Originally published 20 December 2005. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
The trouble with public engagement is that it is not an exact science.
Whilst formal consultation is relatively structured and has a definable beginning and end - with clear milestones at each stage, much of what’s asked for today goes beyond this - into the less precise areas of public engagement.
Planning is one area where this is evident. Recent legislation asks Planning Authorities to prepare Statements of Community Involvement, and right now, there is much head-scratching as to how far to raise expectations. For the truth is that such involvement is a little like health or happiness - a potentially unattainable goal - but the closer you get to your objective, the higher the costs! And how do you ever know when you’ve done enough public engagement? There are always some people who claim that there hasn’t been enough. Conversely, it may be quite clear where there has not been adequate public involvement. The trouble is that this is often realised only in hindsight. We got it wrong because we hadn’t consulted sufficiently…..So striking the balance is a considerable skill, with risks of under-consulting or over-consulting.
One approach is to recognise the uncertainties and to manage for maximum flexibility. This recognises that by provoking a public debate, one is necessarily opening a Pandora’s Box of views, attitudes and individual preferences. Even with technical consultations of known stakeholders, there can be unexpected surprises as issues are raised which were not fully foreseen.
But then, that’s why we’re doing it - isn’t it?
One of the worst aspects of consultation is that policy-makers and sometimes politicians sometimes view it as a predictable process - a defined period of time with an intended outcome. That’s wrong. Going to consultation means having an open mind about certain aspects of proposals - and being prepared to be swayed in the process. For more participative types of public engagement, the outcome is, by definition, even less certain.
So how does one budget for a process, where it is quite possible that events may require additional investment, extended timescales, re-consideration of proposals and maybe far more participation than was envisaged. One way is to hold sufficient contingency for such eventualities; another is to adopt the principle of programme rather than project funding. In this way underspend on one project can help pay for overspend on another. Whichever way is chosen, those who commission and those who carry out consultation exercises, need to be imaginative and responsive to events - however unexpected.
Trigger points
- Examine the way you set budgets for public engagement; are you creating a straight-jacket or a flexible framework?
- Build programme planning and budgeting into your Statements of Community Involvement or Consultation Strategies
- Find out more about forward planning in Institute training courses:- Consultation Strategies & Skills.
This is the 37th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement