working together - nrm.wa.gov.au...Working together we can utilise our technical expertise,...

working together

Office of Citizens and Civics: Consulting Citizens SeriesDepartment of the Premier and Cabinet

Involving Community and Stakeholdersin Decision-Making

ISBN 0 7307 0243 X

© State Government of Western Australia 2006

Excerpts from this publication may be reproduced, with appropriate acknowledgement, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968

Produced by the Office of Citizens and Civics, Department of the Premier and Cabinet

For bibliographic purposes this publication may be cited as:

Government of Western Australia, 2006, Working Together: Involving Community and Stakeholders in Decision-Making, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Perth

Enquiries about this publication should be directed to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, telephone +61 8 9222 9888

Publication No 06/0000

http://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au

m e s s a g e f r o m t h e P r e m i e r

OFF ICE OF CIT IZENS AND CIV ICS: CONSULT ING CIT IZENS SER IES • WORKING TOGETHER

The fabric of our community is rich and complex. This complexitydemands the collaboration of all sectors – government, communityand private, in all their diversity. It necessitates that we take stock,debate the issues, listen to different points of view, take on board newideas and agree to grapple with challenges, perhaps in different ways –and all of it to benefit the people we serve within our community.

My government is motivated by a desire to create a society in WesternAustralia that is strong, confident, compassionate and fair. A societythat values participation, and the rights and duties that responsibleparticipation involves. A society that values equity - in particular equityof access to services and information, access to economic and socialpower, and equity of access to resources.

We have a strong commitment to improving the business of government and recognise that in acomplex and changing world we must be open to the fresh ideas and creative approaches that thecommunity can and does offer. Through considered and well-executed consultation strategies,Government departments and agencies can access this wealth of ideas from a community that is ideallypositioned to understand the impacts and effects of decision-making.

Ongoing engagement with the community is an expression of our commitment to the philosophy ofshared responsibility between the Government, non-government organisations, the private sector andthe community. It is only by working together that we will create a stronger, more inclusive society forall West Australians.

Alan CarpenterPREMIER

f o r e w o r d


We all recognise that being an active citizen is more than voting every three orfour years. To function effectively, society needs active citizens to pay attentionbetween elections, to become involved in public life, to listen to otherviewpoints and to take a constructive role in the discussions that take placearound them.

The WA Government recognises its responsibility to provide better ways tomeaningfully involve both citizens and communities in the decisions that wemake and to collaborate productively with the diversity that is the WesternAustralian people. Our common aim is on reviving public life within our

communities, to devise new ways - or revisit some old ways - for citizens to come together aroundcommon concerns, to talk with us openly about issues, and participate in the decision-making thataffects them.

Over the last few years we have promoted a number of new citizen centred approaches to decision-making across government and as a result, dialogues, citizens juries, deliberative polls, communityforums and community reference groups (to name a few), have become part of the business of publicadministration. In previous guides we have advocated different processes for different situations and fordifferent communities. At their core, however, each of these collaborative processes are about enablingthe flow of meaningful information between our communities and government, to allow issues to beworked through, and agreements to be reached.

One of the critical success factors in policy and program development and implementation isrecognition of the community as an important stakeholder. This guide extends the range ofinformation available for those wishing to build their knowledge of community engagement. It bringstogether the learnings of those in the community engagement industry as well as national andinternational best practice to provide a framework for determining the extent and level of communityinvolvement needed for better-informed decision-making.

The specific areas covered in this guide have been drawn from the feedback received from a wide rangeof consultative processes undertaken here in Western Australia. As a result, this guide increases thefocus on the early phases of planning for community engagement – the importance of understandingwhat has been done before, and what information is already available in regard to current communityconcerns before consulting further. We have also included further techniques and tools to help ensureprocesses undertaken are clear, fair and ultimately rewarding for all those involved.

I encourage all agencies to make use of this guide when planning and implementing policies andprograms. Working together we can utilise our technical expertise, alongside the insights from localcommunities and the people whose lives will be the most affected, to help ensure a better future for all.

Hon Tony McRae, MLAMINISTER FOR DISABILITY SERVICES;CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL INTERESTS;MINISTER ASSISTING THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

c o n t e n t s


Overview 1

1.0 Introduction 2

2.0 Initial Considerations 4

2.1 Community Participation – Informing Policy and Program Development 5

2.2 Terminology in this Guide 6

2.3 Why Involve the Community 6

2.4 Meaningful Community Input 7

2.5 When to Involve the Community 7

3.0 Scoping your Project 9

3.1 Discovery 10

3.2 Understanding the Context 10

3.3 Understanding the Issues 10

3.4 Who Are the Key Stakeholders? 12

3.5 Identifying the Project’s Objective and Stakeholder Involvement 13

3.6 Understanding About Levels of Involvement 14

3.7 Determining Resource Requirements 16

3.8 Developing a Timeline 16

3.9 Next Steps 17

3.10 Establishing Community Working Groups 17

3.11 Gaining Agreement 18

3.12 Choosing a Consultation Method 18

4.0 Preparing the Community Participation Plan 21

4.1 Background 22

4.2 Key Stakeholders 22

4.3 Community Participation Objective/s 22

4.4 Defining the Question/s 23

4.5 Statement of Intent 23

4.6 Resources 24

4.7 Timeline 24

4.8 Participation Methods 24

4.9 Reporting 24

5.0 Making the Plan Work 25

5.1 Reflective Practice 26

5.2 Making Contact 26

5.3 Awareness Raising and Education 27

5.4 Communicate Ideas Clearly 28

c o n t e n t s


5.5 Practicalities 28

5.6 Providing Feedback 28

5.7 Facilitation 29

5.8 Collaborative Approaches 29

5.9 Engaging Diverse Groups 30

5.10 Ethical Practice 32

5.11 e-Engagement 33

5.12 Boards and Committees 34

6.0 Managing Significant or Complex Issues 35

6.1 Hazards and Outrage 36

6.2 Barriers and Constraints 37

6.3 Understanding the Potential for Problems 38

6.4 Avoiding Consultation Fatigue 38

6.5 Working with Advocacy and Lobby Groups 39

6.6 Dealing with Anger and Aggressive Behaviours 39

7.0 Evaluating the Community Participation Program 40

7.1 Ongoing Process Evaluation 42

7.2 End of Program Evaluation 43

7.3 Reporting on the Community Participation Program 45

Summary 46

Appendix A 47

OECD Guiding Principles for Engaging Citizens (OECD 2001)

Appendix B 48

International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Public Participation Spectrum (http://www.iap2.org)

Appendix C 49

Community Engagement Tools

Appendix D 52

International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Code of Ethics available online athttp://www.iap2.org

Appendix E 53

Evaluation Criteria and Guidelines for the Effective Conduct of a Participation Exercise (Frewer et al 2001)

Glossary 56

Resources 57

The Guide is designed to assist Senior Managerswhen overseeing the scoping and planning stagesof projects and programs with input fromcommunity and stakeholders. Early and ongoinginvolvement is vital. With any new policy orproject, a feasibility study will assess the technicalaspects but community views and perceptionsmust also be taken into account to ensure asuccessful outcome.

This Guide captures some of the criticalcomponents essential to determining the extentand level of community involvement needed atvarious stages for better-informed decision-making. It highlights the importance ofincorporating appropriate stakeholder andcommunity views early in the scoping andmapping stages.

The Guide will also be a useful resource forcommunity engagement planners andpractitioners.

People with expertise in this field are encouragedto browse through and see if there is some usefulinformation they may not have considered. Thosenew to community participation will find thisGuide a useful addition to their toolkit.

The Guide is intended to serve as a framework forthinking about the most effective and appropriateways to involve the community to design andconduct community participation programs thatmeet real community needs.

There is no “right way” to approach communityengagement. Each approach will be governed bythe situation and circumstance of the project andwill require adaptation and flexibility.

The Guide is divided into six major sectionsfollowed by Appendices, a Glossary and aResources list:

• Initial Considerations sets the scene forundertaking community participation programsand defines a few key terms

• Scoping Your Project outlines the criticalpreliminary steps when scoping and mappingpolicy and projects to determine an appropriatelevel of community and stakeholder involvement

• Preparing the Community ParticipationPlan suggests a framework for developing aParticipation Plan to guide your project throughvarious stages from conception tooutput/outcome

• Making the Plan Work provides informationon aspects to be considered when the plangoes into the implementation stage and providesinstruction on how to manage the process

• Managing Significant or Complex Issuescontains guidance on dealing with morecomplicated issues and/or polarised communityviewpoints

• Evaluating the Community ParticipationProgram explains the fundamentals toundertaking an effective evaluation andvalidation of the project

This Guide complements the Citizenscape website and other guides in the ConsultingCitizens series which can be obtained fromhttp://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au.

o v e r v i e w

OFF ICE OF CIT IZENS AND CIV ICS: CONSULT ING CIT IZENS SER IES • WORKING TOGETHER 1

OFF ICE OF CIT IZENS AND CIV ICS: CONSULT ING CIT IZENS SER IES • WORKING TOGETHER2

The Western Australian Citizenship Strategy(2004) sets out the Government’s commitment toworking collaboratively with people for better-informed decision-making more aligned tocommunity views and expectations. There is anacknowledgement that in doing so we arecontributing to strengthening Western Australia’sdemocracy through the promotion of activecitizenship and open and accountablegovernment. The Strategy supplements the BetterPlanning Better Services: Strategic PlanningFramework goals of achieving “better opportunitiesfor the community to participate in, and makecreative and effective contributions to, governmentprocesses” and in building “effective partnershipswith … the wider community”1. Both publicationsemphasise the key role that all citizens have inhelping shape the community in which they liveand contributing to good governance.

Active citizenship is about people having their say,being involved, taking part in decision-making,and, ultimately, making things happen. For this tooccur avenues must be developed that encourageand support the active participation of citizens inthe decision-making processes of government. Itrequires, in the first instance, that citizens beinformed. No meaningful deliberation can occurwithout understanding, which requires access totimely, relevant and comprehensive information.There is also a need to identify and removebarriers to participation so that opportunities existfor all to participate effectively as active citizens.Finally, there is a need to establish opportunities inwhich citizens can question, become informed,have opportunities for dialogue and deliberation,reflect and make decisions in collaboration withgovernment.

To facilitate this, the Office of Citizens and Civicswithin the Department of the Premier and Cabinethas published a series of guides to assist indeveloping public participation programs, such as:

• Consulting Citizens: A Resource Guide

• Consulting Citizens: Planning for Success

• Consulting Citizens: Engaging with AboriginalWestern Australians (in collaboration with theDepartment of Indigenous Affairs)

• e-Engagement: Guidelines for EffectiveCommunity Engagement using Information andCommunications Technology (in collaborationwith the Office of e-Government)

All of these guides are available from theDepartment of the Premier and Cabinet and canbe downloaded from the Citizenscape website athttp://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au.

Since the release of the first guide, the Office ofCitizens and Civics has been closely involved in anumber of important and complex publicconsultation programs conducted in WesternAustralia. This involvement has significantlyincreased staff appreciation of both the benefitsand potential risks of these programs. The Officeof Citizens and Civics has seen the results ofpoorly planned consultations and witnessed thedifficulty in getting them ‘back on track’. ThisGuide will reveal some of the common mistakesand provide a framework by which they can befar better managed.

Some State agencies have now developed internalpolicies and principles to support communityengagement that are specific to their operations.This Guide does not replace these agency-specificguides but should be used as an additional resource.

Information contained within this guideamalgamates and builds upon the first twoConsulting Citizens guides. Because eachconsultation will have unique issues and challenges,there is no ‘one size fits all’. The aim of this Guideis to provide enough information for agencies toplan and implement appropriate communityparticipation programs that will result in a positiveoutcome for both them and the community.

i n t r o d u c t i o n1.0

1 Western Australian Government (2003a)


Government has a leadership role, and citizens expect government to fulfil it – after all, that is

why they voted it into office. The question, however, is less whether to lead than how to lead.

Governments can practice leadership in two ways. They can either practice leadership ignorant of

citizens’ direct concerns and input. Or governments may practice leadership open to citizens’

concerns and input. This gives government the chance to tap into wider resources of citizens

and civil society in order to develop better policies and gain more trust and legitimacy.

Strengthening government-citizen relations is a means for government to fulfil its leadership role

in an open way and more effectively, credibly and successfully (OECD 2001: 23)

Refer to Appenix A for the OECD Guiding Principles for Engaging Citizens.

Core Principles for Public Participation

People should have a say in decisions that affect their lives.

Community participation programs will be undertaken BEFORE a decision has been madeand contributions from the community will inform decision-making.

There is a recognition and acknowledgement of the breadth of community knowledge.

People should be involved as early as possible in the planning stages of a community participationprogram so that they can define how they participate.

The community participation program communicates the interests and meets the process needs of allparticipants.

The participation of everyone potentially affected will be sought and facilitated.

People will be provided with the information they need to be able to participate, deliberate andcontribute in a meaningful way.

People’s ideas and contributions will be noted as accurately as possible and made availablefor public scrutiny.

The community participation program is conducted with honesty and integrity anddisplays an awareness of, and respect for, cultural protocols.

Adapted from IAP2 Core Values at http://www.iap2.org

4 OFF ICE OF CIT IZENS AND CIV ICS: CONSULT ING CIT IZENS SER IES • WORKING TOGETHER

2.0i n i t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

DEAD

The traditional, paternalistic mode of decision-making which

follows the sequence of:

Decide on a course of action

Educate to our way of thinking

Announce the decision, and then

Defend the decision from the ensuing protests

PEP

To a more positive model of decision-making:

Profile the community or region so youknow the people you need to work with

Educate them about the issues andalternatives already identified

Participate with them in a process ofmutual education and joint problemsolving

i n i t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

5OFF ICE OF CIT IZENS AND CIV ICS: CONSULT ING CIT IZENS SER IES • WORKING TOGETHER

2.1 Community Participation – InformingPolicy and Program Development

In a democratic society all people have the right toexpress their view of the world around them. Tosupport that right opportunities must be madeavailable for people to communicate their hopesand concerns about matters that are important tothem and for these to be heard and addressed.This requires that relevant mechanisms areestablished through which people can enter into ameaningful dialogue with policy and decision-makers to develop solutions for the common good.

This is not a new concept, but in the past someagencies have had:

• A lack of trust about the public’s ability toprovide creative and constructive input

• A lack of awareness of the benefits ensuingfrom an involved public

• A lack of clarity about how to involve people indecision-making processes

• Concern about over-riding the expertise andexperience of public sector personnel

• Difficulty in reaching a good cross-section ofthe public.

At the same time people in the community haveoften felt:

• That public participation exercises are justexercises in public relations or one-off events

• A sense that there is no commitment to act onthe views obtained from them

• They did not have the time, resources, skills orconfidence to contribute

• A sense of being a lone voice amongst manyprofessionals.

These concerns have lessened as more peopleacknowledge the advantages that come fromworking together more collaboratively. In doingso, policies and programs can be developed thatare far better informed and more likely to gainbroad acceptance.

In Western Australia there is recognition thatgreater participation by citizens can:

• Contribute to better informed and betterquality policy and decision-making

• Increase the chances for successful policyimplementation

• Reinforce the legitimacy of the decision-makingprocess and its final results

• Strengthen public trust

• Improve the level, profile and efficiency ofpublic policy and services

• Raise awareness of issues and reduce potentialfor conflict

• Heighten democratic dialogue and revitalisecivic culture

• Help in planning and prioritising various options

• Match decisions made to the needs, wants andaspirations of the community

People are well informed about what is goingon around them and are prepared to engage

actively on issues that are of interest to them.They are often uniquely well positioned to

identify policy priorities, reconcile conflictingvalues, and help formulate the types of

policies that will be the most effective withintheir communities. [Western Australian

Government 2004]


• Offer new perspectives on, and solutions to,issues

• Achieve greater respect for different views

• Reduce uncertainties, delays and costs.

2.2 Terminology in this Guide

The terms employed to describe the processes forfacilitating public input and/or participation indecision-making are often used interchangeably –‘consultation’, ‘citizen engagement’, ‘publicparticipation’, ‘stakeholder involvement’,‘community engagement’, to name a few.Regardless of the terminology they all lead to onegoal – to bring people together to interact andachieve results that are of benefit to all parties.

The International Association for PublicParticipation (IAP2) has produced a PublicParticipation Spectrum (see Appendix B), whichlists a range of participation stages from ‘inform’to ‘empower’. For consistency, in this Guide theterm ‘participation’ is primarily used to reflect thespectrum of processes that can be utilised toinvolve the public. Whether informing,collaborating or empowering, what is central isthe active involvement of external stakeholdersand the wider community.

Confusion also surrounds terms such as ‘public’,‘community’ and ‘stakeholder’, which are alsooften used interchangeably. While the term‘stakeholders’ is often used as a generic term todescribe all participants, a distinction needs to bemade between stakeholders as representativegroups, and stakeholders as citizens or community.

Interest group representatives are representingtheir group or organisation and therefore may berequired to put forward a set position. They mayhave little room to move or negotiate.

‘Community’ stakeholders, on the other hand, areusually engaged in participation exercises asdeliberators. Their role is to debate and considerthe issue in order to come up with what is in thepublic good. Effectively they are asked to puttheir own interest aside to come to a decision thatis in the interest of the community.

Knowing who the stakeholders are and therelationship they have to each other and to theissue will allow for greater understanding of their

differing concerns and how these perspectivesmight affect the project.

Throughout this Guide, the term ‘stakeholder’ isused to encompass the range of people who havean interest – from individual, to community,industry and government. Where referringspecifically to community members’ input theterm ‘community’ will be used.

2.3 Why Involve the Community

The 21st century presents us with many newchallenges and opportunities. Considerabletechnological, economic, environmental and socialtransformations have greatly influenced connectionsbetween citizens and government. Some of thesetransformations include the following.

The changing role of government – there hasbeen a realisation that governments do not havethe resources, expertise or influence to solve allissues. Local government, corporations and non-government organisations play an increased rolein the design and delivery of services. This doesnot mean that state government has no role, butrather an adjustment in thinking about howoutcomes can be achieved is required.

Increasingly, government is more involved in‘steering’ than ‘rowing’. This means its emphasisis on setting the overall direction through policyand planning, engaging with stakeholders andcitizens and in partnering with others to deliverprograms and services.

The difficulty for government becomes apparentwhen considering, for instance, the increased roleof non-government agencies in service delivery,which distances the state agency from thedetailed knowledge of the day-to-day operationsof each of these organisations. To ensure thatfunding is being directed towards the mostappropriate projects and programs, agencies willneed to be better informed about changingcommunity needs and expectations. The best wayto achieve this is by seeking direct input from thecommunity itself.

Emerging technologies – new technologiescontinue to change the shape of society and havean impact across all areas. People are muchbetter informed and have access to a wide rangeof information from many sources. Newtechnologies, such as the Internet, provide newopportunities to facilitate greater collaborationbetween government and people.

Community engagement is the mutualcommunication and deliberation that occurs

between government and citizens. [Cavaye 2004]

Community cynicism – it seems commonplacethat people are disillusioned with the politicalprocess and cynical about the responsiveness ofgovernment to their concerns. Whether this isreal or perceived it impacts upon levels of trustand confidence in public institutions.

Social Expectations – there is increasing demandfor effectiveness and efficiency, greateraccountability and transparency in government,and for a more highly coordinated approach inservice delivery. Added to this is a growingexpectation from people that their views beincorporated in decision-making processes.

A recognition of these trends and drivers has seengovernments around the world adopt a moreinclusive approach that acknowledges theimportance of connections, emphasises collaborationacross all sectors and repositions government as apartner with communities. With this recognition,governments are becoming more focused onbenefiting from the experiences and knowledge ofthose who are most affected by policy decisionsand project outcomes – the community.

2.4 Meaningful Community Input

To achieve meaningful benefits from communityparticipation there must be a real commitmentacross the agency to the process of collaborativelyinvolving people. This can be achieved throughthe development of:

• A culture of participation where all staff aresupported and encouraged to engage with thebroader community, and are provided with thetraining, skills and knowledge to do this

• Leadership from the top in demonstrating awillingness to embrace dialogue anddeliberation in determining a way forward,both within and outside the organisation

• Holistic approaches to policy formulation andimplementation, requiring consultation with thecommunity and coordination across agencies

• Robust systems and processes that ensureaccountability and transparency

• Promotion of inclusive practices and removal ofbarriers to participation

• Strategies that incorporate best practiceguidelines for engaging with the community.

For government agencies committed to communityengagement there is a need for greater coordinationof practices and information. Issues do not occuralong neat and bounded lines; therefore, solutionsmay require that multiple agencies, organisationsand other stakeholders work together efficientlyand effectively in a ‘joined up’ or integrated way.Through coordination the most far-reachingaspects of the issue can be addressed in a timelyand efficient manner.

2.5 When to Involve the Community

Whilst most projects will gain from communityparticipation, some issues will particularly benefitfrom public input. However, some issues that maybe deemed ‘straight-forward’ should also includethe opportunity for participation. This is not tosuggest that all projects will require extensivepublic consultative processes, but rather that anassessment needs to be made as to the level ofinvolvement offered to the community. Thesensitivity and complexity of the issue/project andthe diversity of opinions held will determine this.

The following criteria may be useful in decidingwhich issues would benefit from consultation:

• The issue affects the rights and entitlements ofmembers of the community or a significantgroup in the community

• The issue is likely to affect people’s quality of life

• The issue affects the natural environment

• A significant number of people, or particulargroups, are likely to have strong and/or competingviews on the issue (both negative and positive)

• Insufficient information is available on which tomake a decision about an issue

• The issue is technically complex

• The agency genuinely wants to find out theviews of the stakeholders/citizens

• Agreement and acceptance by the communitywill be critical to the longer term success of the project.

It will neither be effective nor appropriate toconsult if:

• A final decision has already been made

• Community input is not going to beincorporated

• The commissioning body cannot influence afinal decision

• The issue requires an urgent decision.


It is likely that the single most important factorin the success of a public participation program

is whether the agency is genuinely committedto public participation. [Les Robinson 2002]


Agreement on goalsAgreement on processes

Agreement on success indicators

AGENCYExpectations

Values & GoalsPriorities

LimitationsDrivers

CapacityTimeframes

COMMUNITYExpectations

Values & GoalsPriorities

LimitationsDrivers

CapacityTimeframes

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS

Evaluate Evaluate

Evaluate

Evaluate

Decisions & Outcomes

Feedback to the Community

Risk Assessment

DiscoveryDiscovery

Objectives

Concepts

Budget

Approvals

Previous Consultaions

Constraints

Solutions

Stakeholder

Community

Issues

WORKING TOGETHERINCLUDING COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS

IN DECISION-MAKING

DISCOVER DISCOVER

DECIDE DECIDE

PLAN PLAN


3.0s c o p i n g y o u r p r o j e c t


3.1 Discovery

Most projects contain a series of steps and anumber of points where decisions will be made.At each of these decision points questions willneed to be answered that will determine if andhow the project will proceed. It must be decided ifthose questions are answered internally orwhether they will require input from a widerrange of stakeholders. That is, at what key pointsthroughout the project will communityparticipation be built in? Any project planned toalter or develop new policy, to change or addinfrastructure, as well as any service deliverychange processes, should be securely underpinnedby an effective community engagement plan.

With all proposed projects a period of research,mapping and scoping is required to develop afuller understanding of its issues and socialimpacts. This period of research is called the‘discovery phase’.

A comprehensive discovery will bring a clearerunderstanding of the issues under deliberation,identify the key stakeholders to the project – bothinternal and external, and distinguish key decisionpoints.

Although in this guide ‘discovery’ precedes thedevelopment of a community participation planand its subsequent implementation it is a processthat will continue throughout the life of any project.

A discussion of the major components making upyour discovery follows.

3.2 Understanding the Context

It is important to begin by having anunderstanding of the context in which the projectis being developed.

Context refers to the existing conditions in whichthe public consultation is being developed andcan significantly influence the consultation in termsof the process design, content and outputs. Interms of context it will be helpful to understand:

• The political culture of decision-making

• The culture of stakeholder participation

• Existing institutional or organisational capacityand practices

• The history of previous attempts to engagewith the community

• The existence of deeply entrenched views(agency, industry and community)

• The scale of the project

• Budget and resources available.

3.3 Understanding the issues

Matters or topics of concern that may requirecommunity involvement might arise from asignificant event, development or process aboutwhich there are differing views or perspectives.These may affect (or potentially affect) the timelydelivery of a project, product or service and mayalso impact the quality of deliverables and the costof production.

Issues emerge around topics from differentsources. An issue may come to the attention ofdecision-makers as a result of normal reportingpractices (e.g. ongoing monitoring, budgetaryconsiderations, performance indicators, planningprocesses, etc) or may be highlighted only whencommunity input has been sought.

It is useful to turn the topic from a statement to aquestion, as this can help you to identify differentresponses. For example:

• Topic: Cloning

• Issue: Cloning in beef cattle

• Question: Should cloning of beef cattle bepermitted?

In this Guide we use the term ‘issue’ to cover arange of events or actions where a decision ofsome form is likely to be made. For example, aproject can be based on a single issue, as wellbeing made up of multiple issues. In the discoveryphase there is a need to understand both themain project issue along with any potentialseparate issues within components of the project.

These issues can be viewed in potentially countlessways depending on a person’s interests,background and experience. Therefore, how a

s c o p i n g y o u r p r o j e c t


project manager understands and defines an issuecan impact on the range of options madeavailable and on achieving an acceptableoutcome.

Issue identification will often be a continualprocess, with new (and previously unconsidered)issues emerging through exploration. Initially itmust be determined:

• What is the background to the issue?

• What is the nature of the issue?

• Whose responsibility it is to address the issue?

• What is/are the decision/s being made aboutthe issue?

• When will the decisions be made?

• Who has authority to make the decisions?

• What is the level of interest in the centralproblem surrounding the issue?

In the first instance, in order to develop yourunderstanding of the issue, it may be useful toinvestigate the history surrounding the project.This will involve exploring the drivers that havebrought this issue to your attention, therelationship between this issue and other majorprojects, between this issue and various stakeholders,and among the different stakeholders themselves.

It is useful to understand how an issue arose.Was it because of technological, social, economicor demographic changes; legal judgements; mediaattention; or international or intergovernmentalagreements? Identifying the drivers for puttingthis particular issue on the agenda helps to fullydefine its underlying nature and clarify where theresponsibility lies for addressing it. It may restsolely with one agency or responsibility might beshared across portfolios. Understanding this willhave a significant impact upon how and wheredecisions are made and this will affect the extentto which stakeholder input will influence thosedecisions. It is critical that the final decision-maker is agreed upon in the planning process andrecognised in the community engagement plan.

In many cases it will be necessary to approach keystakeholders to ascertain their perspective of anissue. This early contact will help to build up abetter understanding of how the issue is viewedexternally and will guide the scope and level offurther opportunities for stakeholder andcommunity involvement.

Keep in mind, however, that although there maybe agreement between the agency and the keystakeholders in defining the issue, there may bediffering interpretations of what form a solutionmight take. For example, it may be agreed thatthe issue is ‘poor health in the community’, butthe preferred solution for the agency is to improvemedical facilities, where as the community wantsto upgrade sewage system.

Another key facet is to ascertain the level ofoutside interest the issue is generating. Manyissues will draw the attention of both the mediaand the community more generally. Where theyimpact directly upon people’s lives or livelihoodsyou can expect greater interest. Proposed changesin the areas of health, education or policing willoften be more closely monitored. Infrastructureand building projects that change the immediatelandscape around people’s homes and businesseswill likely generate intense local interest. In thesecases there will be an inherent risk to the project ifyou do not consult appropriately.

Carrying out background research will uncoverwhether any consultation with stakeholders haspreviously been undertaken and, if so, whatoutcomes were achieved. It is highly likely, as itbecomes more common for agencies andorganisations to consult with the public, thatconsultations are currently being conducted withsome of the same stakeholders or at least havebeen in the not-too-distant past. The ConsultWAconsultations catalogue provides a good resourceof past and current consultations conducted bygovernment agencies. ConsultWA can be accessedonline at http://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au andcan be searched by region, topic or agency.


If other relevant consultations are found throughthat process of research then talk to others whowere/are involved in these about the issues theyuncovered, their list of participants, and anyconcerns that were raised by the stakeholdersduring their consultation.

Researching the history of the issue may alsouncover whether there are any deeply held andentrenched views within the community or ahistory of tension between the community andthe agency in relation to this, or other projects.At the same time, your research may also uncover‘champions’ and supporters of projects in theirlocal area. This information will assist indetermining what method of participation willmaximise the potential for positive outcomes.

3.4 Who Are the Key Stakeholders?

Who is a stakeholder? This Guide defines astakeholder as any person, group or organisationwith an interest or ‘stake’ in an issue eitherbecause they will be affected by a decision or mayhave some influence on its outcome. Theidentification of stakeholders is important;excluding an important stakeholder canundermine the process.

Stakeholders can be other governmentdepartments, local governments, industry andbusiness, interest groups, peak bodies, non-government organisations, community groups,Indigenous and ethnic groups, and individuals.

The following questions may aid in identifyingstakeholders and potential participants:

• Who is responsible for the issue?

• Who might be affected by the issue, negativelyor positively?

• Who will be impacted if the project does notgo ahead?

• Who are the representatives of those likely tobe affected, e.g. interest groups, lobby groups,peak bodies etc?

• Who can make a contribution?

• Who is likely to mobilise for or against the issue?

• Whose absence from participation will detractfrom the final result?

• Which government departments have aninterest in the project?

Participants may be classified according to theirlevel of engagement:

Highly involved: those who want to know whatyou are doing in detail. They will be willing to beengaged in one-on-one interviews and will wantto be involved in Advisory Groups. Often theydirectly negotiate with senior managers, ministerialadvisers or Ministers. They are likely to be knownto the agency already – look through complaintfiles, letters to the Department or the Minister,media articles or letters, or at activist organisations.

Attentives: those who rate your agency as one oftheir top 20 concerns. They will be prepared toengage in focus groups and other forms of sharedcontrol. They are likely to be academics, informedobservers and leaders in the community.

Browsers: those who will read about the issue inthe newspaper, but do not or cannot investigatethemselves. The majority form their opinions basedon what the highly involved and attentives think.

General Public: those who have not had theopportunity, support or skills to engage with theissue or with the leading organisation.

For every phase of the project the role of differentstakeholders should be reviewed. Over the courseof a large project the relevance and participationof stakeholders may change. At each stage somewill be more affected than others, be more active,or have more resources or knowledge. Onlengthy projects stakeholders will come and go sothe initial pool of stakeholders is liable to changeas time goes on. This presents a challenge,particularly on those projects where it is necessaryto build the knowledge of stakeholders toenhance their capacity to contribute. Good recordkeeping practices and allowing public access tohistorical documentation and decisionssurrounding the project can help bring newstakeholders up to speed.


Also keep in mind that different stakeholders canmake different contributions. Some stakeholderscontribute primarily by means of their ideas andthe information they possess. Others may havemore material interests such as land or propertythat might be affected. Understanding theinformation that might be required from thecommunity will assist in clarifying whichstakeholders, based upon their types ofcontributions, should be involved.

Once the key stakeholders for the project havebeen identified, it will be useful to explore theirprevious participation experiences. Pastexperience is an important influence oncommunity participation. People are oftenreluctant to participate if their prior experienceshave been negative, particularly if they feel thattheir input has not made a significant impact onthe outcome. They may also feel reluctant if theyhave been involved in a series of participationprograms, which may or may not be related.Generally, it is the nature of the issue that willgovern people’s willingness to participate. Theirpast experiences, however, will influence the typesof interaction that will occur.

If community members have been involved inprevious participation programs, then the style ofthat past experience may need to be investigated.If, for example, stakeholders have previously beeninvolved in some of the more adversarialapproaches, then designing a consensual style ofconsultation may be more successful. This willsometimes need more effort in planning, andmore time to assure participants of yourcommitment to finding consensual solutions, butthe end result will be worthwhile.

A second important issue surroundingstakeholders is their relationships to each other,which may not always be positive. A failure toappreciate and manage the dynamics betweenstakeholders may lead to problems that will havea negative impact on the overall project.

One of the most important considerations inplanning public participation is to solicit somelevel of stakeholder participation early in theproject, beginning in the planning anddevelopment stages and continuing throughimplementation and review.

3.5 Identifying the Project’s Objective andStakeholder Involvement

Having investigated the issue and identified thekey stakeholders, the next matter is to clarify theobjective of the project and the capacity toachieve it. This will have ramifications on thepotential to involve the community in theprocesses of decision-making and the extent towhich they will be involved.

There will be times when the scoping research andpreliminary contact with key stakeholdersidentifies that the wider community is satisfiedthat the project should proceed promptly. In thiscase, it may not be necessary to seek widecommunity input, but there will remain a need forthe community to be kept informed of progress.

If the research identifies that further and widercommunity input would be beneficial, it isimportant to be clear about the parameters of theproject and identify any constraints or limitations.This might include such things as:

• The total allowable budget for various aspectsof the project

• Timeframe allowed for completion

• Statutory requirements (e.g. EnvironmentalImpact Assessments, Planning Approvals,Health and Safety considerations, etc)

• Decisions already made internally, by otheragencies or by the Minister.

The most intractable problems arise becauseorganisations promoting participation aren’t clearabout what they want to achieve. [Wilcox 1994]

14 OFF ICE OF CIT IZENS AND CIV ICS: CONSULT ING CIT IZENS SER IES • WORKING TOGETHER

What are social impacts?

A convenient way of conceptualising social impacts is as changes to one or more of the following:

• people’s way of life – that is, how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis;

• their culture – that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect;

• their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities;

• their political systems – the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affecttheir lives, the level of democratisation that is taking place, and the resources provided for thispurpose;

• their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of thefood they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy ofsanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources;

• their health and wellbeing – health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritualwellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity;

• their personal and property rights – particularly whether people are economically affected, orexperience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties;

• their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future oftheir community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children (IAIA 2003).

3.6 Understanding About Levels ofInvolvement

The level and extent to which you involve thecommunity will vary with each project. There area number of factors that will govern this, includingthe complexity of the information that must berelayed and understood before people canparticipate in a meaningful discussion. Additionally,the level and depth of community involvementwill be influenced by the project’s potential social,environmental, cultural or economic impacts.

Determining the level of participation will beshaped by:

• How much information needs to becommunicated to the community to enable themto participate

• How many abstract or technical concepts needto be digested before an informed decision canbe made

• How much learning is required of theparticipants

• A determination of the potential for conflict withthe community

• The potential for social, environmental orfinancial damage if an ill-informed decision ismade (or no decision is made)

• The number of unknowns in the currentdecision-making equation

• The level of involvement expected by thecommunity

• The ramifications of not involving the communityat a high level.


It must be emphasised that although thisinformation will be gathered early in the planningstages, it will continually need to be reassessedthroughout the duration of the project.

Les Robinson (2002a) has developed the PublicParticipation Matrix (see below) showing how thecomplexity of the information relating to the issueand the level of risk involved will influence thelevel of participation required by the community.

On any given project a range of publicparticipation processes will often be required.And many times the ‘best fit’ solution will involvea blend of two or more of these processes.

Referendum

Deliberative Poll

PARTNER

INVOLVE

Commissionof Inquiry

DeliberativeForum

IndependentAdvisory Panel

Community AdvisoryCommittee

StakeholderConsultation

PublicMeetings

ConsultativeWorkshops

SearchConference

Citizen Jury

Survey

InformationNights

AwarenessCampaign

Letterboxing

INFORM

CONSULT

2-stage Survey

Seminar

Exhibition andComments

Charrette

ConsultativeWorkshop

High levels of riskin the situation eg.Potential fornegative social andenvironmentalimpacts

Low levels of riskin the situation

Simple informationto be understood

Complex informationto be understood

© Les Robinson 2002


3.7 Determining Resource Requirements

Personnel

A skilled team is essential for planning, developing,executing, monitoring and evaluating a consultation.The team may come from within the agency, maybe contracted specifically for the purpose of theproject or a combination of the two.

A community participation program will only be asgood as the people involved in its implementation.It is, therefore, imperative to appoint skilled staffand to consider the following:

• Effective high level leadership is vital

• There must be a commitment to openness andtransparency

• Personnel with skills in communityengagement, facilitation, informationdissemination, knowledge of the issues and soon are essential to keeping the consultationprocess on track

• Enthusiasm and commitment from theconsultation team will directly impact upon thesuccess of the project

• On complex issues, there may be a need toaccess expert advice by bringing in speciallyskilled and/or experienced staff into theorganisation through the use of consultantsand contractors.

It is preferable to have one clear point of contactbetween the agency and the community and/orstakeholders. This assists in providing a coordinated,unified message and ensures that the agency isspeaking with one voice.

Budget

Where organisations are spending public money itis necessary to prepare a budget that provides forcost-effective ways to involve the community.Community participation need not be expensive –with resourcefulness it can be carried out withlimited funds.

Some of the expenses that may be incurredinclude such things as advertising, venue hire,printing, postage/freight, child or respite care,parking/travel/accommodation, public addresssystems, stationery, consultancy, and audio-visualequipment.

Budget considerations are especially important onprojects where contracts are awarded through atendering process. In these situations communityparticipation is often either omitted or givenminimal weight due to the risk of significant costincreases down the track. To ensure thatcommunity participation processes are resourcedadequately and maintained throughout the life ofa project, it is beneficial to instruct that theengagement component is included as part of thetendered cost.

3.8 Developing a Timeline

Successful consultations are implementedaccording to a well-defined schedule, particularlyfor those consultations designed to report on aspecific issue. Sufficient time needs to be allocatedat every stage of the participation program toallow for proper monitoring and due considerationof process. Consultations that only allow minimaltime for considered deliberation will only add tothe level of cynicism some members of thecommunity have towards community participationinitiatives.

Consider the following points:

• Having a realistic timetable is valuable for allparticipants. It can indicate what they canexpect (short or long term commitment) andwhen

• The timing of consultation may need to beadjusted to suit the schedules of participantscritical to the success of the project. Forexample, conducting consultations afterbusiness hours, or outside of public orcultural/religious holidays

• Timing can also be important in a secondaryway because some issues may be moreprominent at particular times of the year (e.g.water consumption in the summer months)


• Ample time should be provided for participantsto contribute throughout the consultationprocess, to become informed of the issues,reflect upon the information and makeconsidered responses

• Consideration should be given to the meetingcycles of different organisations, and the time ittakes for groups and individuals to be involvedin formal discussions, debate and awarenessraising.

3.9 Next Steps

Following the initial discovery, there should be aclearer understanding of the project and any otherissues surrounding it. The key stakeholders will beidentified and many will have been contactedalready. In addition, resource capabilities and thetiming for the whole project will be established.

With this information, the project manager willnow be able to make a determination as to thenext steps for the project, specifically what kind,and how much community engagement will follow.

If the discovery has shown that the issue is highrisk and/or high complexity, there are strategiesthat can be adopted to address these. One ofthese is to establish a Community Working Groupto help plan and build an understanding ofcommunity views and opinions.

3.10 Establishing Community Working Groups

On certain issues there may be a wide variety ofpotentially conflicting interests and concernspresent in the community, but people who comeforward to participate will not represent all ofthese interests. To gain a better understanding itis often useful to establish a Community WorkingGroup to deliberate with and increase the likelihoodof gaining a commitment to the process.

A Working Group is a small group set up with aspecific task to complete, with members chosenfor their appropriate skills. Working Groups are agood method for ensuring interested people canget involved and make a contribution.

Community Working Groups are typicallycomprised of community members, agencypersonnel, representative groups, and may alsoinclude lobby groups, statutory authorities and theprivate sector. Selection of the participants can beachieved through a number of methods including:

• Publicly advertising for expressions of interest

• Inviting representatives of groups ororganisations that have shown an interest inthe issue

• Accepting self-nominated participants

• Random selection or equivalent method.

Each method presents its own challenges butselection will be aided by being clear as to thepurpose of the group.

It is essential that the roles and responsibilities ofthe Working Group are clearly defined at theoutset and this can be achieved through thedevelopment of a Terms of Reference. This willensure that all members understand the decision-making powers of the group and the scope ofissues that it will consider. The Terms of Referencefor the group can also assist in defining theoperation and format of meetings, issues such asconfidentiality, and avenues of communication.Development of the Terms of Reference should bemutually agreed by all Group members at the firstmeeting.

Regardless of the representativeness of the group,it should not be assumed that it speaks for thewhole community. Rather, it acts as a communicationconduit between the wider community and theproject team.

Evidence has shown that successful CommunityWorking Groups will be focused upon theultimate goals of the community participationprogram rather than the problems. It is importantthat members have a good understanding of theirresponsibilities to accurately and regularlycommunicate with the groups on whose behalf

[Community Working Groups] act as a soundingboard for the proponent organisation, specialistconsultants and decision-makers in the scoping,planning and detailed design phases of a project, inguiding the consultation with the wider community,and they may also play a role in the implementationof the agreed outcomes. [Turner 2002]


they are advocating. To do so effectively mayrequire resources be made available to facilitatethe transfer of information from the group to thewider community and vice versa.

Before pursuing wider community engagement, itis important for the group to reach agreementabout these goals of the community participationprogram. Establishing the goals early will alsohelp to guide the development of evaluationcriteria by which to judge the success or otherwiseof the endeavour.

Generally, a Community Working Group will:

• Guide the community participation program

• Provide and agree on content (e.g. backgroundinformation, objectives)

• Analyse and agree on participation process

• Promote the participation process.

3.11 Gaining agreement

It is important to manage the expectations of allinvolved in a community participation program.Participants who have been involved in the initialplanning and agree with the process will morelikely have realistic expectations of both the processand its outcomes. Reaching agreement on theconsultation process and goals at the outset isessential to ensuring its success and will reducethe potential for the consultation process to ‘gooff the rails’, from which it is difficult to recover.

It is also important throughout the communityparticipation program to address the concerns ofall involved. Participants who are well informedare less likely to become frustrated with theprocess. Ideally, participants should be informedupfront as to how their input will influence thedecision-making.

Early agreement should include:

• Obtain commitments from all parties as to thegoal of the consultation and their role in it

• Lay the groundwork for solutions thatparticipants can understand and accept (evenwhen they don’t agree)

• Define those aspects that are negotiable andopen to public input, against those that are not

• Decide on appropriate methods andtechniques, taking into account timeframes,resources and objectives

• Outline the level of support and resourcesavailable.

3.12 Choosing a Consultation Method

Conducting community participation programs isnot an answer in itself. Conducting meaningfuland aligned programs that seek to achievepredetermined objectives will bring far morebenefits.

A vast number of mechanisms can be used tofacilitate the participation of the community indecision-making processes, from public meetingsto written submissions to electronic surveys (seeAppendix C). Each issue, proposal or policy has adifferent mechanism, or combination ofmechanisms, that would be more appropriatedepending on the variables present.

Some important factors need to be consideredbefore determining how the participation of thecommunity can be best achieved. Outcomes fromthe discovery will provide invaluable informationon the most appropriate mechanism to deploy.Additionally, community participation programswill be governed to a large extent by the amountof resources, in terms of budget, personnel andtime available to the project team.


It is best to adopt a ‘fit-for-purpose’ approach tocommunity participation. In many cases whendesigning a community participation plan it isworthwhile to incorporate a range of participationmethods (time and resources permitting) to allowfor a diverse range of people across thecommunity to have access to a variety of waysthrough which to participate.

To begin the process of matching participationmethod to participation program be clear aboutthe following:

1. What is the objective of the communityparticipation program? For example, is it:

• To inform the community?

• To gather information that will informdecision-making?

• To exchange information?

• To come to a consensus that all parties canaccept?

2. What kind of information needs to flow to andfrom the community?

• This will be influenced by the aim of thecommunity participation program as well asthe level of complexity of the issue.

3. Who will participate?

• What is the demographic of the community(the range, interests and location)?

• Are there institutional, geographical,economic, technological or physical barriersthat will hinder participation opportunities?

• What level of involvement and commitmentis expected from participants?

• What is the preference and needs of thecommunity?

4. What resources are available within the agency?

• What is the time-frame allocated to the project?

• What is the level of community participationexpertise within the agency?

• Will independent consultants need to beengaged?

• How much funding has been allocated toallow for community participation?

5. What resources are available in the community?

• Recognise that in some areas the communityinfrastructure required to support communityplanning and participation may be lessdeveloped then in others and will take timeto build.

• What training do community groups andmembers require to develop the skills toparticipate as equal partners?

• What practical support (i.e. transport, childcare, timing) will lessen the barriers toparticipation.

Regardless of the method chosen there willinvariably be some disadvantages but these can beovercome to some extent if you:

• Are aware of, and able to accept the possibledisadvantages of the method/s so that you canmanage expectations

• Ensure that all involved in the project are alsoaware of the possible disadvantages

• Consider using more than one method ofengagement to compensate for potentialdisadvantages of one method.

Conducting a thorough discovery will help toascertain which approach is most relevant.


The following table provides some useful information to help select a participation method suited todifferent issues and/or objectives:

Allowing enough time for detailed discussion of the issues ✔ ✔ ✔

Complex Issues ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Representativeness ✔

Involving wide range of participants ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Monitoring changes in opinion over time ✔ ✔

Obtaining mainly qualitative (descriptive) information ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Obtaining mainly quantitative (measurable) information ✔ ✔

Providing opportunity for face to face interaction ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Including those who are hard to reach ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Seeking a large number of participants ✔ ✔

Understanding participants values around an issue ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Project scope broad (local or state-wide) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Futu

re S

earc

hC

on

fere

nce

s

Ch

arre

tte

Op

en D

ays

Surv

eys

Ad

viso

ryC

om

mit

tee

Pub

lic M

eeti

ng

s

Cit

izen

s Ju

ry

Focu

s G

rou

p

e-en

gag

emen

t

Wo

rksh

op

s

Community Participation Methods

4.0p r e p a r i n g t h e c o m m u n i t yp a r t i c i p a t i o n p l a n



A Community Participation Plan (CPP) provides abrief for the participation components of aproject. As such the size and complexity of theproject will reflect the level of detail that is containedin the CPP. Similarly, the level of risk associatedwith the project will be reflected in the size anddetail of the CPP. A comprehensive CPP should bedeveloped for every stage of the project.

Well thought out CPPs provide a systematicapproach that will maximise the use of availableresources and minimise delays by ensuring thatcommunity participation is coordinated with otherproject tasks and milestones.

At a minimum the Community Participation Planshould contain the following:

4.1 Background

An overview of the relevant background informationwill include key events that have led to thedevelopment of the Community Participation Plan.It will describe the agency’s role, any preliminaryconsultation that has taken place (and theoutcomes from this), the level of interest, and asummary of the major issues that have beenidentified during the discovery phase.

4.2 Key Stakeholders

The Community Participation Plan will list allidentified stakeholders such as government, localauthorities, non-government organisations,landowners, local interest groups, schools, media,and any other interested individual. The plan willalso define the most appropriate way ofcommunicating with these groups and identify thebest times or stages for participation. (If it is tooearly, people might not be interested. If it is toolate, incorporation of their input becomes difficult.)

4.3 Community Participation Objective/s

There should now be clarity on the issues involvedand what decisions need to be made, by whom,how and when. The next task is to clearly set outthe objective/s of the consultation. This will needto be done for each issue and for each exercise toclearly state what you expect to achieve. For example:

• Contribute to the development of policy orstrategies

• Evaluate service delivery or performance

• Establish service priorities

• Explore community needs or aspirations

• Foster a partnership with the community

• Make a decision between options

• Understand community preferences to informdecision-making

• Build trust between the agency and thecommunity

• Find solutions that reflect community values

• Provide information.

In many cases it will be helpful to establish astatement of ‘success’ indicators for eachparticipation activity. This may take the form of astatement such as “This consultation will bedefined as successful if we …” and should beapproached from the perspectives of the agency,the community and from a wider departmental orGovernment perspective.

For example, success may be defined as:

• Achieving maximum inclusiveness throughwidespread communication of the process andopportunities for involvement

• Providing maximum clarity in communicatingthe scope, goals and expectations of the project

• Reporting accurately and comprehensively thenature and detail of people’s contributions

• Presenting data so that people can recognisetheir contributions to the process and to thedevelopment of policy and recommendations

• Providing frequent feedback and informationrelating to emerging issues

• Developing good working relationships with allstakeholder groups and individuals

• Operating to a clear and realistic timetable thatis sensitive to the needs and resources ofindividuals and groups

preparing the community participation plan


• Assisting individuals and groups, as appropriateand subject to resource constraints, in practicalways to participate effectively in theparticipation process2.

Thinking about ‘success’ indicators for yourcommunity participation program will help tofocus and define your objectives more clearly.

4.4 Defining the Question/s

When faced with a problem to solve or decision tomake people often begin by searching for solutions.However, the difficulty is not necessarily aboutsolving, but understanding the problem. In thesecircumstances the questions that are asked aremore important than the solutions that are proposed.

The objective of the participation program mustbe clear in order to develop the questions to beasked. Questions will need to take account of thewider context surrounding the identified issue. Bylooking outside of the current context, it might bepossible to identify other factors not previouslyconsidered.

Be aware that the ‘wrong’ question will usually befar harder to reach agreement on than the right one.

Seek first to understand the range of communityviews on the issues, along with the values behindthose views. From here alternatives can beprioritised and sorted in line with the criteriaprovided. This is more beneficial than seeking thepublic’s opinion of technical aspects of a project.For example, “how many intersections controlledby traffic signals?” versus “what is important toyou with this new road”?

The key in framing questions is to be open andnon-partisan, both in the question itself and thetone of the questioner. The questions should beequally valid for a person regardless of theirposition on the issue. Thus, asking “what are youmost concerned about?” rather than “why don’tyou like this plan?” does not make anyassumptions about the views a person might hold.

4.5 Statement of Intent

All participants need to understand theparameters and constraints of the project or policyand a Statement of Intent will help to clarifythese. It should articulate the negotiable andnon-negotiable items so that there is a clearunderstanding of the project constraints.Negotiable items are those choices and optionsand outcomes that can be changed to reflectcommunity input. Non-negotiable items are thosethings already set that cannot be changed ornegotiated and might include standards andpolicies that an agency must adhere to(environmental protection or cultural heritage), orthe time and resources available.

Being clear from the outset about what is, andwhat is not, under consideration will help avoidunrealistic expectations. The reasons for itemsbeing non-negotiable must be explained.

Overall a Statement of Intent should include thefollowing elements:

• What is, and what is not, open to discussion(scope of decisions, options and issues)

• The process by which decisions will be madeabout the definition, selection and refinementof alternatives

• The roles and responsibilities of designateddecision-makers at all levels

• The roles and responsibilities of participants

• The agency’s commitment to the process

• The agency’s commitment to the outcome

• The agency’s commitment to the provision ofinformation to the public sufficiently in advanceof meetings and decision points to encouragemeaningful discussion

• Definition of success indicators.

2 Taken from the Community Consultation Verification Statement issued by the Melbourne Water Authority following its program ofcommunity participation in the Eastern Treatment Plant Improvement project. Available online athttp://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/library/current_projects/eastern_treatment_plant_upgrade/community_consultation_verification_statement.pdf


4.6 Resources

Personnel

It must be decided whether the consultationprogram will be completed with agency personnelor with expert assistance (e.g. independentfacilitator or mediator). The CommunityParticipation Plan should also make note of thekey personnel including the Project Manager andcommunity contact officer and include the rolesand responsibilities of each position.

Budget Allocation

The Community Participation Plan should outlinethat sufficient funds have been allocated to theproject to cover the personnel requirements,advertising and other consultation costs.

4.7 Timeline

A published timeline will help to coordinatespecific community participation opportunities andtechniques. It will allow participants to scheduletheir own time to maximise their opportunities fordeliberation and participation.

The timeline may be divided into stages thatidentify each of the participation processesplanned and link these to key decision points.

4.8 Participation Methods

It is likely that a range of participationopportunities will be available throughout thelength of the project. Each of these should belisted (as per the timeline) with the objectiveidentified and an indication given as to how it willinform the decision-making and futureparticipation activities. For example:

Stage 1: Informing the community - shoppingcentre displays, information sessions, newspaperarticles and letter drops. Advertise futureopportunities for community involvement.

Stage 2: Identifying Alternatives - series ofcommunity workshops, establishment of advisorygroup, focus group discussions and call for publicsubmissions. Prepare report to guide Stage 3.

Stage 3: Developing Design - establishment oftechnical advisory group to liaise with communityadvisory group, conduct community forums,shopping centre displays showing progress todate, newsletters, public notices in news media.

4.9 Reporting

One of the most important determinants ofcontinuing community involvement is the level ofopenness in decision-making. Publicly reportingthe outcomes of consultation processes and thedecisions that emerge from them will be a keyfactor in ensuring that participants continue toengage with the agency.

Following the evaluation at the end of thecommunity participation program, a report shouldbe prepared that enables those who have investedtime and energy to find out the outcomes andend result of the project.

The Community Participation Plan should statewhat reports will be made available, when theyare likely to be available and how to access them.


5.0m a k i n g t h e p l a n w o r k

m a k i n g t h e p l a n w o r k


The detailed scoping, planning and design of theCommunity Participation Plan will be followed byits implementation when the agency candemonstrate its commitment to involving thecommunity. Even with the best planning andpreparation unforseen situations can arise. Thekey to overcoming these is to constantly monitorthe progress of the program and be flexibleenough to adapt as changing situations arise.

The following section outlines various aspects forconsideration during implementation.

5.1 Reflective Practice

An important success factor in communityparticipation programs rests in knowing that it willbe a dynamic exercise, which is bound to raisenew challenges as often as it solves old problems.It is a process of continuous learning for thecommunity and the agency - before, during andafter the exercise.

Reflection throughout the process, coupled withregular and ongoing evaluation and monitoring isrequired to ensure the program is still heading inthe right direction. It may mean a rethink of theprocess and who is involved. This is whereflexibility and adaptability are of prime importance.

Reflective practice is not about uncoveringmistakes, but about learning and generating newknowledge that can guide future action. It givesan opportunity to say ‘this won’t work – let’s fix it’rather than persevering with what may turn outto be an ineffective plan.

5.2 Making Contact

The Community Participation Plan will help toidentify the best ways of contacting interestedpeople (the ‘stakeholders’). Locating andengaging participants can be challenging and mayrequire innovative approaches. CommunityService Directories, local newspapers, radiostations and the Internet are good places to start.To ensure those with particular interests are notthe only ones listened to, random sampling of thepopulation is an important way of ensuringbroader representation. Random samples can alsobe stratified (e.g. by age, gender, location,education) to ensure the sample reflects the

population under discussion. The electoral roll isone source of accessing a statisticallyrepresentative group of citizens. Localgovernment councils often have demographicprofiles available which can also be useful.

Participants can be contacted through a numberof methods including:

• Random sampling via the post, telephone,shopping centres, household visits, etc

• Postal contact (letters, leaflets, mail outs) – haswide contact but may achieve poor returns

• Visits – dialogue often takes longer and morestaff time needed but feedback is better

• Site boards – suitable for information bulletins,progress notes where information is factual andnot controversial

• Exhibitions – information is managed by theagency, it engages people, but must activelyrecord feedback

• Press releases, features, radio, television – widecoverage, but the outcome is not alwayspredictable

• Public meetings – need careful management asthey can be very emotive (local orators,pressure groups, politics)

• Projects with others – excellent way of involvingcommunity at all levels, schools, local interestgroups, business, residents, etc.

Without special assistance some individuals maybe restricted in their ability to participate. Thismay be aided through the provision of travelassistance, payment for child-care, or through theprovision of interpreters or audio-visual aids.

Additionally, in a state as large and sparselypopulated as Western Australia, specialconsideration must be given to remote andregional communities to avoid these citizensfeeling and/or being isolated and marginalised.Innovative methods may need to be developed toensure participation of remotely located citizens.Some of the new developments in onlineconsultation have been addressed in the recentlyreleased e-Engagement Guide, which can bedownloaded from the Citizenscape website.


5.3 Awareness Raising and Education

Raising the public’s understanding and awarenessof the technical aspects that will impact the issuesis an important first step in any publicparticipation program. There are three aspects toawareness raising.

The first is directed towards ensuring thatpotential stakeholders are aware of theopportunity to participate, that they can see somebenefit or relevance to themselves, and feelconfident about their capacity to participate. Thisrequires publicising and advertising the proposedconsultation as widely as possible, ensuring thatparticipants have enough time to absorb all of theinformation required. Raising the awareness ofpeople will be more successful if you start byconsidering the interests of stakeholders throughcommunity profiling – finding out their values,knowledge and experience with issue – anddesigning your advertising with these in mind.

The second aspect relates to broad issues whenthere is a need to raise general communityawareness of the complexity and seriousness ofthe issues under consideration, both to informand to broaden ‘ownership’ of the problem and,hence, the solutions.

The third aspect of awareness raising relatesspecifically to the provision of information.Effective consultation requires that people begiven the opportunity to make informed decisionsby providing them with accessible, relevant andcomprehensive information about the issue, itsimpacts, and the consultation process. Establish acentral point of contact to assist in informationdissemination, answer questions and to serve as avisible and accessible conduit to expert information.

Schedule consultations locally to make themconvenient, accessible and user-friendly forparticipants. Consider timeframes that do notconflict with work schedules, school holidays,dinner hours and other community commitmentsthat may decrease attendance.

Advertise any events and proposed agendas in atimely manner in the print and electronic media,providing a phone number for communitymembers to find out more information.

An example of awareness raising that occurred prior to a community involvement event can be

found in the Dialogue with the City, a deliberative forum hosted by the Western Australian

Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The ‘Dialogue’ process lasted for over 12 months

and included a large scale community survey, a television broadcast about planning for Perth,

an online discussion forum, a series of newspaper articles, a primary school drawing

competition and a high school essay competition, learning sessions with young people and

people from Indigenous and non-English speaking backgrounds, culminating in a one-day

public forum involving 1,100 citizens. Through this, participants were provided with

background knowledge to inform their deliberation on the day.

See for further information A Case Study in Deliberative Democracy: Dialogue with the City

(Hartz-Karp, undated)


5.4 Communicate Ideas Clearly

It is important to think about how to communicateeffectively with the people identified.

Having an understanding of your stakeholders willallow for appropriately targeted communicationstrategies: In general:

• Use simple, clear and familiar language that isfree of unnecessary jargon

• Provide a summary of the information

• Attract attention with clear, colourful illustrations

• Incorporate mechanisms to address differinglevels of literacy in the community

• Use visual material

• Be responsive to the cultural and linguisticdiversity of the community, including differentlanguage needs and the needs of the visuallyand hearing impaired

• Give clear contact details for feedback andidentify an individual who is friendly and receptiveto answer further questions or clarify points

• Check the understanding and provide furtherinformation if required.

5.5 Practicalities

The success of participation initiatives can beadversely affected if participants are not made tofeel welcome and comfortable. Giveconsideration to their comfort when choosing thevenue and amenities. For all activities scheduled itwill be necessary to confirm all practicalarrangements such as:

• Venue bookings, seating arrangements androom layout

• Audio/visual equipment and technical staff

• Agenda

• Presenters and notification of agenda

• Writing implements

• Refreshments and catering

• Parking availability

• Access needs

• Sufficient ratios between staff and audiencenumbers

• Note taking equipment

• Appropriate directional/information signs.

5.6 Providing Feedback

Feedback to participants should be provided ateach stage of the participation process to validateinformation as it is gathered and to encouragecontinued involvement. This not only providesevidence that participants’ views, comments andsuggestions have been recorded accurately andtaken seriously, contributing to the level of trustbetween all involved, but also enables people tohear other people’s views.

End-of-process feedback should be provided soonafter the analysis of input is completed to helpensure integrity and credibility. If delays occur,then provide interim updates on the process.

Feedback should acknowledge the contribution ofboth consultants and participants. In keeping witha policy of openness it may be beneficial to provideminutes of any deliberations, making note of bothconsensus and dissent. Confidentiality and privacyissues must be are addressed at the outset.

Feedback should be provided to participants onany decisions that have been made and shouldinclude the rationale behind these decisions. Anyreport should also outline how participant inputwas used in decision-making.

Response to Recommendations

The agency conducting the consultation shouldrespond to all views or recommendations putforward by participants. A response shouldaddress each recommendation and show whetherit was accepted in whole or in part, or fullyrejected. For each outcome, it is highly advisablethat the reasons for the decision are made clearand made publicly available. The public alsoneeds to be informed about how the outcomeswill be implemented and who will be responsiblefor monitoring and review.


When advertising consultations in the ConsultWAconsultations catalogue, it is possible to indicatewhether a final report will be available and advisehow it can be accessed.

5.7 Facilitation

A participatory process brings together diversegroups of stakeholders and uses a wide range ofmechanisms. However, this does not necessarilyproduce desirable results. The various participatorymechanisms succeed only when properlyorganised, structured, focused and supported – inshort, facilitated.

Effective facilitation is a key skill which underpinsall successful community participation programs.Without effective facilitation consultation exercisesare liable to become unfocussed and open-endedwhich will make them ineffective and devoid ofsubstantive content. Effective consultations, onthe other hand, will be well structured in relationto the objectives, clearly focussed, and will enablethe constructive participation of all participants.

The role of the facilitator is to:

• Clarify the purpose of the consultation both interms of outcomes (results) and in terms ofprocess (what is gained from how it is done)

• Create an environment for constructive andcooperative interaction based on mutualrespect and shared concerns

• Maximise the productivity of the group’s workand participation.

While many agencies have staff skilled infacilitation it may sometimes be necessary to enlistthe services of a skilled facilitator from outside theagency. An independent facilitator will beparticularly useful for complex issues or wherethere is the potential for conflict between thevarious parties/stakeholders. An externalfacilitator should:

• Have no vested interest in the outcome of theprocess

• Be independent and considered neutral

• Be involved in the design of the engagementprocess

• If necessary, have experience in managing largepublic forums where there is potential forheated discussion and divergent viewpoints

• Have a good understanding of both thetechnical and administrative subject matter.

If an independent facilitator is contracted, it willbe useful to do so early in the process so that theyare familiar with the background issues and havean opportunity to provide input and advice in theplanning stages. The facilitator should bethoroughly briefed on the background of theissues under review as well as the agency’s riskassessment of the project. Involvementthroughout the life of the project will also allowfor relationships between facilitator andstakeholders to be ongoing.

It is important that agency staff workcollaboratively with the facilitator to ensure thatthe history and in-depth knowledge gainedthrough the consultation process is transferred tothe agency and not lost once the contract ends. It will also ensure that there will be continuity incontact between the community and the agencyand, thus, help maintain relationships built.

A useful resource for agencies in the area offacilitation is the Facilitation Toolkit (Keating 2003)available on the web site of the Department ofEnvironment at http://www.environment.wa.gov.au.

5.8 Collaborative Approaches

The Strategic Planning Framework for the WesternAustralian Public Sector, Better Planning, BetterServices, articulates the Government’s vision tomeet the needs of current and future generations.It requires “Government agencies to operatecollaboratively and cohesively and to engage withthe Western Australian community”.

The key challenge for government is a “need to breakdown the barriers of compartmentalised decisionmaking by different authorities and groups”. [Petts 2000]


As the culture of participation begins to take holdacross government departments and agencies,there will be an increased need for collaborativeworking across departmental boundaries to tackleshared issues. Collaboration between agenciescan provide benefits in the form of:

• Reduced duplication

• Shared resources

• Sharing of knowledge

• Greater efficiency

• Reduced ‘consultation fatigue’.

Developing an integrated approach to communityparticipation initiatives will be aided by recordingall consultation initiatives on the ConsultWAcatalogue, which provides a central database of allGovernment department and agency calls forcommunity input. This provides a resource notonly for people wishing to investigate opportunitiesfor participation, but also for agencies to learnabout any significant consultations undertakenacross Government.

5.9 Engaging Diverse Groups

Multicultural Groups

Western Australia is populated by a diverse rangeof people from many different backgrounds withmany different values and needs. The differencesbetween people might be in terms of ethnicity,gender, age, socio-economic background, values,physical and mental ability or tenure. To developa community participation program that is inclusiveof all Western Australians it may be necessary toshape engagement processes to better enablesome communities and individuals to participate.

It is important that the tools and methods selectedprovide a range of opportunities to participate.Some commonly used methods can marginalisecertain groups or sections of the community dueto barriers such as language, literacy, disability andcultural issues.

To address these issues, choose a range ofmethods, combining questionnaires with referencegroups, interviews and community meetings thatare conducted taking into account communitypreferences and characteristics (such as age,gender etc.) and local circumstances.

In inviting the participation of culturally andlinguistically diverse community groups do notassume that these groups are strictly homogenousas there will be widely varying cultural, socio-economic, educational and religious backgrounds.It will, therefore, be necessary to undertakeresearch into the diversity of the community todesign appropriate strategies for solicitinginvolvement. Familiarisation with the WA Charterof Multiculturalism (WA Government 2004b), thePublic Sector Anti-Racism and Equality Program(Substantive Equality Unit 2004), and the PolicyFramework for Substantive Equality (SubstantiveEquality Unit, undated) will assist.

Children and Young People

Another group that is often overlooked whenagencies are embarking on a communityparticipation program are children and youngpeople. Children can, and do, provide uniqueinsights into complex issues that challenge policymakers and this advice can improve the uptake ofboth child-centred policy and programs.

The Office for Children and Youth3 can provideadvice on how to consult with children, and howto develop, implement, sustain and evaluate anadvisory group comprised of children. Childrencan be involved in any decision that affects theirlives, and in some cases, this is supported bygovernment legislation, e.g. Children andCommunity Services Act (2004).

“If you want to treat me equally, you may have tobe prepared to treat me differently”. [Substantive

Equality Unit 2004]

3 Visit the Office for Children and Youth’s website for more information at www.childrenandyouth.wa.gov.au


People with Disabilities

The Disability Services Commission can provideassistance about the optimal ways of providing,accessing and receiving information usingalternative formats. Publications are also availablewhich provide guidelines for creating accessibleevents, writing in “Plain English” and “BestPractice – for document creation”. TheCommission can also provide advice aboutmethods of consultation and technical assistancewith respect to appropriate research methodology(for example, surveys and questionnaires).

In general, look for innovative, evidence-basedapproaches for working with particularpopulations and consult with other agency staffand local organisations that also have regularcontact with these communities.

Indigenous Groups

The Office of Citizens and Civics, in collaborationwith the Department of Indigenous Affairs, hasproduced Consulting Citizens: Engaging withAboriginal Western Australians to guidegovernment departments, non-governmentorganisations and those employed in industry onhow to improve the way they work with Aboriginalpeople. This guide is invaluable for any groupdesigning a community participation plan, as itprovides a framework by which non-Aboriginalgroups can gain a greater knowledge andunderstanding of the cultural, linguistic anddemographic diversity of Aboriginal Western Australia.

At the heart of this Guide, and essential foreffective community participation, are a numberof points that will help in designing a CommunityParticipation Plan:

• Each community is different and unique

• Recognise and respect the protocol that anAboriginal person cannot generally speakabout, or for, another person’s land unlessgiven permission by the traditional landowner

• Community members have the right to choosethe time and place for a meeting

• In some settings, use of Aboriginal languagesor interpreters may be required

• Follow-up after preliminary contact will be requiredas the request to consult may need to be put toother committees or members of the community

• Time must be allowed for discussion, formeetings to be planned and for organisation ofmeetings

• Time must be allowed for information to filterto other community members

• Keep an open mind in unfamiliar situations

• Be alert to the different ways people interact,within their communities and with others

• Make an effort to understand the particularprotocols of culturally diverse groups

• Empathise with, and understand, those whohave experienced great traumas in their lives

• Respect, and try to work with, the groups’concepts of time, pace and priorities

• Be aware of how you and your role areperceived by the communities, and the possibleimpact this perception may have on theprocesses and outcomes of the consultation

• Start your approach by looking at thesimilarities that unite you and your target groupas people, not just the differences thatdistinguish you from each other

• Be aware that gender roles and age dynamicsmay differ, and so you may need to organiseseparate consultative groups, (i.e. women only,or age group specific)

• Research the religious and cultural organisationof the target group, as you may need toorganise discrete consultative groups within theone community according to faith

• Be willing to provide information and do soproactively

• Actively encourage and seek input from thegroup members

4 available online at http://www.dsc.wa.gov.au/0/54/48/Publications_.pm


• Be aware that some culturally diverse groupsand communities may mistrust the motives ofgovernment representatives – but that is notnecessarily a reflection on you; it may be theresult of their prior experiences with the regimesand authorities in their places of origin

• Accept, difficult as it may be, that there arethose who will not respond to consultation,outreach, or attempts at negotiation

• Watch out for “gatekeepers” – self-appointedguardians who claim to know what is best fortheir community

• Be willing to adapt and to learn

• Be consistent and reliable

• Effort must be made to provide on-the-spotfeedback and follow up feedback

• A feedback and follow up process should beorganised at the time of the consultation anddecisions confirmed in writing

• An immediate answer to questions may not beforthcoming and consultations may not meetyour expectations – don’t be disappointed ordismissive

• All agreements made at the meeting should behonoured and acted upon.

Further information for engaging with AboriginalWestern Australians can be obtained in theEngaging with Aboriginal Western AustraliansGuide which is available online at both theDepartment of Indigenous Affairs website and theCitizenscape website.5

Useful contacts include:

Equal Opportunity Commission / SubstantiveEquality UnitLevel 2, 141 St George's TerracePerth WA 6000Telephone: (08) 9216 3909

Disability Services Commission146-160 Colin Street West Perth WA 6872Telephone: (08) 9426 9200Email: [email protected]

Department of Indigenous AffairsLevel 1, 197 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000Telephone: (08) 9235 8000Email: [email protected]

Office of Multicultural InterestsLevel 26/197 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000 Telephone: (08) 9222 8800Email: [email protected]

Office for Children and YouthDepartment of Community DevelopmentLevel 7, Dumas House 2 Havelock Street West Perth WA 6005Telephone: (08) 6217 8400Email: [email protected]

5.10 Ethical Practice

The Public Sector Standards Commissioner has ageneral Code of Ethics that is based on theprinciples of justice, respect and responsible care.All consultations by State agencies must adhere tothe Code of Ethics available online at:http://www.wa.gov.au/opssc/publications/ethics.htm.See also Appendix D for IAP2 Code of Ethics forPublic Participation.

5 Department of Indigenous Affairs at http://www.dia.wa.gov.au and Citizenscape at http://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au


5.11 e-Engagement

In recent years the development of informationand communication technology (ICT) has seen anincrease in the number of online publicparticipation exercises. These include websitesthat provide information on various issues toothers that request feedback or submissions.Internet technologies in particular offer a numberof new ways to collect data and feedback fromthe community. Agency websites can provide:

• HTML survey or questionnaire

• Survey or questionnaire in Word or Adobeformat that must be downloaded, printed out,then mailed back to agency

• Email address for general, non-structuredsubmissions

• Postal address for general, non-structuredsubmissions

• Contact telephone number for member of staff

• Announcement of in-person meeting orconsultation.

The Office of Citizens and Civics, in cooperationwith the Office of e-Government, has recentlymade available e-Engagement: Guidelines ForEffective Community Engagement UsingInformation and Communication Technology6. Thiscomprehensive guide covers in more detail issuespertinent to this particular form of consultationmethod and should be referred to if you areplanning an online consultation.

Community participation can also be encouragedthrough the use of a number of ICT basedparticipation strategies including:

• Online feedback or comments forms

• Real-time forums or chat rooms

• Public message boards

• Web-casting of meetings.

ICT has also been incorporated into moretraditional methods of consultation. The use ofcomputers has assisted in capturing participants’feedback and comments before relaying the databack to the assembled group.

Using ICT does not replace more traditionalmethods; rather it supplements the existingprocesses for community participation.

The principles for community participation asoutlined in this Guide remain the same for e-engagement strategies. However, there are anumber of additional considerations unique to ICTbased exercises. These revolve around issues ofauthentication, privacy and adherence to relevantguiding legislation and regulations.

One of the main advantages of e-engagement isthat it provides an opportunity for individuals toparticipate who would not usually be interested inthe traditional methods of consultation, forexample community meetings, longer workshopsor large group meetings which can take days tocomplete. An e-engagement process can provideflexible options for input with participants beingable to choose when and where to access theforum. Using ICT enables a quick response rate toconcerns or issues and provides a medium bywhich information can be easily kept current anda large amount of data can be stored and collated.

Additionally, online services can remove many ofthe barriers that are experienced by people livingin rural and remote communities (Maiolo 2004).Integrating online services with traditional face-to-face community consultation processes canenhance the opportunities for people in theseareas. For example, video-conferencingtechnologies can allow more than 10 people indifferent locations to take part in discussions. TheWA Telecentre Network7, under the umbrella ofthe Department of Local Government andRegional Development, provides video-conferencingfacilities to over 100 communities in rural andremote areas.

6 download from Citizenscape Publications page at http://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au or from the Office of e-Governmentat http://www.egov.dpc.wa.gov.au

7 see WA Telecentre Network at http://www.telecentres.wa.gov.au for further information


It must be emphasised, however, that relyingsolely on ICT to connect with remote and regionalcommunities will assist only those that possess thetechnical infrastructure and the knowledge to useit. As such it will disadvantage those who haveeither no access to the technology, are hinderedby unreliable connection speeds, or have notreceived sufficient training in the use oftechnologies. Undertaking a comprehensive“discovery” will reveal the issues facing communities,and armed with this knowledge, the project teamwill be able to design engagement opportunitiessuited to both the issue and the stakeholders.

5.12 Boards and Committees

Involving the public does not have to take placethrough one-off consultation activities but canalso involve many different levels of government.Many agencies have established structures (e.g.boards and committees) through which membersof the public can contribute on an on-going basis.

The Public Sector Management Division haspublished Getting on Board: Guide to Recruitmentand Induction of Members of Western AustralianGovernment Boards and Committees8. Thispublication provides information on all aspects ofsetting up and managing a board or committee,outlining the various types of boards andcommittees, the recruitment, selection andappointment process, and the duties andresponsibilities of board members.

A register of people interested in nominating forappointments to Western Australian Governmentboards and committees is maintained by theCabinet Services Branch of the Department of thePremier and Cabinet. Ministers and their staffhave access to the register to identify prospectivecandidates.

Existing Boards and Committees can provide avaluable source of information during the discoveryphase of your community participation planning.

It should be noted, however, that a board orcommittee does not replace the need to consultmore widely, especially on major and complex issues.

8 available online at http://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/psmd/pubs/exec/boards/contents.html


6.0m a n a g i n g s i g n i f i c a n to r c o m p l e x i s s u e s


On those projects that represent a significantinvestment for the State, where there is a highlevel of community interest, or where the issuesfor deliberation are highly complex or technical, itis important to gain a better understanding aboutrisk factors and risk management.

6.1 Hazards and Outrage

Risk Assessment and Risk Management

The same risk assessment and risk managementstrategies should be applied to the publicparticipation process as would be applied to anyother project an organisation is undertaking.Badly conducted consultations or ill-conceivedpublic participation exercises can be worse thannot having engaged with the community at all.They contribute to public cynicism and jeopardisefuture government/citizen partnerships. On-the-other-hand, credible community participationprocesses provide one of the most effectivemechanisms through which to build trust, gainrespect, reduce risk, and ensure that decision-making is better aligned to “real” rather thanperceived, community needs and expectations.

Risk management operates on two levels.

Risk at the project level

At the ‘project’ level, community engagement willform part of the risk management strategy. It isan opportunity to inform stakeholders and citizensof the complexities of the decisions to be made.However, consultation should not be seen assimply a forum for the transmission of purelytechnical information regarding risks or hazards -although this will certainly be one component ofthe exercise. There is also a non-technical orsocial side to risk management.

Peter Sandman (1986) defines risk as equal to thesum of the technical hazard posed by a situationand the outrage that the situation generates.That is, an individual’s assessment of the seriousnessof the risk depends on his/her assessment of the‘hazard’ (magnitude and probability) associatedwith the risk, and the ‘outrage’ that communityexpresses over the particular risk.

Sandman suggests that an expert’s assessment ofrisk generally coincides with the hazard posed bythat risk while a citizen’s assessment is usuallystrongly affected by the outrage factors. Whatmust be understood is that community views andperceptions are equally as valid as technicalassessments. In providing their views, peoplewant to be taken seriously. Just as technicalexperts expect trust and respect for their positionso too do community members.

Understanding and anticipating communityreaction to an issue will need to address concernsof trustworthiness, honesty, control, openness,responsiveness, fairness and respect9.

Community members and experts/specialists willoften have very different views about the level ofrisk posed by a particular activity and thesediverging views can lead to conflict. However,each view must be considered equally valid, andmust be accommodated in the consultation itself.Sandman (see Holing 1996) believes that in anyconsultation you must accept that “emotions arelegitimate – the public’s and your own”.

Risk at the process level

At the level of the public participation process, riskmanagement is concerned with identifying andaddressing potential risk factors associated withconsultation. These risks, both technical and non-technical, can come from within or outside andorganisation.

Some technical risks of consultation include:

• Low participation or response rates

• Poor quality responses

• Participants not representative of the community

• Cost and resource blow outs

• Confusion between participants and organisersabout the purpose of the consultation

• Lack of consensus

• High dropout rate.

Risk = Hazard + Outrage

managing significant or complex issues

9 For more information see the work of Chess et al.(1988), Corvello (1992), Fischhoff et al. (1981), Sandman (1986)


Non-technical or social risks within an organisationcan include:

• A lack of commitment to the consultation

• A reluctance to share all relevant information

• A perception of an ignorant or unconcernedpublic

• A low opinion of public ability to understandcomplex information

• Inconsistent understanding of the objectives ofthe exercise.

Some social risks from outside an organisationinclude:

• Conflicting ideas from other departments oragencies

• Public perceptions of your commitment andcapacity to listen and respond

• Issues of control.

Each of these risk factors should be identified inthe planning stage and throughout thecommunity participation program itself. It mightbe helpful to make these technical and social risksavailable to all participants to demonstrate agenuine desire to engage with the community.

The Australian/New Zealand Risk ManagementStandard (Standards Australia 1995) identifies fourelements in the risk management process whichcan be applied to both technical and social riskfactors.

1. Establish context – identify the issue, stakeholders,objectives and resources (time and budget)

2. Identify risks – what threatens the project andwhat threatens the consultation

3. Analyse and evaluate the risks – what is thelikelihood and level of impact of the risk, whichrisks are acceptable and which require closemonitoring, which risks can be avoided byimplementing the plan

4. Treat risks – alter planning to reduce thelikelihood of risks, develop alternative strategiesor contingency strategies in the event that therisk factor emerges.

6.2 Barriers and Constraints

If only 10 people turn up to an advertised, publicmeeting or information session, it may be morethan simple apathy that is keeping people away.People can be reluctant to become involved for anumber of reasons. These reasons can representthe barriers to community participation. Whenplanning a public participation exercise it is usefulto develop a list of potential barriers to help workout ways of overcoming them before the processgets underway. Some barriers and possibleconsiderations are:

• Communication – did you use appropriatemethods to alert the affected community?

• Timing – is this convenient?

• Place – do people feel comfortable with and inthe venue?

• Transport – is there accessible and timely publictransport close to the consultation site?

• Child care responsibilities – should a crèche bearranged?

• Age – should children, young people, olderpeople be met at schools, clubs etc, rather thanexpecting them to come to meetings?

• Formality and literacy – will people be put offby the style of meetings and expectation ofhigh levels of literacy and confidence?

• Language – are all written reports in plainEnglish and is there a need to maketranslations/translators available?

• Cultural issues – what cultural factors might berelevant to the timing and place of meetings?

• Access – is the building accessible to peoplewith disabilities?

• Resources – should expenses be paid in someinstances?

• Cynicism – how can trust be built andmaintained?


6.3 Understanding the Potential for Problems

The website Community Engagement in the NSWPlanning System10 lists the following problems thatmight be encountered during a publicparticipation process and suggests that goodplanning will help to avoid these problems frombecoming disasters.

• Self-interested or aggressive participants

• Participants with unrealistic expectations orinaccurate information

• Participants who dominate and don't allowothers to speak

• Dealing with the 'usual suspects', activeparticipants who may not be representative ofthe broader community

• Assessing the views of the silent majority

• Participants who digress from the issue

• Participants challenging the constraints of theprocess, i.e. wanting to have more influence ondecision making

• Distrust/cynicism towards the consultationprocess

• Conflicting views within the community

• Continued opposition to a proposal

• Large numbers of responses

• Negative/inaccurate media coverage

• Demands for further consultation/extensions oftimeframes

• Budget constraints that limit the scope of thecommunity participation

• Technical equipment problems

• Inappropriate venue (size, location, climate)

• Participants unable to attend due to othercommitments

If the nature of, and potential for, problems earlyin the planning stage is understood, it is possibleto then design strategies for dealing with themshould they arise.

6.4 Avoiding Consultation Fatigue

As government agencies begin to increaseopportunities for community engagement there isthe potential for what is commonly known asconsultation fatigue. This is particularly the casefor those community bodies, non-governmentorganisations and peak groups who are mostoften approached for input. The general publicdo not appear to have reached this point and arewilling to engage with agencies providing thesubject is sufficiently relevant and they areapproached in a professional and honest way.

It should be remembered that groups andindividuals have a limited capacity for involvement.It is therefore vital that agencies take account ofthis when planning engagement strategies. Toassist with this it is useful to:

• Bring stakeholders into the planning stages tohelp determine the form and methods ofconsultation and its timing

• Where possible, develop a program ofconsultation events 12 months ahead to givestakeholders sufficient time to schedule theevents in

• Integrate consultation plans with otherdepartments and agencies to avoid duplicationand overlap

• Find easy ways for some groups to participate,for example through the use of ICT

• Invite groups with limited resources to identifythose aspects upon which they wish to focusand help them channel their activity to fewer,more focussed actions

• Establish working groups that are able to devotethe time to deliberate and devise solutions.

10 http://www.iplan.nsw.gov.au/engagement/index.jsp


6.5 Working with Advocacy and Lobby Groups

Many issues will result in the formation of highlyorganised, knowledgeable and politicallyconnected groups that will have strong opinionson an issue and how it should be treated.Traditionally, the ‘loud voices’ have been seensimply as trouble-makers intent on disrupting theprocess and opposing action. Their views are asvalid as all other views and must be taken intoaccount but, care should be taken to ensure thatthey do not dominate the participation process.

Some groups may claim to reflect the interests ofthe broader community and this should beclarified before the consultation begins. Ensurethat all participants acknowledge that it is onlythrough the participation of all communitysegments that balanced outcomes can be delivered.

If some groups are dominating the consultationprocess, seek to limit the opportunity for them tooverly influence the outcome. This can beachieved by setting clear ground rules for groupsto follow during the consultation and by breakinglarger, dominating groups into smaller groups toensure balanced contribution and, thus, influence.

6.6 Dealing with Anger and AggressiveBehaviours

Consultation processes can often polarise opinionsmaking it difficult to build good relationshipsbetween groups. The following discussion outlinessome useful methods for dealing with aggressivebehaviours and people with strongly held viewpoints.

Sandman’s (1986) theory, Risk = Hazard + Outrage,offers an approach to reducing outrage. Herecommends changing the outrage factors thatcan be changed, and acknowledging the existenceand importance of outrage factors that cannot bechanged. As part of the public participationprogram, the hazard can be made both morefamiliar and more knowable through informingcitizens. If citizens are given more say in a fairand responsive decision-making process, thenoutrage can be lowered and aggressive behavioursdealt with more effectively.

When confronted with strongly held viewpoints oraggressive behaviours there are some specificactions that can be taken to help manage thesituation. The first of these is self-managementand then:

• Identify a common goal, as this is one way tounite the group

• Establish and maintain mechanisms to capturestrongly held minority viewpoints

• Clarify expectations as to what the group canrealistically expect to happen in the immediatefuture. Do not mislead, as this will createexpectations that, if not met, will result inincreased anger and a loss of credibility

• Get the group involved by listening. Give themplenty of time to express their feelings, whichyou can summarise and reflect on as a meansto keep the anger at a manageable level

• Help the group problem solve. Identify whatactions would help and what actions wouldmake their situation worse

• Provide opportunity to follow up. Let thegroup know that resolution can take place onlywhen there is a commitment by the partiesinvolved. If the issue is unresolved, schedule afollow-up meeting and ask people to come tothat meeting with more workable plans andless anger (Weisinger 1995).

Weisinger (1995) distinguishes between ‘angermanagement’ and ‘conflict resolution’ seeing angeras an emotion that can be managed through certaincommunication skills. Conflict is a situation in whichone party’s goals and perceptions are incompatiblewith, or in opposition to, those of another. Often,anger creates conflict. Managing anger canprevent conflict or it can create a situation in whichit becomes easier to resolve conflict.

7.0e v a l u a t i n g t h ec o m m u n i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o np r o g r a m


Effective evaluation is not an 'event' that occurs at the end of a project, but is an ongoing

process which helps decision makers better understand the project; how it is impacting

participants, partner agencies and the community; and how it is being influenced/impacted by

both internal and external factors. (Kellog Foundation, undated)


Effective evaluation is not an 'event' that occurs atthe end of a project, but is an ongoing processwhich helps decision makers better understandthe project; how it is impacting participants,partner agencies and the community; and how itis being influenced/impacted by both internal andexternal factors. (Kellog Foundation, undated)

A commitment to genuine communityparticipation entails a commitment to evaluationand flexibility in the process. While there areestablished mechanisms to measure economic andenvironmental aspects of a project, there are lessavailable to evaluate social aspects. In theabsence of consistent, measurable standards fordetermining good community participation, therewill always be the potential for public suspicionand cynicism. Therefore, a sound and openevaluation process will alleviate these concerns.

Evaluation is directed towards assessing whetherthe program has had the desired effect; that is,whether it has achieved its objective. It is alsoforward looking because an evaluation willprovide lessons for the future.

The Victorian Government has releasedCommunication Evaluation Guidelines11 stating thekey principles guiding evaluation. These are equallyapplicable to community participation evaluations:

1. Evaluation involves assessment of the degree towhich an activity’s objectives have been met asa result of the activity. Evaluations are only asvaluable as the objectives they are based on areappropriate

2. Evaluation is an integral part of allcommunications projects, including communityparticipation programs, not an optional extra

3. Evaluation should be planned at the outset of aproject, not left until the end

4. Evaluation must be properly budgeted for. As a rule of thumb, 10 per cent of a project’sbudget should be allocated to evaluation

5. A good test of the usefulness of an evaluationis to ask the following questions:

• Does it successfully identify thesuccess/failure of the project?

• Does it effectively identify the reasons forthe success/failure of the project?

• Does it effectively identify the cost-effectiveness of the project?

• Will it inform future practice?

Evaluation should occur at all stages of thecommunity participation program – before, duringand after. To focus evaluation, it is helpful tobegin by answering the following key questions:

• What are you going to evaluate?

• What is the purpose of the evaluation?

• Who will use the evaluation?

• How will they use the evaluation?

• What questions will the evaluations seek toanswer?

• What indicators will I use?

• What evaluation method will I use?

• Who will carry out the evaluation?

• How will I report back to the community?

e v a l u a t i n g t h e c o m m u n i t yp a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o g r a m

11 Government of Victoria, Victorian Government Communication Evaluation Guidelines, available online athttp://www.commstoolkit.dpc.vic.gov.au/ downloads/R74_Evaluation_Guidelines.doc


7.1 Ongoing Process Evaluation

Ongoing process evaluation assesses the variouscomponents that make up the entire participationplan as they are being conducted.

Evaluation throughout the life of the communityparticipation program will inform current ideas,approaches and negotiations. Ensuring acontinual process will enable participants andorganisers to review and reflect upon what theyhave achieved to date and determine whetherchanges are needed to the process or the content.

Process evaluation can ensure that ‘interest driven’stakeholders focus on mutually beneficial solutionsfor the community rather than on specificagendas, which makes it very useful for highlycontroversial projects or where polarised views areheld. Process evaluation can also be effectivewhere a new understanding emerges betweenstakeholders, such as the redefinition of aproblem, and shifts the basis of participation to anew level. More importantly, however, processevaluation will allow the participation processes tobe reflective of, and responsive to events, inputand decisions as they are happening. Processevaluation, therefore, provides ongoing feedbackto the community participation project managerso that any ‘mid-course corrections’ can beundertaken in a timely manner.

In designing a community participation process,attention must be paid to the basic principles ofquality assurance that will see the developmentand implementation of methods that are bestsuited for their intended use. Quality outcomeswill require the selection of experienced staff,clarity on the issue, adequate process design andcontrol, and in-process and end-of-processevaluation and reflection.

With careful design and evaluation, communityparticipation planners can establish a high degreeof confidence that the outcome will be acceptableto the community and to the organisation.

Because of the wide variety of public participationmethods, tools and techniques and the diversity ofissues under deliberation, it is not possible toprovide a definitive process evaluation schedulethat will be applicable to all. There are, however,several broad concepts that have generalapplicability and can provide a framework forprocess evaluation:

• Discovery - what research has been undertakento gather knowledge of the history of the issueand how has this information contributed tothe design of the consultation process?

• Facilitation - has a skilled facilitator beenappointed and what is their level ofindependence from the organisation?

• Transparency - is each step in the processdefined with sufficient clarity so thatparticipants can understand what is required?

• Representativeness - do the number andtype of participants reflect the size and diversityof the community?

• Deliberation - have the methods chosenallowed for adequate deliberation by participants?

• Timeliness - do all parties have sufficient timeto familiarise themselves with theissue/participation process and wereparticipants engaged early in the process?

• Inclusiveness - have strategies been put inplace to ensure the involvement of allappropriate sections of the community?

• Documentation - have all aspects of theconsultation been documented and are theseavailable to interested parties (e.g. minutes ofmeetings, consultation outputs, decisionstaken, etc)?

• Influence - how much influence and impactdoes the participants’ input have on decisions?

Ongoing process evaluation is concerned withestablishing the evidence that assures that theparticipation process is ‘on track’ to produceoutcomes that reflect the objectives of theCommunity Participation Plan.


7.2 End of Program Evaluation

Regardless of the size or complexity of a publicparticipation program, some measure of itssuccess against well-defined criteria is necessary.Establishing what these criteria are will help bothduring the project and after it has beencompleted. Specific evaluation criteria shouldalign closely with the objectives of the publicparticipation exercise and with the principles ofgood practice.

An evaluation of the participation processes willidentify the main problems encountered, whetherthe target group was reached, and the level ofparticipant satisfaction. Evaluating the outcomesof the community participation program will helpascertain whether participants’ input had anidentifiable impact on the content of the finalpolicy decision. Evaluation and results should becommunicated widely and may, in turn, promptfruitful debate on the benefits and difficulties incommunity participation.

Process and Products

An ‘end of program’ evaluation must assess boththe products and the process of your publicparticipation project. Evaluation of publicparticipation programs is not simply a technicalassessment of the products, but also considers theimpact of the process itself on the participants.

An end of program evaluation of the participationprocesses will need to at least take account of the following:

• That the credibility, purpose and objectives ofthe public participation process were clear to allparticipants

• That stakeholders affected by the decision hadan equal opportunity to participate and that arepresentative portion of them did so

• That the participation process was transparent

• That all communications were effective andinclusive, covering all necessary information

• That the participation process was adequatelyresourced in terms of staff, community andfinances

• That the participation process achieved itsobjectives and stakeholders were satisfied withthe results

• That the participation process contributed tothe development of long-term relationshipsbetween all parties involved

• How effectively did it inform the decision-making?

Usually, the ‘output’ of a consultation exerciserefers to the substantive decisions, conclusions, orrecommendations made (e.g. built road, strategywritten, etc). In brief, outputs are the ‘what’ thatis being produced and are described in terms ofwhat they are, not what they are for. Thesesubstantive outputs can be evaluated andcompared using a variety of criteria, includingquantity (the volume or unit of measure), costeffectiveness, quality (stakeholder satisfaction withthe results), timeliness (delivery to deadline) or riskminimisation. Evaluation of these outputs isessential to ascertain agency performance.

However, narrowly interpreting the results of aparticipation program to refer only to substantivedecisions misses some of the most importantresults. Evaluating the outcomes of a communityparticipation program will assess the extent towhich the program, and the wider project towhich it relates, has achieved its original aims. It looks at the effects (or results, impacts) on thecommunity and one way of measuring this is toconsider the level to which participants aresatisfied with the process.

Thus, a final evaluation will show:

• The resources required to conduct theparticipation program

• The activities undertaken to solicit communityparticipation

• The participation rate, demographic, frequency,level of involvement

• The reactions towards the participation programincluding degree of interest, level of satisfaction

• The learning, knowledge, opinions and skills ofparticipants that enabled their participation

• The actions taken following the participationprogram (outputs)


• The impact or benefits of the communityparticipation program.

Evaluations can be carried out using a variety oftechniques including questionnaires, interviews,focus groups or stakeholder panels. Questionsshould be asked of the participants regarding theplanning, process and follow-up stages of theconsultation.

Evaluation Techniques

There is considerable research being undertaken invarious countries on the effective evaluation ofpublic participation processes, using indicatorsother than cost effectiveness, resource allocationor other substantive outputs.

One of the more useful methodologies is one thathas been developed for the Institute for FoodResearch (IFR) in the UK by Frewer, Rowe, Marshand Reynolds (2001).

This approach uses three evaluation instruments –short and long questionnaires to be filled in byparticipants, and a checklist to be completed by allstakeholders (the consulting organisation, theparticipants and the public more generally) –based on the nine evaluation criteria.

These criteria “form the basis for the developmentof methodologies to assess the effectiveness ofdifferent public participation exercises” (see tablebelow, and Appendix E for complete checklist).

The Evaluation Criteria of Rowe and Frewer (2000)

Criteria Definition

Acceptance Criteria

Representativeness The participants should comprise a broadly representative sample of the affectedpopulation

Independence The participation process should be conducted in an independent (unbiased) way

Early Involvement The participants should be involved as early as possible in the process, as soon as value judgments become salient/relevant

Influence The output of the procedure should have a genuine impact on policy/project

Transparency The process should be transparent so that the relevant population can see whatis going on and how decisions are being made

Process Criteria

Resource Participants should have access to the appropriate resources to enable them toAccessibility successfully fulfill their brief

Task Definition The nature and scope of the participation task should be clearly defined

Structured Decision The participation exercise should use/provide appropriate mechanisms forMaking structuring and displaying the decision making process

Cost Effectiveness The procedure should in some sense be cost effective from the point of view ofthe sponsors

The criteria have been validated through a scientific survey process and have been tested on a number of participation processes in the United Kingdom and elsewhere12. In using these criteria, communityparticipation planners will be able to evaluate the key features of the program and identify areas forimprovement.

12 see for example, Cooper 2002


7.3 Reporting on the CommunityParticipation Program

A Community Participation Outcome Reportshould be produced that summarises theprocesses undertaken and the outcomes achieved.This report will flow from the CommunityParticipation Plan and include:

• The background to the program

• A history of the issue

• A list of the stakeholders and participants

• The purpose of the community participationprogram

• The processes used to enable communityparticipation

• The content of the community participationprogram (i.e. how many people were involved,how many requests for information werereceived, the number of submissions received, a summary of comments and views received,other issues that were raised, etc)

• A discussion of the analysis of the outcomes ofthe consultation including any amendments,recommendations/proposals that have beenmade as a result

• Other outcomes from the program (e.g. plansfor future community partnerships).

It is important for all who wish to have access to arecord of the consultation’s outcomes be giventhis opportunity. Availability of the raw data aswell as any summary reports helps to build trustwith the community and displays the commitmentof the agency to transparency and accountability.

Having this information available also enablesother agencies that may be planning communityparticipation programs themselves to see whatissues have already been consulted on and to gaina greater understanding of some of the additionalissues that have been raised by participants. Thisserves a two-fold purpose – it will aid in combating‘consultation fatigue’ where community membersbegin to feel over-consulted, and it will assist withdiscovery in future consultations.

s u m m a r y


This guide amalgamates and updates the first twoConsulting Citizens guides released in 2002 and2003 respectively. It responds to the increasinguptake of community participation programsacross government departments and agencies andtheir requests for advice on planning, designingand implementing successful and effectivecommunity consultations.

Departments and agencies in the Western Australianpublic sector are increasingly working withcommunities to define the scope of policy andplanning issues that are the domain of the public.

This guide provides the framework for thinkingabout the most effective ways to, and the levelsto which you can, involve the community. Inadopting this framework agencies will beproviding a consistent and transparent approachto including citizens in their policy making andproject design.

If there is one key message that is crucial to thesuccess or otherwise of a community participationinitiative it is:

Involve the community early in the planningThere are many other crucial components and it is only through detailed and thorough planning that allof the components will come together for a successful, effective and rewarding program of communityparticipation.

a p p e n d i x A


OECD Guiding Principles for Engaging Citizens (OECD 2001)

1. CommitmentLeadership and strong commitment to information, consultation and active participation in policy-making is needed at alllevels – from politicians, senior managers and public officials

2. RightsCitizens’ rights to access information, provide feedback, be consulted and actively participate in policy-making must be firmlygrounded in law or policy. Government obligations to respond to citizens when exercising their rights must also be clearlystated. Independent institutions for oversight, or their equivalent, are essential to enforcing these rights

3. ClarityObjectives for, and limits to, information, consultation and active participation during policy-making should be well-definedfrom the outset. The respective roles and responsibilities of citizens (in providing input) and government (in making decisionsfor which they are accountable) must be clear to all

4. TimePublic consultation and active participation should be undertaken as early in the policy process as possible to allow a greaterrange of policy solutions to emerge and to raise the chances of successful implementation. Adequate time must be available forconsultation and participation to be effective. Information is needed at all stages of the policy cycle

5. ObjectivityInformation provided by government during policy-making should be objective, complete and accessible. All citizens shouldhave equal treatment when exercising their rights of access to information and participation

6. ResourcesAdequate financial, human and technical resources are needed if public information, consultation and active participation inpolicy-making are to be effective. Government officials must have access to appropriate skills, guidance and training as wellas an organisational culture that supports their efforts

7. Co-ordinationInitiatives to inform, request feedback from and consult citizens should be co-ordinated across government to enhanceknowledge management, ensure policy coherence, avoid duplication and reduce the risk of ‘consultation fatigue’ amongcitizens and civil society.

8. AccountabilityGovernments have an obligation to account for the use they make of citizens’ inputs received through feedback, publicconsultation and active participation. Measures to ensure that the policy-making process is open, transparent and amenable toexternal scrutiny and review are crucial to increasing government accountability overall

9. EvaluationGovernments need the tools, information and capacity to evaluate their performance in providing information, consultationand engaging citizens in order to adapt to new requirements and changing conditions for policy-making

10.Active CitizenshipGovernments benefit from active citizens and a dynamic civil society and can take concrete actions to facilitate access toinformation and participation, raise awareness, strengthen citizens’ civic education and skills as well as to support capacity-building among civil society organisation

a p p e n d i x B


International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Public Participation Spectrum (http://www.iap2.org)

INCREASING LEVEL OF PUBLIC EMPOWERMENT

Objective

To provide the publicwith balanced andobjective information toassist them inunderstanding theproblem, alternativesand/or solutions

Promise to the public

We will keep youinformed

Example Tools

Fact SheetsWeb SitesOpen Houses

Objective

To obtain publicfeedback on analysis,alternatives and/ordecisions


We will keep youinformed, listen to andacknowledge concerns,and provide feedback onhow public inputinfluenced the decision

Example Tools

Public CommentFocus GroupsSurveysPublic Meetings

Objective

To work directly with thepublic throughout theprocess to ensure thatpublic issues andconcerns are consistentlyunderstood andconsidered


We will work with you toensure that yourconcerns and issues aredirectly reflected in thealternatives developedand provide feedback onhow public inputinfluenced the decision

Example Tools

WorkshopsDeliberative Polling

Objective

To partner with thepublic in each aspect ofthe decision includingthe development ofalternatives and theidentification of thepreferred solution


We will look to you fordirect advice andinnovation in formulatingsolutions andincorporate your adviceand recommendationsinto the decisions to themaximum extentpossible

Example Tools

Citizen AdvisoryCommitteesConsensus BuildingParticipatory DecisionMaking

(Source: IAP2 2000)

Objective

To place final decisionmaking in the hands ofthe public


We will implement whatyou decide

Example Tools

Citizens’ JuriesBallotsDelegated Decisions

INFORM CONSULT INVOLVE COLLABORATE EMPOWER

a p p e n d i x C


Community Engagement Tools

METHODS AND MODELS

Advisory Committeesand Boards

Charrette

Citizen AdvisoryCommittees

Citizen Juries

Citizens’ Panels

DESCRIPTION

Community representatives are recruited toprovide public input into planning and policymaking. It is important to developappropriate selection criteria, define rolesand responsibilities up front, and allow forthe transmission of information from thecommittee to the wider community.

Typically intense, meetings between agencies,stakeholders and community representatives.A charrette promotes joint ownership of thesolution and attempts to defuse traditionalconfrontation by working on options putforward by all participants. It will requirecommunity agreement that ‘somethingshould be done’.

A small group of participants that arerepresentative of various groups orcommunities, are convened to examine anissue. They converse with agencyrepresentatives and others over extendedperiods of time. They may monitor theprogress of a project and inform thecommunity of new information that comes tolight. This process is longer-term than publicmeetings or workshops and is thought toencourage more extensive interaction.

A group of 12 to 24, roughly representativeof the population, is randomly selected tomeet over several days as part of a jury. Thelay panel question expert witnesses,mediated by a facilitator. Juries are not opento public although conclusions are publishedin a report. The objective is to reach adecision or formulate a set ofrecommendations. Commissioning body mustfollow recommendations or explain why theyhave not. Be clear about how results will beused. Consensus not required.

Comprise between 500 and 2500 citizenswho are representative of population. Usedas sounding board to test, assess anddevelop proposals over an extended periodof time. Panel members need to be madeclear of their roles. Can be conducted inpartnership with other connectedorganisations/agencies.

POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES

Provides for detailed analyses forproject issues Committee members gainunderstanding of otherperspectives, leading towardcompromise

Relatively cost-effectiveCan utilise ICT to present andcapture informationAllows for joint ownership of theoutcomes

Represents a highly visible meansof demonstrating commitment tocommunity inputProvides a forum for people withdiffering levels of expertise andopinions to inform each otherInforms public, aids trust ingovernment, and reduces conflict

Opportunity to develop deepunderstanding of an issueProvides informed feedbackPublic can identify withrepresentative citizensUseful when advocacy groupswant to take role of “expert”, donot want to compromise andparticipate in framing solution

Track views over timeCan be directed towardsparticular targetsAccess to wide range includingminority groups

POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES

General public may not embracecommittee’s recommendationsMembers may not achieveconsensusTime and labour intensive

Timeframe may preventparticipants from fullyunderstanding the process orthe issue

Not representative groupRequires high level ofcommitment from committeemembersRequires adequate resources

Resource intensiveNot suitable for all issuesExtensive preparatory workrequiredSmall group size makesRepresentativeness difficult

Resource intensive in initialstagesMaintaining interest for panelmembersReplacing members throughoutprocess


METHODS AND MODELS

Community Workshops

Consensus Conference

Deliberative OpinionPolls

e-engagement

Face-to-Face Interviews

Focus Groups

DESCRIPTION

A facilitated workshop is an intensive sessionor working meeting attended by seven to 50stakeholders with different fields of expertise.The facilitator aids the groups’ discussionand information sharing. An analyst may usedecision-aiding technology to model thegroups’ views. The main points of thediscussion are recorded. Workshops areusually focused on a very specific set ofissues to enable in-depth discussion.

A group 10 to 16 participants, that are insome way selected to be representative ofthe general population, are brought togetherwith experts in a range of fields relevant tothe topic being discussed. The experts, whomay have conflicting views, informparticipants about the topic and fieldquestions. The discussion is facilitated by anindependent party. Participants then discussthe case and come to some consensus. Themeetings are open for observation to thewider public, experts, and media, and resultsof deliberation are published.

Uses statistically significant sample tomeasure informed opinion on an issue duringa 2-3 day meeting. Participants will notnecessarily develop a shared view and theprocess will require a skilled facilitator.

Using information technology as a means toinform and gather feedback (eg calls forsubmissions, completing onlinequestionnaires etc). Online discussion forums,chat rooms and e-polling technologies andweb questionnaires may be combined inmore general e-consultation procedures toexplore what people are thinking.

Face-to-face interviews are the traditionalway of asking large numbers of people theirviews based upon a structured questionnaire.Trained interviewers either stop respondentsin the street, or visit them in their homes, tofind out what people think about servicesand issues.

Eight to 10 people led by trained facilitatorin one-off discussion on particular topic.Selection of group is of primary importance.Focus groups are chosen according tospecific criteria, e.g. age, gender, service-user.Individuals are usually strategically invited toattend the ‘informal’ discussion to talk abouta particular issue following a pre-definedagenda. May need to have several groups toinvestigate views from different perspectives.

POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES

Allows for in-depth deliberationand discussion of complex issuesCan establish common groundamong participants from whichnew ideas can be developedProvides opportunity to bringmarginalised people and otherstogether to generate ideas

Panel determine questions to askwitnesses leading to greaterimpartialityOpen to public – transparentProvides informed deliberation

Polling of an informed groupExposure to differentbackgrounds, arguments andviews

Cost effective after initial outlayQuick response rateEasy to keep information currentCan incorporate large amount ofdata

Provides opportunities to getunderstanding of public concernsand issuesProvides opportunity to learn howto best communicate with public

Allows for brainstorming of ideasCan include those who mayusually be excluded Allows in-depth discussion


Can be resource intensive toestablish

High level commitment frompanelTime and cost intensiveExtensive preparatory workNot representativeMay be difficulty in reaching aconsensus

Resource intensiveCan be costly to setup and payexpenses of those attendingNot representative

Will not reach everyoneTechnical problemsRequires expert staffCan yield unbalanced view

Scheduling multiple interviewscan be time consumingInterviewers must engendertrust or risk negative responseto formatNot necessarily representative

May be costlyLack of confidentialityQualitative information onlyDifficulty in prioritising issues


METHODS AND MODELS

Future Search Conference

Open Days/CommunityExhibitions

Open Public Meetings

Public Submissions

Small NeighbourhoodMeetings

Staff Feedback andSuggestions

Surveys andQuestionnaires

Complaints

DESCRIPTION

Conducted at the beginning of the planningprocess to develop a vision for the future.These are highly structured events usuallylasting 2-3 days. People representing thewidest possible range of interests arebrought together in one room. The idealnumber is considered to be 64 since thisbreaks down into 8 groups of 8.

These provide a forum to inform the publicabout a particular situation. There is a two-way exchange of information although thereis more emphasis on experts makingpresentations than the public askingquestions and putting their opinions forward.The community have little influence on thefinal outcome. The number of participants isrestricted to the size of the venue. The resultsof the enquiry may be published.

Formal meeting with scheduled agenda at anaccessible and convenient public location.

Inviting public submissions for writtencomments on specific proposals. Provide fulldetails of issue for which views are sought.Publicise activity. May need multiple formatfor documents and must allow ample time torespond.

Small meetings within neighbourhoodusually at a person’s home. Make sure staffare very polite and appreciative. May need tobe aware of other neighbourhood issues andensure the issue is relevant toneighbourhood.

Encourage feedback and suggestions fromfrontline staff who deal with the public. Trainstaff to deal with comments and complaints.Establish systems for obtaining feedback.

Quantitative research in the form ofquestionnaires or surveys gives statistics inresponse to set questions. Can beadministered through post, via telephone orface-to-face. Development of the questionsshould be undertaken by a professional toavoid bias. Most suitable for generalattitudinal surveys.

Make feedback forms accessible. Encouragefeedback from users.

POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES

Makes use of the skills and knowledgeof a small group of people.Allows an exchange of informationMany viewpoints can be heard

Gives public flexibility to attendAllows contact with public and canprovide ad-hoc feedbackPromotes agency

Opportunity to provide information and obtain feedbackDemonstrates commitment to publicconsultationBuilds relationships with local communityRelatively inexpensive

Provides detailed information on theissue for those interested Extracts considered view

Relaxed setting is conducive toeffective dialogue.Maximises two-way communication

Shows you value staff and are open to suggestionsValuable source of information onservice use and users

Provides input from individuals whowould be unlikely to attend meetingsProvides input from cross-section ofcommunityStatistically tested results are morepersuasive with political bodies andthe general public

Provides input from those using theservicesEasy to set upProvides information about service’sweaknesses and strengths


Resource intensiveCan be captured by largeinterest groupsDifficulty in reaching aconsensusCan raise expectations ifrequired ‘authority’ has notbeen sought

Feedback may be limited andmay not be representativeDifficulty in recordingresponses

Not representativeLocalised knowledge onlyLarge group format may be a barrier to some

Resource intensiveMay have poor response rateLengthy process

Requires a lot of labour toreach many people

Relies on staff effortTime consumingDoes not necessarily providerepresentative views

Response rate is generally lowFor statistically valid results,can be labour intensive andexpensiveIt is difficult to establish whysomeone has answered acertain way

Not representativeEssentially reactive to existingsystems

a p p e n d i x D


International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Code of Ethics available online at http://www.iap2.org

Purpose: The purpose of public participation is to make better decisions that reflect the interests andconcerns of all affected stakeholders, including decision-makers.

Role of Practitioner: The role of the practitioner is to enhance the public’s participation in the decision-making process and to assist the decision-maker in being responsive to the public’s concerns and suggestions.

Trust: A public participation practitioner should at all times encourage actions that build trust and credibilityfor the process and among the participants.

Defining the Public’s Role: The public’s role in the decision-making process should be carefully consideredand accurately portrayed to the public.

Openness: Information relevant to the public’s understanding or evaluation of a decision should be disclosed.

Access to the Process: All stakeholders should have the opportunity to take part in the public participationprocess. A stakeholder should not be given special privileges in the public participation process based on itssympathy for the decision maker’s preferred alternative.

Respect for Communities: A public participation practitioner should avoid strategies that tend to polarizecommunity interests or appear to divide and conquer.

Advocacy: In interactions with the public, the practitioner should provide a clear understanding of when thepractitioner is acting as an advocate for the public participation process and when the practitioner is actingas an advocate for a particular interest, party, or project outcome.

Commitments: The practitioner has a responsibility to ensure that commitments made to the public by thedecision maker are genuine and capable of implementation.

Support of the Practice: The experienced practitioner should participate in the development of newpractitioners in the field and engage in efforts to educate decision makers and the public about the valueand use of public participation.

a p p e n d i x E


Evaluation Criteria and Guidelines for the Effective Conduct of a Participation Exercise (Frewer et al 2001)

CRITERIA

Task definition

Representativeness

Resource accessibility(use)

DEFINITION

The nature and scope of theparticipation task should beclearly defined

The participants in theexercise should comprise abroadly representativesample of the affectedpopulation

Participants should haveaccess to the appropriateresources to enable them tosuccessfully fulfil their brief

CONTEXT

Context

Scope

Aims & Outputs

Rationale forExercise

Stakeholders

Selection

Participants’ Role

Commitment

ActualRepresentativeness

People

Time

REQUIREMENTS TO BE EFFECTIVE

Identify all the factors which have made this exercise necessary:• Regulatory (e.g. required by law)• Social (e.g. need to involve public)• Organisational (e.g. organisational policy)

Describe the scope of the exercise:• What issues will it address?• Whom do they affect?• What is the timescale?

Specify the aims and outputs of the exercise, in terms of:• Decision-making status (will its results be advisory, or directly

inform decision-making?)• Intended benefits and impacts (what substantial benefit will the

exercise have; what do you hope to achieve?)

Justify why this type of exercise is being adopted and not others:• List pros and cons for the different exercises

Identify all persons and groups with a legitimate interest in the issue.• State appropriate groups (define their nature) and clarify reason

for interest/involvement• State inappropriate groups (define their nature) and clarify why

they are not to be involved

Give full details of the selection procedure:• Identify sources from which participants will be chosen• Identify and justify selection method (e.g. random versus stratified)• Decide on whether participants are to be appointed or self-

selected (justify)• Fix on proportion of participants from each stakeholder group

(justify)• Decide on eligibility constraints (detail and justify)• Check if ethical approval is needed and obtain.

Specify the balance of participants between representatives(delegates) and individuals (general public), and justify

Detail steps being taken to recruit the right participants (i.e.participants in the proper proportions belonging to the intendedtarget groups). Discuss whether more can be done with hard toreach groups

Set up mechanisms to monitor actual representativeness ofparticipants (describe) and respond appropriately.Adopt a policy on the rotation of participants if appropriate

Check that enough people are involved in• Preparation• Backup• Running of the exercise• Ensure they know what they are doing (evidence of training)

Consider the time demands of the exercise:• Set out timetable for the exercise• Get evidence that the intended timetable is realistic and

sufficient, not just hopeful


CRITERIA

Resource accessibility(use)

Structured decisionmaking

Independence

DEFINITION

The participation exerciseshould use/provideappropriate mechanisms forstructuring and displayingthe decision-makingprocess

The participation processshould be conducted in anindependent (unbiased) way

CONTEXT

Facilities

Expertise

Finance

Information

OperationalManagement

Procedures

Flexibility

Consistency

Competence

Validation ofMethods

SharedUnderstanding

Procedures andOutputs


Detail physical requirements needed to conduct the exercise and justifyby reference to, for example, similar exercises. In particular:• Anticipate and provide facilities needed (list)• Anticipate and provide equipment needed (list)

Consider expertise requirements, for the task and the participants:• What experts do you need (justify why)/?• Are they available?• Are back-ups available if they become unavailable?

Estimate costs and factor in uncertainties:• What monetary resources are available?• Over what time period?

Justify information needs of participants:• Anticipate information needs for participants• Identify available sources of information• Ensure information is appropriate/understandable for participants

(level details and usable format)

Run through the expected course of events during exercise (list)

Detail procedures for information exchange:• Specify the exact format for discussion, presentation and exchange

of information (between participants and organisers, etc.)• Specify procedures to be used for reaching group

decisions/consensus, if appropriate. (Consider if these areappropriate for the exercise and for the participants)

‘Brainstorm’ worst-case scenarios (unexpected events) and think howto respond to them (who, when how)

Consider whether the exercise is likely to lead to contradictoryoutcomes and how to deal with this

Specify competence requirements of participants:• Decide whether a minimum competence level is necessary for

participation (in what way – knowledge?)• Consider whether the level is likely to be met and what to do to

bring non-competent participants up to it (if anything)

Identify existing/external standards/references that can be used tobenchmark procedures used in exercise and generally ensure qualitycontrol. If none exist, emphasise this

Identify procedures for confirming whether there was sufficient sharedunderstanding of essential concepts and terms by all parties

Set appropriate level of control for participants over the proceduresand outputs of the exercise, i.e., allow participants to influence theway the exercise is run, and the questions that are asked, to themaximum level that is sensible (which could be ‘none at all’). Justifythis.


CRITERIA

Transparency

Influence (impact)

TIMELINESS (earlyinvolvement)

Cost effectivess

CRITERIA

The process should betransparent so that the relevantpopulation can see what isgoing on and how decisions arebeing made

The output of the procedureshould have a genuine impactupon policy

The participants should beinvolved as early as possible inthe process, as soon as valuejudgments become salient/relevant.

The procedure should in somesense be cost effective from thepoint of view of the sponsors.

CONTEXT

Feedback

External Checks

Legal / Regulatory

Publicity

Auditability

Availability

Accessibility

Specific DecisionsCorporate PolicyCorporate Style

Media Coverage

Familiarisation

Entry Point

Effectiveness

Benefit/Cost

Fairness


Arrange to obtain participant feedback on the exercise:• Detail/set up mechanism for obtaining participants’ assessment

(e.g. questionnaire, interviews).• Justify why this mechanism is adequate

Detail and arrange external checks of independence of procedure:• Install external checks on Independence (e.g. independent

Evaluator; Advisory Committee).• Justify why these are adequate.Collect evidence of vested interests.

Identify legislation and regulations that bear upon exercise (if any –if not, still acknowledge this). Ensure exercise will comply with boththe letter and the spirit of regulations.

Decide what level/type of publicity (justify) and set up

Specify audit trail:• What is covered? • How is it recorded? • Who is responsible for this? • What is its format (project report etc.)?

Specify availability of audit trail, i.e. who is it available to? If anybody is excluded from viewing the audit trail (e.g. participants), justify

Decide the appropriate format and level of detail for auditinformation

Decide how to identify and measure specific, concrete impacts ofexercise, in terms of specific decisionsDecide how to identify and measure impacts in terms of corporatepolicy-making proceduresDecide how to identify and measure impacts in terms of corporateapproach to handling the issues and general corporate ‘mindset.’

Decide on what kind of media response will constitute a positiveimpact of exercise.

Ensure all parties have enough time to become familiar with all theelements of the exercise. If the exercise involves no preparation byparticipants, acknowledge this.

Specify where in the decision-making process the exercise will takeplace. Justify that this is early enough.

Revisit ‘Task Definition / Aims’ Decide which Aims will be used to assess whether exercise hassucceeded or not. Justify choice.

Decide how costs will be calculated:• Adopt a policy on indirect, opportunity, emotional, controversy,

political, social and organisational costs. Justify.• Decide how to weigh costs against benefits.• Decide what alternatives to this exercise would be (have been)

and how exercise could be compared against them.

Adopt a policy on how benefits should be distributed amongstakeholders to constitute a ‘fair’ exercise. Justify.

g l o s s a r y


Best Practice A way or method of accomplishing a business function or process that is considered to besuperior to all other known methods

Citizen Membership in a political community which carries with it rights to political participation

Collaboration A process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can exploreconstructively their differences and search for (and implement) solutions that go beyond theirown limited vision of what is possible

Community A group of people who live and interact based on economic transactions, social relationshipsand environmental interdependence within a specific geographic region

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) protects the environment,particularly matters of National Environmental Significance. It streamlines national environmentalassessment and approvals process, protects Australian biodiversity and integrates managementof important natural and cultural places. The EPBC Act came into force on 17 July 2000

Facilitation A collaborative process in which a neutral party seeks to assist a group of individuals or otherparties to discuss constructively a number of complex, potentially controversial issues

ICT Information and Communications Technology - such as radio and the newer digital technologieslike computers, satellite, mobile phones and the Internet

Impact A change in the status (eg, health, standard of living) of individuals, families, or communities asa result of a program, project, or activity

Joined Up (Usually Government) A trend toward ‘networked’, integrated or cross agency approaches tosolving intractable problems

Mediation The intervention of an acceptable third party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power but who assists the involved parties in voluntarily reaching a mutually acceptablesettlement of issues in dispute

Objective A focus and overall framework or purpose for a project or other endeavour, which may befurther defined by one or more goals

Outcome Results of a process, including outputs, effects, and impacts

Output The direct result of the interaction of inputs and processes in the system; the types andquantities of goods and services produced by an activity, project, or program

Partnership A relationship in which organisations and groups share resources and responsibility to achieve acommon objective, as well as any resulting rewards or recognition

Plan A proposed or intended method of getting from one set of circumstances to another

Process A generalizable method of doing something, generally involving steps or operations that areusually ordered and/or interdependent

Program Generally defined as an organized set of activities directed toward a common purpose or goal,undertaken or proposed by an agency in order to carry out its responsibilities

Project A structure to complete a specified defined deliverable or set of deliverables. A project has aspecific begin date and end date, specific objectives and specific resources assigned to performthe work

Social Capital The degree to which a community or society collaborates and cooperates (through suchmechanisms as networks, shared trust, norms and values) to achieve mutual benefits

Stakeholder Any person, group or organisation with an interest or ‘stake’ in an issue either because they willbe affected by a decision or may have some influence on its outcome

r e s o u r c e s


Reference List

Cavaye, J., 2004, ‘Governance and Community Engagement: The Australian Experience’, in W.R. Lovan, M.Murray & R. Shaffer (eds), Participatory Governance: Planning, Conflict Mediation and Public, Ashgate Publishing,London, pp. 85-102

Chess, C., B.J. Hance & P.M. Sandman, 1988, Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide toGovernment Risk Communication, Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey

Cooper J., 2002, Evaluating Public Participation in the Environmental Assessment of Trade Negotiations, preparedfor the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, December 2002, Canada, Retrieved 12 May 2006from http://policyresearch.gc.ca/doclib/Cooper_e.pdf

Covello, V., 1992, ‘Risk communication, trust and credibility’, Health and Environmental Digest, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-4

Fischhoff, B., S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic & D. Keeney, 1981, Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge Massachusetts

Frewer, L., G. Rowe, R. Marsh & C. Reynolds, 2001, Public Participation Methods: Evolving and Operationalisingand Evaluation Framework, a report prepared for the UK Department of Health & Health and Safety Executive,Norwich, Retrieved 12 May 2006 from http://www.doh.gov.uk/risk.html

Hartz-Karp, J., [undated], ‘A Case Study in Deliberative Democracy: Dialogue with the City’, retrieved 3 May2005 from http://www.activedemocracy.net/articles/jhk-dialogue-city.pdf

Holing, D., 1996, ‘It’s the outrage, stupid’, Tomorrow [Online], no. 2, vol. VI, March-April, Available:http://www.psandman.com/articles/holing.htm

International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), 2003, Social Impact Assessments: InternationalPrinciples, Retrieved 10 April 2006 from http://www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/Guidelines_Principles/SP2.pdf

International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) at www.iap2.org

Keating, C., 2003, A Facilitation Toolkit: A Practical Guide for Working more Effectively with People and Groups,Department of Environmental Protection, Water and Rivers Commission, Department of Conservation and LandManagement, Western Australian Government

Kellog Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook, Retrieved 2 May 2006 fromhttp://www.wkkf.org/pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub770.pdf

Melbourne Water, 2001, Community Consultation Verification Statement, Retrieved 12 May 2006 fromhttp://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/library/current_projects/eastern_treatment_plant_upgrade/community_consultation_verification_statement.pdf

Maiolo, T.V. , 2004, An Action Research Investigation Into New Ways Rural Women in Western Australia CanIncrease Their Involvement in Government Decision-making, A thesis submitted in conformity with therequirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Faculty of Communications and Creative Industries, EdithCowan University, Western Australia

Marsh, R., G. Rowe & L. Frewer, 2001, A Toolkit for Evaluating Public Participation Exercises, Report to theDepartment of Health and Health and Safety Executive, UK, February, 2001, obtained from author

New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Community Engagementin the NSW Planning System, Retrieved 12 May 2006 from http://www.iplan.nsw.gov.au/engagement/index.jsp


Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2001, Citizens as Partners: Information,Consultation and Public Participation in Policy Making, OECD Publishing

Petts, J., 2000, ‘Municipal Waste Management: Inequities and the role of deliberation’, Risk Analysis, vol. 20, no.6, p. 830

Robinson, L., 2002, ‘The qualities of effective public participation processes’, Retrieved 12 May 2006 fromhttp://media.socialchange.net.au/people/les/effective_participation.pdf

Robinson, L., 2002a, ‘Two decision tools for setting the appropriate level of public participation’, Retrieved 12May 2006 from at: http://media.socialchange.net.au/people/les/two_decision_tools.pdf

Rowe, G. and L. Frewer, 2000, ‘Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation’, Science, Technologyand Human Values, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 3 - 29

Sandman, P., 1986, Explaining Environmental Risk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington

Standards Australia, 1995, Australian/New Zealand Standard 4360: Risk Management, Homebush, Australia

Substantive Equality Unit, 2004, The Public Sector Anti-Racism and Equality Program’, Equal OpportunityCommission Retrieved 12 May 2006 from http://www.equalopportunity.wa.gov.au/pdf/antiracism.pdf

Substantive Equality Unit, undated, The Policy Framework for Substantive Equality’, Equal OpportunityCommission Retrieved 12 May 2006 from http://www.equalopportunity.wa.gov.au/pdf/framework.pdf

Susskind L. & P. Field, 1996, Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes,Free Press, New York

Turner B., 2002, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Stakeholder Advisory Committees, Retrieved 12 May 2006from http://203.147.162.100/pia/engagement/stories/docs/advisory_group.pdf

Victorian Government, Communication Evaluation Guidelines, Retrieved 12 May 2006 from http://www.commstoolkit.dpc.vic.gov.au/ downloads/R74_Evaluation_Guidelines.doc

Walters L., 2000, ‘Putting more public in policy analysis’, Public Administration Review, vol. 60, no. 4, Jul/Aug 2000

Weisinger H., 1995, Anger at Work, William Morrow and Co., New York

Western Australian Government, 2003, Strategic Directions for Western Australian Sport and Recreation, 2003-2005, Western Australia, Perth

Western Australian Government, 2003a, Better Planning: Better Services A Strategic Planning Framework forthe Western Australian Public Sector, November 2003, Perth

Western Australian Government, 2003b, Consulting Citizens: Planning for Success, June 2003, Perth

Western Australian Government, 2004, A Voice for All: Strengthening Democracy Western AustralianCitizenship Strategy 2004-2009, March 2004, Perth

Western Australian Government, 2004a, Consulting Citizens: Engaging with Aboriginal Western Australians,March 2004, Perth

Western Australian Government, 2004b, WA Charter of Multiculturalism, November 2004, Perth

Wilcox, D., 1994, The Guide To Effective Participation, Partnerships online, Retrieved 12 May 2006 fromhttp://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/index.htm


Other Useful Resources

Coleman S. & J. Gøtze, 2001, Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation, HansardSociety, London

Department of Environment, 2003, Community Involvement Framework, Western Australian GovernmentRetrieved 12 May 2006 from http://www.environment.wa.gov.au

Gastil, J. & P. Levine (eds), 2005, The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective CivicEngagement in the Twenty-First Century, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Health Canada, 2000, Public Involvement: Framework and Guidelines, OCAPI, Ottawa

Hogan, C.F., 2000, Facilitating Empowerment: A Handbook for Facilitators, Trainers and Individuals, Kogan Page,London, England

Hogan, C. F., 2002, Understanding facilitation: Theory and principles, Kogan Page, London, England

Hogan, C. F., 2003, Practical facilitation: A tool kit of techniques, Kogan Page, London, England

Hogan, C.F., (in press), Practical Facilitation of Culturally Diverse Groups, Kogan Page, London, England

Office for Children and Youth and the Western Australian Council of Social Services, 2003, ConversationsWith Children: A Guide to Accessing 9-12 Year Olds in Settings Other Than Mainstream for Consultation, Perth,Retrieved 12 July 2006 from http://www.community.wa.gov.au/Resources/Teenagers/Publications.htm

Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (OPSSC), 2002, Western Australian Public Sector Code ofEthics, Retrieved 12 May 2006 from http://www.wa.gov.au/opssc/ethics/codeofethics/index.htm

National Coalition for Deliberation and Dialogue, Participatory Practices, Retrieved 12 May 2006 fromhttp://www.wiki-thataway.org/index.php?page=ParticipatoryPractices

Queensland Health, 2002, Community Engagement Handbook, Retrieved 12 May 2006 fromhttp://www.participateinhealth.org.au/ClearingHouse/Docs/qldcommunityengagementhandbook.pdf

Sarkissian, W., A. Cook and K. Walsh, 1999, Community Participation in Practice: A Practical Guide, Institute forScience and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Murdoch

Sarkissian, W., A. Hirst, B. Stenberg and S. Walton, 2003, Community Participation in Practice: New Directions,Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Murdoch

South Australian Government, undated, Why Didn’t You Tell Us? Because You Didn’t Ask: Consulting withCulturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities A Guide for South Australian Government Agencies, Departmentof the Premier and Cabinet Division of Multicultural Affairs, SA Retrieved 12 May 2006 fromhttp://www.multicultural.sa.gov.au/page.cfm/Publications

Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management, 2000, Public Participation Manual,CALM, Perth

Western Australian Government, 1997, Getting on Board: A Guide to Recruitment and Induction of Membersof Western Australian Government Boards and Committees, Retrieved 12 May 2006 fromhttp://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/psmd/pubs/exec/boards/contents.html

Western Australian Government, 2002, Consulting Citizens: A Resource Guide, April 2002


Useful Websites on Community Participation

Citizenscape and ConsultWA Consultations Catalogue http://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au

Caledonia Centre for Social Development (UK) http://www.caledonia.org.uk/real.htm

Canadian Centre for Management Development (Canada) http://www.myschool-monecole.gc.ca/Research/publications/pdfs/mprac19e.pdf

Canberra Connect (Aust) http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au

Canterbury City Council (UK) http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/consultation

Citizen Science Toolbox (Australia) http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/toolbox/index.asp

Community Builders NSW (Australia) http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au

Department of Communities Queensland (Aust), Get Involved web sitehttp://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au

Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services ACT (Aust)http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/engagement/default.htm

Department of Environment WA (Aust) http://www.environment.wa.gov.au

Dept of Indigenous Affairs WA (Aust) – http://www.dia.wa.gov.au

International Association for Public Participation (Australasia), http://www.iap2.org.au

National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (US) http://www.thataway.org/resources/index.html

Partnerships Online (UK) http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/

PlanningNSW (Aust) http://www.iplan.nsw.gov.au/engagement.html

Worcestershire County Council (UK) http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wccindex/wcc-con/wcc-con-toolkit.htm

Office of Citizens & CivicsDepartment of the Premier & Cabinet

working together - nrm.wa.gov.au...Working together we can utilise our technical expertise,...

Documents

Transcript of working together - nrm.wa.gov.au...Working together we can utilise our technical expertise,...