4.3 Appreciative Inquiry
Alphabetical listing Direct decision making Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing
of methods Series of events 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months
Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an Who participates? AI can work in — sharing responsibility and approach for creating a vision and various ways. In the UK it usually decision-making. planning to achieve it. AI does consists of a small core group this through understanding and to develop and test appreciative Can it be used to make decisions? 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation appreciating the past, as a basis questions. They then put the Yes
for imagining the future. questions to family, friends and T sometimes strangers. Strengths: Description: AI builds a vision for — Community involvement; the future using questions to focus Cost: Usually between £5,000 and — Easy to include the people who people’s attention on success. £20,000. normally don’t take part; 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS Questions often revolve around what — It builds on what has worked in RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering people enjoy about an area, their Time requirements: The the past; a b c d aspirations for the future, and their appreciative questions are — Vision; feelings about their communities. developed, tested and analysed — Partnership working. AI facilitates The questions are designed to in two to four half- or full-day the development of partnerships TYPES OF OUTCOMES encourage people to tell stories from workshops. The results are then by helping partners to identify the THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING their own experience of what works. presented to the wider community values and behaviour they want By seeing what works and exploring in a larger event. Analysing the the partnership to have. why, it is possible to imagine and replies to all the questions can be Map of Existing Opinions construct further success, ensuring time-consuming. AI works best when Weaknesses: that a vision of the future is created it is run as a long term process of — AI is a philosophy first and a Map of Informed with a firm basis in reality. change. method second, so it is fairly PARTICIPANTS CAN BE Opinions loose; Origin: Developed by David When should you use? — Some people view the lack of Self-selected Improved Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastra — When you want to energise direct attention to problems as a Relationships at Case Western University in the a depressed community or weakness; US. They wanted to challenge the organisation; — AI pays little attention to who Stakeholder Shared problem-solving approach to the — When you want to build a vision should be involved. Representatives Vision management of change, by showing but do not want it seen as ‘pie in
that organisations are not machines the sky’. Can deliver: Demographic New Ideas to be fixed but organisms to be — Energy; Representatives appreciated. When should you not use? — Shared vision. — When it is important to involve all Specific Empowered Used for: Creating energy by key stakeholders; Won’t deliver: Individuals Participants
identifying and building on what — If you cannot recruit a good core — Action, unless an action planning e f Notes works and involving lots of people group; element is added on. a Works with any number e Usually selected by the core group which through outreach by the core group. — When there is no interest in puts together the appreciative questions
56 57 Citizens’ Juries
Direct decision making
Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing
Series of events 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months
50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation T
AI Example: Ryedale Community 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS Plan RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering a b c d The Local Authority in Ryedale, North Yorkshire wanted to base their decisions on a vision for the future that was shared with the community. In September 2002 a core TYPES OF OUTCOMES group was set up with the help of the New Economics THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING Foundation. A dozen local activists and council officers were trained in using appreciative questions to identify people’s important values, aspirations and hopes for the Map of Existing Opinions future. The questions were carefully worded so that solutions were emphasised and not just problems. Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions These questions were then used in conversations, meetings, classrooms and even on a specially set-up Self-selected Improved phone-in line. Following this, the core group read four Relationships hundred and thirty scripts and drew out the recurring Contact Anne Radford themes and issues. This process culminated in the Telephone 020 7633 9630 Stakeholder Shared drafting of vision statements around six identified Fax 020 7633 9670 Representatives Vision themes. As far as possible, these propositions Email [email protected] Web www.aradford.co.uk incorporated the exact words of the people who had Demographic New Ideas taken part. Online resources Representatives www.appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University where AI was first developed Next, the vision statements were taken back to those Specific Empowered who had been involved in the process, giving them the Publications Individuals Participants Griffin, T. (Ed.) (2003), The Appreciative Inquiry Summit: A Practitioners opportunity to make changes before the vision became e f Guide for Leading Large Group Change, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco a part of the community plan. The final output was an Whitney, D. and Trosten-Bloom, A. (2002), The Power of Appreciative agreed vision of Ryedale’s Community Plan. Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change, Berret-Koehler, San Francisco
58 59 Citizens’ juries consist of a small tools. They are about enhancing — Enables decision-makers to panel of non-specialists, modelled representative democracy, not direct understand what informed to resemble a criminal jury, who democracy. members of the public might carefully examine an issue of regard as realistic solutions; public significance and deliver a Who participates? Most Juries — The results can also be used to “verdict”. include a ‘best fit’ (demographic) generate wider public debate sample of 12 to 16 members about the issues. Description: A Citizens’ Jury is an of the public. They are brought independent forum for members of together to examine both written Weaknesses: the public to examine and discuss an and verbal evidence about different — Only involves a very small important issue of public policy. It is perspectives on the issue they are number of people, which means deliberative in the sense that the Jury deliberating on. that the wider public may still receives information about the issues hold a less informed view; in question. This information includes Cost: A Citizens Jury usually costs — A challenge for policy makers a full range of opinions, often in the between £20,000 and £40,000. The is how to reconcile these two form of worked up options, on what difference in the costing usually different public voices to create should be done about the issue. relates to how long the process is wider public ownership of the Much of this information is presented designed to last and the exact nature jurors’ recommendations; through witness presentations of the methodology. The original — It can also be difficult for policy followed by question and answer type of Jury introduced into the UK makers to decide how to Example: DTI Citizens’ Jury 2004 sessions. Juries are not designed by IPPR and the Kings Fund tends to proceed if they reject the Jury’s to create a consensus amongst the last for four days and involves much recommendations. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister jurors, but there does tend to be a preparation time. This version would for Women, Patricia Hewitt, wanted to commission a Citizens’ momentum towards consensus. In a be at the higher end of the costing. Can deliver: Jury to help to develop policies that will support people four-day process, day one is largely — Decision-making that better juggling family and work commitments. The Office of Public about bringing jurors up to speed on Time requirements: The set up time reflects the public’s views; Management worked with the Department of Trade and the issue. Days two and three tend for a jury can be anywhere from two — A high profile example of public Industry to make it happen. to focus on witness presentations to four months. engagement. about different ways of dealing with Sixteen jurors, broadly representative of the wider the issue. Most of the fourth day When should you use? Won’t deliver: population, were recruited. Witnesses came from ten is spent by the Jury developing its — When you have a ‘live’ Wider democratic engagement and organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, recommendations. contentious issue where the way empowerment. Boots plc and the Equal Opportunities Commission. During the forward has not been decided; four-day jury, the jurors also requested an additional witness Origin: Social Research – the — Juries usually work best where from Sure Start to provide information on the government’s model used in the UK is a mixture feasible policy options have been childcare agenda. of the US Citizens’ Jury developed developed by policy makers by the Jefferson Center, and the about how to respond to a The DTI asked some jurors to keep a diary of their experience German Pannungszelle (planning problem. and also videotaped the process – to be able to share the cell) developed by the University of process with other colleagues. The diaries also showed how Wuppertal. When should you not use? the mindset of the jurors shifted during the four days and — When you have already decided Contact Office for Public Management provided a very personal insight into the issues being explored. Used for: Live public policy issues how to proceed on an issue; 252B Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8XG For example, one juror wrote about the difficulty of juggling Telephone 020 7239 7800 — her own responsibilities as a mother so that she could attend where opinion is sharply divided and When the issue is not of Fax 020 7837 5800 policy makers cannot decide how significant interest to the public; Email offi[email protected] the jury each day. to proceed. This deliberative model — When you seek consensus. Web www.opm.co.uk Jurors had some scepticism about whether the jury would creates an informed public opinion Publications about what they feel policy makers Can it be used to make decisions? Declan Hall and John Stewart, Citizens’ Juries in Local Government: report influence Government policy. However, its influence is already should do. Although originally No for the LGMB on the pilot projects, Local Government Management Board, evident in elements of the Chancellor’s pre-budget speech at 1996 the end of 2004 – the proposed increase in maternity pay is designed for local communities to Coote, A. and Lenaghan, J. (1997), Citizens’ Juries: Theory into Practice, tackle issues of local concern, Juries Strengths: Institute for Public Policy Research, London. in keeping with the thrust of the jurors’ recommendations. are now starting to be used to look at — Gives an informed public opinion All the jurors were enthusiastic about the process and at the Online resources end said they would be willing to be contacted by the DTI in national issues. Juries are decision- about how a difficult issue should www.jefferson-center.org advising rather than decision-making be tackled; Jefferson Center (US) the future to help develop policy further.
60 61 A Citizens’ Panel is a large, a large body of people over a period There are mixed views on how often Citizens’ Panels demographically representative of time, thereby assessing the impact the Panel should be consulted. group of citizens’ used to assess of developments. 4-6 times a year is a common public preferences and opinions. recommendation but others engage Who participates? Citizens’ Panels with the Panel once a month. Too Description: Citizens’ panels are can range in size from a few hundred frequent engagement leads to some Direct decision making made up of a representative sample to several thousand people. With participants dropping out and others of a local population and are used more than 1,000 participants it is becoming too knowledgeable to Series of events by statutory agencies, especially often possible to identify sub groups remain representative. 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing local authorities, to identify local of panel members who can be issues and consult service users and surveyed about issues specific to When should you use? non-users. Potential participants are their needs or interests. The Panel — To monitor public opinion on Series of events generally recruited through random needs to be systematically renewed key issues; 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months sampling of the electoral roll or to make sure it is still representative — As a source for participants for door-to-door recruitment. They are of the population in general. more in-depth processes, like then selected so that membership is Panel members need to be recruited focus groups; made up of a representative profile of in a way which ensures that they are — Engaging the public with the the local population in terms of age representative of the population as development of new policy areas. and gender. a whole. 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation Once they agree to participate, When should you not use? panel members, or sections of it, Cost: Running a Panel can cost — Citizens’ Panels should not be
T participate in surveys at intervals over anything from £5,000 a year to well the only form of consultation. the course of their membership and, over £20,000. Costs vary depending where appropriate, in further in-depth on the size of the Panel, the methods Can it be used to make decisions? research such as Focus Groups. in which the members are consulted No 25 £10,000 One day event Information The types of questions to ask the and the frequency of consultation. If SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering Panel requires careful thought to all research is telephone based and if Strengths: a b c d ensure that they are relevant to the the Panel is shared with other partner — Can be used by a partnership of participants. Panel members need organisations the costs can be cut. agencies; to be clear about their role on the Be wary when sharing the Panel with — Can target specific groups if TYPES OF OUTCOMES panel. Make sure you tell them what other organisations though, as this large enough; THAT THE APPROACH IS is expected of them from the start, limits your own use. — Allows surveys or other research GOOD AT PRODUCING as some people think a ‘panel’ will There are considerable costs to be done at short notice (once involve face-to-face discussions, and work involved in running and the panel is established); Map of Existing where in fact questionnaires or maintaining the panels, requiring — In larger panels members are Opinions telephone polling are the most significant resources in terms of representative of the population; common panel techniques. Members staff time, skills and money. In — Can track changes in views Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions also need to be told how frequently some cases incentives are given to over time; they will be consulted, how long they encourage participation in a Panel; — The cost of a panel, once will be on the panel etc. for example a prize draw. In the long established and used several Self-selected Improved Relationships run, it should work out cheaper than times, is less than a large-scale Origin: Citizens’ Panels have evolved regular one-off surveys. one-off survey. from Opinion Polls and Market Stakeholder Shared Representatives Vision Research. Time requirements: Staff time Weaknesses: will be needed to keep the panel — Needs considerable staff support
Demographic New Ideas Used for: Panels can be used database up to date, recruit new to establish and maintain; Representatives to assess service needs, identify participants, run and analyse the — Non-English speakers could local issues and determine consultations. Feedback on the be excluded; Specific Empowered the appropriateness of service outcome of consultation needs — Reflects your agenda rather than Individuals Participants developments. Large panels can to be disseminated among the the community’s; e f also be used to target specific participants, often through a — The database of names and Notes groups for their views on issues. newsletter. addresses requires constant a Panels of several thousand participants are not uncommon Citizens’ Panels measure the views of updating;
62 63 — Younger members tend to drop out, so the panel gradually gets Community older. Empowerment Networks Can deliver: — Picture of public opinion over time. Direct decision making
Series of events Won’t deliver: 500+ £40,000+ running over — In-depth understanding of the 1 year +/ Ongoing public’s views; — Empowered participants; — Consensus/Shared Vision; Series of events 100 £30,000 running over — Improved relationships. several weeks/months
50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation T
25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering
a b c d
TYPES OF OUTCOMES Example: Bristol Citizens’ Panel THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING
The Bristol Citizens’ Panel was established to keep the council informed about public opinion, and is promoted as ‘Bristol’s Map of Existing Opinions biggest think-tank’.
A random sample and interviews were used in late 1998 to Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions recruit 2,200 panellists that mirrored the population of the city as a whole. Since then, the Citizens’ Panel has been asked Self-selected Improved more than six hundred questions, ranging from issues like Relationships recycling to whether or not Bristol should have a directly Contact Bristol Citizens’ Panel elected Mayor. Over the years new panellists have been Telephone 0117 922 2848 Stakeholder Shared recruited to replace inactive panel members. Each year the Web www.bristol-city.gov.uk/council/corporate_consultation_ Representatives Vision Panel receives up to four questionnaires, which can either be services.html completed on paper or electronically on the council website. Contact Market & Opinion Research International (MORI) Demographic New Ideas MORI House 79-81 Borough Road, London, SE1 1FY Representatives The results from the Citizens’ Panel are regularly fed into Telephone 020 7347 3000 Fax 020 7347 3800 decision-making, and the panel has also featured in the local Email [email protected] Specific Empowered and national media. Panel members are kept informed of the Web www.mori.com Individuals Participants results of the surveys via the panel newsletter “Feedback” e f Online resources and results often appear in the local media and are all available Numerous Local Authorities have material about their Citizens’ Panels on the council website. on their websites.
64 65 Community Empowerment Origin: Government initiative. Set fragmented and you want to Networks are structures set up up to make the voluntary sector a ensure that it is able to take part Consensus by the government to enable civil more able participant in the Local effectively in decision-making or society to play an equal role with Strategic Partnerships and oversee improve information flows either Building/Dialogue the public and private sectors the administration of the Community within the sector or externally. in local strategic partnerships. Empowerment Fund in the local area. A Community Empowerment When should you not use? Direct decision making Network is not a method per se, Used for: Ensuring effective — This and other similar initiatives Series of events it is a government initiative, but communication with local people need to be long-term in order for 500+ £40,000+ running over we have included it here because and groups about Neighbourhood voluntary organisations to invest 1 year +/ Ongoing it demonstrates a way of dealing Renewal issues in their areas, time and effort in them; with the issues surrounding helping voluntary, community, and — Setting up a structure without community capacity building and residents’ groups get involved as sufficient funding for the future Series of events 100 £30,000 running over similar networks could be created. equal and full partners in Local would be demoralising. several weeks/months Strategic Partnerships and assisting Description: Local Strategic voluntary sector with advice on Can it be used to make decisions? Partnerships have been set up funding and other issues. Yes across England to co-ordinate planning and spending on Who participates? Community Strengths: mainstream services. They are made Empowerment Networks are open — Strengthens the voice of the local 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation up of a mix of public, private and to community and voluntary sector voluntary and community sector.
voluntary sector representatives. groups, and residents, in an area. T However, of the three sectors, Usually membership is free and the Weaknesses: the voluntary sector is the least network is governed by a board — Relatively new structure; organised and lacks clear structures elected by the members. — Not yet clear if it will gain through which to elect accountable credibility among voluntary 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS representatives. Cost: Community Empowerment sector actors; RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering Community Empowerment Networks oversee the administration — The voluntary sector is not always a b c d Networks have been set up by the of the Community Empowerment able to handle the responsibilities Government to create a structure for Fund, organise elections to the that come with the network and the community and voluntary sector Local Strategic Partnership, and support will be needed in the TYPES OF OUTCOMES to interact with the Local Strategic organise training and information. areas where this is the case. THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING Partnerships. The networks bring This requires a number of staff together both large ‘professional’ members. Setting up Community Can deliver: voluntary agencies and small Empowerment Networks is — Voice for the voluntary sector; Map of Existing Opinions community or residents group. funded through the Community — Training and capacity building; The responsibilities and activities Empowerment Fund. — Improved relationships; Map of Informed of the networks include electing — Potentially shared vision. PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions community and voluntary sector Time requirements: The Community members to sit on Local Strategic Empowerment Networks are meant Won’t deliver: Self-selected Improved Partnerships and keeping all sectors to be permanent features, creating — Community Empowerment Relationships of the community informed about the a central institution for the voluntary Networks function as a catalyst Partnerships. It should also ideally sector in an area with which the for other forms of participation Stakeholder Shared Notes function as a forum for people to get authorities can interact. and regeneration, it will not Representatives Vision b Long-term and high conflict Dialogue involved in and should gather the deliver on its own. processes often cost considerably more views of the sector and pass those When should you use? than this scale can show. Dialogue Demographic New Ideas processes to address specific issues on to sector representatives — Community Empowerment Contact The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit Representatives may cost considerably less. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 6th Floor, 6/G9 e Depends on the scale of the process, in In the longer term it should build Networks are now being small processes or where there is less Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU the capacity of the sector to engage implemented in areas targeted by conflict, self-selection can sometimes Telephone 08450 82 83 83 Specific Empowered be acceptable. Most Dialogues are run in regeneration partnerships, through Neighbourhood Renewal across Email [email protected] Individuals Participants with stakeholder representatives who Web www.neighbourhood.gov.uk report back/feed back to their relevant training and support and seek the country. Similar structures e f constituency. funding and resources to support the may be useful elsewhere, f Dialogue is designed around the needs Online resources of the situation. This can include some or sector and its representatives. where the voluntary sector is www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/page.asp?id=583 all of the above.
66 67 An approach that is good for independent expert facilitation be applied at all levels of conflict resolution, building and and possibly numerous meetings government. improving relationships between the costs can be high. However, diverse groups and involving Dialogue remains one of the few Weaknesses: normally excluded groups in practicable participative options — Extremely reliant on the skills of a decision-making. once a conflict has reached a certain facilitator or mediator, which can point. Initiating a Dialogue at an make it expensive; Description: Dialogue incorporates earlier stage can save enormous — May be time consuming; a range of approaches designed to effort, resources and anxiety later. — The need to ensure participation help participants identify common by all significant stakeholders ground and mutually beneficial Time requirements: Dialogue can slow progress or even render solutions to a problem. The process projects have a tendency to take a it impossible; involves stakeholders in defining long time to complete due to the slow — Ensuring communication the problem, devising the methods process of building relationships and between the stakeholder and creating the solutions. Dialogue trust between groups. representatives and their is mainly conducted through constituencies is challenging. workshops and similar meetings. The When should you use? minimum aim is to find a mutually — Where there is conflict; Some feel that when Dialogue is acceptable compromise, but — Where there may be conflict in explicit in its quest for consensus ideally the process seeks to build the future if steps are not taken to it may not value organisational on common ground and reach a prevent it; and individual positions. The final Example: BNFL National proactive consensus. Every Dialogue — When you want to build working outputs may only highlight areas of Stakeholder Dialogue process is tailor-made to suit the relationships with interest groups agreement while ignoring other parts situation and the people involved. that are normally excluded, or of the picture. This is particularly The BNFL Dialogue (1998-2005) was Europe’s largest feel excluded, from decision- problematic for campaigning stakeholder engagement process around nuclear issues to Origin: Evolved from conflict making; organisations for which positions are date. It was funded by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and was resolution and mediation approaches — When you want to improve important. managed by The Environment Council. The Dialogue had as in the US and UK. Commonly used in communication and build trust its remit “to inform BNFL’s decision-making process about environmental decision-making, with between groups; Can deliver: the improvement of their environmental performance in the growing use in other areas. — When a debate is required. — Improved relationships between context of their overall development”. It was open to national participants; and regional organisations as well as to specialist concerns, Used for: Conflict resolution or When should you not use? — Consensus/shared vision; ensuring that a full range of views was heard. conflict avoidance in decision- — When the stakeholders are — Increased legitimacy for making. Good in areas likely to be unable to influence decisions in decisions; The first stage in 1998 was spent building trust between regarded as controversial or where any significant way; — Creative new solutions. the different stakeholder groups, many of whom had never the facts are contested. — When essential groups (e.g. key spoken to each other. The initial meeting was attended by decision-makers) refuse to join; Won’t deliver: over 100 stakeholders who identified and prioritised a list Who participates? As far as — When time and/or money is in — Information representative of of issues and concerns to be addressed in further meetings. possible Dialogue involves all short supply; society as a whole; The diversity and complexity of the issues made it necessary stakeholders, defined as people who — When participants need to be — Quick results; to set up a number of working groups, each to deal with a have a concern about the outcome. demographically representative. — Clearly identified positions. specific problem. . Through the different working groups and This includes decision-makers, those their reports the dialogue has been able to review and make directly affected by decisions, and Can it be used to make decisions? recommendations on many different aspects of the nuclear those who could support or obstruct Yes industry, from the disposal of spent plutonium to the socio- the implementation of decisions. In Contact The Environment Council economical effects of plant closures. 212 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7BF practice a Dialogue process can Strengths: Telephone 020 7836 2626 involve anything from a handful — Deals well with contention and Fax 020 7242 1180 While some stakeholders have dropped out, the vast majority of people to several hundred. In can really help with issues of low Email [email protected] have stayed on and reaffirmed their commitment to the Web www.the-environment-council.org.uk general, the higher the number of trust; process. The BNFL dialogue has succeeded in building better participants the more limited the level — Is an approach that hands the Publications relationships between key stakeholders and, while the issue of deliberation possible. control of the process over to the The Environment Council/Shell (1999), Guidelines for Stakeholder of nuclear energy is still very contentious, the dialogue has Dialogue: A Joint Venture, The Environment Council, London. Available participants themselves; online at www.the-environment-council.org.uk/docs/Shell_Guidelines_ established where there is room for negotiation between Cost: Due to the need for — Is highly flexible and can to_SHD.pdf groups and where it remains impossible.
68 69 A consensus conference view of the public. This form of key stakeholders; Consensus Conference consists of a panel of ordinary citizen participation is particularly — When you want the participants citizens who question expert appropriate for involving citizens in to make actual decisions; witnesses on a particular topic. decision making on complex and — When the topic is very abstract or Their recommendations are then highly technical issues otherwise uncontroversial; circulated. requiring specialist knowledge. — When the funding and/or Direct decision making delivering body is seen as Description: At a Consensus Who participates? A citizens’ biased. Series of events Conference a panel of citizens panel of between 10-20 people is 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing explores a topic through questioning selected to reflect a variety of socio- Can it be used to make decisions? expert witnesses. The panel is given demographic criteria (note however No time to prepare before the actual that due to its size the panel cannot Series of events conference in order to fulfil their role be a statistically representative Strengths: 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months as informed citizens. Panel members sample of the population). Panel — Good public outreach if run well; receive a comprehensive information members should not have any — Open and transparent process pack and attend preparatory events significant prior involvement with the which encourages increased (usually two held at weekends). A conference topic – they are taking trust; distinctive feature is that the initiative part in their capacity as citizens, not — More control over subject matter lies with the citizens. They decide as professionals or specialists. and witnesses than is common in 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation the key aspects of the debate, Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative including the choice of questions Cost: A trained and independent Polling.
T and selection of the witnesses, and facilitator is required during the formulate their own conclusions. The preparatory weekends and during Weaknesses: press and public are able to attend the conference itself. A Consensus — Expensive; the main hearing. At the end of the Conference is expensive, requiring — The small sample of people 25 £10,000 One day event Information conference, the panel produces a large facilities to accommodate might exclude minorities. SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering report outlining conclusions and the media and public during the a b c d recommendations that are then event. Some claim, however, that Can deliver: circulated to key decision-makers Consensus Conferences are cost — The views of informed citizens and the media. The process is effective compared to the cost of and their key issues of concern TYPES OF OUTCOMES usually run by an organisation with informing the public through the on a policy area; THAT THE APPROACH IS no stake in the outcome to limit media. UK examples have ranged in — Useful and understandable GOOD AT PRODUCING accusations of bias. cost from £80,000 to £100,000. written material suitable for public use; Map of Existing Origin: Social Research. The Time requirements: The Consensus — Wider and better informed public Opinions Consensus Conference is based on Conference itself usually lasts for debate on an issue through the a model of technology assessment three days; the participants also media. Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions originating in the health care sector in attend preparatory events. Ensuring the USA during the 1960s and further that the relevant experts can attend Won’t deliver: developed by the Danish Board of as witnesses usually requires — Decisions; Self-selected Improved Relationships Technology. contacting them well in advance of — Detailed technical the events. recommendations; Used for: A Consensus Conference — Results that are representative of Stakeholder Shared Representatives Vision is a way of incorporating the When should you use? society as a whole. perspectives of ordinary members — Useful for dealing with
Demographic New Ideas of society into the assessment of controversial issues at a national Representatives new scientific and technological level; developments. In common with — Works well with issues that are Notes Citizens’ Juries, Consensus seen as controversial, complex or Specific Empowered a This number indicates those directly Individuals Participants involved and does not include those who Conferences aim to both inform expert dominated. may be influenced by reports about it or e f by its results. and consult with the citizenry. b The costs of this method usually go well The difference is that Consensus When should you not use? beyond this scale, sometimes amounting to £100,000. Conferences take place in open — When it is important to involve all
70 71 Deliberative Mapping
Direct decision making
Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing
Series of events 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months
Example: UK’s second national Consensus Confernce on radioactive
waste management 1999 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation
The National Consensus Conference on Radioactive Waste T Management was run by the UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (UKCEED), an independent sustainable development foundation. From a random sample of four thousand people a panel of 15 was selected. Care 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS was taken so that there was a balance of men and women, RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering educational backgrounds, and geographical spread in the a b c d panel. The Citizens’ Panel was set up to “focus on the effective and publicly acceptable long-term management of nuclear waste in the UK, both civil and military, concentrating TYPES OF OUTCOMES particularly on intermediate and high level waste.” THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING
Before the Conference the Panel was provided with balanced background information. The Panel attended two preparatory Map of Existing Opinions weekends. Out of a group of 80 experts who expressed an interest the panel selected 26 witnesses to testify before Map of Informed them. PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions
The Consensus Conference itself was held in London in May Self-selected Improved 1999. It was a four-day event, open to a wide audience. Relationships During the first two days of the Conference heard brief witness presentations, followed by further discussion and Contact UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development Stakeholder Shared debate between the Panel and witnesses. Members of the Priestgate House, 3/7 Priestgate, Peterborough, PE1 1JN Representatives Vision audience were able to submit written questions throughout Telephone 01733 311644 Fax 01733 312782 these two days. Email [email protected] Demographic New Ideas Web www.ukceed.org Representatives Notes b This is an approximation due to the On the third day, the Panel retired behind closed doors to low number of non-research based Online resources write a report on their conclusions and recommendations. Deliberative Mapping projects to date. Danish Board of Technology Specific Empowered e Public participants are selected to be On the final day the Panel presented their findings to the www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?page=forside.php3&language=uk Individuals Participants demographically representative while the specialist participants are selected for Conference and answered questions from the audience e f their individual knowledge and skills Publications and media. Key figures from government, industry and f Improves relationships among Joss, S. & Durant, J. (eds) (1995), Public Participation in Science: the role of participants, but not in society as a environmental groups were invited to respond to the report. consensus conferences in Europe, Science Museum, London. whole.
72 73 Deliberative Mapping involves Cost: High – exact figures hard to preferences towards policy both specialists and members give due to the limited number of options; of the public. It combines varied practical examples to date. Requires — Information on the different approaches to assess how expert facilitation. aspects of an issue and the participants rate different policy considerations around them. options against a set of defined Time requirements: This approach criteria. requires several months for the Won’t deliver: numerous meetings and workshops. — Consensus/ shared vision; Description: The citizen and expert — Better relationships between participants are divided into panels When should you use? groups. (often according to gender and — When you want to understand socio-economic background to public preferences; ensure that people are comfortable — Useful when the issue area is voicing their views). The citizens’ complicated; panels and the experts consider — When you want to give a Example: ‘Closing the Kidney Gap’ the issue both separately from one decision-maker a good and Radioactive Waste another and at a joint workshop. understanding of policy options. This allows both groups to learn There have been two applications of the Deliberative Mapping from each other without the experts When should you not use? (DM) approach to date. The first addressed the question dominating. The emphasis of — When you want the participants of how to reduce the gap between the number of people the process is not on integrating to make the decision; who are waiting for kidney transplants and the much lower expert and public voices, but — When you want to reach number of donor kidneys available in a project funded by the understanding the different consensus. Wellcome Trust (2001-2003). perspectives each offer to a policy process. The groups themselves Can it be used to make decisions? Citizens and specialists were tasked with learning more determine which criteria they will No about potential options for dealing with the kidney gap use to score the options against, and assessing their performance against a range of thereby limiting any structural bias, Strengths: criteria. 34 citizens from North London of different ages, and arrive at a ranking of them. — The results are considered ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds were recruited Deliberative Mapping incorporates opinions rather than articles of to participate, along with 17 specialists from a variety of both quantitative and qualitative faith or rash judgement; relevant organisations and disciplines. The different groups methods and participants work both — Specialists contribute to the registered similar preferences: technology-intense options individually and as a group. process without dominating; like xenotransplantation scored badly while preventive care — Combination of different and improvements to existing services scored highly. Origin: Social Research. Developed approaches creates a deep and from Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis comprehensible understanding The second full-scale DM trial brought 16 citizens and 9 (MADA) to resolve problems such as of public priorities. specialists together to consider the range of options available expert-dominated discussion in other to manage the UK’s intermediate and high- level radioactive participatory methods. Able to deliver Weaknesses: wastes. This project was sponsored by the Government’s both an overview and in-depth — Difficult to involve large numbers independent Committee for the Management of Radioactive analysis of public opinion. and high in cost and time- Wastes (CoRWM) in 2004, over half of whom attended one of commitment; the two intensive weekends as observers of the process. Used for: Fundamental to this — The results of the process can approach is the involvement of be contradictory views that leave Citizens and specialists reached the conclusion that the both ‘specialists’ and members of decision-makers without clear option of phased underground disposal performed best Contact Dr Andrew Stirling, Senior Lecturer the public. A sample of the public guidance; SPRU, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QE overall and CoRWM used the results of the trial to assist in (around 40 people) from varied — Very few people have practical Telephone 01273 877118 developing their nationwide program of public and stakeholder backgrounds is recruited onto experience of running this kind of Fax 01273 685865 engagement. In both trials, the citizens involved expressed Email [email protected] citizens’ panels. The experts (around process. Web www.the-environment-council.org.uk a feeling of ownership over the results of the process. They 20) are selected to reflect the full valued the opportunity to learn, have access to information spectrum of specialist knowledge in Can deliver: Online resources and meet specialists in order to engage with the issues. The www.deliberative-mapping.org an area. — Greater legitimacy for decisions; Official site with information about the development of the method and specialists felt that they learned about the citizens’ ability to — Information about public current and past processes. participate in scientific and technical decision-making.
74 75 A deliberative poll measures what might want policy-makers to do. Citizens’ Juries and Consensus Deliberative Polling the public would think about an Conferences; issue if they had an adequate Who participates? The number — Increases public understanding chance to reflect on the questions of participants in a Deliberative of the complexity of issues; at hand by observing the evolution Polling process range from — Includes people that would not of a test group of citizens’ views, around 200 to 600. It is important normally choose to get involved; Direct decision making as they learn more about a topic. that the participants constitute a — Demonstrates the large Deliberative polls are more representative sample of society; if difference between people’s Series of events statistically representative than a random selection process might uninformed and informed views; 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing many other approaches due to exclude minority groups there is a — Good means of measuring the their large scale. need for a more affirmative method diversity of public opinion. of selection. Series of events Description: The participating Weaknesses: 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months sample is first polled on the targeted Cost: It is hard to estimate what — Requires use of television issues. After this baseline poll, a Deliberative Poll might cost as to achieve its wider public members of the sample are invited there haven’t been any recently, awareness raising effects; to gather for a few days to discuss but we estimate that running one — Does not provide qualitative the issues. Balanced briefing will cost at least £30,000. This information; materials are sent to the participants excludes expenses for the media and — Expensive; 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation and made publicly available. The participants. — Less scope for participants to participants engage in dialogue identify witnesses and question
T with competing experts based on Time requirements:The poll itself is them or determine the scope questions that the participants run over several days, a few months of the questions than exists for themselves develop in small group before, the participants take part some other approaches (e.g. discussions with trained moderators. in a number of events (usually over Citizens’ Juries and Consensus 25 £10,000 One day event Information After this deliberation, the sample is a weekend) where they are polled Conferences). SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering asked the original questions again. the first time and where they can a b c d The resulting changes in opinion are familiarise themselves with the Can deliver: thought to represent the conclusions issues. Allow at least six months. — A statistically representative view the public would reach if people of what the public’s considered/ TYPES OF OUTCOMES had the opportunity to become When should you use? deliberated opinion might look THAT THE APPROACH IS more informed about the issues. — Deliberative Polling is especially like; GOOD AT PRODUCING Deliberative Polling creates dramatic, suitable for issues where the — Increased public understanding statistically significant changes in public may have little knowledge of an issue through broadcasting Map of Existing views. Follow up studies, however, or information of the trade-offs of event. Opinions tend to show that some of these applying to public policy changes are reversed over time. Won’t deliver: Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions Deliberative polls are usually run in When should you not use? — Improved relationships between collaboration with TV companies, — If issue is non-controversial; groups of participants; which then broadcast parts of the — If issue and its relevant trade-offs — Shared views/consensus. Self-selected Improved Relationships process, allowing the wider public to are already well understood by share the learning of the participants. the public.
Stakeholder Shared Representatives Vision Origin:Social Research –Developed Can it be used to make decisions? by US researchers to overcome the No
Demographic New Ideas often uninformed and fickle nature of Representatives opinion poll results. Strengths: — Combines the statistical Specific Empowered Used for: Deliberative Polls measure representativeness of a scientific Individuals Participants informed opinion on an issue. The sample with interaction and e f results of a Deliberative Poll are deliberation; Notes partly prescriptive – pointing to what — Better demographical e Using a statistically representative sample of the public is important an informed and reflective citizenry representation of population than
76 77 Democs (‘Deliberative Meetings of Citizens’)
Direct decision making
Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing
Series of events 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months
50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation T
Example: Channel Four Deliberative 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PER GAME Poll – Crime In The U.K. 1994 RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering a b c d The topic of Britain’s first Deliberative Poll was crime, an issue chosen for its emotive nature and the public’s strong views on the issue. The first stage of the TYPES OF OUTCOMES Deliberative Poll involved interviewing a representative THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING sample of the electorate about their views on crime and punishment. After the interview, each person was invited to take part in a televised weekend event in Manchester. Map of Existing Opinions
Around 300 people attended the event. Before arriving Map of Informed in Manchester they were sent briefing materials that PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions introduced the issues at stake. Once there, they could cross-question various experts and politicians including Self-selected Improved pro- and anti-prison reformers, an ex-prisoner and Relationships politicians from all three main political parties. After the weekend they completed the questionnaire again. Stakeholder Shared Finally, some ten months later, participants were again Representatives Vision re-interviewed in order to assess the durability of any
changes in their views. Demographic New Ideas Representatives Notes The views and understanding of the participants changed a This is the ideal number per game. One Contact Center for Deliberative Democracy significantly through the process. For example, 50% public meeting involved over 120 people Department of Communication, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford University, Specific Empowered using nearly 20 kits. of the participants initially thought “stiffer sentences Stanford, CA 94305 2050, USA Individuals Participants b A single kit costs £30 in a box or is free Telephone 001 650 723 1941 by email. Developing the kits in the first generally” would be a very effective way of reducing e f place costs more (£5,000 - £10,000), as Fax 001 650 725 2472 crime but in the ten month follow up poll only 36% does a full consultation using Democs. Email jfi[email protected] e One of the main attractions of Democs is thought this. Web www.cdd.stanford.edu that anyone who wants to can take part.
78 79 Democs is a conversation a box or is free by email. Developing Can deliver: game enabling small groups to the kits in the first place costs more — A citizenry that feels it can have a discuss public policy issues. No (£5-10k), as does a full consultation say and wants to do so; speakers or experts are needed, using Democs. — Some information about common as pre-prepared cards convey the ground and preferences. necessary facts. It works best for Time requirements: Individual six people over two hours, but it is sessions are around two hours. Won’t deliver: flexible. — Lengthy deliberation; When should you use? — In itself, it doesn’t deliver follow- Description: Democs helps people — When you want to give people up to people who have taken part to absorb information and to make the chance to participate in their and want more; it meaningful. The information on own time and place; — Tangible outcomes. the topic is provided on playing — When you want to increase public cards which are dealt out in two understanding of an interest in Example: Over-the-counter genetic rounds. Each time, people reflect on an issue. testing kits their cards and choose one or two that they feel are most important. When should you not use? In 2003 a Democs exercise was conducted for the Human They take turns to read them out, — For a one-off session on a Genetics Commission (HGC). 47 people attended six events explaining why they chose them, particular topic, as developing organised by the New Economics Foundation. 14 were and then place them on the table. the information cards would be members of the HGC Consultative Panel and the rest were Next they cluster the cards, with too expensive; recruited via articles and existing networks. each cluster representing a key issue — Dangerous to combine citizens relating to the topic. Once they’ve and experts in a single game. Each group clustered the issue cards and linked any relevant voted on a range of responses or fact cards to make an argument. 21 main arguments were policy positions they try to create a Can it be used to make decisions? developed during the six events. The highest number response that everyone in the group No concerned the impact of a test on the recipient and can live with. her/his family etc. This was what pushed many people Strengths: towards supporting considerable regulation. A card that Origin: Gaming/Deliberative — It encourages people to form an was frequently chosen said ‘Tests that are unreliable or democracy. Designed by the New opinion on complex topics and misinterpreted may cause needless anxiety, especially if no Economics Foundation to provide empowers them to believe that counselling is available.’ some of the deliberation of Citizens’ they have a right to a say; Juries and Deliberative Polls but for a — It avoids the passivity that can The votes for the policy positions are set out below. Note wider use. come with experts lecturing that they do not add up to 47 in all cases, showing that one or people; two people forgot to vote. Used for: Helping citizens find out — It provides a safe place that about an issue, form and share their will appeal to inexperienced Policy positions opinions with others and establish participants; 1 2 3 4 whether there is a policy position that — The game format helps people to No strict Voluntary Voluntary Strict every member of the group can at enjoy themselves while they talk. regulation regulation regulation regulation with no with similar to least live with. restriction restrictions prescription- Weaknesses: on types of on types of only drugs test test Who participates? Usually — Works better with a facilitator; Not anyone who wants to. Sometimes — Establishing common ground 40 29 5 11 acceptable representatives are sought. For is not possible within a single Acceptable 3 12 21 14 instance, the Human Genetics game; Support 1 1 20 18 Commission, investigating over-the- — Representativeness is hard to Abstain 1 3 1 1 counter genetic testing kits, was achieve;
interested in the views of the general — Can create conflict between Contact : New Economics Foundation Position 3 was most heavily supported, with 41 out of 47 public and in those of members of participants. 3 Jonathan Street, London, SE11 5NH votes for ‘acceptable’ or ‘support’. Several people remarked their consultative panel. — It is hard to feed the results of a Telephone 020 7820 6300 that their ideal was somewhere between positions 3 and 4. Fax 020 7820 6301 Democs process into Email [email protected] This is what the HGC recommended to the government in Cost: Low. A single kit costs £30 in decision-making. Web www.neweconomics.org/gen/democs.aspx the end.
80 81 There are a number of electronic makers with valuable insights into processes is often underestimated: Electronic Processes methods currently in use in how particular groups feel about an it is still necessary to find and recruit the United Kingdom, ranging issue, while the Structured Template participants in advance of the from the simple use of websites approach enables participants process. for information giving to more to comment in detail and those interactive processes that allow commissioning the process to Time requirements: Some Direct decision making stakeholders to ‘converse’ online collate responses and present the electronic processes are only in or participate in processes that results back to participants quickly, existence for a few months to discuss Series of events emulate conventional participative comprehensively and transparently. a current event or situation while 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing processes. The two participative others become permanent. processes most commonly used Origin: Online Forums are based on are Online Forums and Structured the early electronic bulletin boards When should you use? Series of events Templates. The characteristics of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Structured — When you have a clear idea of 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months scored below are common to all Templates were invented by Dialogue what you want to achieve; electronic processes. by Design in 2000. — When you are dealing with a large and/or widely dispersed Description: Electronic processes Used for: Electronic processes can group of participants; use different types of software be used to gain input to decision- — When your participants are more according to the nature of the making and give/gather information comfortable participating online 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation process required. Online forums, without the group size or travel than in other ways; for example, use linear or threaded distance constraints that real life — If you want to offer people the
T asynchronous communication over meetings have. Online Forums chance to ‘chat’ informally. the Internet. These allow people can also create communities that to discuss online, combining would not otherwise exist by putting When should you not use? some of the spontaneity of verbal participants in touch with people — When you cannot ensure that 25 £10,000 One day event Information communication with the clear that they would not communicate everyone has the opportunity to SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering records of written communication. with otherwise. Structured Templates join in the process or provide an a b c d The difference between linear allow very large volumes of feedback acceptable alternative means of and threaded forums is that in to be collated, analysed and participating; the former the discussion is listed presented back to participants swiftly — If your primary aim is to build TYPES OF OUTCOMES chronologically, emphasising and transparently. strong relationships. THAT THE APPROACH IS conversation and relationship GOOD AT PRODUCING building. Threaded forums display Who participates? Electronic Can it be used to make decisions? individual discussions as a string processes are very flexible when it No Map of Existing of posts starting with the first one comes to the number and location Opinions and followed by the responses. of participants, but do not presume Strengths: This is useful for more topic based that everyone has easy access to — Allows participants to discuss Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS CAN BE Opinions discussions and for increased the Internet or that everyone can an issue at their convenience learning. navigate it with ease. Organisers (regardless of location or time); Structured templates, meanwhile, must ensure that the ‘digital divide’ — Anonymity of online processes Self-selected Improved Relationships Notes use software that is designed to does not prevent participation, can encourage open discussion; b Electronic processes can range from the very cheap (for example, putting emulate the face-to-face methods usually by organising alternative — Large numbers can participate; a document on a website) to the very used in facilitated workshops. methods of participation. — Helps those who are not Stakeholder Shared expensive (a purpose-designed process Representatives Vision involving thousands of people through Different templates can be used, comfortable with other methods several iterations) c Electronic processes usually last a for example, to allow participants Cost: Hosting an electronic (for example, people who are number of weeks at least; some may run to brainstorm ideas, identify issues, process cuts costs for venues and inhibited by meetings). Demographic New Ideas for several months. Representatives e Electronic processes are designed prioritise solutions, or comment on catering but entails costs of its around the purpose and can involve any type of people or groups. consultation documents. own. These can include process Weaknesses: f Electronic processes can be designed The relatively informal nature of design, technology set up, or, in the — The technology can shape the Specific Empowered to achieve as many and various types Individuals Participants of output as conventional processes. online communication can foster case of Online Forums, employing process rather than vice-versa; While they are, on the whole, less good e f at creating and improving relationships, both deliberation and build a sense a moderator to oversee the — Digital divide - many do not have they can be used in conjunction with of community. The discussions in discussions. The cost and effort of ability to use the Internet; conventional processes to achieve ‘soft’ goals. active forums can provide decision- getting people to participate in online — Written communication can
82 83 be a barrier for some already Can deliver: marginalised groups; — General input to decisions; Future Search — Moderation – unmoderated — Informal sharing of ideas Online Forums are often between participants; chaotic but anonymous and — Improved relationships between unaccountable moderators can participants/Community building also frustrate participants; (in some cases). Direct decision making — Any perceived complexity, such Series of events as registration, can be a barrier to Won’t deliver: 500+ £40,000+ running over participation; — Empowered participants; 1 year +/ Ongoing — Often, the lack of decision- — Strong relationships between makers involved. participants. Series of events 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months
50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation T
25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering
a b c d Example: ‘Taking it on’ consultation on UK sustainable development strategy TYPES OF OUTCOMES THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING Online consultation around ‘Taking it on – developing UK sustainable development strategy together’ began in April 2004 and continued until the end of July 2004. Map of Existing Opinions
Contact Dialogue By Design The online consultation took two forms. A ‘General Access’ Ambassador House, Brigstock Road, Thornton Heath ,Surrey ,CR7 7JG Map of Informed consultation process allowed members of the public and any Telephone 020 8683 6602 PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions interested organisations to respond online to the questions Fax 020 8683 6601 Email [email protected] in the consultation document. This process was open for 12 Web www.dialoguebydesign.co.uk Self-selected Improved weeks, at the end of which the results were collated and the Relationships responses made available for scrutiny on the website. The Publications: Coleman, S., Hall, N. and Howell, M. (2002), Hearing Voices: The Experience process generated 8,149 responses from 444 participants. of Online Public Consultations and Discussions in UK Governance, Hansard Stakeholder Shared Society, London. Representatives Vision In parallel to this public process, a ‘Virtual Panel’, Local E-Democracy National Project (2005), What Works: Key Lessons From Recent E-Democracy Literature, Local E-Democracy National Project representing a cross section of organisations and individuals Available at www.e-democracy.gov.uk/documents/retrieve.asp?pk_docu Demographic New Ideas with an interest in sustainable development, was set up ment=260&pagepath=http://www.e-democracy.gov.uk/knowledgepool Representatives to provide its views in two stages. During the first stage Online resources the panel was asked to respond to the questions in the www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government Specific Empowered document. This process produced 2,904 responses from 151 Cabinet Office, –E-democracy Unit Individuals Participants www.edemocracy.gov.uk participants. Following the collation of the interim results, e f Local E-Democracy National Project panel members were asked to respond to further questions www.oii.ox.ac.uk Notes based on their earlier responses. Oxford Internet Institute. a 64 is the ideal number
84 85 A Future Search conference system in the room’. It may not — Shared vision; is a way for a community or work if some stakeholders are — Action. organisation to create a shared missing; vision for its future. It enrols a — When the task is imposed, for Won’t deliver: large group of stakeholders who example by a funder, and it is not — Action without good follow-up take part in a highly structured what the people in the room are structures in place; process lasting ideally two and a most passionate about. — On an issue that isn’t central to half days. the lives of participants. Can it be used to make decisions? Description: A Future Search Yes conference enrols a large group of stakeholders, selected because Strengths: they have power or information on — Everyone with a stake in the issue the topic at hand or are affected by is in the room, which produces the outcomes. Ideally there are 64 a rich mixture of information and people, who form eight tables of ideas; eight stakeholder groups. Examples — Proposals are more likely to be of such groups are health care users, acted upon if all stakeholders feel young people or shopkeepers. committed to them; They take part in a highly structured — People are encouraged to process, which ideally lasts two and explore what they feel about an a half days but sometimes only one. issue as well as what they think about it; Origin: Organisational development. — The event is designed to help Originated in the UK some 40 years participants understand and ago, but was developed in the US by appreciate the agendas of Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff. others, which helps them to enlarge the common ground they Used for:Creating a shared vision share. It is hoped that if a shared combined with the energy to make it vision is created it will inspire happen. participants into the future; — People are often energised by Who participates? Stakeholders are seeing that complex issues Example: Hitchin future search selected because they have power can be tackled when the whole or information on the topic at hand or system is present, when they Hitchin is a market town in Hertfordshire. A future search are affected by the outcomes. can identify common ground conference was chosen as a way of creating a ‘Whole with other people, develop a Settlement Strategy’ that looked at the town as a whole. Cost: Usually between £5,000 and shared vision and agree concrete The conference took place in 1995 over two days at a school £20,000 actions. in the town. Contact Open Futures 10 West Savile Road, Edinburgh EH16 5NG Time requirements: Ideally two and Weaknesses: Telephone 0131 668 4377 The future search led to action groups on several issues, a half days but sometimes two or — Needs a lot of time and energy to Fax 0131 668 4379 including: Email [email protected] only one. organise; Web www.openfutures.com — It can be hard to convey the — A Transport plan with routes and facilities for cyclists When should you use? energy and excitement of Online resources — A directory of social groups and facilities www.futuresearch.net — When you want commitment from participants to non-participants; Future Search Network (International) — Land use guidelines all stakeholders; — Needs careful follow-up to — Funding for facilities for the young and for ethnic — When the most important thing is support action groups at a time Publications minorities. Weisbord, M. & Janoff, S. (2000), Future Search, An Action Guide to to generate energy. when organisers are usually Finding Common Ground in Organizations and Communities, Berrett- pretty exhausted. Koehler, San Francisco After the event people in Hitchin changed their response to When should you not use? Weisbord, M. (ed.) (1993), Discovering Common Ground: How Future the proposal to build 10,000 homes in Hertfordshire. Instead Search Conferences Bring People Together to Achieve Breakthrough — When you are not prepared to Can deliver: Innovation, Empowerment, Shared Vision and Collaboration, Berrett- of just opposing it they started to develop a put the work in to ‘get the whole — Energy; Koehler, San Francisco. practical alternative.
86 87 Open Space Technology is often session, or take a break for personal are involved; Open Space Technology referred to as ”Open Space” for reflection. — When you require creative short. It is a meeting framework thinking around an issue; that allows unlimited numbers It is vital that there are good written — When you want an open of participants to form their own reports from all discussions, discussion and collective discussions around a central complete with action points, available decisions; Direct decision making theme. It is highly dynamic and at the end of each day. Feedback — When you want to develop good at generating enthusiasm, and implementation structures are ownership over the results; Series of events as well as commitment to action. important to carry the suggestions — When you want to develop better 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing forward after the event itself. working relationships; Description: Open Space events — When you want to build a sense have a central theme, around which Origin: Organisational Development. of community. Series of events participants are invited to identify Open Space Technology was created 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months issues for which they are willing in the mid-1980s by organisational When should you not use? to take responsibility for running a consultant Harrison Owen when he — If you are unwilling to give up session. At the same time, these discovered that people attending his control over the direction of the topics are distributed among conferences showed more energy meeting; available rooms and timeslots. and creativity during the coffee — If you are not prepared When no more discussion topics are breaks than the formal sessions. to follow through with the 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation suggested the participants sign up Open Space is structured in a way recommendations; for the ones they wish to take part that recreates this informal and open — If the achievement of a specific
T in. Open Space creates very fluid atmosphere combined with a clear outcome is essential. and dynamic conversations held sense of purpose. together by mutual interest. A trained Can it be used to make decisions? moderator can be useful, especially Used for: Good for harnessing Yes 25 £10,000 One day event Information when people are used to more the creativity that is stifled by more SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering structured meeting methods. structured forms of meetings, and Strengths: a b c d creating new forms of working — Extremely flexible process; The fundamental principles of Open relationships, for example cross- — Participant driven approach; Space are: functional collaboration, self- — Unleashes creativity. TYPES OF OUTCOMES — Whoever comes are the right managing teams, community THAT THE APPROACH IS people (the best participants building, conflict resolution, strategy Weaknesses: GOOD AT PRODUCING are those who feel passionately development and implementation. — Cannot be used to direct people about the issue and have freely to a specific outcome. Map of Existing chosen to get involved); Who participates? Open Space Opinions — Whenever it starts is the right is highly flexible in the number and Can deliver: time (Open Space encourages nature of participants. It can be run — New ideas; Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS CAN BE Opinions creativity both during and with a handful of people up to 2000 — Improved and new relationships between formal sessions); participants or more. between participants; — When it’s over it’s over (getting — Ownership; Self-selected Improved Relationships the work done is more important Cost: This varies. The approach — Shared vision; than adhering to rigid schedules); can be very cheap but it requires a — Action/energy. — Whatever happens is the only venue with space to accommodate Stakeholder Shared Representatives Vision thing that could happen (let go all participants in one or several Won’t deliver: of your expectations and pay full concentric circles. — Predetermined, specific, and
Demographic New Ideas attention to what is happening predictable outcomes. Representatives here and now). Time requirements: Flexible, an event usually lasts between one and Specific Empowered Open Space also uses the “Law five days and can be run as a one off Individuals Participants of two feet” – if participants find event. Notes e f c This does not include time for follow-up themselves in a situation where they of the actions agreed. are not learning or contributing they When should you use? e Open Space is highly flexible when it comes to who can be involved. have a responsibility to go to another — When large and diverse groups
88 89 Participatory Appraisal
Direct decision making
Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing
Series of events 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months
50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation T
Example: Nottinghamshire Healthcare 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS NHS Trust Event 2002 RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering a b c d The Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust used Open Space for an event involving 120 people, including service users, carers and health staff. The goal was to establish priorities TYPES OF OUTCOMES for improving health services in Nottinghamshire. By using THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING Open Space the discussion was kept open and flexible, allowing people to come up with their own ideas. Map of Existing Notes Opinions b Varies widely depending on the length The event facilitator started things off by familiarising of the process and if there is a need for participants with how Open Space works. A diverse range external expertise. The cost is principally Map of Informed in training and then normal staff time or of topics was put forward by the participants, ranging from PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions support to volunteers. c While it is possible to use Participatory alternative therapies to acute admission. Throughout the Appraisal methods at one-off events it is rest of the day the groups met to discuss the topics they designed to be a cyclical and ongoing Self-selected Improved process. Short-term use of Participatory had chosen. Feedback, consisting of the key points from Relationships Appraisal will not create an empowered community. the discussions, what the required action was and who was d It is important that Participatory Appraisal Contact Paul Sanguinazzi, Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust responsible for taking it forward was posted in the main room is not used simply as a research tool; the Telephone 0115 993 4545 Stakeholder Shared accessible nature of the methodologies for everyone to read. Representatives Vision have led to considerable use of it as a Practicioners research tool for gathering opinion. In some circumstances this may be an Contact Romy Shovelton, Wikima At the end of the day, each participant was given three red acceptable use of Participatory Appraisal Telephone 020 7229 7320 Demographic New Ideas but when applied properly it has the stars to prioritise the topics that were most important to Web www.wikima.com Representatives potential to facilitate substantial and broad-based analysis and decision them. Among the suggested improvements were research on making within communities. Online resources alternatives to acute admission, providing funding for assisted e It is important to check that those www.openspaceuk.com Specific Empowered involved adequately represent the range transport and a cultural review of services and service UK Portal on Open Space Individuals Participants of different people within a community – by age, gender, geography, race, faith, delivery. Actions that have already been implemented include e f etc. For particular groups of isolated Publications assisted transport and the establishment of a users’ and or marginalised people it might be Owen, H.A. (1997) Open Space Technology. A Users’ Guide, San Francisco, necessary to organise separate activities carers’ resource centre. Berrett-Koehler or meetings.
90 91 Participatory Appraisal (PA) is a commitment from decision-makers to most out of Participatory Appraisal it process; Can deliver: broad empowerment approach support the development of a more should be an ongoing process. — Can be expensive to set up; — Empowered participants; striving to build community in-depth and empowering process. — To be truly effective, PA exercises Better relationships between knowledge and encouraging When should you use? need more time than one-off participants; grassroots action. It uses a lot of Origin: International Development. — When you are willing to let the events, which may be difficult to — Reliable and valid mapping of visually based methods, making it Participatory Appraisal was community take control; fund and organise; local knowledge and priorities; especially useful for participants developed in Africa and Asia and is — When you want to base your — It can also be challenging and Action/Energy; who find other methods of used across the globe. Unfortunately actions on local knowledge; time consuming to collate — Consensus/shared vision. participation intimidating or this has led to a confusing multitude — When you want to reach out material from numerous complicated. of acronyms used to describe it: to very diverse members of a events. Won’t deliver: e.g. PA (Participatory Appraisal), community. — Quick results. Description: The term Participatory PLA (Participatory Learning and Appraisal describes a family of Action), and PRA (Participatory Rural When should you not use? approaches that enable local people Appraisal). We have chosen to use — If you want rapid results. to identify their own priorities and the term Participatory Appraisal make their own decisions about the because it is common in the UK. Can it be used to make decisions? future, with the organising agency Yes facilitating, listening and learning. Used for: Despite its name it is It uses visual and flexible tools to not merely for appraisal. Ideally Strengths: ensure that everyone can participate it should be an ongoing cycle of — Can be extremely inclusive, regardless of background and can research, learning and collective flexible, and empowering if run be used where people meet in their action. The long-term goal of this well; everyday lives, increasing its appeal approach is to empower and enable — The knowledge produced by to groups that are usually reluctant to people to analyse and tackle their local community researchers get involved in meetings. problems themselves. In the shorter has been proven to be highly Example: Walsall Participatory At the start of a process PA usually term Participatory Appraisal can reliable and can help to identify Appraisal Network 1998–2005 focuses on mapping. As the process be used to map local priorities and and tackle underlying issues to develops participants start finding understandings of issues. problems rather than just the The Participatory Appraisal (PA) methodology and approach common ground and eventually symptoms; was first employed in Walsall in 1998 to work with a group this can lead to new plans being Who participates? Local community — When local community members Contact Electric Palace of young people around sexual health. The success of that 156a High Street, Bloxwich, Walsall, WS3 3JT developed and implemented. In members in larger or smaller groups. have been trained to facilitate a Telephone 01922 477499 project led to the development of the Walsall Participatory addition, a well facilitated process Since everyone does not have to process this capacity remains Fax 01922 492616 Appraisal Network. The network has worked with over 40 can bring people with different needs meet at the same place or at the within the community for the Email [email protected] organisations in the last seven years and employs one full Web www.patraining.co.uk and opinions together to explore same time it can involve a very large future; time network co-ordinator. Funding comes from a number issues, so the prioritisation of actions number of people without requiring — PA is a creative and flexible Other contacts of sources including Walsall PCt / Health Authority to deliver to take forward can come from an a large venue. A key principle of PA approach that can complement Institute of Development Studies training to health staff and service users. By 2005 the University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE informed or consensual position. is to ask ‘who is not participating?’ and draw on other techniques Telephone 01273 606261 network has over 400 people trained in PA methodology, who Outsiders – technical advisors and ensure that the process actively throughout a process. For Fax 0131 668 4379 then adapt the approach in their own field, and it has used the or decision-makers that will have includes members of the community example, after general Email [email protected] PA approach in over 30 consultancy projects. Web www.ids.ac.uk information key to action planning that are not normally involved in information gathering the process Scottish Participatory Initiatives – can be brought in to discuss and consultations. could move to focus group Woodbush Studio, Woodbush Brae, Dunbar, EH42 1HB The network has supported a number of organisations negotiate issues. meetings on particular issues or Telephone 01368 860 060 and initiatives in employing the PA methodology to engage Email [email protected] A commonly encountered problem Cost: Can be expensive at first large community meetings using Web www.srds.co.uk/spi with customers, members, community or staff within the is that, because PA uses very as it is very important that people Open Space methodologies; Caldmore Area Housing Association including Supported accessible tools, it is frequently running the process are properly — It can draw on participatory arts Online resources Housing, Asian Care, Women’s Refuge, Young Peoples Forum, www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/sid used as an extractive, information trained in Participatory Appraisal and drama techniques to reach Oxfam UKPP website with links to published resources, to organisations Resident Representative Committees and Mental Health providing exercise that does not approaches and values. However, if particular groups, or explore using PA and providing training Schemes. Other initiatives include the support for service follow through to facilitate decision- local community members learn the particular issues. users in the development of The Walsall Disability Forum. Publications making within the community approaches themselves and become Caldwell, C., McCann, G., Flower, C. and Howie J. (2003), Have you been about priorities and actions. This more confident the costs of hiring Weaknesses: PA’d?, Oxfam GB, Oxford. Available at www.oxfam.org/ukpp/resources An evaluation of Walsall PA Network by OXFAM found that all is either an issue of poor practice external help may be reduced. — Do not underestimate the need Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. (1995), Participatory those taking part viewed it positively and felt that they had Learning and Action: A Trainers Guide, IIED, London by facilitators, or constraints of for training and experience PLA Notes (Journal) Available online at www.iied.org/sarl/pla_notes/ learned approaches that could be applied in their own work the process in hand – with no Time requirements: To get the among those running the index.html and lives.
92 93 The Participatory Strategic applied widely in voluntary, public — A remarkably quick way of Participatory Planning process is a consensus- and private sectors. Participatory enabling a diverse group to reach building approach that enables Strategic Planning is one of the agreement; Strategic Planning a community or work group to group facilitation methods known — Works for people with auditory as articulate together how they collectively as the Technology of well as visual preferences; would like their community or Participation (ToP). — Participants often find the Direct decision making organisation to develop over the process and outcome inspiring. next few years. Used for: Helping a group reach Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over consensus about where they want to Weaknesses: 1 year +/ Ongoing Description: This is a four-stage get to and how they are going to get — Requires trained & experienced process. First, the group determines there. facilitators; their vision for the future of the — Requires buy-in and commitment Series of events organisation or community. Then Who participates? From 5 to 50 beforehand from people in 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months they articulate the contradictions is the typical range, but it can be power; or obstacles that are preventing more or less than that. The method — Requires hard work & them reaching their vision. In the works well with a mixed group of commitment on the day and third stage they move on to agree participants from all levels of the subsequently; strategic directions that will help community or organisation. It is — Requires all major stakeholders them get past the blocks and reach designed to be inclusive, so a wide to be in the room. 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation the vision. The final stage is about diversity of participants can take implementation planning: what shall part. Participants with low levels of Can deliver:
T we do in the first year, and finally, literacy might need some support. — A clear idea of where participants what shall we do in detail in the first want an organisation or 3 months. Cost: A team of two trained and community to go; Each stage uses a consensus experienced facilitators for a two-day — Consensus about directions; 25 £10,000 One day event Information workshop process, which involves event would typically cost £2,000- — Commitment to making things SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering brainstorming to generate ideas, £4,000 including preparation, happen; a b c d clustering to explore the insights facilitation and documentation in — Stronger sense of being a team. that emerge and naming to discern addition to a venue, catering, travel, the consensus of the group in each board and lodging, as required. Won’t deliver: TYPES OF OUTCOMES cluster. Each workshop involves a — The fine detail. THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING combination of working individually, Time requirements: A two day event in small groups and with the whole with a recommended follow-up after group. 6 months. Map of Existing Opinions A trained and experienced facilitator is required (a team of When should you use? two is preferable), who could be — When you want to build a spirit of Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions an outsider or an insider. In either ownership and commitment in a case, planning the process should group; involve others in the group as well — When you want to reach Self-selected Improved Relationships as the facilitator. The venue should consensus on a way forward. comfortably accommodate the
Stakeholder Shared participants in such a way that they When should you not use? Representatives Vision can see and hear each other and the — In a hierarchical situation if there facilitator clearly, with good lighting is not commitment from the top Demographic New Ideas and acoustics. A large, flat area of to allowing the group to make Representatives wall-space is best for organising decisions and take them forward. participants’ ideas, written on cards. Specific Empowered Can it be used to make decisions? Notes Individuals Participants a The method can involve larger numbers Origin: Developed by Institute Yes divided into groups of up to around 50. e f c Typically a two-day event, with a of Cultural Affairs through over recommended follow-up after 6 months. 30 years of working with local Strengths: e Participants should be the same people who will implement the plan they create. communities around the world, now — Flexible and multi-applicable;
94 95 Example: Participatory Strategic Planning for Real Planning in Ponders End, North London
Going for Green and the Ponders End Development Forum
used Participatory Strategic Planning as part of the wider Direct decision making Ponders End Sustainable Communities Project. The aim of this project was to empower and enable the residents and Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over communities of Ponders End to address their local economic, 1 year +/ Ongoing social and environmental concerns and to improve their quality of life. The event was held in October 2001 and was facilitated by ICA: UK (the Institute of Cultural Affairs, Series of events 100 £30,000 running over UK). It was attended by a total of 22 participants including several weeks/months residents, representatives of local groups and businesses, service providers and Enfield Council officers.
The ‘focus question’ for the strategic planning was: “What do we want to see going on in Ponders End over the next three years?” 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation
The first session was a vision workshop, in which participants T were asked to come up with the specific achievements that they would like to see in place in Ponders End in three years’ time. This process started with an individual brainstorm
and continued with small group discussions. The ideas for 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS achievements were then further discussed and clarified in the RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering
whole group, before being organised into columns and given a b c d titles to reflect the consensus of the group.
In the next workshop, using the same process as before, TYPES OF OUTCOMES participants were asked to identify the obstacles or THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING barriers standing between them and their vision. They were encouraged to think about the underlying issues, rather than the symptoms of the problem. Map of Existing Opinions
Following this, a strategic directions workshop was held to address the question of what practical actions the Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions community could take to overcome the obstacles and lead them towards their vision. Self-selected Improved Relationships The final stage was to revisit these actions and to prioritise them in an implementation plan for the actions Stakeholder Shared the community wanted implemented over the next twelve Contact The Institute of Cultural Affairs UK (ICA:UK) Representatives Vision PO Box 171, Manchester, M15 5BE Notes months. Finally, participants assigned responsibilities for the c While a single Planning for Real session using Telephone 0845 450 0305 different tasks that had been identified and interim team a model can be run as a half day event, this is Email [email protected] New Ideas only one part of the process. There will need leaders were agreed. Web www.ica-uk.org.uk Demographic to be time allocated for preparation, resident Representatives involvement, model making and publicity prior to the event, as well as time for prioritisation and Online resources For the local Community Development Trust the process action planning after the event. Follow-up and www.openspaceuk.com Specific Empowered evaluation of the process is also important. has functioned as a valuable reference point for the way UK Portal on Open Space Individuals Participants d In the British Isles Planning for Real® is a registered trademark of The Neighbourhood forward. The trust has as a result been able to find funding e f Initiatives Foundation. Anyone who wishes to Publications and deliver an ambitious programme of community events and run Planning for Real events should therefore Owen, H.A. (1997) Open Space Technology. A Users’ Guide. San Francisco, contact them in advance. (See website: infrastructure according to the agreed plan. Berrett-Koehler www.nif.co.uk)
.
96 97
Participants make a 3D model Used for: Planning for Real allows Used to make decisions? of their local area and place local people to engage hands- Yes suggestions of the way they on with issues that affect them. would like to see their community Planning for Real is especially Strengths: develop. They then prioritise these useful for planning, neighbourhood — An eye-catching and fun process in groups and create an action regeneration and capacity building. that is enjoyed by people who plan for decision-makers to take would not normally get involved; away. Who participates? Local residents — The models lessen the need for are the focus of a Planning for Real verbal or literacy skills, making Description: Planning for Real process. There is no upper limit to it a useful method to use when events are famous for involving the number of participants that can some participants don’t speak eye-catching three-dimensional be involved, as they do not have to English as a first language; models. The models only form part attend at the same time or place. — It is a non-confrontational way of of the Planning for Real process Other stakeholders who have an expressing needs. though. Community members are interest in the future of the area can usually involved from the start in also be involved. Weaknesses: deciding on a suitable venue and — May be dominated by those used Example: Planning for Real scope for the process. The model Cost: Depends largely on the to working in large groups if not in Wolverhampton of a neighbourhood is usually made number of events and the size of the properly facilitated; by local people themselves in order venue/s required (a reasonably large — Usually focussed on a local level, Whitmore Reans in Partnership (WRiP) is a community to create a sense of ownership over venue is required to accommodate can be hard to scale up; network working jointly with Dunstall and Whitmore Reans the process. A number of events are the model and the participants). A — The process of preparing the Neighbourhood Management to promote and support run depending on the number and trained facilitator is also necessary. model and analysing and feeding community organisations in Wolverhampton. In the summer nature of the participants. Sometimes The three-dimensional models back results to participants can of 2003, with training and support from the Neighbourhood separate events are run for specific are usually created by schools or be time-consuming. Initiatives Foundation, WRiP carried out a large-scale groups, such as young people, who local groups and aren’t necessarily consultation exercise using Planning for Real, in order to might otherwise not participate on expensive. Can deliver: get a clear indication of local needs and priorities. The equal terms. — Community input into local information that came out of this process was later used in The participants use their Time requirements: Besides the decision-making; the development of the Local Action Plan for the area. Thanks knowledge of living in the area to meetings themselves you should — Inclusion of participants that to a tremendous preparation effort on the part of volunteers make suggestions by placing cards plan to mobilise the interest of local are often left out in other and officers the Planning for Real event was a huge success. directly on the model. There are both participants. Following up on the circumstances; Local participants placed over 1500 suggestions on the 3D ready-made cards with common Action Plan may take a few months — Buy-in and enthusiasm; model, not including the over 2000 ideas or issues identified suggestions (around 300) and to several years depending on what — Shared vision for the future of an by local school children as part of the event. Many agencies blank cards for participants to fill in decisions come out of the process. area. carried out further consultation as a result. themselves. These suggestions are Making the models may take a few then prioritised in small groups on a months if local groups or schools are Won’t deliver: Local people who attended the consultation were then scale of Now, Soon, or Later. These used. — Input to regional or national level invited to take part in prioritising the information gathered at resulting priority lists form the basis decision-making, unless part of a the consultation event. Attendance was again good and there for an Action Plan that decision- When should you use? wider strategy. was a clear sense of ownership by the community of what makers are charged with taking — When you want decisions to needed to be done. away, considering and implementing. reflect local priorities; Delivering the Action Plan is easier if — When you want to mobilise local As a result of the way if was created, the Whitmore Reans the community is involved in delivery, support; Local Action Plan is a precise and detailed tool, focusing on monitoring and evaluation. — When you want to create real issues, priorities and actions. The plan lists actions that enthusiasm. will be undertaken, the agency or service provider involved Origin: Local Planning/Community and time scales. The participation of local people has ensured Development - A method developed When should you not use? that the information is transparent and focused on their in the 1970s to include community — When you do not have the buy in priorities. members who are deterred by of important decision-makers; Contact The Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation traditional planning consultation. — When you are short of time The Poplars, Lightmoor, Telford, TF4 3QN The Planning for Real process in Whitmore Reans has been Telephone 0870 770 0339 Since then it has been used in many and/or staff. Fax 01952 591771 recognised nationally as a good example of community locations internationally. Web www.nif.co.uk engagement.
98 99 User Panels are regular meetings might be members of organisations are willing to provide feedback; User Panels of service users about the quality with an interest in the service. Try to — User Panels should not be the of a service, or other related include a diverse range of users in only way of getting user feedback topics. They help to identify the the Panel. concerns and priorities of service Panel members should not remain Can it be used to make decisions? users and can lead to the early on the panel indefinitely, after a while No Direct decision making identification of problems or ideas participants tend to become too for improvements. knowledgeable about the service Strengths: Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over delivery organisation and may come — Changes can be tracked over 1 year +/ Ongoing Description: User Panels usually to identify with it and lose credibility time; take the form of a workshop and it with other users. — Most people can participate with is important to establish clarity of the help of interpreters; Series of events purpose and the time required for Cost: The Panel needs to be — Solution focused; 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months participants’ involvement from the facilitated in a neutral way and Panel — The Panel members are well start. There also need to be very members should at least receive their informed on the issues. clear lines of feedback between the expenses. Arranging free transport Panel members and the decision- to and from meetings can be Weaknesses: makers. appropriate, especially if the service — Time consuming/long-term users are the elderly or health care commitment; 50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation Origin: Market research. The panels users. It is hard to assess the costs — The Panel is not necessarily have evolved from tools like focus of running a Panel, this depends on representative;
T groups and the spread of policy whether or not you have in-house — A small number of people may targets, such as ‘Best Value’, has facilitation skills, where the group dominate the group; increased the appreciation of the meets, how large it is and how often — May not take into account benefits of getting users involved it meets. relevant needs of non-users of 25 £10,000 One day event Information in the planning and delivery of the services. SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering services they use. Time requirements: User Panels are a b c d usually ongoing (with participants Can deliver: Used for: Getting users’ views on being replaced as time goes on). — User perspective; their experiences and expectations of A member of staff will need to — Sounding board on which to test TYPES OF OUTCOMES services and testing their reaction to provide support for the Panel. The plans and ideas; THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING changes and proposals. It can also accountability and credibility of the — Relatively quick feedback; be used to find and generate ideas Panel can be increased if you allow — Continuing dialogue with users. for improvements time for representatives to refer back Map of Existing Opinions to wider user groups. Won’t deliver: Who participates? A User Panel — Statistical information; should be relatively small to When should you use? — Without commitment from Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE Opinions allow quality interaction between — Works with people who are not management; participants, usually between eight usually heard, for example those and twelve people is a good number. with learning disabilities, children, Self-selected Improved Relationships Some organisations recruit a large and the elderly; pool of users so that they can draw — Good way to establish a two-
Stakeholder Shared out smaller groups to be consulted way dialogue between service Representatives Vision on a particular issue. These groups providers and users; can be targeted to reflect certain — Sounding board for new Demographic New Ideas subgroups of users, such as people approaches or proposals relating Representatives with disabilities, or ethnic minorities. to services; Panel members can be recruited — Can identify emerging problems. Specific Empowered in different ways, adverts in the Individuals Participants press is one way, but potential Panel When should you not use? e f members might also be suggested — User Panels should only be used by people who work with service when service providers and users, like nurses or teachers, or they planners support the work and
100 101 Youth Empowerment
Direct decision making
Series of events 500+ £40,000+ running over 1 year +/ Ongoing
Series of events 100 £30,000 running over several weeks/months
50 £20,000 2– 4 day event Consultation
Example: Fife User Panels (Age T Concern Scotland)
Age Concern Scotland’s Fife User Panels were launched in 25 £10,000 One day event Information SUITABLE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 1992 as a project aimed at developing Panels of frail older RESOURCES: BUDGE LENGTH OF PROCESS WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION METHOD WORKS BEST Giving/gathering people and providing them with an opportunity to influence a b c d the provision of services which help them maintain an independent lifestyle. TYPES OF OUTCOMES Panel members are aged over 70, have difficulty getting THAT THE APPROACH IS GOOD AT PRODUCING out and about without assistance and are users of various community care services. Thirteen years on there are 7 Panels across Fife with up to eight older people on each. The Map of Existing Opinions age range of Panel members is 70 – 101. As older people’s everyday experiences are shared and discussed many issues are raised including health and social care, but also housing, Map of Informed PARTICIPANTS CAN BE Opinions transport, information, social activities etc.
Self-selected Improved The older people themselves control the agenda with one Relationships member of staff facilitating and another (or a volunteer) taking notes, to ensure that issues raised are accurately Stakeholder Shared reflected. Service planners and providers from Fife Council Representatives Vision and NHS Fife are invited by Panel members on a regular basis Contact Jessie Watt, Age Concern Scotland Causewayside house, 160 Causewayside, Edinburgh, EH9 1PR to discuss issues they are concerned about. The Panels are a Telephone 01592 204 273 Demographic New Ideas recognised part of the consultation process of these agencies Web www.ageconcernscotland.org.uk Representatives and they also work with researchers UK wide. Publications National Consumer Council (2002), Involving Consumers: Everyone Specific Empowered Notes Panel meetings are informal and have enabled users to Benefits, National Consumer Council, London. Available at Individuals Participants c It is possible to engage with young people www.ncc.org.uk/involvingconsumers/involving_consumers.pdf on a one-off basis, but the true benefits of influence service provision within Fife. Two examples are an e f empowered participants only emerge in a long National Consumer Council (2004), User Power: The Participation of Users enhanced cleaning service for Home Care clients and good process. in Public Services, National Consumer Council, London. Available at e Depends on the specific engagement process practice for Hospital Discharge. www.ncc.org.uk/publicservices/user_power.pdf and its aims.
102 103
The reasons for involving young politics that many young people Time requirements: Some youth Weaknesses: Can deliver: Won’t deliver: people in decision-making are not find unappealing. Independence is engagement, like youth citizens’ — There can be a high rate — Empowered participants; — Rapid Results. different from general community seen as a way of ensuring a creative juries, are short term in length, of turnover among young — Information on values and empowerment. However, there process. Others argue that close others, like councils, take longer. participants; priorities to influence decisions; are certain characteristics that working relationships with local Goals like youth empowerment — Unless efforts are made to be — Improved relationships; make engaging with young people councils and other institutions are require longer processes. inclusive, self-selected groups of — Enthusiasm; different. The methods of youth necessary to maximise the influence young participants will often be — Feeling of ownership and pride participation differ widely, but they of the young participants. When should you use? biased towards certain groups. over results. are all underpinned by the belief Young people should be given that young people have a right to Origin: The UN Convention on the the same chance to participate be involved in decisions affecting Rights of the Child has been an — as other age groups; their lives. important driver of involving young Do not limit participation people in the UK. Over the last five exercises to typical “youth Description: Youth participation years there has been a substantial — issues”. Young people also is a rapidly growing field, but not increase in the number and size of have a lot to say on more a unified one when it comes to the projects. “mainstream” issues such as the methods used. There is no one environment, crime and housing. good way of engaging with young Used for: As previously mentioned, people. Several of the techniques the values and goals of youth When should you not use? previously mentioned in section 4.4 empowerment are not very different Unfortunately the ability of can be used, for example, youth from other forms of participation, so young people is underestimated panels or youth citizens’ juries, and young people can be engaged with — by many. As a result, youth Example: Envision Team, London descriptions of these techniques will for many different reasons. As users engagement projects are not be repeated here; instead we will of services they can be consulted sometimes tokenistic and Borough of Westminster: Recycling focus on considerations that should to improve service delivery, young patronising. If you are not going programme and fashion show 2005 be made when young people are people are often targeted in to be serious about youth involved in a process. projects to lower crime rates and, participation, it is better not to do Envision is a London charity supporting 16-19 year olds The short-term goals of youth increasingly, the explicit goal of it at all; in schools and colleges to develop their own social and processes are often the same as involving young people is stated as Young people quickly see environmental projects. Teams of young people are set up any other process, however, youth building the skills and values that are through any rhetoric and become at schools and are free to pursue their own projects, with a participation often emphasises em- needed in their role as citizens. — disillusioned when they realise number of adult volunteers who support them. powerment. The low interest among that they are being manipulated young people in voting and party Who participates? The term ‘young and used. This disillusionment In 2005 a local Envision team in Westminster decided to politics (but not in issues that affect people’ is ambiguous. An easy harms not just individual projects improve the recycling system at their school. They drew up them and their community) have mistake is to assume common views but youth engagement overall. plans for a system with recycling bins in every classroom as prompted an upsurge in attempts to and experiences among all young well as organic waste recycling outside the cafeteria and in the courtyard. The young people did most of the work get young people more involved. people but there are considerable Can it be used to make decisions? Contact Envision Many initiatives that involve young differences when it comes to cultural Yes Dennis Geffen Annexe , St. Pancras Gardens , Camley Street themselves; they researched costs and facts, circulated people make a point out of being and ethnic backgrounds, living London, NW1 0PS questionnaires to their fellow students and presented their Telephone 020 7974 8440 plans to the local council. less structured in form and content. conditions and abilities. Certain Strengths: Fax 020 7974 8425 Young people can be put off by strict groups, like homeless young people, Involving young people can be a Email [email protected] timetables and giving them a space young people in care and young very positive experience; Web www.envision.org.uk In order to promote the idea of recycling, as well as raising money for charity, the local team also decided to hold a to discuss issues they feel strongly people with disabilities can be very — Young people bring a lot of Online resources about without any required outcomes difficult to engage with and will energy and enthusiasm into a www.nya.org.uk/hearbyright/home.asp?cid=180&cats=215 fashion show where the clothes on parade were made from can boost creativity. require targeted efforts to involve. — process if they feel that they are Hear by right (National standards for Youth participation) recycled materials. This ambitious project involved making www.childpolicy.org.uk the clothes from recycled materials, organising the venue There are conflicting views on taken seriously; 4 Nations Child Policy Network how close a youth initiative should Cost: Varies enormously, depending Encouraging young people to www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/cypi/home and student models for the event, promoting the event, and be to existing political institutions. on scale, goals and time frame. have an equal say in issues that Carnegie Young People Initiative (Includes resources for participation researching where the money raised should go. The fashion workers) Some feel that youth councils and While you should not underestimate — matter to them builds their sense show went well and raised around £1,000 for the SOS similar initiatives should maintain the initiative of young participants in of self worth and can build verbal Publications Children Tsunami appeal. an arms-length relationship with your projects you should always have abilities and other citizenship Dynamix (2002), Participation: Spice It Up: Practical Tools for Engaging Children and Young people in planning and Consultations, Save the Children Working in the team has given the participants new skills and the authorities in order to avoid support in the form of resources and skills. Fund, Cardiff getting sucked into the kind of party staff time available. YouthBank UK (2004), Toolkit, YouthBank UK, Leicester confidence in their abilities.
104 105