Public Engagement in California - Public Agenda
Public Engagement in California
Highlights from research with local officials and civic leaders
opportunity for change Public meetings often do not meet the needs of residents or local officials.
Public comment agendas are dominated by narrow interests and negative remarks
Large segments of the public are missing, especially low-income populations, immigrants and young people
Many desire broad-based public participation and stronger collaboration.
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS (ELECTED and nonelected)
900 surveyed
Both groups
Appreciate the value of public engagement
77%
are interested in hearing more about practices that have worked in other places.
87%
Endorse more deliberative processes, but are cautious
67%
believe deliberative engagement can bring out fresh ideas; 60% think such approaches should be used for only a few public decisions.
462 surveyed
Report that many local officials are trying to better engage the public
Feel local officials want to see improved public engagement
View the public as disengaged say that community members are too busy with day-to-day life to get involved in public decision making.
Leaders of civic and community organizations
Are concerned about the disconnect between the public and local officials
Want more thoughtful, inclusive processes that foster dialogue, trust and better decisions
41%
say local officials seem to be making more of an effort to engage a wide variety of people.
Find the relationship between the public and local government is deeply strained
77%
say the public has become angrier and mistrustful of local officials in recent years.
Support more deliberative processes, but worry about lack of follow through
83%
think such approaches can result in better understanding of public concerns; 38% believe these processes may frustrate participants if officials don’t act on the results.
signs of progress
53%
of local public officials have collaborated with community organizations to engage residents in dialogue.
90%
of local public officials can think of an issue that lends itself well to deeper engagement, such as: Land use, housing and economic development
61%
of civic leaders say that working with a local official has been effective in building community trust.
Long-term community goal setting
Finances and budgets
TAKING ACTION for stronger public engagement Local officials and their institutions can gain from:
Civic leaders and their organizations can gain from:
Funders can make a difference by supporting:
• Partnering with community-based organizations • Hiring and training staff to increase public engagement skills • Networking with colleagues who have effective practices • Evaluating local efforts
• Partnering with local officials • Hiring and training staff to increase public engagement skills • Networking and sharing resources with other organizations • Evaluating local efforts
• Partnerships between public officials and local organizations • Trainings and technical assistance • Experiments, including use of online engagement tools • Research, evaluation and knowledge sharing
READ THE REPORTS In partnership with the Institute for Local Government and The Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University
TESTING THE WATERS
Sponsored by The James Irvine Foundation
California’s Local Officials Experiment with New Ways to Engage the Public
A REPORT BY
For Local Officials: Testing the Waters California Local Officials Experiment with New Ways to Engage the Public
In partnership with the Institute for Local Government and The Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University
BEYOND BUSINESS AS USUAL
Sponsored by The James Irvine Foundation
Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance
A REPORT BY
For Civic Leaders: Beyond Business as Usual Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance
For All: Executive Summaries Key research findings and recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What opportunities do Californians have to engage with public issues and influence decisions that affect their lives?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What are ways to strengthen relations between communities and their local governments?
2. Many civic leaders believe that the traditional formats for addressing public issues do not work.
According to these civic leaders, the typical public hearing format remains an important venue for public
confident in their organization’s ability to implement them. While this finding is encouraging, it also raises the question of whether civic leaders underestimate the challenges of a fully inclusive and meaningful engagement approach.
4. There is a growing awareness 7. Localhas officials participation.ofAnd yet the vast majority reserva-use online media and deliberative public engagement processes web-based hesitantly. tions about whether these venues successfullyengagement serve 6. Some regional differences: Civic leaders among local officials. the needs of either local officials or the public. from nonurban Northern California are Almost all local officials have participated in public
Local officials are also experimenting with online
comparatively less What opportunities do Californians haveof toCalifornia’s engage withcivic public issues and influence organizations about their media and digital technologies to reach out andequipped to collaborate We asked leaders and community-based engagement activities that are designed to foster with localwholeheartedly. officials on more inclusive public 3. Most civic leaders say their organization has not decisions that affect their engage the public—but always dialogue and deliberation on public issues among a viewslives? on the state of public participation in local governance. The following report
exploresrelations what these civic communities leaders say isand working, what’s not, and how public What are ways to strengthen between their local governments? engagement can be improved. Traditional models for including the public in local
developed working relationships with local
engagement efforts.
While some feel these technologies have improved diverse group of residents, and that seek to increase addition, thisfind survey officials that are at least somewhat effective.with theInpublic, their relationships most it found that urban civic leaders the public’s understanding of and impact on public are most likely to lament a lack of opportunities for the And a good number agree local officials aretheir effectiveness. difficult to assess decisions. Nearly all local officials can think of issues
public to effectively participate in local government. This report explores the attitudes of California’s local officials toward public participation in local trying to better engage the public. particularly well to these decision making, these leaders say, fail to meet the needs of both residents and local that would lend themselves Our survey documents a range of 8.activities—often Local officials report somewhat limited governance. These officials believe that the current models for including the public in local to overuse this officials. Most see significant value and potential in more inclusive and deliberative techniques. But they are hesitant one-to-one interactions—through which civic andwith community-based Special Focus: Public engagement in collaborations approach, preferring to limit it to a smaller number decision making fail to meet the needs of both residents and local officials. Most local officials community-based organizationsorganizations. attempt to bridge disenfranchised communities forms of engagement, and many agree local officials are making increasing efforts to of appropriate public decisions. seek broad-based participation from the public and want to hear more about approaches that the gap between community members and local Even though many local officials say understand they use the extent to which public include residents more meaningfully. Overall, this research suggests civic and To better government. For the most part, community-based civic leaders feel organizations and their networks to have worked elsewhere. Many are already experimenting with more inclusive and deliberative engagement efforts in California are inclusive of and 5. Local officials differ in their views on community-based organizations are looking for newer and more effective ways to their collaborations with local officials have benefited facilitate communication with the public, they typically responsive to all sectors of the public, we sought to the benefits and costs of deliberative public forms of engagement. Overall, this study suggests California’s local officials may be ready for community members and improved making. engage the public and may be ready for stronger collaborations with local government. engagement processes. workdecision with them only “a little,” comparatively few of civic leaders whose learnand more about the views newer and more effective ways to engage the public and for stronger collaborations with And many say that local officialslist areorganizations making morethat of engage with traditionally organizations primarily serve traditionally disenfranA large number (42 percent) of local officials are an effort to engage the public indisenfranchised decision making. groups aschised regularcommunities, collaboratorsespecially in this low-income, immigrant community-based organizations. already enthusiastic supporters of deliberative The report also includes concrete recommendations for local officials and their public engagement. They believe it has the
effort, suggesting that there potential for more and andisethnic minority populations, through in-depth
institutions, civic leaders and theirofficials organizations, and foundations The report also includes concrete recommendations for local and their institutions, civic and other funders. potential to increase officials’ 4. Civic leaders are highly receptive to more more diverse collaborations. interviews. understanding of deliberative The recommendations public engagement in leaders and their organizations, and foundations can and help other improve funders. The recommendations canlocal helpgovernance community concerns, bring about fresh forms ideas, of public engagement as These expressed path tolead improved But 9. In rural communities, localleaders officials reporteven greater frustration build public support and a trust and to morepublic engagement. throughout we hope, beyond. improve public engagement in local California governance and, throughout California and, we hope, beyond. with the status quo than other civic leaders state-
some such approaches mayparticipation backless public experience and fewer sound public decisions. Only 11 worry percentthat reject wide. They are more frustrated by the existing fire by first and thenresources. dashing public these benefits. Another large group (47raising percent) process and more critical There are considerable differences across the stateof in local officials. At the expectations. evaluates the potential promise of deliberative same time, our interviewees capacity and interest of local officials to explore stressed that they see Although these leaders havethe limited experience approaches tentatively. Nonetheless, forcivic all three Agenda in partnership Public Agenda conducted Public this research inconducted partnershipthis research Six main findings emerged from this 2. Local officials see shortcomings in as necessary partners with both new methods of engagingtheir the organizations public. In particular, collaborating withremains local officials on public engagement groups, broad-based public participation with the Institute of Local Government and Thepublic engagement with the Institute of Local Government and The research.approaches. traditional the publicreport and officials: officials serving rural communities having They develop community processes that foster dialogue and deliberation the major concern. Davenport InstituteThe at Pepperdine Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. work AtUniversity. the same The time,work most local officials acknowledge knowledge with and trust, bring diverse groups of resiresources and less experience deliberative among diverse residents, the vastfewer majority see such commissioned by The Jamesthat Irvine Foundation. 1. Many civic leaders was commissioned by Thewas James Irvine Foundation. public hearings and comments are often not feel that the relationship dents to their the table forms possibility of public engagement than urbanand andoffer officials structured engagement methods as an intriguing with in their the public and local government is 6. Local officials are confident conducive to broad-basedbetween and thoughtful participaopportunities to access these resources. To overfor this research suburban counterparts. Data for this research wasData collected through a was collected through a statefor both the public decision-making process capacity to implementbenefits a deliberative deeply strained on both sides. tion and that these meetings—frequently dominated come the obstacles they face in their public survey of 462 leaders of civic and statewide, representative wide, surveyrepresentative of 900 local officials, and community members. Yet, some civic leaders are Civic leaders agree that public engagement is not engagement process. by narrow interests and negative comments—may engagement efforts,more these organizations work community-based that as part of their conducted between July 10 and August 23, organization 2012, concerned that local officials won’t to the 10.commit County officials indicate somewhat an easy task and concede not serve the needs and skills of large sections of that the public is often ill Aside from the task of ensuring broad-based specifically on building personal and one-to-one mission seek to improve local decision making by and through additional focus groups and individual process, leaving residents disappointed. experience with deliberative engagement informed and too busy with other matters to partici-participation, local officials are quite confident the public. connections, both with local officials and with their working interviews with local officials acrosswith theresidents state. Theand/or local officials on issues approaches than city officials. pate fruitfully in the decision-making process, but in their ability to effectively implement a compreown communities. Despite challenges, many of our thatand affect their communities study included both elected nonelected officials. (“civic leaders”). The County officials more personal 5. engagement Most civic leaders in theirreport somewhat hensive deliberative public process.are confident they are also troubled by what they see in the actions 3. Among local officials, there is widespread interviewees compared with just a few years survey was conducted between July 10 and experience public with deliberative processesfeel andthat more capacity to implement a deliberative Few officials see other major challenges to ensuring and attitudes of some local officials. interest in better ways to engage the public. ago, public engagement in California has improved. August 22, Additional data was collected frequent collaborations with community-based These are the main findings of 2012. this research. engagement strategy. a quality process. However, there are some indicaMost local officials want to learn about new and Theycity attribute most of are the progress to the increasthrough focus groups and individual interviews with organizations compared with officials. They civic leaders seem daunted by the prospect tions that this confidenceFew is not always grounded in different ways to engage the public more effectively, sophisticated work of organizations like theirs, civicthe leaders across state. 1. Local officials perceive public as the largely also more public likely than theiringly municipal counterparts of implementing an effective deliberative practical experience. and they seek information from various sources to which are becoming and respected disengaged, despite many opportunities believewho deliberative engagement processesestablished could engagement scenario. Even civictoleaders have do so. Many local officials also stress that, through actors in the civic arena. for participation. to better public little experience with this type oflead engagement are decisions. experiences and challenges, they have come to Local officials see themselves as doing a reasonable appreciate the value of public engagement more, job providing ample opportunity for the public to although some seem to have become disheartened participate in local decision making. Yet they feel that with the public over time. large sectors of the public 2are disengaged. Most 3 Beyond Business as Usual | A Report from Public Agenda Beyond Business as Usual | A Report from Public Agenda local officials view the public as largely uninformed and increasingly distrustful.
2
Testing the Waters
|
A Report from Public Agenda
Testing the Waters
|
A Report from Public Agenda
3
Visit our partners
About the research: Survey and qualitative research conducted in 2012 with local public officials in California (elected and nonelected from cities and counties) and leaders of civic and community-based organizations interested in engaging residents on local issues.
Highlights from research with local officials and civic leaders
opportunity for change Public meetings often do not meet the needs of residents or local officials.
Public comment agendas are dominated by narrow interests and negative remarks
Large segments of the public are missing, especially low-income populations, immigrants and young people
Many desire broad-based public participation and stronger collaboration.
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS (ELECTED and nonelected)
900 surveyed
Both groups
Appreciate the value of public engagement
77%
are interested in hearing more about practices that have worked in other places.
87%
Endorse more deliberative processes, but are cautious
67%
believe deliberative engagement can bring out fresh ideas; 60% think such approaches should be used for only a few public decisions.
462 surveyed
Report that many local officials are trying to better engage the public
Feel local officials want to see improved public engagement
View the public as disengaged say that community members are too busy with day-to-day life to get involved in public decision making.
Leaders of civic and community organizations
Are concerned about the disconnect between the public and local officials
Want more thoughtful, inclusive processes that foster dialogue, trust and better decisions
41%
say local officials seem to be making more of an effort to engage a wide variety of people.
Find the relationship between the public and local government is deeply strained
77%
say the public has become angrier and mistrustful of local officials in recent years.
Support more deliberative processes, but worry about lack of follow through
83%
think such approaches can result in better understanding of public concerns; 38% believe these processes may frustrate participants if officials don’t act on the results.
signs of progress
53%
of local public officials have collaborated with community organizations to engage residents in dialogue.
90%
of local public officials can think of an issue that lends itself well to deeper engagement, such as: Land use, housing and economic development
61%
of civic leaders say that working with a local official has been effective in building community trust.
Long-term community goal setting
Finances and budgets
TAKING ACTION for stronger public engagement Local officials and their institutions can gain from:
Civic leaders and their organizations can gain from:
Funders can make a difference by supporting:
• Partnering with community-based organizations • Hiring and training staff to increase public engagement skills • Networking with colleagues who have effective practices • Evaluating local efforts
• Partnering with local officials • Hiring and training staff to increase public engagement skills • Networking and sharing resources with other organizations • Evaluating local efforts
• Partnerships between public officials and local organizations • Trainings and technical assistance • Experiments, including use of online engagement tools • Research, evaluation and knowledge sharing
READ THE REPORTS In partnership with the Institute for Local Government and The Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University
TESTING THE WATERS
Sponsored by The James Irvine Foundation
California’s Local Officials Experiment with New Ways to Engage the Public
A REPORT BY
For Local Officials: Testing the Waters California Local Officials Experiment with New Ways to Engage the Public
In partnership with the Institute for Local Government and The Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University
BEYOND BUSINESS AS USUAL
Sponsored by The James Irvine Foundation
Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance
A REPORT BY
For Civic Leaders: Beyond Business as Usual Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance
For All: Executive Summaries Key research findings and recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What opportunities do Californians have to engage with public issues and influence decisions that affect their lives?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What are ways to strengthen relations between communities and their local governments?
2. Many civic leaders believe that the traditional formats for addressing public issues do not work.
According to these civic leaders, the typical public hearing format remains an important venue for public
confident in their organization’s ability to implement them. While this finding is encouraging, it also raises the question of whether civic leaders underestimate the challenges of a fully inclusive and meaningful engagement approach.
4. There is a growing awareness 7. Localhas officials participation.ofAnd yet the vast majority reserva-use online media and deliberative public engagement processes web-based hesitantly. tions about whether these venues successfullyengagement serve 6. Some regional differences: Civic leaders among local officials. the needs of either local officials or the public. from nonurban Northern California are Almost all local officials have participated in public
Local officials are also experimenting with online
comparatively less What opportunities do Californians haveof toCalifornia’s engage withcivic public issues and influence organizations about their media and digital technologies to reach out andequipped to collaborate We asked leaders and community-based engagement activities that are designed to foster with localwholeheartedly. officials on more inclusive public 3. Most civic leaders say their organization has not decisions that affect their engage the public—but always dialogue and deliberation on public issues among a viewslives? on the state of public participation in local governance. The following report
exploresrelations what these civic communities leaders say isand working, what’s not, and how public What are ways to strengthen between their local governments? engagement can be improved. Traditional models for including the public in local
developed working relationships with local
engagement efforts.
While some feel these technologies have improved diverse group of residents, and that seek to increase addition, thisfind survey officials that are at least somewhat effective.with theInpublic, their relationships most it found that urban civic leaders the public’s understanding of and impact on public are most likely to lament a lack of opportunities for the And a good number agree local officials aretheir effectiveness. difficult to assess decisions. Nearly all local officials can think of issues
public to effectively participate in local government. This report explores the attitudes of California’s local officials toward public participation in local trying to better engage the public. particularly well to these decision making, these leaders say, fail to meet the needs of both residents and local that would lend themselves Our survey documents a range of 8.activities—often Local officials report somewhat limited governance. These officials believe that the current models for including the public in local to overuse this officials. Most see significant value and potential in more inclusive and deliberative techniques. But they are hesitant one-to-one interactions—through which civic andwith community-based Special Focus: Public engagement in collaborations approach, preferring to limit it to a smaller number decision making fail to meet the needs of both residents and local officials. Most local officials community-based organizationsorganizations. attempt to bridge disenfranchised communities forms of engagement, and many agree local officials are making increasing efforts to of appropriate public decisions. seek broad-based participation from the public and want to hear more about approaches that the gap between community members and local Even though many local officials say understand they use the extent to which public include residents more meaningfully. Overall, this research suggests civic and To better government. For the most part, community-based civic leaders feel organizations and their networks to have worked elsewhere. Many are already experimenting with more inclusive and deliberative engagement efforts in California are inclusive of and 5. Local officials differ in their views on community-based organizations are looking for newer and more effective ways to their collaborations with local officials have benefited facilitate communication with the public, they typically responsive to all sectors of the public, we sought to the benefits and costs of deliberative public forms of engagement. Overall, this study suggests California’s local officials may be ready for community members and improved making. engage the public and may be ready for stronger collaborations with local government. engagement processes. workdecision with them only “a little,” comparatively few of civic leaders whose learnand more about the views newer and more effective ways to engage the public and for stronger collaborations with And many say that local officialslist areorganizations making morethat of engage with traditionally organizations primarily serve traditionally disenfranA large number (42 percent) of local officials are an effort to engage the public indisenfranchised decision making. groups aschised regularcommunities, collaboratorsespecially in this low-income, immigrant community-based organizations. already enthusiastic supporters of deliberative The report also includes concrete recommendations for local officials and their public engagement. They believe it has the
effort, suggesting that there potential for more and andisethnic minority populations, through in-depth
institutions, civic leaders and theirofficials organizations, and foundations The report also includes concrete recommendations for local and their institutions, civic and other funders. potential to increase officials’ 4. Civic leaders are highly receptive to more more diverse collaborations. interviews. understanding of deliberative The recommendations public engagement in leaders and their organizations, and foundations can and help other improve funders. The recommendations canlocal helpgovernance community concerns, bring about fresh forms ideas, of public engagement as These expressed path tolead improved But 9. In rural communities, localleaders officials reporteven greater frustration build public support and a trust and to morepublic engagement. throughout we hope, beyond. improve public engagement in local California governance and, throughout California and, we hope, beyond. with the status quo than other civic leaders state-
some such approaches mayparticipation backless public experience and fewer sound public decisions. Only 11 worry percentthat reject wide. They are more frustrated by the existing fire by first and thenresources. dashing public these benefits. Another large group (47raising percent) process and more critical There are considerable differences across the stateof in local officials. At the expectations. evaluates the potential promise of deliberative same time, our interviewees capacity and interest of local officials to explore stressed that they see Although these leaders havethe limited experience approaches tentatively. Nonetheless, forcivic all three Agenda in partnership Public Agenda conducted Public this research inconducted partnershipthis research Six main findings emerged from this 2. Local officials see shortcomings in as necessary partners with both new methods of engagingtheir the organizations public. In particular, collaborating withremains local officials on public engagement groups, broad-based public participation with the Institute of Local Government and Thepublic engagement with the Institute of Local Government and The research.approaches. traditional the publicreport and officials: officials serving rural communities having They develop community processes that foster dialogue and deliberation the major concern. Davenport InstituteThe at Pepperdine Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. work AtUniversity. the same The time,work most local officials acknowledge knowledge with and trust, bring diverse groups of resiresources and less experience deliberative among diverse residents, the vastfewer majority see such commissioned by The Jamesthat Irvine Foundation. 1. Many civic leaders was commissioned by Thewas James Irvine Foundation. public hearings and comments are often not feel that the relationship dents to their the table forms possibility of public engagement than urbanand andoffer officials structured engagement methods as an intriguing with in their the public and local government is 6. Local officials are confident conducive to broad-basedbetween and thoughtful participaopportunities to access these resources. To overfor this research suburban counterparts. Data for this research wasData collected through a was collected through a statefor both the public decision-making process capacity to implementbenefits a deliberative deeply strained on both sides. tion and that these meetings—frequently dominated come the obstacles they face in their public survey of 462 leaders of civic and statewide, representative wide, surveyrepresentative of 900 local officials, and community members. Yet, some civic leaders are Civic leaders agree that public engagement is not engagement process. by narrow interests and negative comments—may engagement efforts,more these organizations work community-based that as part of their conducted between July 10 and August 23, organization 2012, concerned that local officials won’t to the 10.commit County officials indicate somewhat an easy task and concede not serve the needs and skills of large sections of that the public is often ill Aside from the task of ensuring broad-based specifically on building personal and one-to-one mission seek to improve local decision making by and through additional focus groups and individual process, leaving residents disappointed. experience with deliberative engagement informed and too busy with other matters to partici-participation, local officials are quite confident the public. connections, both with local officials and with their working interviews with local officials acrosswith theresidents state. Theand/or local officials on issues approaches than city officials. pate fruitfully in the decision-making process, but in their ability to effectively implement a compreown communities. Despite challenges, many of our thatand affect their communities study included both elected nonelected officials. (“civic leaders”). The County officials more personal 5. engagement Most civic leaders in theirreport somewhat hensive deliberative public process.are confident they are also troubled by what they see in the actions 3. Among local officials, there is widespread interviewees compared with just a few years survey was conducted between July 10 and experience public with deliberative processesfeel andthat more capacity to implement a deliberative Few officials see other major challenges to ensuring and attitudes of some local officials. interest in better ways to engage the public. ago, public engagement in California has improved. August 22, Additional data was collected frequent collaborations with community-based These are the main findings of 2012. this research. engagement strategy. a quality process. However, there are some indicaMost local officials want to learn about new and Theycity attribute most of are the progress to the increasthrough focus groups and individual interviews with organizations compared with officials. They civic leaders seem daunted by the prospect tions that this confidenceFew is not always grounded in different ways to engage the public more effectively, sophisticated work of organizations like theirs, civicthe leaders across state. 1. Local officials perceive public as the largely also more public likely than theiringly municipal counterparts of implementing an effective deliberative practical experience. and they seek information from various sources to which are becoming and respected disengaged, despite many opportunities believewho deliberative engagement processesestablished could engagement scenario. Even civictoleaders have do so. Many local officials also stress that, through actors in the civic arena. for participation. to better public little experience with this type oflead engagement are decisions. experiences and challenges, they have come to Local officials see themselves as doing a reasonable appreciate the value of public engagement more, job providing ample opportunity for the public to although some seem to have become disheartened participate in local decision making. Yet they feel that with the public over time. large sectors of the public 2are disengaged. Most 3 Beyond Business as Usual | A Report from Public Agenda Beyond Business as Usual | A Report from Public Agenda local officials view the public as largely uninformed and increasingly distrustful.
2
Testing the Waters
|
A Report from Public Agenda
Testing the Waters
|
A Report from Public Agenda
3
Visit our partners
About the research: Survey and qualitative research conducted in 2012 with local public officials in California (elected and nonelected from cities and counties) and leaders of civic and community-based organizations interested in engaging residents on local issues.
