Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Public Partic/ Eval
Comm and Interaction: Public Particip and Engage Evalua, AICP November 2022 Test
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Methods to Compile and Provide feedback | Mail in forms, surveys, community facilitators, delphi process, in-person surveys, internet surveys and polls, interviews, mailed surveys and questionnaires, resident feedback registers, telephone surveys and polls |
| Comment forms (in person) | Often included in fact sheets and other project mailings to gain info on public concerns and preferences with prepaid postage. Provide input from someone unlikely to attend meeting. Does not generate statically valid results, only as good as mailing list |
| Comment forms ( online) | Can provide a web based or emailed form. Documents results as part of public involvement record. Provides mechanism to expand mailing list. Results can easily be skewed |
| Community Based Polling | Surveys conducted via computer network. Appropriate for attitudinal research that provides instant analysis of results. Technique can improve response rate. High expense |
| Delphi Process | Obtaining agreement on forecasts or other parameters thru group of people w several mtgs wo the need for a face-to-face interaction. Can be faster with computer technology, can be anonymous, and helpful if participants are in diff geog locations |
| In-Person Surveys | One-on-one “focus groups” with standardized questionnaire or methodology such as “stated preference”. Make sure use of results is clear, provides traceable data and is expensive |
| Internet Surveys and Polls | Web-based response polls w higher response rate than other comm forms. Provides input from individuals who would be unlikely to attend meetings. Results can be skewed and not statistically valid |
| Interviews | One-to-one meetings w stakeholders to gain info for developing or refining public involvement and consensus-building programs. Can receive in-depth info in non-threatening forum. Scheduling multiple interviews is time consuming. |
| Mailed Surveys and Questionnaires | Inquiries mailed randomly to sample pop to gain specific info for statistical validation. Should be professionally dev, input from individuals that would likely attend meetings, response rate is low. |
| Resident Feedback Registers | Randomly selected residents to give feedback to an agency, business, or organization about its services, priorities, project or contentious issues. Useful input wo requiring ppl to come to meetings. Panel might not be credible if not selected correctly. |
| Telephone Surveys and Polls | Random sampling of pop by telephone to gain specific info for statistical validation. Should be professional dev. More expensive and labor intensive than mailed surveys. Higher response rate than mail-in surveys |
| Community Facilitators | Use qualified individuals in local community organizations to conduct project outreach. Capitalized existing networks and credibility. Can be difficult to control information and can built false expecatations |
| Citizen Juries | Small group of ordinary citizens empanelled to learn about an issue, cross-examine witnesses, make a recommendation. Always nonbinding with no legal standing. Requires skilled moderator. Resource intensive |
| Coffee Klatches | Small meetings within neighborhood usually at a person’s home. Relaxed setting is conducive to effective dialogue. Max two-way communication. Can be costly and labor intensive |
| Computer-Assisted Meetings | Any sized meeting when participants use interactive computer technology to register opinions. Use trained facilitator, areas of agreement/disagreement easily portrayed, understand audience - are they capable? |
| Deliberation | A small group, 8 to 20 pppl about difficult, complex public issues. Goal is to find common ground w facilitator. A larger public may need to break into several forums, requiring more moderators. Views might not represent all in community |
| Fishbowl | A meeting where decision makers do their work in a “fishbowl” so that the public can openly view their deliberations. Transparency, with decision makings able to gauge public reaction. |
| Focus Groups | At least two sessions to test a message w randomly selected members of target audience. Can also be used to obtain input on planning decisions. Relatively expensive. Need skilled facilitator |
| Open Houses | Encourages the public to tour at their own pace. The facility should be set up with several info stations, each addressing a separate issue. Resource people guide participants thru the exhibits. Difficult to document public input |
| Public Hearings | Formal meetings with scheduled presentations offered. Typically, members of the public individually state opinions/positions that are recorded. Can perpetuate an "us vs them" dialogue |
| Public Meetings | An organized large-group meeting usually used to make a presentation and give the public an opportunity to ask questions and give comments. Public meetings are open all. Meetings can escalate out of control. |
| Samoan Circles | Leaderless meeting that stimulates active participation with center table surrounded by concentric circles. Can be used with 10 to 500 people, works best with controversial issues. |
| Task Forces - Expert Committee | A group of experts or representative stakeholders formed to develop a specific product or policy recommendation. Group might not come to consensus. Use diverse interests to have greater credibility |
| Tours and Field Trips | Provide tours for key stakeholders, elected officials, advisory group members and the media. Opp to dev rapport with key stakeholders. # of participants limited by logistics |
| Town Meetings | A group meeting format where people come together as equals to share concerns. Usually hosted by elected officials. Views are openly expressed. Can escalate out of control |
| Public Participation Spectrum | 1. Inform 2. Consult 3. Involve 4. Collaborate 5. Empower |
| Inform - Public Participation | To provide public with balanced and objective info to assist with understanding problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions Uses Fact sheets, web sites, open houses |
| Consult - Public Participation | Obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. Uses public comment, focus groups, surveys and public meetings |
| Involve - Public Participation | Work directly with public thru process to ensure public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. Uses workshops and deliberate polling |
| Collaborate - Public Participation | Partner with the public in each aspect of the decision incl dev of alternatives and the identified of preferred solution. Uses citizen advisory committees, consensus-building, participatory decision making |
| Empower - Public Participation | Place final decision-making in the hands of the public. Uses citizen juries ballots, and delegated decision |
| Statistics on Creating Public Involvement Plan | 27% of US adults do not use the internet at home, 15% do not use the internet at all 9% use it outside the home but do not have a connection 9% have limited English 19% cannot read newspaper |
| Benefits of Online Engagement Tools | Offer opportunity to expand and diversify participation with the most benefit alongside traditional outreach. |
| Statistics on Social Media Platform Use | 72% of adults use social network 42% report they use multiple social network Facebook used the most by adults under age 64 Twitter and Instagram, 18-29 age group, Black and Hispanic 30% of internet users use these platforms Closed caption |
| Inclusive Communities | Work with Clergy and Congregations, Community Based Organizations, Ethnic Media, Language translators |
| Public Participation has Switched to Digital | 81% of Americans have smartphones -make sure of compatible mobile app Standardize public engagement practices in person or virtually Provide live translation for virtual meetings Phone interviews and mailed surveys with postage-paid are still useful. |
| Nominal Group Technique | Process invol problem ident, solution generation, and decision making that can be used for groups of any size that want to come to a decision by vote. Everyone's opinions considered, ranked, discussed then selected |
| Facilitation | Uses person wo direct stake in outcome of meeting to help come to a consensus for complex problems. Facilitator is typically a community volunteer who is respected by all groups. In some cases, a professional facilitator is hired |
| Mediation | Dispute-resolution process to resolve conflict wo involv the court system with a neutral third party that helps parties reach a satisfactory agreement. Assists in identifying and articulating their interests and priorities w final agreement in writing. |
| Visual preference survey | Technique that can be used to assist citizens in evaluating physical images of natural and built environments. Citizens view and evaluate a wide variety of pictures depicting houses, sites, building styles, streetscapes to determine resident preferences. |
| Brainstorming | Informal approach to gathering input in the initial stages of a project, or in trying to determine goals. It usually occurs within a small internal group setting, such as planning staff, agency leads, or commission members. |
| Three Evaluation Techniques for Community Engagement | 1. Process Evaluation 2. Outcome Evaluation 3. Impact Evaluation |
| Process Evaluation | Collecting data in the planning and implementation phases. (frequency and content of planning meetings, inclusiveness of process, and diversity/representativeness of planners). Eval at beginning and throughout process |
| Outcome Evaluation | Assesses change resulting from community engagement w each other or from engagement at the individual or community level . Evaluation is conducted at the end of an engagement process. |
| Impact Evaluation | Seeks to establish evidence of causality. Requires random assignment of participants and the use of an intervention group and a control group. Evaluation can be more challenging to implement and costly to do |
| Design Charrettes | Helpful to address lack of truck, fear of change, exclusion, opposing views, specialty silos and endless, unproductive meetings |
| Design Charrettes Stakeholders | Primary: Gvmt groups (stakeholders) Secondary: non-gvmt organization, businesses and residents directly impacted General Stakeholders: rest of the citizens If there is too much conflict, need third party facilitator |
| Design Charrette, Phase One: Pre-Design | Steering Committee Walking Tour Extensive Interviews Public kick-off meeting six week prior to charrette |
| Design Charrette, Phase Two: Charrette | Intensive trust session where participants design project features to build trust through collaboration, build consensus with time constraints (two weeks). Best used for creative ideas, promotes joint problem solving through facilitator. |
| Design Charrette, Phase Three: Plan Adoption and Implementation | Group forms plan and adopts it together as one unit |
| Inclusion | Taking an extra step to help people feeling welcomed, valued, included |
| Diversity | Can use numbers and data to provide pros and cons of the differences. |
| Equity | Action behind addressing diversity. Values driven |
Created by:
cristinemshoff
Popular Standardized Tests sets