.jpg)
In March 2024, the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a call for participation (CFP)1 from the public to respond to the need to help develop a framework for future public participation and community engagement (PPCE) activities. The CFP focused on “reaching and engaging underserved communities,” defined as those who have been “systematically denied the opportunity to participate fully in economic, social, and civil life.” The federal government wants its agencies to involve the public more frequently and in meaningful ways through the best methods, the right content, and the most accessible avenues to “shape policies and action” because certain groups of the population have been excluded from these processes due to various barriers.
We have a personal and professional investment in working towards strengthening engagement with these communities and removing some of these barriers. Julian is a Puerto Rican in the United States who has experienced barriers and disadvantages due to second-class citizenship2; Nazia is an Indian Muslim immigrant whose communities have been scapegoated and continually othered. We are both also human-centered designers and researchers who have worked in local, state, and federal spaces, particularly engaging with underrepresented and underserved communities. Because of these identities and experiences, we felt an imperative to contribute.
We know the importance of having sensible and sustainable public engagement practices and their downstream impacts. A government that is responsive, that listens, and has infrastructure to effect positive change is a government better-equipped to build policies and programs for all communities and people to thrive.
A note about our position: As we currently work in the government space and have access to these types of requests, we acknowledge our privileged position in addressing this exercise. Our commentary does not fully represent the depth and breadth of expectations and needs of all communities.
The call for participation request was broken down into several questions addressing the following broader themes:
We went through each specific category of questions and mapped out notable practices and proposed recommendations informed by our professional and lived knowledge.
Through the discussion and development of our recommendations, we reflected more deeply on not just the questions, but on the process itself. A few thoughts emerged:
Is this process extractive by nature? How can engagement and collaboration be specific and sustainable? Who else is participating in this activity? Whose voices are going to be represented at the end? Is the feedback about underserved communities coming from privileged communities?
With that, the aim of this article is to present our reflections highlighting broader themes about the overall process in soliciting feedback from the public, connecting our lived and professional perspectives. This is not a toolkit detailing the specific framework recommendations. Our goals are to (1) surface potential oversights that persist in seeking feedback from the public, (2) underscore the implications of these oversights, and (3) offer considerations for improving the process. The reflections are anchored to three themes—extraction, return of value, and authoritative knowledge—with an eye toward partnership and improving government for the people.
Right away, the call for participation (CFP) makes it clear that there is a need for “harnessing knowledge” from the public. It poses the question, what specific steps should OMB take that involve the Federal Government and the public, especially engaging members of underserved communities, to ensure collaborative development of the framework?
The CFP defines the term “underserved communities,” recognizing and naming different groups of people and their overlapping identities. However, what is missing is why—how did these groups come to be underserved (and therefore, underrepresented) and what role have government systems/agencies played in that process?
With the understanding that these underserved groups have been excluded, and there is a desire to retain their feedback, we feel there to be an element of extraction without acknowledgement.
We define extraction here as seeking knowledge or resources from a group without returning something.
Seeking knowledge is not extractive in itself, but seeking knowledge without acknowledging and contextualizing historical and ongoing harms and without a clear directive on closing the loop is both extractive and further perpetuates distrust. In human-centered research, we aim to get feedback from a research participant with some type of return of their knowledge to them in ways they perceive as valuable, e.g., sharing insights or co-designing actions, which helps to improve engagement.
Without context or an acknowledgement to the reason for exclusion the same communities are less inclined to participate, especially with the displaced burden of sharing knowledge. With acknowledgement, as members of some of these underserved communities, we are less likely to feel tokenized or exploited. Intentionally moving away from extraction can translate to better and sustainable engagement.
Establish a foundational recognition of historical harms.
Part of the request was to understand how to “provide updates to the public about the feedback [received].” Certainly, a crucial element for sustainable engagement is to establish a feedback loop as mentioned above. However, in order for meaningful participation to not only last but also to build on new engagements, establishing a return of value is important. Beyond closing the feedback loop, there needs to be a sense of benefit for participants—what are they getting back in exchange for knowledge?
We define return of value as a tangible or intangible earned benefit for participation.
Often in research, return of value can be monetary compensation for a participant’s time and efforts. Especially in human-centered research, we also establish the broader impact of a participant’s knowledge—how their engagement and feedback will enable us to make something better. The people are an inherent part of the process. Understandably, federal agencies often need to cast a wide net to get feedback. With that, there is perhaps less opportunity for deep, targeted interactions. For this reason, it is especially important for more transparency around impact and intent—a clear return of value for the people. This transparency not only builds trust, but can also be a lever for meaningful participation from disengaged communities. For example, as a participant, I have a higher likelihood of engaging with a CFP for the first time (or again) because I can expect that my contributions will be used to ease challenges in my community, and that is valuable to me.
One part of value with engagement is being able to forecast. The CFP initially did not state any timeline or roadmap beyond a cut off date for participation. As potential participants, we were not able to gauge the expected next steps. For those who could not give feedback but want to stay connected to the outcomes of this participation, there is a gap in knowing what comes next or the status of the effort.
It is important to note that what is valuable to one community is not necessarily valuable to another and value can evolve. With that, true return of value should be regularly assessed to understand what is valuable at a point in time.
Define value and set expectations.
Ultimately, widely cast CFPs can lead to a selection bias. Particularly with government activities, there is an existing disparity between those who know about and can access this information and those who cannot. This CFP is specific in getting feedback from underserved communities, but where and how are those communities accessing this call? Learning from a given community requires direct interaction. The challenge with a wide cast is the risk of privileged communities speaking on behalf of others. This can lead to taking that feedback as absolute or authoritative.
We define authoritative knowledge3 as legitimizing and weighing one type of knowledge as more valuable than others.
Because of the potential bias in who responds to CFPs, it is important to recognize the possibility that these efforts may not be gathering representative information.
We ask, how do those who do not engage in government, academia, or large organizations find these requests? Those who are already engaged will self select into the feedback process, which can reinforce the same ideas. In human-centered research, sampling is an important part of ensuring diverse participation. Getting feedback from the same pool of participants repeatedly leads to informing the system with the same voice; ultimately, we end up building for one group.
This CFP did include multiple submission and feedback methods (written and verbal), but a gap remained in aligning with accessibility requirements. For example, there was no obvious option for giving feedback using a non-English language. The listening sessions did not indicate the language or format of the session (at least before registering), and the responsibility of accessibility requirements (e.g. captions or ASL interpreter) was on the participant.
In addition, the OMB must consider how it processes the variety of responses and feedback. Due to a large number of responses, it is increasingly important that the evaluation criteria are defined ahead of participation. Consider communicating criteria for weighing input and re-engaging the public to react to the synthesized information.
In human-centered research, we often use various methods of data collection to capture feedback from a variety of humans, and we explain the methods of evaluation or synthesis. Being transparent and intentional about methods can reduce selection bias and avoid only including certain feedback without critical thought on who might be left out of the conversation.
Reduce selection bias and embed accessibility.
Ultimately, to effect lasting, meaningful change, there are foundational truths that must be addressed because without them, processes such as this CFP exercise may continue to operationalize an already fractured process. In other words, the disengagement of some communities will continue without acknowledgement and repair.4
Engaging people is at the core of what we do as human-centered researchers. For government agencies, it is especially important to understand the experiences and needs of the public, and drawing from human-centered research is a way to do this earnestly and sustainably.
We understand there is no perfection, only evolution and change. Improving ways to engage the public is an iterative process, and a PPCE framework inspired by these human-centered principles can help the government make space for it. These principles are not only applicable to a framework for engaging with the public, but also to the very policies and programs the government aims to improve. As both members of the public and the human-centered design community, we are proud to be stewards of this vision to help build a government that works for us and with us.
As we prepared this post in fall of 2024, the OMB shared an update to the CFP with a summary of feedback and seeking comments on a draft PPCE framework. We recognize OMB’s commitment to improve engagement and applaud the government in taking concrete steps to foster meaningful community relationships, including some of the very points of consideration we outline in this post, such as accessibility accommodations to listening sessions. It remains valuable to reflect on the foundational truths behind why underserved communities have been “systematically denied the opportunity to participate fully in economic, social, and civil life” and emphasize the best practices that help address this. We appreciate that the draft framework reflects many of our calls to action, suggesting a shared vision among the CFP’s respondents about a responsive framework for public participation.
Melissa is a content strategist with experience in using insights from research and analytics to guide decisions related to digital transformation and culture changes impacting stakeholders.
We are dedicated to creating simple, sustainable solutions. Learn more about our Services.
