There is a principled case and a practical case for engaging the community. 

A principled case for engagement stresses the essential role of public participation in a democratic society. Community members deserve to be involved in the decisions that affect them. Depending on the jurisdiction and issue, they might also have a legal right to participate in decision making in specific ways. Aside from legal requirements, the government obligation to engage the public in decision making can be justified as ethical and right, and it is required by various professional codes of ethics, including those of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).

Many values are widely cited as measures of legitimate and meaningful public engagement, including equity, transparency, accountability, and early involvement before decisions are made.

A practical case for community engagement is grounded in the tangible benefits of involving people in decisions that affect them and avoiding the pitfalls of failing to do so. From the standpoint of government staff and elected officials, the most compelling argument may be that effective community engagement can help them solve problems.

While it requires an initial commitment of time and resources, an investment in community engagement capacity can benefit government decision makers and staff. It improves relationships and civil discourse, makes public meetings go more smoothly, saves time and money by averting legal challenges, aids project delivery when stakeholders feel heard, and improves the work environment for elected officials and staff members who are the first point of contact with the public.

(For more detailed discussion on rationales for engaging the community, click here to view  an excerpt from Greenway, Leistner, Brown and Wedding. Building Local Government Capacity for Community Engagement: A Survey of the Field of Practice in Oregon, Hatfield School of Government, January 2023 (Full Research Version)]

The preamble to the City of Portland (Oregon) Public Involvement Principles states that: “…City government works best when community members and government work as partners. Effective public involvement is essential to achieve and sustain this partnership and the civic health of our city.” The preamble then lists the following benefits of effective community engagement:

• “Ensures better City decisions that more effectively respond to the needs and priorities of the community.”
• “Engages community members and community resources as part of the solution.”
• “Engages the broader diversity of the community–especially people who have not been engaged in the past.”
• “Increases public understanding of and support for public policies and programs.”
• “Increases the legitimacy and accountability of government actions.”

Traditional public administration views the relationship between the government and the community as a top-down, “parent/child” relationship–government leaders and administrators make the decisions for the community. 

A new approach to public administration and governance is gaining traction in communities around the the US and around the world. “Community governance” or “shared governance” is founded on the belief that government and the community should be partners in decision making. Both government and the community bring specific insights, knowledge, and resources that are needed to solve the complex problems we all are experiencing today.  

OTHER TERMS FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

Terms for this work evolve over time. In the past, community engagement commonly was referred to as public involvement or citizen involvement. The bigger concept of Participatory Democracy also has gone by many names. Some examples include: Citizen Politics (Boyte 2004), Citizen-driven Administration (Cooper 2011), Collaborative Governance (Sirianni 2009), Community Governance (Somerville 2005), Deliberative Democracy (Gastil and Levine 2005), Democratic Governance (Leighninger 2006; National League of Cities), Local Democracy (Leighninger and Mann 2011),  Neighborhood Governance (Chaskin 2003),  Participatory Democracy (Berry, Portney and Thomson 1993), Public Work (Boyte 2011), Shared Governance (Leighninger 2006), Strong Democracy (Barber 1984; Berry, Portney and Thomson, 1993; Thomson 2001), “We the People” politics (Boyte 2011), and Empowered Participatory Governance (Fung 2004).

These terms embody some key themes, governance orientations and values. Some focus on specific approaches and methods–others focus on capacity building in the community or in government. Common themes that emerge across these terms include: Broadening the concepts of “politics” and “governance;” ensuring broad and deep participation; governance as a “partnership;” deliberative decision making; building strong capacity in the community to engage in governance; and government willingness and ability to partner with the community. (Click here for more information on these terms.)

WHAT DOES GOOD COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LOOK LIKE?

We all should be aware of the difference between good community engagement and bad community engagement. Community members need to be ready to advocate for good engagement processes and push back on poor processes that 

The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) has established seven core values that characterize effective and successful community engagement. These include:

1. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interest of all participants, including decision makers.
4. Public participation seeks out and facilities the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.
6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

We all should be aware of the difference between good community engagement and bad community engagement. Community members need to be ready to advocate for good engagement processes and push back on poor processes that violate the principles and best practices of good community engagement. 

One of the most effective descriptions of the bad versus good community engagement was developed by Sherry Arnstein in her article presenting a hard-hitting critique of US federal government community engagement programs in the 1960s. Arnstein established a “Ladder of Citizen Participation,” which still is very relevant today. You can read her full article here. 

J. H. Snider (2010) warned that “Fake public participation is widespread in the United States government and in governments all over the world.”  Snider asserts that local public officials use many techniques to bias public participation in their own favor, including: 

1. Don’t publicize the meeting to potential opponents.

2. Schedule the meeting at an inconvenient time or place.

3. Stack citizen representatives on public bodies.

4. Signal the futility of participating to those most likely to participate.

5. Intimidate potential opponents by forcing them to reveal their identities.

Snider offers a number of recommendations to combat fake public participation. He asserts that “the first step is to recognize the nature of the problem, including where the problem is most severe. The second step is to develop a detailed set of public policy recommendations to address the problem.” He concludes that “Like the struggle to preserve and enhance democracy, the struggle to eliminate fake public participation must be ongoing.” You can read Snider’s full article here.

  LIST OF RESOURCES REFERENCED IN THIS SECTION

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx