Making Local Democracy Work

Municipal Officials Views About

Public Engagement BY WILLIAM BARNES
AND BONNIE C. MANN

In June 2009, the National League of Cities (NLC) What Municipal Officials Are Doing
surveyed elected and managerial municipal officials The 2009 NLC survey found that most cities are
regarding public engagement. This article provides engaged in local efforts to involve people in de-
some highlights from the study. The full report is liberating issues and helping to solve problems.
available at www.nlc.org on the Governance page Eighty-one percent of respondents reported that
under the Find City Solutions tab. their municipalities use public engagement processes
often (60 percent) or sometimes (21 percent). In ad-
The State of Americas Cities survey was sent to a dition, 85 percent of officials reported that their
random sample of municipal officials, both elected municipalities do more public engagement than is
and appointed, in 1,748 cities across the nation. We required by federal, state, or local laws. Although
undertook this study in order to better understand these are very large majorities, about one in five of-
the attitudes, knowledge, and underlying assump- ficials (19 percent) reported that public engagement
tions of municipal officials, both elected and ap- processes are used only occasionally or rarely, and
pointed, about democracy and the functions of mu- 15 percent reported that their city does only what is
nicipal government. More specifically, the study was legally required.
about public engagement. The survey question-
naire that was used to obtain the findings defined Solid majorities of municipal officials reported reg-
public engagement processes as proactive efforts ular use of online tools (including the City Hall
to involve people in deliberating public issues and in Web site and online publication of council agen-
helping to solve public problems. das and proposed executive actions) to support and
encourage public engagement. However, most mu-
The study emerged from our own normative frame- nicipalities did not appear to have embraced Web
work. We sought information that would allow us 2.0 (participatory Internet-based information shar-
to better understand what municipal officials think ing) strategies in significant numbers yet, with just
about public engagement so that we and others can 14 percent of officials reporting that their cities reg-
do a better job of helping citizens and municipal ularly use interactive online forums.
officials make democracy work.
Notably, two-thirds of officials (67 percent)
Of course, the topic of democratic governance reported that their city regularly uses special de-
is broader than the question of peoples rela- liberative processes, such as town hall meetings,
tionship with their municipal government. People to involve large numbers of people on critical is-
engage with other governments besides municipali- sues. Other examples of public engagement listed
ties. Most important, people come together in many by respondents included:
ways, independent of government, to address prob-
lems and seize opportunities; in other words, democ- r E-mail to residents
racy is not always about engaging with government. r Teletown hall meetings
Thus, it is important to remember that this study r Community Insight Team of people selected at
focuses on a subsetpublic engagement with mu- random for feedback
nicipal governmentsof the much broader topic of r Resident surveys
democratic governance. r Meet the Mayor biweekly


c 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
58 National Civic Review DOI: 10.1002/ncr.20063 Fall 2011 A Publication of the National Civic League
r Social networking, like Facebook The implicit acknowledgment by a significant per-
r Public access channel centage of municipal officials that their cities can
r Weekly listening post with public officials at do better on these issues presents an important op-
towns Saturday farmers market portunity for the field of democratic governance to
help these local leaders chart a course for improved
The surveys findings concerning the extent to which
public engagement. Even the 57 percent of officials
these processes are used suggest that the main is-
who were merely satisfied with local processes
sue around public engagement in most cities is not
presumably would be receptive to improvement in
quantitative; most officials see their city doing this
this area.
already. Rather, the opportunity for improvement
may be qualitativeto make the processes work bet-
ter. There will still be obstacles, of course, but these Value of Engagement
should be easier to overcome when municipalities
When asked to what extent public engage-
are challenged to improve on current work rather
ment processes are valued by public officials,
than taking on work that is entirely new.
95 percent of respondents answered to a great
extent (58 percent) or somewhat (37 percent).
What Municipal Officials Think About Public Only 5 percent selected very little. This finding
Engagement indicates that survey respondents believed that they
In addition to exploring the level of public engage- and their colleagues in government think that get-
ment in municipalities and what cities are doing, the ting resident input and involvement is a net plus for
NLC survey was designed to find out more about their cities.
how municipal officials think about what is hap-
pening in their cities to involve residents in thinking Similarly, 86 percent of officials said that public en-
about issues and helping to solve problems. Signifi- gagement processes are valued by a citys residents
cant majorities of municipal officials said they were either to a great extent (31 percent) or some-
satisfied with what is happening and believe that what (55 percent). The divergence in the percent-
public engagement produces useful results. How- ages of respondents selecting to a great extent and
ever, a sizable minority expressed dissatisfaction somewhat in answer to this question is worth not-
with the public engagement status quo, and many ing, when compared to the data from the question
officials cited a range of obstacles that can stand in about whether public officials value these processes.
the way of effective engagement in their cities and While 58 percent of respondents said public offi-
towns. cials value these processes to a great extent, only
31 percent believed the general public valued them.
Most public officials (57 percent) said they were sat- This discrepancy may help explain some of the am-
isfied with the level and nature of public engagement bivalence that municipal officials express about this
in their cities, but only 15 percent said they are very topic. It may also suggest an opportunity for the field
satisfied. In answer to a separate question, an over- to help municipalities explore ways to reframe pub-
whelming majority of respondents (96 percent) said lic engagement in ways that could result in chang-
they had participated in or seen an effective pub- ing perceptions among city officials regarding local
lic engagement process. We take this to mean that residents buy-in and support.
respondents believe they are acquainted with a stan-
dard of effectiveness by which to make these sorts When asked to consider the rewards and benefits
of judgments. of public engagement, a majority of the municipal
officials (55 percent) selected build a stronger sense
Nevertheless, a significant number of municipal offi- of community as one of their top answers from a
cials viewed local public engagement in a more neg- list of thirteen.
ative light. Nearly three in ten municipal officials (28
percent) were either dissatisfied (25 percent) or very Municipal officials see public engagement as deliv-
dissatisfied (3 percent) with the level and nature of ering a variety of positive outcomes. Although a
public engagement in their cities. majority said it contributes to a stronger sense of

National Civic Review DOI: 10.1002/ncr Fall 2011 59

 community, no one outcome, or one set of outcomes, solve local problems. On the other hand, additional
stands head and shoulders above the rest. Some see findings support the view that many municipal of-
public engagement as a way to better solutions; oth- ficials think the public is not helpful and does not
ers see it as a way to better relationships between participate in civic engagement processes unless an
citizens and government; some see it as a way to issue affects them individually. The most frequently
build communityand most see it as delivering a selected obstacle to or risk associated with public en-
combination of all of these benefits at once. gagement was public apathy and/or ambivalence,
chosen by 69 percent of municipal officials from
Assessing Skills a list of seventeen possible answers. Additionally,
The survey also sought to gauge respondents assess- eight in ten respondents agreed that public engage-
ment of the skills needed to do effective public en- ment processes typically attract mostly the same
gagement. Respondents were split down the middle people who complain or promote their favorite so-
when asked if most elected and appointed officials lutions. And three out of four said they agreed that
in their city have the skills, training, and experience most people will not contribute to or participate in
to do effective deliberative public engagement. Half local problem solving except in an emergency or
(49 percent) said yes and half (48 percent) said no, when something affects them specifically.
with 3 percent responding dont know.

Municipal Officials Roles The most frequently selected obstacle to or risk

Although municipal officials expressed satisfaction of public engagement was public apathy and/or
with public engagement in their cities, they do not ambivalence.
view engaging the public as the most important as-
pect or function of their jobs. The NLC survey pre-
sented respondents with a list of nine job functions
Similarly, when asked to rate the importance of var-
for municipal officials, ranging from developing pol-
ious public roles and responsibilities of people in
icy and balancing the budget to mobilizing residents.
their cities, more respondents checked very impor-
tant next to such roles as be law-abiding and
The top three selections identified as very important
responsible for personal affairs (68 percent) and
were balance the budget (87 percent), develop policy
pay taxes and fees (60 percent) than pitch in to
(60 percent), and make decision about providing
help solve public problems; dont ask government
services (59 percent).
to solve all problems (37 percent) and volunteer to
serve on boards and committees (30 percent). Mu-
In contrast, responses having to do with public en-
nicipal officials appeared to see public engagement
gagement tended to fall in the middle or toward the
not as a core role or responsibility of local residents
bottom of the ranking. For example, 51 percent of
but as something that is secondary to other activities.
officials said it that getting input from resident about
issues was very important function. About one-third
This interpretation parallels the survey results about
(31 percent) said it was very important to mobilize
how local officials view their own roles. In both
residents to devote some of their time and energy to
instanceswhether they are thinking about the pub-
community goals and problem solving.
lic or about themselvesmore public officials at-
tach more importance to a set of roles and respon-
Role of the Public sibilities that speak to the most basic functions of
Local officials appear to be of two minds on the government. Government is duty-bound to balance
topic of the publics role in the engagement process. budgets, just as citizens are duty-bound to obey the
On one hand, the survey responses suggest that mu- laws. At the same time, many municipal officials at-
nicipal officials saw the public as a positive force tribute great value to the deliberative collaboration
in local problem solving. Seven in ten respondents of officials and citizens to address local problems.
agreed with the statement: Most people really care A challenging opportunity thus presents itself to de-
about the whole community and are willing to help velop ways of integrating these disparate views.

60 National Civic Review DOI: 10.1002/ncr Fall 2011

Municipal officials were split on the question of senting question is whether a generalization is rel-
whether residents have the necessary skills and evant and, if so, how.
knowledge to do public engagement work ef- r Public engagement can mean different things to
fectively. Forty-three percent answered yes while different people. Does it include only large-scale
45 percent answered no. processes that involve large numbers of people
and diverse populations? Does it include citizens
Role of the Media and Others serving on a board or commission? Municipal of-
ficials, approaching the topic from their institu-
The NLC survey also asked municipal officials about
tional base and experience, seem to be saying yes
their views of how well the media, community
and yesand yes some more. As we discovered,
groups, and institutions contribute to the local cul-
officials tend to include a wide range of activities
ture and climate of public engagement. Respondents
under the umbrella of public engagement. Greater
indicated that they believe these community partners
clarity about definitions and more attention to
for public engagement efforts were not performing
the views held by various participants would be
very well.
useful.
r It takes a village to do effective public engage-
About 39 percent of municipal officials cited Media
ment. It takes an entire community to create and
not paying attention and/or is not fair and balanced
sustain an effective democratic governance cul-
as an obstacle to greater levels of public engagement.
ture. Many municipal officials report that impor-
The only obstacle or risk that was selected more of-
tant players (including their own city halls) are
ten was public apathy and/or ambivalence. Re-
not stepping up to their proper roles. The oppor-
spondents negative opinions of the medias role in
tunity for the field of public engagement might be
public engagement showed up in their answers to
to recast the topic in terms of roles and respon-
other questions in the survey. For example, only one
sibilities for everyone and thus to lift up public
in four municipal officials rated the media as being
engagement as a core responsibility for municipal
good at informing people and local public affairs
government, citizens, organizations, the media,
with fair and balanced reporting; 30 percent rated
and others.
the media as poor in this area. In addition, more r Municipal officials and other stakeholders have
than half said the media does a poor job of in-
different ideas about what makes public en-
volving people in deliberation and problem solving
gagement effective. Given the various definitions
and 47 percent said the media does a poor job of
for the term public engagement, it is not
contributing to constructive debate.
surprising that there are various ideas about
what makes public engagement effective. Local
Emerging Observations officials, for example, say it is most important
As we worked on developing our questionnaire and, that people have the right information and that
later, on analyzing the responses, some observations the discussion is civil. Others might identify
and questions emerged that shaped our approaches other criteria as more important. A challenge for
to findings. The next points do not constitute a sum- the field may be to try to build consensus around
mary or highlights of the data. Rather, they are ob- what effectiveness in public engagement means;
servations and questions that the reader might con- this would be a less abstract way of getting at
sider when veiwing our data and findings. shared definitions and goals.
r Municipal officials are ambivalent about this
r Place matters . . . and places are different. Gen- topic. Many municipal officials expressed satis-
eralizations about municipal and other roles faction with their local public engagement, while
in public engagementincluding any made in other NLC research indicates they take a dim view
this articlemust be offered tentatively and ap- of engagement nationally and in other communi-
plied with care. Local institutions, activities, ties besides their own. A question for the field is
leadership, and political culture will shape the how to understand this local satisfaction. The
context and conditions for government/citizen data from the 2009 survey suggested that officials
engagement. For any given city or town, the pre- see and understand some of the deficiencies of

National Civic Review DOI: 10.1002/ncr Fall 2011 61

 their local public engagement activities. They also cities tend to use public engagement differently,
identify a range of barriers to effective public depending on the topic and the situation? Or do
engagement. Helping officials find ways to over- they have a standard toolkit, no matter the topic?
come those barriers can contribute to improved r Why and how have skills improved (according
public engagement practice at the local level. to some officials)? Half of municipal officials (49
r Municipal officials and residents need skills percent) said that elected and appointed officials
to do this work well. One of the key insights skill and experience level with deliberative public
coming out of the survey was that skills matter. engagement had improved since they (the respon-
Nearly half of the respondents said that neither dents) became involved in local public affairs. It
municipal officials nor residents have the skills would be useful to have a better understanding of
and experience to carry out and participate in ef- the reasons why these municipal officials believe
fective public engagement. Improving skills may this improvement in skills has occurred. Identify-
therefore be at least as important as providing ing some of the key factors that led to improve-
new or sophisticated techniques developed by ment might hold lessons for future efforts to im-
practitioners and consultants. prove skills for public engagement practice at the
local level.
Conclusion r How has the economic recession affected cities
This study opened as many or more questions as public engagement work? More than one-third
it answered. In a rich and significant field such as of municipal officials (35 percent) said their city
democratic governance and public engagement, the did more in the previous year to engage residents
answers to any interesting question always lead to in budgeting and finance processes than it usually
more questions. Each step forward moves us deeper does. The effects of the recession will continue,
into the topic. In particular, this process of investi- and municipal budgets are likely to feel the pinch
gation seeks results that can help advance the theory for years to come. The opportunity for a nat-
and practice of democracy. ural experiment presents itself. It might involve
monitoring the reported uptick in participatory
We believe that there are opportunities for further budgeting, determining exactly what it involves,
investigation of issues and questions that arise from comparing activities and outcomes in cities that
the analyses in this report. These matters for further do not do this, and watching to see whether the
research include: phenomenon disappears when city revenues pick
up again.
r What is the nature and impact of planning for r Why do so many municipal officials see good in-
public engagement? About 28 percent of respon- formation as the basis for public engagement, and
dents said their citys public engagement work is what does that say about working toward more
guided by a plan. Presumably such plans have effective processes? The high importance that
been discussed publicly and approved by munici- municipal officials attribute to useful, balanced
pal officials, but we do not know that for sure. A information deserves considerable thought and
useful next step would be to explore in more de- investigation. As we noted, a good deal may be
tail exactly what is (and is not) in these plans, how packed into this concept; carefully unpacking it
they were adopted, how they are used, whether might yield useful results.
they contain some sense of goal and mission or
are mere process reviews, and whether they effec- Other observers will have additional suggestions for
tively shape behavior and implementation. further research and for topics that deserve more
r Why do officials use public engagement on some careful discussion. We welcome comments from
topics and not others? Municipal officials say that interested readers.
their city is more likely to deploy public engage-
ment processes for some topics than others. We William Barnes is director for emerging issues at NLC.
ventured some hypotheses as to why this might be
Bonnie C. Mann is the project manager for democratic
so. Refining and testing these and other hypothe-
governance at NLC.
ses is an important investigation for the field. Do

62 National Civic Review DOI: 10.1002/ncr Fall 2011