Three keys to a great deliberative community engagement process
Deliberative engagement is an approach to community engagement that is becoming increasingly popular. For this we can largely thank academics like Prof Lyn Carson as well as the positive experiences of participants. Some recent recognition for exemplary projects by the IAP2 might also have something to do with it. 2015 Core Value Awards 2016 Core Value Awards
Having designed and facilitated over 30 deliberative panels (think ‘citizens’ juries’, but there are other forms) since 1998, I have seen how well this can work. I love watching panels do the deep dive. It’s great to see them learn and feel better connected with issues and people as a result. I also get a thrill from seeing how the output of deliberative panels really can contribute toward positive, tangible outcomes for the community.
However, there are many more variables to deliberative engagement process than you might think, and it’s vitally important to make sure you invest some time designing the process.
Here are three things that in my experience are essential to get right:
The remit
The ‘remit’ is simply the task that the deliberative panel is given to respond to. But it’s surprisingly easy for a remit to be poorly framed and/or not thought through, for example, a remit that is:
· overly narrow, or too broad
· biased (and which therefore generates scepticism)
· something that the sponsors of the process (ultimate decision-makers/governance bodies) are not firmly committed to, or which they don’t fully understand
or …
· something so complex there is not enough time for the panel to deliberate over it in sufficient depth.
I was involved in one project where various interest groups and stakeholders were so divided it took nine months to gain agreement on what the remit should be. Thankfully once we gained agreement the rest of the process ran smoothly. But it could have been a disaster—one that certain parties would no doubt have undermined, and where both the process and the outcome could have been subject to public questioning.
So make sure you get your remit right; give yourself time to frame worthwhile questions for the panel to grapple with, and build broad support for the remit among key stakeholders.
Evidence
Deliberative processes rely on weighing up evidence. Evidence is brought by panel participants (their own lived experiences) as well as a diverse range of specialists on the topic concerned. But there can be problems if the presentation of evidence is not carefully planned. These are some of the things that can go wrong:
· Bad timing of the panel can result in crucial evidence being missed, simply because a key presenter could be on leave or otherwise unavailable.
· It can be difficult to get the right people to present their evidence. Sometimes it is sufficient to interview people and show a video—but of course they cannot be scrutinised by panel members if they are not available in person at the time.
· Onlookers might consider the evidence as being ‘stacked’ in favour of one preferred outcome. This certainly won’t build trust in the process.
· Sometimes the evidence is not presented in a way which is helpful to the panel. I have seen presenters who are very interesting and entertaining, but not well briefed about their job; they provide lots of information, but it may not actually help the panel to address the remit.
So, start lining up key speakers early before locking in dates for your hearing days.
Sponsors’ intentions
There have been times in my experience when sponsors have been challenging to work with. Because the panellists are randomly selected, part of the appeal of deliberative processes to sponsors can be that they see them as a way of avoiding, or not engaging with people with strong interests. This is unhelpful and dangerous. Even more dangerous is the hope of some sponsors of using a deliberative panel to get the outcome they most want. It is critical to the process that sponsors be curious and open. There may be some parameters, such as budget limitations and alignment with certain policies, but there needs to be something real at stake that can be influenced by the process.
So, it’s really important to work with sponsors to be genuinely curious and open to the recommendations; and if they are not, it is best not to do a pretend process.
Remit, evidence, sponsors’ intentions: these are just three elements to a successful deliberative design process. Many other things need to be thought through, too—such as:
· the composition of the panel and the recruitment method
· the scheduling of hearings and deliberation, and
· the amount of time for deliberation compared with time for presentations (content delivery).
This November, I’ll be facilitating an intensive, one-day workshop on designing a deliberative engagement process, along with Danielle Annells, as part of Collaboration for Impact’s Innovation in Community Engagement event in Sydney. I’m looking forward to spending a day with many of my highly valued colleagues in the community engagement space to share our experience and learn from each other.
To find out more … click here
Hope to see you there!
Maximising the benefits of community engagement
I recently spoke to Australia’s National Local Government Newspaper regarding Community Engagement. You can read more about the details below regarding how to maximise the benefits of community engagement.
There are, certainly, challenges for engaging communities effectively. The rewards for getting it right may be more than you imagine.
For local government it is much more than just gaining input to important decisions; it is also about strengthening communities, improving council’s reputation, building trust, and leveraging the many assets within the municipality or city.
During the Integrated Council Plan engagement process at City of Port Phillip a majority of participants were randomly selected to do a ‘deeper dive’ into some critical issues. Council was thrilled with the output and thoughtful advice.
It went beyond this for one participant who said, “This has been amazing. I never go to things like this. Two years ago my sister, who lived with me, died. I also lost my job that year. I have done nothing for the two years since then but stay at home and feel miserable and useless. I have met some lovely people here and I have found out about some ways I can volunteer in St Kilda. I feel like I am part of the human race again!”
Such stories are not unusual. During a very successful ‘Ageing Well’ project in the Shire of Indigo, a group of community champions helped to design the process. One of those champions said, “I usually get involved in telling Council what they should and shouldn’t do; but by being part of many conversations I have learned so much about services and facilities; what Council’s responsibilities and limitations are, and how things are changing. I believe I can now help other people navigate the system and introduce them to people and services.”
It is so important to make space for such possibilities when we design community engagement processes. Engagement is much more than gaining feedback or input; it has the power to transform.
How to ensure the ‘community’ helps frame the shared agenda
Over the last month, Liz Weaver, Vice President, Tamarack Institute and I have been engaged in an email exchange puzzling out the answers to many wicked questions about collective impact and community change. Below is part I of V, where we discuss how to ensure a community agenda not just a shared agenda.
How do we ensure that it is truly a ‘Community Agenda’ not just the shared agenda of folks around the collective impact (CI) table?
MAX HARDY:
I believe in going in ‘messy.’ Generating conversations with the broader community of interest before a project has a name; before objectives have been written up and before any business case has been developed for funding. The temptation for organisations meeting together to discuss an issue is to scope the project, work out some key messages, make sure organisations are not falling over each other, and to identify resources.
All good reasons to get all the ducks lined up. However, it’s risky. By the time there is a project announced, and key partners identified, it can look like it’s just another government or NGO led project designed to fix a problem. The rationale is then sold. The importance of working together is marketed. From the community’s perspective, they have not yet got their fingerprints over the project. This looks like another thing that will be done for us or to us.
Going in messy means there is genuine intent to frame the project in a way that is meaningful for those who are meant to benefit by, or contribute, to an initiative. Going in messy means the project can be shaped. Every project has to start somewhere. But don’t go too far without knowing your community has had genuine involvement in identifying the purpose, and the key questions to be answered.
What advice do you have Liz?
LIZ WEAVER:
Being comfortable with the messy, being open to different perspectives allows us to really unpack the problem.
Many collective impact initiatives start as a response to a community need, issue or opportunity of some sort. There are usually two or three people who get together and say, this is not right or this is an opportunity that we can’t miss out on. Their conversation usually leads to other conversations about who we need to connect with whether there is support for at least moving this conversation forward.
Keeping the conversation open at the beginning is challenging. Many of us want to jump to the solution quickly given our area of expertise. But what we have learned is that collective impact issues, problems or opportunities are often very complex. There are multiple players in the system, multiple perspectives and multiple solutions. Being comfortable with the messy, being open to different perspectives allows us to really unpack the problem.
But there will be a time where clarity is required. This is when data disaggregation and community mapping become useful. What is the data telling us about the complexity of the problem and how it is impacting different individuals in our community? Who is already delivering services and how are these services connected? Who cares about this issue and how are they connected?
Approaching complex challenges is tough and messy work. In collective impact approaches, we can’t jump quickly to solutions. We need a tolerance for ambiguity, for learning about how forces are impacting the problem, and then we can bring in tools that help to bring focus and clarity. If we do this well, the issue becomes owned, not only by us, but by the community.
Do you agree with their perspectives? Do you have other questions they should consider? What are the challenges you are facing as you engage in collective impact? We invite you to add your comments and join the conversation here.
Click here to view the publication.
To view subsequent discussions, click on the discussion below:
How do we measure progress in collective impact, when most measures are lag indicators?
Perspectives from the field: A conversation about collective impact and collaboration from Australia and Canada
Over the last month, Liz Weaver, Vice President, Tamarack Institute and I have been engaged in an email exchange puzzling out the answers to many wicked questions about collective impact and community change. Below is part II of V, where we discuss how to ensure a community agenda not just a shared agenda. You can view Part I here.
How can we measure progress when so many of the measures or indicators are lagging indicators?
MAX HARDY:
This is a really important question to consider, especially in the early days of an initiative. I’m a big believer in the power of appreciative inquiry; and the saying ‘What you focus on will grow.’ The question then becomes more specific; what kind of behaviours and practices would we like to see more of?
We need to be wary of indicators that measure a range of things. For instance, simply measuring, ‘What percentage of meetings does a certain organisation or individual attend?’ will give you some data, but not information. If someone attends very regularly it may not necessarily tell you whether they are committed. It could mean they are there because they don’t trust others at the table and they want to see what is going on, for instance.
So, we need to pay attention to, and yes, measure, more than simplistic data. Perhaps it would pay to measure things like, ‘What additional information is being shared to help our collective endeavours?’ ‘How much are we all learning from each other?’ ‘To what extent are we following through with commitments we each make in between meetings?’ ‘How much do we enjoy, or at least look forward to, our gatherings?’ ‘To what extent are we confident we are working with our community of interest rather than just designing another way of delivering services?’
These questions are not always that easy to measure, but they might be easier than people think. For instance, noticing the body language as people arrive, and how willingly people stay longer to have a one on one conversation, may provide really useful information about the level of enthusiasm.
Reviewing progress will be much richer if we talk about how much we are learning from each other and sharing with each other, than simply counting bums on seats. If we focus on some of these things we are likely to measure our progress in a more meaningful way; and if we focus on these things they are likely to grow.
How about you Liz?
LIZ WEAVER:
Lagging indicators are data points that are a few years old. This type of measure often is generated through a national survey. In Canada, every five years there is a national survey that Statistics Canada conducts which looks at several population indicators. The data is then analyzed and released a few years or more later. This data is helpful, and can be useful to determine population trends over time. But, the lag time is an important factor to consider. If your initiative is only a three-year initiative, national statistics data may not be carried out with the type of regularity that is required and therefore may not be relevant to your effort.
Some collective impact efforts also consider leading indicators. A leading indicator is a measurable economic factor that changes before the economy starts to follow a pattern or trend. Leading indicators are used to predict changes in the economy, but they are not always accurate.
In the case of leading and lagging indicators, the group must determine the relevancy of the indicator to the context of the initiative. Sometimes there just aren’t the right set of indicators in place and that is when the evaluation questions that Max suggests may be more helpful to determine how the initiative is moving forward. For shorter term efforts, focus on a small set of indicators but also ask questions to determine how behaviour is changing by key stakeholders over time. These short-term behaviour changes have the potential, if supported and encouraged, to lead to major impacts over time.
Do you agree with their perspectives? Do you have other questions they should consider? What are the challenges you are facing as you engage in collective impact? We invite you to add your comments and join the conversation here.
Click here to view the publication.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 9
- Next Page »