Public Engagement: An Important Tool
Public engagement broadly refers to involving members of the public in decisions that impact them. Governments often engage members of the public in decisions about policies, programs and services, but how and why governments engage the public can vary widely. Many early efforts at public engagement involved federal government entities seeking community input about environmental policies. Public engagement has now become a widespread practice among government entities in many areas and at many different levels.
Commonly cited benefits of public engagement include:
- Input from the public can inform and improve government decisions and policies.
- Engagement can inform and educate the public about policies.
- Communities and individuals can develop and strengthen their capacities to be involved in influencing policies that affect them.
- Public engagement increases transparency and accountability with government, thereby building public trust.
For these and similar reasons, public engagement is now broadly recognized as part of a fundamental responsibility of government, as well as an ethical obligation: In a democratic society, governments should involve and empower the people that it serves.
A Spectrum of Public Engagement
Engagement necessitates communication and sharing of views. How that communication occurs can take many forms. Public engagement practitioners and scholars often refer to a continuum or spectrum of engagement activities based on the direction of communication. The direction of communication is one major factor for courts to consider in the design of their public engagement efforts, because it implicates the goals and outcomes of engagement activities.
Unidirectional engagement refers to one-way communication. For example, during informational campaigns , a court may be providing information to the public, but the public is not communicating or sharing information or views back. In contrast, in a public survey, the public may be communicating views to the court without the court communicating back.
Bidirectional engagement involves two-way communication. Here, there is active communication between a court and members of the public. The scope and depth of bi-directional engagement may vary. For example, a panel discussion may provide opportunities both for the court to present information and the public to offer their input. During a listening session, the court may hear from the public, and also answer questions for the public. Town hall meetings are another type of engagement during which two groups—usually the public and one or more institutional representatives—communicate back-and-forth with each other.
Multi-directional engagement involves communication and sharing between the court and “the public” and additionally between different groups of the public. For example, during deliberative discussions, people may discuss their views with people from different sectors, demographics, and ideologies, thereby breaking down silos, bureaucracies, or other barriers.
