Food for Thought Blog

Food for Thought Blog

Decentralizing Public Engagement – Building Trust and Participation through Flattened Hierarchies

As an appetizer…

In today’s digital democracy, government unlocking the full potential of public engagement in deliberative practices requires a three-pronged approach: expanding participation scope, flattening hierarchies, and embracing scalable technology platforms. This decentralization strategy offers numerous benefits, from flattening hierarchical engagement processes including online to distributing and leveraging residents’ knowledge and participation for better decision-making. Eight propositions guide this transformative process, emphasizing the role of trust-building, strategic technology use, and the need for dedicated public engagement platforms, especially over conventional social networks. By meeting resident expectations and preferences, governments can secure public support, fostering two-way communication and closing the feedback loop. Decentralizing public engagement isn’t just a technological shift; it’s a cultural transformation toward more inclusive, transparent, and informed governance.

As the main course…

E-Government and Gov 2.0 refer to the government’s increased use of communication and information technologies to communicate about and deliver programs and services to constituents. In public engagement processes, the landscape is evolving rapidly in today’s digital age.

While transactional engagement between government and residents has embraced technology, there remains a gap in deploying effective tools for participatory or deliberative processes. This lag was painfully evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for greater adoption and more innovative solutions beyond traditional engagement practices.

The challenges faced in modernizing public engagement in deliberative processes relate to institutional culture and the technology landscape. Public officials must commit to expanding engagement opportunities, while GovTech companies should explore their platforms’ potential as advocates and facilitators for broader public participation. Addressing these challenges could unlock the full potential of technology and deliver substantial benefits to the government, the public, and democracy.

Decentralization or flattening of hierarchical structures for deliberative public engagement addresses these challenges and helps achieve the benefits. Decentralizing public engagement involves three critical components:

  1. Expanding Participation Scope: Move beyond customary means to increase and distribute a community of users, or residents, engaged in decision-making processes.
  2. Flattening Hierarchies: Collapse established hierarchical processes and establish new forums that increase resident motivation and foster participation and feedback.
  3. Scalable Technology Platforms: Adopt and deploy across the entire organization to integrate traditional and digital public engagement processes for government deliberations.

Decentralization provides many benefits for both residents and public officials including:

  • Opening more doors and dialog between the public and government on specific issues.
  • Expanding accommodations beyond conventional engagement practices.
  • Leveraging residents’ energy, enthusiasm, and expertise about their community with the public work of government.
  • Organizing, facilitating, and reporting government deliberations that improve inclusive and informed decision-making.

At the “Rethinking Public Engagement Summit” sponsored by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), I presented eight propositions to support the concept of decentralizing public engagement:

Proposition #1: Building Trust: Public engagement serves as a direct pipeline for building trust in public institutions, with transparency and resident participation contributing significantly to establishing a positive reputation or brand.

Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal, the former director of digital engagement at The National Archives writes about how governments build strong brands. She states “The distinction between government branding and branding in the private sector is that government branding always comes down to trust, …you have to put money in the ‘trust bank’ first, establishing a positive and distinct reputation for trustworthiness and a particular set of values.”

Proposition #2: Technology and Cultural Transformations: Recognize the risks and benefits of increased participation in deliberative practices and develop strategies that minimize risks while maximizing the benefits of technology and cultural transformations.

In the digital age, local governments have gone from operating in a fishbowl to operating in an aquarium. More traffic, more eyes, more interest, and more opinions.

Eleven years ago the PEW Research Center and the Knight Foundation found only 3% of residents received information about their government from the government. The local news was the overwhelming source. Today, more local governments connect directly to their residents with their own information technology and social networks; even foregoing working through their local news media. This creates a new level of public information challenges that are covered elsewhere.

Proposition #3: Essential Technology Platforms: A scalable, enterprise technology platform is crucial to increase capacity, inclusion, and complement conventional practices.

Technology platforms enable ongoing and daily collaborations with residents and stakeholders beyond traditional forms of outreach. New digital avenues for G-C/C-G communication have been created including the ability to stream public meetings, send email, operate 311 call lines and apps, and enable social media.

However, governments have become overly reliant on using social media channels. It’s not uncommon to find scores of social media accounts on a local government website. Unfortunately, social media can be counterproductive to deliberative public engagement (see Proposition #7)

Proposition #4: The Wisdom of Crowds: The idea that large groups are collectively smarter than individual experts should be recognized, pursued, and facilitated using technology for better decision-making.

Managing large numbers of participants may be seen as unwieldy by those tasked with managing those processes. However, excluding people –directly or indirectly– who will be impacted by government decisions can create problems beyond poor decisions. It can create suspicion and mistrust among residents, and possibly lead to lawsuits.

Here is where public engagement platforms pay dividends. Not only can they organize and facilitate large numbers of participants, but through decentralized public engagement, they can be expanded to multiple areas to accommodate dispersed engagement in more areas of government deliberations.

Proposition #5: Quality vs. Quantity Challenge: Resolve the challenge through greater participant attribution and validation.

The power of public comment. In government deliberations, the need for structured and validated public input is critical. Identifying the origin (who and where) of constituent comments provides decision-makers with important information that can be crucial when making decisions on their behalf.

The public engagement technology platform used by deliberative bodies should offer multiple options or levels for attribution and validation surrounding resident participation. Depending on the need or requirement, the options should range from allowing anonymity (think public rally or assembly) to requiring full acknowledgment and certification (think public comment at a council meeting).

Proposition #6: Rethink Conventional Engagement: Transform traditional boards, commissions, and task forces into issue-focused online communities with their own “mini-publics.”

These traditional advisory panels are convened with small groups of residents. Typical local governments may have between 15-25 of these forums focused on a single program or policy. They are ripe for transformation in today’s digital government.

Using public engagement platforms, local governments can transform these outdated boards into issue-focused online communities. Members of the new structured forums include motivated residents, or “mini-publics” who have a keen interest in specific issues –safety, health, education, transportation, and land use planning– and will enthusiastically contribute their knowledge and ideas to improve policy-making.

Proposition #7: Avoiding Social Media Pitfalls: Social networks are ineffective for meaningful collaboration and pose potential threats to deliberative public engagement due to their lack of structure and control.

Social media can be counterproductive to deliberative public engagement. By their design, social media are anti-deliberative. They enable bad actors to disrupt and fractionalize public attention and collaboration. There is also the growing presence of bots appearing as residents on government social network accounts posting false information. That makes the government culpable for spreading mis- and disinformation.

Social networks cast a wide net that neither effectively reaches the intended audience nor provides pathways for meaningful input and feedback. Social media can provide channels for broadcasting information to the public. They are not recommended for collaboration or collecting public comment in deliberative processes. Instead, governments should be using dedicated public engagement platforms as issue-networks as alternatives to social networks (see Proposition #6).

Proposition #8: Meeting Resident Expectations: Secure and maintain public support by meeting resident engagement expectations and preferences, fostering two-way communication, and closing the feedback loop.

A fundamental trust issue for public engagement surrounds meeting people where they are, educating and motivating them with information to participate, and following up to inform them how their input impacts decisions. From national surveys conducted in 2022 and 2023 by PublicInput, a provider of community engagement software, the general sentiment expressed by a majority of residents was that many were unaware of opportunities to participate. And when notified, those who did not participate claimed not receiving enough information from the government prevented them from offering an educated response.

The features and functionality of the technology along with supportive project management are crucial to maintaining positive relations by empowering residents and building trust. Public engagement platforms should handle most if not all of the administrative tasks to complete a full engagement life-cycle from notification to education, solicitation, reporting, concluding, and archiving with updates provided throughout.

In conclusion, decentralizing public engagement is not just a shift in using technology, but also a transformation involving the institutional culture of the organization. By embracing the three components—expanding participation scope, flattening hierarchies, and adopting scalable technology platforms—governments can educate and motivate community residents and tap into their knowledge and wisdom. Eight propositions offer a roadmap to navigate the collective challenges and help maximize the benefits of decentralized public engagement. Increasing interest and participation builds trust, and results in more resident inclusion and informed government decisions.

Improved Public Engagement with Expanded Virtual

(This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com)

How can virtual engagement improve public participation in 2022?

State and local governments and their constituents have seen expanded use of virtual and online engagement over the last two years. This expanded use, which was initiated primarily in response to pandemic-related social distancing at conventional public gatherings,  has encouraged successful virtual engagement for both synchronous and asynchronous collaboration.

Governments that take advantage of smart communication and information-sharing technology enable greater interaction with residents by meeting the public’s growing preference to connect virtually.

Residents are responding to governments’ broader reach and finding more avenues to connect with their public officials to contribute ideas and suggestions towards community public policy challenges. Both groups benefit by sharing information and ideas that should lead to more informed decision-making for jurisdictions.

Expand virtual, increase impact

Looking beyond traditional public engagement processes, such as those occurring at regular meetings of legislative bodies, e.g., council meetings, or for planning meetings that require public comment such as transportation projects, how can the government expand the use of virtual engagement in 2022 and have greater community impact?

Federal Funding
One emerging area within public planning involves new federal funding programs that emerged during the pandemic to address local social and economic challenges. While federal funding initiatives have historically required public outreach to collect input, the current administration has expanded the public participation criteria to require more and more inclusive resident engagement. These requirements are an important part of federal programs such as the American Rescue Plan, also known as ARPA, and its predecessor, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Both of these measures lay out specific requirements for local jurisdictions to follow and to present their plan for qualifying for federal funding before the funds are provided. Both programs mention using virtual and online options to increase the representative participation of residents in the planning and prioritization of community needs.

Regular business and virtual platforms
Other opportunities for governments to expand public participation by utilizing virtual platforms are in the daily work of conducting the public’s business. This work can be ad hoc or ongoing depending on its activity.

For example, many programs, initiatives, or policies presented at council meetings or assigned to an agency may appear on a meeting agenda and receive a smattering of conversation by public officials and brief public comments at the meeting. However, using an online public engagement platform that can centralize information and communication around that topic can help government and the public continue their collaboration which builds greater awareness and enables sharing of more ideas in the decision-making process.

Expanding public participation using virtual platforms allows governments to focus on external challenges such as health care, education, or public safety or dial in on internal challenges such as budgeting, revenue, and expenditures.

Policy Making Improvements

Other areas of policy that can be expanded for greater public participation can be in the multiple public boards and committees where a small representation from the public (perhaps one member from each ward or district) provides input and feedback to government around the topic their board is focused on. These areas include beautification, code enforcement, police review, historic preservation, public arts, economic development and housing.

Local governments usually have many boards and committees. Formalizing a method for using virtual engagement to increase resident feedback helps provide the government with greater insight and understanding around those purposes while providing the representative citizen members of those boards with opportunities for input and feedback.

Increase equity and inclusion

Opening government for greater public involvement must rely on proven technology to accomplish an equitable and inclusive representation of the community. The virtual public meeting formats convened during the pandemic and revisited again, as the current Omicron strain threatens new shutdowns of public gatherings, have shown the public’s interest to not only attend virtual proceedings but also contribute to the matters being discussed.

Building Public Engagement Resiliency

(This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com)

An Expanded Framework

Whether you work for a local/state government, metropolitan planning organization, transit agency, or consulting firm, chances are you are generally familiar with the concept of estimating resilience.   Typically this dimensionless quantity corresponds to the ability of a governmental entity to quickly “revive” following an impactful event like weather or some other civic infrastructure disaster.

Today, we see across the nation an expanded framework for resilience that incorporates the impacts of the pandemic, social unrest, and a divisive national election that has increasingly challenged the government’s most demanding resilience challenge: public engagement.  As Valerie Lemmie, with the Kettering Foundation, put it so succinctly:

There is a crisis of confidence in our democracy.  Citizens feel disconnected and that their voices are not heard.  Political polarization and isolation due to the pandemic make it harder for people to connect—build relationships of trust and work together on shared problems.

In these moments, when we feel that the very foundation of our democracy has been shaken, the importance of civic engagement and public participation is the only reliable and RESILIENT stabilizer.

The Challenge

The recent “crisis of confidence” has been a game changer.  When it comes to public engagement; flexibility, continuity, and sustainability are the battle cry for communities who are hungry for a resilient outcome following the challenges of the last 2 years.

For governments, finding resilient solutions has been particularly challenging.  Unless referencing Fire or EMS, speed is not typically in the DNA of bureaucratic systems that are by design cautious, methodical, and transparent to protect the public good.

The use of agile principles applied in the private sector to help businesses respond, transition, and recover more quickly are not found as frequently within governmental processes.

At some level, governments and other public agencies acknowledge that there is a need and a benefit to increased speed and resilience, but navigating uncertainty while continuing to deliver public services and programs has its own set of specific challenges and limitations.

The key to managing some of these challenges may be found in the government’s ability to connect and interact in an inclusive, sincere, and consequential manner while balancing the need to move forward as public needs and expectations shift.

Technology that Helps Inform and Amplify

Technology offers solutions to help governments inform and amplify voices within their communities.  While technology is a critical factor in how practitioners approach public engagement in a post-COVID society, the application of technology is only a tool in the ongoing transformational culture of public sector engagement.  The role of government as a facilitator of discourse, amid this “crisis of confidence,”  is dependent on a unified approach to engagement that incorporates technology.

However, technology is not the only response to government resiliency. While technology is critical, a culture change is even more important. And how the government looks at public engagement and applies technology (to help transform that role for greater potential) will depend as much on an internal cultural transformation as a digital one.

Government services including healthcare, housing, public safety, transportation, education, and others have been and will continue to be impacted going forward. The public sector will continue to wrestle with solving those challenges on its own. More knowledge about needs and expectations is required through greater public input, feedback, and inclusion.

Transparency Helps with Resilience and Responsiveness

Hearing from diverse community voices as well as from those who possess subject matter expertise on policy topics must be collected and utilized in the decision-making process. There are platforms that enable those inside and outside of public institutions to contribute and to innovate through more meaningful input and feedback. Yet many public institutions are not using them to their fullest potential, if at all.

Many of the transparency impediments surrounding public meetings that governments faced during the pandemic were blamed on technology. In most of those cases, it wasn’t the technology. Rather, it was about not having the correct technology to accomplish the required tasks and to meet the information and access demands of residents.

Public engagement impediments are not just technology-driven. They are also people driven.  These types of impediments come from an internal culture about how public officials view and utilize public participation. At a minimum, public officials and administrators view the practice as a required check box in governing. At worst, they view it as a risky endeavor.

Understand that public input and feedback is the common thread that runs through all government business. That means everyone in government has a responsibility and a role in contributing to public participation. And in times of crisis, it should be viewed as an opportunity for identifying solutions, not as an obstacle to decision-making.

The Path Forward

What is needed now, for governments to be resilient and responsive to their constituents and to operate in the “new normal,” is to ensure they have in place both enabling technology and enabling culture that are working together.

The authors of an HBR article about talent, technology, and digital transformation said it best:

“The most brilliant innovation is irrelevant if we are not skilled enough to use it; and even the most impressive human minds will become less useful if they don’t team up with technology.”

This feedback is particularly important for government. When it comes to democratic practices of public engagement, being resilient and adapting to a digital world is not an option. However, doing so must be a “people-led and technology-supported” endeavor.

More clearly defined, public institutions and their officials must understand and value public participation. And they must be confident that the technology is there to help achieve greater outreach, inclusiveness, analytics, and transparency in a managed and organized structure that leads to a meaningful experience and outcome for everyone.