IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mfg/iforum/11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Engagement to Action: Improving Policy Outcomes Through Better Consultation

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Nelischer

    (University of Toronto)

Abstract

In an era of increasing political polarization, agreement seems difficult to come by. At the same time, recent reports show public trust in government is declining. Both conditions can make public consultation more challenging, as communities and individuals hesitate to engage with one another and with institutions, further removing themselves from policy-making processes that impact them. However, bringing people together in thoughtful dialogue remains critically important, especially as cities like Toronto continue to grow and become more diverse. Ensuring that the many different needs and priorities of residents are accurately understood is also a challenge, as researchers document lower participation rates in municipal public consultations among newcomers, women, and those with lower levels of education or income. How can meaningful consultation be achieved amid these realities? In December 2019, the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance (IMFG) hosted a panel discussion on the role of public consultation in policy making within the context of intensifying polarization, erosion of trust, and increasing diversity. Experts offered insights gathered through their experiences in urban planning, community development, social planning, and policy initiatives, mostly within the Toronto region. The panellists were: • Cheryll Case, Urban Design Coordinator with the City of Brampton, Founder and Principal Urban Planner of CP Planning • Lindsay (Swooping Hawk) Kretschmer, Executive Director of the Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council (TASSC) • John Robinson, Professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and the School of the Environment at the University of Toronto • Nicole Swerhun, founder of Swerhun Inc., a public consultation firm • Dave Meslin (moderator), activist, artist, community organizer, and author Panellists explored the role of public consultation in policy development, connections between consultation and good governance, and challenges in existing approaches to consultation. They discussed why improvements to these processes are necessary at this particular time and offered potential strategies for more effective and inclusive decision-making. This paper presents five key principles for more meaningful consultation, distilled from panellists’ insights and relevant academic literature: 1. Build trust between government and communities, and between neighbours 2. Recognize privilege and its impacts on decisionmaking, and address inequities by making every effort to design more inclusive consultation processes 3. Share power and let communities lead, including reformulating concepts of power and recognizing the expertise and knowledge that communities hold 4. Communicate clearly and honestly, recognizing the power dynamics inherent in determining and sharing information 5. Record feedback and take action to build trust, legitimize the process, and ensure mutual benefit for participants and organizers These principles may help organizers, governments, and planners bring communities together in decision-making processes that capture the value of collective wisdom. They are predicated on the belief that better engagement will lead to policies that are more effective in addressing the many different conditions, opportunities, and challenges of our growing and diversifying urban neighbourhoods, and support the long-term health and vitality of our communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Nelischer, 2020. "Engagement to Action: Improving Policy Outcomes Through Better Consultation," IMFG Forum 11, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
  • Handle: RePEc:mfg:iforum:11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/102173/1/IMFG_Forum_No11_Sep2020.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    policy outcomes;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mfg:iforum:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Enid Slack (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imfutca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.