COLLABORATIVE CITIZEN PLANNING

A NEW MODEL FOR PLANNING WITH THE COMMUNITY

 

BACKGROUND

Recent federal laws, such as The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21), its predecessor transportation funding act called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act (ISTEA) of 1991, and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, link the development of transportation planning with the attainment of national air quality standards. In addition, they emphasize much greater community and private sector involvement in developing plans and programs. These acts also emphasize that a full range of stakeholders in communities potentially affected by large public improvement projects need to be engaged. The transportation legislation, in particular, places a premium on designing local citizen participation into the planning of these projects based on a consensus process that encourages flexibility and promotes dialogue between diverse groups and conflicting interests.

The need for broad public participation underlies these changes in previous law. The roles of citizens and interest groups are enhanced to include early and meaningful participation in developing plans from the beginning of the process to its end. Traditional public involvement procedures have generally considered the direct input of communities in the final stages of a linear process in which the state or local agency staff prepare a plan or project and then attempts to "sell it" to various constituents including citizen groups, environmental organizations, and businesses. The following section addresses why it is important for local and state planning officials to take a more proactive role in meeting with these constituencies and by sponsoring outreach, training, and technical assistance efforts that enable them to be fully functioning partners in the planning process.

The Need for Greater Participation

In discharging their citizen participation obligations as part of the planning process, many state and local agencies continue to rely heavily on traditional planning mechanisms, such as ad hoc committees, specially appointed task forces, citizen advisory committees, and legalistic public hearings. When participating in any kind of planning effort, citizens are generally likely to react to individual projects that may adversely impact them in the short term, particular controversial ones in their community, rather than long-range planning that addresses future needs of the community or region, such as reducing air pollution or reducing the overall number of vehicular miles traveled. It can be difficult to generate and maintain public interest during the planning of major projects because of the lengthy timeframe they sometimes require (e.g., community revitalization plans or the 2020 Transportation Plan) and the significant amount of time it takes to complete them (e.g., 8-9 years in the case of the Springfield Interchange). Much of the analyses, such as office or retail space projections or travel demand forecast modeling, used in the planning process are highly technical and difficult to understand for busy citizens able to spend only short periods of time focused on the project. Moreover, these details are of even less interest to a transient population that may not even be planning to be residing in the community five years from now.

Compounding these difficulties is the fact that the relationships between transportation, land use, and the environment are complex and that there is generally a lack of public understanding about the many ways that these factors interact with one another. These factors tend to give the planning process the appearance of a process that, at times, is more like an academic endeavor rather than the development of a plan or project that will guide future development in the community. The challenge for transportation planners and community leaders is to make the community planning process compelling, the process used to develop the plan easy to understand, and the benefits of participation attractive to those (e.g., citizens, small businesses, etc.) who stand to be affected by the outcomes of the planning process.

Where state and local officials fail to do this, no community consensus emerges and there is no "buy in" to the plans or the project by the citizens. Government agencies are then frequently faced with seemingly unwarranted delays as the community begins to realize the impact that the proposed project will have on their lives. Avoidance of these kinds of delays requires that elected officials and planning agencies broaden their view of citizen participation. These entails implementing a number of initiatives:

Þ Present information at special conferences, workshops, community meetings, civic organization presentations, and public hearings, both orally and in writing, in a format that can be readily understood outside professional planning circles.

Þ A comprehensive citizens outreach and notification program that enables new relationships of mutual trust and understanding to be developed around the overall planning process as well as specific projects.

Þ Involvement of the public early in the project planning process, so that citizens are involved in a meaningful dialogue on plan and project options and there is sufficient time for a community consensus on solutions to emerge.

Þ Fully analyze citizen suggestions, be prepared to explain their advantages and disadvantages to them, and to explain why they may or may not be feasible to implement from a technical standpoint.

Þ Timely public notice of opportunities for citizen involvement in the plan and project decisions.

Þ Seek out and consider the needs of traditionally underserved populations, such as seniors, low-income households, the mentally and physically disabled, youth, and minority households.

Þ View community groups as resources, rather than problems, by engaging them in early, continuous, and meaningful ways throughout the planning and project implementation phases.

With the growing empowerment of community groups through recent federal legislation, the Internet, inexpensive email communication, and an increasingly knowledgeable citizenry, citizens are demanding more of a role in preparing plans or projects that affect them, their families, and community. Trying to elicit their participation near the end of the plan development or project planning phases (whether perfunctorily or with genuine intent to belatedly engage them) has often resulted in opposition that ultimately results in the defeat or deferral of a particular plan or project while costs continue to escalate. The key to preventing these kinds of occurrences is to view citizens as partners in effectively addressing planning and project issues through collaborative planning.

The Public Involvement/Citizen Collaboration Continuum

Phrases like "public involvement" and "collaborative decision making" tend to trigger different images among people, depending on their personal experiences with such endeavors. The goal is to move beyond the image of citizens lodging formal comments with public officials at the end of the planning process or project-planning phase. Instead, the process should focus on the image of citizens and public officials engaging as peers in an ongoing conversation. The challenge for elected officials, planning professionals, and community group leaders is how to create the opportunities for such dialogue. A clarification of terminology can be helpful.

Public involvement generally refers to a two-way communication process between public sector decision makers on the one hand and the public-at-large on the other hand. It includes the agency’s effort to inform the public about decisions being considered and the process by which the public communicates its views on these decisions to the agency. Usually, problem solving that needs to occur as a result of differences between the staff’s analysis and the public’s views is done by the agency staff or elected officials following public input. Public involvement has at times emphasized "telling" the public and at other times "selling" a plan or project to the public. It is important that the public be able to influence the process throughout its various phases, from shaping the process and defining the issues to choosing the alternatives considered and identifying potential mitigation measures.

The primary benefit of conducting public involvement activities in this spirit is that the resulting decisions are likely to be seen as legitimate, even if their contents do not completely satisfactory to everyone. The public tends to be almost as concerned about the process by which decisions are made, and the respect with which their views are treated, as they are about the substance of a public agency’s decisions.

Collaborative problem solving can be thought of as a specialized form of public involvement in which consensus building is used throughout the decision making process. Rather than consulting with the public on its views and then going back to the office to figure out how to reconcile differences, the staff works proactively with members of the public and interest groups to develop mutually agreeable solutions together. In a collaborative process, different types of stakeholders are involved in different ways, depending on factors such as their respective levels of interest in the issues, the time they have available to participate, and whether they represent others or solely themselves.

The basic framework for creating a multiple tier public involvement process is:

Þ primary stakeholders are typically brought together in a working group for face-to-face collaborative problem solving

Þ secondary stakeholders are offered multiple ways to participate in forums held throughout the process

Þ the "public at-large" is kept informed of the proceedings and invited to participate in open forums.

Collaborative problem-solving processes include the following stakeholders:

Þ those who are, or could be, significantly affected by the plan or project, either directly or indirectly

Þ those who could ensure implementation of potential solutions, including representatives of relevant governmental agencies

Þ those who could block implementation of potential solutions.

Principles of Collaboration

Collaborative problem solving tend to be more time and resource intensive than traditional public involvement approaches. Its fundamental principles are:

Þ Inclusiveness – all stakeholders must have a meaningful voice in the planning process, so that their input is reflected in the final product(s) developed.

Þ Variety of ways to become involved – each stakeholder need not be involved in the same way; a variety of ways can meet stakeholders’ varying levels of availability and investment in the project.

Þ Planning process itself is subject to approval by stakeholders – the decision-making agency staff work with a representative group of stakeholders to develop the preliminary process design that, when the group is satisfied with the design, is presented to the full group of participants at community meetings designed to discuss it and negotiate any modifications necessary for all stakeholders to feel comfortable with it.

Þ Planning process goes beyond search for an acceptable compromise – consensus-based decision making strives for three kinds of satisfaction for all stakeholders; while not always possible, seeking it helps change the dynamics from adversarial to collegial. By working toward a common goal, the group can mobilize around proposed solutions developed by the group, rather than each participant asserting and defending their respective solutions.

· Substantive satisfaction – refers to the kind of satisfaction that most readily comes to mind when a negotiated agreement is considered, whether or not the agreement contains the provision sought by a given participant.

· Procedural satisfaction – refers to whether or not participants perceived the planning process to be fair.

· Psychological satisfaction – refers to whether or not participants felt that their views were heard, respected, and carefully considered by other participants.

Þ Planning process is linked effectively to conventional process already in place – being linked to the formal process gives the process legitimacy; otherwise, it would be simply a time-consuming exercise.

A Four-Stage Collaborative Planning Model

While there is no single model that can reflect all circumstances, successful collaboration depends on openness to different ways of doing things to reach a community consensus. The model presented below provides a framework for working with stakeholders in a particular community on its overall comprehensive plan, plans for targeted communities (e.g., Merrifield Revitalization District), and specific land use and transportation projects. The four stages of this consensus-building model are: (1) Getting Started; (2) Defining the Task; (3) Making Choices; and (4) Implementing Decisions. Although these stages are presented in a linear fashion here, participants in such processes typically do a significant amount of "cycling back", or reiterative feedback, to earlier stages as they progress toward consensus on a series of complex issues.

1. Getting Started

The goal of this stage is to design a collaborative process that all stakeholders are satisfied with and can use as a vehicle for working toward a mutually acceptable transportation plan or project. One party among the various stakeholders generally initiates the process by:

· Identifying stakeholders;

· Making initial contact with stakeholders, usually through interviews, to explore their interest in participating;

· Assessing the input received from stakeholders as a group, determining whether collaboration still seems appropriate, and (if so) drafting a preliminary process design; and

· Convening stakeholders to negotiate agreement on the process design.

Completion of this stage occurs when stakeholders agree on a written description of a planning process that reflects the collaborative principles described in the previous section. The process design should identify:

· The goals and desired products of the planning effort;

· The convening entity;

· An initial list of stakeholders;

· Specific types of forums that will be used to involve different types of stakeholders;

· A diagram showing how these different forums relate to one another and how this process, as a whole, relates to the conventional process; and

· A timeline for the planning process.

This stage lays the groundwork for the substantive negotiations by making sure everyone understands and agrees to the process design before proceeding. This should minimize the likelihood of future challenges to the planning process itself and begin to instill stakeholders with confidence that they are capable of reaching agreement on subsequent, more complex, issues.

2. Defining the Task

The goals of this stage are to: (1) develop a shared definition of what the stakeholders are trying to achieve through the collaborative process; and (2) develop a variety of options for how to go about achieving that end. Stakeholders will discuss the objective of the specific plan or project and propose a variety of projects, priorities, and strategies for possible inclusion in the final document. A period of mutual education occurs during which participants identify their constituents’ issues and explain their concerns to the rest of the group. They also work toward a joint understanding of the problems they are addressing.

It is usually necessary to gather information during this stage, having jointly agreed on such elements as:

· The type of data needed;

· Credible sources of that data;

· Who should collect and analyze it; and

· How it should be analyzed.

By making these decisions jointly, participants avoid future disputes over the credibility of data fundamental to the development of solutions.

As participants begin to understand one another’s issues and concerns, they generate a range of options for addressing them. Participants should be creative in generating as many different options as possible, with formal evaluation of them deferred until the next stage. Completion occurs when participants agree on: (1) a written definition of the "problem" they are all working on to address; and (2) a comprehensive list of substantive options for addressing the particular transportation plan or project.

3. Making Choices

The goal of this stage is to select a proposed solution to the group’s shared problem from among the options previously identified. The first step is for the stakeholders to list all possible criteria by which they could evaluate the options. The next step is for the stakeholders to negotiate agreement on which criteria should actually be used. It is incumbent on all stakeholders to agree to look for a solution that best meets the collective list of criteria. Once the participants have agreed on the evaluation criteria they agree to use, they apply the criteria to each option and move toward a solution by eliminating the impractical options, gathering more information on certain options, and combining two or more options.

When stakeholders have put together a proposed solution that is agreed upon by the group, they then can develop an implementation plan. Completion of this stage occurs when the group has drafted a mutually acceptable solution to the specific plan or project, as well as an accompanying implementation plan.

4. Implementing Decisions

The primary objective of this stage is to obtain formal approval for the changes the group has proposed. This might be presentations of: (1) a citizen/community-based vision statement for the community or region to the elected officials or the public agency agency; (2) a draft plan (including prioritization of projects) to the appropriate public body; (3) a preliminary technical feasibility study (e.g., citizen White Paper, Major Investment Study MIS, etc.) undertaken for a specific community plan or public agency project; or (4) a formal Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Study (EIS).

The first step of this final stage of a collaborative planning and process is to present the proposed solution to decisionmakers for ratification. Frequently, a representative subgroup of stakeholders who participated in the collaborative process will "walk the proposal through" the approval process to demonstrate the multi-interest support the proposal has achieved. Providing that decisionmakers (along with a full range of stakeholders) have been adequately represented in the collaborative process, ratification of such a consensus-based plan or project is usually a pro forma process. Completion occurs when the desired results of the solution proposed is ratified and documented.

Elected officials or public agencies can institutionalize the collaboration required throughout this process for community planning and projects by establishing policies that:

· Approve the procedural protocols, defining when and how such a process can be used;

· Establish a timely funding mechanism; and

· Pre-qualify a pool of facilitators.

Measuring Success of the Collaborative Planning Process

Any evaluation of success should be based on what have been identified by the group as the goals and objectives of the project. Criteria can be used to measure the agency or policy body achievement of their objectives. Obviously, the more measurable the objectives, the easier it will be to evaluate the progress made toward achieving them. Objectives, however, will usually be both quantifiable and qualitative and spur corresponding evaluation criteria.

There are a range of beneficial outcomes that may emerge from a collaborative process besides an agreement to adopt a specific community plan or capital improvements project. These might include an agreement concerning the process for addressing a problem(s), clarification of issues and perspectives through joint analysis, an agreement to disagree, and improved working relationships that can positively affect future projects. Evaluation of the process might consider:

· Length of the planning period;

· Cost of the planning process;

· Whether the plan or project is challenged and, if so, costs associated with the challenge;

· Quality of the plan or project (e.g., measured by actual implementation or project completion);

· Stakeholders’ level of satisfaction with the process used to develop the plan or project;

· Stakeholders’ level of satisfaction with the contents of the plan or project;

· Impact on working relationships (e.g., between the public agencies and the public, inter-governmental agencies, the public agencies and local elected officials, state agencies and local government agencies and elected officials, local elected officials and the public);

· Impact on the government agency’s credibility; and

· Impact on the government agency’s staff’s morale and efficiency.

Among the methods to measure the success of the collaborative process developed around a specific community plan or project are:

· Mail-in responses distributed as newsletter inserts (e.g., Supervisor’s office and community organizations’ newsletter surveys);

· Evaluation forms filled out by the participants;

· Special meetings to discuss accomplishment midway through the process;

· Open comment periods scheduled throughout the process, including regularly scheduled elected officials’ and public agency meetings;

· Peer review panels composed of community planning experts (including consultants, professors, state and local officials, and neighboring jurisdiction planning professionals, or sister state agencies) brought in to comment on the draft process design;

· Oversight committees comprised of representative samples of participating stakeholders;

· Analysis of press coverage afforded the collaborative process employed for a specific community plan or project;

· Questionnaire or interviews of stakeholder representatives, citizens, elected officials, and public agency staff; and

· Analysis of date and information in the public agency’s files.

The model described above is meant to form the foundation upon which a citizen collaborative planning process can be built. While the fundamental principles of early, meaningful, and continuous involvement of citizens lies at the heart of this process, individual elements of the process will necessarily differ among projects based on the consensus reached among the unique stakeholders involved in each specific case. The Fairfax Coalition for Smarter Growth is advancing this concept as one way of achieving a more meaningful level of citizen involvement in developing community plans and guiding major capital projects that may have already begun under a more traditional philosophy of public involvement. The Coalition believes that this approach offers a structure for greater participatory democracy than now exists in Fairfax County as we enter the 21^st Century.