sources of power. A coalitionof stakeholders increases your ability to deliverrewards. A national partner might provide youwith important expertise.


* Tax-exempt organizations should consult IRS regulations forrestrictions on lobbying and political activity.

24


Access and agendasWhoever influences or controls the decision-making process determines who gets consultedand what issues are discussed. Not only do youneed to be recognized as an inner-circle stake-holder (see page 19), but you also need toinfluence which issues will be discussed andhow decisions will be made (see page 35).

FramingBecause words and symbols can have powerfulmeanings, whoever shapes the public debatecan have a subtle to substantial influence on itsoutcome. One of the most hotly contestedissues of our time, abortion, centers on a publicbattle for meaning: are you pro-choice or pro-life? is this a fetus or an unborn child?

Personal powerCertain individuals seem to have influence fargreater than the strength of their other sourcesof power. Charisma, passion, articulation anddogged determination can produce their ownspecial brand of power.


25

Mobilize your most effective powerDon’t assume that government decision-makers

have the greatest power. As this diagram shows, thereare many sources of power available to activists andorganizers.

While all sources of power are important, you’llfind that you may have need for different types ofpower depending on how the decision will be made.

Available to allInformationand expertise

RewardsCoercion

Alliances andnetworks

Access and agendasFraming

Personal power

GovernmentAuthority

The publicLegitimizeAuthority

26


Adversarial decision-makingYour primary goal in this type of process is to

amass enough power to win. Decision-makers willassess your ability to deliver rewards, either alone orthrough alliances and networks, and the strength ofyour coercive power to stop a decision, whether incourt, with a higher level decision-maker or throughother means such as boycotts. Framing the meaningof the debate can be very important to building yourbase of support.

Anotherapproach toadversarialdecision-making isto use your powerto gain influenceover the agenda; thatis, to force a change froman adversarial to a collaborativeprocess.

Rewards * Framing

* Agenda control

* Alliances and Networks

* Coercive

A guide to collaborative policy-making27

Collaborative decision-makingYou may need your strongest sources of power

just to gain access to a collaborative process. Oncecollaboration begins,

however, othersources of power

may become morevaluable to thedeliberationwhich is a

hallmark ofcollaboration.

Here, informationand expertise, framing,

personal power, agenda influence, and alliances andnetworks become critically important.

Because the practice of collaborative policy-making is still imperfect, you will always need tomaintain your power to deliver rewards or to usecoercion. Decision-making may shift from adversarialto collaborative and sometimes back again toadversarial. Other forces may intervene to disrupt acollaboration. To prepare for these shifts, be sure thatyou are ready to deploy the power you need.

Information andexpertise

* Framing * Personal power* Agenda influence *

Alliances and networks

28


Communicating to

find common groundChapter 6

Good communication is essential for meaningfulparticipation. Two types of communication – informa-tion sharing and deliberation – have different pur-poses.

Understanding the differences between thesetwo types of communication can help you participatefully and responsibly in collaborative policy-making.

The goal of information sharing is to receive orexchange data. You’ll need information about science,laws, regulations, positions, and interests. This can bedone face to face or through other media.

The purpose of deliberation is to bring stake-holders and decision-makers together in purposefulconversation leading to decisions. One type of delib-eration, dialogue, helps participants develop sharedunderstanding and find common ground (Bohm,1994). Dialogue usually requires longer, face-to-faceconversations, although dialogue is now taking placeover the Internet.

A guide to collborative policy-making

29

Another type of deliberation, discussion, is usedto make final decisions.

Below are common communications tools usedby policy makers in public participation. They arelisted in the box below by how well-suited they arefor each of these two purposes of communications.

InformationSharing Deliberation

Public hearings þSurveys and polls þFocus groups þAdvisory forums þ þTask forces þ þOne-on-one conversation þ þHouse meetings þ þOpen houses þSearch conferences þ þLobbying þNewsletters, brochures þWeb sites þInternet discussions þ þStudy circles þ þ

30


Use the Seven Principles of AuthenticCommunication©To improve communications and build trust, partici-pants need well-honed skills. Public participationexpert Bojinka Bishop believes that all participantsshould be trained to improve their effectiveness. Sherecommends that good communications embody theseven principles listed below.*1. Communicate fundamental facts and issues, not

peripheral ones.2. Information must be relevant to the people with

whom you are communicating.3. Maintain consistency between your (or your

organization’s) actions and words.4. Be truthful and accurate in the information you

provide.5. Information and individuals should be accessible.

Information should be easy to get and people easyto approach.

6. Language should be clear and understandable.7. Be compassionate [empathetic] for other’s

feelings, circumstances and needs.You can use these seven principles as ground

rules (see page 36) to guide your communicationsand also ask that the communications of otherstakeholders and decision-makers meet these tests.Good communications also help to build trust, animportant component of any collaboration.

*(reprinted with permission of Bojinka Bishop).


31

Focus on the issues, not the personalities.It is sometimes easy to forget that there are

real human beings beneath those opposing positions.It is very easy to see your opponents as bad people.But you diminish your personal power if you treatothers with a lack of respect.

Your feelings are real and so are the emotionsof the other stakeholders. Resist the temptation toengage in name calling. You will be more effective byfocusing your passion on the issues, not the person-alities involved. Relationships matter and help buildpowerful alliances and networks. You never know whenan adversary might become an ally.

32


How to create

collaborative solutionsChapter 7

Just about every attempt to solve a probleminvolves the six steps and two principles listed on thenext page. Policy-makers go through these stages,with you or without you.

Sometimes steps are shortened; sometimes theyare skipped all together. Devoting attention to all sixsteps helps create better solutions.

Whether you are consulted informally orthrough a formal stakeholder council, you’ll improvethe likelihood of better decision-making if you cancontribute your perspective at each of these stages.

On the next few pages, you’ll find moreinformation and tools to help you understand andparticipate in each stage of problem-solving.


33

6 Stepsto Better Problem Solving1. Identify the stakeholders and their interests

2. Understand and agree on how decisions willbe made

3. Develop a common definition of theproblem and research its causes

4. Generate lots of creative alternativesolutions

5. Find and commit to the bestsolution

6. Work together to implement,evaluate and refine thesolution

2 Principles which apply to all six steps:

è 1. Seek out information and dataè 2. Test your assumptions broadly

34Meaningful Participation

Step 1. Identify the stakeholders and theirinterests

You learned earlier that you’ll need to analyzethe other stakeholders and their sources of power.Make sure that your organization (or your interest) isunderstood to be a stakeholder. If it’s not, you’ll needto lobby for a “seat at the table.”

Try to understand the interests of the otherstakeholders rather than just their positions. Satisfyinginterests rather than positions is critical to findingcommon ground among diverse stakeholders.

Positions are proposed actions or solutions.Interests are the values behind those positions: ourneeds, desires, concerns and fears. (Fisher, 1981)

Example:Position: Don’t site the landfill in our neighborhood.

Interest: We want to protect our property values andour health.

Be very clear about your own interests. Writethem down. By remaining true to your interests, youcan modify your position without violating your corevalues.


Step 2. Understand and agree on howdecisions will be made.

At the very start, demand that decision-makersare clear about how final decisions will be made. Ifwhat’s proposed does not embody the core values ofpublic participation (see page 15), then you need touse your power to create a more meaningful process.

Here are some questions to ask.

Leadership

__ Who is responsible for assuringcollaboration? Do they have thepower to do this?

__ Who will provide the resourcesneeded to ensure citizenparticipation and good problem-solving?

__ If there will bemeetings, woulda neutralfacilitatorimprovediscussion?

Time and Place

ü What is the timeline formaking the final decision?

ü How frequently will you beconsulted? Where?

ü If the stakeholders willmeet, how often? Where?

35

36


oWhat opportunities have beendesigned for meaningful input?

o Will there be a formal or informalstakeholder process?

o What is being done to create a safespace for productive deliberation?

o Will the principles of AuthenticCommunicationsbe followed(page 30)?Decision Rules

o Who will make the finaldecision? What is theirauthority?

o How will the decision bemade?

o If a formal stakeholdercommittee is established,will it make decisions byunanimous consent or bymajority vote?

o How much will itsrecommendation affect thefinal decision?

Groundrules


37

Step 3. Develop a common definition of theproblem and research its causes

The way that a problem is initially definedgreatly affects your ability to find mutually agreeablesolutions. Don’t be trapped by problem definitionsthat already imply causes or solutions.

Understand root causesto develop better solutions

By researching the causes of a problem, youmay discover unexpected issues or gain insight tonew solutions. One helpful way to explore root causesis through a tool known as the Why?Why? diagram.For each cause that you find, ask and answer why? atleast two more times.

How to define a problemState the difference between what is and what

you’d like it to be. Don’t imply causes or solutions.For example: “which national test should students berequired to take?” assumes that a test is the solution

to student assessment. A better problem state-ment is “how do we best measure student

performance to improve outcomes?”

38


... if you are trying to find solutions to yourcommunity�s solid waste problem, ask yourself

�Why do we have all this trash?�

For example:

One answer might be:

w To get rid of thingsthey don’t need.

w There’s no place tostore things theydon’t use.w There’s no alternative

to trash for gettingrid of things.w It’s cheaper to throw

something out thanfix or reuse it.

w Because there is toomuch packaging.

w Because there are noalternative products.w Because there are no

restrictions onpackaging.w Because we need to

keep products clean.w Because packaging is

cheap.w Because companies

use packaging toadvertise.

“Households generate it.”

Why?

Why? Why?

Why?


39

Step 4. Generate lots of alternativesolutions.

Once you’ve had the opportunity to consider allof the causes of a problem, you can begin to imaginedifferent solutions. The more alternative solutions youcan generate, the more likely you are to find one ormore solutions that satisfy stakeholder interests.

Here are the rules:

Develop your own list of solutions …Each stakeholder should develop their

own list of possible solutions.

Everyone contributes …Compile all proposed solutions and share them withall of the stakeholders. Then, include new solutions

generated by the ideas on the first lists.

All ideas are encouraged …Absurd or impractical ideas may contain brilliant

solutions.

No judgments …Save your critique for later or you’ll discourage ideas.

Quantity counts …The more alternatives, the more opportunity

to find the best solution.

Brainstorming

Here’s one tool to help you generate lots of ideas:

40


Step 5. Find and commit to thebest solution

The goal of a well-designed public participationprocess is to find the best solutions.

A good solution:• reconciles stakeholders’ interests• solves the problem• avoids unintended consequences

Here are some ways to evaluate solutions.

• What are the outcomes and implications of thealternatives which have been presented?

If we choose this, what will happen? Will it solvethe problem? How much will it cost? How easy isit to do? What other impacts might it have?

• Will you accept mitigation: that is, will youaccept some negative impact in return for otherbenefits?

You can site the building here, but only if it iswell landscaped, you install more traffic signalsand you build our neighborhood a new play-ground.

• Can you combine all or part of differentproposals to create a better solution?

What if we combine part of Bill’s solution withKathy’s?

A guide to collaborative policy-making41

• How well do the proposals satisfy the interestsof the stakeholders?

Which proposed solutions best satisfy ourinterests? Which meet the interests of the otherstakeholders?

Use an evaluation matrix to assess alternatives.Create a chart like the one below. List all of the alter-natives which are under serious consideration. Rankthem from high to low against each interest expressedby the stakeholders. Total the rankings to determinewhich alternatives best satisfy needs.

Example:

Here’s how you might score two alternative develop-ment proposals by using a 5-point scale where 5 bestmeets stakeholder interests and 1 least meets stake-holder interests:

Interests Alternative #1 Alternative #2We can pay for it 3 1Preserves community character 5 3Improves economy 1 2Total 9 6

Alternative #1 seems to be the better solution. Avariation on this approach would apply differentweights to the interests.

42


Step 6. Work together to implement, evalu-ate and refine the solution.

Congratulations! if you’ve found a solutionwhich meets your needs.

Unfortunately, the work isn’t over when youagree on a solution. Now you have to implement it.

You may need to work with the otherstakeholders to ensure that your decision becomesreality. This is especially important if a higherauthority such as a legislature will make the finaldecision. Working together on implementation isanother level of collaboration and may also help tobuild lasting good will among the stakeholders.

Christopher Gates of the National Civic Leaguesuggests that community collaboration should help usfind mutually acceptable solutions to the majority ofour problems at the local level (Gates, 1998).

Not all problems have solutions that can beembraced by all stakeholders. Turn to page 48 forguidance on what to do when the arrived-at solutionis unacceptable to your interests.


43

Reminder

Don�t forget the two principles throughouteach problem-solving step:

è 1. Seek out information and dataGood decisions require that both stakeholders

and decision-makers have access to information anddata. This is important at all stages of the process tobuild mutual understanding and develop betterdecisions. Seek out the answers to your questions.Look for new approaches in other communities.

è 2. Broadly test your assumptionsIt is also critical to the success of this process

that assumptions are confirmed. For example, youmight assume that input from stakeholders in oneneighborhood applies to all surrounding areas or toall interest groups within that neighborhood. Don’tassume, check it out. An erroneous assumption canderail lots of hard work well into the process.

Share information and test assumptions alongthe way. Demand that decision-makers, stakeholdersand the general public are kept informed and haveaccess to information. This will help to surfaceobjections early and build support for final solutions.

44


Dealing with

science and riskChapter 8

The role of expert testimonyOne of the most difficult barriers for citizen

activists in any public participation process is theweight given to expert testimony. Experts can be sci-entists, engineers, accountants or anyone assumed tohave particular knowledge about a potential action orsolution. Expert testimony often has great influenceover the choice of a solution.

It is important to keep in mind that the expertsare usually not the decision-makers. Their role is tohelp you in your deliberations by providing informa-tion about root causes or the outcomes of alternativesolutions.

Ways to assess and use expert testimony• Understand and agree on the method and assump-

tions to be used in any study.

• Evaluate the credentials of any proposed expert.

• Have experts disclose their affiliations and funders.


45

• Decide if these affiliations compromise the objec-tivity of the study.

• Commission your own study.

• Have your technical consultants review their ex-perts’ testimony.

• Do not rely on only one source of expertise.

How to consider riskMany of the thorniest policy issues involve risk.

What is the risk of the new chemical factory releasingtoxins into our air or water? How many people are atrisk of serious complications from a new drug?

You assess and take risks almost every day:driving your car, crossing the street, applying for anew job.

Studies show our perception of risk is directlyrelated to our values (Chess, Hance, Sandman, 1990,as discussed by B. Bishop). For most people, risk ismore acceptable when:

• it is controllable

• it is voluntary

• the possibility of human error is low

• its chance of occurring is very improbable

• the consequences are not catastrophic

• it is equally shared

• the source of the information is trusted

46

Analyzing these factors will help you understandyour own sensitivity to risk. You may choose to acceptthe risk, lobby for ways to reduce it (e.g. more backupsystems or safeguards for storage) or decide that therisk is more than you could bear.

Who bears the burden of proof for risk?In today’s world, we are faced with great uncer-

tainty around the impact of new technologies andactivities. The medical study reported today contra-dicts the one issued last week. Years later we stilldon’t completely know the human and environmentalimpact of disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil spillor the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl.

Though science may state that the probabilityof harm is minute or that there is no proven evidenceof lasting harm, it doesn’t relieve the visceral discom-fort and fear that the worst will come to pass.

In the face of this uncertainty, what power doyou have to challenge science and control risk?

The Precautionary PrincipleBecause it is virtually impossible to prove the

absolute absence of harmful effects, a newinternational standard for dealing with scientificuncertainty is evolving. Still controversial, it is calledthe Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle recognizes thatassessing human and environmental health risks iscomplex and that science has not adequately



47

Basic tenets of the PrecautionaryPrinciple:v When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or

the environment, precautionary measures should be takeneven if some cause and effect relationships are not fullyestablished scientifically.

v In this context, the proponent of the activity, rather thanthe public, should bear the burden of proof.

v The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must beopen, informed and democratic and must includepotentially affected parties.

v It must also involve an examination of the full range ofalternatives, including no action.

(Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, June 1998)

addressed factors such as cumulative impact, low-leveladverse affects (Tickner, 1997) or unforeseen conse-quences.

The Precautionary Principle lends itself tocollaborative participation efforts. While there is stillmuch to learn on how to apply this principle, it is atool worth exploring.`

48


When not to

collaborateChapter 9

There will be times when you choose not toparticipate in a collaboration and may even prefer anadversarial process.

• No access: If you are locked out of the collabo-ration and have no meaningful input, then youneed to use all of your power to stop the pro-cess right away.

• Legal constraints: If there are legal or otherconstraints to decision-making which wouldprevent careful consideration of all of yourconcerns, then it is unlikely that you will ben-efit from a collaboration.

• Failed collaboration: If collaboration fails or acollaborative agreement is overruled by higherdecision-makers, then you may need to stop anunfavorable decision. This can occur if collabo-ration cannot reconcile your interest with thatof the other stakeholders and the risks are morethan you can bear. It frequently is needed whena carefully crafted solution is overturned by a


49

higher authority like the legislature or a newagency director.

• Lack of resources: Collaboration takes time andresources. You need to weigh the resources ofyour own organization and may limit your in-volvement to the issues which are most impor-tant to you.

Weighing the benefits and risks of collabo-rative participation:

Many activists agonize over the decision to joina collaborative process.

Here are some of the risks to consider:

• If you do participate, are you bound by theoutcome even if it is unfavorable?

• If you do participate and then oppose the out-come, do you lose critical power?

• If you don’t participate, do you lose power byallowing the decision-maker to frame you asuncooperative?

• If you don’t participate, do you lose your onlyopportunity to have your interests carefullyconsidered?

• If you believe you can win in an adversarialprocess, then why waste time on a collaborativeone?

• If the process is a failure, will you jeopardizefuture efforts at collaboration?

50


Here are a few more benefits to consider:

• You may gain power by developing importantalliances or acquiring critical knowledge whichwill serve you in the future.

• You may establish your credibility as an innercircle stakeholder on similar issues.

• You may have mitigated the proposalsubstantially, even if the outcome is not fullysatisfying.

• You learn from failures as well as success.

• You have initiated a process of public participa-tion which can act as a foundation for futureproblem-solving.

Only you have enough knowledge and experi-ence of your particular situation to weigh the risksagainst the benefits.


51

SummaryChapter 10

• Public participation is the active involvement ofinformed citizens in government decision-mak-ing outside of the ballot box, ensuring thatcitizen needs, concerns and values are repre-sented in policy and action.

• Public participation embodies the belief that ifcitizens influence the decisions which affecttheir lives, communities can make better policy.

• For public participation to be meaningful, theprocess must be fair, open, truthful, delibera-tive, responsive, broad-based and competent.

• Policy-making is usually done in one of twoways: adversarial or collaborative.

• Public participation involves stakeholders, thoseinterested in or affected by a decision. As astakeholder, you need to clarify your own inter-ests and understand the interests of the otherstakeholders.

52Meaningful Participation

• Reconcile stakeholder interests, not positions.

• You need to understand and exercise manysources of power in order to influence publicparticipation processes. These sources of powerinclude authority, information and expertise,rewards, coercion, alliances and networks, ac-cess and agendas, framing and personal power.

• You should influence each of the six steps andtwo principles of problem solving to improvecollaborative decision-making.

• Public participation communications need toinclude opportunities for both informationsharing and deliberation.

• Science and expertise have great influence ondecisions. You need to have input into theirselection and analysis.

• The Precautionary Principle may be a useful toolfor evaluating and planning for risk. Wheneveran activity raises the threat of harm, precau-tionary measures should be taken. The propo-nent of an activity should always bear the bur-den of proof.

• You will need to evaluate what you gain byparticipating in a collaborative process orwhether there is more benefit by remainingapart from the collaboration. There are timeswhen it may be wiser not to participate.

• Never give away your power.


53

“Don’t mourn …, organize!”Joe Hill

54


Alinsky, A. Rules for Radicals. New York: VintageBooks, 1971.

Bishop, B. Toward Trust and Understanding: A Resourcefor Communicating in Technical Stakeholder InvolvementProcesses. Denver: The Colorado Center forEnvironmental Management, 1997.

Bleiker, A. and Bleiker, H. Public ParticipationHandbook for Officials and Other Professionals Servingthe Public. Monterey: Institute for ParticipatoryManagement and Planning, 1995.

Bohm, D. On Dialogue. London and New York:Routledge, 1994.

Bolman, L. and Deal, T. Reframing Organizations. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

Chrislip, D. and Larson, C. Collaborative Leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Connor, D. “Ten Lessons Learned in 22 Years of PublicParticipation.” presented at second annual meeting ofInternational Association for Public ParticipationPracticioners. Kananaskis, AB, Aug 29 - Sept 1, 1993.Connor Development Services, LTD.

References

Y


55

Creighton, J. Involving Citizens in Community DecisionMaking: A Guidebook. Washington, D.C.: Program forCommunity Problem Solving, 1992.

Deshler, D., Decker, D. and Chase, L. “ParticipatoryAction Research with Deer Management Citizen TaskForces: A promising approach to citizen participationin natural resource management.” Paper presented at1998 Conference of International Association forPublic Participation. Tempe, AZ: Oct. 7, 1998.

Enserink, B. “Improving Public Participation inProblem Exploration.” Paper presented at 1998conference of International Association of PublicParticipation. Tempe, AZ, Oct. 4-7, 1998.

Fisher, R. and Ury, W. Getting to Yes. New York: PenguinBooks, 1981.

Gates, C. Keynote speech at 1998 conference ofInternational Association of Public Participation.Tempe, AZ, Oct. 4-7, 1998.

Gray, B. Collaborating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.1989.

Higgins, J. 101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques.Winter Park, Florida: The New Management PublishingCompany, 1994.

“IAP2 Core Values of Public Participation.”Membership Kit of International Association for PublicParticipation. Alexandria, VA, 1997.

Kaner, S. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. British Colombia: New Society Publishers/Canada, 1996.

56


McWhinney, W. Paths of Change. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications, 1997.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. “StewardshipTraining Resources.” Warwick, RI, 1998.

Roberts, N. “Public Deliberation: an alternativeapproach to crafting policy and setting direction.”Public Administration Review. Vol. 57 Issue 2.Washington. Mar/Apr 1997.

Schwartz, Roger M. The Skilled Facilitator. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Stamps, D. “The Self-Organizing System.” TRAININGMagazine: pp 30-35, April 1997.

Tickner, Joel. “Pesticide Impacts on Human Health:the ‘Precautionary Principle.’” The Networker, thenewsletter of the Science and Environmental Health Net2 (4). May 1997.

U.S. National Research Council. Understanding Risk:Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society.Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.

Waldrop, M. Complexity. New York: Touchstone, 1992.

Webler, T. “The Craft and Theory of PublicParticipation: A Dialectical Process.” Forthcoming inJournal of Risk Research.

Webler, T. “Organizing Public Participation: A CriticalReview of Three Handbooks.” Human Ecology Review 3(1): pp.245-254. 1997.

Wingspread. “Wingspread Statement on thePrecautionary Principle.” June 1998.

57A guide to collaborative policy-making

Gayle L. Gifford, CFRE is President of Cause &Effect, Inc., a consulting firm helping non-profit and public sector organizations createstrategic change to build a more just andpeaceful world.

Gayle has over 20 years of experience innon-profit management, fund raising andprogram development. She has served as afounder, senior manager, officer, trustee andvolunteer at grassroots, regional and nationalnon-profits.

Gayle has been an activist since the early1970’s in women’s rights, peace and disarma-ment, the environment and human rights. Shehelped to found the RI Chapter of the Mobili-zation for Survival and Women for a Non-Nuclear Future (now, the RI Mobilization forPeace and Justice). Gayle also was a foundingmember of the Environmental Federation ofNew England.

Gayle is a member of the InternationalAssociation for Public Participation (IAP2),the International Association of Facilitatorsand the Association of Fundraising Profession-als (AFP, formerly NSFRE). Gayle serves on theBoard of AFP-RI and is a Certified FundRaising Executive.

Gayle holds a B.A. from Clark Universityand an M.S. in Management from Antioch NewEngland Graduate School.

Gayle lives in Providence, RI with herhusband and partner, Jonathan W. Howard,and their three children.

About the author

58


Notes

Quick Order Form

Provide personal copies of Meaningful Participation for all of your staff members, colleagues and fellow activists today!

Contact Cause & Effect Inc.:

Mail: 178 Ninth Street, Providence, RI 02906

Telephone: (401) 331-2272

FAX: (401) 621-9572

E-mail: [email protected] -

Web: meaningfulparticipation.com (for credit card orders)

Please send me copies of Meaningful Participation.Cost per copy:1 to 10 copies: US $9.95 each X copies = $11 to 50 copies: US $8.95 each X copies = $51 copies or more: US $7.95 each X copies = $

Shipping within North America: Please enclose $2.50 for the first book and $1.00 for each additional book ordered. (Please call us for international shipping options).

Sales tax: Rhode Island orders, please enclose 7% state sales tax.

Books $ + Shipping $ + RI tax $ = TOTAL $ Make your check or money order payable to: Cause & Effect Inc..

Please have the author contact me to discuss: Speaking or seminars Strategic planning services

Name: Organization: Mailing Address: City: State/Province: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: e-mail:

Order print copies!

Meaningful ParticipationAn activist’s guide to collaborative policy-making

by Gayle L. Gifford

ISBN 0-9707857-0-4

Use this handbook if you want to:

• Discover your surprising strengths as a stakeholder.

• Distinguish meaningful collaboration from token “input.”

• Exercise seven forms of power available to every citizen.

• Communicate your interests effectively to friends and adversaries.

• Solve problems creatively by recognizing all interests and ideas.

• Decide whether to collaborate at all, or whether you should withhold your cooperation.

• Understand and promote public participation, its compelling core values and essential democratic processes.

“Finally, a handbook for citizens!

“For years, scholars and practicioners of public participation have been telling agencies, developers and managers how to effec-tively involve the public in their plans. Gayle Gifford takes the

next step. She shares insights that the public needs to know to make a difference in governance that affects them.

“Clear and relevant advice for anyone becoming involved in grassroots democracy.”

- Thomas Webler, Ph.D, Department of Environmental Studies, Antioch New England Graduate School

C Effect Publications

Gifford - Meaningful Participation

Documents

Transcript of Gifford - Meaningful Participation