Transcript Civic Engagement and Public Administration: Recent

Public Engagement:
Perspectives and Experiences in
North America
Tina Nabatchi, Ph.D.
Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs
Syracuse University
[email protected]
Defining Terms
• Civic Engagement: refers to the public’s role in civil
society
• Public Engagement: techniques and methods that
bring people together to address issues of public
importance
• Direct Public Engagement (DPE): processes that
allow members of the public (i.e., those not holding
office or administrative positions in government) to
personally and actively exercise voice such that their
ideas, interests, concerns, needs, and values are
incorporated into governmental decision-making
Who is Doing DPE and Why?
1. Leaders & Managers
2. Practitioners & Consultants
3. Academics & Researchers
•
To generate changes in government and policy
making
To get work done, make decisions, get closure,
and generate support on a specific issue
To deal with an immediate political peril
To seize a policy window
•
•
•
▫
Most DPE processes are episodic, not embedded
in government decision-making routines
For What Issues is DPE Used?
• DPE is being used at the local, state/provincial,
and national levels to address a broad range of
policy issues:
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
Immigration, Race, & Difference
Public Finance & Budgeting
Land Use & the Environment
Public Safety & Public Health
Schools & Education
Science & Technology
Poverty & Economic Development
And others …
 See www.participedia.net
Variations in Direct Public Engagement
• DPE may vary by:
• Setting
• Engagement Mechanisms
• Process Design Elements
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
Convener
Purpose and Goals
Size
Types of Participants
Participant Recruitment
Participant Preparation
Communication Mode
▫ Named Methodology
▫ Locus of Action
▫ Specificity of
Recommendations
▫ Connection to the Policy
Process
▫ And other elements
Views of Legislators and Administrators
• Most legislators and administrators recognize
the importance of public engagement, BUT they
▫ Have “horror stories” about public participation
▫ Have never seen strong DPE processes
▫ Need to see and understand the political and
administrative logic of DPE
▫ Want evidence of “success” before they change
their engagement practices
• Administrators feel constrained by the law…
The Legal Framework for DPE in the US
• Federal Level
▫ Administrative Procedure Act
▫ Federal Laws, Executive Orders, Agency
Regulations, Guidance, and Policy Memos
▫ Open Government Initiative
• State and Local Level
▫ “Home Rule Acts”
▫ State Legislation on Administrative Procedure
▫ Specific State Mandates
• The current legal framework encourages
compliance, not an examination of broader
implied authority
The Outcomes of DPE
• Research shows that well-designed DPE
processes can have benefits for:
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
Individuals
Administrators and Legislators
Communities
Policy
Governance
• However, poorly designed processes can be
harmful to people, communities, policy, and
governance
Lessons Learned from the North
American Experience
1. Design matters.
▫
Those wishing to use DPE must think carefully about
both systems and process design. The most important
design choice is deciding on the goal(s) for DPE.
2. Citizens need and want to be engaged.
▫
Citizens’ capacities and expectations about DPE have
changed. They want to shift from a parent-child
dynamic in governance to an adult-adult relationship.
3. The support of leaders is critical.
▫
To affect real change, political, administrative, and civil
society leaders must buy into and support DPE.
Lessons Learned from the North
American Experience
4. Articulate the “logic” of DPE.
▫
Generating support among politicians, administrators,
funders, and citizens requires communicating clear,
meaningful incentives and gains that can be had from DPE.
5. DPE works better when it generates a “critical mass.”
▫
Politicians want DPE to translate into votes, and
participants want DPE to translate into policy change. This
requires numbers.
6. Laws must support DPE.
▫
Administrators want/need explicit legal authority to
convene DPE processes, otherwise they will revert to
minimalist approaches.
Lessons Learned from the North
American Experience
7. Evaluation must be built into DPE from the start.
▫
Evaluation is critical to demonstrating the success,
viability, and meaningfulness of DPE. But,
evaluation is unlikely to occur unless it is explicitly
required and resourced.
8. There are limitations to this work.
▫
Many examples of DPE are “noble failures” because
of poor design choices or because they were
temporary efforts aimed at entrenched problems.
Lessons Learned from the North
American Experience
9. There is the need to embed DPE in decision-making
structures.
▫
Temporary DPE is insufficient. “Wicked” problems
require sustained engagement using a range of activities
that reinforce and complement one another.
10. There is a need to build a civic infrastructure for DPE.
▫
We need to strengthen networks, build the capacity to
respond in real-time to needs and calls for DPE, and
create regular opportunities and arenas for embedded
DPE.
Additional Resources
• Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC):
http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/
• International Association for Public Participation (IAP2):
http://www.iap2.org/
• National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
(NCDD): http://www.ncdd.org /
• LogoLink: http://www.logolink.org
• Everyday Democracy: www.everydaydemocracy.org
• Public Agenda: www.publicagenda.org
• AmericaSpeaks: www.americaspeaks.org
• Global Voices: http://www.globalvoices.org/
• National League of Cities: www.nlc.org
• Kettering Foundation: www.kettering.org