Inclusive and Participatory Policymaking at the Local Level: Problems and Possibilities

Background: The rise of the New Public Service (NPS) paradigm emerged in response to changes in public administration, emphasizing democratic values, community engagement, and public interest-oriented services. The Jember Regency Population and Civil Registration Service faces significant public service challenges, underscoring the need for a shift to NPS-based services. Theoretical Foundation: The NPS paradigm strongly emphasizes community involvement in decision-making and policy implementation, contrasting with the New Public Management (NPM) approach that prioritizes business aspects. Key NPS principles include citizen-centric service, participatory processes, transparency, and prioritizing the public interest. Method: This study uses a qualitative phenomenological approach to investigate individual experiences with public services in the Jember Regency Population and Civil Registration Service. Data collection methods included interviews, observations, and document analysis, with the Miles and Huberman method used for analysis. Research Results: Transitioning from the NPM to the NPS paradigm took over 12 years, involving policy changes, shifts in organizational culture, and changes in public servants' attitudes. Despite service development innovations, a comprehensive evaluation is needed to ensure alignment with NPS principles. Research Implications: This study provides an in-depth understanding of regional public service transformation through the NPS paradigm. The Jember Regency Population and Civil Registration Service is committed to offering more effective, efficient, and responsive services. Research Originality: This research fills a significant gap in previous studies by focusing on citizen-driven service innovation at the Jember Regency Population and Civil Registration Service within the NPS framework. This study offers a unique contribution to understanding local-level public service transformation.

<p>The Arctic is experiencing climate warming at a more pronounced rate than other regions. This has significant implications for the thermal stability of permafrost, which strongly depends on the long, cold winters typical of the region. Canada’s western Arctic is typically more sensitive to permafrost thaw than other Arctic regions in Canada, because it is underlain by large regions of ice-rich permafrost that are only protected by a thin layer of organic and mineral soil. As a result, disturbances (i.e. fire, shallow landslides, thermal and mechanical erosion, construction) often lead to the exposure and thaw of the underlying permafrost. Climate-induced permafrost thaw has led to dramatic changes to the landscape, impacting communities, infrastructure, and traditional ways of being. In this region, northern stakeholders have invested in research infrastructure that enables them to actively participate in research, research design and implementation, and lead their own research programs. Since permafrost is intrinsically linked to the social, cultural, and economic fabric of the region, it is critical that local stakeholders be engaged in permafrost research.</p><p>The Western Arctic Research Centre (WARC) is located in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada. Inuvik is situated in the Beaufort Delta Region of Northwestern Canada, approximately 120km from the Arctic Ocean. A key goal of WARC is to support and conduct research that fosters the social, cultural, and economic prosperity of the people of the Northwest Territories. In response to local concerns, WARC has developed a suite of research programs that focus on the impacts of permafrost thaw on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems. To ensure that these research programs are responsive to the concerns of northern and Indigenous residents, WARC works in partnership with researchers, communities, government bodies, and Indigenous and co-management organizations. Project partners provide critical feedback on research design, study site selection, and how to communicate research to a northern audience. Furthermore, the Permafrost Information Hub at WARC is working with local organizations to establish community-based permafrost research and monitoring in the Beaufort Delta Region. This includes the development and delivery of training programs for local environmental monitors, increasing capacity in the region to support permafrost research. Northerners need to be involved in permafrost research. How Northerners want to be involved will differ depending on the location within the region and the nature of the research. This emphasizes the need for consistent, open lines of communication between researchers and local partners.</p><p>This oral presentation will outline the steps WARC has taken to engage northern and Indigenous residents in its permafrost research programs, lessons learned, and successes.</p>

A Theatre’s Responsibility to Its Community Jennifer Toutant (bio) Regional theatre companies in the last decade have become more focused on how to better serve their communities. As a result, our education departments have become less marginalized and more central to the theatre’s programming and ethos. Furthermore, new community engagement departments have formed at our theatres across the nation. Additionally, equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts have increased as we have been called out for wanting to serve our diverse communities despite the fact that many theatres are primarily white institutions. Theatre has long been an art form that examines humanity’s role as citizens of the world. Theatre has the potential to challenge society and tell stories that evoke empathy and understanding. In Theatre and Citizenship: The History of a Practice, David Wiles claims, “Theatre was for centuries a place of public encounter where opinion was shaped and relations of power were negotiated. Today we must ask ourselves whether that space of interaction has devolved to the internet, or whether face-to-face encounter of theatre is indeed still of relevance in the making of an active citizenship.”1 I assert that it is still relevant, but only if theatre exists for all rather than an elite subset of our population. By definition, citizenship means “membership in a community” and “the quality of an individual’s response to membership in a community.”2 Theatre can be a gathering place for individuals to explore their community membership through storytelling. Additionally, a theatre as an institution can be thought of as a citizen of its own community. A theatre not only creates a space of collective experience for its audiences within its own walls but is also a member of its larger community, and it must exist with and for [End Page 90] that community. Given the American theatre’s history of exclusionary practices, it is imperative today that the work of a theatre extends beyond its own building. To realize our potential to be a communal place for all, we must build relationships with those outside our subscriber base. I am interested in exploring the changing role of community engagement and education in professional theatre, its function in theatre’s responsibility to citizenship (though I challenge the use of that word in this context), and the need to better prepare future theatre practitioners in the art of engagement. How are we to truly engage with the communities in which we are located if they are far more diverse than the practitioners we employ, and programming we produce, at our theatres? How do we expect diverse populations to attend our productions if the narratives we share on our stages are chosen primarily for their ability to appease aging white subscribers? How are we building meaningful relationships with our surrounding communities, and responding to their needs? In exploration of this topic, I solicited peers, colleagues, and young adults at professional theatres and academic institutions to answer the following questions: How do professional theatres define and value citizenship in our work? How are mission and vision statements of theatres changing and why? How has the role of community engagement and education changed in professional theatre in the last five years? How has community engagement and education programming been used in a theatre’s desire to become more inclusive? How are we preparing college students for the rapidly changing landscape of professional theatre, both as artists and as engagement practitioners? In answering these questions, I draw from my own experiences as the director of education for over thirteen years at Milwaukee Repertory Theater as well as the professional relationships I have developed in my career. Before I explore this litany of questions, I would like to scrutinize the word “citizenship.” As a field, we need to interrogate the usage of that word if we are to uphold it as a value. Theatres have a responsibility to examine our role as citizens of their broader communities. But in 2019, citizenship can be seen as a volatile word. As Milwaukee Repertory Theater’s director of community engagement Leah Harris describes: “Today, we have a news cycle that is constantly reminding us of who does...

Challenges and Solutions for Establishing Robust Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts in US Academic Radiation Oncology Departments

Effective Community Engagement Approaches for Climate Change Adaptation in the Philippines

RECENT ATTEMPTS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ENGAGE IN PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING HINT AT A WILLINGNESS FOR A MORE DEMOCRATICALLY INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO POLICY. HOWEVER, THERE IS OFTEN A GAP BETWEEN THE RHETORIC OF CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE POLICY-MAKING INITIATIVES. THERE IS CONCERN THAT, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, THE TERMS ‘CO-PRODUCTION’ AND ‘PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY’ HAVE BEEN ADOPTED WHILST THE PARTICIPATORY NATURE OF POLICY-MAKING PROCEDURES HAS, IN REALITY, REMAINED VERY LIMITED. THIS ARTICLE AIMS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THESE BROADER DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES AROUND THE DEMOCRATIC NATURE OF ‘CO-PRODUCED’ POLICY PRACTICES. THIS ARTICLE CONSIDERS CALGARY’S RECENT ‘CO-PRODUCED’ CULTURAL PLAN AS A POTENTIAL EXAMPLE OF PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING. USING A FRAMEWORK BASED ON KEY CONCEPTS WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC THEORY, INCLUDING WORKS BY ARNSTEIN (1969), RAWLS (1971) AND PATEMAN (1970, 2012), WE CONSIDER HOW THE STRATEGY ADOPTS PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING PROCESSES, AND QUESTION HOW THE PLAN’S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS SUCCEEDED AND FAILED IN CREATING MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION.

INTRODUCTION Community engagement (CE) rose to prominence with the Alma Ata Declaration in 1978, and remains a concept lauded by global health actors, including MSF. CE is often described as being linked with accountability, ownership, and sustainability of health programmes. It is also linked with social determinants of health through its empowering principles. Despite the recognition of its importance, challenges remain in incorporating CE into programmes. METHODS We used a qualitative, case-based approach to explore how community engagement is defined, perceived, and evaluated in MSF contexts. Our aim was to identify challenges and opportunities in truly integrating communities into humanitarian health interventions. Three projects were purposively selected, in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, and Venezuela, aiming to represent a variety of health programmes, as well as societal diversity. Document review and 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants represented different institutional levels and positions, as well as national and international staff. Interviews were transcribed and coded iteratively, as were the operational and technical documents, institutional policies, and reports included in the document reviews. The themes that emerged in the iterative coding were then analysed. ETHICS This study was approved by the MSF Ethics Review Board, and by the Institutional Review Board at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. RESULTS We found disparity between MSF institutional policy, operational documents, and incorporation of CE at programme level. While there is policy acceptance of CE as essential, interviews show that MSF barely engages with communities in a participatory process. There is little prioritisation of CE, and lack of guidance on the processes needed to involve communities in decision making. Our results also show that despite shared claims of the importance of CE, definitions, objectives, and evaluation all vary significantly. Tensions emerge between seeing communities as active participants or as passive beneficiaries. Additional tensions appeared around whether CE was perceived as an approach for promotion of quality of care and accountability of operations, or purely as an activity to reach the organisation’s goals. Finally, while field projects may establish links with communities, MSF remains the sole decision-maker on the overall medical-humanitarian strategy. Interviewees questioned the capability of MSF to work within this community engagement approach, due to inherent power asymmetries and the predominant use of western-centred biomedical approaches. Inequalities and misconceptions between international and national staff created an additional barrier to bridging with local communities. CONCLUSION If MSF is interested in improving its approach to CE, there should be a concerted effort to change the way communities are viewed with respect to the organisation‘s interventions. While a single model of CE is not possible, MSF needs to set up training on CE approaches and develop frameworks and clear objectives for CE, through dedicated resources at headquarters and field levels. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None declared.

This article aims to contribute on the reflection concerning new political measures and complex social demands in democratic systems worldwide. On recognizing the growing fragmentation of social systems and the effects on both social and individual identities, political participatory mechanisms are required to assume the increasing diversity and inequality among social groups and actors in innovative ways. On the basis of my academic and on-the-field experience with participatory practices aimed at including civil society in policymaking processes, I have acknowledged that there is a widespread necessity to look at the ways the relationship between political institutions and citizens can change through participation. I support this view by making reference to some of the findings of my PhD Thesis concerning participatory processes and public administration which put a light on the necessity of social inclusion measures’ enhancement. Organizational and cultural embedding of public sector in participatory policymaking is a key issue in this article in that public policies represent complex chains of processes making sense of citizens and groups’ identities and activities. Participatory formulation and/or implementation of public policies cannot help but be related to relational patterning among social groups as well as between political institutions and societies. Understanding the multiple ways through which participation in policymaking can work in different political and social systems, the article proposes an in-depth reflection on the ways change can be achieved by public authorities. Supported by psychosociological theories and within an interdisciplinary approach, the final goal is that of opening the debate on the extents through which governments can effectively coordinate participatory processes towards inclusive goals. Indeed, political institutions are very unlikely to work out effective participatory processes without undergoing extensive cultural transformations and, therefore, ensure high impact on fragmented societies.

Christian institutions are founded on a diverse set of historical and theological backgrounds and strive to integrate faith, learning, and living in a way that not only educates and develops students, but also responds to the Christian call of service. Community engagement, therefore, becomes a way for Christian institutions to achieve said goals—fostering authentic partnerships, responding to the needs of communities and individuals, and encouraging student learning and development. This article maps the landscape of community engagement in Christian higher education by exploring its history as well as its philosophical, theological, and theoretical foundations. In addition, practical expressions of community engagement are addressed through a review of two national Christian higher education associations—the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities—as well as a consideration of programmatic exemplars at evangelical Christian and Catholic institutions and an accounting of CCCU and ACCU members receiving the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement. The article concludes with a consideration of how community engagement represents a critical dimension of Christian mission in action for evangelical and Catholic colleges and universities.

This article examines how Bogotá has developed civic engagement with street artists to design and implement a program promoting the responsible practice of graffiti by engaging in a thought experiment. Bogotá used participatory policymaking and public outreach that is carried out by street artists as forms of civic engagement. This article contributes to our understanding of how government officials can engage groups who typically do not participate in the policymaking process. The research reveals there is some effort from the government to build bonds and bridges with the program for the responsible practice of graffiti and the artists. The findings suggest that participatory policymaking and public outreach are useful methods to engage members of the public who are not typically represented in the policymaking process. The article provides key lessons that can be applied to other cities that wish to engage different groups of people who are unrepresented in traditional forms of civic engagement in local government.

Creative industries such as industrial design, architecture, interaction design, and fashion embed design disciplines, methods and processes with the intention and focus on designing with and for people. While there is a myriad of methods to help designers work with people of all backgrounds and demographics, engagement is a critical aspect of such a human centric focus. From this perspective, engagement means the critical involvement or participation of people with the content (i.e. object, problem, question) being developed or explored. Depending on the design discipline or the approach, the content and context may vary. Key theories that underpin a design discipline’s approach to community engagement processes come from participatory design, place theory, and design for social innovation. In participatory design and in place theory, engagement is a process driven by the direct involvement of people, the end users or the people that will be affected by the design intervention; a ‘process’ where people provide their input by engaging with the problem being discussed, or by providing input through their lived experience with the problem they are interacting with. Extant literature on community engagement in a design process offers descriptions of methods and approaches, discussions of the challenges of such collaborative and participatory approaches and of maintaining sustainable and ethical practices (Ehn, Nilsson, & Topgaard, 2014; Hillgren, Seravalli, & Emilson, 2011). An aspect requiring further exploration is the identification of the social and cultural factors shaping and influencing the ways people engage in community-based projects. In this chapter we explore these issues through two design projects and other examples of community engagement involving design projects for social innovation, where the process was intended to facilitate the creation of viable futures through design. It is within this scope that we define ‘community engagement’ as a participatory process that is led with a bottom up approach and that is distinguished by the sharing of knowledge as an indispensable component for community participation in social innovation projects. This process is stimulated by the co-production of knowledge among all participants, and where the forms of community engagement and of community participation is determined and shaped by its context. From this perspective the notion of community engagement is a dynamic one, and is redefined in every project according to the multiple factors that contribute to the context of the project. These different elements depend on the content being explored, the questions being asked, the people involved and the location of the community. Altogether, these aspects constitute the social and cultural fabric of the participatory process in which people engage with. This chapter presents an exploration of the notion of engagement from the perspective of design disciplines; specifically focusing on the topic of community engagement where social innovation driven projects are constrained by social and cultural factors. Through the examples presented in this chapter, we explore and further describe the four aspects observed in these design-led projects that are comprised in our definition of community engagement. The three questions guiding our exploration are: What does engagement look like in design-led projects? What does it mean to the participants? and How is community engagement re-defined through these processes?

BackgroundLesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and other sexual and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) individuals face persistent discrimination in healthcare settings, highlighting organizational inclusion efforts to reduce these inequities. While prior research has largely focused on institutional characteristics, the broader policy and sociopolitical context in which healthcare facilities operate remains underexplored. This study makes a novel contribution by using a multilevel approach to examine how state-level factors (e.g., LGBTQ+ laws, political climate, racial and ethnic demographic composition, and Medicaid expansion) are associated with the implementation of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies and practices within diverse healthcare settings across the United States.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) data collected in 2021 to evaluate LGBTQ+ inclusion in healthcare facilities. We examined 904 American facilities across 48 states that participated in the HEI in 2021. Multilevel modeling was utilized to investigate the association between different state-level factors (LGBTQ+ inclusiveness in laws, political climate, racial and ethnic minority population, and Medicaid expansion status) and HEI scores in the domains of non-discrimination policies, LGBTQ+ inclusive clinical services, inclusive employee benefits, and LGBTQ+ community engagement within different types of healthcare facilities.ResultsIn 48 states, 33.3% were Democratic, 22.9% were divided, and 43.8% were Republican; 70.8% had expanded Medicaid. The mean racial and ethnic minority population was 34.9% (SD = 16.2). Among the 904 facilities, 64.7% were short-term acute care hospitals. State-level political climate and racial and ethnic minority population were significant predictors of LGBTQ+ inclusive patient services within healthcare facilities. Compared to acute care hospitals, rehabilitation hospitals, Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, and outpatient facilities had lower scores for non-discrimination policies and LGBTQ+ staff training. VA hospitals scored higher for LGBTQ+ inclusive clinical services. Outpatient facilities, psychiatric and behavioral hospitals, and rehabilitation hospitals had lower scores for inclusive employee benefits, while VA hospitals scored higher. Critical access hospitals, psychiatric and behavioral hospitals, and VA hospitals had lower scores for LGBTQ+ community engagement.ConclusionHealthcare leaders must be mindful of the influence of state politics on the continued delivery of LGBTQ+ inclusive clinical services. Additionally, system-level interventions are needed to enhance LGBTQ+ inclusion efforts across various types of healthcare facilities.

The United States is experiencing unprecedented disruptions to its health infrastructure due to recent federal policy changes threatening public health programs, research funding, and healthcare equity. Policy reversals have rescinded critical initiatives, including diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; Medicaid support; and international health collaborations. Data removal and censorship further hinder public health decision-making, while personnel and budget cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention jeopardize research and local health initiatives. These shifts threaten the career development of early career researchers, limit access to crucial datasets, and undermine the stability of public health training programs. The recommended response for researchers, professionals, and concerned citizens is to take immediate action. Advocacy efforts should focus on engaging policymakers, issuing public statements, and lobbying for alternative funding. Public awareness campaigns are needed to counteract misinformation, leverage media influence, and educate communities on the implications of policy rollbacks. Strengthening grassroots networks by supporting local health initiatives, digital outreach, and mobilizing professionals is critical. Protecting scientific integrity requires advocating for data restoration, opposing censorship, and promoting independent research funding. Legal and institutional resistance can help challenge harmful policies through court actions and amicus briefs. International collaboration should be prioritized to sustain global health partnerships despite US government withdrawals. Proactive leadership in safeguarding public health research and practice has never been greater. Through strategic advocacy, legal action, and community engagement, we should defend public health research, ensure essential services access, and uphold health equity for all.

This chapter focuses on the promises and challenges of partnerships as a vehicle for advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education. Designing, implementing, and evaluating intentional partnerships gives all stakeholders an opportunity to advance their inclusion efforts while reimagining the relationship between community and higher education institutions. Moreover, it organically centers the voices of those most impacted by social injustice and systemic inequities. This chapter provides an overview of the Lawrence2College initiative of the Merrimack College Community Engagement Program in partnership with a local nonprofit organization, SquashBusters. Through this initiative, graduate students in the Master's Program in Community Engagement provide mentoring and support to urban high school seniors with a focus on the college application process. The chapter describes how Lawrence2College advances diversity and access in higher education. The chapter offers recommendations for building partnerships that support access to higher education for underrepresented youth.

The rapid growth of the electric vehicle (EV) industry offers a unique chance to ensure that technological progress benefits all of society. This research paper centers on developing indicators to assess and encourage equity and inclusion in EV science, technology, and innovation. By establishing a comprehensive framework, this study aims to track progress, pinpoint areas for enhancement, and contribute to a more just and innovative future. The paper emphasizes clear goals, including increased workforce diversity, equitable EV technology access for marginalized communities, and fostering an inclusive innovation ecosystem. Collaboration with diverse stakeholders researchers, policymakers, industry experts, community representatives, and advocacy groups is crucial for an unbiased perspective. Key areas within the EV sector are focal points for equity and inclusion efforts, such as workforce diversity, research funding distribution, technology accessibility, and community engagement. To measure progress, indicators are developed, incorporating qualitative aspects. Targets and benchmarks are set for each indicator to promote a challenging yet achievable path toward equity. Regular monitoring and reporting provide insights into intervention effectiveness, guided by stakeholder feedback and iteration. Acknowledging and celebrating equity and inclusion achievements motivate sustained progress. Knowledge sharing and community collaboration promote collective growth and better understanding of best practices. This research paper offers a comprehensive guide to developing indicators that assess and promote equity and inclusion in the EV science, technology, and innovation sectors. Applying these indicators and strategies enables stakeholders to contribute to a more just and innovative future, ensuring that technological benefits are accessible to all members of society.