August 1, 2016
The IAP2 Federation Board is pleased to announce the selection of Cassandra “Cassie” Hemphill as the new Professional Development Manager. Cassie commenced her duties on Monday, August 1, 2016.
Cassie brings to IAP2 more than 25 years of experience as a communications educator and consultant. As an educator, she teaches university and outreach courses in public speaking, interpersonal communication, intercultural communication, technical writing, and dialogue and deliberation at the University of Montana. She recently piloted a 12-hour “people skills” training for supervisors as part of an outreach to local businesses. For her university’s global leadership initiative, Cassie will teach a first year seminar in deliberative democracy. Prior to teaching, Cassie worked as a communications consultant, primarily coordinating large (>$1M US) commercial and government proposals and serving as lead writer and editor for complex, multi-volume technical and scientific publications.
Cassie’s Ph.D. research focused on the implementation of an innovative government procurement policy by a federal natural resource agency. Her M.A. research examined the decision-making processes used by technical experts in complex environmental cleanup projects. She as a B.S. in management and service leadership and a certificate in natural resources conflict resolution. She completed IAP2’s 5-day certificate course (now Foundations in Public Participation training) in 2004 and has completed training in project management, proposal management, and facilitation of P2 processes. Her current research explores best practices in adult learning and assessment, organizational communication, and deliberative dialogic decision-making processes.
Cassie is active at the national and regional levels of IAP2 USA. She is on the IAP2 USA Certification Task Force and is the Montana state representative for the Intermountain Chapter. She serves on the editorial board of the Northwest Communication Association Journal and has previously served that association as a conference planner. One of the highlights of her year is serving as chief judge for the 8th grade physical science division at the Montana State Science Fair.
IAP2 extends sincere appreciation to Staffing Committee members Jan Bloomfield (Canada), Kylie Cochrane (Australasia) and Ellen Ernst, Executive Manager for their efforts in working through the recruiting and selection process and for their thoughtful consideration of all applications received. IAP2 was pleased with the interest received from more than 30 applicants from around the world. The breadth and depth of experience was quite impressive.
In the coming weeks and months as Cassie becomes acquainted with the organization, key initiatives, and her role, many of you will have the opportunity to meet and work with her. Cassie can be reached at email@example.com.
Please join us in welcoming Cassie to IAP2.
By Francesca Patricolo and Anne Carroll, IAP2 USA Federation Representatives
On May 10-11, the IAP2 Federation Board met in Jakarta, Indonesia, graciously hosted by IAP2 Indonesia Affiliate presiding member Aldi Muhammad Alizar and held at the offices of Medco Energi. The IAP2 USA Affiliate sent our two Federation board representatives, Anne Carroll from St. Paul, Minnesota and Francesca Patricolo from Portland, Oregon, who participated with members from Canada, Southern Africa, and Australasia (Italy was unable to attend).
The lively and successful meeting covered ways the Affiliates can accelerate our work together to more powerfully support and advance the practice, sustainable investments in that collective work, approving the new train-the-trainer process for the Foundations course, progress on other initiatives in the current work plan, and the ongoing evaluation of progress and renewal of the strategic plan (see summary here).
On the morning following that meeting, Federation board members were honored to participate in an important seminar hosted by IAP2 Indonesia focusing on P2 and how to progress toward the UN’s 2030 sustainable development goals in this rapidly developing country of 260 million people spread over 922 permanently inhabited islands. Presenters and audience members included representatives from the United Nations Development Programme Indonesia, several national ministries and provincial agencies, academia, international private industries, international consulting firms.
Later that day, several of us from the Federation board joined our Indonesian IAP2 members in a meeting with the Dean and a faculty member from the new School of Government and Public Policy to discuss how IAP2 might be able to contribute to their work.
People often ask us about IAP2 USA—its committees, how it fits with the other Affiliates, Chapters, etc. To try and answer these questions we have created some organizational charts. The first one positions IAP2 USA within the broader Federation of Affiliates.
This second chart focuses on IAP2 USA.
As you take a look at the IAP2 USA chart you will notice that we have a lot of terrific committees supporting all of the work that happens at IAP2 USA. If you are interested in volunteering please reach out directly to the Committee chairs or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Does the IAP2 Spectrum adequately cover what Public Participation is all about? What are its limitations? Should anything be added? Those are some of the questions being tackled as we look for input from all IAP2 members. Join the discussion: You can comment on topics already raised or raise some of your own.
It’s a topic your P2 colleagues around the world are talking about. Join Stephani Roy McCallum, Max Hardy and IAP2 Canada as they host a discussion at the Portland Conference, “Re-Imagining the IAP2 Spectrum”.
Thanks to everyone that has already commented we’re seeing cover a range of topics:
- Should “Inform” be considered a level of consultation?
- Does the “shape” of the Spectrum – a linear, left-to-right progression – convey the wrong idea?
- Who is really the “client”? Is it the stakeholders? The proponent? “The People”?
- Does the Spectrum help or hinder evaluation?
So why are you sitting there, reading this? Click here to join the conversation.
Join us in a conversation to help shape the future of the IAP2 Federation!
IAP2 USA and IAP2 Canada invite you to join us for a special webinar on the IAP2 Federation Model Review – Refinement of Roles, Responsibilities and Funding Model.
When the IAP2 Federation of Affiliates model was established in 2011, members agreed to a 10-year implementation timeline. As we approach the 5 year point in our new governance model, it is time for a review to determine if any adjustments are needed to ensure organizational sustainability.
The IAP2 Federation is seeking input and advice from members on the appropriate roles and responsibilities for the Federation and the Affiliates/Chapters as we continue to move forward and grow our organization together. So please consider joining us for this informative session and voice your feedback.
This webinar will take place on Wednesday, June 24th, from 11:00 – 12:00 Pacific. Please register here.
Recently, Lewis Michaelson, IAP2 USA Board member and former Vice President, participated in an online discussion on LinkedIn in response to the question: Do we make a distinction between consultation and participation in our understanding of stakeholder engagement practices?
The discussion mentioned various typologies, hierarchies and models for describing the different forms of public participation, including the IAP2 Spectrum and Sherry Arnstein’s “Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Below is Lewis’s contribution to that discussion in which he describes what makes the IAP2 Spectrum unique as a public participation tool.
First, an admission: I had a hand in the development of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (PDF), so I can tell you a bit about the intent. The desire to create the Spectrum came from just the kind of confusion that normally accompanied the original question of this discussion, i.e. what are the distinctions between the various terms used to describe public participation and are they important? The answer from the participants’ standpoint is yes, they are important!
While each of the words used to describe the various levels on the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation have different connotations to different people and across different cultures (even before we translate them into other languages), what the IAP2 Spectrum implies is that different processes confer different levels of influence/impact on the decision being made. Consequently, it behooves all us not to just place a name on it, but to explicitly articulate what type of “return on investment” (ROI) participants can expect to receive if they choose to participate.
The Spectrum is laid out horizontally instead of as a ladder, because each of the processes on the Spectrum has a legitimate purpose, depending on the decision to be made, the significance of potential impacts on stakeholders, and the amount of time I, as a stakeholder, may wish to commit. In that sense, the Spectrum is non-judgmental.
If the decision to be made is one that I have a passing interest in, the impacts are nominal and I don’t want to spend a lot of time on the issue, I may be perfectly satisfied being consulted. For example, if my wife asks me what I’d like to have for dinner, I know she is not willing to make anything I could possibly dream of, and I don’t expect her to. I realize she is “consulting” with me, not empowering me to make the decision. I may say, “I had Mexican for lunch, so Italian would be nice.” But if I come home and she says “I ran out of time to make lasagna but I can whip up a quesadilla,” I’m not going to complain that I was misled or should have had more influence over the decision. After all, she was nice enough to make me dinner.
I know it’s a crass example (and I also make dinner too), but the point is, different levels of participation and stakeholder influence may be appropriate given the individual circumstances of the decision, the intent of the decision maker and the desires of the stakeholders participating in the public participation process. What is crucial is for the stakeholder(s) to know is what is being offered in terms of participation, so that they can make a rational choice about whether it is worth their time to participate based on how much influence they can have on the decision (what I call ROI). If not satisfied, their other choice is to seek influence over the decision through other means. In the U.S., this usually takes the form of protest, suing in the courts and/or taking the issue to the media. Thus, the decision maker must do three things: 1. make it clear what type of process and influence over the decision is being offered; 2. consider the other alternatives stakeholders have to influence the decision when choosing the level of public participation; and 3, whichever level they eventually choose, deliver on that promise. That is why the IAP2 Spectrum makes it clear that different promises are being made and different expectations are being raised depending on how people interpret the term you use to name the process.
Lest you think that the IAP2 is not concerned with ethics and power imbalances, I would recommend you look at two other tools that IAP2 offers, Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation and the IAP2 Code of Ethics for Public Participation Practitioners. The first addresses what we expect of processes that go by the name public participation and the second is what we expect of people engaged as practitioners of public participation.
IAP2 USA currently has nine active chapters. In order to make it easier for you to locate the chapter in your area, we’ve put together this handy map. For the most part, chapters follow state borders (except where noted):
List of active chapters:
- Alaska (Alaska)
- Cascade (Oregon, includes the southern tip of Washington)
- Colorado (Colorado)
- Grand Canyon (Arizona)
- Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)
- Gulf Coast (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
- Intermountain (Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming)
- NorCal (Northern California)
- Puget Sound (Washington)
List of inactive chapters, currently awaiting rejuvenation:
- Georgia (Georgia)
- Great Plains (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
- Mid-Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina)
- Rio Grande (New Mexico)
- Silver State (Nevada)
- Southern California
At some point in the not-too-distant past, about ten years or so ago, IAP2 even had chapters in Tennessee, Kentucky and New York (and we know there is currently some interest in New York City to get things moving again).
If you’re located in a place or region that is not currently served by a local chapter and would like help us start or reactivate one, please contact us, and we will connect you with other members in your area. Thanks!