Decision Making in Public Engagement Processes: Let’s build a ‘successful city’ for all.
By: Olga Shcherbyna
Tags: Power Struggle, Equity, Public Engagement, Diversity And Inclusion, City Planning

What is the role of the public in public engagement processes? What is the ultimate goal of public engagement? I have been pondering over these two questions for a long time. The IAP2 Spectrum of Engagement offers different possible outcomes and participation stages, which are tightly connected to engagement goals. Yet, we all know true decision-makers are those who make an initial decision about whether to inform, consult or empower, which brings me to another question: how do our values and position of power play out in the public engagement processes?

Who are the experts?

Two years ago, Charles Marohn, a well-known urbanist (aka Chuck) and the Founder and President of Strong Towns online publication, wrote an engaging article titled: “Most Public Engagement is Worthless”. In just a couple of days, the article generated a dynamic online discussion with over seventy comments posted by “Strong Towners”. Most folks congratulated Charles for an honest and “excellent piece” that allowed planners engage in a highly intelligent colloquy.

A week later, another member of Strong Town, Ruben Anderson posted a response article with a snappy title: “Most Public Engagement is Worse Than Worthless.” As title promised, the article advanced Charles’ argument even further. This follow-up article caused another explosion of additional fifty comments by readers and advanced an in-depth dialogue about the worth of public engagement (or lack of thereof).

The notion of both articles is simple and keenly summarized in their titles. There are three simple messages. First, leave the planning and complex problems and solutions to experts (planners). Equally important, learn to ask the “right questions” when engaging the public. Finally, learn about design thinking principles and apply them in “building a successful city” (i.e., observing, identifying problems, introducing small changes, and evaluating the impact and then repeat).

Both articles and over 120 comments provide a wealth of knowledge to any public engagement practitioner or urban planner on the good, the bad, and the ugly in the public engagement processes. While some of us were bewildered by this harsh narrative, and others found it liberating and almost revolutionary, I find myself somewhere in-between. Two years later, I keep coming back to these article and accompanied comments for the courage to speak up my mind, for different perspectives, and for reminding myself about what is missing in these dialogues about “building a successful city.”

While I appreciate Ruben and Charles’ tales in challenging the status quo, I could not help but notice that the articles were written by two white men. Judging by profiles, many responses were also generated by white men who seemed to have English as their native language and who perhaps (I am speculating here) were born and educated in a Western society. Could it be that this type of online engagement is a reflection of the Strong Town’s membership? Maybe white public engagement practitioners are just more interested in pubic engagement? I doubt it. The reality is that they might be more vocal and more comfortable with sharing their opinions.

Do we hear diverse voices?

If you got a chance to attend any North American public engagement conference in the last ten years, you most likely found that participants were largely white. I observed a decent male/female ratio at these events with very few sprinkles of gender-fluid representation and diversity of faces, bodies, abilities, and accents. What we are also witnessing that diversity of participants is not translated into the inclusion of their voices and decision making processes. In fairness, things are changing with the rise of social justice activism but at a plodding pace.

In the same year, when Strong Town published their infamous articles questioning the value of public engagement, Stephani Roy McCallum, Chief Storm Rider with the Courageous Leadership Project, led a vibrant session on Brave, Honest Conversations at the 2018 IAP2 North American Conference. At this event, she told a courageous story about one of the most challenging public engagement experiences in her 20+ year career of facilitating conflict-infused dialogues.

As a result of this highly emotional experience, Stephanie became a vocal critic of standardized approaches to public engagement processes. Eventually, she started questioning the value of these processes. Stephanie made a call for a new kind of leadership where practitioners recognize that they are not neutral and bring their ‘whole self’ to these processes and embrace their feelings, values, and emotions.

“Leaders stand for something…”, Stephanie said,”… and that makes you not a practitioner, not a facilitator, not a neutral-third party, that makes you somebody who stands for inclusion, respect, and civil discourse and fairness…”

As a true public engagement leader, Stephanie invited participants to discuss and share with the group what they what they stood for as public engagement leaders. Out of approximately 100 people, about six or seven participants got a microphone and spoke about their intrinsic values and beliefs. Yet again, predominantly white folks spoke and all seemed to be native English speakers. While women also stepped up, outspoken white men dominated the conversation of experts. I watched Stephanie’s speech on uTube, and the camera person did an excellent job of showing the diversity in the room. Yet again, the variety of faces and bodies did not transform into the voices of diversity. Ironically, “inclusivity” was the first value that was brought up by one of the ‘experts’.

How valuable is community expertise?

In his latest essay, James Rojas, one of my favourite people in urban planning and public engagement, wrote: “We [his company] believe authentic community engagement, especially for underrepresented communities, should begin with a healing process that recognizes people’s daily struggles and feelings. … Our workshops are designed for people who would never attend a public meeting, let alone speak out at one.”

James believes that the true planning (and public engagement) process starts when people have a chance to uncover their feelings and explore the roots of inequalities that created the systems of injustice in which our cities are functioning today. James speaks about the power of empowering when people realize that their expertise is valid and highly valuable because it “surpasses anything that credentialed experts can provide”. Creating this space where people feel “empowered” is the key to discovering new knowledge and approaches in planning cities.

James brings unique perspectives to the planning field, growing up in two LA neighbourhoods, where “working-class Blacks and Latinos shared these spaces”. His approach to planning is based on knowledge producing form of engagement and is very much influenced by his beliefs that all residents have the ability to shape planning processes by sharing their innate wisdom about their community.

Why ‘Planning WITH Residents’?

The importance of recognizing our roles, emotions, and privileges as planners in public engagement processes is a common theme in all three stories. The third story, however, amplifies the issue of power. Where does the process of planning start? Does it start with planners who know and decide which questions to ask? Whose voices are heard and amplified in these questions? How do we create spaces where people feel listened to and are motivated to contribute and exercise their powers? What does empowered look like?

I have been working in community capacity building and social planning processes for the last 15 years. For most projects, I got the privilege of engaging with community members and organizations. I believe that the most effective ‘engagement’ processes I was supporting were those where we had invested the time to build relationships with community members prior to engagement processes.

It is my firm belief that ongoing engagement and relationship building with community groups not only significantly improved the outcomes and depth of our public engagement processes but made me a better planner, a better public engagement specialist, and a better human being.

One might say it is an unaffordable luxury for planners to spend time on getting to know people and building relationships with them. As planners, we simply do not have the time or budget, neither are we mandated to engage as a part of our day-to-day job. Yet, we are continually asking residents to come to our open houses, focus groups, and fill out our surveys — to answer the questions we have, to help us do our job. Why don’t we have time to grasp what people’s dreams and pains are before asking them to help with our job? Why don’t we try to help them solve the problems they have identified as priorities? Isn’t it our job to “building successful cities” … for residents?

Planners have limited capacities, one might say. Often, residents ask for changes that lay outside of municipal jurisdiction or not possible to implement within the current political climate constrains. One of the most vocal points that Charles and Ruben have made in their articles is a call to engage residents only in the topics they are ‘able’ to provide input on.

I do not believe it is an example of radical thinking. It is precisely what most planners are trying to do, i.e., to frame the questions in their public engagement processes so that residents’ input is ‘helpful and meaningful’. This is an example of what is called the expert planning or the ‘planning FOR residents’ approach to public engagement.

The ‘planning WITH residents’ approach starts with acknowledging the dynamics of power, and, usually, it poses more questions than answers. What processes did we put in place to ensure that power is shared? Why and when conversations with community partners and members are initiated? If planning with community is about partnerships, then what structures can we change and/or introduce to help residents become better advocates for their communities, their homes, their streets and their parks?

Building relationships with community members takes time and efforts. It is even more difficult for white English-speaking planners who often lead these processes in cities where 40% of the population is foreign-born (Vancouver, Toronto, etc.) How do we ensure that our planners have inter-cultural communication skills to engage with diversity and build relationships? How many planning schools teach intercultural communications as a part of their core curriculum?

What planning profession looks like these days?

Finally, how do we attract diverse talent and diverse thinking to the planning profession? How do we support equity in the sector and take advantage of the diversity of thoughts, experiences, and language abilities? The 2019 salary surveyof Canadian Planners and Strategies conducted by Account Planning Group of Canada (APG), in collaboration with Stone-Olafson showed that visible minority representation in the profession is comparable to that of Canada’s general population (around 21%). Yet, it also highlighted significant inequalities in our profession, from pay disparity between the above-mentioned two groups to limitations for planners of colour to advance to leadership positions (the vast majority is held by white strategists).

“In the absence of this diversity, how can planning understand the contexts of Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (POC) communities, as well as address the issues these communities face: displacement, gentrification, socio-economic polarization, food insecurity, homelessness and gun and police violence.” Extract from an article “Why is urban planning so white?” by By Saquib Ahsan, Ruth Belay, Abigail Moriah, and Gervais Nash

Another survey, titled the 2019 National Compensation and Benefits Survey of Canadian Professional Planners, indicated that out of 1,850 planners participating in the survey, only 7% were born outside of Canada. In comparison, one in five people in Canada was born outside of Canada. For cities like Toronto, this number increases to as high as 50% of the total population.

Why is it so few foreign-born and/or internationally-trained planners are working as planners? What kind of processes need to be in place to support internationally-trained planners to get accredited and practice their profession in Canada?

We are seeing the changes happening on the ground in the planning profession. Some municipalities lead the charge and create new social planning positions to apply equity and anti-racism lens to planning processes (e.g., the City of Vancouver). Some universities invest into comprehensive research to identify promising practices in equitable public engagement practices (e.g., SFU and their “Beyond Inclusion” guide for public engagement practitioners). We are also seeing some baby steps changes undertaken by professional and regulatory bodies in the field of public engagement (e.g., IAP2’s recent RFP for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Training).

These baby steps do instigate hope. We start to believe change is possible. We also know that in these turbulent times of change, each of us is responsible for advancing the actions that will lead to real, systemic transformation in our professions. The actions that will advance the diversity that represents the communities we serve. The actions that will facilitate the inclusion and allow diverse planners to advance to decision making positions and lead us in “building a successful city” for all.

Author: Olga Shcherbyna is a social planner and public policy shaker who strongly believes in and practices “planning with communities”.

Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay.