How to Obtain Representative and Informed Public Input

The process of obtaining useful public input can be one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of moving infrastructure projects from the planning process to the construction phase.  Some methods of obtaining public input can be contentious and provide few results that will move a project forward.  In fact, the process can forestall projects for indefinite periods of time.  This article proposes a different approach to public input, one that has worked well in electric utility infrastructure planning for over a decade, a process known as a Deliberative Poll®.

What are the objectives for public input?

  • In order to compare this process to other alternatives for public input we need to establish criteria by which to measure each method. What would the perfect method for public input need to accomplish? We suggest it would accomplish the following:

  • Allows the community to have input in projects that affect them

  • Secures representation of the entire community in the process

  • Provides a reasonable solution that would move the project forward

  • Is a reasoned, solution oriented, process that promotes informed and well considered opinions and recommendations

  • Is a balanced consideration of all issues, including special interest concerns, project feasibility issues, and the best interests of the community as a whole.

  • Is an open, credible, process that is observable and produces results that are considered fairly arrived at by all parties.

  • Can be accomplished within a limited time frame.

What are alternative solutions and how well do they meet the objectives?

Public Hearings

Public hearings do provide an opportunity for the public to comment. However, they have several, rather profound, drawbacks.

First, those with special interests are far more likely to attend public hearings than the general public. These interests are often narrowly focused, on the impact on individuals, a neighborhood, or a particular financial interest, rather than the impact on the overall community. Personal, rather than community interests, are at stake and emotions run high.

In addition, the social norms around the public hearing process lend themselves to a contentious atmosphere. Participants are often problem oriented, simply giving voice to a narrow range of concerns rather than balancing the pro and cons of different alternatives. Testimony tends to focus on grievances and on “what not to do,” rather than “what to do.”

Finally, special interest groups often organize attendance in order to dominate discussion at hearings.

As a result of these factors, public hearings often do not bring about a consensus as to a course of action that represents the needs of the public as a whole.

In a recent set of public hearings related to a highway project in Austin, Texas, residents of neighborhoods near a highway corridor completely dominated a series of public hearings with hundreds of residents turning out to voice their complaints about the process. After a number of contentious and unproductive hearings the process was shelved and work on the project postponed.

 

Surveys

A second way to get input from the public is via a community survey. With this method, it is possible to assure that the sample of potential respondents is representative of the public and the questionnaire is designed in a balanced way that does not unfairly bias responses. Furthermore, the social norms around responding to surveys call for rational rather than emotional responses.

However, this approach also has several problems. The most significant being the public is neither likely to be well informed about a transportation project nor likely to have even given much thought to the issues involved. These issues require, not only knowledge of the issues, but real consideration on the part of respondents in order for them to give meaningful answers.

Surveys have another drawback. Although they may be designed and implemented in an objective and unbiased way, special interest groups may object that, since they did not get to participate in the surveys, they did not get to be part of the public participation process. This can result in questions be raised about the validity of the information collected in this manner. Therefore, in terms of getting community support in going forward with a project, surveys may not meet all of the requirements of successful public input.

Focus Groups

Another way of collecting information from the public is via focus groups. These are basically small discussion groups, usually made up of between 8 and 14 participants. Groups typically last ninety minutes to two hours. Participants are drawn from the population via some random process to assure a representative group and to prevent the discussion from being loaded with those who have a narrow interest in the issues. Focus groups also allow for some limited education on the issues compared to conventional surveys.

However, the methodology also has a number of problems. First, while the sample is drawn randomly from the population, the number of participants is too small to ascertain if the group is truly representative of the population. Second, the process of education is very limited. In addition, as with surveys, the process does not allow for participation of interest groups in any form and may result in a challenge to the validity of the results. Historically, it is even more difficult to publicly defend the results of focus group research than surveys.

Deliberative Polling®

Deliberative Polling is an alternative to traditional methods of public input. This process involves:

  • Drawing a representative sample of the public to participate, providing them with balanced educational materials.

  • Bringing participants together

    • with experts and advocates

    • to learn about the issues, discuss the issues, ask questions, and

    • to consider the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives.

  • At the end of the process, conducting a survey to accurately gather the considered opinions of an informed public.

Because Deliberative Polling is a research process, the social norms around the process call for rational, reasonable discussion of the issues. Unlike surveys, the relevant interest groups get to participate in the process, but as part of an advisory group that makes sure different perspectives are included in the education materials and as members of expert and advocate panels. This means that, while their perspective is considered, it does not dominate the group. Unlike surveys, the design and execution of the Deliberative Poll takes place in public view. This lends the process tremendous credibility, as it is clear there are not hidden agendas being acted upon.

How do Deliberative Polls work?

Three groups are required to organize a successful Deliberative Poll; a representative sample of the public to deliberate the issues, independent research professionals to maintain a deliberative and representative process, and a group of experts and special interest advocates to both assure a fair and balanced presentation of the issues and measurement of resulting opinions. This methodology is depicted in the diagram below.

The Deliberative Poll Model

 

 

Text Box: Independent findings are presented to the client and published to the general public. Text Box: Independent 3rd Party Managers statistically analyze the survey response data to establish what actions an informed community would like to be implemented. Text Box: Independent 3rd Party Managers Research professionals obtain a random sample of community members and conduct a pre-event telephone survey. At the end of this survey, respondents are invited to attend the event to deliberate the issues. The survey is used to statistically assure that the community is fairly represented at the event.   Text Box: Independent 3rd Party Managers Work with the advisory committee and client to assure educational materials are balanced and fair, special interests have an opportunity to present their case to and answer questions from deliberators, the post event survey provides a balanced and fair measure of deliberator opinions Provide event management maintain organization and assure balanced presentations provide moderators to guide discussions Text Box: The Educational Process Text Box: Deliberators present their informed opinions and consideration of alternatives in a post event survey. Text Box: Deliberators Study pre-event educational materials to prepare for event. Listen to experts explain the issues, alternatives, and proposed solutions. Listen to advocates present their issues and solutions Ask questions of experts and advocates. Deliberate between themselves on best course of action for community. Are exposed to information and the impact on others in the community. Text Box: Advisory committee members participate in: development of educational materials, the event agenda, and the post event survey instrument.   recommendation of panel members and/or participate on panels that present issues to deliberators and answer deliberator questions. Text Box: Advisory Committee Made up of   experts, and special interest representatives   selected to assure both the substance and the appearance of a fair and balanced deliberation process.   Text Box: Deliberators A random sample of community members is contacted to conduct a pre-event survey, at the end of which respondents are invited to attend the event as deliberators. This survey will be used by research professionals to statistically assure the community is fairly represented at the event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a number of critical steps in conducting a Deliberative Poll. These are:

  1. Put together an advisory group made up of experts and advocates that are relevant to the project at hand. This advisory group will help assemble a set of educational materials that reflect different views of the project and advises on the questionnaire design so that it covers concerns that are import to the groups and does not unfairly favor one perspective over another.

  2. Draw a scientific sample of the target population and gauge their uninformed opinion with a questionnaire.

  3. Recruit participants from the large sample for a one to two-day deliberation exercise. Participants are paid an incentive so that a representative sample participates. (Without an incentive the sample tends to be unrepresentative. In those cases where an incentive is not paid, only those who are relatively affluent, older, and/ or have a vested personal interest are likely to make participate.)

  4. Provide participants with a balanced set of information presenting a range of options and all viewpoints on the issue under consideration.

  5. Bring the participants together for the deliberation. Alternate between small groups, led by professional moderators, and large groups, where participants are given an opportunity to question experts.

  6. At the end of the exercise, measure opinion of the participants again to discover what the informed opinion of the population would be.

  7. Maintain contact with the sample for future and follow-up research.

Has this method been used before?

Deliberative Polling was developed by Jim Fishkin, former Chairman of the Government Department at the University of Texas, now head of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University. It was first used internationally with two experiments funded by Channel 4 in Great Britain. The first poll considered crime in Great Britain, and the second considered international issues. The first U.S. trial, in January, 1996, was the National Issues Convention, featuring presidential aspirants and broadcast on PBS by the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour.

The first use of this process in resource planning for the electric utility industry took place in the summer of 1996 in Corpus Christi. Subsequent utility polls were conducted in Abilene, Shreveport, El Paso, Houston, Beaumont, Dallas and Amarillo, and Nebraska. These utility polls were sponsored by Central Power and Light, West Texas Utilities, Southwestern Electric Power Co., El Paso Electric, Entergy Gulf States, Houston Lighting and Power, Texas Utilities,

Southwestern Public Service and the Nebraska Public Power District. Customers deliberated the tradeoffs in electric generation and efficiency options involved in utility resource planning. Participants responded to their utility company with their opinions and concerns. Advocates for all resource options, and representing all points of view, participated in the experiment. At every step, the Polls were open to observation and participation by interested parties.

The “Town Meetings” brought together 175 -250 utility customers selected at random in a scientific sample. They were provided written information about the issues on which they were to deliberate.

All of the utility polls were hugely successful from the perspectives of the customers, the regulators, and the utility companies. Each poll had a number of observers, including utility management and board members, public officials, the media, regulators, and interested citizens, who attended to listen to the customer participants. Members of all constituencies praised the process and the results had a major impact on the resource mix used by the utilities involved. The results also influenced the regulatory and legislative processes related to utility resource acquisition.

The results of the Texas Polls are summarized in a report from the National Renewables Laboratory, “Listening to Customers: How Deliberative Polling Helped build 1,000 MW of New Renewable Projects in Texas.” (June 2003/TP-620-33177). The Nebraska project is reported in Public Power March-April 2004 in an article titled “21st Century Polling.”

The process has also been used as part of a regional planning effort in New Haven, Connecticut where participants deliberated about the future of the regional airport and tax issues. Several authors of this paper are currently working on a Deliberative Poll in Nova Scotia, again focusing on issues related to electric generation.

Conclusion

Deliberative Polling offers benefits that are not available from other methods of public input. These benefits are an excellent match for the sometimes contentious issues that arise in transportation and other infrastructure planning.

Related Articles (Click title for PDF version)

21st Century Polling, Public Power Magazine, March-April, 2004

Listening to Customers, How Deliberative Polling Helped Build 1,000 MW of Renewable Energy Projects in Texas, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

 

Return to top