New approaches to engagement

Public officials can consider a range of methods to undertake a community engagement process. In choosing a method, consideration should be given to:

• the nature of the issue (single issue and interest group focus or multi-layered affecting the broader community)
• the nature of the community (well organised, structured or diffuse)
• timeframes (urgent, long term)
• profile of an issue (contentious, or media interest, confl ict expected)
• amount of resources available for engagement
• the breadth of the issue (does it cut across other agency issues)
• the purpose and objectives of engagement (to gather information or to ‘test’ options).

The following table shows just a few examples of community engagement methods and their benefits.

Deliverative techniques

• Citizens' jury
  Benefits: Valuable in developing a deep understanding of an issue. Offers an opportunity for non-traditional stakeholders to hear expert testimony on an issue, deliberate together and propose recommendations to inform decision making.

• Policy roundtable
  Benefits: A joint planning/decision making forum between government and key stakeholders with expertise about a specifi c issue. Helps to establish a collaborative process from the outset and most valuable in the planning phase.

• Search conferent
  Benefits:Research intensive, effective means of creating a partnership with citizens. Can be used for developing and gaining broad commitment to a plan of action.

Group consultation techniques

• Focus group
  Benefits: Useful with relatively homogeneous, pre-existing group with interest in issue. Allows for creative thinking if adequately facilitated.

• Public meeting
  Benefits: Views of community groups can be expressed. Not a strong forum for dialogue, but allows stakeholders to self-identify. Meeting management skills required to channel energy productively.

• Conference
  Benefits: Structured approach useful for education and formal expression of views. Must be well planned and adequately resourced.

• Workshop
  Benefits: Smaller groups selected for skills and interests gathering with objective of producing options or ideas, or structured exploration of issues. Needs skilled facilitation.

• Online consultation
  Benefits: Can provide opportunities to reach a large audience around a specific policy issue.

• Inquiry
  Benefits: Formal body with terms of reference to inquire and report. May have legal authority. Can be costly. Sometimes chaired by judicial figure. Can be public or focused on identified stakeholders.

• Consultative committee
  Benefits: Members selected or appointed by range of methods for ongoing advice on particular issues.

• Policy council
  Benefits: Forum for established stakeholder representatives (e.g. peak bodies). Strong tool for on-going dialogue with or without specific issue focus to draw group together. Usually chaired by Minister or chief executive of department. Legitimises formal relationships between government and established policy community.

Individual consultation techniques

• Individual discussions
  Benefits: Sometimes useful for rapid data collection. Individuals may also initiate discussions with government.

• Submission
  Benefits: Oral or written. May be unsolicited or in response to invitation. Usually attracts individuals or groups with well-defi ned position. Little dialogue involved.

• Survey research
  Benefits: Formal data gathering using objective techniques, often using sample of stakeholders. Sometimes useful to gauge public reaction to proposals.

• Conflict resolution and negotiation
  Benefits: Conflict resolution methods usually involve structured exchange of information and views. Used after a dispute or clear differences have been identified .

• Participant observation
  Regional and field staff often gain first hand experience of the impact of issues or proposals.

Information-sharing techniques

• Education and awareness programs
  Benefit: Effective education and awareness programs can raise citizen and community awareness about a policy issue.

• Displays
  Benefit: Information dissemination tool. Mobile or permanent, can be designed for easy change to reflect developments, and to elicit feedback.

• Media release or press conference
  Benefit: Generating interest and feedback. Major political and institutional tool for information dissemination.

• Ministerial statement
  Benefit: Formal parliamentary statement articulating a position or commitment to addressing an issue. Generates interest and may elicit feedback.

• Discussion paper
  Benefit: Formal means of raising issues and requesting submissions.

• Policy paper
  Benefit: Formal statement of policy. Means of information dissemination. Not strictly consultative because states outcome. Sometimes is a means of providing feedback following discussion paper.

Joined-up engagement

Joined-up engagement describes formal and informal partnerships to manage collaborative approaches to community engagement which may be between government agencies, across levels of government (local, State and Commonwealth), or industry and community sectors.

Joining up is a mind-set and a culture. The concept of joining up in planning, implementing and evaluating community engagement activities recognises that no single agency has all the knowledge and resources, or controls all the levers to bring about sustainable solutions to complex community issues.

Joined-up engagement can result in:

• cross-government policies being developed and implemented in a cohesive manner
• complementary programs and services
• joint planning at the local level
• interconnection between communities
• the development of agencies as learning organisations
• holistic government
• client-focused government
• broader community input
• increased social capital
• joined-up policies, programs and services
• joined-up outcomes, indicators and budgets.

Effective cross-agency collaboration in community engagement has the potential to deliver greater policy coherence, integrated service delivery, enhanced risk management and mutual learning.

The barriers to joined-up engagement are similar to many challenges in cross-government or cross-agency work at a number of levels. Examples of barriers may include:

• a lack of integration in agency structures and systems
• lack of motivation or ability to work in new ways
• silo-based objectives and budgets
• judgements and directions about what is ‘core’ agency business
• bureaucratic accountabilities
• risk aversion
• political imperatives.

Enablers to joined-up engagement may include the adoption of a common purpose, minimising the impact of differing agency structures and systems, and developing a culture and capabilities supportive of working in new ways.

The various levels of joined-up engagement are:

• networking — a dialogue over engagement issues
• cooperation — informal attempts to work together in engagement activities and programs
• coordination — linkages on a range of engagement initiatives
• collaboration — more formal associations in engagement activities and programs
• partnership — formal goals-based engagement coalitions.

Online engagement in government

Political support for increased citizen involvement in government processes has been strengthened by the arrival of information and communication technologies (ICT), such as the Internet, and mobile and digital technology, capable of widening public participation. New technologies have opened up innovative channels for citizens to be engaged in the processes of policy development and program and service planning and decision making. In many jurisdictions, including Queensland, online engagement is part of a broader eDemocracy agenda.

Online engagement refers to the use of ICT to support a two-way relationship in which citizens contribute their views and opinions to government, and government provides information and feedback to citizens. Mechanisms include the Internet and email, telephones, interactive digital television and video conferencing. Online engagement methods include internet-based forums, online chats, online surveys and questionnaires. Governments are also exploring regular use of technologies such as webcasting (broadcasting meetings and forums over the Internet), Internet radio and weblogging (an online diary).

Online engagement is particularly valuable when used in conjunction with other public involvement methods and when it is supported by effective information sharing. In many cases traditional and innovative non-technology engagement methods and techniques will strengthen and complement the reach and inclusiveness of online engagement activities.

Good practice guidance on planning, implementing and evaluating public involvement activities outlined in this resource also applies to online engagement. As is the case with all engagement activities, it is crucial to match the online engagement methods and techniques with the needs and characteristics of the target audience.

It is also important to remember online engagement is not a panacea — many of the inclusiveness challenges faced by engagement practitioners remain. The ‘digital divide’ argument is well known — namely that the use of ICT is compounding the disadvantage for those who do not have access to the Internet or who face a range of other barriers.

The complexities of access to ICT go beyond the availability of a computer with Internet. Access is embedded in a complex array of factors — matters of content, language, literacy and education all play a part, together with community and institutional structures. All of these factors must be taken into account to facilitate meaningful access to new technologies.

Benefits and challenges of online engagement

Some of the benefi ts of online engagement include:

• opportunities to reach a wider audience
• offering a range of techniques to meet the diverse technical and communicative skills of the target audience
• enabling more informed consultation by making information accessible to participants, for example, by directly providing or linking to relevant online resources
• allowing, where appropriate, online deliberation to take place. By providing opportunities for the target audience to engage with one another, policy makers are able to see the development of different issues
• enabling online analysis on contributions
• enabling relevant and appropriate online feedback to citizens in response to their comments.

Some of the challenges include:

• issues concerned with the management of a large number of responses
• non-universal access may mean that other consultation tools should additionally be used
• technology is viewed by some as enabling a faster process, therefore quick feedback and responses may be expected
• the need to evaluate the technical aspect of the consultation in order to build best practice.

eDemocracy in Queensland

In January 2001, the Queensland Government announced its Restoring Integrity Plan — The Beattie Good Government Plan for Queensland which encompassed reforms relating to the State’s electoral, parliamentary and democratic systems. Between 2001 and 2004 the Government subsequently implemented four eDemocracy  initiatives:

• ePetitions — the use of the Internet by citizens to post, lodge and ‘sign’ petitions via the Queensland Parliament website
• Internet broadcast of Parliament — the broadcast of live parliamentary proceedings, also via the Queensland Parliament website
• online community consultation — community consultation on selected issues and policy matters via the Internet
• Get Involved website (www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au) — a community engagement website with information and resources to help Queenslanders participate in government decision making.

The Queensland Government’s eDemocracy initiatives overcome some of the traditional barriers which may prevent people from participating in government decision making. For example, many people want to have a say on issues which are important to them and their communities but do not have the time, money nor capacity to attend public meetings or community forums. They may also feel uncomfortable about public forums or have had a negative experience at past events.

By using new, popular and convenient technology such as the Internet, the eDemocracy initiatives provide more opportunities for people to access information and have their say at a time and place which is convenient to them. This means a greater public voice in the working of government.

Using online tools also enables the government to distribute information to a wider audience quickly and cost effectively. Government can also collect contributions from the public which can be analysed and responded to electronically, which is more effi cient, timely and cost effective for all parties.

The eDemocracy Policy Framework 2004 is designed to guide the Queensland Government’s future eDemocracy developments and directions and reaffirms the government’s commitment to using new and emerging information and communication technologies to improve community outcomes. (www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/share_your_knowledge/resources/guides_publications)

ePetitions

Petitioning is a method by which citizens can make requests direct to Parliament. A petition is a formal request signed by at least one person and placed before the  Parliament with the aim of persuading the Parliament to take a particular action. Currently, Sessional Orders of the Legislative Assembly provide for two types of petitions – Paper Petitions and ePetitions.

The ePetitions area on the Queensland Parliament website includes comprehensive information about the petitioning process in Queensland. By accessing the website Queenslanders can start, join, locate and follow an ePetition via the Internet. The website also shows whether a Minister has responded to an ePetition and, if a response has been tabled in Parliament, the content of the response.

The benefits of ePetitions include:

• greater opportunity to reach a wider audience than the current reliance on paper petitions
• provision of a central repository of information
• increased transparency around the petitioning process in Queensland.

ePetitions can be accessed via the Queensland Parliament website (www.parliament.qld.gov.au/petitions).

Internet broadcast of Parliament

The Internet broadcast of Parliament features a live audio transmission of parliamentary proceedings occurring in the Queensland Legislative Assembly Chamber. The broadcast means that access to the Queensland Parliament is no longer limited to those people who can visit Parliament House in Brisbane. The Internet broadcast helps more people, especially those in rural and regional Queensland, to understand how Parliament works, and to assess how their elected representatives are performing. The Internet broadcast service is also a valuable resource for Queensland students and academic institutions.

The broadcast can be accessed when Parliament is sitting via the Queensland Parliament website – www.parliament.qld.gov.au/broadcast

ConsultQld: the online consultation tool

ConsultQld on the Get Involved website is an innovative approach to seeking community views on key issues being investigated by the Queensland Government. Using ConsultQld enables Queenslanders to:

• respond to questions online
• submit their views in a safe and secure environment
• read what others are thinking about the same topic
• be informed about the progress of a consultation by receiving email updates
• see what the government has decided by reading the Feedback Report which is posted to the site after the consultation is closed
• find out about other ways to have a say about issues affecting their community.

ConsultQld contributes to more informed policy debate by providing a convenient and efficient way for people to access and exchange relevant information and contribute opinions. A high level of public involvement means that policies can be developed with the benefit of a range of different opinions and evidence.

ConsultQld can be accessed via the government community engagement website www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/consultqld