Insights

CombatingDisinformation by Becoming a Relationally Intelligent Leader BY THOMAS BRYER, PHD A thorn in the side of local government can become an opportunity to strengthen your community.

THOMAS BRYER, PHD, is

a professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida (thomas.bryer@ ucf.edu). ICMA’s 14 practices for effective local government leadership are not mutually exclusive; they are not designed to be. While preparing for work as a local government leader, it is important to see where and how the different practices flow together, particularly in preparing to deal with complex issues. A case in point: combating disinformation and misinformation. This is increasingly a thorn in the side of local leaders and can be a thorn that either embeds itself deeper within the local government organization or scratches a path throughout the community, leaving government leaders and stakeholders scarred.

There are five practices for effective local government leadership that together enable local leaders to successfully recognize and combat disinformation and misinformation, and that further enable local leaders to strengthen communities that have been fractured by them. Taken together, these practices are those used by the relationally intelligent leader. The practices are community engagement, equity and inclusion, community and resident service, technological literacy, and communication and information sharing. There are additional practices that are relevant as well, but these are the dominant ones to ensure effective leadership.

At the 2022 ICMA Annual Conference, my colleague Sarah Stoeckel and I offered a two-part micro-certification in relational intelligence. In it, we covered much terrain that link the five practices, including the following: • Combating disinformation online and offline. • Framing your community vision. • Creating a social media policy. • Designing and implementing a communication plan for crisis and non-crisis situations. • Becoming a collaborative leader and inclusive communicator.

Relational Intelligence First, what exactly is a relationally intelligent leader? You may have heard of the idea of emotional intelligence or cultural intelligence. The first concerns the ability to empathize with others, to move beyond the transactional nature of the professional environment and see to the care of the person behind the task list. The second concerns the ability to adapt to a new cultural environment, whether that be in a new country or city, or when interacting with individuals with different cultural norms and values than one’s own. Relational intelligence concerns the ability to see the people and organizations within one’s environment, to recognize and deepen trust bonds with potential allies, and to build new links where there are gaps to specific groups, demographics, or organizations in the community.

To be relationally intelligent is to (1) practice effective community engagement, (2) communicate in ways that not only seek to be inclusive but that are specifically not exclusionary to any group, (3) design service delivery systems that are open for democratic feedback, and (4) utilize available social and other technologies to detect and overcome forces in the community that interfere with any of the preceding practices.

Those interfering forces are the creators of disinformation and spreaders of misinformation. We must differentiate between disinformation and misinformation, as they each require a different kind of response.

The Various Types of False Information Disinformation is defined as existing at the intersection of two dimensions: accuracy and intent of the creator. Information that is inaccurate and spread by an individual with self-interested intent (e.g., to promote a specific policy or value) is disinformation. Information that is vague or ambiguous (i.e., accuracy cannot be determined) and spread by an individual with self-interested intent is disingenuous information. Information that is technically accurate but lacking a complete context and spread with bad intent is distracting information. Each of these destabilize the policy process and threaten to fracture communities.

Comparatively, misinformation is inaccurate but spread by an individual with good intent (i.e., they think they are helping the community by “warning” about risks or dangers). Misguided information is vague or ambiguous and spread with good intent. These both also threaten the policy process and community cohesion but require different solutions and strategies of the relationally intelligent leader.

Information that is accurate and spread by someone with good intent often is missing information in that it is drowned out by the various manifestations online and offline of disinformation and misinformation. The relationally intelligent leader must amplify the missing information, block the spread of misinformation and misguided information, and inclusively communicate truth in response to all forms of disinformation.

Taking Action One of the clearest ways to do this is to recognize that the city or county manager, or any leader in local government, is not alone in dealing with these issues. To control and combat misinformation and disinformation, and to amplify the voices of those who are trying to spread good information, requires partnerships with allies both inside and outside government. Leverage the social media relationships of the business community, nonprofit alliances, faith organization coalitions, and neighborhood associations. These allies can help identify dis- or misinformation before it fractures the community, and they can help to protect residents from being infected by disinformation in their zest to protect their community.

In a previous article I wrote for PM in 2020, “Social Media in Local Government: Leave or Experiment, I suggested that local governments should either experiment with or leave social media if there are insufficient resources to engage in innovative ways.1 I still agree with my previous writing. Here I build on it. Experimentation with social media and online engagement, or with democracy in general, is not only a question of the local government’s resources. It is a question of how local government resources are merged with and deployed strategically alongside those resources online and offline of community partners, stakeholders, and, ultimately, allies.

Conclusion Disagreements on policy and community direction will persist, as they should, within and across our communities. However, all who have invested and continue to invest resources in businesses, people, or families have a shared interest in keeping our communities strong, rather than divided. The relationally intelligent leader is one who unites and never excludes. Using ICMA’s effective leadership practices as guides, we can strengthen our communities for the important work of building opportunities for a high quality of life for all who live, work, play, and pray beside us.

1 https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/social-media-local-governmentleave-or-experiment

BY JESSIE O’BRIEN

Is the national divide impacting local communities? A recent survey asks local government employees how they deal with polarization when traditional approaches to engagement are no longer enough.

hese days we see polarization pollute political discourse and lead to dwindling trust in local government. Nearly 70% of government officials say political division negatively impacts their organization, according to a recent Polco survey investigating polarization at the community level.

“As much as local governments intend to be apolitical, the impact of the national divide is now hitting home locally,” said Michelle Kobayashi, Polco vice president of innovation. Kobayashi, who designed the assessment, is a thought-leading survey scientist and has helped governments make sense of public opinion for the last 30 years.

Many government employees think the fracture will likely worsen in the near future. Luckily, polarization may not be as pervasive as Twitter threads may have us believe. And some organizations have already implemented strategies like education and collaboration to help regain lost trust and temper divisiveness.

How Misinformation Fuels Polarization As communication technology continues to advance, ideas and information—and misinformation—spread further and faster than ever before. “The past few election cycles have shown pretty vividly how social media can be used to amplify misinformation and disinformation in state and federal elections,” said Josh Brockway, senior strategic foresight strategist for strategic government resources (SGR). SGR partnered with Polco to conduct the polarization assessment survey. “We [wanted] to see if misinformation and disinformation were making their way down to the local level,” he said. The survey results reveal that they are.

Almost 80% of local government professionals said misinformation has negatively affected their organization by a moderate to a significant amount. Only 7% said they have not witnessed any impact from misinformation. But polarized disruption comes from a small percentage of extreme voices.1

“Many social media postings [include] disinformation that comes from a small but vocal minority of our citizens,” one government official stated in the survey. They added that their organization spends a significant amount of time rebutting falsehoods through their communications channels and at city council meetings.

However, traditional approaches to engagement are no longer enough to overcome oceans of fake news and extremism. Polco’s national public opinion database shows that only about 20% of Americans have ever attended a local government meeting. In-person city council meetings don’t reach the masses.

Plus, the decline in local journalism has also made messaging more difficult. Over 2,500, credentialed news outlets have vanished since 2005, constricting a long-standing mode of communication.2

And yet, the demand and consumption of new media are at an all-time high. More people receive news from national mainstream sources (which are often more polarized) and social media (which often promotes more sensationalized or fabricated news).3

Social media encourages more divisive behavior as well.4 Social media platforms promote confirmation bias; the algorithms satisfy personal tastes so that everyone online lives in their own bubble fed by cherry-picked information. The system reinforces closely held mindsets, leading to more tribalism and identity politics.

“Grandstanding online reduces cooperation and increases divisiveness,” Kobayashi said. “While bits of grandstanding have always been a part of public meetings in the past, social media has provided an opportunity for grandstanders to claim greater amounts of attention, providing them with a bigger microphone.”

On the other hand, Polco engagement experts observe the majority of Americans don’t share their perspectives about community issues online at all. “You really only see the more extreme viewpoints on social media,” said Angelica Wedell, Polco director of communications. The decline of local news coupled with the rise of polarized social media dramatically altered the way Americans exchange information. And as a result, around 80% of government leaders don’t believe their community members are wellinformed on public issues.

“Misinformation becomes a self-feeding cycle,” Wedell said. “Residents don’t get the most reliable information about their city and local government leaders don’t get the most reliable look at public opinion. And that becomes a problem if you’re trying to make policy decisions from reacting to social media comments.” She says local governments must turn to other engagement solutions for resident feedback, with sound methods and strategies to filter the noise.

Waning Trust and Other Impacts of Polarization on Local Government But polarization is not all bad. Opposites help us define, identify, and balance two parties. It gives people choices. On the flip side, we’re witnessing the pitfalls of too much discord in real-time.

A recent study found that polarization leads to higher borrowing costs at the local level.5 It’s contributed to many government officials leaving the public sector, causing staffing issues.6 Polarization also creates funding issues and divisions among staff and elected officials. “Key decisions are often stalled out of no action,” one local government professional responded to the survey.

Other top impacts of polarization include council interactions (63%), resident hostility toward government employees (70%), and resident engagement with local government (70%). A decline in trust is the most-felt consequence (73%). However, it is still too early to know if the rate of decline will continue.

“At the federal level, public trust has been decreasing steadily for the past 30 years. Our national database on local government has not shown the downward spiral until around 2021 and 2022,” Kobayashi said. “We are not sure if this is simply a blip or if the local government trust trends will start to more closely mirror the national trends.”

Overcome Polarization at the Local Level with Education and Collaboration Fortunately, some governments are already taking measures to overcome polarization. More than half (61%) of local government professionals believe their organizations play a role in combating political division.

“We interpreted that as ‘Yeah there’s a problem, but we’re not giving up. We still feel optimistic. We can do something about that,’” Brockway said.

Further, 24% of government officials surveyed have already implemented strategies to prevent polarization. Some respondents say their organizations are aiming for political balance on appointed boards. Others have hired diversity, equity, and inclusion strategists. Many say teaching digital literacy and education is their main defense.

Community leaders point to government-sponsored

1 https://blog.polco.us/wickedproblems-and-the-truth-aboutpolarization-in-america 2 https://www.nytimes. com/2022/06/29/business/media/localnewspapers-pandemic.html 3 https://www.vox.com/ polyarchy/2018/5/31/17406590/localnational-political-institutionspolarization-federalism 4 https://elgl.org/advancingai-alarming-hope/ 5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC8898782/ 6 https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/ clocking-out-good-great-resignationsimpact-local-government 7 https://blog.polco.us/wickedproblems-and-the-truth-aboutpolarization-in-america

engagement and education as the key solution for misinformation-based polarization. For example, a number of cities (such as Celina, Texas) have launched citizen academies that teach civic education, youth leadership, and other classes. Brockway stresses that twenty-first century civic education needs to be much more than teaching the nuts and bolts of the federalist government. People need to learn true compromise and mediation skills.

Some governments are getting residents involved in the decision-making process itself. “We regularly host roundtable meetings,” one government employee said on the survey. “The purpose of these meetings is to jointly work to solve problems that deal with the service our local government provides to our constituents.”

Lowering barriers to participation is another effective strategy. Technology presents one of the best ways to reach more people at scale and connect with more diverse voices.

“Polarization is a symptom of imbalance. But inclusive, convenient opportunities for engagement even the scales,” Wedell said. “That’s why we like surveys so much. They leverage tech most people already use. They don’t have the same burdens as inperson meetings like time constraints, transportation, or taking away from care-taking responsibilities. So you wind up with a lot more people able to participate. And with the right methods, you get a much broader, representative range of residents.” She emphasized that the majority of residents express the more reasonable viewpoints. The reality is that most of the community is not so extremely opposite after all.7

To go a step further, the best government actions are guided by reliable feedback. This may require letting go of some control. But including constituents in the decision-making process allows government officials to align their actions with community values. Listening and acting on feedback will also strengthen trust.

“When you share the power, it immediately disarms the cycle. It’s hard and it’s a little frightening, and you have to be very good at being humble and collaborative and negotiating and mediating these differences of opinion,” Brockway said. “But the benefits are incredible. When you work together, you have something both groups have bought into. You can start the virtuous cycle of working together because now you have a precedent.”

JESSIE O’BRIEN serves as the lead copywriter for Polco (https://info.polco. us). Polco makes community engagement accurate and reliable. Hundreds of government leaders trust Polco for insights from surveys and data analytics on one easy-to-use online platform.

Disneyland Paris Barcelona Italian Riviera

Clearwater Beach Kissimme FL Ennis TX

UndergroundRefuse.com

Undergroundrefuse.com[407] 973-4141

BY POOJA BACHANI DI GIOVANNA AND ALEXANDER DESANTIS

he definition of digital equity has changed and broadened since its first conception in the 1990s.1 Recently, the pandemic placed a spotlight on digital equity when the world hastily transitioned to online work, school, and public engagement. Headlines abounded about students needing tablets and using commercial Wi-Fi to be able to complete their schoolwork. Concerns arose about equal access to vital health information as government communication systems relied on technology to safely reach out and engage their residents. Likewise, public engagement shifted to the virtual world, transitioning in-person meetings to online, increasing the use of QR code surveys, and more.

During this unprecedented time, local governments and school boards were faced with the challenge of maintaining operations online while ensuring residents had access.

TPublic engagement is just one of many lenses through which we can view issues of digital equity in local government. Twenty-five years ago, digital equity primarily referred to technology access—who has technology and who doesn’t. The concept of the digital divide began in the early

1970s when microcomputers first became popular in the United States. The term later became widely used during the 1990s to describe both the gap between homes with computer access to the Internet and homes without these information communication technologies (ICTs).

Now, according to the director of the RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy, Dr. Rhianna C. Rogers, digital equity “means the capacity in which all individuals and communities have access to technologies needed to participate fully in society, politics, and economics.” Digital equity and public engagement are inexorably intertwined; simply put, local governments need to be mindful of digital equity and access when determining their public engagement initiatives.

Dr. Rogers shares the following example to illuminate the connection: “Suppose someone does not have access to a smartphone, for example. In that case, they may not have the same access to cultural events (e.g., using social media activism), employment (e.g., online employment services), learning (e.g., education), and access to essential services (e.g., telehealth), which, during COVID-19, have been digitized. This leads to the expansion of the digital divide (e.g., access and connectivity, digital literacy, digital access/ use, and digital representation, which may lead to digital discrimination).” A smartphone is their avenue of connection and engagement with their community, local government, health information, and more.

While a move toward digital engagement can unlock new potential from residents, and as put by former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, “empowers people to do what they want to do,” the move cannot rest on the assumption that everyone in the community will have access.

“The usage of technology, while it can increase access to certain events, must be balanced with the reality that historically marginalized communities do not have the same digital capabilities or proficiencies that many Americans are privileged to enjoy,” according to the founder and principal of New Reach Community Consulting, Coby Williams. “Equity can be proven with data and outcomes of programs. If a city or agency believes it is using equitable practices, it must prove that to residents by demonstrating outcomes.”

Know Your Community Given that equity is an outcome that must be proven to residents, it is important to consider who you are trying to engage, how you are trying to engage them, and who might be left out of the conversation due to access or even data privacy concerns.

The first step to digital equity is to know your community and understand their levels of digital literacy and access. This may look like public engagement in the form of town hall meetings, focus groups, phone or paper surveys, and postings in newspapers and community bulletin boards. Public engagement is designed to inform local government decision making and good public engagement can lead to decisions that are better for the whole community.

When considering a transition from analog to digital, it is important to take a step back and consider the following questions: • How comfortable would my community be with this move? • Does the level of digital literacy in the community match the requirements of this new technology? • Do we have the infrastructure in place to support this transition? Effective, inclusive public engagement can help answer some of these questions. However, public engagement can only assist with a few of the many challenges in the space of digital equity

Some Challenges to Consider Hardware and software compatibility remains a major roadblock to implementing digital equity. Oftentimes, the software required for adequate public engagement in the digital space is not capable of running on budget-friendly hardware. Even some of the most tech savvy among us were required in the early days of the pandemic to go out and upgrade our aging devices in order to maintain a high level of virtual engagement.

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic minorities are increasingly left out of the digital conversation. For many of these users, budgetfriendly but incompatible technology is the only real option available to them. This is compounded by a history of mistrust in government services that can lead to serious privacy concerns among these communities.

Local governments must design digital engagement with the end user in mind, using their platform to increase trust, build authentic relationships with these communities, and provide them with either the same tools or the opportunity to interact digitally with their local government. Agencies should consider if digital engagement is the most appropriate way to meet their residents because digital engagement cannot serve as a catch-all or a replacement for building authentic relationships within a community. Even digitally, it is crucial to meet

residents where they are both in terms of access and digital literacy levels.

Opportunity for Partnerships In a world where public meetings frequently engage with the same homogeneous community, technology can offer a real opportunity for local governments to reach out to historically marginalized and underserved communities. Furthermore, efforts to address digital equity can lead to cross-department partnerships within and without local government.

Davenport Institute Advisory Councilmember and Co-director of the Inland Center for Sustainable Development (ICSD) Rick Bishop points out that it’s imperative for local governments to lean on their regional partnerships to produce regional solutions consistent with broadband supportive policies and streamlined permitting practices. Cities can work with state and federal legislators to advocate for investment in middle and last mile broadband infrastructure improvements. “They can develop and disseminate information about the importance of digital equity in their communities. Municipalities can partner with internet service providers to develop and implement programs to increase enrollment for lowincome families.”

While each city faces different needs serving a unique population it would serve any agency looking to find out their community’s level of access by “reaching out to schools, service providers, and community leaders to learn more about where and why gaps exist, and then developing classes, programs, or events that provide targeted learning opportunities for those who have an interest and need in expanding their technical knowledge,” according to Bishop.

In a presentation during the Davenport Institute’s Second Annual State of Public Engagement conference, Dr. Rogers noted that digital engagement needs to have foresight regarding longevity. When asked to expand on this, she shared that “having an established connection with technology companies is vital. Throughout my career in digital equity, I have made key connections with technology experts to hear about the above advances in the field, issues with specific tools, and programs that will disappear.” These partnerships have allowed Dr. Rogers to be always prepared for what is coming next in the ever-changing and updating world of technology.

Efforts to address digital equity in public engagement require effort and work from multiple departments and organizations. This work also presents an opportunity for partnerships and collaborations that can help serve communities for decades to come. At the start of the pandemic, private and commercial companies stepped up to help with broadband and technology access for students. Local government organizations like ICMA (icma.org) and the Institute for Local Government (ca-ilg.org) brought together practitioners to discuss best practices across departments, cities, counties, and states.

In order to move closer to an equitable space, we need to rely on our communities. Dr. Rogers notes that “part of equity studies builds on an idea of community and best practice sharing.” There is a lot of work to be done in our work to address digital equity, but sharing knowledge, best practices, and working with our communities to provide meaningful public engagement, both online and in person, are good places to start.

1 https://edtechbooks.org/k12handbook/ digital_equity

DI GIOVANNA is the assistant director at the Davenport Institute and works on program development and delivery, communications, and strategic relations.

ALEXANDER DESANTIS is a graduate assistant with the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University.

Community engagement is an important tool for working collaboratively with residents and other groups of stakeholders to address issues affecting their well-being. When done properly, “community engagement increases community cohesion and allows for the community to have ownership over the outcomes that will ultimately impact them.”1

With the development of technology and the impact of COVID-19, we have seen an increased use of online, digital, and remote forms of engagement. These not only make certain engagement activities more efficient and economic, but also produce more standardized results conducive to analysis and interpretation.

But community engagement can have roadblocks. When you come back to the community, you may receive different and even contradictory responses and attitudes. You may also find certain groups of the population were not reached before; therefore, their involvement and input are missing. It is also possible that the engagement results are inconsistent with other sources of information and there is a lack of information to interpret the engagement results or to investigate the discrepancy. These issues are often the result of us being unclear about the difference between community engagement and customer insight, and us being unclear about the difference between equity and equality.

Customer Insight In the public sector, customers are defined as a group of consumers of public goods and services. We may refer to them as citizens, residents, or the community, depending on the types of public goods and services. Customer insight is understanding why customers care for the public goods and services, as well as their underlying mindsets, moods, motivation, desires, and aspirations that motivate and trigger their attitudes and actions. There is a fundamental difference between customer insight and community engagement. Community engagement is often perceptionbased, driven by one or several events, while customer insight is satisfaction-based, learned through ongoing activities.

For example, if you were to formulate a transit strategy to redesign the transit network and would like to involve the community, including your residents, community engagement would be a critical step in this process. Through various channels and means— including telephone surveys, online links or platforms, interviews, and focus groups— you would collect a robust set of data that provides an observation or an indication of your customers’ feelings on the redesign. The feedback may include people who haven’t had much experience with transit and people whose primary method of commute is not transit. As you could imagine, if the feedback is not based on usage, the engagement data is susceptible to various factors such as recent transitrelated events and other people’s reactions, emotions, and comments on media and social media. Customer insight could help overcome the short-termism and variation by including the measurement of usage and experience. Transit customer insight would include who uses the transit, for what purpose, which route and when, where, and how customers access the transit, and key attributes that affect customer satisfaction, all of which provide richer context and understanding.

Equity vs. Equality The core of the discussion between equity and equality is to recognize the fact that each of us is different; so are our needs and desires. Many ineffective community engagement efforts only recognize the need for engagement, but fail to differentiate between diverse needs and desires within the population. Way too often, our processes are designed for an “average person,” giving every one of them the same thing (see Figure 1). But there is really no “average person.” In Figure 1, we see three types of people and we have some understanding of what matters

to each. We give everyone what they specifically need—that’s equity. This may sound expensive, but in reality, it may just be like what you see in the pictures: three boxes, but allocated differently. What it does take is more forethought.

Ideas to Engage More Effectively Engagement Is Not the Be-All and End-All If you actually pay attention to what your community is saying, you can get plenty of early signs about the need to make a difference. If you wait until the last minute when push comes to shove, it will almost certainly be too late to take bold strategic action and instead it will be doomed to fighting a painful rearguard action. An unfortunate example would be the grassroots “Defund the Police” movement.

With the murder of George Floyd, members of the Minneapolis city council moved quickly and passed a veto-proof council majority saying the city would dismantle its police department and move to a community-based public safety model. As part of the resolution, the city council would begin a year-long process of engaging “with every willing community member in Minneapolis” to develop a new public safety model. Naturally, community engagement was supposed to increase residents’ understanding and acceptance and help facilitate the transition. But the 2021 municipal election results2 told a different story: 1. The incumbent mayor, who opposed the dismantle measure, was re-elected. WAY TOO OFTEN, OUR PROCESSES ARE DESIGNED FOR AN “AVERAGE PERSON,” BUT THERE IS REALLY NO AVERAGE PERSON.

2. Question 1, a proposal to adopt the mayor-council form of government was passed, which grants the mayor increased oversight over administration. 3. Two city councilmembers who supported overhauling the police lost their bids. 4. Question 2, a proposal to replace the city’s police department with a new department of public safety, was rejected.

If we take a holistic view of the issue, we would

Figure 1. Equality vs. Equity

Equality: Treating everyone the same

Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire

Equity: Giving everyone what they need to be successful

complement community engagement with customer insight. In Edmonton, Canada, the city council asked for analysis on how many calls for service are driven by mental health, addictions, homelessness, or other social and public health factors, and how many calls could be better handled by partners. The data could be further disaggregated by demographic attributes such as race, gender, age, and others. Again, when we “listen to” the community, we can avoid having to react and deal with the issue as an emergency.

The Spectrum of Engagement The idea of the spectrum is to employ varying levels of engagement3 for the diverse needs and desires within the community. In general, there are five levels: 1. Inform: providing residents with relevant information to help them understand a problem, alternatives, opportunities, and solutions.

The typical style of this level of engagement is “here’s what’s happening.” 2. Consult: obtaining feedback on what you present, possible solutions, alternatives, analysis, and goals etc. A typical style is

“here are some options—what do you think?” 3. Involve: working directly with the community to ensure concerns are understood and ideas are incorporated.

A typical style is “here is a problem, what ideas do you have?” 4. Collaborate: working as a team to partner and address the issue together. 5. Empower: shared leadership and decision-making. A typical style is “you care about this issue and are solving it. How can we help?”

From one to five, there is an increasing impact on decisions, accompanied by varied process complexity and resource requirements. Many ineffective community engagements result from the mismatch between levels of engagement and community interests and power.

We Need Better Questions In many cases, our goal is to obtain community feedback, so how we design a questionnaire matters. It sounds pretty logical to ask the community outright about the issue and ask that they respond., but there’s more to it. Residents may not understand the implications or the underlying assumptions behind questions, particularly when issues are vague and people lack lived experience. For example, the public were asked to weigh in on the Brexit issue: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” It is a simple question and easy to respond to, but the context and consequences are not part of the questionnaire. Many people had second thoughts after voting as they started to see or experience the consequences.

In the context of our work in local government, accountability and transparency matter, so we may think the best way to demonstrate the result is to ask the residents a question such as, “Thinking about all of the programs and services provided by xxx, how would you rate the value you are receiving for your tax dollars?” Or we may be keen to enhance their quality of life, so we ask, “How would you rate the quality of life in xxx?” Once people start answering, they will continue answering questions even if they cannot tell or have little interest in understanding the differences between choices. They may begin to answer indiscriminately just to complete the questionnaire. And we dutifully add up those answers and draw conclusions. It is scary. Unreliable input leads to unreliable output.

To me, the most critical insight is what particular information would be conducive for decision making? The answer to this question will inform the method in which you should engage the community. You must employ a technique for acquiring those insights that is consistent with the nature of the insight you are seeking. If you were to propose or approve budget requests for transit, validating people who have accessed the service before asking any questions would be critical, then embedding questions about key attributes as drivers to people’s satisfaction as follow-up, and lastly, including a simple question to capture topline results to show overall status. For certain issues that are vague, strategic, or complex in which people may not be able to respond concretely, we may consider other means such as interviews and focus groups, which provides opportunities for better context and interpretation. The results still have to be compiled, cleaned, and standardized for decision-making.

The bottom line is that you can’t ask a simple question, such as those found in a survey, while expecting a profound answer.

Summary So why does community engagement matter in the context of public strategy? Integrative stakeholder participation theory argues that community engagement during the strategic planning process of decision making generates beneficial outcomes.4 It is expected to be more beneficial to the process when a variety of stakeholders participate in it as opposed to only the top policy makers and managers of the organizations involved.

The evolution of information technology has made the cost of collecting, storing, and analyzing data much cheaper and the pace much quicker. Naturally, community engagement has become more digitized and simplified and public organizations are more willing to demand the data and collect it. Equally important to this trend is the growing understanding of and capability to convert data into intelligence that is conducive for decision making. Making better use of community engagement not only collects much-needed information to learn about our communities, but also strengthens the rigor for decision making. So, are you ready for your next engagement?

1 Source: Tamarack Institute. 2 https://vote.minneapolismn.gov/ results-data/election-results/2021/ ballot-questions/ 3 Source: IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum. 4 Hendrick, Rebecca. 2003. Strategic Planning Environment, Process, and Performance in Public Agencies: A Comparative Study of Departments in Milwaukee. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(4): 491–519.

KEL WANG is the founder and CEO of fioh Strategy—we innovate strategy and build capacity for the public sector. He teaches at the Center for Government Excellence at Johns Hopkins University, and also serves on the ICMA Performance Management Advisory Committee. kel.wang@fiohstrategy.com

BY POOJA BACHANI DI GIOVANNA AND ALEXANDER DESANTIS

Youth are often overlooked during public engagement processes for multiple reasons. They are not old enough to vote, own property, or pay taxes. However, they represent the future of our communities and local government. Youth councils are a unique way in which local governments can work with schools and school districts to engage with the next generation. They are also an opportunity to cultivate interest in local government that in turn leads to an engaged and informed long-term resident.

Youth councils are also a way in which local governments can help repair the fracture in trust between them and the public. Recently, public trust in local government has been at an all-time low, especially within the younger generation.1 Low

trust, coupled with engagement modality challenges presented by the pandemic, led many youth councils to hold operations until they could resume in-person meetings. This year, many youth councils resumed, and local governments began re-engaging with the young people in their communities through innovative partnerships. While some were able to pick up where they left off, others faced new challenges in the era of post-pandemic(ish) engagement.

Partnering for Success Public engagement, especially with marginalized or overlooked communities, has a greater chance at success if it includes community leaders who can help bridge the divide that can exist between communities and local government. Local government collaboration in the public engagement space can produce robust programs like youth councils that have a major impact on students’ lives and better the community.

The city of Simi Valley, California, successfully broadened its reach of the youth council by partnering with the Ronald Reagan Foundation and Institute to provide a town hall meeting forum where over 300 students from middle school and high school can hear about local policymaking from their elected officials.2,3 Town hall meetings with the student body are a unique opportunity to meet students where they are and have valuable face-to-face engagement.

The city also partnered with the Simi Valley School District to have their youth council recognized as an official educational activity for students to partake in. The Simi Valley Youth Council is made up of 21 members from middle school to high school age. The council makes formal recommendations to the real city council of Simi Valley. This provides a unique opportunity for young residents to see how their government works and provide input

to allow their own voices and interests to be heard.

Roseville, California, is an example of another city that has cultivated a strong partnership with their local school district to provide a youth council to high school students.4 The city council also appoints high school students to serve one-year terms in various commissions in the city, such as parks and recreation. The oneyear opportunity provides a unique, in-depth introduction to local government departments and generates career interests. A closer connection with students allows departments to foster meaningful relationships that can influence students to be more civic minded and potentially consider local government as a career path. Bouncing Back After the Pandemic

Many cities struggled with their youth engagement efforts during the pandemic and several youth councils completely suspended operations. The pandemic posed new challenges in public engagement, and while cities immediately transitioned to online avenues of reaching community members, it was still difficult to reach marginalized communities. Students were facing digital learning and engagement fatigue as they navigated their coursework online.5 While digital fatigue is not a new term, it became ubiquitous during the pandemic as we all transitioned online and experienced a sense of digital overload. During this time, it was difficult for cities to effectively maintain youth council programs and many, like Newport Beach, entered a status of hiatus during the pandemic.

However, as we slowly entered the era of post pandemic(ish) engagement, cities sought to revive opportunities to reach young people. In Newport Beach, it was a priority to restart the Youth Council program, which plays a valuable role in lending an ear to an underrepresented population and engaging with them for the longterm.6 The program provides immersive local civic leadership training for students through mentorship. Students are paired with city staff to act as mentors, building valuable relationships with the community, providing career and professional development training, and offering a backstage view into how their local government functions. Community service projects offered by the city for the youth council provide another opportunity for students to grow personally, academically, and as a voice in their community.

In addition to new challenges posed by the pandemic, youth initiatives continue to compete for time against other student activities. In Placer County, California, the Youth Commission (PCYC) is an “active group of youth from throughout Placer County who work together to make changes and raise awareness in their community of prominent issues that youth are facing.”7 However, as Placer County’s Department of Health and Human Services Program Supervisor Ranjit Chima

shared, the commission “has faced challenges with competing priorities among youth, including sports, academics, etc.” There are a plethora of activities and opportunities for students, both digitally and in-person, and it can be difficult to maintain engagement. “Occasionally a youth will determine they do not have time to participate in PCYC but that does not happen often and PCYC is able to continue fully functioning through this,” Chima said.

These challenges faced by youth commissions and councils are part of the public engagement process. Prior to starting a public engagement process or initiative, it is important to understand where the community is at and what is feasible for them. What is the community doing in terms of fatigue and challenges outside of public engagement? What are other priorities competing for time against this public engagement initiative? How can local governments best connect and build relationships with community members? These are just a few of the questions to think about when considering a public engagement initiative like youth councils and commissions.

Building Trust

Public trust at all levels of government, including local government, has been on the decline.8 The pandemic served to amplify pre-existing trust issues in the community as in-person engagement fell by the wayside and many cities faltered trying to engage with residents of all age groups, particularly the youth. Students, among other historically marginalized communities, were particularly hit hard by the digital divide. Without the ability to meet young residents where they are and foster authentic relationships, a lack of trust can fester and present itself as a serious barrier to local success. Youth councils are one way to forge that trust from an early age and invest in the long-term success of the community. Building an engaged community from the ground up leads to better governance with strong and cohesive communities.9

A youth council in Takoma, Maryland, provides students with an important educational opportunity to gain a foot in the door with their local government elected officials and staff members.10 An informed and civic-minded youth voter base is extremely important in Takoma where residents as young as 16 can vote in their local elections.

Involving and engaging residents from an early age has been shown by the University of Copenhagen to produce residents who have better voting habits and show increased levels of civic participation as they get older.11 Key to the success and high turnout rates of Takoma’s young voter base (twice the turnout rate than their older counterparts) is a robust public engagement and civic education effort that starts with youth councils building relationships and gaining the trust of residents. As a 17-yearold member of the youth council Asha Henry put it, “We should be able to [have] our opinion heard if it’s going to affect our futures.”12 Providing this unrepresented but vital demographic of the community with a platform, voice, and the education to use it builds trust with young residents own youth engagement strategy should consider partnering with their local school district to involve students in local government and provide a meaningful educational experience.

and creates an avenue for local government to invest in its community. In the long term, these residents will be better informed, engaged, and have higher levels of trust in their local government. Engagement efforts like this boost chances that residents will invest back into their local community initiatives, improving and taking ownership over what happens in their city.

Voter turnout at the local level has always been low. This is especially true for younger voters. As Mayor Kate Stewart of Takoma emphasized, “Having more people vote, particularly at a local level…is super important” for a healthy functioning democracy.13 Providing meaningful public engagement to our younger residents keeps them invested in their community and striving to give back through acts of public service both small and large.

Building Relationships and Fostering Local Government Collaboration Our youth are an overlooked and underutilized resource in the community. Breaking down barriers from modality to trust building, youth councils provide local governments a unique opportunity to foster meaningful relationships with residents and to collaborate with other agencies. They provide a unique forum for youth to share their voice and for local governments to make a long-term investment in the lives of its residents. Providing an educational opportunity for students that aligns with their school and curriculum goals is an excellent example of collaboration between local governments. Communities seeking to strengthen their

1 https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/ insights/industry/public-sector/trustin-state-local-government.html 2 https://www.simivalley.org/ departments/city-manager-s-office/ community-programs-and-facilities/ youth-council 3 https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ programs-events/events-calendar/ youth-town-hall-2022/ 4 https://www.roseville.ca.us/ government/boards_commissions 5 https://elearningindustry.com/iszoom-fatigue-becoming-serious-threatfor-online-learners 6 https://www.newportbeachindy.com/ newport-beach-city-manager-updategeneral-election-information-mayorsyouth-council/ 7 https://www.placer.ca.gov/2395/ Placer-County-Youth-Commission 8 https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/ insights/industry/public-sector/trustin-state-local-government.html 9 https://icma.org/articles/pmmagazine/how-public-engagementproduces-more-accountable-andeffective-government 10 https://takomaparkmd.gov/ government/boards-commissionsand-committees/takomapark-youth-council/ 11 http://www.promoteourvote. com/uploads/9/2/2/7/9227685/ leaving_the_nest_and_the_social_act_ of_voting.pdf 12 https://dbknews.com/2020/10/01/ takoma-park-young-voters-greenbeltmontgomery-county-riverdale-park/ 13 https://dbknews.com/2020/10/01/ takoma-park-young-voters-greenbeltmontgomery-county-riverdale-park/

DI GIOVANNA is the assistant director at the Davenport Institute and works on program development and delivery, communications, and strategic relations.

ALEXANDER DESANTIS is a graduate assistant with the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University.

Community engagement is one of the most frequently cited priorities among municipal leaders, but how exactly does one go about defining engagement success? One place to start is by asking the people we want to engage, and a recent national survey sought to do just that.

To help local government leaders and their staff, PublicInput conducted a national survey of residents to better understand resident preferences for engaging. The focus of the survey sought to understand how residents preferred engaging in a way that shaped community decisions.

Insight #1: There is a perception that government is not listening.

Many teams highlight defensible decision making as the single biggest outcome of successful engagement efforts. Defendable decisions are characterized by (1) deliberate engagement of the people affected by a decision and (2) clear evidence that we heard from a broad, representative set of voices.

Community engagement data provides local government leaders with the critical support needed for relevant and defensible recommendations and decision making.

Successful community engagement helps teams point to a clear message or insight from the community supporting a decision, project, or course of action. Effective Community Engagement Successful engagement approaches engage residents the way residents want to engage. To do this, local government organizations need to understand the fabric of their community and the preferences of the people they’re looking to engage. Here is a snapshot of the five key insights we found:

Insight #2: The most common engagement approaches don’t match resident preferences.

Insight #3: Residents have high expectations for accessible engagement.

Insight #4: Residents don’t have enough information to meaningfully participate. Insight #5: Residents expect to be informed of how their input was used.

Five Ways Local Governments Are Equipping Staff Whether it is embracing new technologies or meeting people where they are, the ultimate goal is to develop a community engagement strategy that meets the expressed needs of the people most impacted by decisions. Based on the data gathered, PublicInput offers five recommendations to support local governments in their efforts to achieve consistent, effective community engagement.

1 Address the perception that your local government is not listening through action. Show residents that you are listening by providing a regular, consistent means of engaging. For local governments seeking to improve the effectiveness of their engagement process, understanding the interplay between why a person may or may not engage as well as how they engage has the power to dramatically impact engagement outcomes.

Diane Wilson, senior public involvement officer with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, explains, “The first question we ask on every survey is if you would like to be added to our email list.” This contact information, along with cell phone and participation data, is gathered and stored in a CRM, which acts as a central public participation database. The CRM should be connected to email functionality to make follow-up, results sharing, and future requests for feedback easy. Read more about how the North Carolina Department of Transportation team increases their community engagement and accelerates projects through active listening at https://publicinput.com/wp/ community-engagement-case-study-ncdot/.

2 Update your engagement approaches to match resident expectations. Engagement approaches that include a mixed-mode approach with both online and offline tactics challenge the status quo and support resident expectations regardless of community size or composition.

Revere, Massachusetts, saw increases in community engagement inclusion during their “Redraw Revere” initiative by leveraging community engagement software to do more than set up a project site and online survey. Using community engagement technology, the team developed and executed strategic community engagement tactics to quickly and easily inform, listen, communicate, and analyze public perceptions all in one place. Read how Revere met resident expectations using more than just a survey to increase resident transparency and inclusion at https://publicinput.com/wp/communityengagement-example-inclusion-revere-ma/.

3 Exceed the high expectations residents have for accessible engagement. Implementing truly accessible formats of engagement across online, phone, virtual, and in-person can seem like an insurmountable challenge due to the diversity of need.

Differences like disability, age, income, language, and transportation access are all important predictors of an individual’s ability to participate and contribute to public engagement initiatives, particularly those that utilize only one type of tactic. Here are some ways local governments can address accessibility: • Multilingual closed captioning addresses both linguistic and physical disability barriers to participation during virtual meetings. • Equity mapping serves as a visual tactical planning guide to the community that helps governments “see” where additional support is needed (for example, distribution of

ESL speakers in a geographic area). • Surveys provide a dynamic self-service option for residents to engage from anywhere regardless of their ability. • Meetings increase resident access by removing the need to attend public meetings in person.

4 Ensure residents have the information they need to provide informed input. A willingness to listen is not the only ingredient needed to ensure that residents will engage. The importance of communication and strategic outreach planning that prioritizes the critical need for information sharing will set the context for residents, making it possible for them to effectively contribute.

Community engagement software offers online and virtual formats that seamlessly integrate questions with contextual information residents need to respond via a variety of formats including: • Interactive maps that serve as efficient tools for sharing information, aiding residents in finding projects or areas they care about, and one method to collect feedback and ideas.

• Video content that allows governments to quickly and concisely capture resident interest and deliver the needed information. • Providing downloadable/web view documents gives interested residents a self-service option for consuming additional detail and resources they may need to contribute their input. • Project imagery and visualizations quickly capture attention and help residents “see” the elements of a project or initiative.

Secondly, and arguably the most important dimension of ensuring residents have the information they need is empowering local governments with the tools to identify community stakeholders. Using geographic information to target and monitor input areas is critical.

According to Kristin N. Williams, Ph.D. of Henrico County, Virginia, “Without map layers we didn’t have a lot of context. With equity mapping, we were able to see the level of reach among minority populations.” Watch the full Henrico County webinar discussion at https://learn.publicinput.com/ webinar-strengthening-iija-grants.

5 Close the loop with residents about how their input is used. This process of two-way communication involves reaching out (public outreach), collecting comments and ideas (public input), and developing insights (analysis) based on what is received. To close this loop, engagement practitioners must share the information and at times request feedback from both decision-makers and community members.

Local governments interested in increasing transparency about how resident input is being used should consider implementing a process of open communication with participants.

Community engagement software that integrates email and SMS text as a solution makes closing the loop easy for local governments regardless of internal capacity. Tactics such as setting up automated messaging that provides public-facing information to participants immediately after they engage, or interactions that are more customized makes transparency easy.

Take a closer look at the results of the national survey:

TRICIA THOMAS is content marketing manager at PublicInput (publicinput.com).