Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement: Are We There Yet? A Case Study of Scarborough Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (NIAs) Participatory Processes
Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement: Are We There Yet? A Case Study of Scarborough Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (NIAs) Participatory Processes
Kiana Côté2021, Working Paper No. 2021/11
While Western planning emphasizes the importance of genuine meaningful citizen participation, the conventional public meeting approach fails to truly engage with the public. Studies have revealed the limitations of this approach to engage and positively impact ethnic communities. However, research has been limited to investigating the inefficiency of the participatory framework from the experts’ perspective. It has not addressed the issue of the lack of ethnic diversity in participatory processes nor have made concrete recommendations for policymakers. The purpose of this research is to explore the urban governance contradiction regarding the attainment of meaningful engagement. This goal is achieved through uncovering how ethnically diverse citizens engage with and are engaged by the municipal participatory framework to understand to what extent this approach meets their needs. The research is conducted through a case study of the eight Scarborough Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (NIAs), which comprise an important share of diverse ethnic groups. This study reviews the NIAs’ participatory process and policies and analyses the output of interviews with representatives of the Scarborough communities, representatives of neighbourhood agencies, and the City to examine participatory processes and uncover ethnic groups’ perspectives concerning the municipal participatory approach. Series editors: Anna Triandafyllidou and Usha George Key Words: citizen participation, meaningful public engagement, citizen empowerment, ethnic communities, the City of Toronto participatory framework
Related Papers
2021 •
The public mandate to engage the public in transportation planning processes is in the process of becoming more rigorous and democratic. Transportation agencies are recognizing the limitations of past modes of engagement and seek to connect more dynamically with the public, particularly with historically marginalized communities. Doing this work well is a topic of interest to a growing number of transportation professionals. This study identified four successful engagement processes with historically marginalized communities in California by surveying transportation professionals. Stakeholders at each site were interviewed and public documents from the processes were reviewed to identify common themes for positive public inclusion. Interviewees included community leaders, transportation staff, and consultants. Interviews were coded and analysis was conducted using a mobility justice and critical race studies framework. Ten key themes of successful community engagement with historica...
Chrisitian Höcke
Challenges for Civic Participation and Local Democratic Processes in Urban DevelopmentThe focus of this article is about challenges and experiences with dialogue oriented civic participation in urban development processes in Germany. The article builds on the implementation and evaluation of several participatory processes, which were realised in eleven German cities since 2012. In Germany, civic participation has become an integral part of planning practice in most communal authorities in the past decades and especially in the last fifteen years. Many methods for participatory planning processes have been developed and municipal authorities set up their own guidelines for good participation. Unfortunately, within the context of post-democratic trends, public participation in local politics has received the same criticism from political scientists, as has the representative democracy. In many cases, instead of being an effective instrument for feedback between state and citizens, it reproduces social injustice. The article analyses the challenges for civic participation regarding its democratic legitimization and implementation practice within urban planning processes between top-down oriented governmental actions and local bottom-up contexts. It ends with a proposal of how civic participation could be improved and societal inclusion strengthened in local democratic processes, and to increase the effectivity and acceptance of public planning.
2015 •
This dissertation analyzes community engagement practices as a fundamental feature of democracy, planning, and policymaking processes. Multiple disciplines, including public policy, planning, and public health, understand community engagement as a mechanism to make planning, policymaking, and research processes and their outcomes more democratic, effective, and sustainable. Yet scholars, practitioners, and community residents continue to observe and experience difficulty collaborating in the design and implementation of policy. I investigated these conundrums of democracy, representation, governance, and collaboration through this dissertation, a four-year ethnographic study of community engagement in a foundation-funded neighborhood health initiative in Southern California. In this dissertation research, I inductively expand current understandings of exclusion and inclusion in planning and policymaking by enlisting practice theory as a theoretical and analytical lens. Practice theo...
2019 •
This paper explores how one neighbourhood revitalization initiative addresses-or fails to address-intersecting systems of oppression as it seeks to facilitate resident-led change. Unlike many similar initiatives, the Neighbourhood Action Strategy in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada has an explicit focus on grassroots community development and resident leadership, and actors within the strategy have paid significant attention to issues of inclusion. We draw on in-depth interviews with City staff, local service providers, and neighbourhood residents, as well as on observation of neighbourhood meetings and media analysis, to explore how diversity, inclusion, and equity are understood and managed by different actors within the Strategy. We demonstrate that despite a stated mandate of inclusion, the initiative often struggles to engage significant participation from working-class and racialized people. We argue that this is in part due to complex interpersonal and institutional dynamics informed by race and class, which create significant tensions that ultimately limit the initiative's ability to create meaningful transformation. We conclude with some lessons learned about how to disrupt the racist, classist, and other oppressive discourses that can operate even within the most progressive initiatives.
Australasian Journal of Regional …
Rethinking community participation in urban planning: The role of disadvantaged groups in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy2009 •
2007 •
Participatory arenas have been a growing feature of governance and public policy in the 'North' and 'South' as attempts are made to involve local communities in decision-making processes. These developments have been accompanied by a proliferation of research examining these community engagement processes from a variety of different perspectives. Despite the similar themes addressed in the development studies literature and urban regeneration literature in the U.K., there are few studies that compare participatory spaces in the global 'North' with those in the global 'South'. The main debate highlighted in both bodies of literature pivots around the tyranny-transformation dichotomy. Participatory processes are portrayed as either spaces facilitating the increased regulation of the population, or enabling transformation in favour of a social justice which benefits the poorer sections of society. This thesis considers the tyranny-transformation dichotom...
Saint Louis University public law review
Citizen Engagement in the Shrinking City: Toward Development Justice in an Era of Growing InequalityCritical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management
Joining the Citizens: Forging New Collaborations Between Government and Citizens in Deprived Neighborhoods2018 •
In this chapter, we analyze the interactions between local governments and citizens’ initiatives. In the Netherlands, local governments take up the role of civic enabler based on a modest approach that leaves citizens room to invent and design initiatives on what they deem to be public issues by facilitating and activating their efforts. We focus on how a proactive form of this approach toward citizens’ initiatives in deprived neighborhoods affects citizen–government relations. Our research is based on a case study in the city of Amsterdam. We find that particularly more women and migrants took up a wide variety of initiatives, which suggests that the neighborhood approach is more inclusive than deliberative approaches. We also find that initiators developed a positive attitude toward public institutions that enable them and that they started to see frontline workers as collaborators in their initiatives with whom they could have personal and authentic interactions, as opposed to th...
Planning Theory & Practice
Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening Community Engagement in the English Planning System2008 •
2021 •
Despite the fact that vulnerable communities are the most affected by unplanned cities, considerably less attention has been given to involving them in urban development in order to ensure equitable outcomes. In this regard, there is an urgent need for governments to introduce and enforce processes that allow citizens, including vulnerable communities, to participate in development planning and policymaking. However, at present, there is a lack of guidance for practitioners regarding the definition of a clear purpose of community engagement and the selection of appropriate participatory methods to fulfil the set purpose. This study provides a thorough account of the participatory methods that can be used to achieve various engagement goals throughout the urban development process. This structured literature review used 71 reports published from 2000 to 2020. The review revealed 34 participatory methods, wherein most of the methods are devoted to informing, consulting and involving c...
Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement:
Are We There Yet? A Case Study of Scarborough Neighbourhood
Improvement Areas (NIAs) Participatory Processes
Kiana Côté
Working Paper No. 2021/11
September 2021
The Working Papers Series is produced jointly by the
Ryerson Centre for Immigration and Settlement (RCIS)
and the CERC in Migration and Integration
www.ryerson.ca/centre-for-immigration-and-settlement
www.ryerson.ca/cerc-migration
Working Paper
No. 2021/11
Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement:
Are We There Yet? A Case Study of Scarborough Neighbourhood
Improvement Areas (NIAs) Participatory Processes
Kiana Côté
Ryerson University
Series Editors: Anna Triandafyllidou and Usha George
The Working Papers Series is produced jointly by the Ryerson Centre for Immigration and
Settlement (RCIS) and the CERC in Migration and Integration at Ryerson University.
Working Papers present scholarly research of all disciplines on issues related to immigration
and settlement. The purpose is to stimulate discussion and collect feedback. The views
expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of the RCIS or the CERC.
For further information, visit www.ryerson.ca/centre-for-immigration-and-settlement and
www.ryerson.ca/cerc-migration.
ISSN: 1929-9915
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5
Canada License
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Abstract
While Western planning emphasizes the importance of genuine meaningful citizen participation,
the conventional public meeting approach fails to truly engage with the public. Studies have
revealed the limitations of this approach to engage and positively impact ethnic communities.
However, research has been limited to investigating the inefficiency of the participatory framework
from the experts’ perspective. It has not addressed the issue of the lack of ethnic diversity in
participatory processes nor have made concrete recommendations for policymakers. The
purpose of this research is to explore the urban governance contradiction regarding the attainment
of meaningful engagement. This goal is achieved through uncovering how ethnically diverse
citizens engage with and are engaged by the municipal participatory framework to understand to
what extent this approach meets their needs. The research is conducted through a case study of
the eight Scarborough Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (NIAs), which comprise an important
share of diverse ethnic groups. This study reviews the NIAs’ participatory process and policies
and analyses the output of interviews with representatives of the Scarborough communities,
representatives of neighbourhood agencies, and the City to examine participatory processes and
uncover ethnic groups’ perspectives concerning the municipal participatory approach.
Key Words: citizen participation, meaningful public engagement, citizen empowerment, ethnic
communities, the City of Toronto participatory framework
This research is funded by the Canada Excellence Research Chair (CERC) in Migration and
Integration, Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou. It is also funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
This research was supervised by Dr. Zhixi Zhuang who is an Associate Professor at Ryerson
University in the Faculty of Community Services, School of Urban and Regional Planning.
i
K. Côté
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................i
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Research Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 2
Theorizing Citizen Participation............................................................................................. 2
The Failure of the Current Participatory Approach to Meaningfully Engage with Citizens .. 3
Engaging for Inclusivity ......................................................................................................... 6
Research Methods .......................................................................................................................... 7
Case Study Context............................................................................................................... 7
Interviewees........................................................................................................................... 9
Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement: Has This Been Achieved? .............................................. 9
A Tokenistic Process ............................................................................................................. 9
A Top-Down Approach ........................................................................................................ 12
A Diverse Outreach but Some Missing Voices ................................................................... 13
Improvements Needed for the Process to Be Meaningful .................................................. 15
Discussion and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 17
Good Intentions but Meaningless Process ......................................................................... 17
The Importance of Addressing Inequalities Regarding Funding Opportunities Access..... 18
Summary of Participants’ Recommendations for Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement .......... 19
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 22
References .................................................................................................................................... 28
ii
Working Paper No. 2021/11
List of Tables
Table 1. Scarborough’s NIAs and their Respective NPT ............................................................... 9
Table 2. Participants’ Recommendations for Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement ................ 20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation ....................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Scarborough’s Eight NIAs ............................................................................................... 8
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Interview Guide for Resident Participants ............................................................... 22
Appendix B. Interview Guide for Neighbourhood Agency Participants ....................................... 24
Appendix C. Interview Guide for the City Official Participant ....................................................... 26
iii
K. Côté
Introduction
The participatory approach in planning has been criticized for being ineffective in
meaningfully engaging citizens for decades (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Crompton, 2017; Finney &
Rishbeth, 2006; Tigan, 2005). Although public engagement is valued in political discourse and
institutions emphasize its importance, both fail to promote a bottom-up approach that guarantees
a genuinely meaningful experience for citizens. Research highlights that the traditional top-down
approach to engagement typically lacks accountability mechanisms to ensure that the public’s
feedback will be considered (Gaventa & Barrett, 2012; King et al., 1998) and reveals frequent lack
of transparency toward citizens (Innes & Booher, 2004, p. 420; King et al., 1998; Messier, 2006).
Moreover, studies point out that such processes generally include no requirement for a third
agency to assess the success of engagement (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Crompton, 2017).
These findings have not translated into significant investment by the municipal, political, and
administrative apparatus to revise the municipal participatory framework, which is generally based
on the top-down public meeting approach (Arnstein, 1969; Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2001;
Lane, 2006; Weymouth, & Hartz-Karp, 2019). One possible reason for the persistence of the
disconnect is that research on the inefficiency of the current participatory framework is relatively
limited. There is a scarcity of information on how to concretely achieve meaningful and inclusive
engagement and when available, most data reflect the experts and decision makers’ perspective;
it does not acknowledge the question from the citizen’s standpoint.
Furthermore, studies on engagement reveal that the limitations of this framework
particularly affect ethnically diverse communities (Messier, 2006; Qadeer, 2016; Sandercock,
2003). Top-down models of citizen participation do not capture all cultural practices of
engagement. This results in processes where all public interests are not represented (Crompton,
2017; Innes & Booher, 2004; King et al., 1998). As cities are becoming increasingly diverse, the
new reality of the multicultural city exacerbates the need for increased equity in engagement
processes (Burayidi, 2015; Crompton, 2017; Sandercock, 2003; Zhuang, 2017). Planners are
therefore now given the task to invite “everyone to the table as coequals in a learning process,
and giving them the tools and resources they need to be successful” (Roberts, 2004, p. 338).
However, they face important challenges on their way to achieving meaningful participation.
While there is no consensus on what ‘meaningful engagement’ means, for the scope of this
paper, meaningful participation or meaningful engagement is used to describe engagement
processes that are accessible, transparent, accountable, and provide empowerment opportunities
(Callahan, 2007; Crompton, 2017; King et al., 1998). The failure to reach this form of engagement
not only limits the achievement of societal equity objectives, but also the unlocking of the full
potential of neighbourhoods and cities to innovate and foster sustainable initiatives (Healey, 1997;
Zapata & Bates, 2015).
Research Objectives
The main purpose of this research is to explore the challenges and barriers that stand in
the way of meaningful and inclusive engagement. This goal is achieved through investigating if
the current municipal participatory approach is effective in meaningfully engaging the
perspectives of ethnically diverse citizens.
The research question is: how do ethnically diverse citizens engage with and are engaged
by the municipal participatory framework, and to what extent are their needs met by this
approach? Through answering this question, the objectives are threefold: (1) to understand how
ethnically diverse citizens are engaged by the municipal framework for citizen participation; (2) to
determine these citizens’ assessment of the municipal approach; and thirdly, (3) to compare their
critiques to the municipal approach and literature on meaningful engagement.
1
Working Paper No. 2021/11
To meet these objectives, this research relies on case study analysis. The case study
chosen is the multicultural enclave of Scarborough in Toronto, and considers the perspectives of
ethnically diverse citizens, neighbourhood agencies, and the City. This is done through (1) a
literature review about meaningful participatory planning and the diversity and inclusivity of
participatory processes, (2) a policy review of Scarborough’s Neighbourhood Improvement Areas
(NIAs)’ participatory processes, (3) interviews with representatives of the Scarborough
community, neighbourhood agencies, and the City, and (4) a qualitative content analysis to
evaluate all information collected.
Literature Review
Theorizing Citizen Participation
Citizen Participation: A Contested Concept
While citizen participation is acknowledged as a key principle of contemporary democracy
(Crompton, 2017; Margerum, 2002), research has produced a mixed and complex literature on
this topic. Public engagement or public participation is a contested concept in community planning
and there remains a lack of consensus on its definition (Arnstein, 1969; Bacqué & Biewener,
2013; Brody et al., 2003; Callahan, 2007; Crompton, 2017; Day, 1997; Innes & Booher, 2004;
King et al., 1998; Michels & De Graaf, 2010; Roberts, 2004; Tigan, 2005). Although engagement
is now mandated in most contemporary planning legislation, it is unclear how it should be
accomplished and what is the best way to achieve meaningful processes (Arnstein, 1969;
Callahan, 2007; Crompton, 2017; Day, 1997; Innes & Booher, 2004; Roberts, 2004; Tigan, 2005).
Sherry Arnstein has been a key researcher for advancing theories of citizen engagement.
This researcher defined citizen participation as “the redistribution of power that enables the havenot citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic process, to be deliberately
included in the future” (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216). This definition explains the reason why citizen
participation originally emerged: to allow those who were not in positions of power to have a say
in decision-making processes. Arnstein attempted to theorize the different levels of participation
among a spectrum of citizen power called the “Ladder of Citizen Participation” (1969). She
conceptualized three main levels, (1) nonparticipation (2) tokenism, and (3) empowerment.
According to the scholar, citizen engagement goes from information, education and consultation,
to partnership and empowerment (Crompton, 2017; Roberts, 2004).
2
K. Côté
Figure 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation
Source: Arnstein, 1969, p. 217.
Contemporary Views on Public Engagement
Since the publication of Arnstein’s Ladder, the definition of citizen participation has evolved.
Many scholars now define citizen participation as the involvement of citizens in governmental
planning and administration (Callahan, 2007; Lane, 2005; Rowe & Frewer, 2005). New
approaches to participation aspire to decentralize governance between citizens, nongovernmental organizations, and social movements (Callahan, 2007; Lane, 2005). These models
of collaborative planning position the role of public administrators as public servants who should
focus on serving and empowering citizens through helping them articulate their needs and
building a collective and shared idea of public interest. Administrators in this context occupy the
role of facilitators who should foster dialogue among stakeholders, negotiate decisions between
diverse public interests, and encourage relationship building and teamwork (Callahan, 2007).
Studies over the last decade have explored the question of engaging with increasingly
diverse communities. This literature points out the need to make the participatory framework
increasingly more accessible to and inclusive for a greater number of citizens (Crompton, 2017;
Qadeer, 2016; Zhuang, 2017)
The Failure of the Current Participatory Approach to Meaningfully Engage with
Citizens
While citizen participation is now a central component of community planning, many
researchers and citizens evaluate participatory processes as unsatisfactory (Aubin & Bornstein,
2012; Crompton, 2017; Glass, 1979; Innes & Booher, 2004; King et al., 1998; Michels & De Graaf,
2010; Tigan, 2005). Numerous scholars argue that a key issue is the top-down approach of
traditional engagement processes that typically take the form of public meetings. Research points
out that this approach to engagement often lacks accessibility, transparency, accountability, and
empowerment opportunities (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Crompton, 2017; Innes & Booher, 2004;
King et al., 1998; Michels & De Graaf, 2010).
3
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Accessibility
Scholars claim that one limitation to traditional methods of engagement is related to their
rigid and formal structure with which the public needs to comply in order to participate. More
precisely, the approach based on public meetings generally has a structure in which the agenda
and timeline of the participatory process is set by the administrators. To share their feedback,
citizens often need to speak in front of an audience, with a limited amount of time to debate their
points and with the obligation to follow a predetermined agenda (Innes & Booher, 2004; King et
al., 1998).
One main issue with this format is that it creates a power relation between the expert and
the citizen (Healey, 1992a; Innes & Booher, 2004). As stated by King et al., the typical public
meeting model creates a dynamic in which “the citizen becomes the client of the professional
administrator, ill-equipped to question the professional's authority and technical knowledge”
(1998, p. 320). As this process might discourage participants from sharing their opinions and
thoughts out of fear of those being considered invalid and inappropriate (Healey, 1992b; Innes,
2016), it increases the risk of excluding certain members of the society. Indeed, not all citizens
are equally equipped in terms of resources and skills to engage with this framework for citizen
participation (Crompton, 2017; Healey, 1992a; Innes & Booher, 2004; Roberts, 2004).
Transparency
Furthermore, the literature on citizen participation points out a lack of transparency from the
administrators in top-down participatory frameworks. While many participatory activities
supposedly aim for collaboration and co-creation, the purpose of such processes sometimes only
intends to consult or inform. This absence of transparency regarding how the public inputs will
truly be used might result in a loss of resources and citizen dissatisfaction (Innes & Booher, 2004;
King et al., 1998; Messier, 2006). It also increases the chances of distrust towards municipal
institutions due to a gap between what is expected and what is received (King et al., 1998;
Weymouth & Hartz-Karp, 2019).
Research also notes that one-way communication participatory processes typically happen
after plans have been proposed. Many scholars even point out that the decisions have often
been made beforehand (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Arnstein, 1969; Day, 1997; Innes & Booher,
2004; King et al., 1998; Messier, 2006; Tigan, 2005). In this context, some researchers argue that
the real purpose of the engagement process appears to be for the administrator to persuade the
public in a context where there is very little opportunity for the audience to respond (Aubin &
Bornstein, 2012; King et al., 1998).
Accountability
Research also shows a lack of accountability in top-down participatory processes
(Crompton, 2017). There is no requirement for the consultant (for instance, municipal staff) to
assess the ‘success’ of a participatory process (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012) and therefore, no
mechanisms in place ensure that the input provided is considered according to what has been
promised (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Crompton, 2017). Moreover, administrators are usually not
required to reflect on who was or was not sitting at the table during an engagement activity
(Crompton, 2017). These processes do not guarantee that there will be a follow-up regarding
what citizens have shared, which limit the opportunities for genuine empowerment that considers
values of equity, accessibility, inclusivity, and transparency (Brody et al., 2003; Crompton, 2017;
King et al., 1998). Such participatory processes are defined by many scholars as an empty ritual
4
K. Côté
of participation for which the main purpose is only to “check off the list” the engagement portion
of a given project (King et al., 1998).
Empowerment
There is also scepticism regarding the opportunities for empowerment; that is, the possibility
to truly affect the processes of traditional participatory activities. Many scholars state that
processes based on a ‘notice and hearing’ system do not work to meaningfully engage with the
public (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Crompton, 2017; Innes & Booher, 2004; King et al., 1998;
Michels & De Graaf, 2010). When there is a lack of transparency and accountability, these oneway communication processes can be used to legitimize top-down decisions rather than focusing
on and truly valuing the input of citizens (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Day, 1997; Messier, 2006;
Tigan, 2005). Rather than building capacity and offering opportunities of collaboration as
promised, these participatory processes only serve the interests of decision makers (Arnstein,
1969; Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Day, 1997; Messier, 2006; Tigan, 2005).
The Challenge of Designing Participatory Processes
One explanation for current challenges in terms of meaningful participatory frameworks is
that there is a lack of clarity regarding how to balance public involvement and power at the
municipal level. Indeed, multiple approaches to citizen engagement are utilized across
municipalities and organizations and there is no consensus on how to conduct good public
engagement (Arnstein, 1969; Callahan, 2007; Crompton, 2017; Day, 1997; Innes & Booher, 2004;
Roberts, 2004; Tigan, 2005).
One of the biggest enduring questions pertains to how much participation is enough
participation and to what extent citizen-led suggestions should be acted upon and implemented
(Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Callahan, 2007). While some are in favour of indirect engagement,
others favour deliberative and direct models of participation (Callahan, 2007). There are thus
uncertainties regarding how to design and implement citizen engagement processes. Whereas
the purpose of some of these processes is solely to fulfil informative or consultative objectives,
others target collaboration between stakeholders and foster citizen control (Arnstein, 1969;
Crompton, 2017; Roberts, 2004). Based on Arnstein’s spectrum of participation, some theorists
argue that only collaborative processes that offer opportunities for partnerships and
empowerment allow a redistribution of power, thus representing genuine participation (Arnstein,
1969; Brody et al., 2003; Tigan, 2005). Others believe that meaningful participation is not limited
to ‘collaborating with’ and ‘empowering,’ but also encompasses ‘informing’, ‘educating’, and
‘consulting’ (Roberts, 2004).
Furthermore, there are no agreed-upon evaluation criteria to assess the success of an
engagement process (Arnstein, 1969; Callahan, 2007; Crompton, 2017; Day, 1997; Innes &
Booher, 2004; Roberts, 2004; Tigan, 2005). When assessing a participatory process, there is also
a debate regarding the appropriate endpoint; should this be done once recommendations on the
project are stated or at the end of it (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012)?
The questions mentioned above reflect the complexity of leading meaningful engagement
processes. This level of complexity might explain why policies and directives regarding citizen
participation to-date are vague, outdated, and in general, provide minimal guidance to planners
that are looking to design genuine and effective participatory strategies and processes (Brody et
al., 2003).
5
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Engaging for Inclusivity
A Lack of Representation of Ethnic Diversity in Participatory Processes
In addition to exposing that the current approach to engagement fails to meaningfully involve
citizens, research reveals that there is very little representation of ethnic diversity within city-level
participation processes (Messier, 2006; Michels & De Graaf, 2010; Qadeer, 2016; Sandercock,
2003; Tigan, 2005). As stated by Messier, ethnicity alone cannot constitute the only explanation
to the low rate of participation of ethnic communities; other factors must be mentioned, such as
socioeconomic factors or the voluntary or forced exclusion (2006). Yet, the low level of diversity
in participatory processes indicates that the limitations of the current participatory approach might
impact ethnic communities more significantly (Messier, 2006; Michels & De Graaf, 2010; Qadeer,
2016; Sandercock, 2003; Tigan, 2005). This knowledge has not, however, translated into any
significant investment by the municipal, political, and administrative apparatus to address this
reality. Although most cities emphasize the importance of extending engagement reach,
Crompton’s research uncovered that they do not propose diversity and inclusivity targets.
Furthermore, as engagement reach is normally expressed as a total number, it is difficult to
evaluate to what extent a process was representative of the community (Crompton, 2017).
Barriers to Engagement That Are Disregarded
To understand the possible reasons for the low representation of ethnic diversity in
municipal engagement processes, it is useful to review the different physical, economic, and
social barriers to participation generated by the current model of citizen engagement (Crompton,
2017). Economic and physical barriers include challenges related to transportation, work
schedule, family structure, and economic disadvantages (King et al., 1998). In terms of social
barriers, there is a lack of knowledge of the participatory process, low access to technical
information, and a lack of knowledge of language making it difficult to engage, among others
(Roberts, 2004). King et al. also state that while some individuals would like to engage more with
the decision-making and planning of their community, the demands of day-to-day life get in the
way (1998).
Equity V. Equality
To achieve more inclusive and meaningful engagement, some scholars advocate for a shift
from an equality-based approach to an equity-based approach when finding solutions to address
the barriers to participation (Crompton, 2017; Qadeer, 2016). While equality refers to the right to
equal status and benefits without discrimination, equity is defined as the enaction of “fairness in
the outcomes of distributing opportunities and resources” (Qadeer, 2016, p. 218). Those scholars
argue that more balanced distribution of opportunities and resources by local governments is
crucial as not everyone is equally able to participate if provided with the opportunity (Crompton,
2017; Day, 1997). Crompton’s study revealed that certain groups of the population are excluded
from the privilege of democratic participation, as participation in a political process is a luxury that
can only be afforded once individuals have fulfilled their essential needs. Furthermore, even when
citizens were able to engage in democratic society, many of them perceive the environment as
unwelcoming (Crompton, 2017). Crompton’s research also showed that “there is a general lack
of regard for, or awareness of, the ‘whiteness’ of many municipal spaces” (Crompton, 2017, p.
75). This might be a reason for the non-participation of ethnic communities, demonstrating the
6
K. Côté
need for the critical examination of municipal processes to evaluate to what extent they are
inclusive (Crompton, 2017).
The Challenge of a Shift Towards More Equitable and Inclusive Participatory
Processes
While most planners want to expand their engagement toolbox to overcome the barriers to
participation and reach a more diverse audience, there are many challenges to such a shift
(Crompton, 2017). One challenge to more inclusive and equitable engagement is that most
municipalities do not track demographic information of participants, which makes it difficult to
assess to what extent processes are successful in achieving accessibility and inclusivity
objectives (Crompton, 2017). In her study, Crompton investigated what prevents municipalities
from implementing more inclusive participatory processes. The research highlighted that budget
constraints, restrictions, and timelines were the most common barriers. Moreover, to optimize the
limited resources allocated to engagement processes, participants explained that the municipality
would benefit from knowing better their audience and the obstacles they face. They explained
that when municipal staff are aware of these barriers, they use their resources to address them
beforehand. In other words, the onus should be on the planner to identify the social structures
and obstacles that limit citizens from engaging in participatory processes and plan their program
in a way that minimizes these barriers (Crompton, 2017).
Crompton’s research also revealed that municipalities are trying to advance the inclusivity of
their engagement framework through removing barriers to participation for marginalized
communities, and similarly observed a shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach for
municipal governance. Yet, she argues that there is still no consensus on how engagement
should be done and no mandatory assessment process to evaluate the success of engagement.
Therefore, the advantages of more authentic and inclusive engagement are mostly intangible
(Crompton, 2017).
Research Methods
This research was completed through a case study of the multicultural enclave of
Scarborough in Toronto. The goal was to investigate whether the current municipal participatory
approach is effective in meaningfully engaging citizens and assess the inclusivity of this approach.
Scarborough was selected for the case study because of its distinctive cultural diversity and its
needs in the area of community programming.
Case Study Context
Scarborough is an area located in the east end of Toronto. Post World War II, it became
a popular destination for new immigrants. It is now one of the most diverse and multicultural areas
of the Greater Toronto Area and is home to numerous religious groups and places of worship
(Myrvold & Fahey, 1997). Scarborough is known for being an ethnic enclave, which is a residential
concentration of “ethnic groups or ethnic communities that can be easily identified by a
combination of religious, cultural institutions and ethnic services“ (Ojo & Shizha, 2018, p. 166).
Those diverse cultures and ethnicities are reflected in Scarborough demographics: a very high
percentage of the population identifies as being an immigrant (70 %) and/or as a visible minority
(51 %) (City of Toronto, 2020a; Ojo & Shizha, 2018; Zucchi, 2007). In 2016, Scarborough’s main
visible minority groups included South Asian, Chinese, Black, and Filipino (City of Toronto).
7
Working Paper No. 2021/11
The Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (NIAs)
In addition to being considerably diverse, there is demand for increased economic and
equitable opportunities in Scarborough. This area of Toronto was targeted by the Toronto Strong
Neighbourhood Strategy 2020 (TSNS2020), which was first implemented in 2014 and which
ended in 2020. The TSNS2020’s purpose was to ensure that all neighbourhoods succeed and
thrive by strengthening the economic, social, and physical assets of selected areas to generate
local impacts that foster citywide change (City of Toronto, 2020b). Those are achieved through
engaging residents, creating partnerships, providing targeted investments such as
neighbourhood grants, and ensuring continuous service improvements.
Neighbourhood Improvement Areas (NIAs) are geographically designated areas which
were established by the City of Toronto to determine the community in need of support under the
TSNS2020 (City of Toronto, 2020a). In total, 31 Toronto neighbourhoods were identified as NIAs.
As Scarborough is home to 8 out of the 31 NIAs (25 %), this area shows a demand for increased
resources and support (City of Toronto, 2020a).
Figure 2. Scarborough’s Eight NIAs
Source: City of Toronto, 2020a, modified by Kiana Côté.
TSNS2020 and NIAs work included Neighbourhood Planning Tables (NPTs), which are
composed of residents, neighbourhood agencies, local businesses, City councillors, and City
officials. These stakeholder groups regularly meet to plan and carry-on actions in their NIA.
15 NPTs represent the 31 NIAs. All NPTs have developed a Neighbourhood Action plan
that aligns with TSNS2020’s objectives (City of Toronto, 2017a). Scarborough NIAs’ community
programming is led by NPTs. There are three NPTs in Scarborough that manage two to four NIAs.
8
K. Côté
Table 1. Scarborough’s NIAs and their Respective NPT
Source: City of Toronto, 2017.
Interviewees
To gain an in-depth understanding of the NIAs’ strategies for citizen participation and
ultimately uncover how ethnically diverse citizens are being engaged, I conducted a total of seven
semi-structured interviews. All participants were recruited using the snowball sampling strategy
(Gaber, 2020; Neuman & Robson, 2014) and were familiar with the NIAs’ processes.
Interviews with three Scarborough residents helped understand their role with the NIAs
initiatives, how they are engaged and involved, and the outcomes of their participation. The
respondents were ethnically diverse (all interviewees identified as being from different ethnic
groups), reflecting the ethnic diversity of Scarborough. Resident interviewees were also from
three different NIAs or former NIAs. This diversity of citizen representation was fundamental as
one ethnic group is different from another one and as NIAs have different backgrounds and
equitable opportunity needs.
Additionally, interviews with three neighbourhood agencies or organizations uncovered their
role in the NIAs processes and their relationship with the City and residents.
Finally, an interview with one City Community Development Officer (CDO) from the City of
Toronto helped with understanding the City’s approach to citizen engagement and community
programming in NIAs.
Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement: Has This Been Achieved?
A Tokenistic Process
The interviews revealed that the City of Toronto participatory processes in Scarborough
NIAs show a serious lack of accountability and transparency. This raises questions regarding the
intent of the process, which some respondents perceived to be more of a symbolic ritual than
meaningful engagement.
A Lack of Accountability and Transparency
Participants both from the agency and resident groups of interviewees mentioned a lack of
accountability and transparency regarding the NPTs’ participatory and funding processes. On the
topic of engagement, Participant 3 from an agency mentioned that although the intentions
appeared to be around achieving meaningful engagement, there is a lack of follow-up on the
processes, which results in a failure to translate the feedback into concrete actions. This criticism
9
Working Paper No. 2021/11
echoed what agency and resident participants said regarding how certain issues have been raised
many times, but no improvement can be noticed:
“And then you can ask the City from the time that you documented this consultation, and
this has been brought up, what have been the actual local approaches that have been able
to reduce the issue or mitigate the issue? And they'll maybe share all these fancy reports
that go back to council and say that ‘this is what they've done’, meanwhile, on a local level
we're still seeing the same issues.” Participant 2, Agency.
“A lot of things that they (the residents) really want are not met. It's almost like they (the
City) throw us a bone and they bring in some things, but things that people have been asking
for many, many years, they say they're going to try or they don't know how to implement it.
And then they don't bring it in.” Participant 6, Resident.
The lack of accountability was also highlighted by all resident interviewees. One resident
mentioned not understanding how the process of engagement ultimately results in the creation of
useless agitation with nothing achieved.
“…(The City was) agitating the thing not resolving anything and, as you will see from the
final report, nothing was achieved, nothing.” Participant 4, Resident.
Both resident and agency interviewees also spoke of unclear goals of participatory
processes. For instance, Participant 3 mentioned that once, their NPT never got to the point where
they could develop a strategic plan because of the confusing nature of the discussion. Expanding
on their experience with NPT meetings, Participant 3 said they found that their CDO had good
intentions and showed a desire to meaningfully support the community, but that the lack of
structure resulted in a failure to accomplish work:
“…like I said, without the structure and the processes to actually surface those ideas, it was
a non-starter; we had trouble getting anywhere.” Participant 3, Agency.
According to this participant, the main issue at the table was the absence of clarity regarding
the intentions of the meeting:
“…I think the big tension that I have noticed or experienced participating at the table is
intention versus impact... He (the CDO) definitely had a strong intention to support grassroot
leaders, he definitely shared values around building up the community. But there was very
little follow through on those sorts of values and intentions…” Participant 3, Agency.
While Participant 3 qualified this lack of intentional approach as ‘a missed opportunity’,
Participant 2 from another agency described it as ‘fake consultations’. Participant 4 who is a
resident used the term ‘negative agitation’ to describe the process.
Building on this, both agency and resident participants pointed out a lack of transparency
with regards to the intentions of the City concerning the inputs collected. Many participants
showed frustrations regarding the City and NPTs facilitators not clearly stating what would happen
with their feedback. Both residents and agencies also highlighted having experienced situations
where the City had made decisions prior to the engagement processes:
“I don't know anything until after it's done. After they put everything through, that's when I
find out.” Participant 4, Resident.
10
K. Côté
On the topic of transparency, residents highlighted issues concerning residents’ intellectual
property. Some resident participants mentioned situations where the City asked for their
feedback, did not consider their ideas, and later on, implemented the input with the agencies while
leaving out the residents from the process. Two residents agreed that this is a denial of their
intellectual property and mentioned feeling disrespected:
“…I feel that a lot of our intellectual property is being stolen… a lot of neighbourhood leaders
and residents are not given their do, especially when organizations are at the table,
because, as I said, our intellectual property is usually taken, and then they… do their own
thing.” Participant 6, Resident.
“…then I also witness a lot of (situations where)… I’m sharing the idea (and) they would go
ahead of me and put things together, you know for themselves. It wasn't planned or they
didn't let me know. After I bring it to the forefront, they tell me no… or they'll say, ‘Oh well,
we already were doing it on the 17 th’.” Participant 4, Resident.
A final important critique that was mentioned regards the compensation of residents for their
work. Both resident and agency participants pointed out a lack of clarity between what is expected
and what is received. One participant mentioned that they once got involved with a City initiative
for which resident participants’ compensation was framed as if they would be hired and trained
as City staff. Yet, they said that the compensation in the end was an honorarium and that they do
not know anyone in the community who got hired by the City:
“We were told that the City was funding us and basically the only time we ever got anything
was an honorarium to run certain events (for which) we were never paid. I don't know
anybody that has really gotten a City job as a resident leader to help consult for the
community through that program…” Participant 6, Resident.
A Lax Framework That Allows and Possibly Enables Such Tokenism
Some interviewees suggested possible reasons for the lack of accountability and
transparency in community programming. They revealed flaws regarding the funding and legal
framework, which do not comprise mandatory evaluation mechanisms to assess the success of
participatory processes. Those statements help understand the reasons behind this tokenism.
Whether this framework’s laxity is a political intention or the unintended result of a series of
political mechanisms and interactions between residents and political actors, however, remains
unclear.
On the funding framework, agencies must meet certain criteria to be eligible for City or other
governmental funding. When developing an initiative or project, this might encourage them to
prioritize the fulfilment of those criteria rather than residents’ priorities. One agency participant
even wonders whether some agencies are only involved with NIAs initiatives to get funding:
“…I feel like a lot of those agencies, they're on those calls because they get funding from
the City and United Way…” Participant 2, Agency.
Similarly, a resident believes that some agencies carry on initiatives that will lead them to
receive funding rather than prioritizing what the community really wants:
“…You get so many thousands of dollars to come into the community just to do a needs
assessment because that's what you put in an application, you know, because your
11
Working Paper No. 2021/11
organization needs funding for the not for profit, organization and corporation.” Participant
4, Resident.
They added that it seems like the agencies’ goal is to meet the mandatory requirements
and/or to receive recognition rather than truly supporting residents. This might be a consequence
of both the current community programming funding system and legal framework:
“…it seemed as if it’s so that they can get their recognition and put it on paper that they did
their job kind… Because they have a quota. Or they have to implement the results in
reports… After they’ve reached their quota, or met their goal, then I’m on my own. Now,
what I am going to do?” Participant 4, Resident.
On legal context, this resident argued that it ultimately seems like the work of City officials intends
to achieve their agenda and keep updated on what is happening in the communities, but not to
make actual change. This stresses a possible consequence of the absence of mandatory
evaluation processes to assess the success of participatory processes:
They're just over the communities to actually see what's happening, to keep an update. It
is not really to affect any kind of change. It is not to actually see improvement…” Participant
4, Resident.
A Top-Down Approach
Although the City official mentioned that the City is trying to enhance the empowering lens
of their participatory framework, the interviews showed that the process is still largely a top-down
approach.
The interviews revealed that neighbourhood agencies are involved with the NIA initiatives
through partnerships with the City. They sit at the tables, work with the CDOs, and sometimes cofacilitate meetings. They can receive neighbourhood grants from the City to finance community
programming in NIAs. Concerning the role of those agencies at the NPTs, one agency participant
said that their organization sits at NPTs as a passive participant and that the community makes
the decisions. However, residents demonstrated a different opinion and highlighted that the
agencies have a decisive role at the tables. They described those agencies as City partners who
typically receive the community programming funding to allocate it to citizen grassroot initiatives.
As residents claimed that the City and agencies ultimately control how they can use the
funds, the interviews revealed that the processes are more tailored to the City and agency staff’s
ambitions and wants rather than the needs of residents.
Neighbourhood Planning Tables (NPTs) Meetings That Are Not Tailored to the
Residents’ Needs
The data revealed that the NPTs process is top-down and coordinated by City and agency
staff. For instance, agency and resident participants mentioned that one issue regarding providing
opportunities for residents to affect the process is that the meetings’ agendas are decided by the
City, limiting the opportunities for residents to provide input. This top-down approach was
confirmed by Resident 1 who mentioned that they did not feel heard at the NPTs meetings:
“…no one was listening to me, and I felt like I was going to meetings, but not being heard
at all, no one was listening to me.” Participant 4, Resident.
12
K. Côté
The interviews also revealed that the City’s system to provide funding support to residents
and grassroot groups is embedded in a top-down approach. All residents pointed out that the way
the funding process is designed does not allow for resident empowerment:
“They never pay the residents directly, it's always an agency holding the money...”
Participant 6, Resident.
“…the group is doing the work for free… And we have to work with a non-for-profit, in order
to be able to get anywhere or get anything done.” Participant 4, Resident.
One resident added that even when residents are successful in securing funding, agencies
control what they can do with that funding:
“And then they're telling you what to do with the money. Because there are certain criteria…
in order for you to receive that money.” Participant 4, Resident.
Exclusivity in the Support Provided
The top-down approach was also reflected by the process that determines which
communities can be classified as a NIA and access City funding or programming. For instance,
one agency participant mentioned the name of a neighbourhood in Scarborough that is no longer
a NIA, although residents have voiced that there are still important needs for more equitable and
economic opportunities in this community. One resident interviewee lives in this former NIA and
similarly pointed out not understanding why their community was no longer a NIA as it is a
neighbourhood in need of support. Furthermore, all resident participants agreed that the City
prioritizes organizations for funding if they had been working with them for a long time:
“They have their own people that they're working with and nobody gets in, they don't work
with anyone else. And these are the people that have been in these positions for years.”
Participant 4, Resident.
“… sometimes I observe that those big funds, which come from the City, they are just
preferring the old organizations.” Participant 5, Resident.
“…they're giving it (the funding) to agencies who tend to always get this funding…”
Participant 2, Agency.
One agency participant mentioned that residents have asked the City for explanation
regarding the funding process, but that no satisfactory answer has been provided:
“…these same individuals have reached out to the City asking for clarification asking, ‘Why
do these groups get it' and… there hasn't really been a clear response around that.”
Participant 2, Agency.
A Diverse Outreach but Some Missing Voices
All participants mentioned that NPTs resident participants are ethnically diverse, although it
seems like there are often missing voices at those meetings. While they do not appear to have a
13
Working Paper No. 2021/11
strategy to increase the diversity of attendees, the City mentioned being aware of this issue and
wanting to continue removing barriers to participation especially for equity seeking groups.
Recurring and Absent Voices at the Neighbourhood Planning Tables (NPTs)
Although all interviewees agreed that NPTs participants are generally ethnically diverse, the
data revealed that there are some absent groups at the tables. For instance, resident and agency
participants pointed out a lack of young voices and an absence of Indigenous participants.
Furthermore, all agencies highlighted that it seems like the City is reaching out to the same
people to participate in leadership activities. Participant 3 pointed out that a lot of participants from
another City-led program called the Local Champions Program were at the NIAs tables:
“…so many of the grassroot leader residents who were there at the monthly (NPTs)
meetings are also Local Champions. So whether that's how they found out about it, or
whether they just have had that like kind of skilling up to feel like we could navigate those
spaces with confidence, like whatever it is, there were more local champions there.”
Participant 3, Agency.
This resonates with comments from the two other agency participants who question to what
extent the City makes efforts to reach out to all voices:
“Sometimes I feel like the City's cherry-picking in terms of the leadership opportunities or
capacity building that we've done with our tenants.” Participant 2, Agency.
“I think that when you go to the tables, they’re, for the most part, they're filled. There are
people sitting around all the tables. But I also think, and I don't know how they do that and
how they reach out, but I think it is the low-hanging fruit that they go for right. So these are
the easiest people to reach out in the community and I don't think that they have really
reached out to the people that are harder to find.” Participant 1, Agency.
The Importance of Removing Barriers to Participation
Concerning the outreach and diversity of NPTs participants, all agency interviewees as well
as the City pointed out how crucial removing barriers is, which confirms Crompton (2017), King
et al., (1998), and Roberts (2004)’s findings. Regarding physical barriers to participation, all
community programming has been moved online due to Covid-19. This removed the barrier of
location while exacerbating technological access barriers as explained by residents:
“Now it’s more challenging because no one is going outside, everything is online… and
online tools are sometimes not accessible to all. Some people do not have access to
internet.” Participant 5, Resident.
On the topic of technology and internet access, the City mentioned being aware of those
challenges. They are currently reflecting on how to ensure an inclusive and accessible transition
from in-person meetings to online web-based meetings.
Another important barrier that was highlighted concerns communication methods. This has
been particularly pointed out by one agency interviewee who argued that institutions should adapt
communication methods so they better match the needs of residents:
14
K. Côté
“…there’re tenants that mobilize on WhatsApp groups, Facebook pages, or whatever else
that's the new trend, these days. But I think, as institutions, sometimes we're hesitant doing
so… I want to respect that there are probably valid reasons why people can't do or
communicate in a text message or WhatsApp. But I think, where there is an opportunity to,
then why not. If it's a matter of training and just adapting to the times and then so be it right.”
Participant 2, Agency.
The participant added that failing to remove communications barriers can result in missed
opportunities:
“This shows how things start to fall through the cracks. It falls into the cracks because we
think that by providing an email contact or a line extension, people all of the sudden will
reach out to get support. But this don’t happen. So it's important to unpack who can do what
and when.” Participant 2, Agency.
No Clear Inclusive Focus
The data showed that the City does not have a strategy to increase the inclusivity and
diversity of NIAs participatory activities. To the question: “Do you know how minority groups are
approached and engaged in NIA initiatives?”, no resident and agency representative was aware
of a strategy or measures. For instance, one agency answered that the City appears to intend to
expand their outreach and increase the diversity of participants. However, when this organization
asked the City about a strategy, there was no clear answer.
Although they do not currently have a specific plan that aims to increase the diversity of the
outreach, the City recognizes that more work needs to be done in this area and mentioned
continuing their efforts to reduce barriers to participation:
“…we need more input from residents, especially those resident equity seeking groups that
are not regularly at the table and not going to come to a big forum... We need to have a plan
and a strategy that engages partners and finds a way of getting their voices to the table,
whether they're actually at the table and that will be part of it, but also what are their
narratives and stories and how do we ensure that engagement is across the board and a
lot more equitable.” Participant 7, City.
Improvements Needed for the Process to Be Meaningful
The interviews revealed that most residents do not find the process meaningful. The data
highlighted frustrations regarding the NIAs participatory processes. All residents supported being
asked for their feedback through the NIAs processes. Yet, it appears that the engagement
framework and support provided do not offer real opportunities for them to affect the processes
nor implement sustainable change. According to most of them, this results in missed opportunities
and a waste of resources.
Few Empowerment Opportunities
Most resident and agency participants agreed that NPTs are helpful to build connections,
exchange ideas, and collect citizens’ feedback. Yet both agencies and residents question the
motivations behind the NIAs processes and NPTs. Undeniably, most participatory activities and
15
Working Paper No. 2021/11
meetings are informative or consultative rather than offering empowerment opportunities through
collaboration and partnerships (Arnstein, 1969). Most residents explained that NIAs
administrators and facilitators do ask residents for feedback, but that opportunities to really impact
the process or collaborate are rare:
“There’re always opportunities for residents to go and speak their mind and say what they
want to say, but as I said, that's when they want to gather information…” Participant 6,
Resident.
“I think the participation was okay, because we did participate, there were many lively
discussions. Our opinions were well received sometimes. Do I feel that changes were
made? Not really. And if some of them were implemented, it took a long time for that change
tapping. It wasn't within a month or so, it was months and months or not even. It's very
slow.” Participant 6, Resident.
A resident explained that citizens are asked to provide feedback, but that the way this
feedback is used, in addition to not being transparent and accountable, do not empower them.
That resident also argued that the process does not appropriately recognize citizens for their
contributions:
“They do ask residents, for their advice and feedback, but as I said when the City is doing
that, there's always some kind of organization at the table. And the leaders on the ground
that are working hard to get change and give their intellectual property to the City, the City
never recognizes these people, don’t compensate them (residents) in any form, or fashion.
Participant 6, Resident.
Processes That Are Not Sustainable
Some agency participants pointed out the importance of ensuring that the engagement
processes and support provided are sustainable. The interview guide asked for the participants’
opinion on meaningful engagement and whether the transparency, accountability, empowerment,
inclusivity, and accessibility components are being achieved.
To the question: “In general, what has been achieved successfully regarding ethnic
minorities engagement and what has not according to you?”, one agency answered:
“…there is meaningful engagement. How long and how sustainable this meaningful
engagement is the question that I would ask… what happens when you're not giving
funding?” Participant 1, Agency.
This agency gave the example of grassroot groups who received funding once and are now
at higher capacity, but who are not able to receive funding again because the City prioritizes new
initiatives. They argued that there is no space for such organizations with higher capacity, which
results in no opportunities for them to evolve or ensure the sustainability of the work they started.
They also find that providing funding and creating programs is great, but that it is a missed
opportunity if this momentum cannot be sustained, evolve, and grow over time. The importance
of being intentional, accountable, and committed to residents in the support provided was also
pointed out by a resident:
“I realized that people need to see real support you know, in order for them to participate…
And if the people are sincere that they are involved, they're not going to embarrass the
16
K. Côté
person that's trying to do something, they're going to support them they're going to show
up, they're going to be involved, they're not going to give excuses, they're not going to come
late, they're not going to come with an attitude, or they're not going to go on as if they were
busy. But they’ll make accommodations to be here for you…” Participant 4, Resident.
Discussion and Recommendations
Good Intentions but Meaningless Process
This study explored the City of Toronto’s approach to citizen engagement. It targeted the
work conducted in NIAs through TSNS2020. The research findings indicate that while the
participants of NIAs’ meetings and programs are ethnically diverse, there is a need for increased
transparency, accountability, and equity in the processes of engagement.
Although the research revealed that the City is aware of the need for increased efforts to
remove barriers to participation and engage harder-to-reach audiences, the study found that
those intentions are not reflected in the processes. Agencies and residents highlighted the
necessity to be more transparent regarding participatory activities’ objectives and what level of
engagement is involved. Participants also mentioned the need for more transparency regarding
the compensation residents can expect in return for their contributions. They also highlighted the
need for more clarity and honesty regarding what happens with their feedback. These findings
confirm what has been highlighted by engagement scholars about the lack of transparency from
the administrators in many top-down participatory processes. As described by Innes & Booher
(2004), King et al. (1998), Messier (2006), and Weymouth & Hartz-Karp (2019), such lack of
transparency creates a gap between what is expected and what is received, and therefore leads
to wasted resources and the erosion of citizen trust.
This research also uncovered a lack of accountability in participatory processes.
Participants deplored the meagre follow-up on the input shared by residents as well as on the
initiatives that are being implemented. For many participants, this absence of follow-up is
considered an obstacle to the accomplishment of sustainable work. To achieve accountability and
increase the sustainability of initiatives, rigorous metrics and methods to track progress are
needed. The City also highlighted the need to assess which resident groups typically receive
funding to ensure that the process is equitable. Those findings confirm what the literature says
about the lack of mandatory assessment of engagement processes (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012;
Crompton, 2017; King et al., 1998). It also aligns with Crompton’s conclusion about the need for
mandatory metrics to measure the success of engagement (2017).
Participants also highlighted the necessity for increased facilitation and cultural awareness
skills. Such skills could help engage harder to reach audiences and create a safe space for all
groups of citizens to feel comfortable to participate. Furthermore, a more straightforward and
transparent approach when asking for residents’ feedback was suggested to be more respectful
of citizens’ time and to use resources more efficiently. Some participants also highlighted the need
to hire residents to run the NIAs programs rather than relying exclusively on agencies. Hiring
residents who have proven their commitment for the community and have expertise on the local
context could not only increase the accountability, outreach, citizen trust, and efficiency of the
process, but also help achieve capacity building. Undeniably, delegating and partnering with
residents would move away from the informative and consultative levels of participation and
advance towards meaningful collaboration and empowerment as theorized by Arnstein (1969).
17
Working Paper No. 2021/11
The Importance of Addressing Inequalities Regarding Funding Opportunities Access
This study revealed frustrations from residents concerning funding opportunities. The
funding was depicted as insufficient, and the process described as exclusive and non-transparent.
Those arguments were supported by most residents and agency participants.
One recommendation is to have a more equitable process when providing funding
opportunities. This resonates with Qadeer (2016) and Crompton’s (2017) discussion on the
importance of shifting from an equality-based approach to an equity-based approach. Opening
funding to all grassroot groups and when not possible, being transparent and accountable
regarding the process was suggested.
Another recommendation is to review how communities who can receive support are
selected. Reviewing the definition of a NIA was suggested to ensure that no neighbourhood falls
into the crack or on the contrary, is over-privileged in terms of support. Another suggestion was
to ensure that resident groups that have gained capacity but that still need support for their work
to evolve or sustain are considered by City community programming.
As funding and support have been pointed out by all participants as the most crucial
elements to build capacity, a shift towards a more equitable, accountable, and intentional process
for providing support appears fundamental.
Building Capacity Through Empowering and Increasing Resiliency
Although the City explained wanting to increase residents’ autonomy and resiliency, NIAs
community programming is still based on a top-down model of engagement. All participants
highlighted the need for residents to have an active role at the NPTs; they should not only be
informed and consulted, but be partners involved in the decision-making and initiative
implementation processes. This confirms the argument that many participatory programs are still
grounded in the traditional top-down framework to engagement (Aubin & Bornstein, 2012;
Crompton, 2017; Glass, 1979; Innes & Booher, 2004; King et al., 1998; Michels & De Graaf, 2010;
Tigan, 2005). It also supports Arnstein (1969) and King et al. (1998)’s claim that there is a
difference between meaningful engagement that provides true opportunities to affect the process
and symbolic rituals of citizen participation.
To achieve a bottom-up approach and attain capacity building, residents and agencies
pointed out the need for residents to be able to have a say on the NPTs and other meeting
agendas. This study demonstrated a necessity to shift the power balance through hosting
activities during which residents are active participants, can voice neighbourhood priorities, and
be meaningfully heard.
All participants also mentioned barriers to accessing funding. This study revealed a need
for more direct funding to citizens and fewer agencies monitoring how this support can be used.
Moreover, most participants mentioned the need to meaningfully compensate residents for their
work. They argued that the City should refrain from providing one-time honorariums and
compensation and rather hire local residents as consultants.
Covid-19: Challenges and Opportunities
Amidst Covid-19, this study exposed that there has been an exacerbation of all barriers to
citizen participation. Technology, communications, and schedule barriers were highlighted by
many participants as obstacles to civic participation. Although the shift towards virtual meetings
has removed the location barrier and therefore makes it easier to connect, participants pointed
out that it has increased the inequities in terms of technology and internet access. Respondents
18
K. Côté
also highlighted that the pandemic has exacerbated mental health issues although some
mentioned believing that the mental health factor has not appropriately been taken up by the City.
Furthermore, the City’s lack of accountability was highlighted as a possible threat to the
community programming momentum that has been happening in some neighbourhoods.
Although the City programming work in NIAs is now on pause, the need for support as well as the
work of grassroot groups are not. Many participants pointed out the need for the City to be
accountable to residents to ensure that the work that has been started prior to Covid-19 can be
ongoing.
The City indicated an awareness of the necessity for increased resiliency in NIAs and
mentioned being open to criticism. They explained that this is one of their biggest Covid-19
learnings and shared a desire to reframe their engagement framework to address equity and
resiliency challenges. The City aims to focus on two priorities: equity and inclusion. They also
intend to be transparent in their intentions throughout the process of reviewing the NIAs
engagement framework. Yet, the City interviewee was realistic concerning the challenges of
undertaking such work. According to them, time is the biggest constraint. Undeniably, moving
forward towards a different approach to engagement that further reduces the barriers for equity
seeking groups to participate, and build relationships, trust, and awareness will take time. They
also mentioned that a shift towards a more inclusive approach to community programming that
places sustainability as a central component of the work can only be achieved if thinking long
term. They added that there are no shortcuts or other ways to proceed to lead towards authentic
connections and sustainable engagement that foster meaningful skill building and leadership
opportunities. As the City is still in an emergency situation, the City interviewee explained that
they would rather take time to build a thoughtful and sustainable framework than rush into building
something quickly.
Summary of Participants’ Recommendations for Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement
The following table summarizes participants’ suggestions to achieve meaningful and
inclusive engagement.
19
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Table 2. Participants’ Recommendations for Meaningful and Inclusive Engagement
Accessibility
Transparency
Accountability
Empowerment
Inclusivity
Sustainability
Increase the
accessibility of
funding opportunities
to all grassroot
groups (all residents
Have a clear purpose
when hosting
participatory
meetings (Residents 1
Have metrics to
track the progress of
participatory
initiatives (Agency 2
& 3 and all agencies).
and City).
Include the residents
to have a meaningful
say in the
participatory events’
agenda (Resident 1 & 3
Review how NIAs are
selected so all
undeserved
communities are
considered (Agency
and Agency 2 & 3).
1).
Be mindful that
building trust and
relationship takes
time, therefore
allocate enough
resources to enable
such process (City).
and Agency 2).
Have a more direct
and transparent
process to provide
resources to
residents (all
residents).
Be transparent in
Have metrics to
Aim for a level of
regard to the level of track the progress of participation that
participation involved City and agency staff foster collaboration
(Agency 3).
(Agency 2).
and partnerships
rather than being
informative or
consultative
processes (Resident
Provide cultural
competency
facilitation training
(Agency 3).
3).
Provide residents
meaningful
compensation (e.g.,
provide hourly rate
rather than
honorarium or gift
card, hire them as
consultants) (Resident
Be transparent in
regard to what will
happen with the
feedback (Resident 1 &
Covid-19 Related
Inputs
Give a particular
attention to address
technological barriers
(Resident 3 and City).
Be aware that
Provide mental health
sustainability will not support (Resident 3 and
be achieved without Agency 2).
transparency,
accountability,
accessibility,
empowerment, and
inclusivity (Resident 3
and Agency 1).
Follow-up with
residents after having
carried out an
initiative (all agencies).
Have facilitation
materials that are
tailored to the unique
local needs (Agency
3 and Agency 2 & 3).
3).
When designing a
participatory process,
be particularly
mindful of new
schedule barriers and
mitigate those
barriers (Resident 3 and
Agency 3).
1 & 2 and Agency 2).
Have metrics to
assess which
residents or
grassroot groups
typically receive the
funding (City).
Have volunteers and
facilitators that are
from the community
(Resident 2).
Continue to support
the work of grassroot
groups to sustain
resident leadership
momentums (all
agencies).
Increase efforts to
engage with Youth
and Indigenous
people (Resident 2,
Agency 1 & 2, and City).
Prioritize equityseeking groups in
the support provided
(City).
20
Have resident
participants at the
Covid-19 cluster
tables (Agency 3).
K. Côté
Conclusion
This research focused on the perspectives of ethnically diverse citizens, neighbourhood
agencies, and the City on the municipal participatory framework. It targeted the City of Toronto’s
strategy TSNS2020 and the NIAs participatory processes to explore the inclusivity and
meaningfulness of this approach to citizen participation. The goal was to explore the reasons
behind the failure to implement meaningful and inclusive engagement in community
programming, despite the fact that such approach is valued by political discourse and institutions.
This objective was achieved through uncovering how ethnically diverse citizens engage with and
are engaged by the municipal participatory framework, and to what extent this approach fulfills
their needs.
The literature on engagement and planning for diversity mentions a shift towards a bottomup approach to citizen participation but points out a lack of accessibility, transparency,
accountability, and empowerment opportunities (Arnstein, 1969; Aubin & Bornstein, 2012; Brody
et al., 2003; Day, 1997; Innes & Booher, 2004; King et al., 1998; Messier, 2006; Michels & De
Graaf, 2010; Tigan, 2005; Weymouth & Hartz-Karp, 2019). This research confirmed these
arguments. Undeniably, while the City of Toronto is aware of the need for more autonomy and
empowerment opportunities for residents, especially for equity seeking groups, those intentions
are not reflected in the processes. This study revealed that meaningful, inclusive, and sustainable
engagement is not achieved in Scarborough’s NIAs.
This research revealed that a bolder shift towards a bottom-up approach is necessary to
achieve meaningful and inclusive engagement in community programming. A departure from the
top-down model would help reach citizen empowerment as well as increase the accountability,
transparency, and equity of the framework. Ultimately, it would enable more sustainable
processes. As a whole, the study exposed that citizens, neighbourhood agencies, and the City
share similar viewpoints on what is needed to achieve meaningful engagement. Hence, enhanced
transparency and genuine collaboration between all stakeholders when establishing the
conditions of participatory processes is fundamental. Such genuine collaboration could help reach
mutual understanding and diminish frustrations. Ultimately, and as proposed by one agency
participant, it would be beneficial for municipalities to adopt an ethic of engagement, which would
be framed by both residents, agencies, and City administrators.
Beyond exposing areas of improvement for the professional field of planning, this study’s
findings contribute to a larger discussion on the civic inclusion of diverse populations in Canadian
societies. Reflecting on how to better engage those populations and the role of local authorities
in building capacity is crucial to reach enhanced civic and political cohesion. It is also fundamental
for the achievement of more equitable societies where both minority and majority populations are
seen as part of a collective national project (Bloemraad & Wright, 2014).
21
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Appendices
Appendix A. Interview Guide for Resident Participants
22
K. Côté
23
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Appendix B. Interview Guide for Neighbourhood Agency Participants
24
K. Côté
25
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Appendix C. Interview Guide for the City Official Participant
26
K. Côté
27
Working Paper No. 2021/11
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Aubin, R., & Bornstein, L. (2012). Montréal’s Municipal Guidelines for Participation and Public
Hearings: Assessing Context, Process and Outcomes. Canadian Journal of Urban
Research, Volume 21(Issue 1), Supplement pages 106-131.
Bacqué, M.-H., & Biewener, C. (2013). L’empowerment: Une pratique émancipatrice. La
Découverte.
Bloemraad, I., & Wright, M. (2014). “Utter Failure” or Unity out of Diversity? Debating and
Evaluating Policies of Multiculturalism. International Migration Review, 48(1_suppl), 292–
334. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12135
Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating Citizen Participation in Plan
Making: Six Strategic Planning Choices. Journal of the American Planning Association,
69(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308978018
Burayidi, M. A. (Ed.). (2015). Cities and the politics of difference: Multiculturalism and diversity
in urban planning. University of Toronto Press.
Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen Participation: Models and Methods. International Journal of Public
Administration, 30(11), 1179–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701225366
City of Toronto. (2017a). Local Neighbourhood Action Plan.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/cd/bgrd/backgroundfile-108051.pdf
City of Toronto. (2017b). TSNS 2020 & Action Catalogue.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/cd/bgrd/backgroundfile-101394.pdf
City of Toronto. (2020a). Neighbourhood Improvement Area Profiles.
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-researchmaps/neighbourhoodscommunities/nia-profiles/
City of Toronto. (2016). Scarborough: City of Toronto Community Council Area Profiles—2016
Census. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/8f80City_Planning_2016_Census_Profile_2014_Wards_CCA_Scarborough.pdf
City of Toronto. (2020b). Toronto Strong Neighbourhood Strategy 2020.
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customerservice/longterm- vision-plans-and-strategies/toronto-strong-neighbourhoods-strategy2020/
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Crompton, A. (2017). Towards Inclusive Community Engagement: Engaging Marginalized
Residents in the Urban Planning Process (Doctoral Thesis) [Master Thesis]. Graduate
Department of Geography and Planning University of Toronto.
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy And Pluralism In Planning. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 31(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187
Day, D. (1997). Citizen Participation in the Planning Process: An Essentially Contested
Concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421–434.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229701100309
Finney, N., & Rishbeth, C. (2006). Engaging with Marginalised Groups in Public Open Space
Research: The Potential of Collaboration and Combined Methods. Planning Theory &
Practice, 7(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350500497406
Gaber, J. (2020). Qualitative analysis for planning & policy: Beyond the numbers (2nd edition).
Routledge.
Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement. World
Development, 40(12), 2399–2410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.014
28
K. Côté
Glass, J. J. (1979). Citizen Participation in Planning: The Relationship Between Objectives and
Techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 180–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976956
Healey, P. (1992a). A Planner’s Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 58(1), 9–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975531
Healey, P. (1997). Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban
Planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(9), 1531–1546.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a301531
Healey, P. (1992b). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town
Planning Review, 63(2), 143. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st
century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward
Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review,
58(4), 317. https://doi.org/10.2307/977561
Lane, M. B. (2005). Public Participation in Planning: An intellectual history. Australian
Geographer, 36(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180500325694
Maier, K. (2001). Citizen Participation in Planning: Climbing a Ladder? European Planning
Studies, 9(6), 707–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120073775
Margerum, R. D. (2002). Collaborative Planning: Building Consensus and Building a Distinct
Model for Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 237–253.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100302
Messier, J. (2006). La démocratie montréalaise entre le métropolisation et la citoyenneté
urbaine: Enquête sur la participation publique des minorités ethniques (Master thesis).
Université du Québec à Montréal.
Michels, A., & De Graaf, L. (2010). Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy
Making and Democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477–491.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2010.494101
Myrvold, B., & Fahey, C. (1997). The people of Scarborough: A history. City of Scarborough
Public Library Board.
Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2014). Basics of social research.
Ojo, T., & Shizha, E. (2018). Ethnic Enclaves in Canada: Opportunities and Challenges of
Residing Within (pp. 162–179).
Qadeer, M. A. (2016). Multicultural cities: Toronto, New York, and Los Angeles.
https://apps.uqo.ca/LoginSigparb/LoginPourRessources.aspx?url=http://search.ebscohost
.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=1222016
Roberts, N. (2004). Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation. The American
Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science,
Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
Sandercock, L. (2003). “Who Knows? Exploring Planning’s Knowledges. In Mongrel Cities of the
21st Century (pp. 59–82). Cosmopolis 2.
Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012). Making it Count: A Review of the Value and Techniques for Public
Consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 22–42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211413133
Statistics Canada. (2020). Data products, 2016 Census. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2016/dp-pd/index-eng.cfm
29
Working Paper No. 2021/11
Tigan, M. T. (2005). Citizen Participation in United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development Program: From the Great Society to the New Federalism (Doctoral Thesis).
University of Massachussetts Amherst: Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning
Department.
Weymouth, R., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2019). Participation in planning and governance: Closing the
gap between satisfaction and expectation. Sustainable Earth, 2(1), 5.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-019-0012-y
Zapata, M. A., & Bates, L. K. (2015). Equity Planning Revisited. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 35(3), 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15589967
Zhuang, Z. (2017). The Intersection of a Place and Ethnic Entrepreneurship: The Role of Ethnic
Entrepreneurs in the Making of Three Toronto Neighbourhoods. Journal of Architectural
and Planning Research, 34(1), 1–22.
Zucchi, J. E. (2007). A history of ethnic enclaves in Canada. Canadian Historical Association.
https://cha-shc.ca/_uploads/5c374f720fa95.pdf.
30
RELATED PAPERS
Authorea (Authorea)
The genomic analysis of Southwest Asian indigenous goats revealed evidence of ancient adaptive introgression related to desert climate2022 •
2008 •
Agrarnaâ nauka Evro-Severo-Vostoka
Foot and mouth disease: risk factors and control measures (review)2023 •
2015 •
Voci fuori dal coro. Per Ana Martínez García
Entre fotografías y fantasmas: "Los Modlin" (2013) de Paco Gómez2023 •