Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 03

26 / Canadian Government Executive // May/June 2018 By Michael Cameron Looking in the Right Places Public Engagement Public Engagement ROI: Knowledge Goals Relationship Goals Governance Goals • Share information / expose trade-offs & constraints • Hear diverse perspectives / understand values • Identify / enhance understanding of public problems • Explore and generate potential solutions • Transform a conflict or narrative on a specific issue • Develop relationships and cooperative networks • Strengthen practices of participation and consensus building • Provide a balanced opportunity for influencing decisions • Enhance government responsiveness • Ensure public policies reflect public values • Enhance citizen trust in government • Increase support for decisions and their implementation M ost governments are seeking to improve their practices and achieve greater results from engaging with citizens and stakeholders. But what are the mea- sures of success? The various positions on issues expressed in “what we heard” reports? Reaching a large number of people? Or is it the end product – a policy informed by Canadians? While these are helpful, by focusing solely on these mea- sures, we risk overlooking a potentially greater impact: the impact on people. While measuring impact may sound sim- ple, it can quickly become a daunting task. For starters, what kind of impact should we look for? To address this question, I under- took a literature review on goal typologies of public engagement. I figured that since measures of success usually relate to pro- gram objectives, it was important to have a clear understanding of what public en- gagement processes seek to achieve. My research identified and reviewed nine different goal typologies. My main interest was to find out what they had in common and to look for any specific patterns. The process was iterative, involving feedback from a number of academics and engage- ment practitioners. The result was a table of three goal categories and 12 sub-goals (listed in the table below). While the table is not exhaustive or definitive, it did change my perspective on what could be measured. Next, I developed an evaluation matrix, based on the goals table, for assessing how 18 federal departments talked about their goals when announcing public engage- ment processes. The results were not sur- prising. Of the 18 engagement processes reviewed, 17 referred to policy goals (e.g., policy reflects people’s views). Also as an- ticipated, 16 of the 18 processes involved government knowledge goals (e.g., govern- ment collects input). More interesting was that just half of the processes identified knowledge goals for the public (e.g., Cana- dians become informed on X) and only five engagements referred to relationship goals (e.g., fostering ongoing dialogue). This confirmed a few things for me: (1) improved knowledge and relationships were only sometimes implied as engage- ment goals, and (2) even when knowledge and relationship outcomes were stated as goals, there was little reference to them in the engagement reports. This analysis has given me a new way to think about evaluating public engage- ment. Much has been said about declining trust in government. But not as much has been said about what to do about it. Mea- suring these intermediate goals on knowl- edge and relationships along the way, and adjusting engagement approaches accord- ingly, could give us a new window into how to increase trust. Depending on the type of engagement undertaken, certain outcomes are likely to be more important than others. For exam- ple, a stated outcome of the 2016 Consulta- tion on National Security was that Cana- dians be informed on Canada’s national security framework. The 2017 Citizen Dia- logues on Canada’s Energy Future sought to transform narratives on contentious en- ergy issues. What kind of learning objec- tives could be expected from participants engaging online on the “Moving Canada toward zero plastic waste” issue? Once we know what types of success are sought, it becomes a question of choosing appropriate indicators. This can be as so- phisticated as some of the leading research on public trust by organizations like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or it can be as simple as using a Likert scale for self-reported levels of learning on different issues. Next time you carry out a public engage- ment process, make sure to ask participants what they have learned – in terms of the issue in question, the opinion of other Ca- nadians, how government works, new solu- tions to challenges. Just as important, ask the public servants involved in the engage- ment what they have learned and what new ideas they may have for strengthening the partnership between people and their government. Indicators of success may be more abundant than we think if we look in the right places and ask the right questions. Are you interested in, even passionate about this issue? If so, join the Public En- gagement Community of Practice on GCcon- nex by emailing consultation@pco-bcp.gc.ca to help develop common measures. M ichael C ameron is a Policy Analyst at the Privy Council Office. He joined after completing graduate research on public engagement goals. This research helped inform the team’s development of a workshop currently used for help- ing federal public servants plan public engagement activities, based on people, context, and goals.