Making Local Democracy WorkMunicipal Officials’ Views AboutPublic Engagement BY WILL IAM BARNES

AND BONNIE C . MANN

In June 2009, the National League of Cities (NLC)surveyed elected and managerial municipal officialsregarding public engagement. This article providessome highlights from the study. The full report isavailable at www.nlc.org on the “Governance” pageunder the “Find City Solutions” tab.

The State of America’s Cities survey was sent to arandom sample of municipal officials, both electedand appointed, in 1,748 cities across the nation. Weundertook this study in order to better understandthe attitudes, knowledge, and underlying assump-tions of municipal officials, both elected and ap-pointed, about democracy and the functions of mu-nicipal government. More specifically, the study wasabout “public engagement.” The survey question-naire that was used to obtain the findings definedpublic engagement processes as “proactive effortsto involve people in deliberating public issues and inhelping to solve public problems.”

The study emerged from our own normative frame-work. We sought information that would allow usto better understand what municipal officials thinkabout public engagement so that we and others cando a better job of helping citizens and municipalofficials make democracy work.

Of course, the topic of democratic governanceis broader than the question of people’s rela-tionship with their municipal government. Peopleengage with other governments besides municipali-ties. Most important, people come together in manyways, independent of government, to address prob-lems and seize opportunities; in other words, democ-racy is not always about engaging with government.Thus, it is important to remember that this studyfocuses on a subset—public engagement with mu-nicipal governments—of the much broader topic ofdemocratic governance.

What Municipal Officials Are Doing

The 2009 NLC survey found that most cities areengaged in local efforts to involve people in de-liberating issues and helping to solve problems.Eighty-one percent of respondents reported thattheir municipalities use public engagement processesoften (60 percent) or sometimes (21 percent). In ad-dition, 85 percent of officials reported that theirmunicipalities do more public engagement than isrequired by federal, state, or local laws. Althoughthese are very large majorities, about one in five of-ficials (19 percent) reported that public engagementprocesses are used only occasionally or rarely, and15 percent reported that their city does only what islegally required.

Solid majorities of municipal officials reported reg-ular use of online tools (including the City HallWeb site and online publication of council agen-das and proposed executive actions) to support andencourage public engagement. However, most mu-nicipalities did not appear to have embraced Web2.0 (participatory Internet-based information shar-ing) strategies in significant numbers yet, with just14 percent of officials reporting that their cities reg-ularly use interactive online forums.

Notably, two-thirds of officials (67 percent)reported that their city regularly uses special de-liberative processes, such as town hall meetings,to involve large numbers of people on critical is-sues. Other examples of public engagement listedby respondents included:

� E-mail to residents� “Teletown hall” meetings� “Community Insight Team” of people selected at

random for feedback� Resident surveys� “Meet the Mayor” biweekly

58

c© 2011 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc .Publ ished onl ine in Wi ley Onl ine Library (wi leyonl inel ibrary .com)Nat ional Civ ic Review • DOI : 10.1002/ncr .20063 • Fal l 2011 A Publ icat ion of the Nat ional Civ ic League

� Social networking, like Facebook� Public access channel� Weekly “listening post” with public officials at

town’s Saturday farmers’ market

The survey’s findings concerning the extent to whichthese processes are used suggest that the main is-sue around public engagement in most cities is notquantitative; most officials see their city doing thisalready. Rather, the opportunity for improvementmay be qualitative—to make the processes work bet-ter. There will still be obstacles, of course, but theseshould be easier to overcome when municipalitiesare challenged to improve on current work ratherthan taking on work that is entirely new.

What Municipal Officials Think About PublicEngagement

In addition to exploring the level of public engage-ment in municipalities and what cities are doing, theNLC survey was designed to find out more abouthow municipal officials think about what is hap-pening in their cities to involve residents in thinkingabout issues and helping to solve problems. Signifi-cant majorities of municipal officials said they weresatisfied with what is happening and believe thatpublic engagement produces useful results. How-ever, a sizable minority expressed dissatisfactionwith the public engagement status quo, and manyofficials cited a range of obstacles that can stand inthe way of effective engagement in their cities andtowns.

Most public officials (57 percent) said they were sat-isfied with the level and nature of public engagementin their cities, but only 15 percent said they are “verysatisfied.” In answer to a separate question, an over-whelming majority of respondents (96 percent) saidthey had participated in or seen an effective pub-lic engagement process. We take this to mean thatrespondents believe they are acquainted with a stan-dard of effectiveness by which to make these sortsof judgments.

Nevertheless, a significant number of municipal offi-cials viewed local public engagement in a more neg-ative light. Nearly three in ten municipal officials (28percent) were either dissatisfied (25 percent) or verydissatisfied (3 percent) with the level and nature ofpublic engagement in their cities.

The implicit acknowledgment by a significant per-centage of municipal officials that their cities cando better on these issues presents an important op-portunity for the field of democratic governance tohelp these local leaders chart a course for improvedpublic engagement. Even the 57 percent of officialswho were merely “satisfied” with local processespresumably would be receptive to improvement inthis area.

Value of Engagement

When asked to what extent public engage-ment processes are valued by public officials,95 percent of respondents answered “to a greatextent” (58 percent) or “somewhat” (37 percent).Only 5 percent selected “very little.” This findingindicates that survey respondents believed that theyand their colleagues in government think that get-ting resident input and involvement is a net plus fortheir cities.

Similarly, 86 percent of officials said that public en-gagement processes are valued by a city’s residentseither “to a great extent” (31 percent) or “some-what” (55 percent). The divergence in the percent-ages of respondents selecting “to a great extent” and“somewhat” in answer to this question is worth not-ing, when compared to the data from the questionabout whether public officials value these processes.While 58 percent of respondents said public offi-cials value these processes to a great extent, only31 percent believed the general public valued them.This discrepancy may help explain some of the am-bivalence that municipal officials express about thistopic. It may also suggest an opportunity for the fieldto help municipalities explore ways to reframe pub-lic engagement in ways that could result in chang-ing perceptions among city officials regarding localresidents’ buy-in and support.

When asked to consider the rewards and benefitsof public engagement, a majority of the municipalofficials (55 percent) selected “build a stronger senseof community” as one of their top answers from alist of thirteen.

Municipal officials see public engagement as deliv-ering a variety of positive outcomes. Although amajority said it contributes to a stronger sense of

National Civ ic Review Fal l 2011 59DOI : 10.1002/ncr

community, no one outcome, or one set of outcomes,stands head and shoulders above the rest. Some seepublic engagement as a way to better solutions; oth-ers see it as a way to better relationships betweencitizens and government; some see it as a way tobuild community—and most see it as delivering acombination of all of these benefits at once.

Assessing SkillsThe survey also sought to gauge respondents’ assess-ment of the skills needed to do effective public en-gagement. Respondents were split down the middlewhen asked if most elected and appointed officialsin their city have the skills, training, and experienceto do effective deliberative public engagement. Half(49 percent) said yes and half (48 percent) said no,with 3 percent responding “don’t know.”

Municipal Officials’ RolesAlthough municipal officials expressed satisfactionwith public engagement in their cities, they do notview engaging the public as the most important as-pect or function of their jobs. The NLC survey pre-sented respondents with a list of nine job functionsfor municipal officials, ranging from developing pol-icy and balancing the budget to mobilizing residents.

The top three selections identified as very importantwere balance the budget (87 percent), develop policy(60 percent), and make decision about providingservices (59 percent).

In contrast, responses having to do with public en-gagement tended to fall in the middle or toward thebottom of the ranking. For example, 51 percent ofofficials said it that getting input from resident aboutissues was very important function. About one-third(31 percent) said it was very important to mobilizeresidents to devote some of their time and energy tocommunity goals and problem solving.

Role of the Public

Local officials appear to be of two minds on thetopic of the public’s role in the engagement process.On one hand, the survey responses suggest that mu-nicipal officials saw the public as a positive forcein local problem solving. Seven in ten respondentsagreed with the statement: “Most people really careabout the whole community and are willing to help

solve local problems.” On the other hand, additionalfindings support the view that many municipal of-ficials think the public is not helpful and does notparticipate in civic engagement processes unless anissue affects them individually. The most frequentlyselected obstacle to or risk associated with public en-gagement was “public apathy and/or ambivalence,”chosen by 69 percent of municipal officials froma list of seventeen possible answers. Additionally,eight in ten respondents agreed that public engage-ment processes “typically attract mostly the samepeople who complain or promote their favorite so-lutions.” And three out of four said they agreed thatmost people will not contribute to or participate inlocal problem solving “except in an emergency orwhen something affects them specifically.”

The most frequently selected obstacle to or riskof public engagement was “public apathy and/orambivalence.”

Similarly, when asked to rate the importance of var-ious public roles and responsibilities of people intheir cities, more respondents checked “very impor-tant” next to such roles as “be law-abiding andresponsible for personal affairs” (68 percent) and“pay taxes and fees” (60 percent) than “pitch in tohelp solve public problems; don’t ask governmentto solve all problems” (37 percent) and “volunteer toserve on boards and committees” (30 percent). Mu-nicipal officials appeared to see public engagementnot as a core role or responsibility of local residentsbut as something that is secondary to other activities.

This interpretation parallels the survey results abouthow local officials view their own roles. In bothinstances—whether they are thinking about the pub-lic or about themselves—more public officials at-tach more importance to a set of roles and respon-sibilities that speak to the most basic functions ofgovernment. Government is duty-bound to balancebudgets, just as citizens are duty-bound to obey thelaws. At the same time, many municipal officials at-tribute great value to the deliberative collaborationof officials and citizens to address local problems.A challenging opportunity thus presents itself to de-velop ways of integrating these disparate views.

60 Nat ional Civ ic Review Fal l 2011DOI : 10.1002/ncr

Municipal officials were split on the question ofwhether residents have the necessary skills andknowledge to do public engagement work ef-fectively. Forty-three percent answered yes while45 percent answered no.

Role of the Media and Others

The NLC survey also asked municipal officials abouttheir views of how well the media, communitygroups, and institutions contribute to the local cul-ture and climate of public engagement. Respondentsindicated that they believe these community partnersfor public engagement efforts were not performingvery well.

About 39 percent of municipal officials cited “Medianot paying attention and/or is not fair and balanced”as an obstacle to greater levels of public engagement.The only obstacle or risk that was selected more of-ten was “public apathy and/or ambivalence.” Re-spondents’ negative opinions of the media’s role inpublic engagement showed up in their answers toother questions in the survey. For example, only onein four municipal officials rated the media as being“good” at informing people and local public affairswith fair and balanced reporting; 30 percent ratedthe media as “poor” in this area. In addition, morethan half said the media does a “poor” job of in-volving people in deliberation and problem solvingand 47 percent said the media does a “poor” job ofcontributing to constructive debate.

Emerging Observations

As we worked on developing our questionnaire and,later, on analyzing the responses, some observationsand questions emerged that shaped our approachesto findings. The next points do not constitute a sum-mary or highlights of the data. Rather, they are ob-servations and questions that the reader might con-sider when veiwing our data and findings.

� Place matters . . . and places are different. Gen-eralizations about municipal and other rolesin public engagement—including any made inthis article—must be offered tentatively and ap-plied with care. Local institutions, activities,leadership, and political culture will shape thecontext and conditions for government/citizenengagement. For any given city or town, the pre-

senting question is whether a generalization is rel-evant and, if so, how.

� Public engagement can mean different things todifferent people. Does it include only large-scaleprocesses that involve large numbers of peopleand diverse populations? Does it include citizensserving on a board or commission? Municipal of-ficials, approaching the topic from their institu-tional base and experience, seem to be saying yesand yes—and yes some more. As we discovered,officials tend to include a wide range of activitiesunder the umbrella of public engagement. Greaterclarity about definitions and more attention tothe views held by various participants would beuseful.

� It takes a village to do effective public engage-ment. It takes an entire community to create andsustain an effective democratic governance cul-ture. Many municipal officials report that impor-tant players (including their own city halls) arenot stepping up to their proper roles. The oppor-tunity for the field of public engagement might beto recast the topic in terms of roles and respon-sibilities for everyone and thus to lift up publicengagement as a core responsibility for municipalgovernment, citizens, organizations, the media,and others.

� Municipal officials and other stakeholders havedifferent ideas about what makes public en-gagement effective. Given the various definitionsfor the term “public engagement,” it is notsurprising that there are various ideas aboutwhat makes public engagement effective. Localofficials, for example, say it is most importantthat people have the right information and thatthe discussion is civil. Others might identifyother criteria as more important. A challenge forthe field may be to try to build consensus aroundwhat effectiveness in public engagement means;this would be a less abstract way of getting atshared definitions and goals.

� Municipal officials are ambivalent about thistopic. Many municipal officials expressed satis-faction with their local public engagement, whileother NLC research indicates they take a dim viewof engagement nationally and in other communi-ties besides their own. A question for the field ishow to understand this “local satisfaction.” Thedata from the 2009 survey suggested that officialssee and understand some of the deficiencies of

National Civ ic Review Fal l 2011 61DOI : 10.1002/ncr

their local public engagement activities. They alsoidentify a range of barriers to effective publicengagement. Helping officials find ways to over-come those barriers can contribute to improvedpublic engagement practice at the local level.

� Municipal officials and residents need skillsto do this work well. One of the key insightscoming out of the survey was that skills matter.Nearly half of the respondents said that neithermunicipal officials nor residents have the skillsand experience to carry out and participate in ef-fective public engagement. Improving skills maytherefore be at least as important as providingnew or sophisticated techniques developed bypractitioners and consultants.

Conclusion

This study opened as many or more questions asit answered. In a rich and significant field such asdemocratic governance and public engagement, theanswers to any interesting question always lead tomore questions. Each step forward moves us deeperinto the topic. In particular, this process of investi-gation seeks results that can help advance the theoryand practice of democracy.

We believe that there are opportunities for furtherinvestigation of issues and questions that arise fromthe analyses in this report. These matters for furtherresearch include:

� What is the nature and impact of planning forpublic engagement? About 28 percent of respon-dents said their city’s public engagement work isguided by a plan. Presumably such plans havebeen discussed publicly and approved by munici-pal officials, but we do not know that for sure. Auseful next step would be to explore in more de-tail exactly what is (and is not) in these plans, howthey were adopted, how they are used, whetherthey contain some sense of goal and mission orare mere process reviews, and whether they effec-tively shape behavior and implementation.

� Why do officials use public engagement on sometopics and not others? Municipal officials say thattheir city is more likely to deploy public engage-ment processes for some topics than others. Weventured some hypotheses as to why this might beso. Refining and testing these and other hypothe-ses is an important investigation for the field. Do

cities tend to use public engagement differently,depending on the topic and the situation? Or dothey have a standard toolkit, no matter the topic?

� Why and how have skills improved (accordingto some officials)? Half of municipal officials (49percent) said that elected and appointed officials’skill and experience level with deliberative publicengagement had improved since they (the respon-dents) became involved in local public affairs. Itwould be useful to have a better understanding ofthe reasons why these municipal officials believethis improvement in skills has occurred. Identify-ing some of the key factors that led to improve-ment might hold lessons for future efforts to im-prove skills for public engagement practice at thelocal level.

� How has the economic recession affected cities’public engagement work? More than one-thirdof municipal officials (35 percent) said their citydid more in the previous year to engage residentsin budgeting and finance processes than it usuallydoes. The effects of the recession will continue,and municipal budgets are likely to feel the pinchfor years to come. The opportunity for a nat-ural experiment presents itself. It might involvemonitoring the reported uptick in participatorybudgeting, determining exactly what it involves,comparing activities and outcomes in cities thatdo not do this, and watching to see whether thephenomenon disappears when city revenues pickup again.

� Why do so many municipal officials see good in-formation as the basis for public engagement, andwhat does that say about working toward moreeffective processes? The high importance thatmunicipal officials attribute to “useful, balancedinformation” deserves considerable thought andinvestigation. As we noted, a good deal may bepacked into this concept; carefully unpacking itmight yield useful results.

Other observers will have additional suggestions forfurther research and for topics that deserve morecareful discussion. We welcome comments frominterested readers.

William Barnes is director for emerging issues at NLC.

Bonnie C. Mann is the project manager for democraticgovernance at NLC.

62 Nat ional Civ ic Review Fal l 2011DOI : 10.1002/ncr