Community Engagement

What is fashionable with community engagement?

13/04/2017 By Max Hardy 3 Comments

A blog about Citizens’ Juries, Co-design and Collective Impact

With the more frequent use of citizens’ juries, and deliberation in general, it can be tempting to think such processes as the pinnacle of community engagement. I really, really enjoy designing and facilitating citizens’ juries, and have been promoting them since 1998. They not only demonstrate the wisdom of everyday citizens; they invariably strengthen democracy and build trust between the community and sponsoring organisations.

However, when someone asked me, ‘When are citizens’ juries NOT a good idea?’ I pondered for awhile. In responding to that question I found myself considering two other trends, co-design and collective impact, and thought it would also be worth considering the merit of all three approaches and frameworks in this blog.

But first, when are citizens’ juries NOT a good idea. I would say ‘doing a citizens’ jury’ is not such a good idea when:

…there is little commitment of decision-makers to the process. To be worth the investment decision-makers need to be willing to at least seriously consider the recommendations of the jury, and to respond publicly to those recommendations.
…decision-makers or sponsors believe they will have a better chance of gaining public support for a controversial measure through a citizens’ jury, or worse, a deliberate attempt to socially engineer support for their preferred solution.
…sponsors regard the citizens’ jury as being the entire engagement process, as opposed to being an element of a broader engagement process.
…there are insufficient funds to resource the process adequately.
… the issue is not sufficiently complex to require such a rigorous process.
… the issue is very polarising in a reasonably small community; making it challenging for everyday citizens to agree to participate without fear of recriminations, or adversely affecting relationships.
… the issue is essentially a technical matter, rather than being socially or politically complex.
… there are no ideas or options to assess, or deliberate over, at this point.
… the issue to be addressed is system-wide, so broad and multi-faceted it will require commitment and involvement of a range of organisations to implement any solutions.

I’m sure this is not a comprehensive list, and some points could be debated. But what I believe is more interesting is considering what other approaches and frameworks have to offer, and thinking about how they can potentially interrelate. So, let’s consider co-design- and collective impact, and when they might be useful.

Co-design is well described by John Chisholm, Senior Research Associate, Design Management, Lancaster University,

Co-design is a well-established approach to creative practice, particularly within the public sector. It has its roots in the participatory design techniques developed in Scandinavia in the 1970s. Co-design is often used as an umbrella term for participatory, co-creation and open design processes. This approach goes beyond consultation by building and deepening equal collaboration between citizens affected by, or attempting to resolve, a particular challenge. A key tenet of co-design is that users, as ‘experts’ of their own experience, become central to the design process.

The practice of co-design in community engagement is varied, though becoming more popular. Charrettes, which have been used for over 25 years, is a type of co-design process. Enquiry by Design workshops have also been used. Now co-design is being used for developing public policy, urban development, designing public spaces and reconfiguring human services.

In the latter part of 2016 I have the pleasure of the working with the EPA; co-designing a solution to an environmental issue in the Latrobe Valley. Scientists mingled with everyday citizens for three days, spread over 6 weeks, to arrive at a consensus. It was inspiring and extremely productive, leading to participants insisting on a group photo with public servants and scientists at the conclusion.

However, had several options been developed, with participants evenly divided, then presenting options to a citizens’ jury may well have been helpful to arrive at an agreed solution. Now, to consider collective impact.

Collective Impact is a framework and approach to tackle deeply entrenched and complex social problems. It is an innovative and structured approach to making collaboration work across government, business, philanthropy, non-profit organisations and citizens to achieve significant and lasting social change. It could easily include co-design and deliberative decision-making as part of a long term collaborative commitment to address a complex social problem. Citizens Juries are great for tough decisions; co-design is perfect where no known solution exists; collective impact is useful, probably necessary, to achieve systemic change.

The following illustration depicts how the three frameworks could work together. Co-design could precede a deliberative process such as a citizens’ jury. Both codesign and a citizens’ jury could be part of, and inform, a collective impact process, but would only do so if system-wide change was required.

I’m certain there are other ways these trends in collaboration could intersect. But being clearer about their purpose, and the kinds of issues/opportunities they are useful for, will be a good start for organisations and leaders who are drawn to what is becoming fashionable.

What do you think?

For more information about Collective Impact, Collaboration and complex issues, check out Collaboration for Impact, and the Tamarack Institute.

If citizens’ juries are the answer, what is the question?

12/08/2016 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

It’s been so long since I blogged. I can’t recall a busier time as a consultant. Mostly, this has to do with the surge of interest in deliberative engagement processes, such as citizens’ juries. I’ve blogged about this before, but now I’m going to attempt to write to organisations, executives and politicians about what they are, what they offer, their different forms, and what needs to be considered for them to be effective. It will take a few blogs to cover it all of this. Here goes.

Although citizens’ juries have been around since the early 1970s, developed by Ned Crosby in the USA, they have become much more popular in recent times, especially in Australia. Why the sudden interest? Well for many of us who have been promoting deliberative forms of engagement, and alternative ways to strengthen democracy, it has not been sudden at all. I recall doing an assignment on deliberative processes in the mid 1990s, when Professor Lyn Carson was my lecturer at Southern Cross University.

Then, as consultant at Twyfords, Vivien Twyford encouraged me to read more about them and to look for an opportunity to ‘do’ one. An opportunity arose in 1998, when a small council on the fringe of the Sydney metropolitan area, was desperate to try something different. The council manager expressed frustration with hearing from the same people, doing the same thing, and having the same kind of conversations. The jury’s job was to provide recommendations for council’s social and community plan. It was run on a meagre budget, and a number of corners were cut, but on the whole it was a fascinating experience for me, and a refreshing one for participants and Council.

Less than a year later I was co-presenting a session on Citizens’ Juries in Banff, Canada at an IAP2 Conference, with Doug Nethercutt, Executive Director of the Jefferson Center (which was set up by Ned Crosby in 1974), sharing the story of how the citizens’ jury process can be adapted for organisations with smaller budgets. The session was observed by an executive from the Australian Waste Association, and I was then invited to speak at further conferences, mostly closer to home. Funnily enough when someone from Australia approached Doug Nethercutt for advice he suggested to them to contact the Australian expert, Max Hardy. It was rather hilarious given my limited experience at that point.

During the early 2000s there was a surge of interest in Western Australia, when Planning Minister Alana McTiernan joined forces with deliberative democracy academic and practitioner Jeanette Hartz-Karp, which Geoff Gallop was Premier. They proved to be incredibly useful and very cost effective (an internal review revealed that for every dollar spent on this approach they saved five dollars when compared with more conventional community consultation practices).

The trend in Western Australia subsided temporarily with a change in State Government. By that time newDemocracy had formed, and there was definitely an appetite to explore alternate ways for democracy to be. Founded by philanthropist Luca Belgiorno Nettis, Lyn Carson and Kathy Jones, with the support and involvement of former politicians Fred Chaney and the late John Button, and supported by a host of willing volunteer practitioners, has opened many doors and minds, as to how citizens’ juries and other deliberative processes offer ways to improve decision-making for complex issues.

NewDemocracy is certainly gaining traction and has designed and overseen countless citizens’ juries in recent years, most recently Infrastructure Victoria’s 30 year priorities, and consideration of a Nuclear Waste facility in South Australia. But it begs the question, on the demand side, as to why there is such interest in citizens’ juries. If citizens’ juries are the solution then what is the question, or the issue for which they offer a solution? I know what academics and practitioners might say, but I’m just as interested in what politicians, CEOs and other executives have to say.

‘We just don’t know what the silent majority think about this issue.’

‘We are tired of being yelled at by people who just don’t understand our context and our challenges! How can we create space for a more civil discourse?’

‘When we engage broadly with hundreds, even thousands, of people it is very hard to demonstrate we have listened and our decisions have been influenced by the process.’

‘We need an end point to our ongoing conversations and debates about some issues. We are stuck, and it seems whenever we are close to a resolution, a campaign is likely to send us back to the drawing board.’

Most of my experiences designing and facilitating citizens’ juries, and other deliberative processes, have been extremely positive. Not just positive, they have been inspiring. On the whole organisations are amazed at how sensible and wise everyday people are when given an opportunity to appreciate a complex issue from a number of angles, and given time to reach a conclusion. These blogs are testament to how jurors experience these processes too.

Liveable Yarra

Kiama Local Environment Plan

Deliberative processes, like citizens’ juries, have the potential to transform how government can interact with citizens, building trust, and drawing on collective intelligence. But they also have to be carefully and well designed, organised and facilitated. Lots can go wrong, and poor practice could easily see them lose their appeal. So my next blogs about deliberative processes will be about these topics.

How do citizens’ juries and other deliberative processes differ in form? What are the variables and what are the essential ingredients? (aka When does a process cease to be deliberative?)
How can we make sure it is ethical and genuine?
How can we make sure it is ‘do-able’?
How can we make sure it is ‘useful’?
When might citizens’ juries not be appropriate?
How do we connect deliberative processes with broader community engagement processes?

It is hard to know how much to pack into any blog, so I’m always keen to hear what people are most interested in – so please let me know!

It takes courage to build trust

06/12/2015 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

You may recall from the British series ‘Yes, Minister’, Sir Humphrey would use the term ‘courageous’ as code for ‘politically stupid’ – usually having the effect of dissuading the Minister to follow his stated intentions. It provided great comedy as well as demonstrating a powerful technique of influencing someone who is risk averse. However, I think it’s time to reclaim the term couragous. We need it in bucket-loads. Without it, it might be impossible to build trust when we need it most.

One example of couragous leadership has been Sharon Starick. Sharon is the chair of the Board for Natural Resources, South Australia Murray Darling Basin. Faced with some unprecedented financial pressures, the Board decided to invite the community into their dilemma. They wanted to work out a solution with the community, not for the community. To explore how to best generate the revenue needed for the services the community most values. Sharon’s role during the deliberative process was outstanding.

Sharon and her Board could have chosen a much less couragous path. Faced with a major financial challenge, imposed upon the Board, she could have been forgiven for taking an easier path. She could have resigned in protest. Or she could have easily mobilised their community to protest and complain. Although being easier to resort to these typical responses, Sharon, along with her Board, decided on a more couragous and ultimately wiser path. She was able to articulate what the Board did have control over. At times Sharon even challenged some rather angry community members to think through the likely consequences of taking any other approach.

2015-11-08 11.49.21 — Participants using small wooden cubes for participatory budgeting exercise

For me the most memorable moment arrived when one participant issued quite an accusation toward the end of Day 1. He stated, ‘If I presented this kind of business case to my bank manager I would be shown the door, and very quickly!’ It was met with an enthusiastic round of applause, along with some laughter. It was evident, in that very moment, many participants had not quite understood the challenge they had signed up for. I reminded participants the Board had not brought them together to sell them anything. (Communities have been accustomed to consultation being just that – an attempt to sell a solution. Not this time!)

By contrast this Board was inviting a diverse range of citizens to deliberate over a serious dilemma. They were inviting people to explore possible solutions only after spending time appreciating the challenges they collectively faced. The Board chose to work out this out with the community, not for the community.

It was heartening for the Board to receive an email after day 2 of the deliberative process. It came from the same participant who issued his challenge the previous day. It read,

‘Thanks for the opportunity on the weekend to participate in such a well run event. Your staff and the board are to be commended for the way you became more receptive and open on the Sunday. Obviously a lot of people put in a pile of work between days to have answers produced of that standard.’

Trust was built. The challenge was better understood. More was being asked of participants this time around. The Board was letting go and inviting their community in. The participants had to step up, and make the most of this opportunity. And they did!

The results of the process were impressive and I was thrilled to design and facilitate it, along with Danielle Annells. Although consensus wasn’t reached on all matters there were clear directions and insights for the Board. Importantly the members of the community appreciated this new approach taken by the Board, and also appreciated the complexity of the situation.

I reflected on other processes I have facilitated over the past 25 years or so. How easy it is for leaders to resort to their default position when a new or novel approach is taken. How many times have I heard from them, ‘Well if they are going to behave like this we won’t bother evening talking to them in future!’ Sadly, many leaders have never witnessed what it is like for the community to step up. Usually this is a result of lazy process and a poor remit or question. Regardless, it was what many leaders witness, and what they dread.

Sharon Starick demonstrated great courage, but also great wisdom in this situation. I believe it’s time we distinguish wise or genuine courage, from couragous stupidity. I reckon there would be a terrific business case for genuine courage. Especially if building trust is important!

Aiming for average in 2015 – my new year’s resolution

04/01/2015 By Max Hardy 2 Comments

It is customary, of course, at this time to reflect on the year that is nearly over, and to set some goals for the year approaching. Idon’t have my website established as yet so thought I would publish this blog on LinkedIn – my ponderings of the year past and the one that looms.

2014 has been eventful. Anything but average. Selling up and moving to the centre of Melbourne from Shellharbour NSW; starting my own consulting business after 17 years at Twyfords, and an amazing time in northern Italy (this included delivering a course to some fabulous community engagement practitioners in Florence – that’s a photo of the session in progress with a beautiful fresco on the far wall).

For me most of that happened between September and November. I don’t recommend doing three things of this magnitude all at the same time. I actually think I was in shock for several weeks when I first arrived in Melbourne. It was during this time that I was working on some fairly challenging projects, and despite not feeling at my best the outcomes from those projects were really pleasing. Which led me to reflect on some of the best work I have done as a consultant – that my best work is often done when I am feeling, sort of, average.

Those of us who like to think of ourselves as high-performing are often very self critical, and we are inclined to push ourselves. Sometimes that can get in the way of doing what we are naturally good at, being very present, and allowing other people to step up, and to shine. Upon doing some research I can across David Burns, the author of ‘Feeling Good’, and he has written very persuasively about this phenomenon.

Burns says ‘… we need to understand the role of fear in perfectionism: “If I don’t perfectly [fill in the blank] something terrible will happen.” Often perfectionists are so used to this anxiety that they no longer even consciously recognize it; it’s just the fuel that keeps them working, working, working and honing, honing, honing.” Great point! Just imagine how good we could be if we simply aimed at ‘average’! How much time we could create for ourselves pursuing other interests. How much more energy I would have to focus on assisting others (in my case, helping individuals and organisations to collaborate more effectively)!

The paradox is, of course, that as we just aim for average we are probably going to be more excellent. For those who work with a high level of complexity, being average is even more important. Dave Snowden, creator of the Cynefin framework for complexity, talks about doing ‘safe to fail’ experiments when in the complex domain, because there is no roadmap for success. Best-practice, even good-practice, does not really apply because no-one knows what is going to work. We need to try things, different approaches, then amplify what is working and dampen what is not.

This kind of experimenting is difficult for the perfectionist – for the experts that need to get things right the first time, and to be seen as getting it right. The mindset for experimenting is to attempt things, and to learn rapidly. It is easier to try things when it is ok to fail, provided we are generating some learning. It is also great for procrastinators, and I certainly can be. If we put things off because we believe we are not quite is the zone for a particular task, then we keep putting it off, making it harder and harder to attend to.

So for 2015, I aim to be more average. To try less hard. To relax a bit more and believe that I am plenty good enough to be useful to others – even when average. Somehow, I expect I will accomplish more, enjoy the year even more than 2014, and try some things I might have never before attempted. I think being average won’t be easy, and I must try not to be average perfectly! Yep – that could be a trap.

Now that I have figured that out I can enjoy the festive season and new year’s celebrations knowing that I have a focus and intent for 2015.

What about you?

Max

What the health system can learn from an old concrete pipeline?

01/01/2015 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

I’ve been asked to speak at a health conference in Brisbane about the difference collaborative approaches can make to achieve better outcomes in the health industry. I’ve been urged to talk about a non-health example – just to mix it up a bit and to remind participants that collaboration is something being explored in all sorts of industries and sectors.

After giving it some thought I recalled a project I was involved in about ten years ago – the Glen Davis Pipeline Project. I will share the story with you here as a way of preparing for my presentation later this week.

In the 1940s a massive concrete pipeline about 42 km in length was built from Oberon Dam, just west of the Blue Mountains, to Glen Davis in the Capertee Valley (a valley longer than, but not quite as deep as, the Grand Canyon) to supply a new Shale Oil Refinery. The decision to do this was premised on the belief that there was an imminent world oil shortage.

Anyway, in the 1950s they realized there was plenty of oil available and so the refinery was shut down, leaving Glen Davis as somewhat of a ghost town, with one significant difference – they had the luxury of town water supplied from Oberon Dam.

In the late 1990s authorities measured massive water loss between the top of the escarpment and the reservoir at Glen Davis. Engineers identified a green grassy line underneath the pipe in a few areas and it was deemed that the pipeline was falling to bits. The economics of replacing the pipeline to service about 40 permanent residents did not stack up at all. The solution? Offer residents water tanks for free and disconnect the pipeline.

Bullet proof vests needed!

News of the situation and the announcement of the most cost effective solution did not go down too well with the Glen Davis community. As a consultant working then with the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, I was warned by the local president of the Progress Association that we should bring our bullet proof vests! The outrage was palpable!

Owing to lack of trust in the authorities the public insisted on an independent inspection of the pipeline. And so, a dozen or so residents, engineers, public servants and I spent a day driving down this spectacular escarpment and inspecting the pipeline. We needed to co-define the problem to be addressed. After several hours there was consensus – the pipeline was still in fairly good condition. Some minor repair work for a fraction of the cost of replacing the pipeline was recommended and ultimately carried out.

However, this didn’t explain the dramatic water loss identified.

Somewhat reluctantly, one resident shared some useful information. It was his belief that some local farmers were illegally tapping into the pipeline to irrigate their crops – mostly being used to produce whisky. This proved to be true. A memorandum of understanding was drawn up between the authorities and the community to make it clear that if such illegal activity occurred in the future the water supply would be disconnected. If they did the right thing, the pipeline would be repaired and maintained.

The story had a surprising and a somewhat amusing ending. But there were some clear learnings that have served me well ever since.

Firstly, there is no point offering an expert solution when there is no agreement about what the problem is.
Secondly, local knowledge needs to be valued – they are experts in their own communities and this knowledge needs to be tapped (no pun intended).
Thirdly, where there is passion about an issue there is also energy to appreciate the dilemma and a willingness to be part of finding a solution

There were lots of other lessons as well; but how might this relate to the health industry?

The same lessons apply. Patients, consumers and citizens are a resource for the health system, not merely a drain – if we choose to regard them as such. For instance, research suggests that compliance with care plans depend almost entirely on the quality of the relationship they have with their physicians – and the skills of the physicians to generate trust and work collaboratively. (If you are interested in this research check out Lambert (2011), p12-21.)

Citizens are a resource for the health industry in many other ways as well. Here are just a few examples.

I am also working with Griffith University to facilitate a citizens’ jury with regard to difficult ethical choices health administrators have to make on a daily basis.
Capital Health in Nova Scotia relies on citizen panels to gain invaluable advice about business planning and financial decisions.
The Shoalhaven community became so engaged in the process of gaining a Cancer Care Centre they helped design it, and also raised over $1Million toward its construction.

There are dozens more examples I could share.

What it shows is that it takes more than excellent clinical skills to achieve an effective health system, just as it takes more than engineers to retain a town’s water supply.

This blog was first published on Twyfords website 8^th April 2013.