Phew! Now it’s Break Time!

• When we come back we’ll delve into the most important questions in more detail.

• Be back in 15 minutes.

Form of the Session

• Short Presentations on the most relevant, least informed topics.

• Feedback from Participants

• Question 1:

– Presentation/Discussion

– Feedback.

• Question 2: etc…

To what extent will the likely result of the 2015 UK general election influence your vote?

Not a

t all

Only

slig

htly

Modera

tely

Consid

erably

It w

ill m

atter..

.

43%

18%

11%

18%

11%

1. Not at all

2. Only slightly

3. Moderately

4. Considerably

5. It will matter greatly

Do you consider yourself to be:

Entir

ely Sco

tt...

More

Scotti

sh ..

.

Equall

y Scott

i...

More

Brit

ish t.

..

Entir

ely B

riti..

.

Oth

er

11%

26%

2%

9%

4%

48%1. Entirely Scottish

2. More Scottish than British

3. Equally Scottish and British

4. More British than Scottish

5. Entirely British

6. Other

Do you believe an independent Scotland should have a written constitution?

Yes

No

74%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%1. Yes

2. No

Are you concerned that an independent Scotland will not be able to pay her way?

Yes

No

83%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%1. Yes

2. No

NOW How Certain Are You of Your Vote?

I’m

Quite

Cert.

..

I’m

Pre

tty Sur..

.

I’m

Leanin

g To...

I Am

Still

Thi...

41%

6%

24%29%

1. I’m Quite Certain

2. I’m Pretty Sure I Know How I’ll Vote

3. I’m Leaning Toward A Particular Decision

4. I Am Still Thinking About It.

Of the Questions We’ve Posed Today, How Many of Them Do You Believe Will be Answered by September 18, 2014?

Most

of A

ll of..

.

The M

ajorit

y

About H

alf

Mayb

e One Q

uar...

Alm

ost N

one of..

.

2%

13%

22%

33%

29%1. Most of All of Them

2. The Majority

3. About Half

4. Maybe One Quarter

5. Almost None of Them

Do You Expect that You Will Have Enough Information to Make a Confident Decision?

Yes

No

Not S

ure

60%

15%

25%

1. Yes

2. No

3. Not Sure

How satisfied are you with this process?

42%

10%

31%

0%

6%

0%

6%

0%

6% 1. Very unsatisfied

2.

3. Moderately unsatisfied

4.

5. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

6.

7. Moderately satisfied

8.

9. Very satisfied

The Structured Public Involvement team High Performance Participation for Better Governance

The Structured Public Involvement team

Who are we? And why listen?

More than a decade of high performance process design.

More than thirty successful public involvement projects.

Professional awards e.g. Herrington Award (2008)

Variety of partners (e.g. Federal and State agencies, Metro Planning Organizations, citizens gropus, private consultants).

More than ten thousand stakeholders involved.

Fifty peer-review publications.

Committee memberships on National Academies panels.

Service on professional organizations, journal, grant proposal review from environmental management to civil engineering.

Largest Arnstein Ladder data set published internationally.

Largest Q-metric data set for public processes.

SPI. Just Google it!

Some SPI Projects

Scottish Independence Forum. Perth, Scotland (June 2013)

Partners: University of the Third Age; University of Dundee; Five Million Questions.

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: Collaborative Visioning for Future State Use (2009-11)

Partners: US Department of Energy; Paducah; Ballard County; numerous organizations inc. Chamber of Commerce; West End Neighborhood Association.

Large context-sensitive bridge design: Western Kentucky Bridges Project (2007-08)

Partners: FHWA; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet; Michael Baker Associates.

Some SPI Projects

Louisville Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project (2005-07)

Partners: Ky Cabinet; Ohio DoT; City of Louisville; Jeffersonville, IN; TARC; Michael Baker Associates; Parsons Brinkerhoff; numerous local groups.

Participatory Electric Power Transmission Line Routing (2004-06)

Partners: National Science Foundation; University of Arizona; University of Kentucky; several electric utility companies.

Integrated Transportation/Land Use Planning, Jeffersonville, IN (2006-08)

Partners: Federal Highway Administration; City of Jeffersonville, IN.

Community-Based Transit-Oriented Development, Louisville, KY (2001-03)

Partners: Federal Transit Administration; Federal Highway Administration; Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY.

Process Metrics: Q, I, C and E

Criterion Indicator Data

Inclusion Number of organizations,citizens and groups

Count attendees, participant groups

Process quality Satisfaction Open quality evaluation

Clarity/utility ofdecision support

Expert evaluation Testimonials, narratives,comparisons to state of the art methods

Efficiency Cost and time $ spent on public involvement, time taken and demanded

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3Q

I

C

E

Focus group methods

Town hall

Deliberative democracy

SPI

Online participation

Phone survey

Comparison of process methods across QICE

Metrics: Q

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rural Highw ay improvement (KY, 2000)

Transit Oriented Development (KY, 2002)

Noisew all Design (KY, 2004)

Noisew all Design (AZ, 2006)

Bridge AAT (KY, 2005)

Bridge Meeting 1 (KY, 2005)

Bridge Meeting 2 (KY, 2005)

Bridge Meeting 3 (KY, 2005)

Bridge Meeting 4 (KY, 2005)

Bridge Meeting 5 (KY, 2005)

Land Use Planning (KY, 2005)

Bypass study (KY, 2008)

Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)

Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)

Mean satisfaction with SPI Processes

Wrap Up and Summary:

• www.perthu3a.org.uk

• www.communitydecisions.com

“Structured Public Involvement”

• You can Google the term for information, project data, articles, and more