Public Participation in Government Decision-Making: A Better Practice Guide

Public participation is a critical input to government decision-making and to developing effective strategies, programs and projects.

This guide is designed to:

• provide a high-level framework for agencies across the public sector to use when deciding how best to involve the public in government decision-making and implementation
• clearly set out the principles and elements that we use to audit the efficiency and effectiveness of public participation exercises.

We developed it following extensive research and consultation with a range of organisations representing different public participation perspectives and experiences, including large government departments, small agencies, local government, community representative organisations and advocacy groups.

Public Participation in Government Decision-Making: A Better Practice Guide (PDF) (5 MB)

 

Contents

Foreword

Part 1: Introduction—public participation in the Victorian public sector

Part 2: The principles of public participation in government decision-making

Part 3: Elements of better practice public participation and VAGO’s expectations of agencies

Attachment 1: Public participation references and resources

Attachment 2: Developing the guide

Foreword

Public participation is a critical input to government activity, and developing effective strategies, programs and projects. Failing to adequately engage the public risks alienating the community and creating negative impacts through poorly informed and implemented decisions.

Despite the critical role that public participation plays, I was surprised to find that in Victoria there is no whole-of-government guidance or framework that helps agencies plan and implement effective public participation exercises. And yet this is an area that public sector agencies find consistently challenging.

In light of this, I have chosen to publish this better practice guide in order to:

• provide a high-level framework for agencies across the public sector to use when deciding how best to involve the public in government decision-making and implementation
• clearly set out the principles and elements that I will use to audit the efficiency and effectiveness of public participation exercises.

This guide is not intended to be prescriptive, and does not incorporate mandatory templates or techniques. Agencies need to give significant thought to how they will apply the principles in the context of their activities. For example, the public participation process involved in deciding whether to put traffic lights or a roundabout at a local intersection will necessarily differ from processes associated with developing a strategy to address homelessness. The way agencies approach public participation must reflect the unique setting of the decision at hand and meet the needs of both decision makers and participants.

The process of developing this guide involved extensive research and consultation. It highlighted recurring challenges that public sector agencies face in undertaking public participation exercises. It also revealed that there are a number of agencies who are implementing elements of better practice. Other agencies may find value in strengthening their current approaches, as well as exploring the references and resources included in this guide.

Publishing this guide is the first step in what I intend to be an iterative approach to highlighting better practice public participation in government decision-making. I expect that a number of my performance audits over coming years will include a focus on whether agencies are efficiently and effectively engaging the public to inform government decision-making and implementation. In consultation on this guide, agencies have been keen to access tangible examples of better practice, such as case studies of actual public participation exercises. I expect that these future audits will enable me to identify examples of good practice and areas where improvement is required. I will use these audits to update this better practice guide to ensure that the guidance remains as current and useful to agencies as possible.

I would like to thank all of the stakeholders that provided input and comment into the development of this guide and am encouraged by the level of interest stakeholders have shown in improving this critical element of public administration. I hope that all public sector agencies will use this guide to plan and implement effective public participation approaches to better inform government in its decision-making and implementation.

John Doyle
Auditor-General

January 2015

 

Part 1. Introduction

Why is public participation important?

Governments are responsible for decisions that have both intended and often unforeseen impacts on the community. Transparent and well managed public participation is essential to fully inform government policies and their translation into effective strategies, programs and projects.

Most governments recognise the value the public bring to understanding problems and risks and crafting solutions that are more likely to work. In addition to the real life experience that community stakeholders can contribute to decision making, the credibility of a decision is enhanced when it is believed to be the product of an open and deliberative process.

Conversely, inadequate public participation alienates sections of the community, undermines trust and is more likely to result in poorly informed decisions.

Public participation in the Victorian public sector

Some governments have introduced better practice guidance to help public sector agencies more consistently and effectively involve the public in decision-making and indeed this is the case for all Australian states and territories except Victoria. Attachment 1 references these guides.

While there is currently no whole-of-government guide for Victoria, public participation is embedded or supported in key pieces of Victorian legislation because it makes good sense and is consistent with a system where government spends public funds to benefit the community.

Public participation in the Victorian public sector

Some governments have introduced better practice guidance to help public sector agencies more consistently and effectively involve the public in decision-making and indeed this is the case for all Australian states and territories except Victoria. Attachment 1 references these guides.

While there is currently no whole-of-government guide for Victoria, public participation is embedded or supported in key pieces of Victorian legislation because it makes good sense and is consistent with a system where government spends public funds to benefit the community.

What is public participation?

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) defines public participation as the involvement of those affected1 by a decision in the decision-making process. We use the term ‘public participation’ to describe these situations, though the same activities are also described as community or stakeholder consultation, engagement and participation.

Public participation encompasses a range of public involvement, from simply informing people about what government is doing to delegating decisions to the public.

IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum explains this range and the extent of participation at each level.

The spectrum includes five levels of increasing public engagement. IAP2 refers to the first two as ‘participation’ and the last three as ‘engagement’. We describe the fifth level of public participation as 'empowerment' to highlight the significant difference in decision-making authority between this level and other levels.

Figure 1
Examples of public participation in Victorian Legislation

What are the aims of this guide?

In light of the importance of public participation for informing and shaping government’s decisions and the mixed performance observed in its application in Victoria, we have produced this better practice guide.

The guide has two aims:

• firstly, it communicates our expectations about what good performance looks like—describing the principles and practices we expect agencies to follow
• secondly, it signals the basis upon which we will audit the efficiency and effectiveness of public participation in future.

Figure 2
Levels of public participation

	Inform	Consult	Involve	Collaborate	Empower
Levels
Objective	To provide balanced and objective information to support understanding by the public.	To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.	To work with the public to ensure concerns and aspirations are understood and considered.	To engage with the public on each aspect of the decision, including the development of alternatives and a preferred solution.	To create governance structures to delegate decision making and/or work directly with the public.
Commitment	To keep the public informed.	To listen to and acknowledge the public’s concerns.	To work with the public to exchange information, ideas and concerns.	To seek advice and innovations from and amongst various public parties.	To work with the public to implement agreed-upon decisions.
Description	Participation The first two public participation levels— Inform and Consult—typically occur when a decision has already been made, and government wants to either communicate that decision to the public, or seek opinions on the decision.		Engagement The third and fourth public participation levels— Involve and Collaborate—have two way information flows, and include sharing information within and across stakeholder communities during the decision-making process. When undertaking Engagement, decision makers commit to using stakeholder feedback to inform the decision and shape the outcome. Activity that occurs at the Collaboration level is also sometimes referred to as partnering.		Empowerment The fifth public participation level—Empower—is also often referred to as co production, where decisions are made jointly between government and the community. This is typically when decision-making authority has been delegated to a group including members from both the government and the community/industry

Source: Adapted from the International Association for Public Participation’s Public Participation Spectrum.

Part 2: Public participation principles

Public participation better practice guides often include principles to drive and shape agencies’ practices.

In Victoria, the Public Administration Act 2004 provides a framework for good governance in the Victorian public sector and in public administration generally in Victoria. This includes fostering ‘a public sector that responds to government priorities in a manner that is consistent with public sector values.’ In Figure 4 we describe the commitments that should shape public participation practices to these values.

Overview of the framework’s elements

Figure 3 summarises the practices we would expect to see when examining how agencies approached public participation.

Figure 3
Elements of better practice in public participation in government decision-making

These elements are shaped by our review of better practice frameworks from other jurisdictions and also reflect practices required to effectively manage any project:

• having clear objectives
• properly understanding the problem
• objectively assessing the options
• applying a rigorous management approach
• evaluating and learning from the process.

The approach to public participation in government decision-making needs to reflect the scale and purpose of the government decision or project. For example, we would not expect to see the same depth of analysis and documentation for a participation exercise on the $50 000 installation of local traffic management on a suburban street when compared with participation required when investing $1 billion into new public infrastructure.

Nevertheless, in both cases, we would still expect to see documentary evidence that agencies had understood and appropriately taken account of these elements in designing and implementing their approaches to the related public participation activities. The aim of the guide is not to develop a set of identical documents, but rather to ensure agency records show alignment with its principles and better practice elements.

Figure 4
Public participation principles

Public sector values	Public participation commitments
Responsiveness Demonstrate responsiveness by: providing frank, impartial and timely advice to the government …identifying and promoting best practice.	Responsiveness—Fully advising government of the: significant potential impacts of decisions on stakeholder groups and the public challenges and opportunities related to the participation exercise. Responding to the engagement and input of the public in a timely and constructive manner Identifying and promoting public participation better practice in government decision-making.
Integrity Demonstrate integrity by: being honest, open and transparent in their dealings using powers responsibly …striving to earn and sustain public trust of a high level.	Transparency and integrity Ensuring that those affected understand the scope of the pending decision, the decision-making process and any constraints on this process. Addressing public and stakeholder concerns in an honest and forthright way and communicating results back to the public in a way they understand.
Impartiality Demonstrate impartiality by: making decisions and providing advice on merit and without bias, caprice, favouritism or self interest acting fairly by objectively considering all relevant facts and fair criteria implementing government policies and programs equitably.	Openness Embedding in all decision-making processes an openness to appropriately understanding and incorporating the views of those affected by decisions and providing access to all relevant information about the decision in a manner that participants can understand, so that their contributions may be fully informed.
Accountability Demonstrate accountability by: working to clear objectives in a transparent manner accepting responsibility for their decisions and actions seeking to achieve best use of resources submitting themselves to appropriate scrutiny.	Accountability Being clear about the scope and objectives of the public participation exercise. Demonstrating that results and outcomes are consistent with the commitment made at the outset of the process. Being clear about the contribution participants will be asked to make and the responsibilities associated with this. Providing appropriate time and resources to ensure that those affected can participate in a meaningful way.
Respect Demonstrate respect for colleagues, other public officials and the Victorian community by: treating them fairly and objectively ensuring freedom from discrimination, harassment and bullying using their views to improve outcomes on an ongoing basis.	Inclusiveness Making every reasonable effort to include the stakeholder groups and members of the public affected by the pending decision. Making reasonable adjustments where necessary to remove barriers to participation and ensure an inclusive approach. Providing appropriate time and resources to ensure that those affected can participate in a meaningful way. Being aware and taking account of the needs of diverse communities to be able to participate in a meaningful way.
Human rights Respect and promote the human rights set out in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities by: making decisions and providing advice consistent with human rights actively implementing, promoting and supporting human rights.	Awareness Being aware and taking account of legislation that should shape the approach to public participation

Source: Victorian Auditor-General's Office.

Element 1: Clearly define the decision required, and the scope of the public participation exercise

During our consultations, several organisations commented on the problems that are caused when public sector agencies do not clearly communicate the nature of the decision to be made and the scope of the public participation exercise. For example, it is counter- productive if the public thinks it can influence a decision that government has already made if the objective of the public participation is to inform people about the decision and work with them to secure a smooth implementation. It is also problematic when the public is being asked to contribute to a decision, but perceives that agencies are closed to their participation.

Being clear about the extent to which participants will be able influence the decision being made is critical to establishing trust and to avoid incorrect perceptions. This also applies to decisions where some aspects or components are open for input, but others are not—for example, due to legal requirements, safety reasons or other non negotiable factors.

Earlier in the guide we noted that different levels of the public participation spectrum encompass different levels of public participation. Once the objective of the participation exercise is known, the corresponding objective in the spectrum identifies which level is needed.

What we will look for

We will look for evidence of clarity in the decision to be made. A fully-informed description of the planned objectives and scope of the public participation and evidence that these things have been communicated to, and understood by, stakeholders.

This is set out in detail below.

1 Clearly define the objectives and scope of the public participation exercise by:

1.1 Describing the decision to be made.

1.1.1 There is a comprehensive and clear description of the matter that is being decided.

1.1.2 Agencies are clear about the government’s priorities and their impact on the scope of the decision.

1.2 Taking into account relevant legislation in framing the public participation.

1.2.1 There is evidence that agencies are aware of the full extent of their legal obligations in relation to making the decision and have appropriately designed the public participation exercise in light of this.

1.2.2 Agencies can demonstrate that they have taken into account broader legislative requirements such as human rights in making decisions.

1.3 Defining the objectives and scope of the participation exercise and setting initial expectations around the level of participation.

1.3.1 Agencies have clearly and comprehensively described the objectives and scope of the participation exercise and the level of public participation they are seeking in making that decision.

Element 2: Understand who is affected and how they should be included

This element captures the stakeholder analysis—who is impacted, how and if they should be involved in the decision-making, and how is this best achieved?

While Element 1 framed initial expectations about who should be involved, this element confirms this and determines how to effectively involve these target stakeholders. It is a critical stage because missing those impacted by the decision or approaching affected stakeholders inappropriately undermines the public participation, while including those unaffected by the decision is inefficient.

It is important that agencies carefully consider the following when deciding who to involve in the decision-making process:

• who is directly and indirectly affected by, interested in, or able to influence the decision being made
• stakeholder diversity— for example, including people of different/diverse cultures, people from regional or remote communities, people with disabilities, older/ younger stakeholders, and those with real life experience relevant to the decision being made
• barriers—whether there are barriers to participant involvement that need to be addressed such as:
  • resources—for example, if the participant cannot afford to travel, or needs carers/aides to travel
  • timing—for example, if the participant has time constraints or scheduling requirements
  • willingness—where stakeholders are reluctant to participate, or are experiencing ‘consultation fatigue’
  • ‘optimal mix’—for example, where the interests of the different stakeholder groups are appropriately balanced, and the views of one group do not overwhelm others.

Doing this stage well creates a solid foundation for capturing and understanding the issues of importance to the public that are relevant to the decision. Failing to do this properly risks missing critical issues that may emerge later in the project when it is more difficult and costly to effectively address them.

What we will look for

We will look for evidence that all those likely to be affected have been identified and the potential impacts of the decision have been assessed, together with an assessment of how best to approach those that need to be included in the participation exercise.

This is set out in detail below.

2 Understand who is affected and how they should be included by:

2.1 Identifying stakeholders affected by, interested in, or who can influence or inform the decision.

2.1.1 Agencies can demonstrate that they have identified all relevant stakeholder groups and members of the public potentially affected by, or holding a legitimate interest in the decision.

2.1.2 Agencies have used available information and, where necessary, undertaken further data collection and research to understand who potential stakeholders are.

2.2 Understanding how stakeholders are affected and the nature and intensity of their interest.

2.2.1 Agencies can clearly link the selection of those included in the participation exercise to an objective analysis of the impacts and interests of stakeholder groups and members of the public.

2.2.2 Agencies have confirmed these impacts by engaging the stakeholder groups and members of the public they expect to be most affected or interested.

2.3 Understanding stakeholders’ capacity and willingness to participate and if participation barriers need to be removed.

2.3.1 Agencies can demonstrate that they have identified how to most effectively engage with participants, including if barriers to participation need to be removed and if reasonable adjustment is required.

2.3.2 Agencies can demonstrate that they have sought to achieve an ‘optimal mix’ of participants for the exercise—such that an appropriate balance of views is represented.

2.4 Understanding stakeholders’ capacity and willingness to contribute and preferred methods.

2.4.1 Agencies can demonstrate that they have developed a good understanding of the key, potential participants.

2.5 Confirming that stakeholders understand their roles in the decision-making process.

2.5.1 The objective and scope of the exercise have been explicitly communicated to the participants.

2.5.2 Agencies have ensured that participants understand the government’s priorities and their resulting level of influence on the decision to be made.

Element 3: Identify the resources, skills and time required for effective public participation

Engagement mechanisms and tools to facilitate the participation need to be appropriately matched to participants’ needs. A ‘one size fits all’ approach is not likely to provide meaningful input into the decision, and it is not unusual to need a mix of different engagement approaches to facilitate meaningful engagement for different participants.

This also includes public participation capability—just like facilities management or HR, public participation is a specialist skill, and so an effective participation exercise may sometimes require engaging additional staff or specialist resources.

Identifying the time required for meaningful participation is also essential, and was an issue stakeholders frequently raised with us in developing this guide. Rushed public participation exercises create scepticism amongst participants, and cannot realise the true benefit of participation.

What we will look for

We will look for evidence that agencies have identified the resources, skills and time frame required to undertake the participation exercise as defined under Element 1.

This is set out in detail below.

3 Identify the resources, skills and time required for effective public participation by:

3.1 Describing the resources required to ensure an effective participation process.

3.1.1 Agencies can demonstrate that the resources identified are sufficient and appropriate to achieve the objectives of the participation exercise.

3.2 Identifying the skills necessary to meaningfully engage with all participants.

3.2.1 Agencies have identified the specialist skills or assistance that may be required to carry out the participation exercise, and how to source them.

3.2.2 Where appropriate, agency staff have undertaken any training necessary to enable them to effectively facilitate the participation exercise.

3.3 Estimating the time required to ensure an effective participation process.

3.3.1 Agencies can demonstrate that the time frames identified are sufficient and appropriate to allow for meaningful participation.

Element 4: Document the public participation and management approach

It is important that public participation exercises, like any other project activities, are clearly documented in a plan that is the end-to-end roadmap for successful implementation.

The length and detail of the documentation will depend on the scale and complexity of the public participation exercise. However, the underlying aims remain the same—to clearly and adequately document a plan of action for agencies to follow and use to assess whether they are achieving the objectives of the public participation exercise.

For example, the plan for a local council that is commissioning a survey about changes to a local park will need to meet all of the requirements. By comparison, the level of detail about things such as the resources and skill sets required, and the approach to monitoring and evaluation, is likely to be greater for public participation in decision-making around statewide urban planning.

Setting out a clear plan for implementing the participation exercise is critical to following through on the essential planning work undertaken through Elements 1, 2 and 3.

What we will look for

We will look for evidence of a plan that is appropriately customised to the participation exercise.

This is set out in detail below.

4 Document the public participation and management approach including:

4.1 Documenting the finalised public participation decision, objectives, scope, stakeholders included and the approaches to be used.

4.1.1 Agencies have clearly described these foundational aspects of the plan and explained the rationale underpinning them—see Elements 1, 2 and 3.

4.1.2 Agencies can demonstrate a clear and equitable process for engaging with stakeholders, including understanding and responding to any concerns.

4.1.3 Agencies’ plans incorporate effective mechanisms for communicating the results of the public participation activities to stakeholders, including how these were used in the decision-making process and the final decision made.

4.1.4 Agencies have documented how they will capture the participants’ input to inform the decision being made so that the resulting records are a complete and accurate reflection of the participation.

4.2 Identifying the risks that threaten the objectives and how these will be monitored and managed.

4.2.1 Agencies have identified the risks to the objectives of the public participation exercise—particularly those that rate highly.

4.2.2 Agencies can demonstrate that they have understood, mitigated and/or managed these risks,

including situations where time or resource constraints have meant a compromised approach to public participation.

4.3 Setting the governance and management structure for achieving the objectives.

4.3.1 Agencies have defined a management structure for the public participation exercise that has the capacity to successfully deliver and monitor the exercise while defining clear responsibilities for achieving the objectives. The approach needs to have appropriate senior management endorsement.

4.4 The monitoring, feedback and evaluation processes.

4.4.1 Agencies have clearly described how progress will be measured in terms of time lines, resource use and achieving the public participation objectives.

4.4.1 Agencies have put in place a clear approach for evaluating success, including outcome measures to assess the achievement of objectives and a post-participation process for evaluating and reporting on the success of the exercise.

Element 5: Implement the public participation plan and monitor its progress

A good plan is irrelevant if agencies are not capable of, or committed to, applying its actions and successfully managing the risks that affect its progress. This element focuses on how well the public participation process is monitored and managed.

What we will look for

We will look for evidence that public participation exercise has been implemented as described in the plan.

This is set out in detail below.

5 Implement the public participation plan and monitor its progress by:

5.1 Applying the public participation approach as intended

5.1.1 Agencies can show how they applied a planned approach by completing intended actions according to the objectives, time lines and resources documented in their plans.

5.2 Monitoring progress in terms of budget, time lines, and meeting the objectives

5.2.1 Agencies have evidence that they monitored expenditure, progress against time lines and progress towards achieving the intended objectives of the public participation exercise.

5.3 Appropriately monitoring and responding to risks

5.3.1 Agencies can demonstrate how they monitored and appropriately responded to the risks identified during the planning of the public participation exercise

Element 6: Evaluate the public participation exercise and apply continuous improvement

While the amount of effort should be tailored to the scale of the project, all public expenditure should be evaluated to confirm that it achieved the intended result. Over many years the poor evaluation of projects has been a recurring finding in VAGO’s performance audits.

Failing to evaluate public participation means agencies have no clear understanding about whether they have successfully engaged the community and achieved the objectives of the public participation exercise, and whether they should address any weaknesses and learn from their experiences in future public participation exercises.

What we will look for

We will look for evidence that agencies have, after completion of the public participation exercise, evaluated the outcomes against the objectives, and documented the lessons and recommendations for improvement.

This is set out in detail below.

6 Evaluate the public participation exercise and apply continuous improvement by:

6.1 Assessing whether they have achieved public participation objectives.

6.1.1 Agencies have applied a clear and appropriate evaluation framework to assess the success of the public participation exercise against the objectives set at the outset.

6.1.2 Agencies have consulted the stakeholders involved to understand their perceptions of the weaknesses and strengths of the public participation exercise and potential areas for improvement.

6.1.3 Specifically, agencies should be able to demonstrate that they:

• accurately understood and reflected the views and opinions provided by participants
• documented the results of the evaluation.

6.2 Documenting and applying the lessons.

6.2.1 Agencies have adequately identified areas for improvement and documented a plan for integrating these into their ongoing operations.