Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization that aims to bridge gaps between public and leaders through stakeholder opinion research, citizen education, and public engagement programs. Traditional forms of public input like public hearings are often ineffective because they come too late, don't frame issues well, and don't give meaningful deliberation opportunities. Effective engagement requires strategies like focus groups, stakeholder dialogues, and community conversations that incorporate principles like listening to concerns, providing the right information, and responding thoughtfully. These approaches can make decision making more legitimate, informed, and sustainable.

1. Public & Stakeholder Engagement
Fram for Deliberation
ing
Engaging for Change
Building Civic Capacity

2. About Public Agenda
•Nonprofit, nonpartisan
•Mission:
– Bridge gaps between public & leaders
– Foster public dialogue & collaborative problem solving
•Major components:
– Stakeholder opinion research
– Citizen education materials
– Public & stakeholder engagement tools & programs
2
2

3. Why New Approaches are Needed
•Confidence in leaders & institutions continues to decline
•Communication gaps between leaders, experts & the public obstruct
effective problem solving
•Traditional communications strategies are often insufficient
•Typical models for gaining “public input” exacerbate cynicism &
reinforce hostile, partisan rhetoric
3

4. Business as Usual vs. Authentic Engagement
Business as Usual Authentic Engagement
•Expert-driven, elite decision •Decision making is more inclusive &
making collaborative
•Top-down, one-way • Two-way communication
communication
•Public/stakeholders deliberate, citizens
•Experts debate, citizens viewed as viewed as valuable resources, co-owners,
spectators or customers partners in problem solving
4

5. Why Bother?
Public engagement makes decision making & problem solving:
• More legitimate – process is open, transparent, inclusive, collaborative
• Better quality – leaders & public are better informed, can generate clarity &
even totally new ideas
• More sustainable – can help leaders anticipate concerns & sticking points,
inoculate public against hostile partisanship
In the best cases:
Public engagement strengthens civic capacity, creates new partnerships, more
knowledgeable public, more trust in officials, & more momentum for sustainable
progress on tough problems
5

6. Traditional Approaches Ineffective
The most familiar ways of involving the public are frequently the least effective.
– Public Hearing or “Town Hall”
– Expert Panel
Ineffective because they typically:
•come in too late in the process
•fail to frame issues for deliberation
•fail to give citizens meaningful opportunities to grapple together
6

7. Ten Principles of Effective Engagement
•Begin by listening
•Attend to people’s concerns
•Reach beyond the usual suspects
Frame issues for deliberation, not debate
•Provide the right type & amount of information at
the right time
7

8. Ten Principles of Effective Engagement
•Help people move beyond wishful thinking
•Expect obstacles & resistances
•Create multiple, varied opportunities for deliberation
and dialogue
Respond thoughtfully & conscientiously to the public’s
involvement
•Build long-term capacity as you go
8

9. Engagement Strategies
Three examples of more effective engagement strategies & practices:
• Focus Groups are a good starting point
• Stakeholder Dialogues are a useful tool to span silos & build bridges
• Community Conversations are broadly inclusive vehicles for building
civic capacity
Online engagement strategies can complement & support any of the
above
Different goals require different strategies
9

10. Focus Groups: A Good Starting Point
Strengths
•Can help you get a clear sense of different stakeholders’ starting point
attitudes (vital for deliberative issue framing)
•Good way to get input in a controlled setting
Weaknesses
•Because it is a research tool, not a “public process,” it does not foster
legitimacy or inspire new forms of creative collaboration
•Does not strengthen civic capacity
10

11. Stakeholder Dialogues
Strengths
•Like focus groups, they allow you to select target groups (can be homogenous or
mixed groups)
•Can be very effective for strategic planning & needs assessment
•Potentially powerful tool for bridging gaps between experts/researchers
& between elected officials/policymakers
Weaknesses
•Lack of broad public involvement can exacerbate “spectator” model of citizensh
•Can be dominated by “usual suspects”
11

12. Community Conversations
•Nonpartisan coalition sponsors/organizers
•Diverse cross-section of participants
•Small, diverse dialogue groups
•Discussion materials framed for deliberation that help citizens weigh
alternatives (Choicework)
•Trained, non-partisan moderators & recorders
•Strategic follow-up
12

13. Community Conversations
Strengths
•Tend to reach the largest number of people & to gain the broadest input
•Can generate positive press coverage & raise general awareness
•Bring new ideas, resources & partners to an initiative
•Can build ongoing capacity for public engagement & improve the culture
of decision making
Weaknesses
•Labor-intensive & usually requires some outside technical assistance
•Risk of alienating public if key principles aren’t taken seriously
13

14. Final Words of Advice
•Be clear about your goals, choose strategies appropriate to those goals
•Choose partners that lend credibility to your effort (e.g. “unlikely
bedfellows”)
•Seek technical assistance from nonpartisan intermediary organizations
that don’t have “a dog in the fight”
•Take the time to do it right
14