Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
INFORMATION

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Community Planning in consultation with the City Manager, General Manager of Community Services, General Manager of Engineering Services, Social Planning Director of Community Services, City Clerk, Chief Constable and the General Manager of Parks and Recreation.

SUBJECT: Public Involvement Review (PIR) - Evaluation Phase Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNCIL POLICY

The Better City Government (BCG) initiative and CityPlan identified public involvement as a priority for improvement to existing processes where required and for establishing a broader set of relationships and links to communities.

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE

This report outlines the results of the consultant evaluation of the City’s public involvement practices and recommends further work to improve ways in which the City involves the public. The consultant, with input from staff and the public, has provided a detailed evaluation of ten sample processes and has recommended directions for organizational change. This independent look at the City’s involvement practices revealed that, on the whole, the City does a good job of involving the public, offering more opportunity for the public to be involved than many other cities in North America. Areas which could be improved include better planning of processes up front to clarify expectations about why and how the public is to be involved, developing a coordinated database of community groups,using plain language communication, and adopting a more systematic evaluation program. Staff recommend that Council direct departments to prepare plans for process improvements to individual programs and direct staff to report back on the corporate directions recommended by the consultant where required. An allocation of $117,500 from the Strategic Initiatives Fund is recommended to accomplish this work.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, in response to the extensive array of public programs offered by the City, the BCG initiative identified a review of public involvement as a priority. The review is being undertaken in steps: the first was to investigate and record all the ways in which City processes include the public. The second was to do an independent evaluation of how well the City involves the public. The third step will involve improvements based on the evaluations.

In December, 1996, Context Research Ltd. was hired to do the evaluation. Brian Johnston, the principal of the firm, worked with a staff PIR Working Group composed of representatives from all departments involved with major public involvement activities. The review was widely publicized and anyone with comments on how the public is involved in City decision-making was invited to participate.

DISCUSSION

The consultant’s report, “City of Vancouver Public Involvement Review,” has been previously circulated to Council (on file in City Clerk's Office and available in all City Libraries.). The report outlines the review process, evaluation results, and proposes some directions that apply to the organization as a whole. The consultant has also provided an extensive appendix detailing the variety of input into the evaluation. This includes transcripts from focus groups, community conferences, surveys, as well as notes on the communications audits and literature review. It also provides, in detail, the terms of reference, the Public Involvement Review framework, and public involvement methods in other cities. Highlights of the report are noted below.

1. EVALUATION OF CITY PROCESSES

(a) The Study

Typically, the City conducts over one hundred public programs at any point in time. Not all of these programs could be reviewed in detail by the consultant. Instead, with the help of a focus group composed of members of the public and staff, the consultant selected ten sample processes to review in depth. The selection was based on a number of criteria outlined in Appendix C.

Overall, the processes chosen for review reflect the array of public programs offered by the City. They are:

- Budget Management - City Choices;
- Oakridge Langara Area Plan;
- Blenheim Street Traffic Calming;
- Balaclava Mews Rezoning;
- Community Centre Association Boards - Killarney, Kerrisdale and Strathcona;
- CityPlan Multicultural and Youth outreach (June 1992 - June 1995);
- Advisory Committees to Council - Public Art, Seniors and Cultural Committees;
- Liquor License Applications;
- RS Interim Zoning - East and West Vancouver; and
- Development Application - Special Needs Residential Facilities.

The group also identified criteria which served as a basis for the critical evaluation of the ten processes. The detailed criteria are described on pages 4 to 6 of the report. The criteria do not compare the City’s efforts to any particular model or standard but measure effectiveness at progressive stages in a typical process:

Using these criteria, the consultant undertook file reviews, communication audits, focus groups, stakeholder and staff interviews and surveys, and a Council workshop to get evaluation input. The consultant also conducted two community conferences to get further feedback on the initial evaluations.

(b) The Results

In general, the consultant felt the City does a good job of public involvement, although there are some areas that should be improved. The common themes that emerged are:

· Mandating the process was generally the weakest stage with insufficient clarity as to the goal of the public involvement, including the appropriate scope and level, as well as how input will be used in decision-making.
· Most of the processes had an appropriate level of resources to accomplish the work, noting that more is not necessarily better; what was most often lacking was staff expertise.
· The City is generally strong on its outreach to all groups; one weakness is the lack of a coordinated shared data base of community groups and ongoing contacts.
· The City’s communications strategies are also seen as a strength - the amount, timeliness, and distribution of information are good; however, information is at times too technical and relies on jargon and sometimes mixes facts and opinion.
· The City’s involvement strategies offer a good variety of different approaches and opportunities for involvement; however, there is a general concern that public input was not valued and a specific concern about lack of “buy-in” to survey methodologies.
· The lack of feedback and closure to City process indicating how input was used was identified as a weakness.
· There is a need to develop a means by which public involvement in neighbourhoods can occur on an ongoing basis instead of a project-by-project basis with linkages being re-established at different times by different departments.

(The detailed evaluation of each of the ten processes is described on pages 9 to 33 of the report. A summary of the overall strengths and weaknesses follows on pages 34 to 37.)

In addition to the consultant’s work, staff have done a detailed analysis of the commentary on each stage in the process for all ten sample processes. This will provide useful clues for the improvement phase of the review.

(c) Community Conferences

Two Community Conferences were held to obtain responses to the initial evaluation and to identify priority areas for improvement. (A summary is included on page 38 and in Appendix J of the report). Generally, the conference participants agreed with the consultant’s evaluation of the sample processes. Further, they provided a general overview of areas for improvement as their comments were not limited to the ten processes. In summary, these were:

· improve inter-neighbourhood communication and effort;
· improve information exchange, communication, accountability and clarity of roles between Council and the neighbourhoods and improve the role of public involvement in governance;
· ensure appropriate resources for staff and for organized groups to become involved;
· ensure representative groups and individuals are setting public involvement agendas;
· ensure inclusivity and representation;
· raise the level of involvement from project to policy level.

(d) Public Involvement in Other Cities

When Council adopted the PIR program, a specific request was made to investigate models for public involvement in Seattle and Portland. Appendix E of the report highlights the consultant’s review of public involvement in the cities of Portland and Seattle.

Portland, through its Office of Neighbourhood Involvement (formerly the Office of Neighbourhood Associations), attempts to facilitate communication and information dissemination between and within City departments and neighbourhoods. Ninety-four neighbourhood associations are recognized by the City and are kept informed of issues that affect neighbourhood livability. Each neighbourhood association belongs to one of the eight district coalitions, which receive funding from the City to provide assistance and support to neighbourhood associations.

The City of Seattle, through its Department of Neighbourhoods, administers the Neighbourhood Matching Fund, operates thirteen Neighbourhood Service Centres (mini city-halls) and the Neighbourhood Planning Office. Over 200 neighbourhood based groups belong to one of thirteen district councils, which are linked with the City and make recommendations for the Neighbourhood Matching Fund. Neighbourhoods are also given the opportunity to create neighbourhood plans with City funding. Recently, the Vancouver City Planning Commission (VCPC) invited Seattle representatives to discuss public involvement in major policy decisions. While this has worked well to deliver many community-based projects, there is an issue with co-ordinating the output of the various neighbourhood plans with each other and with regional directions.

While Vancouver does not have the same formal structure, many of the approaches are similar, including decentralizing City services and information to the neighbourhood level in initiatives such as Community Safety Offices, NISTS, and library information kiosks. Unlike Seattle’s overall plan, CityPlan directions are based on citizen input. CityPlan visioning has devolved policy directions to the neighbourhood level with a city-wide policy framework. Staff believe the City should continue to play a strong coordinating role so that neighbourhood directions are in line with each other and with city-wide policies. Seattle does not recognize any one neighbourhood group as representative, but includes them all. This is also consistent with the City’s approach. The consultant’s recommended directions, discussed later in this report, deal with the issue of establishing better linkages with communities.

2. RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS

(a) Consultant’s Conclusions

The consultant has recommended sixteen directions for corporate organizational, training, and communication improvements. They are included in detail in Appendix A. Many of the directions build on existing City practice. Generally, staff support these “systemic” improvements which will benefit public involvement in all departments. It is recommended that Council direct staff, co-ordinated by the PIR Working Group, to report back on approaches to implement them. Many of the directions are inter-related and will need to be co-ordinated among several departments. The directions and some proposed approaches are briefly summarized below.

Direction 1: Develop a Set of Guiding Principles

The consultant has prepared a set of draft principles to guide the City’s public involvement practices. These are included in Appendix B. These provide for clearly mandated, efficient, effective, inclusive and representative city involvement practices and an ongoing evaluation process. Staff recommend that the principles be adopted as a basis for departmental and corporate improvements and that any refinements be referred back to Council at the end of the improvement phase of the Public Involvement Review.

Direction 2: Develop a Policy on Multicultural Outreach and Translation of Information Materials

A more consistent city-wide approach to translation and outreach would ensure a level of service to all citizens and a more efficient delivery of these services. To achieve this objective, staff need to more systematically identify the multicultural communication needs of the community including the groups and individuals who need to be involved/informed, and communications issues, including language, which need to be addressed to most effectively communicate with these groups.

In addition, further work is especially needed in areas where there are cultural barriers to involvement that exist for particular groups. An outreach strategy is required to level the playing field so that all groups can operate from a common understanding. This will involve developing cultural competency in the organization beyond what it is now, to initiate and sustain involvement of diverse communities. This includes knowledge of community networks, accessing community resources, and appropriate use of diverse communications channels, such as ethnic media and community groups.

Direction 3: Train City Staff in Plain Language

To avoid confusing and alienating the public, City staff need to communicate technical information without using jargon. Staff responsible for public documents need to be more aware of the barriers this creates and encourage better writing. The Hastings Institute has offered to develop a special component of their Work Place Language Training Program to assist with this. In addition, staff will investigate an editorial service through the Communications Office.

Direction 4: Increase Staff Training for Public Involvement

To ensure a more consistent staff and Council skill level in public involvement, the City needs to provide a basic level of training in how to engage the public in decision-making processes, many of which are controversial.

The City’s current Corporate training program provides courses supporting staff in their public involvement work. These courses include training in managing conflict, facilitation and negotiation. Staff will investigate developing a more complete curriculum in public involvement, including entering into a partnership with an educational institution to develop a curriculum that responds to specific City objectives and relates directly to carrying out the principles for public involvement noted above. This expanded curriculum could draw on and develop a core of expertise in public process within the City with the possibility of City staff instructing portions of the curriculum.

Direction 5: Develop and Use a Public Involvement Planning Form or Checklist

The consultant identified a general weakness in the mandating of public programs. Currently, there are no city standards or guidelines for developing public programs ensuring a more thorough and consistent approach to the mandating, planning and evaluation of these programs. Staff agree that it is very important that there be commonly shared expectations at the beginning of a process. The consultant suggests using a form or checklist to ensure all aspects of the processes are thought through. Given the variety of programs, the different kinds of involvement required and the different levels of expertise, staff believe the best approach to this would be to develop public process guidelines based on the principles outlined in Direction 1. Many of the consultant’s directions would be referenced, including program evaluation procedures, as well as guidance as to appropriate techniques to ensure involvement objectives are met. A checklist could also be included.

Direction 6: Establish a Core of Expertise in Public Process

The City has various staff and programs with expertise and success in public involvement. However, there are no established linkages among those programs and in-house expertise is often not used. A network of staff with experience and expertise in public involvement should be established to assist all departments. Individually or, as a group, these staff could assist by reviewing programs, developing new approaches, problem-solving and advising on training.

Direction 7: Commitment to Evaluation of Each Process

Currently, the City does not routinely re-notify to let interested groups know the outcome of a process or request feedback on how the process could be improved and there is no consistent evaluation of the City’s public programs. Monitoring and evaluation is consistent with the City’s objective of measuring performance. Process evaluation should be included in the public process guidelines in Direction 5.

Direction 8: Prepare and Maintain a Community Contact Database

Currently, the City has project-by-project contact with the community. Contacts often need to be re-established when new projects begin. Sometimes issues in the community are not brought to the City’s attention at an early stage because neighbourhoods do not know who, or how, to contact City Hall. The formation of NISTS and the City’s communication and information efforts have begun to address this. The consultant suggests two further directions. One is to maintain a community group database. Several departments in the City already maintain a list of community contacts, as well as a Community Groups Index of groups in 23 neighbourhoods that is currently accessible on the City website @http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/socialplanning/inventor.html.

Staff are currently developing a more comprehensive and regularly updated list of community groups that would go into the QuickFind database. The QuickFind database is accessible to the public and to City staff on the City of Vancouver website.

Direction 9: Continuity of Contact and Public Involvement

The consultant recommends supporting ongoing linkages with community groups by building on existing groups like the Community Centre Associations and/or by establishing linkages to new groups. The consultant also recommends that, if the City expects the community groups to be recognised as representative, then a set of requirements should be established for these groups. Given the current extensive outreach efforts and NISTS, staff do not support developing a whole new structure of neighbourhood associations or relying on any one group for fully representative input. Vancouver already has many groups reflective of wide variety of community interests. It would be difficult to develop and monitor criteria to ensure the groups are representative. Staff believe that rather than trying to ensure the representativeness of every group, the City should continue to find ways to encourage the involvement of all groups. However, the City could develop guidelines to help community groups to encourage inclusivity, community dialogue and problem solving.

There are some groups which the City engages more formally, such as in application review. Current information about these groups such as the membership size, names of the current executive and other contacts, and date of their annual meeting could be collected as part of the community group database update. This would assist staff in evaluating when and how to contact them. In addition, using the community group database, the City could institute systematic notification of any City initiative in neighbourhoods as well as notification of public hearings and meetings that affect their areas. The City should also investigate more efficient ways of doing notification including better co-ordination among departments including using current technology to send regular information to all groups notifying them of City-wide and neighbourhood affairs. This would also assist with communication among neighbourhood groups.

Direction 10: Continuity of Staff Involved in Specific Neighbourhoods

To facilitate continuity of contact, the consultant recommends that staff gain a familiarity with specific areas of the city. This has already begun with the establishment of NISTS and the Development and Building Review (DBR). The Community Services Group (CSG) is investigating “sectoring” some staff functions as a way to resolve inefficiencies that result from staff working in areas of the City they are unfamiliar with. CSG staff in sectors would work on teams processing DBR rezonings and permits, preparing policy and/or regulations, or working on a specific project in the sector. A proposal for sectoring CSG work will be reported to Council this Fall.

An “area generalist” would be identified for each sector. The area generalist will provide background and advice to teams processing DBR projects and undertaking other CSG sector work. They will also develop and maintain community contacts, be familiar with the character and the issues of the sector and coordinate with NISTs currently working in the sector. They will also conduct community education on city processes and initiatives.

Early, focussed and effective community involvement is a key feature of the DBR process. This includes seeking community input prior to submission of a formal application, clearly defining the community’s role in the process and degree of influence over the proposal, and utilizing a variety of consultation methodologies and techniques geared to the particular project. Implementation of the area generalist role in the DBR process has awaited the establishment of the Community/Industry Advisory Panel to assist with this work. These roles will be refined and implemented in the next phase of DBR growth.

Staff believe that more direct linkages with representative community groups, the continued use of NISTS and the institution of area generalists in sectors across the City will lead to much better information-sharing and communication with neighbourhoods. Staff also recommend continuing with the approach of notifying all affected groups and individuals in any process.

Direction 11: Training in Public Conduct

It is important that Council and staff appropriately handle differing opinions in a consultation process. Particular training in this can be added to the public involvement training program.

Direction 12: Training in Civics

Many citizens are not familiar with public involvement in government decisions. Most City departments advertise or promote their services or programs to the community based on available resources or perceived needs. At present, city-wide initiatives such as the Capital Plan consultation, City Choices, Transportation Plan and CityPlan, all contribute to public awareness and debate on significant civic issues. Council’s meetings on Rogers Television also provide direct information on the City’s decision-making process. The consultant advises that the City should use the media more to familiarize the public with civic issues and that training in civics should be developed.

Civic education is an ongoing process of informing residents about the role and function of City government and how residents, regardless of backgrounds, cultures or interests, can effectively participate in civic processes. To achieve this goal, the City may want to develop a civic awareness strategy which would increase the profile of City government and services among Vancouver residents, develop partnerships with community groups, and encourageactive participation by Vancouverites in civic processes. This could include an election outreach program, expansion of information services, better use of ethnic media, public tour program, staff and volunteer orientation on City facts and trends.

Direction 13: Provision of Background Materials

The consultant’s review indicated that, in many cases, residents did not have clear information on the City’s typical involvement processes and their role; and they did not know current practices, by-laws and standards. Consequently, they often do not know how to participate or are surprised by what is permitted. The consultant recommends that better information on public involvement practices, and basic zoning and by-law information be prepared. The City has produced a guide recently on how to get involved in the City’s programs. Individual departmental program improvements will also address this, as well as be included in the public process guidelines referred to earlier.

Direction 14: Broaden Use of Media in Public Involvement

The media is an important tool in reaching citizens. The consultant recommends using the media to greater advantage, especially the neighbourhood newspapers and ethnic media. There are initiatives underway, such as the Rogers city.vancouver program and staff will report back on any other opportunities as they arise.

Direction 15: Improved Use of Survey Research

The City often uses random sample surveys as a public involvement tool. However, the consultant notes that the survey tool can be inconsistently used with different thresholds and over lapping topic areas and consequently end up with different results. Further, the public often just does not understand the random sample process. The consultant recommends developing some guidelines for a consistent, corporate approach.

However, it is important to note that not all surveys will require the same methodology. A range of techniques is used to gauge public opinion and will yield different results. One very important issue that needs to be addressed is whether or not there is sufficient information on which survey respondents can base their response. A corporate “library” of surveys done by City departments and boards would help contribute to continuity in data collection. Such a library would assist in helping to upgrade the quality of surveys, allow for better comparisons and guard against duplicated effort.

Direction 16: Enhanced Feedback and Closure

Staff believe this direction is best accommodated in the various individual process improvements and in the public process guidelines.

(b) Staff and Public Working Group Comments on the Consultant Study

The consultant’s draft report was also received by members of the public and staff on the original working group who helped select the sample processes for review and develop the criteria. Generally, it was felt that the study was very useful in identifying aspects of programs that needed improvement. The group concluded that the consultant’s observation that city programs were weak in mandating the process up front was perhaps the most significant conclusion - it is at the beginning of the process that decisions about needing to consult, who to contact and how to do it should be made in an overt and responsive way to the problem at hand. Although it is not surprising, everyone, including the consultant, was disappointed we were not able to get more feedback from those who do not participate and to learn why they do not. The group also felt there needs to be more thought as to when and where the City asks for input. We should be on the look out for cases where we ask for input but cannot or do not use it. In addition, more attention needs to be paid to the prioritization and interdepartmental co-ordination of staff’s efforts in the community. The group also felt it was critical to not completely standardize city processes but to be responsive to various situations of special concern with efforts needed to reach our increasing number of multicultural citizens.

3. PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

Following the evaluation, the PIR envisioned a process improvement stage. This will involve two kinds of work:

(a) Individual Process Improvements

These are improvements to individual processes typical of those in the sample review. These improvements will be based on the detailed consultant’s evaluation which indicated various problematic aspects as well as strategies and approaches that were effective. These improvements should be developed in the context of actual work (i.e., not developed in theory) so that the public can be involved in developing the improvements and the effectiveness can be measured.

The individual program improvements will involve input from previous process participants, staff and current public participants to design new approaches. This work will need to be developed and co-ordinated by the PIR Working Group to ensure consistency and to avoid duplication of effort. In some cases, this work will require the assistance of a consultant with facilitation and/or survey expertise to identify specific problem areas and to help developnew approaches. Staff believe it is reasonable to expect that processes to be improved be identified, and that work on this be completed, in all departments by the end of 1999. Process improvements will be reported to Council individually by departments as they are complete.

(b) Corporate Directions

The corporate directions will need to be carried out with the co-operation of various departments. As noted, many of the directions overlap with existing work in various departments and, in some cases, there may be alternative approaches to accomplish some of them. Therefore staff recommend that the PIR Working Group report before the end of 1998 with a co-ordinated work plan for implementing the corporate improvements including any alternatives for Council’s consideration.

(c) Staffing and Financial Implications

The PIR Working Group is composed of staff with full work programs. Given the limited capacity for further work, it is recommended that $47,500 be allocated for a temporary position at Pay Grade 24 for one year to assist the PIR Working Group in the co-ordination of the individual departmental improvements and the corporate directions. Staff also recommend that consultant funds of $70,000 be allocated from the Strategic Initiative Fund to assist in research, facilitation and development of new departmental program approaches and responses to the proposed corporate directions including developing the inter-departmental community group database, multicultural translation and civic awareness strategies. This fund will be managed by the Corporate Management Team. A total of $117,500 is requested.

CONCLUSION

The consultant has concluded that the City generally has a high standard of public involvement. Refinements to individual programs are required to respond to specific problem areas. There are also several corporate directions that will improve the co-ordination and capacity of the City’s communication with the public and improve linkages to the community for input into city decision making.

* * * * *

pe981008.htm

DIRECTIONS

The following directions are suggested based on the findings of the Public Involvement Review.

1. Develop a Set of Guiding Principles. The City should adopt a set of principles that would guide all future public involvement initiatives. These principles should help to develop continuity and consistency in the approaches used by the City. They would also greatly aid any internal or external evaluation of public involvement processes. The public would also be able to use the principles to hold staff and councillors accountable for their actions. A set of draft principles is attached as Addendum 1 to this report to stimulate discussion regarding what the final list could look like. Although simple and brief, the principles could be a powerful public statement and a very useful guiding force. In themselves, they could significantly improve the way the City implements public involvement initiatives.

2. Develop a Policy on Multicultural Outreach and the Translation of Information Materials. The City should develop a consistent approach to the techniques used to reach multicultural groups where language and cultural background may limit involvement. In particular, this policy should address translation of materials into languages other than English and to formats more accessible to those with disabilities (e.g. large print or audio reports). A consistent approach to translation would ensure that a base level of translation is provided in all circumstances where the need is identified. It may also assist in reducing costs for translation in some instances.

3. Train City Staff in Plain Language. The City should further commit to the use of plain language in all public processes. This direction will require expanded training to ensure that staff preparing information have the skills necessary to communicate on the broadest possible basis without the use of jargon or technical language. Additionally, this direction might result in the use of professional editing expertise, either on a staff or a consulting basis.

4. Increase Staff Training for Public Involvement. The City has some very talented people working on public involvement processes. However, the skills and abilities are inconsistent. More training will be required to ensure that all staff involved in planning and implementing public involvement processes have the necessary sensitivities, understandings, and skills to do the job properly. All staff involved in community interaction should have basic training in conflict resolution. Options for training might include courses, workshops, preparation of a staff manual, or instructional videos.

5. Develop and Use a Public Involvement Planning Form or Check List. To improve the overall quality of public involvement in Vancouver, more attention should be paid to the initial planning and mandating of each process. One approach would be to create a planning form or check list for completion by those responsible for implementing the process. The form could range from a short checklist to a detailed several page form, as illustrated in Addendum 2 to this report, which might be "signed off" by those mandating the process.

6. Establish a Core of Expertise in Public Process. While there are many very talented people working on public involvement projects within the City staff, they seldom have opportunities to learn from each other. Little is done to ensure that learning on one project is applied to the next. Staff do not have clearly identified in-house experts to turn to for advice. A core group of experts on public involvement should be established within the City structure. The group could review draft Planning / Mandating Forms prepared by process leaders and help them complete the forms clearly and appropriately. The group could also be available to support or "trouble shoot" processes as they are implemented. When needed, a facilitator or mediator could be brought in to assist project staff in resolving conflicts which are undermining a process. The group could also help evaluate processes to ensure that learning occurs from process-to- process, and that skills are developed.

7. Commitment to Evaluation of Each Process. Each public involvement process should be evaluated. The process should be documented and the results reported as part of the final report on the project. The participants in the process should have access to the evaluation results.

8. Prepare and Maintain a Community Contact Database. The City should expand and maintain its centralized database of all community groups and regularly distribute it to City departments. This inventory would have to be updated regularly and should be cross-referenced for a variety of different areas of interest. It could be used by all departments to ensure that all appropriate community groups are involved in a public involvement process. Part of the closure of each process should include the updating of the central database with names of new group contacts.

9. Continuity of Contact and Public Involvement. The City should maintain and support ongoing linkages with neighbourhood groups which could act as a vehicle for continuous (rather than project-by-project) public involvement. These groups and the linkages to them may be newly established (e.g. a new Neighbour-to-Neighbour Program of staffed neighbourhood offices) or long-standing relationships (e.g. existing Community Centre Associations which already represent their neighbourhoods and have staffed offices). The City has a long-term, successful relationship with Community Centre Associations which are already very much involved in public involvement processes. Building on this success may be more appropriate and cost effective than building a new network of linkages.

10. Continuity of Staff Involved in Specific Neighbourhoods. Another potential direction to improve continuity of contact would be to work closely with staff already based in each community (such as the Neighbourhood Integrated Service Teams) andto manage staff resources so that expertise in specific neighbourhoods is developed over time. The City could undertake to re-organize staff across all departments involved in community policy and service delivery so that key staff obtain area-based knowledge and work on a co-ordinated basis among departments and with communities.

11. Training in Public Conduct. When Councillors and staff interact with the public, they should ensure that a basic standard of conduct is adhered to. For example, they should never ask for opinions and then discount those opinions. Among the alternative approaches to training are preparation of an agreed protocol, training sessions with a facilitation expert, or development of a training manual or video. Another approach might be to undertake an evaluation of a sample of public meetings or hearings to provide specific feedback to involved Council members and staff.

12. Training in Civics. The City and / or the Vancouver School Board should work with immigrant services, community organizations, and schools to set up courses in civics which train citizens in their role in public involvement processes.

13. Provision of Background Materials. The City should make general information, including technical and policy background information, readily available, either at meetings or through publications like “fact sheets”. Appropriate information sheets could be prepared which would serve a number of different processes by clarifying basic roles and expectations for public involvement.

14. Broaden Use of Media in Public Involvement. Television, radio, internet, and the press should be used more effectively to access larger, less involved audiences. Specific targeted media (e.g. neighbourhood newspapers and "ethnic" media) should also be used to greater advantage. The new program on Rogers Cable has potential to both provide involvement opportunities for specific processes and to inform the public about their roles in participation in civic issues.

15. Improved Use of Survey Research. Random sample surveys of attitudes are an important tool in public involvement processes and are used regularly in Vancouver. Unfortunately, different approaches and methodologies used from project-to-project have reduced their utility. For example, in some cases, 50% + is set as the threshold for agreement and in other cases, a higher level is required. There has also been concern about different reliability with subsequent surveys conflicting with those that were administered earlier. The City should adopt some guidelines for use of public surveys to increase consistency and reliability of result. This might involve the use of outside experts in survey research.

16. Enhanced Feedback and Closure. More attention should be paid to closure at theend of a process, including getting out feedback on how input was used in making decisions, and what the decisions were. Also, improved closure could include requesting feedback from participants as input into future processes and expressing thanks to participants.

DRAFT GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In Phase Two of the Public Involvement Review Process, a set of Evaluation Criteria were agreed upon and were then used both to evaluate case studies and to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of existing involvement practices (refer to pages 4-6 for the Evaluation Criteria). These criteria also serve to structure the following draft Guiding Principles which are proposed for detailed review and refinement by all groups involved in the process of finalizing Phase Two of the PIR.

1. Mandating the Process

2. Resourcing the Process

3. Process Participants

4. Communications Strategies

5. Involvement Strategies

6. Closure

CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF SAMPLE PROCESSES

- a geographic balance;
- a balance of mandated versus voluntary initiatives;
- test communications barriers (including language);
- have a balance of sponsors (City identified versus community identified);
- involve differences between who pays and who benefits;
- balance times scale (short term vs. long term decisions);
- involve values tradeoffs;
- include complex information;
- cause the most grief;
- cover a continuum of public involvement;
- test all types of barriers to involvement;
- are not already evaluated;
- are in areas where we don’t usually consult with the public;
- are of various sizes/scale;
- include one perceived as excellent;
- involve built in accountability;
- include political sensitivity; and
- deal with big decisions.

* * * * *

pe981008.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver