Public Engagement Framework for Improving Public Services

ForthepeoplebythepeoplePublicServic
esdrivenbypublicengagementConsume
rinsightsforgovernmentsForthepeople
bythepeoplePublicServicesdrivenbypu
Public Engagement in Public
blicengagementConsumerinsightsforg
Services

overnmentsForthepeoplebythepeople
Framework & Implications
2/26/2010

PublicServicesdrivenbypublicengagem
ayesha.saeed

entConsumerinsightsforgovernmentsF
orthepeoplebythepeoplePublicService
sdrivenbypublicengagementConsumer
insightsforgovernmentsForthepeopleb
ythepeoplePublicServicesdrivenbypub
licengagementConsumerinsightsforgo
vernmentsForthepeoplebythepeopleP
ublicServicesdrivenbypublicengageme
ntConsumerinsightsforgovernmentsFo
rthepeoplebythepeoplePublicServices
drivenbypublicengagementConsumeri

CONTENTS

1. Scope of Public Engagement in Public Services........................................................................... 3
2. Mechanics of Public engagement – Best Practices ..................................................................... 4
2.1. Core principles of Public Engagement .................................................................................. 5
2.1.1. Planning & preparing for Public Engagement ............................................................... 5
2.1.2 Inclusion & Population Diversity .................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Collaboration and Shared Purpose ................................................................................. 7
2.1.4 Openness and Learning .................................................................................................. 8
2.1.5 Transparency and Trust .................................................................................................. 9
2.1.6. Impact and Action ....................................................................................................... 10
2.1.7. Sustained Engagement and Participatory Culture ...................................................... 10
3. Community engagement – Overview ........................................................................................ 11
3.1. Communication Engagement - Sample Models ................................................................. 12
4. Public Engagement – key CHALLENGES ..................................................................................... 13
4.1 IMPLICATIONS to United Arab Emirates ......................................................................... 14
5. Additional Links ..................................................................................................................... 15
6. About The Author .................................................................................................................. 15

2 | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

1. SCOPE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICES

Government Definition of Public engagement
Our Commitment to openness means more than simply informing the
American people about how decisions are made. It means recognizing that
USA
government doesn’t have all the answers and that public official need to draw
on what citizens know. President Obama 01/21/09

Public engagement brings research and higher education institutions together
with the public. It generates mutual benefit - with all parties learning from
each other through sharing knowledge, expertise and skills. Done well, it builds
UK
trust, understanding and collaboration, and increases the institution's
relevance to, and impact on, civil society. National coordinator center for
public engagement UK

'Community engagement' is a planned process with the specific purpose of
working with identified groups of people, whether they are connected by
Australia
geographic location, special interest, or affiliation or identify to address issues
affecting their well-being. Department of Sustainability and environment

Engagement is But above all why public engagement is important?
older than Why governments are actively listening to the public?
democracy; the
One reason is that in the 6th Global Forum on
bells outside the
Reinventing Government held in Seoul on May 24-27,
castles pioneered
listening at 2005 public participation and government transparency
Federal level has been identified as the most important two pillars
for good governance. But the world has changed in last
half a decade to a great extent. According to United
Nations World Public Sector report Civic engagement in public governance today is evolving
against a backdrop of several worldwide developments that are transforming the socioeconomic
dynamics of countries with both opportunities and challenges.

Now depending on the degree and extent of decentralization, engagements can occur at various
administrative levels of public governance - national, sub-national, local government and/or at
community level. Policy level engagements occur mainly at the national and/or sub-national
level and service delivery at the local government and/or community level. The element of
engagement can either be direct or indirect. But in a nutshell, engagement has four dimensions
to it
 Policy development
 Budgeting
 Service delivery

3 | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

 Accountability

Effective engagement with the community and stakeholders is essential for any successful
enterprise. It can also result in a more efficient use of financial resources through:

 Reduced risk of social conflict and associated delays and costs
 Ensuring compliance with the relevant legislative framework
 Quicker and smoother permitting and approvals processes
 Reduced risk of criticism and resistance from outside parties.

Engagement is an ongoing and multi-faceted process that can include:

 Providing information
 Capacity building to equip communities and stakeholders to effectively
 Engage
 Listening and responding to community and stakeholder concerns
 Including communities and stakeholders in relevant decision-making
 Processes
 Developing goodwill and a better understanding of objectives and
 Priorities leading to confidence in decisions
 Establishing a realistic understanding of potential outcomes.
Source: MCMPR Australia

Figure 1.1 Major elements of good governance and their relationship (Adapted from Lee, J. W. (2005))

ADD SOMETHING FROM
HTTP://WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV/SITES/DEFAULT/FILES/MICROSITES/CITIZENS_BRIEFING_BOO
K_FINAL2.PDF

2. MECHANICS OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT – BEST PRACTICES

4 2. Mechanics of Public engagement – Best Practices | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

Before you proceed to mechanics, understand the foundations of your entity i.e. VISION. If your
organization foresees/endorses the fact that public servants do not have all the answers and
listening to the community may help them unanswered questions only then the entity should
proceed with community engagement. Link your vision to your priority map and see if public
engagement has been defined as a priority. If not, drill down into decisions, projects and
initiatives where better results can be derived through public engagement. These decisions
usually fall in the following dimension

 Decisions about introduction of a new service/policy
 Controversial decisions with high level of public interest – try and win their trust
through constructive engagement and mitigate the probable opposition
 Major decisions with high impact on public – but potential reaction of society is
unknown

2.1. CORE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

1. Careful Planning and Preparation: Through adequate and inclusive planning, ensure
that the design, organization, and convening of the process serve both a clearly defined
purpose and the needs of the participants.
2. Inclusion and Demographic Diversity: Equitably incorporate diverse people, voices,
ideas, and information to lay the groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic
legitimacy.
3. Collaboration and Shared Purpose: Support and encourage participants, government
and community institutions, and others to work together to advance the common good.
4. Openness and Learning: Help all involved listen to each other, explore new ideas
unconstrained by predetermined outcomes, learn and apply information in ways that
generate new options, and rigorously evaluate public engagement activities for
effectiveness.
5. Transparency and Trust: Be clear and open about the process, and provide a public
record of the organizers, sponsors, outcomes, and range of views and ideas expressed.
6. Impact and Action: Ensure each participatory effort has real potential to make a
difference, and that participants are aware of that potential.
7. Sustained Engagement and Participatory Culture: Promote a culture of participation
with programs and institutions that support ongoing quality public engagement.1

2.1.1. PLANNING & PREPARING FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Before you begin planning for public engagement analyzes the context, costs and risks involved.
Understand and interrogate the reasons why engagement is required and what outcomes are
being expected.

1
Source: Developed collaboratively in spring 2009 by dozens of leaders in public engagement IAP2 under
the patronage of NCDD. www.ncdd.org

1. Vision & Service development: The organization should have a vision and a flexibility to
mould itself in the light of public opinion.
2. Cost of public engagement: The cost of public engagement goes beyond money & time
spent by government (including cost of training, incentives and reimbursements for
participants). It involves cost of public dissatisfaction when they don’t see any actions
being taken on the valid suggestions. The first decision that public service provider
organizations need to make is whether greater user involvement is feasible and
desirable.
3. Risks: Conflicts with politicians / representatives, Delays in decision making and
implementation, Hijacking of the process by special interest groups and Increase of
administrative burdens.
4. Logistics: Venue, schedules, facilitators, techniques of moderation, culturally suitable
programs and discussions.

Table 1.1.
The Six ‘C’s of Successful Community Engagement (DSE Australia)
Capability The members are capable of dialogue.
Commitment Mutual benefit beyond self interest.
Members volunteer and there is an environment that encourages
Contribution
members to ‘have a go’ or take responsibility/risks.
Members share or rotate roles and, as members move on, there is a
Continuity transition process that sustains and maintains the community
corporate memory.
Reliable interdependence. A clear vision with members operating in
Collaboration
an environment of sharing and trust.
Embody or invoke guiding principles/ethics of service, trust and
Conscience
respect that are expressed in the actions of the community.

2.1.2 INCLUSION & POPULATION DIVERSITY

Before Governments decide the inclusion and population diversity policy it is important to
finalize the scope of community engagement. The term ‘community engagement’ is used to
embrace a whole spectrum of activities that support the two-way communication process
between the Partnership and citizens, visitors and other key stakeholders in the town.

Box 2.1.2 Levels of Community Engagement

Information-giving: This is the simplest level of engagement and is simply about providing
information to stakeholders. Although it is a form of engagement in itself, information-giving
underpins all other levels of engagement, as it is essential that participants are provided
information (in varying detail and formats) about the issues about which they are being engaged


so that they are able to make informed and considered choices. Participants should also receive
feedback after engagement has been completed and this is in itself an information-giving
exercise.

2. Consultation & Learning: The objective of consultation and learning is to seek the views and
opinions of citizens, to inform the decision-making process of organizations. This method is NOT
about working with others or putting their ideas into action and it implies a pre-disposition to
change on the part of the organization. In other words, organizations embarking on this type of
exercise must be open to suggestions and be prepared to take on the ideas of the community.

3. Involvement: Here, citizens are actually involved in decision-making and deciding together on
the future of their neighborhoods and other decisions that affect their lives. This can give
citizens the power to choose, without fully sharing the responsibility for action.

4. Acting together: This involves both deciding together and acting together, and also sharing
responsibility.

5. Supporting: This is the most ambitious level of engagement and aims to maximize community
empowerment and capacity building. Organizations play a minimal role in making decisions and
putting them into action. The role of the organization is to help communities to develop and
implement their own plans.

Source: Idea (improvement and development agency)

The depth of engagement should dictate the type and methodology of inclusion. The basics of
people selection are similar to that target audience selection for a marketing research project.

2.1.3 COLLABORATION AND SHARED PURPOSE

Organizers involve public officials, “ordinary” people, community leaders, and other interested
and/or affected parties as equal participants in ongoing discussions where differences are
explored rather than ignored, and a shared sense of a desired future can emerge. Organizers
pay attention to the quality of communication, designing a process that enables trust to be built
among participants through dialogue, permits deliberation of options, and provides adequate
time for solutions to emerge and evolve. People with different backgrounds and ideologies work
together on every aspect of the program — from planning and recruiting, to gathering and
presenting information, all the way through to sharing outcomes and implementing agreed-
upon action steps. In government-sponsored programs, there is good coordination among
various agencies doing work relevant to the issue at hand.

Box 2.1.3: Case Study – Collaborative and shared purpose through internet (USA –
www.change.gov )

The idea of change.gov was to create a grassroots version of the research binders that
presidents receive every day. But instead of advice from top government officials, the Citizen’s
Briefing Book is composed of ideas submitted by ordinary people and reflecting the enthusiastic
engagement from the public we saw throughout the course of Change.gov. 125,000 users


submitted over 44,000 ideas and cast over 1.4 million votes, with the most popular ideas
accumulating tens of thousands of votes each. This was followed by Citizen briefing book which
was later on presented in white house. This is an example of open collaboration but the real
future of collaboration lies in the implication of the suggestions and interactions

2.1.4 OPENNESS AND LEARNING

Greater user involvement implies a rebalancing of the relationship between people employed in
the public services and the people using those services. Ed Miliband MP has acknowledged the
shift that needs to occur:

The first challenge is to involve users as people who shape and contribute to the service…It is
about the nature of the relationship between user and professional. Of course, doctors will
often have greater information and expertise—we will always be dependent on them. But the
question is whether that relationship recognizes the users’ role2

There are several ways in which the role of professional staff would need to change in order to
adapt to the demands of user-oriented services. The New Economics Foundation suggests that
professionals need to adjust from being ‘fixers’ that focus on problems to ‘catalysers’ who seek
to encourage people’s abilities.52 The commentators Charles Lead beater and Hilary Cottam have
proposed a variety of roles for service professionals:

• Advisers: helping users to assess their needs and forge plans for their future care.

• Navigators: helping users find their way to the services they want.

• Brokers: helping users to put together a package of services that meets their needs, where
services might come from different sources.

• Service providers: retaining a role in direct service provision to users.

• Risk assessors and auditors: helping users assess risks that may arise (this will be particularly
relevant in the case of vulnerable people)

Box 2.1.5: Case Study – Openness & learning in private sector

JWT, the fourth largest marketing communications network in the world, has nearly 10,000
employees in more than 200 offices in over 90 countries, serving over 1,200 clients. It was
founded in 1864 and after more than 100 years of operations it overhauled the entire
mechanism of its operations in the light of consumer insights. A survey across all countries of
location was conducted and resulted into change of corporate vision, key performance
indicators across all offices in all locations.

The idea is if private sector can change itself across many countries so can Government.

2
“Putting users and communities at the heart of public services”, speech by Ed Miliband to Unison and Compass, 18
January 2007


2.1.5 TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST

Respect your audience and they will respect you. Audience is sharing their time and opinions
with you because they want to see a change. They have the right to know the outcome of the
discussion, the procedure etc. Obama’s response to Fisa Bill, reaction of people against Chinese
censorship is the evidence of growing demand of trust building.

Box 2.1.5 Case study Moondarra Fire Information Unit (Australia)0

On the January 19 2006, a deliberately-lit fire was detected burning in the Moondarra State
Park, north east of Moe in Gippsland, Victoria the fire was finally declared under control on 12
February, having burned an area of over 15,000 hectares

After February 17 and until April 24 when the fire was declared safe, the Regional Media and
Communications Officer managed the ongoing flow of information to the community from the
Traralgon DSE office.

The key engagement tools used to inform, consult and empower the community were:

1. Core advice and immediate threat messages - 2. Media Community updates - 3. Community
meetings - 4. Daily visits to local communities – 5.School visits – 6.Community shopping trips

Key Lesson learned

Be honest and share dilemmas

As we know, honesty and transparency is critical. Tell people what to expect.

During the second week of the Moondarra fire, the IMT developed a number of different
options to control the fire to the south in the Tyers Gorge and prevent its further spread. All of
the options involved some risk. Following rigorous discussions, the Planning Officer and Deputy
Incident Controller attended the Tyers community meeting to discuss the different firefighting
strategies and the risks involved.

The community appreciation was obvious - they had been informed understood the difficulties
associated with the decision, were able to provide feedback and demonstrate their support for
the final decision.

Record and respond to community concern and “stories”
The IU established a database early to log all issues, concerns and requests for information.
Initially at the meetings, there was a feeling of “why bother talking to you, no one ever gets back
to us”. Information Officers ensured they called back or revisited everyone with a response to
their queries. Where we weren’t able to provide an answer, the IU provided people with details
of who the matter had been referred to and its progress.

People were genuinely pleased and thankful even when we hadn’t been able to help them. This
process enabled a lot of issues to be resolved immediately rather than allowing them to linger.


Consequently, community concern in the weeks and months following the event was low.

Staying with the community after a traumatic event assists in recovery

Learning from the Alpine fires was that it is important to the community that fire agencies
continue to maintain information flow after the immediate threat has passed. The community
still has critical information needs in terms of rehabilitating their properties and community and
coping with post fire stress in themselves, their friends and family. The experience during the
Moondarra fire was that information needs were certainly as strong during the rehabilitation
and recovery phase. The community made a connection with Information Officers during the
event, built familiarity and look to that same information source for post-fire needs. There was
much value demonstrated in continuing the IU beyond the immediate period of the incident by
allowing IU staff to coordinate ongoing information needs in conjunction with DHS and other
agencies.

Make the opportunity to listen to children’s experiences. The event is fresh in their minds and
they are eager to learn and share. Be sensitive to the impact of the fires on the students and
teachers and visit the school after the teachers have had time to help the students to work
through their experiences”

2.1.6. IMPACT AND ACTION

People sense -- and can see evidence -- that their engagement was meaningful, influencing
government decisions, empowering them to act effectively individually and/or together, or
otherwise impacting the world around them. Communications -- media, government, business
and/or nonprofit -- ensure the appropriate publics know the engagement is happening and talk
about it with each other. The effort is productively linked to other efforts on the issue(s)
addressed. Because diverse stakeholders understand, are moved by, and act on the findings and
recommendations of the program, problems get solved, visions are pursued, and communities
become more vibrant, healthy, and successful -- despite ongoing differences.

2.1.7. SUSTAINED ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY CULTURE

Each new engagement effort is linked intentionally to existing efforts and institutions —
government, schools, civic and social organizations, etc. — so quality engagement and
democratic participation increasingly become standard practice. Participants and others
involved in the process not only develop a sense of ownership and buy-in, but gain knowledge
and skills in democratic methods of involving people, making decisions and solving problems.
Relationships are built over time and ongoing spaces are created in communities and online,
where people from all backgrounds can bring their ideas and concerns about public affairs to
the table and engage in lively discussions that have the potential to impact their shared world.


3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT – OVERVIEW

Taking participatory democracy as an ideal for public engagement has significant consequences
for how we apply the concept to issues with a scientific or technical element. Instead of merely
receiving inputs from various interested parties, a participatory model of consultation forces
decision-makers to recognize the democratic accountability of their actions not merely every
few years at elections, but in a more systematic, direct sense to citizens. A common
misconception is that there is a particular methodology that can be devised to facilitate all
public engagement. Effective participation, by contrast, is conducted on the assumption that
each different situation will require a different design, using a new combination of tools as part
of an evolving cycle of action and reflection by the institution involved. Source: Wikipedia

Source: Moyne Shire Council Community Engagement Framework
11 3. Community engagement – Overview | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

3.1. COMMUNICATION ENGAGEMENT - SAMPLE MODELS

Public Service Value
Governance
Framework by
Accenture is derived
from the common
concerns and
ambitions of all the
groups of participants
and the principles of
public value defined
in the Global Cities
Forums (a daily log of
citizens across the
globe), the
framework is built
around four
components:

1. Outcomes—focusing on improved social and economic outcomes.

2. Balance—balancing choice and flexibility with fairness and common good.

3. Engagement—engaging, educating and enrolling the public as co-producers of public value.

4. Accountability—clarifying accountability and facilitating public recourse.

Public engagement model in Australia: Australian government is following a comparatively
methodical approach to engagement model and practices, which is illustrated below. This model
is a combination of Excellence and continuous improvement model and is a comprehensive
action oriented plan which can be opted in many countries.

12 3. Community engagement – Overview | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

4. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT – KEY CHALLENGES

Challenges:

A comprehensive list associated with community engagement is available at the website of
Queensland Government (Australia); following are some risks which I foresee in community
engagement

 A broad target segments: Unlike private sector Government reaches out to everyone
equally. Now this involves lower & higher SECs, hard to reach audiences, opinion leaders
and followers, literates and illiterates, segments with vested interests etc. This together
broadens the scope of community engagement for public services and makes it
complicated to ensure unbiased results
.

13 4. Public Engagement – key CHALLENGES | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

 Accountability, information access and federal government:- Unlike private sectors in
public sector – community and citizens have all the rights reserved to access the
information they shared at all levels. But it is very difficult from Governments’
perspective to share information at all levels, especially in the absence of web 2.0
technologies. Governments are also centralized and decisions take a lot of time before
implementation. This results in distrust of communities on the Governments and
consequently people feel that their input is not being valued.

 Generic community management issues:- Addressing the destructive impact of ‘bad
participation’, where negative attitudes to community involvement lead to poor
engagement practices, causing increased hostility, decreased trust and poor experience
and outcomes not only for communities, but also for officials and politicians, thus
further reinforcing negative attitudes and behavior. Recognizing the catch-22 faced by
residents who take on responsibilities as community leaders, but find their legitimacy
challenged precisely because they ‘stand out’ – becoming labeled as ‘unrepresentative
usual suspects’.

 Inconsistent vocabulary: - The term ‘community participation’ is understood and
applied differently by different statutory bodies, and by different officers within those
statutory bodies. These variations can make it hard for different bodies to work in
partnership with each other and with communities.

 Lack of available statistics on how community engagement helped Governments gain
popularity, enhanced their positive image and got re-elected also acts as a barrier from
government officials view point

 Managing expectations: - increased community engagement results into high level of
expectations. So it at times become a catch 22 whereby increasing satisfaction through
involvement Governments can lead to dissatisfaction by inconsistent policy or by not
incorporating the community inputs

 Lack of time and interest: - An audit in Canada found that 55% people don’t want to be
involved in community engagement because of lack of time, feeling of no influence over
decision making etc.

4.1 IMPLICATIONS TO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

 In a tax-free environment, the first question which Government as a service provider
asks is the depth of community engagement. Why and to what level people should be
engaged? On top of tax-free environment, high turnover rate of expats (which
constitutes the major part of the population) complicates service delivery, satisfaction
levels and result oriented community engagement

14 4. Public Engagement – key CHALLENGES | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

 A unique mix of expats from different parts of the world results into different level of
satisfaction and expectations across different segments. It becomes increasingly difficult
to understand the cultural, lingual differences in involvement and product delivery.

 UAE has very high penetration of mobile phones and internet; this actually paves a way
for technologically advanced means of sustainable community engagement.

5. ADDITIONAL LINKS

Office of public engagement USA

National Coordination center for public engagement UK

Dialogue & Deliberation Engagement Streams

Public engagement principles project

Removing the barriers of community participation

6. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ayesha Saeed is a seasoned executive in the field of communication and marketing research.
After spending years in the aforementioned fields as strategic planner, business development
executive and quantitative researcher, she joined public sector as a strategic planning executive.
She has a demonstrated track record of consumer insight driven business decisions
internationally and locally, across all segments of consumers’ – from stakeholders’ to service
users, suppliers to internal managers.

For more information

Ayesha Saeed
Consumer insights executive
ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

15 Additional Links | ms.ayeshasaeed@gmail.com

Public Engagement Framework for Improving Public Services

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (11)

Similar a Public Engagement Framework for Improving Public Services

Similar a Public Engagement Framework for Improving Public Services (20)

Último

Último (20)

Public Engagement Framework for Improving Public Services