The City Council’s May 2019 directive clearly and publicly ordered the process to be “resident-led” — even conducted at “the “Collaborate” level of engagement based on the International Association of Public Participation Spectrum.”

We are concerned that CURA appears to have exercised little independence from the City Coordinator’s office in the performance of their contract. They did not conduct a community engagement process in the spirt communicated by clear City Council direction. CURA also appears to exhibit a heavy bias in its use of data and analysis.

Did CURA seek out other data besides the CEE data? Other data was available, and it was not difficult to gather. It creates the appearance that CURA was satisfied with the CEE data because it reinforced a preconceived bias that the “the outcome of the work is racial inequity (institutional racism) largely driven by NRP allocations” and that "CPP was more equitable than NRP.”

If CURA had followed a more collaborative and resident driven model, they may have heard about other studies of NRP, other sources of data, or other examples of neighborhood programs supportive of renters and low-income homeowners. This is in fact one of the reasons for collaboration.

However, CURA’s model of community engagement is one that kept the community at no more than the “involve” level on the IAP2 spectrum. Given CURA’s extremely poor modeling of community engagement practices in this case, the community may rightly ask whether this agency should be making any recommendations to the City on the future funding or guidelines design for neighborhood programs.

What does “Collaboration” mean?

The City’s contract with CURA clearly states that “this work shall include community engagement with residents at the “Collaborate” level of engagement based on the International Association of Public Participation Spectrum.”

Here is how IAP2 defines “Collaborate” in the Spectrum of Public Participation:

Public Participation Goal: To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the preferred solution.

Promise to the Public: We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible. (IAP2).

However, this is difficult to grasp without understanding what is really meant by practitioners who actually have experience in this, or understanding the full context.

The levels of the spectrum just below and above “collaborate” are “involve” and “empower.” So how is “collaborate” different from, say, “involve?”

At the “Involve" level, the public is invited to participate, but merely to give input and to hear how their input helped inform decisions.

Stuart, Graeme (Feb 14, 2017). What is the Spectrum of Public Participation? Sustaining Community. Retrieved from https://sustainingcommunity.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/spectrum-of-public-participation/

According to the EPA, “At the collaborate level, the public is directly engaged in decision-making. Collaborate often includes the explicit attempt to find consensus solutions.” (EPA, para. 9)

Another of the essential elements of “collaborate” that differentiates it from “involve” is the goal of building consensus. The public is involved at all levels, is involved in developing the process as well as developing the outcomes. And you cannot develop consensus on process or on outcomes unless you actually bring people together in a way that builds consensus.

Some IAP2 Practitioners state that collaboration is the most powerful level of the spectrum, even more so than “empowerment” level, because it is more focused on achieving consensus.