POLICY REPORT
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Date: February 12, 1997
Dept. File No.: JF-R
C.C. File: 1506-1
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Community Planning, in consultation with:
- City Manager
- General Manager of Community Services
- General Manager of Engineering Services
- Director of Social Planning
- City Clerk
- Chief Constable
- General Manager of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Public Involvement Review - Evaluation Phase
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council endorse the proposed work program as described in this
report for the evaluation phase of the Public Involvement Review.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
The Better City Government (BCG) initiative and CityPlan identified
public involvement as a priority including improving existing processes
where required and establishing a broader set of relationships and links
to communities.
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE
This report seeks Council endorsement of the review process for the
second phase of the Better City Government (BCG) Public Involvement
Review. The Review, to be conducted by Context Research Ltd., will be
an open and independent evaluation of representative City public
involvement processes in various departments. The results of the
evaluations will be used to develop recommended principles for
improvement to all City public processes. The proposed review will
include public, staff and Council input into the final selection of
processes to be evaluated and the evaluation criteria as well as the
individual process reviews. The product of this phase will be a Draft
Discussion Paper including the results of the evaluation and recommended
directions for change. The Draft Discussion Paper will be circulated for
public input in June, 1997.
BACKGROUND
One of the priorities of both the BCG initiative and CityPlan is a
review of how the City involves the public. The goal of this review is
to ensure effective processes are in place to provide the best possible
opportunity for the many interests to be included in decision making and
service delivery. The review is being undertaken in three phases. The
first phase involved the documentation of all the City s existing
involvement practices. The second phase will involve the evaluation of
current practice. The final phase will involve developing new
approaches where required.
Documentation of the public involvement processes in all City
departments is complete. The results show there is extensive public
involvement in all aspects of City business-there are over one hundred
ways in which the City routinely informs and consults with the public.
The documentation of the City s public processes has been formatted into
a public guide which will appear on the City s web site and will also be
available in all public libraries as a guide for individuals or groups
who want information on how to provide input or get involved in City
business.
The completed documentation of the City s current practice is the basis
for the next phase of the Review which is to evaluate the effectiveness
of the City s public involvement processes.
DISCUSSION
1. Evaluation of Public Involvement Processes
The objective of this phase of the review is to have an open and fair
assessment of what works in the way the City involves the public and
what needs improvement. To be effective, this evaluation will need to
reflect the points of view of citizens, Council, and staff. The review
process will involve interest groups and individuals who have
participated in these processes as well as those who have been missed or
have chosen not to be involved. The results of this evaluation will
lead to the development of proposed directions or principles on which to
base future improvement.
(a) Role of the Consultant
It is critical that the evaluation be undertaken by an objective,
outside consultant who will operate at arms length from City staff. The
criteria for selection of the consultant team included familiarity and
experience with local government and community issues, a breadth of team
skills including communication, facilitation, experience with public
process evaluation and a structured methodology to undertake the work.
Of the eleven consultant teams considered, Context Research Ltd. was
chosen to undertake the work. The maximum consultant cost of $50,000
from the BCG Strategic Initiatives Fund has already been endorsed.
(b) The Evaluation Process
The consultant, with the support of staff, proposes an approach that
will involve the public, staff and Council in the development of the
evaluation process as well as in the individual program reviews. The
consultant intends to conduct a transparent process with an open door to
public comment. In general, the review will include the following
eight-step process:
Step 1: Establishing an Open Process - Using the media and the City s
web site the public will be alerted to the new Public
Involvement Guide and the Review, and will be invited to
provide comment on any aspect of the City s public
involvement. Comments can be submitted by letter, e-mail or a
call to a City hotline. All input will be passed on to the
consultant. The consultant will also conduct a broad-base
staff survey to get input on the public involvement objectives
of individual programs and any current performance measures.
Step 2: Learning from the Experience of Other Cities - The consultant
will undertake a literature review and a survey of selected
cities to identify any new approaches to public involvement
and criteria which they may be using to evaluate the success
of programs. The survey will include cities in both Canada
and the United States with an emphasis on the Pacific
Northwest region. Information from this step will be used in
developing evaluation criteria and in formulating principles
for future processes.
Step 3: Selection of Sample Processes to be Reviewed - Given the
number of public processes regularly conducted by the City, it
is impossible to review them all. It is proposed that
approximately ten sample processes be evaluated in depth. In
general, the processes selected for review will be those that
are typical or have aspects in common with other City
processes so that the lessons learned will be generally
applicable. The selection of processes to be evaluated will
be done at a workshop with input from Council, staff and
representatives from various public interest groups including
residents, industry and multicultural, youth and other groups
who frequently do not participate in City programs.
Step 4: Selection of Evaluation Criteria - The identification and
prioritizing of criteria to be used in the evaluation process
is a critical step since it establishes the framework by which
all participants will evaluate the various involvement
programs. Examples of the criteria that may be included are:
the appropriate balance of proactive and reactive
techniques for involvement;
the appropriate balance of individual versus representative
input;
sufficiently high awareness levels of those interested in
or potentially impacted by the project;
a balance of involvement by those impacted positively and
negatively;
sufficiency of issue identification;
sufficiency of issue resolution;
perception by those involved of having been heard and
having influenced the decisions; and
clear evidence of changes in decisions due to involvement.
To ensure a comprehensive and objective approach to this, the
consultant will conduct a second workshop with various group
representatives and staff to refine the criteria. Steps 3 and
4 will be undertaken in March.
Step 5: Sample Process/Program Research - Following the first two
workshops, the consultant will compile all the relevant data
associated with each of the selected processes. The types of
data collected will depend on the evaluation criteria but will
likely include details of the types of public events and
meetings held, how they were advertised, who was involved at
various points in the process, how information was recorded,
how issues were dealt with and how public involvement affected
the outcome of the project. Wherever possible, the consultant
will track and evaluate programs that are in process so they
can learn first hand how well they are working.
This step will include direct input from the general public
and groups directly affected by the processes. The approach
used to gather the input will depend on the process, the type
of participants and how they participated in the public
involvement process:
(i) Interest Group Interviews: Where various interest
groups have been involved in the selected process, the
consultant will interview each group. The interviews
will focus on the group s experience, the quality of
information exchanged and their understanding of the
process and their view of the outcome.
(ii) Focus Groups: Where the consultant considers that
certain segments of the public have either been over or
under represented in the process, focus groups will be
arranged and facilitated by the consultant to
investigate the reasons for the levels of involvement.
(iii) Survey Research: Where issues need to be explored with
the general public (e.g., levels of awareness of
opportunities for input, perception of City processes),
survey research will be used.
(iv) Administrative Support: The consultant will conduct
working sessions with key staff to determine whether
the appropriate level of resources is in place to
support the City s commitment to public involvement and
how information is used and integrated into planning
and decision-making processes.
Where required or requested, the information gathered will be
reported anonymously. This Step will be completed by the end
of May.
Step 6: Preparation of a Discussion Paper - Based on the results of
the evaluation, a comprehensive document on the evaluation
process and its results will be drafted by the consultant.
This Discussion Paper will include details of the
methodologies used in each case, a list of participants in the
process, the evaluation criteria used, and the results of the
analysis. The Discussion Paper will recommend principles or
directions for future public involvement programs and will
include a recommended public process for seeking input on the
Discussion Paper. It will be presented to Council in June for
information prior to public discussion.
Step 7: Public Review of the Discussion Paper - Following wide
circulation of the Discussion Paper, there will be further
opportunities for public comment. This will likely take the
form of public meetings or workshops.
Step 8: Final Report - Based on the public input to the Discussion
Paper, the consultant will prepare a final report detailing
the results of the evaluation and outlining recommended
directions for process improvement for Council s
consideration.
STAFF AND COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT
To ensure a transparent, open process, this phase will be directed by
the consultant. An inter-departmental working group will support the
consultant s work by providing contacts and background information.
The consultant will be seeking Council s input either through interviews
or a workshop and reports. Once the sample processes to be reviewed and
the evaluation criteria have been confirmed, they will be reported to
Council and the public for information.
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
There are no staff currently assigned to the Public Involvement Review.
This phase will require the support of a clerk and a planner from
existing resources for the total of one day a week to assist with
research and organization of public and staff input. In addition, the
review will require staff time from all departments to provide
background information and input. This work is being co-ordinated by
the Director of Community Planning.
CONCLUSION
The evaluation of how the City currently involves the public is a
critical step in process improvement. Effective, efficient public
involvement is at the core of the City s public service. Since public
process is inherent in so much of the City s work, it is difficult to
quantify the direct financial costs of public involvement or the cost
implications of service improvements. However, even minor improvements
can result in a substantial return on the costs of the review and in
improved public service.
* * * * *