Slides showing SPI questions, photos, SPI protocols and SPI analysis

1. High Performance Participatory Processes
for Improved Governance
Keiron Bailey, University of Arizona
Ted Grossardt, University of Kentucky
John Ripy, University of Kentucky

2. Louisville Transit Development project (2002)

3. Louisville Bridges Project.
Dr. Ted Grossardt leads public meeting, Louisville, KY.
Hundreds of participants, open public meetings, 2005-06

4. Land Use Project. Simpson County, KY (2007)

5. Bridges Project. Madison, IN.
Larger public meeting (2010)

6. PGDP Small focus group (2010)

7. John Ripy and Ted Grossardt
Democratic
Bridge Building
by Doug Tattershall
Ted Grossardt learned about democratic decision-making on the family
farm in Claflin, a town of 700 people in the middle of Kansas. This community
is guided by the farmer cooperative, an institution that strongly supports farm
families. After graduating from college, Grossardt returned to work on the
family farm and also served on this cooperative. The winning design has tall,
H-shaped towers. This rendering shows the bridge as it will appear when it is
completed in 2020. research center in the UK College of Engineering, but
Grossardt’s work on improving public satisfaction with bridges and other public
projects was inspired by his work on the co-op. “The idea that large groups of
people can effectively make decisions is something I grew up with,” says
Grossardt, who came to UK in 1993 to pursue a doctorate in geography and
worked at the Transportation Center while completing his degree. His
experience with the farmer cooperative has served him well…….

8. SPI Meeting Questions

9. How Did You Hear About this Meeting?
(choose up to 3)
1. Radio 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%
2. Newspaper
3. Flyers
4. Neighborhood Councils
5. Television
6. Online-Website
7. Other
rs
o
er
er
n
e
s
di
io
sit
c il
e
ap
h
Fly
Ra
vis
Ot
un
eb
sp
le
Co
W
w
Te
e-
Ne
d
lin
oo
On
o rh
hb
ig
Ne

10. How Young Are You?
1. 5-15 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12%
2. 16-25
3. 26-35
4. 36-45
5. 46-55
6. 56-65
7. 66-75
8. 76-infinity
ity
15
5
5
5
5
5
5
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
5-
fi n
16
26
36
46
56
66
-in
76

11. Female or Male?
1. Female 50% 50%
2. Male
e
ale
al
M
m
Fe

12. Some Things I Do
(choose up to 3)
1. Business Owner 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12%
2. Student
3. Retired
4. Work Part Time
5. Work Full Time
6. Looking for Work
7. Parent
8. Volunteer
..
nt
e
d
r
nt
e
er
ne
o.
im
im
e
re
de
te
ti r
W
w
lT
tT
Pa
n
u
Re
sO
r
lu
St
l
r
fo
Fu
Pa
Vo
es
ng
k
k
si n
or
or
ki
W
o
Bu
W
Lo

13. The Arnstein Ladder: Degrees of Citizen Participation (Arnstein
1969)
8
Citizen Control Degrees of citizen power
7
Delegated Power
6
Partnership
Degrees of tokenism
5
Placation
4
Consultation
3
Informing
Nonparticipation
2
Therapy
1
Manipulation

14. The Arnstein Ladder (Arnstein 1969)
1. Where are we now?
2. Where should we be?

15. Where are we now?
0% 1. Manipulation
33% 2. Therapy
33% 3. Information
33% 4. Consultation
0% 5. Collaboration
0% 6. Partnership
0% 7. Delegated power
0% 8. Citizen control

16. Where should we be?
0% 1. Manipulation
0% 2. Therapy
0% 3. Information
33% 4. Consultation
0% 5. Collaboration
67% 6. Partnership
0% 7. Delegated power
0% 8. Citizen control

17. How SPI fits into a larger project context

18. PGDP Future Vision Project
www.uky.edu/krcee/project23.html

20. Site Facts
• Total Federal Acreage: 3,556
• Gaseous Diffusion Plant Acreage: 748
• Total Number of Buildings: 161
• Process Buildings: 4
• Process Building Dimensions: 1,100 ft. long, 970 ft. wide, 90 ft. high
• Process Building Acreage Under Roof: 74 acres
• Number of Enrichment Stages: 1,760
• Peak Design Power Capacity: 3,040 megawatts
• Largest Process Motor: 3,300 horsepower
• Water Utilization: 26 million gallons per day
• Number of Control Instruments: 85,000
• Miles of Process Piping: 400 (approximately) Miles of Roadway: 19
• Miles of Railroad: 9 Miles of Perimeter Fence: 5 miles
• Number of Employees: 1200
• Annual Regional Economic Impact: $147 million *www.usec.com

21. Project Goal: Assist the local
community to identify a vision
TVA DOE
for the future use of the
PGDP site (3,556 acres). leased to
WKWMA
Project Funding: Federal 1,986 ac
earmark facilitated by
Senators McConnell,
Bunning, and
Representative Whitfield.
DOE
Controlled
Areas
822 ac DOE
Security
Area
748 ac
WKWMA

22. Guding Principles
Citizen Control Ladder of Citizen • Foster Citizen Power
Participation • Follow principles in “Politics
(Arnstein 1969)
of Cleanup”
Delegated Power
Examined
Citizen Power community
Partnership involvement in
cleanup activities at:
Placation 1) Rocky Flats
2) Mound
3) Oak Ridge
Consultation Tokenism
and made
recommendations
Informing
• Use Community Based
Participatory Communication
Therapy Non Process
Participation
• Use Structured Public
Manipulation Involvement Process

23. PGDP Future Vision Process
Future Vision Advisory Panel (Representatives Drawn from Stakeholders)
(1) Stakeholder (2) Stakeholder (3) Stakeholder
Interviews Focus Groups Community
Meeting (s)
Report
Community
CBPC SPI Future
Vision
Assessment Final Community
Protocol/ Scenario Preference
Initial Matrix Database
Scenarios
UK/KRCEE

24. Example Scenario Matrix
Future Vision Categories Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
1 2 3 4
Land Use: Plant Site
a. Nuclear Industry
:
z. Residential Apartments
Land Use: Surrounding Area
a. Nuclear Industry
:
z. Residential Apartments
Waste Disposal
a. On-site
b. Partial
c. Off-site
Groundwater
a. Water Policy & Active Treatment
:
z. Monitoring & Enhanced Inst. Controls

25. Example Scenario Fact Sheet
Trends:
Energy Needs
Economic
Environmental
Uncertainties:
Funding
Regulations
Demographics
Impacts:
Health
Economic
Environmental

26. (2) Stakeholder Focus Groups
(Community based participatory communication - Dr. Chike Anyaegbunam - UK)
3) Focus group critiques process
Focus Group Each Team Each team Each team Focus
divided into Provided identifies presents Group:
Teams Fact key their 1) Critiques
Sheet issues results scenarios
for a and/or to the 2) Identifies
Potential additional total additional
Scenario data needs stakeholder data needs
for their group
Scenario

27. Stakeholder Categories
• Federal and State Agencies (DOE, EPA, TVA, USF&W, KYDWM, KYDOW, KYF&W)
• Federal & state representatives and local government
• Residents near the facility
• Employees at the plant
• Environmental/Health Activists
• Economic Development Community
– Including KYCED
• Healthcare Community
• Education Community
• Media
• Religious/Spiritual Community
• Recreation/Tourism/Wildlife
• Regional Stakeholders (Ballard County, Metropolis)
• THE SILENT MAJORITY

28. (3) Stakeholder Community Meeting
(Structured Public Involvement - Dr. Ted Grossardt - UK)
Future State
Visualizations
Vote on Scenarios
Discussion
Future Vision Using Keypads
Scenarios
Fact Sheets

29. Community Preference Model
(CAsewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE) - Dr. Keiron Bailey - UA)
Fuzzy Knowledge Builder Good Bad
Solution Solution
5 3 3 3 3
5 3 1 1 3
5 7 5 1 3
8 7 5 3 3
9 8 5 3 3
Sampled Scenarios Modeled Scenarios Solution Evaluation

31. •Wildlife
DOE-WMA Management Area
Property on PGDP and DOE-
Boundary WKMA Land
Softball/
PGDP Plant Soccer/Rec. •Recreation Areas
Boundary Area on DOE-WKWMA
Land
•No WDA
•Groundwater
Treatment Across
Extent of
Contamination
Expanded
Wildlife
Wildlife Management
Management Area
Area
Golf Existing Uranium
Course/Rec. Hexaflouride (UF-6)
Area Plant and Cylinder
Yard

32. WMA Alternative from NE

33. Institutional control with expanded WMA (from South)

34. Future Vision TIMELINE
Stakeholder
Community
Stakeholder Stakeholder Meeting (s) Develop
Interviews Focus Groups Final Report
Community
CBPC SPI End State
Vision
4/09 -8/09 9/09 -12/09 1/10 -5/10 6/10 -8/10

35. Actual Scenario Scoring Data from SPI phase

46. Recent Demographic Analysis of Wikipedians
http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Age_Gender_30March%202010-FINAL-3.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/wikipedia-known-unknowns-geotagging-knowledge

48. Metrics: addressing the “I” metric
McCracken County Age Distribution Ballard County Age Distribution
1400
12,000
1200
10,000
1000
8,000
800
6,000
600
4,000
400
2,000
200
0
0
Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years
Under 5 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 years
years years years years years years years years years years years years and over
years years years years years years years years years years years 48 over
and

50. ComDec. Who are we? And why listen?
Innovators of Structured Public Involvement
Fourteen years of high performance process design.
More than thirty successful public involvement projects.
Variety of partners (e.g. FHWA, FTA, NSF, State DoTs, MPOs,
private consultants).
Ten thousand stakeholders involved.
Fifty peer-review publications.
Committee memberships on National Academies panels.
Service on professional organizations, journal, grant proposal
review from environmental management to civil engineering.
Largest Arnstein Ladder data set published.
Largest Q-metric data set for public processes.
SPI. Just Google it!

51. What is this?
This is not:
Deliberative democracy e.g. AS, Public Agenda.
Unstructured public involvement.
Focus group/Consensus-seeking approach.
This is:
About performance metrics and conflicts.
What/why/how.
About justice and equity, as measured by participants as well
as process designers.
Jerry Maguire: “Show me……the DATA!”
Suggestions on how to get there.

52. Characteristics of effective process
Philosophy of stakeholder involvement
John Rawls Procedural Justice
Methodological considerations
Partitioning of decision environment into feasible domain for
public input
Resist gaming from inside and outside process
Be seen to do so
Scalability, simultaneity, anonymity, transparency,
segmentation
Decision support system: how to achieve effective decision
making under uncertainty

53. Process Metrics: Q, I, C and E
Criterion Indicator Data
Inclusion Number of organizations, Count attendees,
citizens and groups participant groups
Process quality Satisfaction Open quality evaluation
Clarity/utility of decision Expert evaluation Testimonials, narratives,
support comparisons to state of
the art methods
Efficiency Cost and time $ spent on public
involvement, time taken
and demanded

54. Metrics: Q
Mean satisfaction with SPI Processes
Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)
Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)
Bypass study (KY, 2008)
Land Use Planning (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 5 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 4 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 3 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 2 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 1 (KY, 2005)
Bridge AAT (KY, 2005)
Noisew all Design (AZ, 2006)
Noisew all Design (KY, 2004)
Transit Oriented Development (KY, 2002)
Rural Highw ay improvement (KY, 2000)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

55. Metrics for PGDP Visioning: Q
Mean
Meeting 4
Meeting 3 Meeting 4
Meeting 3
Meeting 2
Meeting 2 Meeting 1
Meeting 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

56. Metrics: I
Numbers of attendees.
PGDP ~220 plus ~70
Interstate widening ~70
Highway rehabilitation ~100
Land use planning in IN town ~90
Bridge design 1, Louisville ~300
Bridge design Western KY ~600
Segmentation of participation.
Third-party evaluation narratives.
Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)
“I’ve never seen this level of public involvement before”
Resident of minority neighborhood (Transit-Oriented Development, 2002)
“I wish my neighbors were here”
Resident of retirement community (Noisewall Design 2006)
“Thank you. Your team is doing a good job”

57. Metrics: C

58. Metrics: C
Federal official (Bridge project 2005-07)
“I had never been through a process using this type of activity. This was very
transparent, very open, available to all stakeholders. There’s a lot more credibility from
the public’s perspective this way.”
Federal official (Bridge project 2005-07)
“We were very impressed. The polling process gave a true picture of what the public
liked and didn’t like and the final designed reflected that. We thought the process was
excellent.”
“I was amazed by how accurately this process predicted the public’s wishes.”
Project Manager, State Transportation Agency (Bridge project 2005-07)
“For the state of Kentucky, as owner of the bridge, the polling process proved to be an
efficient way to get the thoughts from the public that we were after.
Lead engineer (Bridge project, 2007)
“The polling process used in the Louisville Bridge project gave us more specific feedback
than ever before…This way, more vocal contingents at public meetings can’t dominate
the debate. People get excited about it, because they see that their participation is real.”

59. Comparison of process methods across QICE
Q
3
2.5
2
1.5
Focus group methods
1
Town hall
0.5
Deliberative democracy
E 0 I
SPI
Online participation
Phone survey
C

60. Objectives
Champions of Participation, 2009, p.7.
“2.8 Modify and augment existing performance measurement
and scorecard systems to include community engagement
criteria and metrics.”
Response: Commentary on the Champions Report. Send to all
participants. Invited to DC by five agencies to discuss.
But there are problems…..

61. Problems we face….
•Lack of capacity to define and address the needs of the
“SILENT MAJORITY”
•Being directed by those who know nothing about high
performance processes, or who actively oppose them
•Academic and professional prejudice against respect for
citizen values
•Skepticism about the feasibility of inclusive, high performance
processes
•Resistance to discussing these ideas (e.g. TRB)

62. Strategies we adopt….
•Build knowledge of processes by visiting participatory
researchers worldwide (13 countries in 3 years)
•Propose incremental research to funding agencies e.g. NSF
•Address barriers to discussion in research organizations (e.g.
TRB)
•Open communication with politicians and high-level agency
representatives as private citizens (e.g. Rt. Hon. F.
Maude, 2008; Gov. Palin’s office, 2008; Commentary on
CoP, 2010)
•Build coalition with those interested in promoting more
transparent, inclusive methods (e.g. Transparency Camp 2011)
•Seek external funding for more advanced processes
(here, Flinn Foundation, Soros Foundation, Gates Foundation
etc.)

63. Collaborative project sites
Romania
Dr. Claudia Popescu , Academy of Economic Sciences, Bucharest.
City redevelopment plan in former socialist
Czech Republic
Dr. Premsyl Stych. Charles University, Prague
Nuclear plant enlargement at Temelin and Dukovany
Colombia
Dr. Monica Pachon, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota.
Citizen online platform for infrastructure project nomination
Costa Rica
Dr. Carlos Moreira, Universidad de Costa Rica, Heredia.
Indigenous participation in management of natrional forest reserve
Spain
Dr. Pere Suau-Sanchez
Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona.
Catalan Regional Development Plan

64. Our Role as Change Agents
1. Demonstrate that large-scale public processes can be made
more accountable, more transparent, more collaborative
2. Encourage the application and evaluation of high-
performance methods, including SPI and others
3. Document performance in accessible database
Limitations
1. Time – this is not our major appointment
2. Resource – the most useful interactions are funded on our
time and dime e.g. contact with senior politicians
3. People – lack of ability to recruit collaborators without
funded mechanisms
4. Funding – needs to be independent of agency control