Comms/Public Participation/Facilitation

Question 1

Diversity, Inter-dependence and Authentic Dialogue

process where individuals and groups engage in open dialogue and shared decision-making to address complex problems, focusing on inclusive participation, informed deliberation, and the development of wise and durable outcomes

Answer 1

Collaborative rationality

Question 2

QR codes

Answer 2

ovide quick access to important information like event details,
schedules, agendas, location directions, registration forms, or specific documents, allowing users to easily scan the code with their phone to instantly view the relevant data on their device, streamlining the
planning process and enhancing accessibility for attendees or participants

Question 3

mandates that people with disabilities–including their caregivers and disability advocacy organizations–are able to participate in the planning process at the same level as able-bodied residents → communicate with people with disabilities as effectively as you communicate with others

Answer 3

Title II of the ADA

Question 4

Goal: support messaging efforts and localize themto speak to important issues in your community
* can be factual statements about the actual and perceived benefits of planning (startling statistic, anecdote, endorsement, amplification of core statement)

EX: message could be about community-wide planning effort and the opportunity to shape the next 30 years –> ——- would be facts about concerning growth rates

Answer 4

Proof Points

Question 5

essential information about planning that you want your target audiences to hear, believe, and remember; the provide a framework for all communication with your audiences, at meetings, media interviews, written materials, etc.

Answer 5

messages

Question 6

Dispute resolution techniques:

negotiation, facilitation, mediation, arbitration –> when do you use each of these?

Answer 6

Negotiate: confer with another,** not a 3rd party involved**; conflict and arrive at a settlement → conference, discussion and compromise

Facilitation: assists a group in accomplishing its task; facilitator allows the group to assume responsibility for the task at hand; Encourage everyone’s opinions and make sure that they do not make statements that may be interpreted as judgments

Mediate: neutral and impartial third party encourage and facilitate resolution of a dispute without prescribing what it should be; informal and nonadversarial;

Arbitrate: alternative to litigation; determination of a dispute by an impartial referee agreed; often used to settle disputes between labor and management;Conducts a contested hearing between the parties, and in many cases acts as a judge, rendering a binding decision

Question 7

How to avoid escalation?

Answer 7

1. maintain good communication
2. be sensitive to divisive issues
3. maintain clear policies and decision-making critieria
4. maintain professional atmosphere

Question 8

Important!

Steps for brainstorming?

Adv: quick, easy, lots of ideas
Disadv: no consensus, dominant personalities, “group think” diminishes frankness

Answer 8

1. Definte issues ahead of meeting, develop facts
2. Pick facilitator
3. Identify group of experts (stakeholders)
4. Instruct experts on expected outcomes
5. Use Round-robin contributions to get outcomes

Question 9

Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate, Empower –> what do they mean?

Answer 9

• I –> providing data/information
• C –> obtaining public feedback
• I –> working with the public
• C –> partner with the public
• E –> decision making by the public

Question 10

Getting to “Yes”

Answer 10

“principal negotiation” which is often referred to as “Conflict
Resolution.

1. Separate the people from the problem (speak about yourself, do not place blame)
2. Focus on interests , not positions(shared and conflicting interests)
3. Invent options that both parties can gain from
4. Insist on using objective criteri (fair standards and procedures, never yield to pressure only to principal)

Question 11

• a multiday, collaborative planning and design effort with the goal of arriving at a comprehensive, feasible plan

Tree phases:
1. research, education, and charrette
preparation;
2. the charrette; and
3. an implementation.

The most common cause of project failure is not a
poorly run charrette; rather, it is usually due to incomplete preparation and/or inadequate follow-through
during the implementation phase.

three governing values:
* Anyone affected by the project has the right to provide input with potential impact on the outcome.
* Each participant has a unique contribution that is heard and respected.
* Many hands make the best plans

Answer 11

Dynamic planning

Question 12

• same as Citizen Power
• describes how much control citizens have over policy decisions
• gives power to “have nots”
• Participation is “empty ritual” wihtout distribution of power
• type of advocacy planning

Answer 12

Arnstein Ladder of Participation

CP time? No Problem! (Citizen Power, Tokenism, Nonparticipation)

Question 13

• Probide more choices to those that have few, if any
• Equity urban planning, seeing economic and environmental crises as opportunities to make cities more equitable
• Response to urban renewal in 50s and 60s that leveled inner city social fabric
• Urging alternation of policies, institutions adn decisions which militate against such objectives

Answer 13

Equity Planning (Norm Krumholtz)

Equity planning is a form of advocacy planning

Question 14

• organize and build coalitions
• Power is basis for successfully negotiating economic and political gains
• Disrupt normal activity and ends justify means
• Guaranteed funding for paid organizers

Answer 14

Saul Alinsky

Question 15

• forge solutions to openly serve a given client group’s interests
• Develop plans for particular project adn adovcate for client’s interests (LMI, POC)
• Involved in Mt. Laurel decision
• this type of planning was part of the public participation movement of the 60s by giving all participants equal footing in the planning process

Answer 15

Paul Davidoff

Question 16

assists the group in accomplishing task;
Guide, motivator, bridge builder, clairvoyant (watch for signs of potential strain), praiser (well, often, specifically), peacemaker, taskmaster, active listener

Presenting issues and suggested solutions introduces perceived bias on the part of the facilitator

Sequential questions:
* Objective (facts)
* Reflective (emotional)
* Interpretive (meaning)
* Decisional (future action)

Answer 16

Role of Facilitator

Question 17

When to facilitate?

Answer 17

• There is a political commitment to a group-determined outcome or recommendation
• There are more than two dominant perspectives or solution sets (mediation may need to be explored in two-set cases).
• The problem is complex and the value continuum is broad.
• There is a broad-based desire to seek resolution to the perceived problem.

Question 18

Facilitate vs. Mediation?

Answer 18

Similarities: both collaborative processes that involve neutral third party

Difference: facilitation is more general and mediation is more focused on conflict resolution; facilitation is involved in potential dispute

Question 19

IAP2 Best Standards for Public Participation

**providing data/information
**
When to use: activity is low impact, highly technical, public unlikely to provide you with alternatives

Techniques: data gathering/analyzing (population statistics, random sampling, convenience sampling [has bias], volunteer sampling [has bias], snowball sampling [good for drug users, see previous for more content]); electronic (social media, web 2.0 (+1)

Answer 19

1 - Inform

Question 20

IAP2 Best Standards for Public Participation

** public meetings, comments, focus groups, Delphi technique
**
When to use: options have been narrowed down and desire the final decision to reflect on decision

Techniques: polling (rather than data gathering)
* Community preference, community survey, choosing to sample with statistical validity
* Focus groups with group leader
* Visual preference survey: preference or dislike of selected images of community projects, using contrasting images (but not too contrasting!!)
* Delphi Technique: reiterative back and forth, using experts
* Generates ideas and facilitates consensus among people with special knowledge who may or may not be in contact
* Define issues with background paper
* Similar to focus groups
* Facilitator synthesizes ideas
* Iterations and send again with revisions until a consensus is reached

Advantages: inexpensive, no assembly, time and space not needed; good for scenario planning
Disadvantages: can be lengthy, a lot of back and forth; little to no face to face participation which can erode buy-in and trust among the panel

Answer 20

2 - Consult

Question 21

IAP2 Best Standards for Public Participation

workshops, deliberative polling, keypad polling, fishbowl, brainstorming, Samoan circle

When to use: activity has higher impact, multiple outcomes, desire to be transparent and seek the best solution
Techniques
Task force: agency-sponsored committee appointed by CEO or elected officials; specific task related to specific problem; task force making a decision
Brainstorming: define issue ahead of meeting, use round-robin contributions to get outcomes (+quick, easy, lots of ideas, - no consensus, loud people get more time)
Fishbowl Planning: highly visible to all parties involved from beginning; people in the center do the dialogue

Samoan Circle: modified fishbowl (main difference: people switch from inner to outer circle and in fishbowl, the inner circle stays the same throughout the meeting)
Both Samoan and Fishbowl are about transparency!! So the public officials are having the conversation within the views of the public

Answer 21

3 - Involve

Question 22

IAP2 Best Standards for Public Participation

partner with the public: participatory decision making, community visioning/Oregon Model, charrettes, consensus building, nominal group, American Assembly

When to use: activity has large impact and difficult to implement; need assistance at all stages, must rely on public and other groups for help

limits power of opinion makers, advantageous for use where peer leaders may have exaggerated effect over group decisions; useful when some are more vocal, when people think in silence, group does not easily generate quantity of ideas, some are new, controversy or heated argument, power-imbalance Techniques:
citizen advisory committee (EX: CAC for MPO)

Neighborhood/homeowner associations: formed by citizens, assign liaisons to planning departments, some have planning councils, some have so much fucking power, because they represent a large population in a unified way)

Answer 22

4 - Collaborate

Question 23

Process (define issues, inclusive, instruct experts, table working groups with maps, visual plans, compose a consensus plan, intensive and interactive, usually 5+days)

Professional experts both from within the community and from the outside
Key Strategies: collaboration, short feedback loops, produce feasible plan, study details and the whole

+ problem solving emphasis, visual expressions,
+ -stakeholders might not reach consensus, long/costly

Answer 23

Charrette, “Design In”

Question 24

Attributed to Duham (1998)

four key steps: silent generation of ideas, round-robin sharing, discussion and clarification, and finally, a voting or ranking phase to prioritize ideas.

Small group discussion to reach consensus, gathering input by responding to questions from moderator then prioritizing ideas or suggestions of group members
Process: define issue and prepare paper, choose expert/shareholders, instruct experts on expected outcomes; QUICK!

Four rounds: (1) think, (2) nominate/record, (3) clarify/discuss, (4) vote (rate and rank; goal achievement matrix)

Advt: clear consensus, creative ideas, more satisfaction, QUICK (oneday), pooled judgements on expertise
The nominal group technique is particularly useful:
* When some group members are much more vocal than others.
* When some group members think better in silence.
* When there is concern about some members not participating.
* When the group does not easily generate quantities of ideas.
* When all or some group members are new to the team.
* When the issue is controversial or there is heated conflict.
* When there is a power-imbalance between facilitator and participants or participants: the structure of the NGT session can balance these out.
* When stakeholders like a(/some) quantitative output of the process

Disadvt: Limited participants, advance preparation, tends toward a single topic

Answer 24

Nominal Group

Question 25

# IAP2 Best Standards for Public Participation citizen juries, ballots/referenda, delegated decisions, town meetings Citizen juries are randomly chosen groups of citizens that represent the community, similar to jury duty; community members are brief on issues then asked to give input (disadvt: citizen jury acts as poorly trained plannign commission that rule by what they like and not in the best interest of the wider public) Referenda: citizne vote approval on public measure, by official ballot, usually binding; formalized polling World cafes: series of simultaneous conversations around specific questions, participants change tables, focus on identifying common ground for each question When to use: activity has wide-ranging impact and when public should make the decision

Answer 25

5 - Empower

Question 26

* Steering committee of stakeholder leaders select particpants (closed group) and gets fundign, selects topics and prepares background analysis * Meet 2-3 days (plenary, breakouts, browbeatign to consens, closing, voting) Adv: Handle large, diverse group, consesus reached Disadv: Dominance of leadership and personality, potential staff steering outcomes, cost

Answer 26

American Assembly

Question 27

Data from subjects/persons emerging as relevant as the study progresses (appropriate for some exploratory studies). First, interview/survey a few subjects/ persons believed knowledgeable of topic, then find others on clues from the original respondents.

Answer 27

snowball sampling

Question 28

# Surveying Measure a population at a point in time (EX: parents about internet filtering, March 2014)

Answer 28

Cross sectional

Question 29

Advantages/Disadvantages Telephone

Answer 29

* Adv: fast, cheap, usually valid outcomes, avoid biases (requires excellent training adn good, concise survey instrument), respondents often familiar * Disadv: unwilling subjects, ignores those without phones, interviewers must be monitored, unwilling subjects

Question 30

**Generates ideas and facilitates consensus among people with special knowledge who may or may not be in contact** Define issues with background paper Similar to focus groups Facilitator synthesizes ideas Iterations and send again with revisions until a consensus is reached *through ranking* Advantages: inexpensive, no assembly, time and space not needed; good for scenario planning Disadvantages: can be lengthy, a lot of back and forth; little to no face to face participation which can erode buy-in and trust among the panel

Answer 30

Delphi Technique

Question 31

* Choose representative community sample (cross-sectional) and subgroups (likeminded) * Group leader facilitates * Directed towards addressign specific subject or determining community preferences

Answer 31

Focus Groups

Question 32

Visioning - New Oregon Model: What are the 5 steps?

Answer 32

1. Where are now? (assesment, analysis, values) 2. Where are we going? (trend analysis) 3. Where do we want to be? (visioning) 4. How do we get there? (action planning) 5. Are we getting there? (measuring progress post-visioning and implementation)

Question 33

APA Key Strategies for Charrettes

Answer 33

1. Work collaboratively 2. Design cross functionally 3. Compress work sessions 4. Communicate in short feedback loops 5. Study details and the whole 6. Produce a feasible plan 7. Use Design to achieve a shared vision and create holistic solutions 8. Multiday 9. Charette on site

Question 34

1. Assessing (done by neutrals/covenors, allows parties to identify relevant stakeholders, concerns, opportunities adnd constraints on consensus building) 2. Convening (setting ground rules to guide behavior and assigning responsibilities, roles, timelines, and who is teh formal decision making body) 3. Deliberating (participants hear each other's POVs) 4. Deciding (effort to reach agreement using mutual gain options, evaluate trade offs and work together to anticipate problems in implementation) 5. Implementing Agreement (potential obstacles, joint monitoring arrangements, commitment to abide by agreement, new information and learning can alter the agreement) ## Footnote Also important! Joint fact finding: collective effort to generate information that all parties will accept as credible, legitimate, and salient; technically and scientifically credible

Answer 34

Consensus Building Techniques

Question 35

1. account for and include stakeholders 2. anticipate need to link informal process with formal decision making 3. generate technical information viewed as legimiate, salient, and technically credible by all stakeholders (**joint fact finding**) 4. Fully uncover parties interests and generate mutually advantageous "packages" to meet those interests 5. Anticipate challenges of implementing an agreement or resolution

Answer 35

5 Keys to Building Consensus

Question 36

the theory commends the idea that we are best served overall by accepting the "good-enough" solution rather than searching indefinitely for the best solution. (most not not everything you wanted) rather than maximize → good enough rather than optimal cost of collecting additional information assoicated with borader cohice set may well exceed total benefit of current decision Accepting policy options short of attaining 100% consensus

Answer 36

Satisficing

Question 37

collection of distinct groups that combine toward a common purpose

Answer 37

coalition