There is a difference between having an opinion and being asked to share it. We all have the former which is shaped by our experiences, relationships, values, culture, needs and beliefs. The latter, the actual expression of an opinion, only tends to emerge in a safe space where trust has been established and one’s voice feels valued. Conversely, as is often seen in disparate communities, typically quiet voices are raised when that safe space is lacking, and the pain of an experience becomes too much to bear in silence.
The COVID-19 pandemic quickly exposed glaring disparities in minority populations’ susceptibility to the virus and unequal access to healthcare. Amid this crisis, the death of George Floyd illuminated the presence of systemic racism in our country that has been left unaddressed by policy makers for decades. The causes and symptoms of these issues were prevalent before 2020, but the conversations and interventions surrounding them had been left dormant by the mainstream media until collective voices became too loud to ignore.
Why does it have to get to that point? How could our communities change if underrepresented groups were asked to engage, express needs, and respond with ideas for positive impact instead of having to react to systemic practices that negatively impact them?
In public health, we often use the dichotomy of constantly pulling people out of the river, or treating the symptoms of health inequality, versus going upstream to stop people from falling into the river in the first place, or eradicating the causes. Upriver, we can see where the system is breaking down, why people are getting too close to the riverbank, and what could be changed to catch them from falling in. Though there are major identifiable causes of health inequity at the headwaters, smaller biases, unintentional exclusion, and unawareness contribute to the slippery slope.
Changing the entire system is a daunting undertaking, but there are measures we can take every day to include vulnerable voices and create a pathway of consistent communication in a safe, trustworthy, and accessible environment. Reevaluating our approach to the public engagement process is an easy first step.
A quick assessment of a community’s public engagement process will reveal whether the ‘engagement’ piece is truly accessible to the general public. Asking the Five Ws will reveal opportunities for increased holistic participation. The Five Ws assessment evaluates the Who, What, When, Where and Why of an equitable public engagement process. Relative to the topic open for public comment ask:
Who will be affected by this topic/decision?
Who needs to be represented so all sides are being considered?
What time of day is this engagement opportunity offered? Is it at 9:00 a.m. on a Tuesday when most of the people who you would like to engage are at work and cannot attend?
What languages does this information need to be translated to in order to reach all impacted parties?
What level of comprehension is the information written in? Is high-level policy language being used instead of common language that is more explanatory and easier to understand?
When are those you would like to participate likely available? Could you gather more feedback if your public engagement opportunity was available at night or on the weekend?
Where is engagement taking place? Is it accessible? Are you going to the people, or are you making them come to you? Is transportation to and from the location available? If the engagement opportunity is online, does your target audience have internet access?
Where is information about the engagement opportunity being shared and advertised? Is it where people will see it in their everyday environment? Or will they have to go looking for it?
Why? Potential respondents are more likely to engage if they can clearly understand the answer to the following two questions:
-
- Why does this matter to me?
- Why do you want to know my opinion?
Blue Zones Project - Southwest Florida recently had the opportunity to expand the public engagement process on
Collier County’s Complete Streets Study of Golden Gate Parkway in Golden Gate City, FL. The county opted to open a survey during the month of February to gather feedback on the community’s top choice of three potential options to redevelop the parkway.
A quick assessment of the Golden Gate community, including the 2020 Census data, reveals that almost 70 percent of the residents living in the four square mile area are Hispanic or Latino, 54 percent are foreign born, 12 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, 17 percent are living in poverty, and 72 percent are in the labor force.
Clearly the survey needed to be written using common language, translated to Spanish, and engagement opportunities needed to be offered outside of typical workday hours to be truly accessible to all residents.
Following Blue Zones Project’s philosophy that our built environments should be designed for people, not cars, it was decided that the survey needed to be taken to the people to create an opportunity for face to face conversations about their needs and what they would like their main corridor to look like.
The team set up shop at two popular weekend destinations, the Saturday farmers market and 7 Food Mart, the local independent grocery store. The owner of 7 Food Mart shared that his busiest time was on Sunday after church around 1:00 p.m.
Surveyors planned accordingly and over two consecutive weekends, they were able to conduct 150 surveys, all but one of them in Spanish, in less than 10 hours of total staff time contributed to the effort.
Facilitating the surveys in person allowed for questions to be asked and answered in real time and created a space where other concerns could be voiced.
Many residents said that they did not feel safe on Golden Gate Parkway at night, especially due to the lack of lighting, and the few teens that responded said they would absolutely bike along the parkway if it were safe to do so.
What was also clear was that Golden Gate City residents care, very much, about how their main road is designed and what the county is planning to do to facilitate its redevelopment in a positive way. They just hadn’t been asked in a forum that enabled a response.
In the public engagement process, silence should not be interpreted as consent nor apathy. Silence should signify that the question has fallen into the void and needs to be redressed and asked in the right way in the right setting.
By shifting procedures to ensure that the mic is truly being handed over to underrepresented communities, a dialogue is created instead of a sterile ‘process.’ Trust can build in this environment and as residents’ responses are fueled into government action, voices become louder, respected, and relied upon for community transformation. In this space, the ebb and flow of empowered community conversations can start to build bridges over the river altogether and create pathways to health and environmental equity.
by: Megan Greer, Worksite Lead, Blue Zones Project - Southwest Florida