EPA/600/R-18/214
July 2018
www.epa.gov/ord
Getting Community Buy-in for
Stormwater Funding
J . jBMEy.- "
A FOUR-SESSION PARTICIPATORY WORKSHOP
JBL* r,! >
, , H wtti mow"^
•A* f
.MW u »f S»
•Wlfl to* K wW*3 crrat* A
ov(n»M tHoi wtil ( a « jtr
ffliki of Stvm«MH0
N4£kfl\S'' 1fat tcvf»?r^o^
1" *»<** ^ -tv
rtwi»^uw4
0 ww* yt
Z NSf5M
2) W«le »
sunn *\ -*v>
H") K-» # UWcno, Well
w\friV frnJJ
Itt/S 1tm
»l#M
te-n
-------
iC
Cover photo:
Participants planning stakeholder interviews. Photo credit: Marilyn Buchholtz ten Brink, 2017
-------
EPA/600/R-18/214
July 2018
www.epa.gov/ord
Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding:
A Four-Session Participatory Workshop
Facilitator Manual
by
Julia H. Twichell
Kate K. Mulvaney
Marilyn Buchholtz ten Brink
Atlantic Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
Carri Hulet
Consensus Building Institute
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Joshua Secunda
Anne Leiby
Region 1
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
This multi-session, participatory workshop is intended solely to support municipalities in
securing stable funding for stormwater and does not endorse any particular funding
solution. The materials presented in this Facilitator Manual are for agencies or
organizations who work with communities facing stormwater problems to implement a
workshop series focused on the technical needs for effectively engaging stakeholders to
develop potential funding solutions. This Facilitator Manual is a paired resource with the
Participant Workbook for this workshop (Twichell et al. 2018, EPA/600/R-18/213). This
document was subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and approved
for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Draft public engagement
plan samples were created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Chesapeake
& Ohio Canal National Historical Park Planning Process and the Lower Mystic Regional
Working Group. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for
Stormwater Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without
CBI permissions (contact: chulet@cbuilding.org).
While this manual describes a method through which municipalities can work toward
funding solutions for stormwater management, it does not substitute for CWA or EPA
regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding
requirements on EPA, states, territories, tribes, or the regulated community and might
not apply to a particular situation or circumstance. EPA may change this guidance in the
future. This is a contribution to the EPA Office of Research and Development's Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources Research Program.
The appropriate citation for this manual is:
Twichell JH, Mulvaney KK, Hulet C, Secunda J, Leiby A, Buchholtz ten Brink M. 2018.
"Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding, A Four-Session Participatory
Workshop: Facilitator Manual." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, Rl. EPA/600/R-18/214.
This document can be downloaded from:
www.epa.gov/water-research/water-research-publications-science-inventory
ii | Facilitator Manual
-------
Acknowledgements
This workshop was inspired by the earlier work of U.S. EPA Region 1, which identified
key barriers to stormwater funding adoption in New England, including stakeholder
opposition and a lack of quality stakeholder engagement on these topics. This work was
funded through the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development and Region 1,
including the Healthy Communities Grant Program and the Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources Research Program.
Peer reviewers Walter Berry of U.S. EPA Atlantic Ecology Division, Elise Simons of U.S.
EPA Region 1, and Kathleen Williams of U.S. EPA Mid-Continent Ecology Division
carefully read through this document and provided thoughtful comments. The
municipalities who participated in the first two rounds of the workshop (Massachusetts:
Ashland, Lexington, Woburn, Watertown, Quincy, Framingham, Newton, Palmer,
Somerville, Tewksbury, Wellesley, and West Bridgewater; and New Hampshire:
Concord), Fred Civian of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
and Barbara McMillan of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
provided valuable feedback and insights that were used to improve the delivery and
transferability of this workshop. Visiting speakers Joe Delaney of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (former Engineer, Reading, Massachusetts)
and Ed Suslovic of New England Environmental Finance Center (former council member,
Portland, Maine) contributed key firsthand insights that augmented the curriculum.
Jennifer West of the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Coastal
Training Program, Abigail Lyon of Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership, and Kerry
Snyder of Neponset River Watershed Association, who participated in the Trainers-in-
Training program, shared additional facilitator feedback. Their plans to replicate the
series will help to spread this approach to stormwater programs throughout New
England.
Acknowledgements | iii
-------
Foreword
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a
science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks
in the future.
The National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) within
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts systems-based, effects
research needed to achieve sustainable health and wellbeing. Research encompasses
both human and ecosystem health, in that they are inextricably linked. One of the
Laboratory's strategic goals in its research program is to advance research and tools for
achieving sustainable and resilient watersheds and water resources. To that end, this
Facilitator Manual and its paired Participant Workbook (Twichell et al. 2018, EPA/600/R-
18/213) are designed as publicly available tools to implement a multi-session,
participatory workshop that guides and supports communities in developing community
support for sustainable funding solutions for their stormwater management programs.
Wayne R. Munns, Jr., Director
Atlantic Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
iv | Facilitator Manual
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iil
FOREWORD iv
ABSTRACT vi
INTRODUCTION 1
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE: USING THE MATERIALS 2
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE: DELIVERING THE STORMWATER WORKSHOP 4
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE: PLANNING THE WORKSHOP 7
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE: CHECKLIST OF COURSE HANDOUTS & WORKSHEETS 9
COURSE HANDOUT: CONTACT LIST (TEMPLATE) 10
COURSE HANDOU~ : FACILITATOR, ORGANIZER, AND VISITING SPEAKER BIOS (TEMPLATE) 11
SESSION ONE 13
COURSE HANDOU1 PARTICIPANT AGENDA 14
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE DETAILED LESSON PLAN 15
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE ABBREVIATED LESSON PLAN 25
COURSE HANDOUT: PRE-SESSION ONE EVALUATION 28
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE BASIC NEGOTATION THEORY LECTURE-SLIDE NOTES 30
COURSE HANDOUT: POST-SESSION ONE EVALUATION 41
SESSION TWO 43
COURSE HANDOU:": PARTICIPANT AGENDA 44
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE DETAILED LESSON PLAN 45
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE ABBREVIATED LESSON PLAN 54
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE ACTIVE LISTENING LECTURE-SLIDE NOTES 57
COURSE HANDOUT: ACTIVE LISTENING EXERCISE 68
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE: SEPARATING POSTITIONS FROM INTERESTS LECTURE-SLIDE NOTES 70
COURSE HANDOU SEPARATING INTERESTS FROM POSITIONS EXERCISE 77
COURSE HANDOUT: POST-SESSION TWO EVALUATION 79
SESSION THREE 81
COURSE HANDOUT: PARTICIPANT AGENDA 82
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE DETAILED LESSON PLAN 83
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE ABBREVIATED LESSON PLAN 90
COURSE HANDOUT: POST-SESSION THREE EVALUATION 93
SESSION FOUR 95
COURSE HANDOUT: PARTICIPANT AGENDA 96
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE DETAILED LESSON PLAN 97
FACILITATOR GUIDANCE ABBREVIATED LESSON PLAN 106
COURSE HANDOUT: SAMPLE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLANS '109
COURSE HANDOUT: POST-SESSION FOURAND POST-WORKSHOP EVALUATION 123
APPENDICES 127
APPENDIX A | FACILITATOR GUIDANCE: PILOT PHOTO JOURNAL 128
APPENDIX B | FACILITATOR GUIDANCE: SAMPLE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS 139
Table of Contents | v
-------
Abstract
This Facilitator Manual provides the practical steps necessary for an
agency or organization to implement a multi-session, participatory
workshop for municipalities to engage their communities in the
development of stormwater funding solutions. The Manual is a paired
resource with a Participant Workbook (Twichell et al, 2018,
EPA/600/R-18/213). The workshop was designed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and
Development (ORD) Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) and New England
Office (EPA Region 1) with input from the Consensus Building
Institute. This project is part of EPA's national Safe and Sustainable
Water Resources Research Program in ORD, which aims to protect
and sustain water resources via research in green and built water
infrastructure, as well as increase understanding of community
decision making for the use and financing of sustainable water
infrastructure. In earlier research, EPA found that a lack of quality
stakeholder engagement in stormwater funding and management is a
key barrier to successful adoption of sustainable funding solutions in
New England and elsewhere in the United States. Designed to meet a
need for technical training on these topics, the workshop engages
participants to apply a consensus-building approach to stormwater
funding decisions. This approach reflects the best practices identified
through past research in stakeholder engagement processes and
decision making. In the four sessions, municipal staff are trained to
use a set of well-established tools, techniques, and processes to
develop community support for stormwater funding solutions in their
towns. The activities presented in this manual were piloted in two
separate rounds of the workshop sessions, but the components of
this workshop are modular and the series could be modified
depending on the needs and resources of the implementing agency or
organization.
vi | Facilitator Manual
-------
-------
Introduction | Facilitator Guidance: Using the Materials
Facilitator Guidance
Using the Materials
The Facilitator Manual and Participant Workbook are paired resources for the four-
session participatory workshop, "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding
The facilitator for this workshop should be experienced in leading community
engagement training and/or meeting/workshop facilitation, as well as somewhat
familiar with stormwater issues and associated funding barriers.
FACILITATOR MATERIALS
¦ This Facilitator Manual (FM) is organized by session. Throughout this document,
sections of the Facilitator Manual are color-coded in tar and referenced by Section
Title, FM and page #. Each session includes the following:
¦ Participant Agendas: templates
¦ Detailed Lesson Plans: annotated agendas with comprehensive activity breakdowns
and delivery notes, session and activity objectives, and references to the Participant
Workbook (PW) and other materials
¦ Abbreviated Lesson Plans: designed for use by the facilitator in each session
¦ Course Handouts: loose handouts for participants
¦ Lecture Slide Notes: three lectures with complete slide notes for facilitator lecture
planning, slides are available upon request (tenbrink.marilyn@epa.gov)
¦ Evaluations: used in the pilot series formal program evaluation (may be adapted)
The Facilitator Manual also includes:
¦ Checklist of Course Handouts & Worksheets, FM9
¦ Contact List (Template), FM10
¦ Facilitator, Organizer, and Visiting Speaker Bios (Template), FM11
¦ Pilot Photo Journal, FM128-138: photos from the pilot series provide visual context
for room set-up, activities, and whiteboard/flipchart notes
¦ Sample Email Communications, FM139-144: sample emails for the facilitator's use in
email communications to participants between sessions
PARTICIPANT WORKBOOK
The use of the Facilitator's Lesson Plans depends on the use of resources found in the
Participant Workbook, the paired resource for this workshop. Throughout the Lesson
Plans, sections of the Participant Workbook are color-coded in red and referenced by
Module Title, PW and page # to provide stepwise guidance through delivery of the
content and use of the workbook.
2 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Introduction | Facilitator Guidance: Using the Materials
¦ Each participant should receive a 3-ring binder in Session One containing only
printed front matter. Introductory, and Session One pages and the List of Resources
from the Participant Workbook. Each binder should contain numbered tabs (1-5). At
the start of each session, you will provide the printed materials for that session for
participants to add to their workbook binder in the tabs provided. The materials are
designed such that participants can flip through sequentially as activities progress.
¦ Some materials within the Facilitator Manual are for participants' use. They are
provided separately because (1) the templates, lecture slides, and agendas will need
to be edited before these materials are distributed (see guidance in Detailed Lesson
Plar ) and (2) some materials better function as loose handouts.
¦ Participants will use the learning material and worksheets in the Participant
Workbook in exercises and fieldwork during the series. The workbook format is
designed for participants to build a personalized reference manual that documents
their progress through classwork, fieldwork, and notes in a structured manner.
¦ The learning material in the Participant Workbook provides a basis for group
discussion. Participants will augment this material with their insights and questions
as well as by interpreting material within their own contexts.
¦ The facilitator should review the entire Participant Workbook in advance and be
fully prepared to present and discuss its content with participants.
The facilitator or organizers can customize the Participant Workbook by removing,
relocating, or inserting materials.
¦ The lesson plans reflect effective delivery in the pilot and the time needed for the
different activities; however, the facilitator is welcome to modify exercises and
agendas to accommodate their own style, participant group dynamics, and time
constraints. The Participant Workbook, like this Facilitator Manual, is modular and
can be re-ordered. The Participant Agendas, FM14, 44, 82, 96 are templates that can
be updated. If adjustments are made, materials should be re-arranged sequentially
in the Participant Workbook.
¦ The sessions use external materials, including stormwater program and cost
resources and sample public engagement plans. You or the organizer may need to
update these so they reflect the timing, setting, and context of your workshop.
You will need to download and print the starred materials in the List of Resources,
PW67-70 (or use materials that you think are more suitable for the participants).
SOURCE MATERIAL/ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
For additional background reading, many of these source materials may be of value: see
List of Resources, PW67-70.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 3
-------
Introduction | Facilitator Guidance: Delivering the Workshop
Facilitator Guidance
Delivering the Workshop
For this workshop to be successful, the facilitator should encourage active learning and
engaged participation. Some sessions may take participants out of their comfort zones;
for this reason, developing an open and supportive atmosphere is key to a productive
experience. The suggestions below may help you create an effective and positive
learning environment.
DELIVERY
Communicate the materials
¦ Present material dynamically and use the whiteboard/flipchart to make notes.
¦ Avoid reading aloud from scripted materials when possible. Although handouts do
contain instructions, you should communicate the instructions verbally rather than
asking participants to read instructions/materials.
Customize the delivery by drawing on real-life experience
¦ Bring the materials to life by providing context from your own experience and by
adapting material to your teaching style.
¦ Visiting speakers are integral to the delivery of this curriculum and serve as
innovation leaders for other participants (even if they have pursued innovation
without success). Visiting speakers should weigh in on discussions to provide on-the-
ground experience and real-life lessons.
Create a productive and supportive atmosphere
¦ Encourage participants to actively participate by sharing questions and insights. This
workshop will be more successful if participants undertake group learning and
collaborate.
¦ Reinforce that this workshop is designed for municipalities at every stage of interest
or progress in developing stormwater funding.
¦ Humor is very important. The workshop will take participants outside of their
comfort zones and require time out of very busy schedules. This needs to be an
enjoyable experience that they want to come back to. Create a fun and relaxed
atmosphere that encourages participants to let down their guard with each other.
¦ Have participating municipalities host the sessions and provide lunch when possible.
This was great in the pilot series—it lent collegiality and heightened the sense of
ownership and leadership for the contributing towns.
¦ Encourage informal dialogue between participants. When possible, allow for
unstructured meal and break times. Those times create space for participants to
4 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Introduction | Facilitator Guidance: Delivering the Workshop
informally discuss challenges and generate ideas. Suggesting a lunch space can also
keep the group in the same space and encourage socializing. Exercise debriefs are
another great place to allow time for organic discussion.
Keep participants grounded in WHY they are attending and HOW it helps them
¦ Anchor participants in the curriculum so they see the rationale behind different
segments of the program and how each session's focus fits in overall. Revisit the
Participant Agendas and Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4 in each session.
¦ This workshop requires participants to dedicate time and effort away from their
normal job. Acknowledge participant effort—any level of effort is positive and helps
them to move forward.
¦ Participants may not equally enjoy participating in all activities.
¦ Pilot participants groaned about role-play exercises. Acknowledge that role-
playing does not perfectly simulate real-life situations, but that it builds muscle
memory for the actual interviews, it helps to expose areas where participants
can improve and/or prepare, and it breaks up the day and adds humor.
¦ Pilot participants were apprehensive about conducting interviews due to the
associated time commitment and fear of political consequences. Upon
completion, all pilot participants said the interviews were a valuable skill to
have developed and that they learned a lot about their programs from the
interviews they conducted. Remind participants that any effort is constructive
and that interviews are not about pushing an agenda, but are about learning
and building strong relationships.
¦ Some participants may not be able to complete all the fieldwork due to constraints
in their municipality. It is critical that participants are not made to feel that they
were unsuccessful in their efforts. Discuss the issue of timing among all participants.
When is a better time to move forward? What can they do now to prepare? Each
municipality faces its own set of challenges; however, discussion should focus on
analyzing and working with these challenges and developing the participants' sense
of shared progress within a "support group" setting.
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
Logistics
¦ Make sure participants know where to find restrooms, water fountain, emergency
exits, refreshments, scratch paper, etc.
¦ Ask that they write a name tag and set a name tent on the table in front of them.
¦ Show them where to order/find a takeaway lunch or where to store lunch if they
brought their own (in a refrigerator on-site or bring in a large cooler with ice packs).
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 5
-------
Introduction | Facilitator Guidance: Delivering the Workshop
Ground rules
This participatory workshop will be a low-conflict setting as participants work in similar
contexts on similar issues. These ground rules are thus selected to foster a "support
group" environment. Feel free to add or adjust according to personal style and/or group
dynamics.
¦ Success depends on participation - participate actively!
¦ Share air time.
¦ Communicate respectfully; explain reasoning and intent.
¦ Ask genuine questions.
¦ Support each other in uncomfortable role-playing exercises.
¦ Have fun.
¦ Phones off/silent; take calls outside.
PREPARATION/EQUIPMENT
¦ Technology: Projector, screen, A/V, computer, extension cord
¦ Office Supplies: Whiteboard or flipchart/easel, dry erase markers, eraser, large
permanent markers, masking tape, pencils/pens, scratch paper, name tags, name
tents, large sticky notes (8" x 6" in 3 colors, Session Three only)
¦ Food: Electric teapot/tea, coffee maker/coffee, coffee condiments, paper cups and
napkins, utensils, breakfast snacks, municipal hosts provide lunch (if possible)
¦ Access: Water fountain, restrooms (handicap accessible)
¦ Room Set-up*: Tables and chairs in a "U" formation facing the projector screen,
name tents for each participant, refreshments table ( Hot Photo Journal FM128.2)
¦ Seating arrangement: Participants should sit next to their colleagues from the same
municipality, but they should expect to be up and moving seats quite a bit during
sessions.
* Additional session-specific set-up requirements are detailed in the lesson plans.
6 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Introduction | Facilitator Guidance: Planning the Workshop
Facilitator Guidance
Planning the Workshop
SCHEDULING THE SESSIONS
Sessions should be spaced roughly one month apart. We recommend that no part of the
series occurs during May through October, as many of the municipal participants
responsible for stormwater management are busy with construction season. If sessions
must be scheduled more tightly, make sure to leave 4-6 weeks between Sessions Two
and Three so participants have time to schedule and conduct interviews.
Session One host: providing lunch? Date:
Session Two host: providing lunch? Date:
Session Three host: providing lunch? Date:
Session Four host: providing lunch? Date:
Once you propose dates, you may find you need to reschedule a bit, based on
participants' needs. Be sure to ask them what works best as each session progresses.
Note: Several pilot participants requested more time for public engagement planning;
thus, there was consideration given to expanding into five sessions. Because these
workshops are a significant time commitment, however, we ultimately decided to curtail
the series to four sessions. If more than 7-8 municipalities participate, future organizers
may wish to consider the option of spending more time on public engagement planning
in Session Four and holding all municipal presentations in a fifth session.
FINDING VISITING SPEAKERS
You will need to identify and schedule visiting speakers in advance. Speakers should
plan to attend the entire session on the day that they are presenting, if possible. In the
pilot series, the visiting speakers provided insights that were highly valued by
participants throughout all activities. It is best if the visiting speakers are from a nearby
geographic area, because participants will want to know what is possible in their area.
Speakers in the pilot, for example, were all from New England and thus could discuss
their experience in dealing with relatively similar circumstances such as aging
infrastructure, environmental context, and similar community cultural norms. The
facilitator can adjust allotted speaking times according to speakers' needs. Be sure to
update the °articipant Agenda, accordingly. Recommended topics are below (see
Detailed Lesson Plans for greater detail):
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual \ 1
-------
Introduction | Facilitator Guidance: Planning the Workshop
Session Recommended Speaker Topic
Time Allotted Pilot Workshop Speaker
Session A municipal staff member (e.g.,
One Engineer or Department of Public
25-minute talk Joe Delaney,
30-minute Q&A Massachusetts
Works Director) describes how they
successfully adopted a dedicated
stormwater funding mechanism and
what it took.
Department of
Environmental Protection
(former Engineer,
Reading, Massachusetts)
Session A municipal stormwater champion
Three (e.g., an elected official) describes
their perspective of a successful
adoption.
10-minute talk Ed Suslovic, New England
30-minute Q&A Environmental Finance
Center (former council
member, Portland, Maine)
Session A former participant discusses
Four progress made since the sessions
concluded and lessons learned.
10-minute talk Maeghan Dos Anjos,
15-minute Q&A Conservation Agent,
Ashland, Massachusetts
Visiting speakers play a very important role as alternative voices to the facilitator and
organizers. They offer real, hands-on experience and can help to legitimize the concepts
taught in these sessions. As innovation leaders (even those who have not successfully
implemented a stormwater funding proposal), they can inspire efforts in other towns.
Selection of visiting speakers should consider both experience and delivery. Speakers
should be selected because they recognize the value of stakeholder engagement. Look
for dynamic speakers and good storytellers who have lessons to share from their
successful or failed participatory processes and who will set a positive and hopeful tone.
STAYING ORGANIZED
¦ Find logistics in each Detailed Lesson Plan: email communication details, visiting
speaker selection, set-up, materials, and session objectives
¦ See Participant Workbook Table of Contents, PWv: lists all modules
¦ See Checklist of Course Handouts & Worksheets, FM9: listed by session and includes
where to find them in the Participant Workbook and Facilitator Manual
COMMUNICATING
The facilitator will need to stay in touch with participants in between each session about
the following topics via email (see Sample Email Communications, FM139-144):
¦ Logistics: location, start time, end time, and lunch availability
¦ Fieldwork reminders and follow-up (very important!): send frequent, positively-
framed encouragement to help participants stay on track with their fieldwork,
answer questions, and more
¦ Participant Agendas: send out the next session agenda
¦ Participant Workbook: remind participants to bring their binder to each session
8 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Checklist of Course Handouts & Worksheets
GENERAL MATERIALS
~
Contact List (Template), FM10
~
Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4
~
Facilitator, Organizer, and Visiting Speaker Bios (Template), FM11
List of Resources, PW67-70
SESSION ONE
SESSION TWO
~
Pre-Session One Evaluation, FM28-29
~
Participant Agenda - Session Two, FM44
~
Participant Agenda - Session One, FM14
~
Stakeholder Interviews: A To Z, PW22-23
~
Inventorying Stormwater Program Needs & Costs, PW7
~
Interview Template - Sample, PW24-26
~
3 handouts from Metropolitan Area Planning Council Stormwater
~
Setting Up Interviews - Sample Communications, PW27-28
Financing/Utility Starter Kit (2014), URL in PW68
~
Active Listening Exercise, FM68-69
~
Stakeholder Mapping, PW11
~
Separating Interests from Positions Exercise, FM77-78
~
Stakeholder Inventory Worksheet, PW12
~
Municipal Interview Planning, PW35
~
Stakeholder Map Worksheet, PW13
~
Post-Session Two Evaluation, FM79-80
~
Identify Key Stakeholders & Draft Interview Questions, PW14-15
~
Post-Session One Evaluation, FM41-42
SESSION THREE
SESSION FOUR
~
Participant Agenda - Session Three, FM82
~
Participant Agenda - Session Four, FM96
~
Interview Analysis Worksheet, PW41-44
~
Presentation Critiques, PW55-56
~
Stormwater Funding & Stakeholder Assessment Summary, PW45-50
~
Designing Public Engagement, PW60
~
Instructions - Municipal Stormwater Presentations, PW51-52
~
Public Participation Spectrum (IAP2 2014), URL in PW58
~
Post-Session Three Evaluation, FM93-94
~
Spectrum of Processes for Collaboration and Consensus-
Building in Public Decisions (Orenstein et al. 2010), URL in PW58
~
Lower Mystic Regional Working Group "Public Engagement,"
FM109-110
~
C&O Canal Historical Park Planning Process "Communication
and Stakeholder Outreach Plan - Draft Outline," FM111-122
~
Public Engagement Plan Template, PW61-65
~
Post-Session Four and Post-Workshop Evaluation, FM123-125
All course handouts are listed by order of use
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding - Contact List
o
Q
O
§
Q
=3
C
Q
Municipality
First Name
Last Name
Title
Email
Phone
Boston, MA
John
Doe
DPW Director
xyz@boston.com
123-456-7890
Providence, Rl
Jane
Doe
City Engineer
xyz@providence.com
123-456-7890
MADEP
Jordan
Doe
Stormwater Liaison
xyz@dep.gov
123-456-7890
O
Q_
C
o
3
S1
c
3:
Q
Q.
O
c
n
o
n>
3
-a_
0)
r+
n>
Facilitator/Trainer
Organization
Organizer(s)
Organization
-------
Introduction | Course Handout: Bios (template)
Facilitator, Organizer, and Visiting Speaker Bios
FACILITATOR
Name is a [job title] at the [organization]. S/he works on or has worked on [X, Y, Z issues
or projects]. [Name] has [degree] from [school] in [subject], and a [degree] from [school]
in [subject].
ORGANIZER(S)
Name is a [job title] at the [organization]. S/he works on or has worked on [X, Y, Z issues
or projects]. [Name] has [degree] from [school] in [subject], and a [degree] from [school]
in [subject].
Name is a [job title] at the [organization]. S/he works on or has worked on [X, Y, Z issues
or projects]. [Name] has [degree] from [school] in [subject], and a [degree] from [school]
in [subject].
VISITING SPEAKERS
Name is a [job title] at the [organization]. S/he works on or has worked on [X, Y, Z issues
or projects]. [Name] has [degree] from [school] in [subject], and a [degree] from [school]
in [subject].
Name is a [job title] at the [organization]. S/he works on or has worked on [X, Y, Z issues
or projects]. [Name] has [degree] from [school] in [subject], and a [degree] from [school]
in [subject].
Facilitator Manual \ 11
-------
-------
SESSION ONE
Facilitator Manual | 13
-------
Session One | Course Handout: Participant Agenda
GETTING COMMUNITY BUY-IN FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
A FOUR-SESSION PARTICIPATORY STORMWATER WORKSHOP
Session One Agenda
Anchoring Programs to Stakeholder Interests
Date & Time
Location & Address
OBJECTIVES
¦ Instructors and participants understand workshop goals.
¦ A visiting speaker provides insights from their stormwater funding process.
¦ Participants review their stormwater program needs and costs and examine
what information they have and what they lack.
¦ Participants recognize the connection between quality stakeholder
engagement and the adoption of a stormwater funding proposal.
¦ Participants are introduced to negotiation theory as a valuable foundation for
quality stakeholder engagement, early in a consensus-building process.
¦ Participants begin to map their stakeholder landscape.
9:00 AM Welcome and introductions
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A
10:45 BREAK
Municipal inventory of stormwater program needs and costs
11:45 LUNCH
Foundational principles of negotiation theory for quality stakeholder
engagement
Stakeholder mapping
Next steps
2:15 Adjourn
FIELDWORK
1. Participants construct a stakeholder map in consultation with colleagues.
Stakeholder Inventory Worksheet, page 12
Stakeholder Map Worksheet, page 13
2. Participants brainstorm tailored interview questions for their key stakeholders.
Identify Key Stakeholders & Draft Interview Questions, pages 14-15
14 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
Session One - Detailed Lesson Plan
Anchoring Programs to Stakeholder Interests
EMAIL IN ADVANCE TO PARTICIPANTS (one week prior to first session)
¦ Reminder about start and end times and location for Session One
¦ Information on lunch availability
¦ Attach Participant Agenda - Session One, FM14
¦ Invite participants to get an optional head start exploring the toolbox resource,
Metropolitan Area Planning Council "Stormwater Financing/Utility Starter Kit" [send
link in advance: https://www.mapc.org/resource-librarv/stormwater-financing-
utility-starter-kit/1
VISITING SPEAKER SELECTION CRITERIA
¦ This visiting speaker should have an inspiring success story to share from
participants' geographic area (e.g., New England). The purpose of this visiting
speaker is to serve as an innovation leader who demonstrates that setting up
dedicated stormwater funding CAN be accomplished locally. This visiting speaker will
share how they accomplished their objectives to inspire participants to do the same.
¦ The selection of a visiting speaker for Session One should consider both experience
and delivery. A dynamic speaker and good storyteller will help to set a positive and
educational tone up front.
ADDITIONAL SET-UP SPECIFIC TO SESSION ONE
¦ Pilot Photo Journal, FM128.2 provides a visual of classroom set-up
¦ Participant Workbook binder at each chair (participants should bring their
Participant Workbook for all other sessions)
PRINTED & DIGITAL MATERIALS
Once the facilitator has finalized the materials from the Facilitator Manual, the materials
should be printed and provided with the Participant Workbook as suggested.
Printed (one copy per participant, speaker, and organizer):
Participant Workbook binder
~ Participant Workbook Introductory materials, PWi-vi, PW1-4, before binder tab 1
~ Participant Workbook Session One materials, PW5-16, in binder tab 1
~ Stakeholder Map Worksheet, PW13 may be printed on tabloid/legal paper
~ Visiting Speaker slides (if applicable), print 3-4 per page, insert after PW6
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 15
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
~ Metropolitan Area Planning Council "Stormwater Financing/Utility Starter Kit"
[access and print from URLs in List of Resources, PW68]
~ "Module 1: Needs Assessment" Table 1.1 - Potential Expenditures
~ "Existing Stormwater Activities and Expenditures"
~ "Introduction/Overview" Table 0.2 - What Fees Can Be Used For
~ Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture slides, finalized, printed 3-4 per page, inserted after
PW10. Slides are available upon request (tenbrink.marilyn@epa.gov)
~ List of Resources, PW67-70, after binder tab 5
Loose handouts
~ Pre-Session One Evaluation, FM28-29
~ Participant Agenda - Session One, FM14, finalize template
~ Contact List, FM1C, finalize template
~ Facilitator, Organizer, and Visiting Speaker Bios, FM1 , finalize template
~ Post-Session One Evaluation, FM41-42
Digital:
~ Basic Negotiation Theory lecture slides, paired with Slide Notes, FM30-40
~ Visiting Speaker slides (if applicable)
SESSION ONE OBJECTIVES
1. Facilitator, organizers, and participants understand workshop goals.
2. A visiting speaker provides insights from their stormwater funding process.
3. Participants review their stormwater program needs and costs and examine
what information they have and what they lack.
4. Participants recognize the connection between quality stakeholder engagement
and the adoption of a stormwater funding proposal.
5. Participants are introduced to negotiation theory as a valuable foundation for
quality stakeholder engagement, early in a consensus-building process.
6. Participants begin to map their stakeholder landscape.
7. Facilitator Objective: Participants from different municipalities share ideas and
experiences and feel comfortable with one another.
8. Facilitator Objective: Participants enjoy themselves and want to come back.
16 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
SESSION ONE - DETAILED LESSON PLAN
The agendas and lesson plans reflect effective delivery in the pilot and the time needed
for the different activities. However, the facilitator is welcome to modify exercises and
agendas to accommodate their own style, participant group dynamics, and time
constraints. If adjustments are made, materials should be re-arranged sequentially in the
Participant Workbook and the Participant Agenda, FMU, should be updated.
9:00 Introductions, workshop sessions overview, ground rules, and agenda
review
Segment Objective(s): Set the tone and expectations for all workshop sessions. We
want participants to be comfortable with one another and with the organizer team and
facilitator. A little humor is good for that. Introductions will also give participants a
sense of the expertise in the room while providing a platform for everyone to speak. The
facilitator should reinforce that this workshop is designed for municipalities at every
stage of interest or progress in stormwater funding. Discussing ground rules and
expectations provides a sense of structure so that participants feel they have signed up
for something worth their while. Session One Objectives, FM16: #1, #7, #8.
> [10 minutes] After participants sign in, create a name tag, and collect their name
tent to display at their seat, ask them to fill out a Pre-Session One Evaluation, FM28-
29. While some will arrive early and begin to fill out the evaluation immediately, it is
also helpful to provide this structured time as a group (and before introductions) if
your pre-workshop evaluation is substantial.
> [15 minutes] Participants and organizers introduce themselves one-by-one in a circle
or in smaller groups (5-6 people) if the number of participants is too large:
¦ Name, role
¦ Icebreaker: e.g., "Share one word to best describe your stakeholders' views
about stormwater funding" Example answers: "Under-informed,"
"Unreceptive," "Animated" OR "Share one word to best describe stormwater
funding" Example answers: "Elusive," "Tricky," "Controversial"
¦ Expectations: "What do you expect and hope to get out of these sessions?"
(Organizers explain why they are excited for these sessions.)
> The facilitator writes down participants' and organizers' "one word" and
"expectations" on the whiteboard/flipchart (Pilot Photo Journal, FM129.A). Expect
some spontaneous conversation about the "one word" icebreaker and allow
opportunity for some humorous moments. If the introduction was done in small
groups, ask each group to report their favorite "one word" and a brief summary of
the group's expectations.
> [10 minutes] The facilitator introduces the Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4, and
goes over the objectives, key activities/tools, and fieldwork for each of the four
sessions. Emphasize that they will leave with useful tools in hand, including a map of
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual \ 17
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
stakeholders, an interview protocol, information from interviews, a draft public
engagement plan, and a presentation that can be used to present to their Board of
Selectmen/City Council, their Appropriation Committee, an interest group, or other
audiences.
> [3 minutes] The facilitator introduces their preferred ground rules written in
advance on a flipchart (see Sround Rules, FM6, Pilot Photo Journal, FM129. ).
> [2 minutes] The facilitator introduces "parking lot" space on whiteboard/flipchart,
where the facilitator will make note of questions or discussion points that arise
throughout the day that are peripheral to the main discussion or need to be
resolved in a future session. (Pilot Photo Journal, FM128.2).
> [5 minutes] The facilitator reviews the participants' agenda for today using
Participant Agenda - Session One, FM14.
9:45 Visiting speaker presentation
Segment Objective(s): Participants gain perspective that it IS possible to develop and
adopt adequate and sustainable stormwater program funding solutions in their area of
the country. They will hear what made it possible in a similar municipality that was
successful. Participants will have the chance to ask questions and learn from someone
who has gone through the entire process. Session One Objectives, FM16: #2, #8.
> The facilitator or organizer introduces the visiting speaker.
> [25-minute presentation] The facilitator has the visiting speaker's slides pre-loaded.
10:15 Q&A with visiting speaker
Segment Objective(s): The goal of this segment is to encourage participants to talk
freely. This will be their first substantive discussion, and it will be inspired by a success
story in a similar community. The content of the discussion is less important than setting
the tone for sharing ideas and experiences, brainstorming, asking questions, as well as
learning about and getting to know one another. Visiting speakers play a very important
role in all sessions as alternative voices to the facilitator and organizers. They offer real
hands-on experience and can help to legitimize the concepts taught in these sessions. As
innovation leaders (even those who have tried and failed to implement a stormwater
funding proposal), they can inspire efforts in other towns. Session One Objectives, FM16:
#1, #2, #3, #7, #8.
> [30 minutes] The visiting speaker can lead their own Q&A session unless they want
help from the facilitator.
¦ Participants should be given plenty of time for questions and organic
discussion.
¦ On the whiteboard/flipchart, the facilitator can track interesting questions
and ideas expressed by the visiting speaker and/or the participants
throughout the presentation and Q&A ( 'Hot Photo Journal, FM130., ).
18 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
¦ The facilitator closes the Q&A with two take-home messages:
1. Getting community buy-in will be a unique process in each municipality.
Municipal governments are structured differently and have unique
circumstances and stakeholders. The techniques that they will learn in
these sessions apply universally and will help them navigate their own
unique landscape towards similar outcomes.
2. Developing and adopting funding mechanisms might take time—even
several years! Hitting road blocks is to be expected and the techniques
taught in this workshop will help them deal with roadblocks more
effectively.
10:45 BREAK
10:55 Municipal inventory of stormwater program needs and costs
Segment Objective(s): Even though the workshop is not about the financial or
operational aspects of building a stormwater utility, some participants will come with
the expectation that they will learn how to "build" a stormwater funding program.
Overall, the goal of this segment is to ensure that participants are all on the same page
with a broad sense of their municipal stormwater program and budgeting needs. As the
sessions continue, this will help them to anchor the broadly applicable engagement
principles to their stormwater needs. This segment is designed to ensure that everyone
who is not already versed in the components of a stormwater funding program will
become so. We provide some resources that participants can use to do further research
if needed. Session One Objectives, FM16: #3.
> [5 minutes] The facilitator begins by introducing the Participant Workbook.
¦ The Participant Workbook is designed such that participants can review
learning topics covered in the sessions, and they can use worksheets to both
guide, document, and track their work.
¦ Participants are not required to read the workbook in advance, as the
facilitator will direct them to use it as needed.
¦ The List of Resources, PW67-70, is a sampling of the wealth of information
and tools that are available online. Invite participants to add to this list with
resources that they recommend to the group as the sessions proceed.
> [5 minutes] The facilitator begins this exercise by explaining that, while this is not a
"how-to-develop-a-stormwater-management-program," it is impossible to do
quality stakeholder engagement if participants do not know what problem they are
trying to fix or what questions they have. Therefore, participants will be given a little
time to consider their own program and ground themselves in their big questions
and needs.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 19
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [20 minutes] For this exercise, the facilitator directs participants to the Participant
Workbook to locate:
¦ Inventorying Stormwater Program Needs & Costs, PW7
¦ Metropolitan Area Planning Council "Stormwater Financing/Utility Starter
Kit" resources (Note that this is a resource that participants may want to
explore further on their own time)
> The facilitator asks colleagues from each individual municipality to work together to
review the two documents and their own notes (or the knowledge in their head) and
try to answer the three exercise questions (PW7, Pilot Photo Journal, FM130.6).
Note: If there are non-neutral organizers, for example, EPA representatives, they should
leave the room during this segment and the next, so participants can talk freely.
11:25 Review of stormwater program needs and costs
Segment Objective(s): Participants review program needs and costs with other
municipalities. Participants begin to work together and see the value of these
professional interactions as a reason to continue participating in future sessions. Session
One Objectives, FM16: #3, #7.
> [15 minutes] 2-3 large groups (2-3 municipalities each, in nearby seats) convene and
discuss what they learned. In particular, share:
¦ Strongest and weakest area in your stormwater program
¦ The knowledge gap that worries you the most
> [5 minutes] The facilitator leads a full group discussion in which participants share:
(1) what they learned, (2) what became especially clear to them in either discussion,
and (3) what their big questions are currently. The facilitator will identify key themes
and document them on the whiteboard/flipchart ( 'Hot Photo Journal, FM130.\ ). The
facilitator should then transition to how participants' base of knowledge ties to their
engagement strategy, e.g., "many participants shared that a weakness of their
stormwater program is communicating with and engaging stakeholders—we're
going to focus on how best to do that over the course of these sessions."
Note: If there are non-neutral organizers, for example, EPA representatives, they should
leave the room during this segment and the next, so participants can talk freely.
11:45 LUNCH
12:15 Foundational principles of negotiation theory for quality stakeholder
engagement (LECTURE)
Segment Objective(s): The goal of this lecture is to lay a theoretical groundwork for
HOW to talk with stakeholders about stormwater, drawing from well-established
research on negotiation and consensus building (see List of Resources, PW67-70).
20 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
Stormwater funding proposals must be anchored to municipal needs—if not, they may
fail. Participants must learn to talk to their stakeholders and identify their needs, rather
than just crunching numbers and hoping everything will work out. This will help them
develop solutions that everyone can agree on. In this presentation, the facilitator covers
both the "WHY stormwater managers should talk to stakeholders" and some basics of
"HOW," via discussion of basic negotiation techniques. Brief exercises and videos
throughout the facilitator's talk provide a good opportunity to interject humor. Session
One Objectives, FM16: #4, #5, #8.
> [45 minutes, including interactive exercises] The facilitator presents an overview of
basic negotiation theory and why it is valuable as a foundation for all stakeholder
engagement ( 'asic Negotiation Theory Lecture Slide Notes, FM30-40) Key points:
¦ You will be using negotiating techniques to help people make decisions about
developing solutions that everyone can live with.
¦ The three key elements of negotiation are to know your alternatives, work
with interests and not positions, and be fair.
¦ The goal is to first uncover the range of stakeholders' interests and then
develop potential funding solutions that are fair and meet those interests.
¦ These techniques apply to stormwater funding and also to many other
municipal and civic endeavors.
1:00 Stakeholder mapping exercise
Segment Objective(s): Give the participants a tool to use to be more precise as they
think about (1) how to accommodate different stakeholder perspectives and (2) whom
they need to engage. The stakeholder inventory and their stakeholder maps will be used
for their fieldwork in subsequent sessions. The goal of doing this activity individually and
before group discussion is to demonstrate that everyone thinks about stakeholders a
little differently and also to show the value of collective work to identify and classify
stakeholders. Session One Objectives, FM16: #6, #7.
> [10 minutes] Participants individually develop initial stakeholder lists. All participants
use the Stakeholder Inventory Worksheet, PW12, on their own to write down the
names or titles of all the people/groups they would consider "stakeholders" in a
stormwater funding program—as many as they can think of. Note that participants
should not exclude any stakeholders based on their position regarding stormwater
funding—include anyone who comes to mind. They can use the stakeholder types
provided on the worksheet to help them brainstorm.
> [5 minutes] Group discussion of "Who is a stakeholder?" - the facilitator makes list
of categories on the whiteboard/flipchart ( °ilot Photo Journal, FM131.7).
Participants should be free to define "stakeholders" in any way they see
appropriate.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 21
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [5 minutes] Participants compare their lists with municipal colleagues and work
together to expand their lists by adding stakeholders who might have occurred to
them after the group discussion.
> [5 minutes] The facilitator introduces stakeholder maps (the facilitator should be
familiar with content and exercise instructions from Stakeholder Mapping, PW11).
To introduce the basic concepts, the facilitator will start by drawing an empty
stakeholder map on the whiteboard/flipchart to explain why they are useful, how to
use them, and define the axes ( '/'/of Photo Journal, FM131., )\
LU
U
LU
z>
LU
5
o
INTEREST/STAKE IN OUTCOME^^
> The facilitator demonstrates how to plot one example stakeholder on the map by
their power and interest (Dilot Photo Journal, FM131.8). Note that interest in
outcome can be positive or negative—this map is agnostic to positions on
stormwater funding alternatives. Also note that the same types of stakeholders may
be located uniquely in different towns. One function of this map is to visualize which
stakeholders have both high power and high interest (upper right quadrant), and
thus need to be interviewed about their perspectives, needs, and concerns:
*
MEET THEIR
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
*
NEEDS
-> INTERVIEWS
u
3
i
u_
C£L
SPEND
SHOW
o
Q.
LESS TIME
CONSIDERATION
INTEREST/STAKE IN OUTCOME^^
22 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [10 minutes] Participants transfer their lists onto the Stakeholder Map Worksheet,
PW13. Participants can decide to place stakeholders where they think the
stakeholder belongs on the map OR where the stakeholder thinks they belong on
the map. During this exercise, participants should also begin to discuss:
¦ Identifying a trusted internal team (3-4 people at most) in their municipality
to work with between sessions to review the map. Ask, "Did I get the right
people in the right place?" and "Is there anyone I missed?"
¦ Identifying 5-10 individuals or small groups (2-3 people) that are on their
"wish list" to interview. They should aim to interview the key stakeholders in
the upper right quadrant of their stakeholder map as well as those
representing diverse or unique perspectives from other quadrants of the
map. Invite them to challenge themselves by setting up interviews with
both proponents and opponents.
¦ Drafting questions they may have for those key stakeholders regarding what
they can learn from each interview.
> [10 minutes] Municipalities pair up with another municipality and share maps.
> [10 minutes] Full group debrief. Were any stakeholders difficult to map? Ask for
examples of stakeholders from each map quadrant. Emphasize that these maps are
"living" documents, and need to be revisited periodically throughout a process. New
stakeholders may emerge and known stakeholders may move relative to others on
your map over time.
1:55 Next steps
Segment Objective(s): Send participants off on the right foot so they see the value of
doing fieldwork and attending the next sessions. The success of this workshop depends
on the participants following through on fieldwork. The facilitator should make sure
there is no question about what they need to do between sessions. It is important that
participants leave feeling positive and that their participation in these sessions will be
productive, for them and for others. Session One Objectives, FM16: #4, #8.
> [5 minutes] The facilitator reviews the key learning points of the day.
¦ It IS possible to successfully implement a stormwater funding program.
¦ Participants have the resources needed to get a basic understanding of
program needs and costs—remind them to take a look at the List of
Resources, PW67-70, and to email recommendations for new resources that
might benefit the group (facilitator may update the resource list or share
new resources via email).
¦ Stormwater funding proposals must be anchored in stakeholder needs-
negotiation techniques can be used early in the process for quality
stakeholder engagement.
¦ Participants can move forward by mapping their stakeholder landscape and
considering what they want to learn from key stakeholders.
¦ Collaboration between municipalities is valuable and important.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 23
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [10 minutes] The facilitator reviews fieldwork for Session Two (the assignment is
also listed on the Participant Agenda - Session One, FM14).
1. Participants build out the stakeholder inventory and map in consultation
with 3-4 trusted internal colleagues.
¦ Stakeholder Inventory Worksheet, PW12
¦ Stakeholder Map Worksheet, PW13
2. Participants identify whom they need to talk to (in individual or small group
interviews) and draft a few targeted questions for each interview.
¦ Identify Key Stakeholders & Draft Interview Questions, PW14-15
Let participants know they will receive "cheat sheets" with sample questions
in the next session - these questions should be tailored for each interviewee:
¦ For what reason do you want to talk to them? What can you learn
from them? How can you learn what they care about?
¦ In the next session, we'll highlight what works about some questions
and how to improve your questions to get at the right information.
Try to focus on developing open-ended questions and questions that
elicit values and interests.
3. Participants should send a scan, photo, or typed version of all three
worksheets to the facilitator, so s/he can prepare before Session Two.
¦ Invite and encourage participants to seek feedback in between
sessions.
¦ Participants should expect to discuss maps/questions in Session Two.
¦ Asking for deliverables between sessions will help keep participants
on track. Set the precedent, as participants will need particularly
frequent encouragement to stay on track for Session Two fieldwork.
> The facilitator reviews "big picture" next steps using Workshop Sessions Synopsis,
PW4 (Over the next three sessions, participants will be interviewing key
stakeholders to determine the range of interests in their community. This
information will help them to develop a stormwater funding proposal that meets
those interests and a targeted public engagement plan.)
> Organizers may wish to address participants or extend thanks.
2:10 Evaluations
> [5 minutes] Participants fill out Post-Session One Evaluation, FM41-42.
2:15 Adjourn
24 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session One-Abbreviated Lesson Plan
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
9:00 Introductions,
workshop sessions
overview, ground
rules, and agenda
review
Purpose: Set the tone and
expectations—a little humor is
good for that. Participants get a
sense of the expertise in the
room.
> [10 minutes, or upon arrival] Participants fill out a Pre-Session
One Evaluation, FM28-29.
> [15 minutes] Introductions (name, role, icebreaker - "one word,"
expectations).
> [10 minutes] Introduce Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4.
> [3 minutes] Introduce ground rules.
> [2 minutes] Introduce "parking lot."
> [5 minutes] Review Participant Agenda-Session One, FM14.
9:45 Visiting speaker
presentation
Purpose: It IS possible to
develop and adopt adequate
and sustainable stormwater
program funding solutions in
their area of the country.
> Introduce visiting speaker.
> [25 minutes] Visiting speaker presents.
10:15 Q&A with visiting
speaker
Purpose: Their first substantive
discussion sets the tone for
sharing ideas and experiences,
brainstorming, asking
questions, as well as learning
about and getting to know one
another.
> [30 minutes] Q&A session:
¦ Track interesting questions and ideas.
¦ Message: Getting community buy-in will be a unique process
in each municipality. Municipal governments are structured
differently and have unique circumstances and stakeholders.
The techniques that they will learn in these sessions apply
universally and will help them navigate their own unique
landscape towards similar outcomes.
¦ Message: Developing and adopting funding mechanisms
might take time—even several years. Hitting road blocks is to
be expected and the techniques taught in this workshop will
help them deal with roadblocks more effectively.
10:45 BREAK
10:55 Municipal inventory of
stormwater program
needs and costs
> [5 minutes] Introduce the Participant Workbook.
¦ Participants will use it to review learning topics and to guide
and document work.
¦ There is no requirement for participants to read the
workbook in advance.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
Purpose: Ensure that
participants are all on the same
page with a broad sense of
their municipal stormwater
program and budgeting needs.
¦ Introduce List of Resources, PW67-70 and invite
recommendations from participants.
> [5 minutes] Introduce activity: It is impossible to do quality
stakeholder engagement if participants do not know their big
questions and needs.
> [20 minutes] In Participant Workbook:
Inventorying Stormwater Program Needs & Costs, PW7
Metropolitan Area Planning Council "Stormwater Financing
Utility Starter Kit/' printed from URL in PW68.
> Colleagues from each individual municipality try to answer the
exercise questions (PI/1/7).
11:25 Review of stormwater
program needs and
costs
Purpose: Participants review
stormwater program needs and
costs with other municipalities.
> [15 minutes] Groups of 2-3 municipalities each convene and
discuss what they learned:
¦ Strongest and weakest area in your stormwater program.
¦ The knowledge gap that worries you the most.
> [5 minutes] Full group:
¦ What did they learn?
¦ What became especially clear to them in either discussion?
¦ What their big questions are currently?
> Message: This base of knowledge about their strongest and
weakest areas ties to their engagement strategy.
11:45 LUNCH
12:15 Foundational
principles of
negotiation theory for
quality stakeholder
engagement (LECTURE)
Purpose: Negotiation skills help
you create solutions that
everyone can agree on.
> [45 minutes, including interactive exercises] Basic Negotiation
Theory Lecture Slide Notes, FM30-4L, key points:
¦ Negotiating techniques are useful in key stakeholder
interviews.
¦ Uncovering stakeholders' interests can help develop funding
solutions (alternatives) that are fair and meet those
interests.
¦ 3 key elements apply to stormwater funding and also to
many other municipal and civic endeavors.
1:00 Stakeholder mapping
exercise
Purpose: Participants use a tool
to think about (1) how to
accommodate for different
> [10 minutes] Participants fill out Stakeholder Inventory
Worksheet, PW12, individually.
> [5 minutes] Group discussion of "Who is a stakeholder?"
> [5 minutes] Participants can expand their lists with their
municipal colleagues if they missed anyone.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
stakeholder perspectives and
(2) whom they need to engage.
> [5 minutes] Introduce stakeholder maps.
¦ Discuss how to plot stakeholders on the map, what the four
sectors of the map mean, and who key stakeholders are.
> [10 minutes] Participants transfer lists to the Stakeholder Map
Worksheet, PW13, and discuss:
¦ Identifying a trusted internal team (3-4 people) to review the
map.
¦ 5-10 individuals or small groups (2-3 people) on their "wish
list" to interview.
¦ 1-3 targeted questions for each interview (what can you
learn from each interview?).
> [10 minutes] Municipalities pair up and share maps.
> [10 minutes] Full group debrief.
1:55 Next steps
Purpose: Participants leave on
a positive note and feel that
their participation and
fieldwork in these sessions will
be productive, for them and for
others.
> [5 minutes] Review key learning points.
¦ It IS possible to implement a stormwater funding program.
¦ Participants became grounded in program needs and costs
and see some good resources (List of Resources, PW67-70).
¦ Stormwater funding proposals must be anchored in
stakeholder needs—negotiation techniques can be used to
build agreement that everyone can live with.
¦ Participants learned to map stakeholders.
¦ Collaboration between municipalities is valuable and
important.
> [10 minutes] Review fieldwork for Session Two.
1. In consultation with 3-4 trusted internal colleagues:
¦ Stakeholder Inventory Worksheet, PW12
¦ Stakeholder Map Worksheet, PW13
2. Brainstorm questions before Session Two:
¦ Identify Key Stakeholders & Draft Interview Questions,
PW14-15
3. Participants should email completed worksheets.
> Review "big picture" using Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4.
2:10 Evaluation
> [5 minutes] Participants fill out Post-Session One Evaluation,
FM41-42.
2:15 Adjourn
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session One | Course Handout: Pre-Session One Evaluation
GETTING COMMUNITY BUY-IN FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
A four-session participatory stormwater workshop
Pre-Session One Evaluation
1. Why did you join this workshop?
2. What are you hoping to get out of the workshop?
3. How important is engaging the public for the success of your stormwater
management program and why?
4. What two or three public engagement strategies or activities have you used in the
past (on any issue) that were particularly effective?
28 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Course Handout: Pre-Session One Evaluation
5. What are the top three challenges you face in engaging the public on stormwater
issues?
6. What are the top three challenges you face in paying for stormwater management?
7. What the top three challenges you face in managing stormwater in general?
If you want to include your name, please feel free to add it here:
Facilitator Manual | 29
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture
Slides and Slide Notes
Basic negotiation theory
...and how it helps you with stormwater funding
Notes on Delivery (for the facilitator to use when preparing for this talk):
This is a 45-minute presentation including interactive exercises.
Overview:
This presentation should be informative and thought-provoking for participants. The purpose is to point
out misconceptions about negotiation and provide helpful strategies to help participants "change the
game" of negotiation in such a way that is productive for everyone involved. The tone should embrace
levity and humor.
Delivery:
• Detailed notes are provided for each slide. They are written as scripted "facilitator's voice." The
delivery and script can be customized according the facilitator's personal style.
• Reading the provided script is not a recommended delivery. The goal is to engage and connect
with the participants via more dynamic delivery. The facilitator may want to create abbreviated
bullet points or cue cards for themselves, or practice until familiar with delivering the content.
This will depend on personal style.
• Italics denote a deviation from the scripted "facilitator's voice" and are used to highlight an
exercise or example that requires personalized delivery.
• Numerous examples are provided throughout this presentation to help participants connect to
concepts (these are both scripted and italicized). These can be replaced with customized
examples to reflect the facilitator's personal experience or preferences. Examples were selected
because they were broadly relevant to participants' lives and/or for interjecting humor. Any
replacement examples should be chosen with a similar purpose.
• If the facilitator is low on time, skipping over examples or exercises is acceptable— focus on the
content.
Content:
• These slides are a template. The facilitator is welcome to alter the slides with pictures and new
text. Slides are available upon request (tenbrink.marilyn@epa.gov).
30 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
• This lecture corresponds with content in "Negotiation Theory/' pages 8-10 in the Participant
Workbook. Both resources are heavily based on content from Fisher and Ury (1991). Their book
provides many additional examples and can be used as a resource to help flesh out these
concepts.
• For the full reference list and additional reading about mutual gains negotiation and consensus
building, see "List of Resources," pages 67-70 in the Participant Workbook.
What is Negotiation?
Any decision-making process that requires
agreement between two or more people
Read the slide definition.
Negotiation theory is a valuable foundation for all stakeholder engagement.
Negotiation techniques can help you to work toward an agreement that everyone can live with. You will
use negotiation techniques during key stakeholder interviews.
Negotiation techniques can be used at any point in a consensus-building process; however, they are
especially useful early on, to resolve potential conflicts before they result in an impasse or a major
breakdown of your process. Try to take a proactive, rather than reactive approach (Wondolleck et al.
2000).
Arm Wrestling
> Pair up Suggested Graphic;
> Objective: Get as many points
for yourself as possible (l point each
time you touch the other person's arm
to the table)
> 2 Rules:
¦ No talking
• 15 seconds
The facilitator explains the exercise first. Participants will pair off and arm wrestle for points (one point
received every time you win an arm wrestle). The objective is to get as many points as possible. They will
have 15 seconds, and they cannot talk to one another.
Remind them of their goal (get as many points as possible).
Facilitator Manual 1 31
*Arm wrestling*
*Enter the phrase
into an internet
images search engine*
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
After the 15 seconds is up, ask: How many of you earned zero points? One point? Two points? Three
points? More than three? How many?
If there is a pair that figured out how to get a lot of points by taking turns back and forth to win the arm
wrestle: Oh, so it looks like both members of this pair got a lot of points - can you show us all how you
did that?
If no one figures out how to both get a lot of points, ask pairs to strategize verbally for 30 seconds about
how to BOTH get above 15 points each and then run the 15-second arm wrestle again, this time with
talking allowed: What did you do differently this time?
Conclude: What was your original goal? Did I tell you that it mattered how many points your partner
got? No! The only thing that mattered to you, or should have mattered, was how many points YOU
earned. The groups who cooperated, and took turns winning the arm wrestle [demonstrate this if no
one figured it out] could have each maximized their own result. And this had nothing to do with beating
the other side.
This relates to a fundamental truth about negotiation: there does not have to be one winner and one
loser. Contrary to what many of us think, negotiation is NOT a zero-sum game. Groups that cooperated
were able to make the pie bigger so that each got a bigger slice in the end. This exercise exposes some
of the interesting dynamics that can be problematic in traditional negotiation—we tend to think we
need to force our hand, be competitive, and WIN.
Common harmful assumptions
i. Negotiation is a zero-sum game;
Suggested Graphic:
someone wins and someone loses
l. Good negotiators are tough self-
*Garfield. Want to look like a
advocates
winner? Hang around a loser*
(from Garfield cartoon)
2. Negotiation is inherently stressful
*Enter the phrase
into an internet
images search engine*
Let's think more closely about the harmful assumptions we make when negotiating for something
we want.
1. Negotiation is a zero-sum game; someone wins and someone loses: Like we just saw in the arm
wrestle exercise, this is fundamentally untrue. There is almost always opportunity to provide benefits
for everyone. Many of you thought at first that every point your partner won was a loss for you. Once
you realized you could talk about a solution to get more points, it changed the game. You got creative.
Experts on negotiation, Roger Fisher and William Ury (Fisher and Ury 1991), call this "inventing options
for mutual gain." Creatively identifying potential solutions that align with areas of "mutual gain" can
help you to avoid leaving any party feeling they have lost. Instead of dividing the pie, think about
opportunities to first make the pie BIGGER and to increase the overall value of the agreement. In your
stormwater funding efforts, approach this as a creative process. The more people involved in this
creative process, the better the relationships and the more value you bring to the table—their
resources, networks, advice, help, and support will make the pie bigger and more attractive to others.
This will mean that all parties end up with better results.
32 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
2. Good negotiators are tough self-advocates: Tough seif-advocates can succeed, but by running over
others. As the arm-wrestling game demonstrated, when you try to get your way by overpowering
someone else, it is possible to win but you will always meet resistance. People don't like to be
overpowered. Generally, those kinds of agreements don't have value-creating qualities. Tough self-
advocates also run a higher risk of destroying relationships that might benefit them in the future.
To provide a real-life example, think about preparing a budget proposal or asking for a raise: we tend
to spend the bulk of our time thinking of ways to justify our demand for the highest number possible
with a catalogue of arguments in favor. It is human nature to justify and argue for one's own positions,
but our positions may not always be reasonable or realistic. Leading with a position such as an
unrealistically high proposed dollar amount encourages others to react defensively and with equal or
greater pressure. They may respond with a series of lower counter offers, kicking off a "race to the
bottom" and limiting what everyone will get out of the agreement in the end. Really good negotiators
are solid self-advocates but they focus on looking for solutions that are great for them and also good
enough for everyone else. That requires focusing on a realistic agreement that everyone can agree has
some value for them.
3, Negotiation is inherently stressful: When you paired off against your arm-wrestling adversary, how
did it feel? Competitive? Perhaps a little stressful? Negotiations are often stressful situations. We
associate negotiating with conflict. When people disagree, it can be emotional and antagonistic. What if
you had been able to talk to your arm-wrestling partner first? It might have been a very different game,
one in which you felt you were working together rather than squaring off. This is a key point about
negotiation: most people don't enjoy conflict and so concentrating on jointly solving the problem (not
the people or their positions) feels better for everyone (Wondolleck et al. 2000). This means changing
the focus to collaboratively inventing options for mutual gain.
In your stormwater work, none of you are solely responsible for the problem of stormwater. Try to think
of your counterparts as partners rather than as opponents. This is a collective problem and one you can
jointly solve. Think about how people might pool resources (e.g., by providing advocacy, support,
networks) to solve the collective problem.
Framing
Suggested Graphic:
"Diplomacy is the art
of letting someone else
have your way."
*"Yourway" and "my way"
signposts*
— Daniele Vare, Italian Diplomat
*Enter the phrase
into an internet
images search engine*
The most satisfying agreement will be one where all parties think they got their way. We teach a style of
negotiation that is called "mutual gains," meaning everyone gets some of what they want. Keep this in
mind as you approach your key stakeholder interviews. Skilled negotiators never force others to accept
their way. Instead, they focus on learning what each party wants and inventing solutions that can meet
the needs of multiple stakeholders while also meeting their own needs.
Facilitator Manual 1 33
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
Sometimes, this comes down to framing a solution so that it is clear how it meets another's needs:
"Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way." (quote attributed to Italian diplomat,
Daniele Vare, cited in Ury, 1993). Understand well enough what the other party wants and needs to
craft a solution that both meets your needs and is attractive enough to the other side that they want it,
too.
Here's a hint: Negotiation is not about persuading people to give something up, it's about convincing
them that what you are offering is what they need. A lot of negotiation is simply about learning how to
frame questions properly...for example, there is the old story/joke: the priest in a seminary who asked
the dean of the seminary, "Father, may I smoke while I pray?" Of course, his superior denied him. The
second priest then asked, "Father, may I pray while I smoke?" And the superior said, "Of course, my
son." The difference is framing. In negotiation, you want to think about who the decision maker is, and
frame the solution in a way that they can say yes to it. Take the perspective of the other, put yourself in
their shoes, because that's who you're trying to persuade.
In any
negotiation,
three
elements
are in play:
Keep in mind that there are three different elements to every negotiation or conflict. The first element is
the substance. These are the actual issues that are central to a negotiation or conflict. For example, the
substance of a negotiation could be an employee's salary, how late a teenager gets to stay out at night,
where exactly a country's borders are drawn.
The second element of a negotiation or conflict is the process. This is how the negotiation or conflict is
carried out. Process concerns things like: Who participates? Are you making the decision in one meeting
or in multiple interactions overtime? How do you decide on an agreement? Do you hold a majority vote
or does every party have to agree by consensus? Studies show that people report more satisfaction with
outcomes if they felt the negotiation process was open and fair. This is even if the outcomes were
substantively worse than those from arbitrary or unfair processes (Hollander-Blumoff and Tyler 2008). If
your process is sub-par, people become disillusioned. Ask participants to provide examples of what makes
a process "good" (e.g., transparency, comfortable environment, timing, inclusion, respect).
The third element is the relationship of those negotiating. Trust, empathy, and respect are critical in
impacting the outcomes of your agreements. Building, rather than destroying relationships, should drive
your negotiation strategies. People may opt for a poorer substantive outcome if they feel positively about
a relationship.
Relationship Substance
Process
34 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
Optional sports example: Jon Lester and the Boston Red Sox. 7 want to stay here," he said. 'This is what
I've known. I've grown up in this organization. I've had plenty of good times and plenty of bad times here. I
enjoy it. My family loves it here. All my son talks about is going home to Boston. That's what he thinks is
home... I want to be here until they have to rip this jersey off my back. I understand that I'll have to take a
discount to stay,' Lester said. 'Do I want to do that? Absolutely. Because just like the Sox want this deal to
be fair for them, I also want to be fair for me and my family.' Both parties win, although Lester opted for a
poorer substantive outcome.
Part of the reason we teach this style of negotiation is to acknowledge that relationships are important.
Purely transactional negotiations, like bartering at a flea market, are rare compared to the thousands of
day-to-day negotiations you have with people you will see over and over again. In most negotiations you
encounter, you have or will continue to have a relationship with the other party, if you can learn how to
positively build trust, you can build social and political capital that will be an asset now and in the future.
Take-home: Negotiating the substance—and ignoring these other elements—is a common mistake.
Focusing on the process and on building relationships is critically important.
Fundamental "Mutual Gains"
Negotiation Techniques
i. Know your alternatives
Suggested Graphic:
2. Work with interests,
*Chess game*
not positions
*Enter the phrase
into an internet
3. Be fair
images search engine*
Using negotiation techniques in a successful consensus-building process requires building positive
relationships and collaboratively problem-solving for "mutual gains" solutions.
We'll talk through three basic strategies to help you succeed in your key stakeholder interviews.
i. Know Your Alternatives
BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement
Recommendation:
• Prepare: Know your alternatives and improve your BATNA
• Prepare: Try to understand their BATNA
Your Final Agreement:
Must be better than your BATNA, or why agree to it?
Facilitator Manual 1 35
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
A common pitfall in negotiation is comparing the offer on the table to your ideal outcome, or your
aspirations, rather than your realistic alternatives. What happens if all parties cannot agree to your ideal
outcome? Do you walk away with nothing? Do you have other options? If you don't spend the time to
prepare and know your realistic options, then you don't know what you are negotiating over.
To provide a familiar example, consider a high school student who wants to attend an Ivy League school,
but their financial situation makes that an unrealistic goal. If they only apply to one Ivy League school
and they don't get enough financial aid, what happens next? Their one alternative will be to walk away
with nothing (e.g., choose not to go to college). But most students choose to create alternatives for
themselves by applying to a range of other schools with differing financial aid offerings and differing
academic requirements. That way, they have choices when they make their decision.
Your job is to do the legwork to know what your best alternatives are BEFORE trying to negotiate an
agreement or make a decision. The best negotiators have learned to compare the offer on the table to
the best they can do, or the best they can get, if they make NO AGREEMENT with their counterparts.
Fisher and Ury (1991) call these best alternatives your BATNA. BATNA is an acronym for your "Best
Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement." It refers to the best outcome you can REALISTICALLY get if you
make no agreement with your counterparts. The goal is that your final negotiated agreement will be
better than your BATNA—otherwise, why negotiate in the first place?
To continue with the student example:
Ideal Outcome: Attend an Ivy League school with a full scholarship.
BATNA: Attend a safety school with a partial scholarship.
Final Negotiated Agreement (better than BATNA): Attend a second/third/fourth choice school with a
full or partial scholarship (many good options!).
Here's an example that is relevant to stormwater:
Ideal Outcome: Implement a tiered fee structure that will fully cover $17 million dollars to implement a
comprehensive and proactive stormwater plan over the next 15 years. (Remember to ask yourself, is
this realistic? It might be, but maybe not in a short time-frame).
BATNA: Raise property taxes to accommodate municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit
requirements.
Final Negotiated Agreement (better than BATNA): Implement an enterprise fund with minimal fees as
"seed money" to get it in place structurally, or calculate how varying fee amounts will cover stormwater
program needs and costs to a lesser degree appropriate for your town (for example, see Raleigh, North
Carolina, case study in Participant Workbook, page 38).
Try to understand your counterpart's BATNA, too. If your counterpart in a negotiation has a very
unappealing BATNA, she or he is more likely to find a satisfactory agreement with you because your
alternative will be better than their "walk-away" alternative.
In the stormwater example:
Perhaps your counterpart's BATNA is to postpone a decision until a later time. When it becomes evident
that postponing a decision may result in fines for noncompliance with EPA's regulatory requirements,
your BATNA (undertaking a politically unpopular property tax override) may look better and your
alternatives may look even more appealing. Having a good BATNA is powerful because it gives you an
informed reason to say no to any deal that is less attractive than your BATNA.
36 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance: Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
Remember, everyone sees alternatives through different filters. The key is to take time to prepare.
Being explicitly aware of both your and their alternatives BEFORE you begin allows you to work with
your stakeholders to collaboratively weigh the merits of different options. You can avoid a "win-lose"
scenario by remaining open to the range of alternatives that may not be your perfect solution, but that
will still be very satisfactory (and better than your BATNA) and will preserve or strengthen the
relationship. Make the negotiation about being realistic about options and problem-solving, not
winning—this improves everyone's perception of the process.
2. Work With Interests, Not Positions
Suggested Graphic:
~Fence*
*Enter the phrase into an internet images search engine*
Your stakeholders are people first. They have needs, desires, concerns, and fears that underlie their
demands. So do you. The problem is that most of us express our interests in the form of positions and
positions are vulnerable to misinterpretation.
Here's an example, let's say your spouse proposes to build a fence around your property. This position
sets up a binary response: "Yes, we can build a fence," or "No, we can't." You think the fence is too
expensive. You assume your spouse is interested in privacy and you propose window shades instead.
Mutual frustration ensues! If you had asked "Why?," you would have learned that your spouse is
interested in increasing your family's safety from intruders. Window shades will do nothing to meet this
underlying interest. Knowing this interest matters because now there is opportunity to explore if the
fence is the best way to achieve safety and protection. Another solution, such as an alarm system or a
guard, may be preferable to you both.
If you don't know what the reasoning for someone's demand is and you don't ask, then you fall into the
trap of making assumptions. When you misinterpret what they're looking for, they are more likely to
end up frustrated or feeling that you aren't listening to them.
Facilitator Manual 1 37
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
2. Work With Interests/ Not Positions
Interests: The needs, desires, concerns, and fears that form the
basis of our decisions
Recommendation:
• Focus on interests not positions
• Interests are both tangible and intangible
• Ask, "Why?"
Your Final Agreement:
Satisfies everyone's interests (to a degree)
Interests underlie our demands or positions. Interests can be tangible, e.g., clean water. They might also
be intangible, e.g., to be heard, respected, safe, or valued. Those intangible interests are important to
meet as well, and you can do that by genuinely listening and asking good questions.
You must probe hard for interests. Inquire "Why is that important to you? Why not?" and "What
problem are you trying to solve?" and "How does that help you?" Generally, people will respond to
genuine curiosity. This approach builds positive relationships. Also, when you FIRST gather your
stakeholders' interests, you can THEN propose better alternatives that meet their interests as well as
yours.
Your final agreement should satisfy everyone's interests in the following way: yours well and theirs
satisfactorily enough for the agreement to last. This will make for good, lasting consensus.
2. Work With Interests, Not Positions
Position: "I am opposed to
a stormwater tax"
Teasing apart positions and interests can be difficult. We'll come back to this throughout the workshop,
but let's start by looking at an example that's relevant to you.
Ask participants to brainstorm a few interests that may underlie the position, "I am opposed to a
stormwater tax," which can only be satisfied by NOT implementing a fee. Record interests as participants
suggest them on a flip/chart or white board - save this list of interests for use in Session Two.
Examples:
"A flat fee isn't fair because our property is small compared to others who have greater impact
38 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
"f don't want my money spent on stormwater because I think fixing roads and improving public health is
more important—I don't understand how stormwater is related."
"It's not clear to me how the money will be spent, and I would like that to be more transparent."
"We don't want to be penalized because we can't afford to pay it."
"I don't want to be required to pay the fee. As long as there's a way for me to exempt myself I don't
mind if others have to pay it."
"They want to charge us more money when we already installed a rain barrel and rain garden on our
property—we want recognition for the work we've already done to mitigate our stormwater impacts."
3. Be Fair
Suggested Graphic:
*lce cream sundae*
*Enter the phrase into an internet images search engine*
Finally, agreements need to be fair. We all instinctively know what "fair" feels like to us, but fairness can
be subjective.
For example, let's say you like to take your child out for a child-sized vanilla ice cream cone in the
summer. This is your special tradition and it makes your child so happy! One day, however, the two of
you are standing in line behind another parent, who orders an extra-large pink bubblegum ice cream
sundae with hot fudge and rainbow sprinkles for their child. Suddenly, your child is disappointed in their
child-sized vanilla.
The moral of the story here is that the way people perceive alternatives influences both their decisions
and their sense of fairness. This is something that is ingrained in us at a young age!
3. Be Fair
Fairness is hard-wired in us, but it is also subjective. A negotiation
that "feels" fair is not enough.
Recommendation:
• Rely on legitimate, outside criteria that you can both agree on
to define what is fair
• Use criteria to defend your alternatives and understand theirs
Your Final Agreement:
Is fair and justified by good criteria
Facilitator Manual 1 39
-------
Session One | Facilitator Guidance'. Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture - Slide Notes
No one wants to agree to a deal that is unfair, especially if they perceive that it is unfair to them.
Because fairness is subjective, you need to use legitimate, outside criteria that you can both agree on to
define what is fair. It is more objective, and it will allow you to justify your decision. It also allows you to
build relationships that can be trusted and reliable.
An example from Fisher and Ury (1991, p. 85):
"Suppose, for example, your car is demolished arid you file a claim with an insurance company. In your
discussion with the adjuster, you might take into account such measures of the car's value as (1) the
original cost of the car less depreciation; (2) what the car could have been sold for; (3) the standard
"blue book" value for a car of that year and model; (4) what it would cost to replace that car with a
comparable one; and (5) what a court might award as the value of the car...At minimum, objective
criteria need to be independent of each side's will. Ideally, to assure a wise agreement, objective criteria
should be not only independent of will but also both legitimate and practical."
ADVICE:
Use criteria to defend your alternatives: "This is fair because..."
Use criteria to question another's proposed alternatives: Ask them to explain, "Why is that a fair
number?"
Don't become positional about criteria. Be open to persuasion if someone's alternatives meet your pre-
established criteria for fairness.
Summary:
Three negotiation strategies to use in key stakeholder interviews:
1. Know your alternatives
2. Work with interests, not positions
3. Be fair
These elemental negotiation strategies will help you as you work towards getting buy-in for potential
funding solutions. We'll dig a little deeper into HOW to conduct good interviews in the next session. Our
first step this afternoon will be to determine WHO you need to talk to.
40 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session One | Course Handout: Post-Session One Evaluation
GETTING COMMUNITY BUY-IN FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
A four-session participatory stormwater workshop
Post-Session One Evaluation
1. Please rate the following segments of today's program on a scale from 1 to 5,
1 being "not a good use of time" and 5 being "a great use of time"
Introductory segments 1 2 3 4 5
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A 1 2 3 4 5
Stormwater program needs and costs inventory 1 2 3 4 5
Foundational negotiation theory 1 2 3 4 5
Stakeholder mapping 1 2 3 4 5
2. What was the best part of the day for you, and why?
3. If you could change one or two things about today, what would they be?
Facilitator Manual | 41
-------
Session One | Course Handout: Post-Session One Evaluation
4. As you consider the next three sessions, what are you most excited about and why?
5. As you consider the next three sessions, what makes you want to groan and why?
6. Anything else you want the facilitator or organizers to know about your experience
in this session or your expectations for the upcoming sessions?
If you want to include your name, please feel free to add it here:
42 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Facilitator Manual I 43
-------
Session Two | Course Handout: Participant Agenda
A FOUR-SESSION PARTICIPATORY STORMWATER WORKSHOP
Session Two Agenda
Designing Interviews to Uncover Stakeholder Interests
Date & Time
Location & Address
OBJECTIVES
¦ Participants compare their stakeholder mapping results and can express how
and why they might use the tool in their pursuit of stormwater funding and in
other areas of their work.
¦ Participants collaborate to select and/or formulate strong interview questions
and feel prepared to finalize their interview template.
¦ Participants can define and have practiced two key skills: (1) active listening and
(2) separating interests from positions.
¦ Participants feel ready, and are committed to do key stakeholder interviews.
9:00 AM Welcome and introductions
FIELDWORK
1. Finalize and customize interview template(s).
Interview Template - Sample, pages 24-26
2. Schedule and interview 5-10 key stakeholders in your municipality.
Stakeholder Interviews: A To Z, pages 22-23
Setting Up Interviews - Sample Communications, pages 27-28
Municipal Interview Planning, page 35
11:00
Reflections/questions from the last session or fieldwork
Review and discuss stakeholder maps and questions
Crafting a great stakeholder interview
BREAK
Active listening lecture and activity
12:10
LUNCH
2:15
Separating interests from positions lecture and activity
Final review of interview questions and protocol
Adjourn
44 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
Session Two - Detailed Lesson Plan
Designing Interviews to Uncover Stakeholders Interests
EMAIL IN ADVANCE TO PARTICIPANTS
¦ Between Sessions One and Two, the facilitator should do periodic municipal check-ins
with participants about their progress on fieldwork and any questions they have
(as many check-ins or reminders as needed to encourage completion).
¦ Send a final confirmation of location and time for Session Two and lunch availability.
¦ Send a final reminder for participants to email their stakeholder inventory,
stakeholder maps, and preliminary key stakeholder questions to the facilitator prior
to Session Two (they can send typed copies or pictures/scans of the worksheets).
ADDITIONAL SET-UP SPECIFIC TO SESSION TWO
¦ Before Session Two begins: On flipchart paper, draw a large empty stakeholder map
grid for each town. Under the map, list some or all of the fieldwork questions
submitted by each town, as shown below. Write large enough for participants to be
able to read from their seats (use multiple sheets, if necessary). Hang on the front
wall (Pilot Photo Journal, FM132.10-FM133.1 ).
TOWN
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
PRINTED & DIGITAL MATERIALS
Once the facilitator has finalized the materials from the Facilitator Manual, the materials
should be printed and provided with the Participant Workbook as suggested.
Printed (one copy per participant, speaker, and organizer):
Participant Workbook binder
~ Participant Workbook Session Two materials, PW17-36, in binder tab 2
~ Active Listening Lecture* slides, finalized, printed 3-4 per page, inserted after PW31
~ Separating Interests from Positions Lecture* slides, finalized, printed 3-4 per page,
inserted after PW34
*Slides are available upon request (tenbrink.marilyn@epa.gov)
Loose handouts
~ Participant Agenda - Session Two, FM4A, finalize template
~ Active Listening Exercise, FM68-69
~ Separating Interests from Positions Exercise, FM77-78
~ Post-Session Two Evaluation, FM79-80
Digital:
~ Active Listening Lecture, paired with Slide Notes, FM57-67
~ Separating Interests from Positions Lecture, paired with Slide Notes, FM70-76
SESSION TWO OBJECTIVES
1. Participants compare their stakeholder mapping results and can express how
and why they might use this tool in their pursuit of stormwater funding and in
other areas of their work.
2. Participants collaborate to select and/or formulate strong interview questions
and feel prepared to finalize their interview template.
3. Participants can define and have practiced two key skills: (1) active listening and
(2) separating interests from positions.
4. Participants feel ready and are committed to do key stakeholder interviews.
5. Facilitator's Objective: Foster a collegia! and collaborative environment.
6. Facilitator's Objective: Emphasize learning by doing. Participants realize both the
humor and the value of role-play exercises, even if they do not particularly like
doing them.
46 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
SESSION TWO LESSON PLAN
The agendas and lesson plans reflect effective delivery in the pilot and the time needed
for the different activities. However, the facilitator is welcome to modify exercises and
agendas to accommodate their own style, participant group dynamics, and time
constraints. If adjustments are made, materials should be re-arranged sequentially in the
Participant Workbook and the Participant Agenda, FM44, should be updated.
9:00 Welcome and introductions
Segment Objective(s): Start on a comfortable foot, give everyone a chance to speak,
and learn a little about the one thing each participant/municipality is struggling with the
most or sees as their biggest barrier. Review the agenda to ensure that participants
know what to expect. Session Two Objectives, FM46: #5.
> [8 minutes] Participants and organizers re-introduce themselves:
¦ Name, role
¦ Icebreaker: e.g., "If you had a stormwater funding genie in a bottle and you
could wish for anything from that genie EXCEPT money, what would you ask
for?" Example answers: "I would ask that a certain city councilor would
become our biggest advocate instead of our biggest pain in the neck..." or "I
would ask for a renowned filmmaker to make an action-packed documentary
about stormwater management, so everyone would know how exciting it is!"
> [2 minutes] The facilitator reviews °articipant Agenda - Session Two, FM4*, and
briefly anchors today's activities in the trajectory of all Sessions using Workshop
Sessions Synopsis, PW4.
9:10 Reflections/questions from the last session or about fieldwork
Segment Objective(s): Briefly ensure loose ends are tied up so no one is left wondering
about anything from the previous session or about fieldwork. If there were items in the
parking lot from the last session, the facilitator may want to revisit these here. A brief
open discussion helps to get participants comfortable talking to one another again.
Session Two Objectives, FM46: #4, #5, #6.
> [10 minutes] Facilitate an open discussion of any thoughts, concerns, or questions
the participants have from the last session or about fieldwork. Participants can share
the information they learned including questions, insights, or experiences. If there
were any resources participants recommended adding to the List of Resources,
PW67-70, after Session One, this is a good time to mention them.
> In the pilot session, this discussion revealed that participants were apprehensive
about the interview fieldwork. This is a good time to review that the goal of
interviews is not to step on toes, alarm constituents, or push stakeholders in one
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 47
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
direction or another. The objective is to simply to learn as much as possible about
stakeholders' concerns and interests. Remind them of the importance of framing
interviews appropriately. They can be called "conversations" or "one-on-one
stakeholder meetings." There is no requirement to discuss controversial funding
options, like a stormwater enterprise fund. They can focus conversations on
persistent flooding issues, recent storm events, or any other pertinent topics that
function as a gateway into exploring funding needs. Above all they should use their
best judgement to determine what is appropriate for their town, as well as rely on
insights gained from these interviews and from trusted colleagues.
9:20 Review and discuss stakeholder maps and questions
Segment Objective(s): The goal for this segment is for participants to learn from each
other. They will see how other participants framed their thinking about different
stakeholders' power and interest in stormwater. This might change the way they think
about some of their own stakeholders. They also get to see and "cherry pick" from each
other's questions to use for their own interviews. This activity and discussion also sets
the precedent that completing the fieldwork matters because participants are expected
to report back and they see how their work benefits the whole group. Session Two
Objectives, FM46: #1, #2, #5.
> [10 minutes] Participants come to the front of the room and fill in the large
stakeholder maps drawn on the hanging flipchart paper ( °ilot Photo Journal,
FM132.1 ). Ask them to star the 5-10 key stakeholders who are on their wish list to
interview.
> [30 minutes] Facilitate group discussion and learning about how to best structure an
interview and what the right questions are.
¦ Participants share their stakeholder maps and discuss the preliminary
questions they prepared for 5-10 of their key stakeholders (depending on
time and the size of the group, this could be an informal discussion, or each
municipality could give a summary followed by brief discussion). Participants
are encouraged to share ideas and insights.
¦ Because this is the first discussion relating to fieldwork, the facilitator should
model how participants can talk constructively about their work. During this
discussion, the facilitator should introduce concepts from Crafting a Great
Stakeholder Interview, PW19-21, in light of specific participant's interview
questions. The facilitator can open the discussion by highlighting 2-3
brainstormed interview questions and discussing WHY they are effective as
well as brainstorming with the group about HOW questions can be improved,
e.g., designing questions that help interviewees open up about their own
knowledge and experiences, transforming specific questions into general
questions that many stakeholders can answer, and revising questions to
avoid yes/no answers or "hot inquiry" (PW31, -M66-6'j ). The facilitator can
then ask participants to discuss other questions in this manner. The
48 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
facilitator should prepare for this segment by reviewing the content from
PW19-21, 31, and participants' questions in advance. The facilitator may also
wish to share insights from their own experiences.
a. Example of a participant-designed question: "What is the cost of
compliance?" Most stakeholders can't answer this. With a study or
research effort, however, you (the participant) could locate this
information fairly easily. Avoid asking questions that you would be
able to find the answer to. Try re-phrasing to elicit their perspective:
"Do you feel the town is well-equipped to pay for compliance? How do
you think we should go about funding it? What's your view?"
b. Example of a participant-designed question: "Are you aware how
many days Sandy Beach was closed last year?" Avoid framing
questions to make a point. That is called "hot inquiry," and it puts
people on defense. Try, "Sandy Beach was closed 15 days last
summer. How does that affect you/your constituents?"
¦ As participants discuss their maps, the facilitator should also emphasize
the need to revisit stakeholder identification and mapping throughout their
process.
10:00 Crafting a great stakeholder interview
Segment Objective(s): Provide resources and guidance for the participants to embark
on stakeholder interviews. We provide plenty of sample questions and lay out the
process to set up and conduct interviews. Participants will walk away with a draft
interview template, i.e., WHAT questions to ask and a plan for the logistics of scheduling
and conducting interviews. Final result: Participants feel logistically prepared for
conducting interviews between Sessions Two and Three. Session Two Objectives, FM46:
#2, #4, #5.
> [10 minutes] The facilitator introduces sections 1 and 2 of Stakeholder Interviews:
A To Z, PW22-23, and the Interview Template - Sample, PW24-26
¦ They should aim to interview a selection of key stakeholders and/or
representatives of groups with diverse or unique perspectives.
¦ Challenge them to interview 1-2 opponents, as well as proponents.
¦ They can interview individuals or small groups (2-3 people).
¦ They should prepare an interview template to send to their interviewees:
(1) draft an introductory statement, (2) establish what they need to know,
(3) draft questions that help them get the information they need (assume 10-
12 rigorous questions per hour), (4) revise, reframe, and reorder questions,
(5) customize the interview for each interviewee with 1-2 tailored questions.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 49
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [40 minutes] Participants from two municipalities group together to review the two
above resources. Within these teams, they work to develop their own interview
templates.
¦ Using the interview template as a guide, they will update or rewrite the
introductory statement in the interview template, discuss their interview
objective(s), and determine what key information they most need to know
from their key stakeholders. "What information do you not have (e.g.,
technical, political, or otherwise) from your key stakeholders in order to
know whether and how to pursue stormwater funding?"
¦ Their task is then to pick and choose among the suggested questions, as well
as any participants' questions compiled from fieldwork, to create a set of 10-
12 questions they could ask a range of interviewees (both key stakeholders
or representatives of groups with unique perspectives). The interview
template will have far more questions than they can reasonably ask so they
will need to choose the most important questions for their stakeholders,
sequence them, and rewrite many.
¦ They can also review whom they plan to interview and update the 1-2
questions from Identify Key Stakeholders & Draft Interview Questions,
PW14-15, that will be tailored for those individual interviews.
> [10 minutes] Debrief with the whole room. Which questions did you select? Why?
Were any questions better suited to a particular stakeholder? Why?
11:00 BREAK
11:15 Active listening LECTURE and activity
Segment Objective(s): The objectives for this segment are that participants learn the
theory of active listening, the facilitator demonstrates this skill, and then they practice in
pairs to internalize listening skills. This prepares them to approach interviews with the
mindset of speaking LESS and listening MORE to get as much information as they can
and to be empathetic. These interpersonal skills provide training in HOW to conduct
effective interviews. Session Two Objectives, FM46: #3, #4, #5, #6.
> [25 minutes] The facilitator teaches the theory behind active listening using
Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes, FM57-67. This lecture includes several brief
interactive exercises. The facilitator should also review the content from
Active Listening for Key Stakeholder Interviews, PW29-31.
> [30 minutes] Active Listening Exercise (The facilitator/organizers circulate, listen, and
coach)
1. [5 minutes] The facilitator and an organizer briefly demonstrate active
listening. An organizer tells the facilitator a story about a recent frustration
she has had at work or at home. The facilitator demonstrates active listening,
then asks participants which active listening techniques they observed.
50 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
2. The participants run through a similar exercise twice in pairs (separate
municipal colleagues into different pairs). Note that participants may not be
thrilled about role-play exercises. It is best to acknowledge this, emphasize
humor, and highlight the value of practicing this process. Remind them that
no one will win an award for acting! Ask participants to self-referee: if the
partner practicing active listening is getting stuck, the interviewee can break
out of character and provide feedback, then resume the role-play:
a. [5-minute role-play followed by 2-minute debrief] First activity: Is
practice active listening; 2s take on the role in Active Listening
Exercise 1, FM6 , handout. Debrief in pairs.
b. [5-minute role-play followed by 2-minute debrief] Second activity: 2s
practice active listening; Is take on the role in Active Listening
Exercise 2, FM6 , handout. Debrief in pairs.
3. [5 minutes] Full group debrief- What did you learn? Was it hard? Why?
12:10 LUNCH
12:40 Separating interests from positions LECTURE and activity
Segment Objective(s): In this segment, participants will build on negotiation principles
from the first session by learning the difference between positions and interests and
learning how to elicit interests in interviews using active listening techniques. After the
lecture, they will practice this new skill in a three-person, cross-municipal exercise using
a pre-fabricated scenario to focus on skill development. Expect that participants'
learning will primarily take place in the debrief, rather than the exercise. People are
typically very good at picking up on the positions during the exercise, but not as good at
understanding the underlying interests—those can be pointed out in the debrief. This is
the final piece participants need for understanding HOW to conduct effective
interviews. Session Two Objectives, FM46: #3, #4, #5, #6.
> [20 minutes] The facilitator gives a lecture that teaches theory on the utility of
separating interests and positions and mechanisms for doing so. They will use the
Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes, FM70-7t , which includes
only 10 minutes of lecture and 10 minutes dedicated to an interactive exercise for
participants. To prepare in advance, the facilitator should also review concepts from
Separating Stormwater Interests from Positions, PW32-34.
> [40 minutes] Separating Interests from Positions Exercise, FM77-78:
1. [5 minutes] Optional demonstration (facilitator & participant volunteer): The
facilitator briefly demonstrates a real scenario of seeking stormwater-related
interests from a participant. The participant answers truthfully from their
own experience in their town. The facilitator summarizes the interests
gleaned and debriefs techniques used, for example (1) getting an overview of
stormwater issues in town, (2) asking for detail and clarification about a
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 51
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
particular issue (e.g., 'Can you tell me more about...' and 'From your
perspective, why is that important...' and 'How do you feel about...'), and
(3) using paraphrasing (e.g., 'So you're saying that [X and Y] are the reasons
for [Z]—are there any other reasons for [Z]?')
2. [30 minutes] Three-person exercise: one Department of Public Works (DPW)
Director, one City Councilperson, one Observer. They will rotate through
each role—make sure they get a minute to read through their role each time
they rotate. Depending on the size of the group, the facilitator may choose to
do this exercise with pairs (no observer role). The facilitator hands out the
Separating Interests from Positions Exercise, FM77-78.
a. Each person gets 5 minutes as DPW Director to practice interviewing,
followed by 2 minutes of debrief from the Observer. The Observer
comments on how well interests were elicited by the DPW Director,
and shares insights and things learned from watching.
b. After the first round, the facilitator debriefs with the whole room [5
minutes]. Participants will likely have a strong sense of the positions
exposed during the exercise but may not be as attuned to separating
the underlying interests. The facilitator can help participants think
about additional questions they need to ask to learn more about the
interests that underlie the positions.
c. Each group of three then rotates and resumes the role-play. They will
use the same role-play content every time, which will help them learn
and improve from the previous rounds.
3. [5 minutes] Final full room debrief. What did you learn? What questions
worked particularly well?
1:40 Final review of interview questions and protocol
Segment Objective(s): Put all the pieces together from the day to ensure participants
feel prepared to do their interviews. They worked on the logistics in the first part of the
day and the second part of the day was focused on how to conduct interviews
effectively. Session Two Objectives, FM46: #4.
> [10 minutes] The facilitator reviews fieldwork for Session Three (participants'
fieldwork assignment is also listed on the Participant Agenda - Session Two, FM44)
1. Participants continue interview preparation.
¦ Stakeholder Interviews: A To Z, PW22-23
¦ Interview Template - Sample, PW23-26- ask participants to send
their interview templates for review as soon as possible.
¦ Setting Up Interviews - Sample Communications, PW27-28
¦ Municipal Interview Planning, PW35
2. Participants ideally schedule and conduct 5-10 interviews.
¦ Pilot participants expressed some reservations about conducting
interviews with certain stakeholders on their map. They should trust
52 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
their own judgement and consult trusted colleagues about whom to
interview and when. The bottom line is that they should approach
this process in whatever way is best for their town. Nevertheless,
challenge them to interview both proponents and opponents and to
make sure they also consider how they might frame these
conversations to stay in neutral territory. With thoughtful questions
and appropriate framing, they can still learn what people care about
without discussing potentially controversial funding options, like a
stormwater utility.
3. They should be sure to take notes during interviews (see sections 4-7 of
Stakeholder Interviews: A To Z, PW22-23). If they are prevented from taking
notes, they should record as much as possible directly following the
interview. These notes and/or memos should be sent to the facilitator before
Session Three (handwritten, typed, scanned, or sent as photos). This is so the
facilitator can look through for key themes before the next session.
> [10 minutes] Municipal colleagues discuss the logistics of setting up and conducting
interviews. Participants will tend to procrastinate, especially as they will be
apprehensive about conducting interviews. They will need to be frequently invited
and encouraged to start interview planning early, both today and with repeated
follow-ups in the interim before Session Three (see Sample Email Communications,
FM139-14 ). Emphasize that setting up interviews takes time and effort. Challenge
participants to send out invitations immediately upon return to their offices. Have
them work with municipal colleagues to schedule out the next 4-6 weeks, using:
¦ Municipal Interview Planning, PW35
They can also take a few moments to familiarize with:
¦ Stakeholder Interviews: A To Z, PW22-23
¦ Setting Up Interviews - Sample Communications, PW27-28
> [10 minutes] Round robin (optional—they may need more time for logistics
planning): Each municipality reports their plan to the full group: (1) whom they
would like to interview and when (any opponents they plan to have a conversation
with?), (2) how they plan to frame the conversations. The idea is to set up a little
friendly competition and/or peer pressure to commit to doing interviews.
¦ Concluding message: Interviews are a high intensity engagement strategy;
however, remind participants that they will not have to interview the vast
majority of people in town. Interviews are a practical and effective method
to collect the full range of views in town from a very small number of people.
2:10 Evaluations
> [5 minutes] Participants fill out 'ost-Session Two Evaluation, FM79-80.
2:15 Adjourn
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 53
-------
Session Two-Abbreviated Lesson Plan
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
9:00 Welcome and
introductions
Purpose: Learn a little about
what each participant/
municipality is struggling with or
sees as their biggest barrier.
> [8 minutes] Introductions (name, role, icebreaker - stormwater
genie).
> [2 minutes] Review Participant Agenda -Session Two, FM44,
and Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4.
9:10 Reflections/questions
from the last session or
about fieldwork
Purpose: Tie up loose ends from
previous session or fieldwork.
> [10 minutes] Facilitate an open discussion.
> Review the goal of interviews.
9:20 Review and discuss
stakeholder maps and
questions
Purpose: Participants see how
other participants framed their
thinking about different
stakeholders' power and interest
in stormwater.
> [10 minutes] Participants fill in stakeholder maps on hanging
flipchart paper and star the 5-10 "key stakeholders" on their
"wish list" to interview.
> [30 minutes] Group discussion about how to structure an
interview and the right questions.
¦ Participants share maps and preliminary interview questions.
¦ Model constructive dialogue and introduce concepts from
Crafting a Great Stakeholder Interview, PW19-21 and PW31:
¦ Help interviewees to open up about their knowledge
and experience.
¦ Transform specific questions into general questions
that many can answer.
¦ Revise questions to avoid yes/no answers and "hot
inquiry" (PW31, -M66-6 ).
¦ Discuss 2-3 questions: WHY they are effective and HOW to
improve them. Ask participants to discuss in this manner.
10:00 Crafting a great
stakeholder interview
Purpose: Provide example
questions and lay out the
interview process. Participants
walk away with a draft interview
template and feel logistically
prepared to conduct interviews.
> [10 minutes] Introduce Stakeholder Interviews: A To Z, PW22-23
and Interview Template -Sample, PW24-26.
¦ Participants will interview individuals or small groups of key
stakeholders and/or representatives of groups with unique
perspectives (opponents and proponents).
¦ Review key elements of an interview template.
> [40 minutes] Two municipalities pair off to develop their own
interview templates, using the sample template as a guide.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
11:00 BREAK
11:15 Active listening LECTURE
and activity
Purpose: Participants learn the
theory of active listening, the
facilitator demonstrates this skill,
and then they practice in pairs to
internalize listening skills.
12:10 LUNCH
12:40 Separating interests
from positions LECTURE
Purpose: Participants learn the
difference between positions and
interests and how to elicit
interests using active listening
techniques. They will practice
this new skill in a three-person,
cross-municipal exercise.
Activity Breakdown
¦ They update or rewrite the introductory statement.
¦ They determine what they need to know.
¦ They pick from sample and fieldwork questions, sequence
them, and rewrite many.
¦ They review whom they plan to interview and update the 1-
2 questions tailored for those individual interviews.
[10 minutes] Debrief with the whole room. Which questions did
you select? Why? Were any questions better suited to a
particular stakeholder? Why?
Your Notes
>
>
>
>
>
[25 minutes] Lecture using Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes,
FM57-67.
[30 minutes] Active Listening Exercise
1. [5 minutes] Demonstrate active listening to an organizer
relating a recent frustration.
2. The participants do a similar exercise twice in pairs
(participants self-referee: interviewee can break out of
character, provide feedback, resume the role-play).
a. [7 minutes] Is actively listen; 2s take role in Active
Listening Exercise 1, FM68. 2-minute debrief in pairs.
b. [7 minutes] 2s actively listen; Is take role in Active
Listening Exercise 2, FM69. 2-minute debrief in pairs.
3. [5 minutes] Full group debrief - What did you learn? Was it
hard? Why?
[20 minutes] Lecture using Separating Interests from Positions
Lecture - Slide Notes, FM70-76.
[40 minutes] Separating Interests from Positions Exercise:
1. [5 minutes] Optional demonstration (facilitator & participant
volunteer): The facilitator seeks real stormwater-related
interests from a participant using active listening techniques:
¦ Get an overview of stormwater issues in town.
¦ Ask for detail and clarification (e.g., 'Can you tell me
more about...' and 'From your perspective, why is that
important...' and 'How do you feel about...').
¦ Paraphrase (e.g., 'So you're saying that [X and Y] are the
reasons for [Z]-are there any other reasons for [Z]?').
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
2. [30 minutes] Three-person exercise: one DPW Director, one
City Councilperson, one Observer. Hand out Separating
Interests from Positions Exercise, FM77-78.
¦ Each gets 5 minutes as DPW Director, followed by 2
minutes of Observer debrief.
¦ After first round, the whole room debriefs [5 minutes],
¦ Each group rotates, resumes role-play (2 rotations).
3. [5 minutes] Final full room debrief. What did you learn?
What questions worked particularly well?
1:40 Final review of interview
questions and protocol
Purpose: Put all the pieces
together from the day to ensure
participants feel prepared to do
their interviews.
> [10 minutes] Review fieldwork for Session Three.
1. Participants continue interview preparation:
¦ Stakeholder Interviews: A To Z, PW22-23
¦ Interview Template - Sample, PW24-26
¦ Setting Up Interviews - Sample Communications,
PW27-28
¦ Municipal Interview Planning, PW35
2. Participants schedule and conduct 5-10 interviews with
appropriate framing and use of best judgment.
3. Participants should take notes/memos and send to the
facilitator (handwritten, typed, photos, scans).
> [10 minutes] Municipal colleagues discuss logistics using
Municipal Interview Planning, PW35.
> [10 minutes] Round robin (optional): Each municipality reports:
(1) whom they would like to interview and when (any opponents
they plan to have a conversation with?) and (2) how they plan to
frame conversations.
¦ Concluding message: Interviews are high intensity, but a
practical and effective method to collect the full range of
views in town from a very small number of people.
2:10 Evaluations
> [5 minutes] Participants fill out Post-Session Two Evaluation,
FM79-80.
2:15 Adjourn
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
Active Listening Lecture
Slides arid Slide Notes
Active Listening
...and how it helps you with stormwater funding
Notes on Delivery (for the facilitator to use when preparing for this talk):
This is a 25-minute presentation including interactive exercises.
Overview:
The purpose is to provide helpful strategies to help participants improve how they listen and how they
can "change the game" of negotiation in such a way that is productive for everyone involved. The tone
should embrace levity and humor.
Delivery:
• Detailed notes are provided for each slide. They are written as scripted "facilitator's voice." The
delivery and script can be customized according the facilitator's personal style.
• Reading the provided script is not a recommended delivery. The goal is to engage and connect
with the participants via more dynamic delivery. The facilitator may want to create abbreviated
bullet points or cue cards for themselves, or practice until familiar with delivering the content.
This will depend on personal style.
• Italics denote a deviation from the scripted "facilitator's voice" and are used to highlight an
exercise or example that requires personalized delivery.
• Numerous examples are provided throughout this presentation to help participants connect to
concepts (these are both scripted and italicized). These can be replaced with customized
examples to reflect the facilitator's personal experience or preferences. Examples were selected
because they were broadly relevant to participants' lives and/or for interjecting humor. Any
replacement examples should be chosen with a similar purpose.
• If the facilitator is low on time, skipping over examples or exercises is acceptable—focus on the
content.
Content:
• These slides are a template. The facilitator is welcome to alter the slides with pictures and new
text. Slides are available upon request (tenbrink.marilyn@epa.gov).
• This presentation corresponds with content in "Active Listening for Key Stakeholder Interviews,"
pages 29-31 in the Participant Workbook.
Facilitator Manual | 57
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
See "List of Resources/' pages 67-70 in the Participant Workbook for additional reading about
mutual gains negotiation and consensus building.
What is Active Listening?
A sincere intention and a technical skill
Intentions must be genuine
Skills can be learned and practiced
Active listening is a technique for strengthening your interviews—think of it as a secret weapon in
negotiation. Interviews are only effective when you are prepared to genuinely listen and learn.
Active listening is both a skill and an intention.
We can teach you the skill, as it is a technique that can be learned and practiced.
Your intention to actively listen must come from you.
Benefits of Active Listening
• Learn new information: e.g., data, stories, feelings,
interest, opportunities
I said that active listening is your secret weapon during a negotiation. So why is that?
It helps you elicit useful information:
The most obvious reason—and a very important one—is to listen to others to learn useful information.
Active listening helps you dig deeper for your interviewees' interests, including how strong they are and
what the relative importance of each one is. Luckily, the majority of people want to share! And this
information is crucial for filling in the gaps in your knowledge, identifying areas of mutual gain, and
constructing an agreement that everyone can live with. It will help you to convince them that what
you're offering is what they need.
58 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
Benefits of Active Listening
• Learn new information: e.g., data, stories, feelings,
interest, opportunities
• Meet a basic human need: to be heard and treated with
respect
Meet a basic human need to be heard and treated with respect:
How many of you have been in a conversation where the other side keeps repeating themselves louder
and louder, even though you heard them the first time?
This is often a sign that they don't feel like you're hearing them. And you can bet that they're not
listening to anything you have said. Active listening can help your interviewee to know that you
understand them and will make it easier for them to listen to and consider your own proposals down
the line.
Active listening meets a fundamental need to feel heard. Meeting this interest can help to make the
other side feel satisfied and more likely to cooperate with you and trust you. This is a totally costless way
to satisfy one of the other party's interests.
Benefits of Active Listening
• Learn new information: e.g., data, stories, feelings,
interest, opportunities
• Meet a basic human need: to be heard and treated with
respect
• Model the behavior you expect from stakeholders:
change the dynamic
Model the behavior you expect from stakeholders:
You want people to listen to you. If you listen now, they will be more likely to listen to you later.
Behavioral reciprocation is a very strong social norm. In a high-conflict situation, you can even directly
ask for reciprocation of listening behavior.
Essentially, your goal is to change the "butting heads" dynamic, simply by demonstrating good behavior.
You can do this by demonstrating real interest in what others' concerns and needs are and by being
genuinely curious.
Facilitator Manual | 59
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
People want to feel heard and respected, and they will be more willing to open up and share their
perspective if you meet them with genuine curiosity. Using active listening techniques sets a precedent
that emphasizes collaboration and builds a rapport. Once you open a conversation, there will be
opportunities down the road to educate and change minds.
Benefits of Active Listening
• Learn new information: e.g., data, stories, feelings,
interest, opportunities
• Meet a basic human need: to be heard and treated with
respect
• Model the behavior you expect from stakeholders:
change the dynamic
• Help identify and address emotions: talk more
productively
Help identify and address emotions:
Sometimes the presence of strong emotions can make negotiating difficult. It can be hard to talk
productively with another person when emotions run high. For example, a stakeholder may be
genuinely worried that they won't be able to afford a high fee or embarrassed that they know very little
about stormwater.
Active listening can help you gain understanding of emotions and develop trust as you acknowledge
where they might be coming from. Interviews are all about building trust with key players that you will
need if any solution is going to move forward.
Common Misconceptions About
Listening
Active listening is not
• The ability to hear
• Agreeing or "being nice"
• Saying "uh huh," nodding,
etc...
Demo: Show what active listening and ignoring look like with the sound "turned off." It's not just about
the audio! Ask a participant to come up and pretend to tell a story, moving their mouth and gesturing
without making any sounds.
1. The facilitator first demonstrates not listening: looks anywhere but not at participant, stares blankly,
looks at watch, crosses arms/furrows brow, stares at notes/phone.
Suggested Graphic:
Animate sequential appearance of 2 cartoons
First click:
*'Of course I'm paying attention--l've pressed
the mute button'* cartoon*
Second click:
*'You can stop saying 'uh-huh'! I stopped
talking to you an hour ago!' cartoon*
*Enter the phrase into an internet images
search engine*
60 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
2. The facilitator then demonstrates active listening body language: eye contact, occasional nods (no
bobble head!), facial feedback (empathetic, emotional response to the others' emotions), lean in or
orient your body toward the speaker.
-Ask participants to comment on the difference (it should be fairly obvious to them).
Active listening involves more than just your basic ability to hear (click for first cartoon). It does not
require agreeing or "being nice." It is more than the use of stereotypical "listening" body language
(bobble-headed nod) or insincere phrases such as:
"Uh huh" "I hear you/'
"I know how you feel/'
"Wow, that must be hard/'
"Isn't that just the truth?"
Assumptions We Make About Listening
Limiting Assumptions
Helpful Assumptions
"There's no point. I've heard it all
before." or "What they have to
"If 1 listen carefully, 1 may learn
useful information
say is 90% nonsense."
"If 1 listen effectively 1 can satisfy
their interest in being understood"
"1 won't persuade them by listening
-1 need to make arguments "
"If 1 demonstrate good listening, it
makes it easier for them to listen to
me"
"Listening conveys agreement, and
1 don't agree with them."
"1 can listen without agreeing"
Our internal commentary can prevent us from listening and learning (read through the examples of
limiting assumptions)
Much more helpful are a set of different assumptions about the potential value of listening:
1. If I listen carefully, I may actually learn some useful information [i.e., information that will help me
change their choice-give your interviewee the benefit of the doubt that they may say or do
something different!]
2. If I listen effectively, I can satisfy their interest in being understood [Being heard is one of the most
important "interests" that we all have in a conversation. Being willing to listen will build your
credibility and make them more likely to want to listen to you at a future time.]
3. If I demonstrate good listening, it makes it easier for them to listen to me [Evoke the very strong
social norm of reciprocity.]
4. And just remember... you can listen without agreeing [This seems obvious, but we often have a
strong need to tell people we don't agree with them. It's okay to just stay quiet—it doesn't mean you
agree. There will be future opportunities to constructively disagree once you've set the precedent for
productive conversation.]
We need to work to change our own assumptions about listening so that we can approach interviews
with an open mind.
Facilitator Manual 1 61
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
Becoming a Good Active Listener
"Internal" work: Our
assumptions and thoughts
"External" work: Our
actions
Suggested Graphic:
~Listen*
*Enter the phrase into an
internet images search engine*
Good active listening requires internal and external effort.
Internal work: We need to be aware of the assumptions we make while listening and how they play into
our internal commentary and our mindset.
External work: We also need to be aware of the impact of our verbal responses, to signal to our
interviewees that we are interested in hearing their perspectives, building a relationship, and learning
from them. We don't want to inadvertently antagonize them or put them in the "hot seat."
"Internal" Work of Active Listening
Suggested Graphic;
*Calvm and Hobbes argument "call me a liar, will you?"*
(from Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, or a picture of two
people talking at once)
*Enter the phrase into an internet images search engine*
Negotiations tend to be high stress situations. You must juggle many separate concerns at once, such as
how your body language appears and how to respond to new information. And if you're like me, you
might have a tendency to be thinking about your response even before the person has stopped talking.
This makes it impossible to listen effectively.
Exercise: Ask for two volunteers. Have them read aloud different passages from the Participant
Workbook (or any written material) at the same time. Give everyone else the task to understand what
both are saying. Ask participants for a show of hands: How many understood what one person was
saying? What the other person was saying? Both?
We can't listen to two things at once. It's impossible. But as you listen to someone speak, you are likely
to be hearing two voices. The first is the other party's voice and the second is your internal voice.
If you're busy thinking about what you're going to say next, about what you'll have to tell your boss
later, or about the date you've got tonight, you won't be able to listen to the other side.
62 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
Some of you might be thinking, "this is totally untrue, ridiculous mumbo-jumbo. I don't have an internal
voice." ...Well - the voice that's telling you that... that's your internal voice!
Typical Thoughts While Listening
Judging
• "Doing it your way won't work, and you've got the facts all wrong."
Thinking of a response
• Defending: "But this wasn't my fault!"
• Arguing: "You're missing the point, stupid. What's important here
is...."
• Problem-solving: "It's so obvious that what you should do is . .."
• Anticipating: "Oh yeah, this is just like what happened in the last
interview...."
Daydreaming
• "I think I want chicken for dinner. No, wait, I had chicken last
night. Maybe I'll get a burger... "
What are some of the things going on in our internal voice while others are listening?
[Read through the slide text]
Example for "Thinking of a responseConsider being in a classroom in which every student has their
hand raised while another is speaking. None of the students are listening to their classmate because they
are all busy crafting a response in their head.
Your brain can't listen to your voice and their voice.
Advice for "Internal" Work
Suggested Graphic:
*'l have no special talent. I am only
passionately curious.' Albert
Einstein*
* Enter the phrase into an internet
images search engine*
You can't get rid of your internal voice, but at the risk of advising you to act a little crazy, it's helpful to
try to work with your internal voice to reframe your thinking during active listening and negotiating.
Be curious: This is essentially a negotiation with yourself, where you're trying to convince yourself to be
curious. It sounds a little weird, but it's absolutely crucial.
¦ Remind yourself to be curious and let the thread of conversation go where it goes.
¦ Listen to WHAT is being said as well as HOW it's being said (listening for emotions can help you
interpret what you hear).
• Be curious
• Refocus your internal voice
• Focus on learning
• Resist the urge to judge, defend,
or give advice
• Remind yourself why
understanding their view is
important
• Put it on paper
• Stay fully in the conversation
Facilitator Manual 1 63
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
Refocus your internal voice: Again, it's impossible to silence your inner voice! Instead, the goal is to
re-focus it.
¦ Focus on learning: You want to refocus your inner voice from being a commentator or a judge to a
learner. Tell yourself, "I'll have time to talk later. For now, I need to listen." Turn off your thoughts
while you are listening (e.g., thinking of a response).
¦ Being a learner means to resist the urge to judge, defend, or give advice: Instead, you want to find
out as much as possible about how the person to whom you're listening sees and experiences the
world.
¦ Remind yourself why understanding their view is important: Their view is important because it will
help you understand their decisions.
¦ Put it on paper: Take notes—writing down questions that come to mind or discussion points can
help you focus back on listening.
Stay fully in the conversation: If you can negotiate with yourself to be genuinely curious, everything else
will naturally follow.
Stay fully invested in the conversation and don't zone out. It's not just a strategy. It's real. If you can make
it real, that's when it will work for you.
It's called active listening because it takes real effort and real internal work that you need to do as an
interviewer. You have to do the work on your own - this workshop can't accomplish the internal work
for you.
"External" Work of Active Listening
Suggested Graphic:
*'When you talk, you are only repeating
what you already know. But if you listen,
you may learn something new.' Dalai Lama*
*Enter the phrase into an internet images
search engine*
Although we can only give you advice for how to do the "internal" work of active listening, we can teach
you the skills needed to succeed in "external" active listening.
64 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
"External" Work:
The Three Micro-Skills of Successful Listening
1. PARAPHRASE Restate what you heard the other person say
without necessarily agreeing
2. INQUIRE: Test your understanding by clarifying specifics
through follow-up questions
3. ACKNOWLEDGE Listen for the underlying feelings of the
other person and reflect them back to that person to
demonstrate understanding
There are three "micro-skills" that any successful active listener will employ throughout an interview.
Paraphrase; This is parroting. Verify with your interviewee that what you heard is correct by repeating it in
your own words. Sum up what you heard from them in a bullet-point version of what they said. This way
they'll know that you were listening. This is particularly useful in a conflict situation.
Inquire: Ask for clarifying details through follow-up questions. This demonstrates that your goal is to
understand their perspective more fully.
Acknowledge: Feelings matter. No matter how small or large those feelings seem to you, stakeholders'
feelings are hugely important. Remember, discussing their feelings is much more important in an
interview than showcasing your competence in stormwater funding or your knowledge of stormwater
facts.
PARAPHRASING
Restate what you heard the other person say
to check your understanding
Examples:
• "Let me make sure I have this right.... Have I got it?"
• "It sounds like you have a rough time when it floods because you've had a
lot of property damage over the years and it's been expensive. Did I
understand that correctly?""
How to paraphrase:
Good sentence starters:
"It sounds like,..."
"Let me make sure I get this right..."
Follow up with:
"Did I understand that completely?"
"Did I get that right?"
"Have I got it?"
Facilitator Manual | 65
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
INQUIRY
Ask clarifying questions to learn more about
their perspective and to test your assumptions
Examples:
• "Why was it so frustrating for you?"
• "Can you explain what you meant by 'quality of life'?"
• "Help me understand more about why you found the whole experience so
terrible."
How to inquire:
Good sentence starters:
"Why...?"
"Can you explain....?"
"Can you help me understand....?"
"What do you mean by [X}?"
Clarify your understanding:
"Does this happen every time?"
"Why is it important to you?"
"What about it made you feel this way?"
Beware of "Hot" Inquiry
• "But don't you think we'd be
better using the other
strategy?"
Suggested Graphic:
• "How can you possibly see it
that way?'
interrogation*
• "Do you really think that will
work?"
• "You don't actually mean to say
that, do you?!?"
*Enter the phrase into an
internet images search engine*
WARNING: Be careful with "hot" inquiry. This is a form of stealthy advocacy. This is when you phrase
something as a question, but it is REALLY an argument made in your favor. For example, [read examples on
slide].
Essentially, hot inquiry is any question that has a "right" answer, as far as you're concerned. Ask yourself,
what is the purpose of this question? Is it a question asked out of genuine curiosity? If the purpose isn't to
learn something, then don't ask it.
In a cross examination, a lawyer asks a "hostile" witness questions in court. A good lawyer never asks a
question that s/he does not know the answer to. With active listening, it's the opposite. A good listener
66 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Active Listening Lecture - Slide Notes
never asks a question s/he knows the answer to. You should only ask questions that you are almost sure
about or unsure about and ask with a purpose of understanding. Also, a good listener never assumes s/he
knows the answer.
Exercise: Ask participants to try rephrasing the first statement on the slide so that it's no longer "hot"
inquiry,
[e.g., Can you help me understand what you see as the pros and cons of the two strategies?," "Why is that
important to you?," or "Can you walk me through how that might work?"]
Sometimes, listening to other viewpoints can cause you to respond very emotionally because you may be
fundamentally opposed to what the other party thinks. An alternative strategy for listening to an opposing
viewpoint is simply to encourage them to keep talking, rather than trying to respond yourself. Take notes
and buy yourself time to put your emotions aside—remember to focus on exploring what interests lie
behind a person's strong positions.
To encourage your interviewee to keep talking, ask exploratory questions such as:
"Can you play that out for me?"
"Talk me through how that might work"
"Tell me what you see the pros and cons being"
Questions are not a time to apply judgement but are a time to apply curiosity.
ACKNOWLEDGE
Reflect back the underlying feelings to
demonstrate understanding
Examples:
¦ "It sounds like that was really frustrating for you!"
• "You seem pretty thoroughly disgusted at that entire city and all of its
inhabitants."
How to acknowledge:
Making acknowledging statements is a way to externally demonstrate sincerity and empathy. These
statements will signal to your interviewee that you are genuinely trying to step into their shoes to
understand how they feel and what their perspective is. Remember, feelings are important.
Acknowledging is not necessarily agreeing, although it can more easily come across as agreeing. Just be
honest when demonstrating empathy.
End Slides.
Transition: We'll spend the next half hour practicing active listening. Role playing can feel a bit awkward,
but it's important to practice these skills to try to build in "muscle memory" for when you are out in the
field conducting interviews.
Facilitator Manual | 67
-------
Session Two | Course Handout: Active Listening Exercise
Active Listening Exercise 1
You are a residential property owner on a fixed income. You've lived in the town for 40
years and you feel like you've already given this town a lot. Now, the town wants to
charge you a fee for the rain that hits your house.
You have some reasons for feeling this way, but don't share them unless you feel you
are really being listened to:
¦ You already pay a sewer tax so you're already paying for runoff
¦ You have a rain garden so you're doing more than most people to keep rain out
of the sewers
¦ You are tired of regulations, especially environmental regulations
¦ Any other reason—feel free to make up something creative (but plausible)
Active Listening Exercise 1
You are a residential property owner on a fixed income. You've lived in the town for 40
years and you feel like you've already given this town a lot. Now, the town wants to
charge you a fee for the rain that hits your house.
You have some reasons for feeling this way, but don't share them unless you feel you
are really being listened to:
¦ You already pay a sewer tax so you're already paying for runoff
¦ You have a rain garden so you're doing more than most people to keep rain out
of the sewers
¦ You are tired of regulations, especially environmental regulations
¦ Any other reason—feel free to make up something creative (but plausible)
Active Listening Exercise 1
You are a residential property owner on a fixed income. You've lived in the town for 40
years and you feel like you've already given this town a lot. Now, the town wants to
charge you a fee for the rain that hits your house.
You have some reasons for feeling this way, but don't share them unless you feel you
are really being listened to:
¦ You already pay a sewer tax so you're already paying for runoff
¦ You have a rain garden so you're doing more than most people to keep rain out
of the sewers
¦ You are tired of regulations, especially environmental regulations
¦ Any other reason—feel free to make up something creative (but plausible)
68 | Facilitator Manual
cut along dashed lines, make enough copies for half of the participants
-------
Session Two | Course Handout: Active Listening Exercise
Active Listening Exercise 2
You own a small business in town center. You and other business owners along Main
Street have heard the town wants to institute a new tax. You already pay steep taxes to
operate in town center. Are they trying to run you out of business?
You have some reasons for feeling this way, but don't share them unless you feel you
are really being listened to:
¦ You and other businesses contribute town character, attract visitors, and boost
the local economy—you feel this should be recognized
¦ You've heard the town will use the revenue to reduce parking on Main Street
and plant trees instead—you don't see why you should pay to keep people from
accessing your business
¦ You're not entirely sure what stormwater is and how it pertains to you
¦ Any other reason—feel free to make up something creative (but plausible)
Active Listening Exercise 2
You own a small business in town center. You and other business owners along Main
Street have heard the town wants to institute a new tax. You already pay steep taxes to
operate in town center. Are they trying to run you out of business?
You have some reasons for feeling this way, but don't share them unless you feel you
are really being listened to:
¦ You and other businesses contribute town character, attract visitors, and boost
the local economy—you feel this should be recognized
¦ You've heard the town will use the revenue to reduce parking on Main Street
and plant trees instead—you don't see why you should pay to keep people from
accessing your business
¦ You're not entirely sure what stormwater is and how it pertains to you
¦ Any other reason—feel free to make up something creative (but plausible)
Active Listening Exercise 2
You own a small business in town center. You and other business owners along Main
Street have heard the town wants to institute a new tax. You already pay steep taxes to
operate in town center. Are they trying to run you out of business?
You have some reasons for feeling this way, but don't share them unless you feel you
are really being listened to:
¦ You and other businesses contribute town character, attract visitors, and boost
the local economy—you feel this should be recognized
¦ You've heard the town will use the revenue to reduce parking on Main Street
and plant trees instead—you don't see why you should pay to keep people from
accessing your business
¦ You're not entirely sure what stormwater is and how it pertains to you
¦ Any other reason—feel free to make up something creative (but plausible)
cut along dashed lines, make enough copies for half of the participants
Facilitator Manual | 69
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes
Separating Interests from Positions Lecture
Slides and Slide Notes
Separating Positions From Interests
...and how it helps you with stormwater funding
Notes on Delivery (for the facilitator to use when preparing for this talk):
This is a 20-miriute presentation including an interactive exercise.
Overview:
The purpose is to get participants more comfortable with how to distinguish positions and interests.
Delivery:
• Detailed notes are provided for each slide. They are written as scripted "facilitator's voice." The
delivery and script can be customized according the facilitator's personal style.
• Reading the provided script is not a recommended delivery. The goal is to engage and connect
with the participants via more dynamic delivery. The facilitator may want to create abbreviated
bullet points or cue cards for themselves, or practice until familiar with delivering the content.
This will depend on personal style.
• Italics denote a deviation from the scripted "facilitator's voice" and are used to highlight an
exercise or example that requires personalized delivery.
• Numerous examples are provided throughout this presentation to help participants connect to
concepts (these are both scripted and italicized). These can be replaced with customized
examples to reflect the facilitator's personal experience or preferences. Examples were selected
because they were broadly relevant to participants' lives and/or for interjecting humor. Any
replacement examples should be chosen with a similar purpose.
• If the facilitator is low on time, skipping over examples or exercises is acceptable—focus on the
content and the exercise.
Content:
• These slides are a template. The facilitator is welcome to alter the slides with pictures and new
text. Slides are available upon request (tenbrink.marilyn@epa.gov).
• This presentation corresponds with content in "Separating Stormwater Interests from
Positions," pages 32-34 in the Participant Workbook.
70 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes
• For additional reading about mutual gains negotiation, consensus building, and community
engagement topics, see "List of Resources," pages 67-70 in the Participant Workbook.
Recall from Session One:
Three negotiation strategies to use in key stakeholder interviews:
1. Know your alternatives
2. Work with interests, not positions
3. Be fair
In this talk, we'll dig a little deeper into how to separate interests from positions. We'll spend time as a
group working on how to take those interests and use them to brainstorm possible solutions
(alternatives) that fairly meet those interests. Then we're going to practice using interview techniques to
elicit interests.
Review
Positions are:
• One way to achieve our interests
• Generally clear in a definitive statement about a particular
solution or choice
"I want [X] to happen."
"For this to be successful, we have to do [X]."
"If we don't go with [X], I'm out of here."
[Define positions]
Trying to satisfy positions is hard! Positions set up a binary (yes or no) response; We can only satisfy
positions in one way.
Examples of positions:
"I won't accept an offer lower than $300,000 on my house"
"If you're not home by 10PM, you're grounded."
Facilitator Manual 1 71
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes
Review
Interests are:
• The needs, concerns, desires, and fears that motivate
our decisions
Examples of interests:
• Health and safety
• Beautiful views
• Fairness
Interests are the needs, concerns, goals, desires, and fears that motivate our decisions and underlie our
positions.
Examples of interests:
- Clean water
- Beautiful views
- Health
- Equity
- Fairness
Satisfying Positions Rarely Leads to
Lasting Consensus
i.
Positions may be mutually exclusive
2.
Solutions based on positions may not be durable
3-
Solutions based on positions often waste valuable time
4-
Satisfying positions rarely solves the real problem or meets the real need
5-
Some positions are taken without sufficient knowledge
Solutions based on positions may seem easier, but they are unlikely to succeed for the following
reasons:
Positions may be mutually exclusive. If you're trying to satisfy two positions at the same time, it will
appear that no solution is possible.
Solutions based on positions may not be durable. If you meet one stakeholder groups' position at the
expense of your own or others' interests, it can damage relationships and the solution may not be
durable.
72 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes
Solutions based on positions often waste valuable time. Such solutions are likely to ultimately fail
because they do not address the real root problem. Failure can degrade trust and it can be a setback
when you have limited time to identify a solution.
Satisfying positions rarely solves the real problem or meets the real need. We are not always very
good at knowing what we really need or asking for it. Satisfying under-informed positions is unlikely to
result in the best solution.
Some positions are taken without sufficient knowledge. If a stakeholders' position on an issue is under-
informed, the problem will not be solvable until they become informed. Stakeholder interviews are a
valuable tool to gather information that helps to inform education and outreach.
Suggested Graphic:
*An orange*
*Enter the phrase into an internet images search engine*
Here's a classic example that showcases the difference between solving a problem based on positions
versus solving a problem based on the underlying interests:
Angela and John both want the same whole orange. If you give the orange to Angela, only she will be
satisfied. If you compromise by splitting the orange in half neither John nor Angela will be satisfied.
Based on positions alone, neither solution satisfies both people. When you inquire WHY each wants one
whole orange, it turns out that John wants the orange to make orange juice and Angela wants the
orange for its zest. You can meet both interests by giving Angela the zest and John the juice. Compromise
is not always a good solution if it is based on positions. The solution that fully satisfied both John and
Angela was apparent only once you elicited their underlying interests.
Most solutions aren't that simple, but this example shows if you never ask questions, then you may
solve the wrong problem. Even compromise isn't always the right solution if it attempts to deal with
positions. What we don't want to do is waste a lot of time coming up with solutions that don't meet the
underlying needs.
Facilitator Manual 1 73
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance'. Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes
Distinguishing Interests and Positions
Position: "I am opposed to a stormwater tax"
Interests:
[Insert the list of interests brainstormed by
participants in Session One here]
Suggested Graphic:
*lceberg*
*Enter the phrase into an internet
images search engine*
Think of positions and interests as one iceberg. The tip of the iceberg, the only part you can see above
the water, is the position. If you look below the surface, however, you will find the interests that
informed that particular position. Your job is to dig deep for those interests because they can help you
find solutions that many people can gain from.
in Session One, you generated a list of possible interests that might underlie the position, "I am opposed
to a stormwater tax." Now that we have a sense of those interests, how does that information help us?
[10 minutes] Ask participants to brainstorm solutions that might meet some of the interests they
brainstormed in Session One during the Basic Negotiation Theory Lecture.
Examples:
"A tiered fee or a fee based on impervious cover might feel more fair and equitable
"Demonstrating how stormwater relates to the things people care about (roads, recreational
opportunities, flooding) and increasing transparency about spending could help people understand what
their money is being spent on
"Offering credits and exemptions could improve the sense of flexibility and choice in the matter while
also recognizing those who have made changes on their properties."
How do you get from Positions to
Interests?
Suggested Graphic:
*Why?*
* Enter the phrase into an internet images search engine*
74 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes
Now that we know how interests help us create solutions, we need to know HOW to get our
interviewees to share their interests.
The key is to ask, "WHY?"
How do you get from Positions to
Interests?
Ask WHY questions and use active listening techniques
• "Why?"
• "Tell me more about why you want what you do?"
• "What is it about [X] that bugs you the most?"
• "When that happens, how do you feel?
• Let's say you could just wave a magic wand and things would be
different. Would you? Why?
There are many ways to ask why. The key is to continue to ask these kinds of questions until you get to
the right answers. The way you know you aren't asking the right questions is that they keep repeating
their positions!
"What is it about X that bugs you the most?"
Follow up with "What else'?" and then "What else?"
"Let's say you could just wave a magic wand and things would be different. Would you? Why?"
Despite gimmick, people love this question! People can step away from their sense of risk or
vulnerability and enter an imagined world.
Other versions of the "magic wand" question:
"If you had all the time in the world... ?"
"If money wasn't an object.... ?"
Confirm That You Understand the
Interest
• "So, is the reason you're asking for [X position] because it will help you
satisfy [Y interest]?
• From your perspective, is the best way to meet [Y interest] with [X
position]?
• I understand that you want [X position], but if you could meet your
underlying concern of [Y interest] another way, would that be okay?
• I want to make sure you're totally happy and we don't have to revisit
this. If we do [X position], I'm afraid it won't fully satisfy [Y interest]. Is
that right?
Facilitator Manual 1 75
-------
Session Two | Facilitator Guidance: Separating Interests from Positions Lecture - Slide Notes
Check your understanding of their interests. Ask questions that help you tie possible solutions to their
interests/needs/concerns. Ask questions that demonstrate that you want to work with your interviewee
to craft potential solutions and that you are interested in meeting their needs.
[Review questions on the slide.]
The point of these types of questions is also to check your assumptions and verify that you understood
their position and underlying interests correctly.
Next, we're going to do a role-play exercise in which you will practice trying to elicit interests.
Remember to use active listening techniques to help your interviewee get beyond their positions.
Use the Separating Interests from Positions Exercise, in the Facilitator Manual pages 77-78.
76 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Course Handout: Separating Interests from Positions Exercise
Separating Interests from Positions Exercise
Page 1 of 2
Before beginning this exercise, take a minute to read through your role. Remember, you
will not win an award for your acting skills! If you find your partner is stumped about
how to dig deeper for certain key interests and concerns, feel free to pause the exercise
mid-way and provide some quick feedback, and then resume the role-play. What have
they done well so far? How close are they to uncovering your character's full range of
interests and concerns? How does their interview style make you feel? What kinds of
questions might make you feel more willing to open up and share?
If your partner discovered all of your interests and concerns, let them know they were
successful and move on to the debrief.
Role #1: City Council member (interviewee)
You're meeting today with the Department of Public Works (DPW) Director. The council
secretary set this up so you're not sure why, exactly, you are meeting. But, you have
heard that the DPW wants the council to consider a new fee to pay for stormwater, so
maybe that's what she/he is here to talk to you about. You're very skeptical of the idea.
¦ You think the DPW must be able to find other ways to pay for this; after all, didn't
you just approve an increase to their budget last year after they complained about
all the storms that hit the area and stretched their budget?
¦ Also, it might be their job to manage the problems, but you have to justify it to the
public and you never get enough support or information from DPW to feel like you
can comfortably stand up and defend their requests.
¦ You're not a fool. You know there's some kind of permit that the town needs to
comply with at some point. Also, your constituents do complain a lot about
basement flooding, swimming/fishing bans on the lake, and downtown flooding
(though you admit to yourself you're not totally sure how these problems will really
be helped by better stormwater management).
¦ In any case, is a fee really the best way to go about it? If you don't know the answers
to these questions, how can you advocate for anything publicly when there are so
many other needs in town?
Facilitator Manual \ 11
-------
Session Two | Course Handout: Separating Interests from Positions Exercise
Separating Interests from Positions Exercise
Page 2 of 2
Before beginning the role-play, take a minute to read through your role. Your partner
has been instructed to pause the exercise midway, if needed, and provide some brief
feedback about your progress in uncovering their character's interests and concerns. If
you feel you are struggling to extract information, feel free to pause the exercise yourself
and request some quick feedback, before resuming the role-play. Whqt hqve you done
well sofqr? How does your interview style mqke them feel? Whqt kinds of questions
might mqke them feel more willing to open up qnd shqre?
Role #2: DPW Director (interviewer)
You're approaching a member of the city council to investigate what s/he thinks about
stormwater funding. You asked the council secretary to set up the meeting.
¦ You're not sure how well the council member really understands the issue
because you haven't had a lot of one-on-one interactions in the past and s/he
hasn't said much when this topic has come up in council meetings in the past.
¦ In fact, this particular person has always seemed a bit standoffish so you're a
little nervous about this conversation.
¦ You still think it's important to find out what s/he thinks because if you decide to
pursue a fee you will need this person's support.
¦ Your goal is to find out what this person thinks about stormwater funding and
why, and to ascertain whether (or under what circumstances) this person could
become an ally in your goal to get independent funding for stormwater
management.
78 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Two | Course Handout: Post-Session Two Evaluation
GETTING COMMUNITY BUY-IN FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
A four-session participatory stormwater workshop
Post-Session Two Evaluation
1. Please rate the following segments of today's program on a scale from 1 to 5,
1 being "not a good use of time" and 5 being "a great use of time"
Introductory segments 1 2 3 4 5
Review and discussion of stakeholder maps and questions 1 2 3 4 5
Information on crafting a stakeholder interview 1 2 3 4 5
Activity to put together stakeholder interview questions 1 2 3 4 5
Active listening lecture 1 2 3 4 5
Active listening exercise 1 2 3 4 5
Separating interests from positions lecture 1 2 3 4 5
Separating interests from positions exercise 1 2 3 4 5
2. What was the best part of the day for you, and why?
3. If you could change one or two things about today, what would they be?
Facilitator Manual | 79
-------
Session Two | Course Handout: Post-Session Two Evaluation
4. As you consider the next two sessions, what are you most excited about and why?
5. As you consider the next two sessions, what makes you want to groan and why?
6. Anything else you want the facilitator or organizers to know about your experience
in this session or your expectations for the upcoming sessions?
If you want to include your name, please feel free to add it here:
80 | Facilitator Manual
-------
-------
Session Three | Course Handout: Participant Agenda
GETTING COMMUNITY BUY-IN FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
A FOUR-SESSION PARTICIPATORY STORMWATER WORKSHOP
Session Three Agenda
Making Sense of What You Learn from Interviews
Date & Time
Location & Address
OBJECTIVES
¦ Participants collect insights from a municipal "champion" for dedicated
stormwater funding.
¦ Participants use content analysis to analyze feedback from interviews to identify
positions, interests, lingering questions, and key themes.
¦ Participants learn from one another by comparing notes across municipalities.
¦ Participants apply interview feedback to stormwater program design and
funding needs.
9:00 AM Welcome and introductions
Reflections/questions from the last session or fieldwork
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A
Municipal progress report
10:45 BREAK
In Principle: Identifying key interests and themes using content analysis
In Practice: Identifying key interests and themes using content analysis
12:20 LUNCH
Report out results from pre-lunch exercise
Making sense of feedback and connecting it to your stormwater
program
Review agenda and fieldwork for final session
2:15 Adjourn
FIELDWORK
1. Prepare a 5-minute presentation for Session Four.
Stormwater Funding and Stakeholder Assessment Summary, pages 45-50
Instructions - Municipal Stormwater Presentations, pages 51-52
Continue interview analysis and/or follow up with stakeholders to fill in gaps
if needed.
2. Browse sample public engagement plans.
82 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Three | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
Session Three - Detailed Lesson Plan
Making Sense of What You Learn from Interviews
EMAIL IN ADVANCE TO PARTICIPANTS
¦ Between Sessions Two and Three, the facilitator should do frequent municipal check-
ins with participants about their progress on interview fieldwork and any questions
they have (multiple check-ins, reminders, and encouragement will likely be needed to
ensure progress is made). In the pilot sessions, one municipality was not authorized
to conduct interviews, so instead, they conducted a few informal conversations.
Other municipalities did less than others because they did not schedule interviews
early enough. Municipalities with less interview material to work with should still
practice interview analysis in Session Three using other municipalities' notes.
¦ Send final confirmation of location and time for Session Three and lunch availability.
¦ Send final reminder for participants to bring their interview notes. These should also
be emailed in advance to the facilitator if possible—handwritten (photo or scan) or
typed. They should also make note of any questions they are grappling with as they
come to Session Three.
¦ The facilitator should know where each municipality stands with interviews
before Session Three begins.
¦ The facilitator must receive interview notes from at least one municipality so
they can prepare to use those notes for a class exercise. They should verify with
the municipality that it is okay to share, ask if they need to remove identifying
information, and read through the notes in advance to prepare for a content
analysis of positions and interests.
VISITING SPEAKER SELECTION CRITERIA
¦ This visiting speaker should be a champion for stormwater funding in a geographic
area close to participants. The purpose of this visiting speaker is to serve as an
innovation leader who demonstrates that champions are important, even if they
come from unexpected places (e.g., an elected official). This visiting speaker will
share how they accomplished their objectives and should inspire participants to do
the same.
¦ The selection of a visiting speaker for Session Three should consider both experience
and delivery. A dynamic speaker and good storyteller will help to set a positive and
educational tone up front.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 83
-------
Session Three | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
ADDITIONAL SET-UP SPECIFIC TO SESSION THREE
¦ Prepared stacks of large sticky notes (8" x 6" in 3 colors, 3 sticky notes each, 1 stack
of 9 per participant), one medium permanent marker per participant
PRINTED & DIGITAL MATERIALS
Once the facilitator has finalized the materials from the Facilitator Manual, the materials
should be printed and provided with the Participant Workbook as suggested.
Printed (one copy per participant, speaker, and organizer):
Participant Workbook binder
~ Participant Workbook Session Three materials, PW37-52, in binder tab 3
~ Visiting Speaker slides (if applicable), print 3-4 per page, insert after PW38
Loose handouts
~ Participant Agenda - Session Three, FM82, finalize template
~ Municipal interview notes (two interviews from one municipality who emailed
materials to the facilitator in advance and is willing to share)
The following sample public engagement plans are for participants to preview before use
in Session Four. You may want to replace these examples with similar examples that
better reflect the timing, setting, and context of your workshop:
~ Lower Mystic Regional Working Group "Public Engagement," FM109-110
~ C&O Canal Historical Park Planning Process "Communication and Stakeholder
Outreach Plan - Draft Outline," FM111-122
~ Post-Session Three Evaluation, FM93-94
Digital:
~ Visiting Speaker slides (if applicable)
SESSION THREE OBJECTIVES
1. Participants collect insights from a municipal "champion" for dedicated
stormwater funding.
2. Participants use content analysis to analyze feedback from interviews to identify
positions, interests, lingering questions, and key themes.
3. Participants learn from one another by comparing notes across municipalities.
4. Participants apply interview feedback to stormwater program design and
funding needs.
5. Facilitator's Objective: Set up opportunities for collaboration, group learning, and
diffusion of ideas.
84 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Three | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
SESSION THREE LESSON PLAN
The agendas and lesson plans reflect effective delivery in the pilot and the time needed
for the different activities. However, the facilitator is welcome to modify exercises and
agendas to accommodate their own style, participant group dynamics, and time
constraints. If adjustments are made, materials should be re-arranged sequentially in the
Participant Workbook and the Participant Agenda, FM81, should be updated.
9:00 AM Welcome and introductions
Segment Objective(s): Warm up the participants and make them feel comfortable,
especially new people. Anchor participants in the Workbook so they understand the
rationale behind the different pieces of the program. Session Three Objectives, FM84:
#5.
> [10 minutes] Round-robin introductions: (1) name, (2) the most memorable moment
from a key stakeholder interview OR share a story about how they used active
listening or negotiation techniques in the past month or so (e.g., at work, with their
teenager at home, at the grocery store, etc.).
> [5 minutes] The facilitator reviews °articipant Agenda - Session Three, FM81,
and the learning arc of the sessions using Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4,
noting where they are today, what they have learned so far, and how the sessions
will finish.
9:15 Reflections/questions from the last session or fieldwork
Segment Objective(s): Give participants a chance to ask questions or share insights that
have surfaced between the last session and this one to ensure their learning is as
complete as possible. Session Three Objectives, FM84: #3, #5.
> [10 minutes] The facilitator invites open discussion of any remaining thoughts or
questions the participants have about active listening, separating interests from
positions, or other topics. They will have time to discuss conducting interviews later
in the day.
9:25 Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A
Segment Objective(s): Provide a real-life example of a champion of a stormwater
funding project (e.g., an elected official) so participants can learn from his/her
experience, ask questions, and think about how cultivating a champion in their own
municipality might make a difference for them. Session Three Objectives, FM84: #1.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 85
-------
Session Three | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [40 minutes] This visiting speaker slot is shorter and does not need to include a
formal presentation. It can be an informal talk with Q&A led by the visiting speaker,
unless they would rather the facilitator structures the Q&A. If they would like to do a
formal presentation, they should keep it to 10-12 minutes.
10:05 Municipal progress report
Segment Objective(s): Participants share what they have done and discuss what they
have learned so far. This ensures the group understands the collective progress made up
to this point. The group establishes what questions remain so they know what areas
need to be addressed or revisited during the rest of the sessions. Session Three
Objectives, FM84: #3, #5.
> [40 minutes] Going around the room, each municipality briefly describes what they
have been able to do since the last meeting. Some municipalities may not have been
able to conduct key stakeholder interviews. The facilitator should frame the
following discussion as an overall progress report to ensure all municipalities feel
comfortable regardless of what they were able to accomplish. The facilitator will
have notes on participants' progress in advance so s/he can avoid surprises. Make
sure it is clear this report out is an overview, otherwise this discussion may tend to
go long. They will have time to discuss the content of interviews in detail after break.
> The facilitator asks each municipality to share the following information, whether
they have done interviews or not, and makes notes on the whiteboard/flipchart
(Pilot Photo Journal, FM134.14):
¦ Surprises
¦ Key successes
¦ Roadblocks, challenges, or things participants wish had gone differently
(and how did they learn from them?)
¦ Questions participants hope to resolve here or in further conversations with
stakeholders. These could be general questions about interviewing or they
could be stormwater-funding or municipal questions.
10:45 BREAK
11:00 In Principle: Identifying key interests and themes using content analysis
Segment Objective(s): All participants individually practice content analysis with the
same set of interview notes. Together, the group will develop a preliminary list of
positions, interests, and questions. As a group, they then evaluate their collective work,
take note of different interpretations, and observe how the process requires careful,
critical thinking. Session Three Objectives, FM84: #2.
86 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Three | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [5 minutes] The facilitator introduces content analysis, using concepts from Content
Analysis of Stakeholder Interviews, PW39-40. Review and write definitions for
positions, interests, questions, and themes on the whiteboard/flipchart (definitions
on Interview Analysis Worksheet, PW41-44, Pilot Photo Journal, FM135.15-11).
Introduce the sample interview excerpt (PW39) to demonstrate what content
analysis looks like. Ask participants think hard about the filters they applied to
interviews and to use this systematic method to confirm they interpreted correctly.
> [15 minutes] Individual exercise (The facilitator will have reviewed all the interview
notes received by email in advance. They should choose notes from two interviews
that lend themselves best to this exercise, i.e., that have fairly easily identifiable
positions and interests. The facilitator should have notes to draw on during this
exercise if the participants are struggling with analysis):
¦ Each participant receives copies of 2 interviews (from one municipality) and
a prepared stack of 9 sticky notes (3 colors, 3 sticky notes each).
¦ They will read through the interview notes and identify 3 positions, 3
interests, and up to 3 open questions. The facilitator should demonstrate
with a few examples.
¦ Participants will write the positions on one color of sticky note, interests on
another, and remaining/open questions on another. When done, participants
will post all stickies up on the whiteboard, grouped by color (°ilot Photo
Journal, FM135.15-1 ).
> [10 minutes] The facilitator leads a discussion to debrief participants' analysis of
positions, interests, and questions.
¦ Participants can stack sticky notes to identify similarities and discuss moving
sticky notes between positions and interests.
¦ This exercise will help the group understand the interview notes and to
evaluate the process of undertaking content analysis.
¦ Do participants see any themes that emerged across the two interviews?
Themes are commonalities that multiple stakeholders share. What do a lot of
people seem to care about?
11:30 In Practice: Identifying key interests and themes using content analysis
Segment Objective(s): All the municipalities share interview notes and discover what
other towns have learned from their interviews. Those that did not do interviews see
what they could learn if they were to do them. Municipalities also see what they do not
know and start to think about what they would have to do to fill in those gaps. Session
Three Objectives, FM84: #2, #3, #5.
> [5 minutes] The facilitator introduces Interview Analysis Worksheet, PW41-44, as an
optional resource to help them organize their analysis.
> [45 minutes] Intermunicipal activity: The facilitator assigns groups of 3 municipalities
and asks groups to sit together (Pilot Photo Journal, FM136.1 ). For each group, at
least one of the municipalities needs to have completed 3-5 interviews.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 87
-------
Session Three | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
¦ Within their groups, each municipality briefly reports an overview of key
take-homes from their interviews to the group.
¦ The group collaborates to develop a preliminary list of positions, interests,
and lingering questions. They have the option to use the Interview Analysis
Worksheet, PW41-44, to organize their notes from their own interview data.
As they compile views from multiple stakeholders, they note emergent
themes (What do a lot of people seem to care about?).
¦ Groups should expect to report key themes to the whole room after lunch.
> The facilitator and organizers should contribute to these conversations by asking
questions, offering ideas, and serving as notetakers.
12:20 LUNCH
12:50 Report out results from pre-lunch exercise
Segment Objective(s): Solidify group learning and highlight areas for more inquiry.
Session Three Objectives, FM84: #2, #3, #5.
> [25 minutes] Each group reports key themes and unanswered questions to the
whole room (Pilot Photo Journal, FM136.18). What are common themes and/or
differences among municipalities? The facilitator can continue to help participants
differentiate between positions and interests, which will help them identify where
they need to dig deeper. Participants will likely also share ideas about messaging
and steps forward, based on what they learned in interviews.
1:15 Making sense of feedback and connecting it to your stormwater
program
Segment Objective(s): Participants connect learning and action. Municipal colleagues
work to answer the question, "Now that I have learned all this, what do I do with my
knowledge?" Through guided questions, they synthesize and assess what they have
learned and where to go next. Session Three Objectives, FM84: #4, #5.
> [2 minutes] The facilitator introduces the Stormwater Funding & Stakeholder
Assessment Summary, PW45-50. This worksheet is designed help participants
self-assess. They begin to translate and synthesize what they learned from this
workshop. This assessment also helps to frame a presentation (Session Four
fieldwork) or a report summarizing this information.
> [30 minutes] Participants work with their municipal colleagues to fill out the
Stormwater Funding & Stakeholder Assessment Summary, PW45-50.
¦ They should read through all the questions first to get a sense of the kind
of information and level of thinking needed. Not all questions may be
88 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Three | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
appropriate for every municipality—they are all at different stages. They can
skip, alter, or add questions to better assist self-assessment.
¦ Even municipalities that were not able to conduct interviews can learn from
other towns' interviews and think about how this information applies in their
town and what their next steps and messaging could be.
> [8 minutes] Full group debrief. Did you feel prepared to work through these
questions? What information are you missing and how will you get it? Will anyone
share next steps and/or recommendations identified or solidified in this process?
1:55 Review agenda and fieldwork for final session
Segment Objective(s): Ensure participants are clear about their fieldwork
responsibilities before Session Four. Session Three Objectives, FM84: #4.
> [2 minutes] Preview Participant Agenda - Session Four, FM96.
> [13 minutes] Discussion of fieldwork for Session Four.
1. Prepare a 5-minute presentation using the Stormwater Funding &
Stakeholder Assessment Summary, PW45-50 (Note: pilot participants
groaned about this assignment, but they also looked forward to hearing
others present and evaluated the presentations highly.)
¦ Ask them to choose a hypothetical audience to present to: (1) council
or board members, (2) appropriation committee, (3) interest group.
¦ The facilitator should carefully review Instructions - Municipal
Stormwater Presentations, PW51-52, focusing on presentation tips.
Most participants will need guidance for constructing a compelling
presentation. Reiterate that their five minutes will be timed. This is
good practice because they may not get more than five minutes in
front of their council/board, an elected official, etc.
¦ The facilitator emphasizes that this presentation is meant to be a tool
they can use and adapt in the future. Presentations are an
opportunity for synthesis and for receiving professional critiques.
¦ They should also continue interview analysis, conduct additional
interviews, or follow up with stakeholders to fill in gaps if needed.
2. Preview Sample Public Engagement Plans, FM109-122 before use in Session
Four (the facilitator may also choose to use alternative sample plans).
3. Participants should bring their stakeholder map to Session Four.
2:10 Evaluations
> [5 minutes] Participants fill out 'ost-Session Three Evaluation, FM93-94.
2:15 Adjourn
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 89
-------
Session Three-Abbreviated Lesson Plan
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
9:00 Welcome and
introductions
Purpose: Warm up the
participants and make them feel
comfortable, especially new
people.
> [10 minutes] Introductions (name, icebreaker - memorable
moment from a key stakeholder interview OR share a story
about using active listening or negotiation techniques at work,
with their teenager, at the grocery store, etc.).
> [5 minutes] Review Participant Agenda-Session Three, FMt ,
and Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4.
9:15 Reflections/questions
from the last session or
about fieldwork
Purpose: Participants have a
chance to ask questions or
share insights.
> [10 minutes] Facilitate open discussion.
9:25 Visiting speaker
presentation and Q&A
Purpose: Provide a real-life
example of a champion of a
stormwater funding project (e.g.,
an elected official).
> [40 minutes] Short talk (10-12 minutes) with Q&A.
10:05 Municipal progress
report
Purpose: Participants share what
they have done and discuss what
they have learned so far.
> [40 minutes] Each municipality describes what they have been
able to do since the last meeting and notes (discussion framed
as an overall progress report, so municipalities feel comfortable
regardless of how many interviews they were able to
accomplish):
¦ Surprises.
¦ Key successes.
¦ Roadblocks, challenges, or things participants wish had
gone differently (and how did they learn from them?).
¦ Questions (for the facilitator or for interviewees) that
participants hope to resolve here or in further
conversations with stakeholders.
10:45 BREAK
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
11:00 In Principle: Identifying
key interests and themes
using content analysis
Purpose: All participants
individually practice content
analysis with the same set of
interview notes. Together, the
group will develop a preliminary
list of positions, interests, and
questions.
Activity Breakdown
> [5 minutes] Introduce content analysis, review definitions for
positions, interests, questions, and themes. Introduce sample
interview excerpt (PW39). Ask participants think hard about the
filters they applied to interviews and to use this systematic
method to confirm they interpreted correctly.
> [15 minutes] Individual exercise:
¦ Each participant receives copies of two interviews and a
stack of 9 sticky notes (3 colors, 3 sticky notes each).
¦ They read through to identify positions, interests, and open
questions (demonstrate a few examples).
¦ Participants write the positions on one color of sticky note,
interests on another, and remaining/open questions on
another. Post stickies on the whiteboard, grouped by color.
> [10 minutes] Debrief participants' analysis of positions, interests,
and questions.
¦ Participants stack sticky notes to identify similarities in their
analysis and discuss moving sticky notes between positions
and interests.
¦ Do participants see any themes that emerged across the
two interviews? What do a lot of people care about?
Your Notes
LO
n>
O
3
n>
n>
n
Q
O
--t
C)
c
£
Q
n
>
a-
a-
(D
<
fl)'
r+
n>
Q.
2
0)
11:30 In Practice: Identifying
key interests and themes
using content analysis
Purpose: All the municipalities
share interview notes and
discover what other towns have
learned from their interviews.
Those that did not do interviews
see what they could learn if they
were to do them.
> [5 minutes] Introduce Interview Analysis Worksheet, PW41-44,
as an optional resource.
> [45 minutes] Intermunicipal activity: Assign groups of 2-3
municipalities. Within groups, participants share interview notes
and develop a preliminary list of positions, interests, and
lingering questions. They note emergent themes.
¦ Optional: Use the Interview Analysis Worksheet, PW41-44,
to take notes about interview data.
> Groups should expect to report back on key themes to the
whole room after lunch.
112:20 LUNCH
12:50 Report out results from
pre-lunch exercise
> [25 minutes] Each group reports key themes to the whole room
and unanswered questions. What are common themes and/or
differences among municipalities?
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
Purpose: Solidify group learning
and highlight areas for more
inquiry.
¦ Continue to help participants differentiate between
positions and interests.
¦ Participants may bring up ideas for messaging and steps
forward based on what they learned.
1:15 Making sense of
feedback and connecting
it to your stormwater
program
Purpose: Full group works to
answer the question, "Now that 1
have learned all this, what do 1 do
with my knowledge?"
> [2 minutes] Introduce Stormwater Funding & Stakeholder
Assessment Summary, PW45-50.
> [30 minutes] Participants fill out worksheet with municipal
colleagues. They can skip, alter, or add questions to better assist
self-assessment.
> [8 minutes] Full group debrief: Did you feel prepared to work
through these questions? What information are you missing and
how will you get it? Will anyone share next steps and/or
recommendations identified or solidified in this process?
1:55 Review agenda and
fieldwork for final
session
Purpose: Ensure participants are
clear about their fieldwork
responsibilities before Session
Four.
> [2 minutes] Preview Participant Agenda - Session Four, FM96.
> [13 minutes] Discuss fieldwork for Session Four:
1. Prepare a 5-minute presentation.
¦ Stormwater Funding & Stakeholder Assessment
Summary, PW45-50
¦ Continue interview analysis, conduct additional
interviews, or follow up to fill in gaps if needed.
¦ Instructions - Municipal Stormwater Presentations,
PW51-52, review how to construct a compelling
presentation; they will be timed.
¦ They choose an audience: (1) council/board members,
(2) appropriation committee, (3) interest group.
¦ This is a tool they can use in the future and an
opportunity for synthesis and professional critiques.
2. Preview Sample Public Engagement Plans, FM109-12* (or
choose alternative sample plans).
3. Bring stakeholder maps to Session Four.
2:10 Evaluations
> [5 minutes] Participants fill out Post-Session Three Evaluation,
FM93-94.
2:15 Adjourn
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Three | Course Handout: Post-Session Three Evaluation
GETTING COMMUNITY BUY-IN FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
A four-session participatory stormwater workshop
Post-Session Three Evaluation
1. Please rate the following segments of today's program on a scale from 1 to 5,
1 being "not a good use of time" and 5 being "a great use of time"
Introductory segments 1 2 3 4 5
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A 1 2 3 4 5
Municipal progress report on interviews 1 2 3 4 5
Full group, facilitated review of one set of notes 1 2 3 4 5
Small group review of interview notes 1 2 3 4 5
Making sense of feedback (assessment worksheet) 1 2 3 4 5
2. What was the best part of the day for you, and why?
3. If you could change one or two things about today, what would they be?
Facilitator Manual | 93
-------
Session Three | Course Handout: Post-Session Three Evaluation
4. As you consider the next session, what are you most excited about and why?
5. As you consider the next session, what makes you want to groan and why?
6. Anything else you want the facilitator or organizers to know about your experience
in this session or your expectations for the next session?
If you want to include your name, please feel free to add it here:
94 | Facilitator Manual
-------
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Participant Agenda
A FOUR-SESSION PARTICIPATORY STORMWATER WORKSHOP
Session Four Agenda
Public Outreach Program Design and Key Messaging
Date & Time
Location & Address
OBJECTIVES
¦ Participants receive an update from a former participant—where are they now?
¦ Participants synthesize what was learned in this workshop into a compelling
presentation that translates stakeholders' interests into recommendations for
next steps and/or that outlines possible elements of a stormwater funding
proposal that might be acceptable to (or be roadblocks for) the community.
¦ Participants apply public engagement tools to their working stakeholder map
to match the right public engagement effort to the right stakeholders.
¦ Participants formulate a draft public engagement plan using interview analysis,
public engagement tools, stakeholder maps, and a template.
¦ Participants feel prepared for appropriate next steps.
9:00 AM Welcome and overview of the day
10:50
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A
5-minute municipal presentations
BREAK
5-minute municipal presentations
12:00
LUNCH
2:15
Tools for broad public engagement planning
Parting comments
Adjourn
96 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
Session Four-Detailed Lesson Plan
Public Outreach Program Design and Key Messaging
EMAIL IN ADVANCE TO PARTICIPANTS
¦ Between Sessions Three and Four, the facilitator should do periodic municipal check-
ins with participants about their progress on preparing presentations (as many
check-ins or reminders as needed to ensure progress is made).
¦ Send final confirmation of location and time for Session Four and lunch availability.
¦ Depending on the number of participating municipalities, the end time on
Session Four may need to be adjusted to make time for presentations.
¦ Send reminder for participants to bring stakeholder maps and be ready to review
sample public engagement plans in Session Four, as well as to bring their
presentation slides, if they are using them (email slides in advance to the facilitator
if possible).
VISITING SPEAKER SELECTION CRITERIA
¦ This visiting speaker should be a participant from one of the pilot rounds of this
workshop. The purpose of this visiting speaker is to discuss what steps they have
taken since the workshop concluded and which tools were useful to them.
TIMETABLE
¦ The timetable for Session Four is based on participation of eight municipalities.
¦ Each participating municipality is allotted a 15-minute presentation slot (5-minute
presentation in addition to 10 minutes of discussion).
¦ If more than eight municipalities take part in these sessions, presentation time
should not be curtailed and Session Four should be extended by 15 minutes per
municipality. Update Participant Agenda - Session Four, FM96, as needed.
ADDITIONAL SET-UP SPECIFIC TO SESSION FOUR
¦ Load participants' presentation slides in advance, if they are using them.
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 97
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
PRINTED & DIGITAL MATERIALS
Once the facilitator has finalized the materials from the Facilitator Manual, the materials
should be printed and provided with the Participant Workbook as suggested.
Printed (one copy per participant, speaker, and organizer):
Participant Workbook binder
~ Participant Workbook Session Four materials, PW53-66, in binder tab 4
~ Visiting Speaker slides (if applicable), print 3-4 per page, insert after PW54
~ Participants' presentation slides (if applicable), print 3-4 per page with permission
from participants, insert before P1/1/55
~ International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) "Public Participation
Spectrum" (IAP2 2014) and "Spectrum of Processes for Collaboration and
Consensus-Building in Public Decisions" (Orenstein et al. 2010), URLS provided on
PW58, download and print, insert before PW60
Loose handouts
~ Participant Agenda - Session Four, FM91, finalize template (The agenda is designed
for 8 municipal presentations—the end time may need adjustment depending on the
number of presentations. Note that as presentations progress, participants will have
less to say in follow-up discussions, saving time.)
~ Post-Session Four and Post-Workshop Evaluation, FM123-125
Digital:
~ Participants' presentation slides (if applicable), loaded for presentations AND email
electronic version to participants after Session Four concludes with permission from
participants
SESSION FOUR OBJECTIVES
1. Participants receive an update from a former participant—where are they now?
2. Participants synthesize what was learned in this workshop into a compelling
presentation that translates stakeholders' interests into recommendations for
next steps and/or that outlines possible elements of a stormwater funding
proposal that might be acceptable to (or be roadblocks for) the community.
3. Participants apply public engagement tools to their working stakeholder map to
match the right public engagement effort to the right stakeholders.
4. Participants formulate a draft public engagement plan using interview analysis,
public engagement tools, stakeholder maps, and a template.
5. Participants feel prepared for appropriate next steps.
6. Facilitator's Objective: Encourage collaboration, group learning, and new ideas.
98 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
SESSION FOUR - DETAILED LESSON PLAN
The agendas and lesson plans reflect effective delivery in the pilot and the time needed
for the different activities. However, the facilitator is welcome to modify exercises and
agendas to accommodate their own style, participant group dynamics, and time
constraints. If adjustments are made, materials should be re-arranged sequentially in
the Participant Workbook and the Participant Agenda, FM9 , should be updated.
9:00 AM Welcome and introductions
Segment Objective(s): Set the tone and expectations for the day and to make sure that
anyone who is there for the first time feels welcome and somewhat familiar with
everyone else. Session Four Objectives, FM98: #6.
> [15 minutes] Introductions and icebreaker (e.g., write and share a stormwater haiku
that includes your first name: 5 syllables, 7 syllables, 5 syllables). This icebreaker is a
little silly but is meant to inject humor before municipal presentations, which many
people get nervous about.
Example:
"My name is Jane Doe.
I work the stormwater flow.
It is not easy."
> [5 minutes] The facilitator reviews °articipant Agenda - Session Four, FM9> , and
Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4. The facilitator emphasizes the value of
professional critiques on presentations and frames day around moving from
engaging key stakeholders to the broader public. Participants should know that for
the purposes of this discussion there will be a slight distinction made between the
two groups, although sectors of the public such as residents remain important
stakeholders, even key stakeholders. The facilitator should reinforce the message
that all municipalities will take a different path going forward at a pace that is right
for them. The goal is that participants leave better equipped to move forward with
stormwater funding proposals in their communities, if and when they are ready.
You will skip the "Reflections/questions from the last session orfieldwork" today because
participants will have ample time for reflection during the visiting speaker and municipal
presentation discussions.
9:20 Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A
Segment Objective(s): Invite a pilot workshop participant to discuss where they are now
with their stormwater program and funding efforts after participating in this workshop.
The speaker will help them to solidify the key lessons learned from the workshop,
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 99
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
discuss how they went about taking next steps, and also discuss any challenges and
successes the speaker has encountered. Session Four Objectives, FM98: #1, #5, #6.
> [10 minutes] The visiting speaker presents using slides or an informal talk.
> [15 minutes] The visiting speaker facilitates a Q&A, unless they would rather the
facilitator leads it. The facilitator can make notes on the whiteboard/flipchart about
key discussion points, recommendations, and questions.
9:45 5-minute municipal presentations
Segment Objective(s): The presentations require participants to both self-reflect on
progress and proposed next steps and to provide professional critiques for their peers.
The preparation of the presentation is more important than the delivery because it
requires participants to do the mental work to synthesize what they know and what
remains to be discovered and done. This process crystallizes their learning and increases
the chances of their commitment to do more in the future. Further, the group
discussion following each municipal presentation provides important opportunity for
group learning between those in the best possible position to provide feedback on
possible options going forward. The presentations are also meant to be a useful tool
they can build on in the future. Session Four Objectives, FM98: #2, #5, #6.
> [5 minutes] The facilitator introduces the presentations and acknowledges the time
and hard work spent throughout the sessions. The facilitator should reiterate this
presentation is an opportunity to generate feedback and critiques from peers and
should lay out ground rules for group discussion:
¦ Each municipality gets 5 minutes to present followed by 10 minutes of
discussion. Presentations and discussion will be timed. The facilitator will use
cue cards, hand signals, or other tools to stay on schedule.
¦ Audience saves questions until after each presentation concludes, but they
can record comments in Presentation Critiques, PW55-56, to aid in active
listening.
¦ Any feedback is welcome—please say WHY something works or doesn't.
¦ What do you think the presenter did well and why was it effective?
¦ How can the presenter(s) improve their message?
¦ Try not to make the same point twice to save time.
> [60 minutes] Four municipalities give the presentations they have prepared ( Hot
Photo Journal, FM137.2L). If the discussion needs an additional spark, the following
discussion questions can be used:
¦ Ask presenters to talk about the process of putting their presentation
together. How did you decide what to include and/or what not to include?
¦ Is there a way the municipality can improve the framing of their message?
¦ Is there additional information that could augment their message?
100 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
10:50
BREAK
11:00 5-minute municipal presentations
Segment Objective(s): See previous page.
> [60 minutes] The remaining four municipalities give the presentations they have
prepared. Each municipality gets 5 minutes to present followed by 10 minutes of
group discussion. Session Four Objectives, FM98: #2, #5, #6.
12:00
LUNCH
12:30
Tools for broad public engagement planning (part 1)
Segment Objective(s): Introduce participants to new tools that will help them be more
strategic about their engagement efforts. Show them how to use the public engagement
tools and the stakeholder map together. Session Four Objectives, FM98: #3, #6.
> [7 minutes] Introduce participants to a novel use of the stakeholder map.
1. The facilitator first reminds participants that it is virtually impossible to
engage everybody directly (e.g., through an interview) without unlimited
money, staff, or time. Different stakeholders or public sectors will likely have
different levels of interest in participating in your consensus-building
process. The workshop focused on key stakeholders first, because in
consensus building, talking to a subset of representative people can give you
the full range of views. Now, you can design your approach around these
views and share information to the broader public.
2. The facilitator next draws an empty stakeholder map, redefines the axes, and
discusses broad strategies for stakeholders and/or public sectors in different
zones (Pilot Photo Journal, FM138.21).
LU
u
o
Q.
KEEP
SATISFIED
MANAGE
CLOSELY
MONITOR
KEEP
INFORMED
INTEREST/STAKE IN OUTCOME^^
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 101
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
Discuss above strategies in light of what they will want from people in
different zones and what they can reasonably commit, as well as what those
people in different zones will want from them.
3. The facilitator next asks participants to share a few public engagement
strategies they have used in the past and to locate those techniques on the
map (°ilot Photo Journal, FM138.2 ). Typically, participants will have used
public hearings and some will have tried out some different techniques—this
is a chance to learn from one another and get exposed to different
strategies. Encourage them to take notes from this discussion using the
worksheet, Designing Public Engagement, PW60.
> [3 minutes] The facilitator introduces the IAP2 "Public Participation Spectrum"
(IAP2 2014; URL in PW58) and the "Spectrum of Processed for Collaboration and
Collaboration and Consensus-Building in Public Processes" (Orenstein et al. 2010;
URL in PW58).
¦ Different types of public engagement strategies are designed to extend our
ability to engage all different sectors effectively and efficiently.
¦ These tools can help participants get some new ideas about the variety of
strategies or approaches they might employ in a public engagement process
over the lifetime of a project, and what those strategies can accomplish for
them.
¦ The facilitator should identify similarities and differences among the two
tools (see Using Tools to Plan for Public Engagement, PW57-59) and make
sure participants understand how to use them.
¦ The IAP2 "Public Participation Spectrum" describes levels of impact
on decision making, with increasing give-and-take of information as
decision power increases from left to right.
¦ The "Spectrum of Processes for Collaboration and Consensus-Building
in Public Decisions" is a framework for designing a public process over
time. It focuses on how much collaboration is feasible and effective
among different sectors and what the resulting outcomes might be
throughout a process.
¦ Participants can use either tool, or both. There are many other great
tools out there.
> [5 minutes] Quick synthesis: The facilitator verifies that participants know how to
use the tools by asking them to reference the new tools and throw out a few new
ideas for how to fill in the stakeholder map on the whiteboard/flipchart with novel
engagement techniques (see Pilot Photo Journal, FM138.21 and Using Tools to
Develop an Effective Public Engagement Plan, PW59).
¦ Use different colored markers or symbols to indicate what they have done so
far, and what they could do in future. This will help participants visually
compare the types of public engagement they have used so far to see where
new engagement ideas would broaden their approach.
102 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
¦ The goal of this 5 minutes is to very briefly demonstrate how they will
broaden the approach they have already taken before they jump into the
meat of public engagement planning in the next segment (part 2).
¦ It may be worth noting to participants that to engage stakeholders correctly,
they will want to place stakeholders where they actually belong on the map
and not where those stakeholders think they are.
Optional adjustment to this segment: If you are short on time because presentations
went a little long, skip the interaction from participants and simply spend 5 minutes to
introduce the public engagement tools and how to use them with a stakeholder map.
12:45 Tools for broad public engagement planning (part 2)
Segment Objective(s): Participants get an opportunity to apply the tools in a group
setting as they begin designing a draft public engagement plan that is tailored to
community needs and interests. They will shape their messaging and objectives based
on what they now know from interviews (or from other towns' interviews) and they
work as a group to refine those elements. This way they can learn from their
counterparts in other municipalities as they do it. This group work might also spark new
ideas about strategies that are feasible with the right effort. Also, inviting them to add
2-3 activities that are not bound by resources encourages them to be creative and think
outside the box. Participants should leave Session Four with distinct draft public
engagement plans for each municipality that can continue to evolve over the course
of developing their stormwater funding proposal. Session Four Objectives, FM98: #3,
#4, #6.
> [5 minutes] The facilitator gives a brief overview of the Sample Public Engagement
Plans, FM109-12 , that participants previewed after Session Three. Use the
following talking points to briefly introduce the rationale behind the plans, how
different plans are organized, and key sections that may be useful for them (also see
Key Elements of a Public Engagement Plan, PW57).
¦ Public engagement plans come in many shapes and sizes, which is
appropriate based on different projects, needs, and resources. A plan may
evolve over the course of a process, which is why public engagement plans
are almost always working drafts. A public engagement plan concretely
demonstrates what needs to be done and how to go about it. It can also
build an argument for any additional needs, support, and resources. For
example, it may reveal the need to hire a new staff person to handle
marketing or communications.
¦ Sample plans:
¦ The Lower Mystic Regional Working Group public engagement plan
( 'M109-11 ) was drafted by the Consensus Building Institute. The
Sullivan Square rotary was a major traffic concern, and its
stakeholders were from multiple state entities and cities, including
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 103
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
very invested public sectors. With limited time or capacity in the
project for public engagement, the plan was simple and short.
¦ The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park Planning
Process public engagement plan ( Mlll-121) was also drafted by the
Consensus Building Institute for a project that was solely focused on
public outreach and engagement. The plan is, as a result, quite
extensive and detailed. The plan outlines goals for the project, with
tailored engagement strategies for each goal. They used a
stakeholder map to demonstrate public involvement options for
different quadrants. The plan also describes engagement options and
the strengths and limitations of each option.
¦ Engagement and outreach are best considered over time. When thinking
about how to engage and involve individuals or different groups, consider
how this may change over the course of a process. Planning in phases can be
a useful strategy to help a plan evolve. For example, Phase 1: establish a
Stormwater Advisory Committee and public information campaign; Phase II:
hold a public hearing.
> [2 minutes] The facilitator introduces the Public Engagement Plan Template, PW61-
65. Municipalities will draft a high-level public engagement plan to help them to be
more strategic in appropriately and efficiently engaging everyone.
¦ Key stakeholder interviews provided the information needed to set an
agenda for a broader public engagement process. Participants now have a
sense of (1) their range of possibilities for moving forward and (2) possible
roadblocks that can be dealt with through effective public engagement.
¦ The result by the end of Session Four should be distinct public engagement
plans drafted for each municipality. They will collaborate across
municipalities to strengthen their individual plans and spark ideas.
> [33 minutes] Divide room into pairs of municipalities. The facilitator may want to
plan this in advance based on, for example, pairing up those who did more fieldwork
with those who did less or pairing municipalities with similar challenges. The other
option is to ask municipalities to take charge of pairing off, although this can
sometimes mean that they tend to pair off with those they already know.
¦ Participants will fill in the Public Engagement Plan Template, PW61-65, using
the public engagement tools; stakeholder maps; Sample Public Engagement
Plans, FM109-12. ; Interview Analysis Worksheet, PW41-44; Stormwater
Funding & Stakeholder Assessment Summary, PW45-50; and their own
localized knowledge. Participants should feel free to copy and paste from any
of the information/tools shared with them.
¦ During the exercise, participants should add 2-3 activities to one or more of
the key actions based on unlimited resources, or "if they had all the money
and time in the world." This will help them stretch their imagination a bit and
initiate different kinds of conversations with the municipality they are
working with.
104 | Facilitator Manual
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Four | Facilitator Guidance: Detailed Lesson Plan
> [10 minutes] Full group debrief. Municipalities report their thoughts about their
progress in drafting public engagement plans.
¦ Will anyone share their Goals/Purpose statement and/or Guiding Principles
with group? How did it go taking a stab at developing these pieces? Any
creative ideas from the group?
¦ Why did you choose the engagement actions/activities you did? Why one
activity and not another?
¦ What do you hope to accomplish?
¦ What questions does this leave you with?
1:35 Parting comments
Segment Objective(s): The goal of this conversation is to increase the likelihood that the
impact of these sessions will extend beyond the workshop as the participants connect
with each other and propose next steps. The "lightening round" activity will serve to
remind participants of all the hard work and time they put into the workshop and why it
was worthwhile to attend. They also get a chance to hear what their peers got out of
the series. Session Four Objectives, FM98: #5, #6.
> [10 minutes] The facilitator leads an open discussion.
¦ The facilitator introduces the idea of this group serving as a support group.
How might municipalities connect with each other going forward?
¦ Have a brief discussion of what they think worked in these sessions or what
could be improved by organizers for future workshops.
> [15 minutes] Run a "lightning round" of comments from each participant (including
organizers) on the most memorable, meaningful, or useful part of the workshop.
What are next steps that they are hoping to take? This activity is designed so that
the group leaves on a very positive note.
> [5 minutes] Final thank you from the facilitator and organizers. Participants will tend
to filter out individually after completing evaluations - make sure to say any last
thank you prior to the evaluations.
2:05 Evaluations
> [10 minutes] Participants fill out Post-Session Four and Post-Workshop Evaluation,
FM123-125.
2:15 Adjourn
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
Facilitator Manual | 105
-------
Session Four-Abbreviated Lesson Plan
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
9:00 Welcome and
introductions
Purpose: Set the tone and
expectations for the day and to
make sure that anyone who is
there for the first time feels
welcome and somewhat familiar
with everyone else.
> [15 minutes] Introductions (icebreaker - stormwater haiku that
includes your first name).
> [5 minutes] Review Participant Agenda - Session Four, FM9< , and
Workshop Sessions Synopsis, PW4.
¦ Discuss the value of presentations as an opportunity for
synthesis and for receiving professional critiques.
¦ Frame the rest of the day around moving from engaging key
stakeholders to the broader public. Make slight distinction
between the two groups, although sectors of the public such
as residents remain important stakeholders.
¦ Reinforce the message that all municipalities will take a
different path going forward at a pace that is right for them.
9:20 Visiting speaker
presentation and Q&A
Purpose: A pilot workshop
participant discusses where they
are now after participating in this
workshop.
> [10 minutes] Visiting speaker presents.
> [15 minutes] Invite Q&A.
9:45 Presentations by
municipal partners
Purpose: Group discussion
following each municipal
presentation provides important
opportunity for group learning
between those in the best
possible position to provide
feedback on possible options
going forward.
> [5 minutes] Introduce presentations. Ground rules:
¦ 5 minutes to present: 10 minutes of discussion.
¦ Save questions, take notes in Presentation Critiques,
PW55-56.
¦ Feedback is welcome but say WHY you think something
is good or not so good.
¦ What did the presenter(s) do well? Why was it effective?
¦ How can the presenter(s) improve their message?
¦ Try not to make the same point twice.
> [60 minutes] Four presentations. If the discussion needs a spark:
¦ Ask about the process of putting the presentation together.
How did you decide what to include and/or what not to
include?
¦ Is there a way the municipality can improve the framing of
their message?
¦ Additional information that could augment their message?
10:50 BREAK
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
11:00 Presentations by
> [60 minutes] Four municipalities present.
municipal partners
Purpose: See previous page.
12:00 LUNCH
12:30 Tools for broad public
engagement planning
(part 1)
Purpose: Introduce new tools
that will help them be more
strategic about engagement
efforts. Show them how to use
the public engagement tools and
the stakeholder map together.
> [7 minutes] Introduce a novel use of the stakeholder map
¦ Draw an empty stakeholder map. Discuss broad strategies
for stakeholders and/or public sectors in different zones
(Pilot Photo Journal, FM138.21).
¦ Participants can take notes using the worksheet, Designing
Public Engagement, PW60.
¦ Ask participants to share strategies used in the past, and to
help locate those techniques on the map.
> [3 minutes] Introduce the IAP2 "Public Participation Spectrum"
(IAP2 2014; URL in PW58) and the "Spectrum of Processed for
Collaboration and Collaboration and Consensus-Building in Public
Processes" (Orenstein et al. 2010; URL in PW58).
¦ Different strategies extend our ability to engage all different
sectors effectively and efficiently.
¦ These tools provide strategies to employ over the lifetime of
a project and show what those strategies accomplish.
¦ Identify similarities and differences among the tools and
make sure participants understand how to use them.
¦ There are many other great tools out there.
> [5 minutes] Quick synthesis: Participants use tools to add
techniques to the whiteboard/flipchart stakeholder map.
¦ Use different colored markers or symbols to indicate what
they have done so far, and what they could do in future.
Optional adjustment to this segment: If you are short on time because
presentations went a little long, skip the interaction from participants
and simply spend 5 minutes to introduce the public engagement tools
and how to use them with a stakeholder map.
12:45 Tools for broad public
engagement planning
(part 2)
Purpose: Participants apply the
tools in a group setting as they
> [5 minutes] Brief overview of the iample Public Engagement Plans,
FM109-122.
¦ Public engagement plans come in many shapes and sizes.
¦ Sample plans:
¦ The Lower Mystic Regional Working Group public
engagement plan ( M109-110) is simple and short and
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Agenda
Activity Breakdown
Your Notes
put together a draft public
engagement plan. These distinct
draft plans for each municipality
can continue to evolve as they
develop their stormwater funding
proposal.
was designed with limited time or capacity in the project
for public engagement.
¦ The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Planning Process public engagement plan ( '-M111-122) is
extensive and detailed and was designed for a project
that was solely focused on public outreach and
engagement.
¦ Engagement and outreach are best considered overtime.
Planning in phases can be a strategy to help a plan evolve.
> [2 minutes] Introduce the Public Engagement Plan Template,
PW61-65.
> [33 minutes] In pairs of municipalities, fill out Public Engagement
Plan Template, PW61-65 using public engagement tools;
stakeholder maps; Sample Public Engagement Plans, FM109-12 ;
Interview Analysis Worksheet', PW41-44; Stormwater Funding &
Stakeholder Assessment Summary, PW45-50; localized knowledge.
¦ Participants can copy/paste any shared information/tools.
¦ Participants add 2-3 activities based on unlimited resources,
or "if they had all the money/time in the world."
> [10 minutes] Full group debrief.
¦ Will anyone share their goals/purpose statement and/or
guiding principles with the group? How did it go developing
these pieces? Any creative ideas from the group?
¦ Why did you choose the engagement actions/activities you
did? Why one activity and not another?
¦ What do you hope to accomplish?
¦ What questions does this leave you with?
1:35 Parting comments
Purpose: Increase the extended
impact of these sessions. Remind
participants of the hard work and
time put in and why it was
worthwhile to attend.
> [10 minutes] Lead open discussion.
¦ Introduce the idea of a support group. How might
municipalities connect with each other going forward?
¦ What worked or could be improved for future workshops?
> [15 minutes] Run "lightning round" of comments from each
participant (including organizers) on the most memorable,
meaningful, or useful part of the workshop.
> [5 minutes] Final thank you.
2:05 Evaluations
> [10 minutes] Participants fill out Post-Session Four and Post-
Workshop Evaluation, FM123-125.
2:15 Adjourn
Color Key: Facilitator Manual | Participant Workbook
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
SAMPLE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN Public Engagement - Draft
Lower Mystic Regional Working Group
Purpose: To engage the interested and affected public in identifying a set of policies and
projects that could provide for both long-term growth and mobility within the study area.
Audience: We would seek to engage the participation of the following publics:
• Neighborhoods residents of the three cities close to or in the study area.
• Interested residents of the three cities in general.
• Interested businesses close to or in the study area.
• Organized stakeholder groups who focus on these issues at a local to state level (from
local neighborhood associations to state-wide groups like Smart Growth Massachusetts
or Transportation for Massachusetts).
• Commuters and users of the transportation system (public transit, auto, biking).
Timing: If held in early fall, the workshops would provide helpful input to the Lower Mystic
Regional Working Group's (LMRWG) work of assembling a list of potential component options
or ideas as well as some, but not fully developed, alternatives to be modeled.
Information "Out" Needed:
• Background on what the project is, who is on it, and what it is intended to do.
• Background of some of the known existing conditions (land use and transportation),
commitments, and challenges for the region.
• Background on modeling and what modeling can and cannot do.
• Background on kinds of components that can be modeled (policy and projects).
• Background on how projects are funded.
• Background on alternatives ran and outputs from the various scenarios.
Information "In" Needed:
• Region's barriers and challenges from the public's perspective.
• Input, advice, and reaction to possible components that might go into a model such as
infrastructure, policy, etc. building off of examples offered by the LMRWG.
• Reactions to and conclusions about outputs of various alternatives and implications for
preferred actions.
Formats: The following are possible formats for the work. The smaller formats have the
advantage of utilizing existing forums, working with smaller groups. Their disadvantages
include supporting multiple events and not getting the region in a "conversation with itself."
• Existing groups: Provide a common framework and support but run the process with
existing groups through the three cities, such as existing town/city committees or
subcommittees, citizen advisory groups, etc. Might create a "meeting in a box" for
LMRWG to use to individually go out, engage, and learn.
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)for the Lower Mystic Regional
Working Group. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding" workshops Facilitator Manual | 109
and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: ch ule t(a)cb uildin a. org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
• Focus groups: Implement the approach through focus groups convened around such
interests as businesses, commuters, and neighborhoods.
• Regional workshop: Implement the approach with larger workshops seeking to involve
and engage publics across the region and across municipal boundaries.
• Online: Create a website or connect to existing ones to allow for input and comment as
well as provide basic education and information. This could allow for ideation, rankings,
and more detailed comments.
• Surveys: Conduct online surveys via city/town email lists and general access via a
website.
• "Road Show:" Create a tool such as Envision Cambridge's "City Table"
(http://envision.cambridgema.gov/street-strategies/) that can be moved around to
different settings and people can interact and provide feedback as they encounter it,
more informally, and more tactilely.
• Other (?)
Outreach: The following are likely outreach activities needed to ensure participation.
Depending on format, outreach will vary.
• Utilize existing listservs/social media of LMRWG members and participants.
• Post public notices, newspaper, webpage, and media.
• Hand out flyers at public transit (T) stops and other public locations.
• Utilize signage of some kind to make drivers aware of the effort.
• Utilize T-advertising boards in trains on the orange line or on buses (cost?).
• Engage reporters to cover story ahead of time.
• Other
Challenges: The following are a few key challenges to think through and over.
• The budget for public engagement is very limited.
• There are multiple resources, talent, and expertise that could be tapped with the
LMRWG organizations (Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Metropolitan
Area Planning Council, Go Boston®, Somerville, Everett, etc.).
• The study part of the work is relatively "arcane and technical" but the implications
are very real and relevant to the public.
• The region is not known for thinking regionally — all politics is local, as they say.
• Given our goal for engagement, what are the most effective tools and strategies to
deploy?
• City-specific activities and planning are underway that we don't want to disrupt or
confuse
• We would want to engage beyond the status quo-engaged stakeholders
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Lower Mystic Regional
110 | Facilitator Manual Working Group. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding" workshops
and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: chulet(a)cbuildinQ, org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
SAMPLE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park Planning Process
Communication and Stakeholder Outreach Plan — Draft Outline
05/18/2017
1. Stakeholder and Issue Identification:
Create a worksheet to serve as the primary repository of stakeholder contacts and that can be used
to sort stakeholders for inviting to engagement activities. The lists of contacts from different
sources should be consolidated into the categories identified during a stakeholder mapping exercise
(or expanded categories as appropriate). Google Drive or some other sharing system (Sheets) should
be set up to allow access by the key stakeholder management team members for entering data.
• Who are the projects' stakeholders?
• Identify existing stakeholder lists from local organizations and agencies
• Identify gaps and process for identifying missing stakeholders
• Identify and classify stakeholders based on:
• Affiliations (types of organizations/groups)
• Topics of concern/themes/uses
• Level of interest (high, medium, low)
• Level of awareness (high, medium, low)
• Level of organization/ease of representation (e.g., existing organizations)
• Resources they bring to the table (e.g., local knowledge, potential partnership, political
advocacy, etc.)
2. General Stakeholder Engagement Goals/Outcomes: See Supplement A for details
The primary goals and outcomes of stakeholder engagement for the Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O)
Canal National Historic Park Planning project are listed below:
Goal #1: Raise awareness and provide the information needed for constructive comments
Outcomes:
A. Build greater awareness of the importance and possibilities of the project and the C&O
Canal's historic heritage
B. Informed and interested stakeholders who understand and take advantage of comment
opportunities
C. Expand number of visitors from under-represented parts of the Washington, DC,
metro area
Types of Stakeholders:
• National park users throughout the country who are interested in National Park Service
(NPS) activities
• Infrequent or one-time park users (DC Metro area and beyond)
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Storm water
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: ch ule t@cb uildina. org
Facilitator Manual | 111
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
• DC/Maryland/Virginia/West Virginia residents that were not aware of the Canal or who
have been historically under-represented park visitors
Type of Engagement:
• Public meetings
• Written comments through the National Park Service Planning Environment and Public
Comment (PEPC) site
• NPS and project websites
• NPS newsletters
• Traditional and social media
Goal #2: Energize and build positive, long-term connections and involvement with the Canal
Outcomes:
A. Build greater awareness of the importance and possibilities of the project
B. Create informed and interested stakeholders who are consulted throughout the process
C. Build new relationships with key stakeholders for longer-term engagement in the future
D. Understand/integrate key concerns and needs into project
E. Elicit creative ideas/options
Types of Stakeholders:
• Current park users
• Universities and public schools
• Nature/conservationist/environmental organizations
• Businesses and residents of Georgetown
• DC Metro area residents and potential users
Type of Engagement:
• Public meetings
• Encourage written comments through PEPC
• NPS and project website (including interactive online engagement if possible)
• Business Improvement District (BID) and Georgetown Heritage (GH) Newsletters
• Traditional and social media
• Smaller group meetings for deeper understanding of concerns and ideas, evaluation of
design options, input on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106
• On-site events for target users (families, boaters, bikers, cultural arts community, history
buffs, etc.)
Goal #3: Create partners for fundraising and implementation of the plan and cultural programming
Outcomes:
A. Build greater awareness of the importance and possibilities of the project
B. Informed and interested stakeholders who are consulted throughout the process
C. Build new relationships with key stakeholders for longer-term engagement in the future
D. Consult/understand/integrate key concerns and needs into project
E. Elicit creative ideas/options
F. Collaborate on evaluation of options for final plan to get broad stakeholder endorsement
G. Create partners on implementation of the plan
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
112 | Facilitator Manual National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: chulet@cbuildina.org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
H. Create partners on fundraising (foundations, individuals)
I. Create partners on cultural programming
Types of Stakeholders:
• Regulatory agencies
• Current park users
• Universities and public schools
• Nature/conservationist/environmental organizations
• Adjacent businesses and residents of Georgetown
Type of Engagement:
• Public meetings
• Written comments through PEPC
• NPS and project website (including interactive online engagement if possible)
• Smaller group meetings for deeper understanding of concerns and ideas, evaluation of
design options, input on NEPA and Section 106
• On-site events for target users (families, boaters, bikers, cultural arts community, history
buffs, etc.)
• One-on-one meetings as appropriate
3. Engagement Mechanisms:
See Supplement B for guidance on selecting the right process for each goal and category
stakeholder.
4. Communication and Engagement Action Plan (to be completed)
Phase I — Visioning and Scoping
Specific engagement goals and outcomes:
• Inform all stakeholders about the opportunities and schedule to participate in design,
NEPA, and Section 106 process
• Start to build awareness broadly among stakeholders but particularly with those that are
hard to reach
• Share findings of site assessment
• Build awareness of wide spectrum of uses and interests
• Solicit feedback on site assessment; use desired outcomes
• Solicit comments on NEPA and Section 106 scoping
• Begin to build relationships with key stakeholders (energize greater connection,
implementation partners, outreach to under-represented potential visitors)
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Storm water
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: ch ule t@cb uildina. org
Facilitator Manual | 113
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
• What are the specific actions and activities that will be undertaken, by whom, and
at what points in the process? Partial draft below:
Activity
Leads
Target
audience
Dates
Next steps
Public meeting
James Corner Field
Operations (JCFO),
NPS, GH
Open to all
stakeholders
June 14
Confirm location, NPS
public notification by
May 24; email and
newsletter
notifications
Inter-agency
consultations
GH
Regulatory
and planning
agencies
May 31
Project website
development
GH and
communication
firm
All stakeholders
Guided walks and
other on-site
events
GH/NPS/JCFO
Written
comments on
NEPA
NPS, Traceries
To Be
Determined
Input on areas and
issues that should be
included in scoping
process
Small group
meetings
Consensus Building
Institute (CBI), GH,
BID
Adjacent
property
owners, key
user groups
June 6, 7 and
week after
public
meeting
Confirm venue, draft
agenda, confirm
invitees, send out
invitation
Info hub along
canal
JCFO
Online
engagement
GH and
communication
firm
Each activity should also include the following information:
• How will stakeholders be informed about and invited to the engagement activities?
• How will the stakeholder input be gathered and analyzed?
• How will stakeholders and the public at large be kept informed about the progress of
the project?
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
114 | Facilitator Manual National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: chulet@cbuildina.org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
Supplement A. Spectrum of Communication/Engagement (to be revised and tailored for this
engagement)
Level
Description
Goal
Strategies
Tools
Awareness/
Share information
Increase and
Make information
Newsletters.
Information
needed as
broaden awareness
accessible through a
surveys, website,
Sharing
precondition for
of park's and
number of channels;
social media,
engagement; share
project's value and
provide consistent
public meetings,
information about
opportunities for
messages on value
PEPC, board
how to provide
informed input
of park & project
outreach
input; monitor and
throughout project
encourage
participation
Consultation/
Provide tailored
Energize and deepen
All of the above
Small group
Engagement
engagement for
engagement with
AND provide forums
meetings,
agencies and target
park and project;
to share concerns
individual
stakeholder groups
solicit & incorporate
and interests;
meetings, board
for two-way dialogue
ideas and interests
involve in problem
outreach, onsite
into process
solving
events, public
meetings, social
media, PEPC,
targeted
newsletters
Collaboration/
Create opportunities
Create partners for
All of the above AND
Multi-stakeholder
Partnership
for multi-
implementation;
share some decision
forums, board
stakeholder
build capacity for
making; create
outreach, one-on-
collaboration on key
implementation;
opportunities for joint
one meetings,
aspects of project
reduce conflicts
planning and funding
regularly
design,
between interest
of projects and
scheduled
Environmental
groups and achieve
programming
updates via email
Assessment, and
agreement where
106; build
possible
agreement seeking
processes where
possible
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Storm water
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: ch ule t@cb uildina. org
Facilitator Manual | 115
-------
Supplement B. Menu of Public Engagement Options to Support C&O National Heritage Park Planning Process
Below are different public participation options categorized by the level of engagement needed.
High
CD
O
C
CD
3
KEEP SATISFIED
MANAGE CLOSELY
Intergroup Dialogue
Periodic One-on-One meetings/calls
Design Charrette
Focus Groups
Focus Groups
Conversation Cafe
Conversation Cafe (combined with Appreciative Inquiry)
Design Charrette
Website
Multi-stakeholder Dialogue
Social Media outreach
Website
Public meetings — Key pad polling
Social Media outreach
On-site events
Public Meetings — Key pad polling
On-site events
MONITOR
KEEP INFORMED
Public Meetings
Website
Email updates via self-selected listserv
Social media outreach
Website
Newsletters
Newsletters
Email updates
Public media coverage
Public Meetings
On-site events
Low
Interest
High
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI)for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: chulet@cbuildina.org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
Description of Options (in alphabetical order)
Appreciative Inquiry (Al) is a community process and methodology focused on positive change
and identifying community assets. Al can be adapted for use in a wide range of community
events, projects, and long-term planning processes.
Strengths
• Al is more positive than many processes, since it focuses on a community's assets instead
of problems.
• Al empowers citizens and communities to take charge of their futures, rather than relying
on experts.
• Al can be adapted to a wide range of topics, communities, processes or projects, budgets,
and timelines.
• Al has been used extensively in many different projects and situations, so examples and
lessons are widely available.
Limitations
• Al may not identify important aspects of a community's situation or goals, since it only
focuses on positive elements.
• Al is typically not used by itself, but only as part of a larger process or event.
A design charrette is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers and others
collaborate on a vision for development. It provides a forum for ideas and offers the unique
advantage of giving immediate feedback to the designers. More importantly, it allows everyone
who participates to be a mutual author of the plan.
Strengths
• Charrettes are interactive and can attract more participants who are not interested in other
types of engagement.
• An extended charrette provides many opportunities for people to participate.
• The process often improves trust between citizens and government.
• With feedback incorporated into the charrette process, the community can increase
efficiency and approval processes for the project.
• Participants are likely to support and approve of the project if given a chance to participate
in designing it.
Limitations
• Running an effective charrette requires extensive experience, preparation, and resources.
Most charrettes cost thousands of dollars, and costs can go up depending on length and
the experts involved.
• It can be a large commitment for a citizen to participate in a charrette, which may minimize
the number and types of community members who do so.
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater FOClfltOtOr IVJonUQl \ 117
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: chulet@cbuildina.org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
A focus group is a moderated discussion that typically involves 5 to 10 participants. Through a
focus group, you can learn about users' attitudes, beliefs, desires, and reactions to concepts.
Focus groups are typically used for market research.
Strengths
• Focus groups allow you to collect information from select target groups (i.e., canal users)
who share interests or demographic characteristics.
• Participants have significant latitude in driving the content of the discussion. While focus
groups are given specific questions to respond to, the facilitator should not otherwise direct
the conversation, but rather observe the conversations and note opinions and reactions.
• They are also helpful to better understand your "users" or clients and their motivations and
communication needs.
Limitations
• Focus groups require considerable planning and consistency between different groups to
be able to compare results.
• They are not a statistical tool, although often presented that way.
Intergroup dialogues are face-to-face meetings of people from at least two different social
identity groups. They are designed to offer an open and inclusive space where participants can
foster a deeper understanding of differences on issues through participation in experiential
activities, individual and small group reflections, and dialogues.
Strengths
• Intergroup dialogues allow smaller groups with diverse interests to interact and build
relationships.
• They are particularly helpful if the groups have the potential or past history of coming into
conflict (e.g., bikers and dog walkers).
• These sessions should be planned and facilitated to explore values, identities, and needs of
the different groups.
Limitations
• There is a risk of conflict if these dialogues are not framed by a shared goal and agreed-
upon ground rules.
• This format works best if the groups can meet multiple times to allow time to build
relationships and understanding.
Keypad polling is an electronic meeting support tool that allows users to respond to multiple
choice questions using a wireless keypad and provides real-time feedback to the participants.
Strengths
• Keypad polling takes a much more accurate pulse of a crowd than do more traditional
meeting formats with audience comments or voting by raised hands.
• Every audience member has exactly one vote, so no single voices can dominate the
conversation.
• Individuals' votes are secret, so people may be more comfortable giving honest opinions
than with raised hands.
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
118 | Facilitator Manual National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: ch ule t@cb uildina. org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
• Keypads can offer a wider range of responses than just yes or no.
• Keypad polling is much more efficient than using paper ballots, since votes are tabulated
instantly.
Limitations
• The technology itself may limit the types of questions that can be asked, and there could be
potential glitches with the system during the meeting.
• The cost and resources involved in running a meeting with keypad polling may be too
expensive for some groups.
• There is a chance of alienating participants who are not comfortable with technology.
Online engagement could be in the form of an interactive web page with open forums and
structured interactive questionnaires/scenarios.
Strengths
• Online engagement is less time intensive for participants than in-person forums or surveys.
• It attracts a broad and more diverse set of stakeholder input.
Limitations
• It can be expensive to hire a graphic designer and web developer to implement complex
scenario surveys or more involved interactive platforms.
An open house is an informal setting that allows for one-to-one exchanges between any
concerned/interested person and the public officials and professionals involved in the matter.
Attendees have the opportunity to mill around, going back and forth among displays of
information and materials and familiarizing themselves with the various facets of the proposed
plan or action.
Strengths
• An open house is useful in getting attendees' viewpoints and perceptions communicated
directly to the public officials and professionals.
Limitations
• An open house may not be appropriate when there is an intense need for group discussion
or when project staff, leaders, or decision makers are unwilling to interact directly with
the public.
• While you can collect written comments at an open house, do not mislead attendees to
think that their comments constitute a vote to determine the final decision.
Open Space Technology is a meeting facilitation tool that leaves the agenda and proceedings of
meetings and conferences up to the participants. While an Open Space facilitator guides
participants through the process, those who attend the meeting create the topics for sessions,
run the discussions, take notes, and determine next steps.
Strengths
• The main advantage of Open Space is that it allows participants the freedom to address and
accomplish whatever they wish. If no one wants to talk about a certain issue, they don't
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater FqCII itQtOr (VfonUQI \ 119
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: chulet@cbuildina.org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
have to. If only one person arrives at a discussion, that single person can write or think
about the issue. If dozens of people attend and they can talk for hours if they want, rather
than a scheduled 20-minute slot.
Limitations
• It is important to have trained facilitators to guide participants through the process. If most
attendees have never experienced Open Space before, the process can fail without
adequate explanation and guidance.
• Even with expert facilitation, Open Space can falter when the individual sessions
themselves have inexperienced people leading them or people with the wrong agendas.
Modeled after traditional storytelling gatherings, Story Circles allow people to come together to
share experiences and stories. This process can help communities explore and identify unifying
values, which can inform the planning process. This can also be done electronically (cell phone or
computer video story-telling) and posted to allow people to share their stories about favorite
places along the canal.
Strengths
• Story Circles are an inclusive and comfortable way to discover common values in a
community. Everyone can share stories that connect them to their town no matter their
age, job, education, or how long they've lived there.
• Story Circles can include as little or as much technology as desired and can be run in many
different spaces with a variety of materials.
• Story Circles are relatively easy to organize and are a fairly inexpensive way to explore a
town's character.
• By touching on the emotional and personal connections people have to their town, values
may arise that would not come up in other, more formal, settings like planning board
meetings or design charrettes.
• Sharing and listening at Story Circles helps build trust and relationships in a community. It's
an intimate, non-threatening way to start broaching controversial topics.
• Story circles can be used at many different points in the planning process and for different
purposes. They can be tailored to a specific place or issue or used to broadly investigate
community values and character.
Limitations
• Story Circles can typically engage only a limited number of people, since they rely on people
showing up at an event and can't accommodate huge crowds. This requires the convener to
think carefully about who is invited and how, and other engagement methods should be
used to reach additional people.
• Depending on the planning process, it could be challenging to integrate values distilled
during the Story Circle into future town plans.
• Overall, Story Circles require a good amount of planning and organization to make sure
they run smoothly, include everyone, and that the results are used appropriately.
• Story Circles can take a wrong turn if group members try to comment on or judge other
people's stories in inappropriate ways. A skilled facilitator in each group can help, and clear
ground rules are important.
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
120 | Facilitator Manual National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: ch ule t@cb uildina. org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
Visioning is a community engagement process that helps people to articulate or define the
future they want for their communities. Visioning is often completed in conjunction with a
master planning initiative and often looks decades ahead.
Strengths
• Visioning processes allow communities to think farther ahead than most planning statutes
require.
• Visioning brings the community together for discussion and consideration of strengths
and needs.
• Visioning processes can be easily adapted to different timelines, project types, budgets,
and creative engagement methods.
• Visioning allows people to "think big" and step out of the trap of focusing on small details
and stagnant politics.
Limitations
• There may be no clear outcome, specific means of implementation and/or little thought
surrounding the definition of a vision.
• It can be difficult to achieve consensus on a vision.
• The product may not represent the community's values if the process is not carefully
planned and executed with broadly inclusive participation.
• A well-run visioning process usually requires significant time, resources, and professional
expertise.
Social media outreach can include a Facebook project page that allows participants to comment,
a Twitter feed, and many other social media platforms.
Strengths
• Social media reaches a broader audience that may not typically attend in-person meetings.
• It can provide you with quick feedback through on-line games and surveys.
Limitation
• Social media requires consistent planning, engagement, and moderation.
• It can be more difficult to analyze comments and data from social media.
Visual Preference Surveys (VPS) are tools to help communities establish a common vision of
what their localities should look like by asking participants to rate their preference or dislike of
selected images of the community.
Strengths
• Relatively speaking, VPS is a simple and inexpensive tool to use, requiring little prep time
and few resources.
• VPS can be a fun, engaging way to introduce community character at town meetings.
• VPS tools can be adapted for other venues; they can be completed on paper, with a set of
photographs mailed to citizens; used with keypad polling and other electronic meeting
tools; or built into an online survey.
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater FOClfltOtOr IVJonUQl \ 121
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: chulet@cbuildina.org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Sample Public Engagement Plan
Limitations
• A VPS is only as good as the set of images that it uses, and the results are only as
representative as the citizens who take part in the survey.
• VPS are not useful for identifying elements of community character that cannot be
photographed.
• Lighting, weather, and background activities in the photographs may influence participants'
choices.
World Cafe is a facilitation method that allows small groups of people to have conversations,
sketch, and brainstorm around in an informal setting, around cafe tables. Groups typically have
several rounds, switching tables and starting new topics.
Strengths
• World Cafe has been thoroughly researched and some guiding documents provide sound
advice on how to organize and run an event.
• Mixing up the tables and providing participants with the opportunity to draw or doodle also
makes the process more interesting and engaging than some focus groups.
• World Cafe events are typically much more interesting for people than traditional meetings
settings and may engage new voices.
• They can be organized around a visual prompt such as a picture or design proposal at each
station.
Limitations
• The success of the Cafe depends on who is present and how they participate. Groups
should include a mix of different interests to encourage cross-fertilization of ideas.
• World Cafe requires well-structured planning, facilitation and documentation of table
conversations to translate the input into actionable steps.
References
Orton Family Foundation, Resource Library, https://www.orton.org/resource-library/
National Center for Dialogue and Deliberation, Resource Center, http://ncdd.org/rc/best-of-the-
best-resources
National Center for Dialogue and Deliberation, Engagement Streams Framework,
http://www.ncdd.org/files/rc/2014 Engagement Streams Guide Print.pdf
Metroquest, The Beginner's Guide to Online Engagement, 2017,
http://metroquest.com/beginners-guide-to-effective-online-engagement/
Dialogue Designer, https://dialoguedesigner.dialoguebydesign.net/
Draft public engagement plan sample created by the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal
122 | Facilitator Manual National Historical Park Planning Process. These materials are for use in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater
Funding" workshops and should not be reproduced for other uses without CBI permissions. Contact: ch ule t@cb uildina. org
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Post-Session Four and Post-Workshop Evaluation
GETTING COMMUNITY BUY-IN FOR STORMWATER FUNDING
A four-session participatory stormwater workshop
Post-Session Four Evaluation
1. Please rate the following segments of today's program on a scale from 1 to 5,
1 being "not a good use of time" and 5 being "a great use of time"
2. What was the best part of today for you, and why?
3. If you could change one or two things about today, what would they be?
Post-Workshop Evaluation (please consider all the workshop sessions)
1. As you consider all four sessions, what were the one or two most memorable pieces
for you and why?
Introductory segments
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A.
Municipal presentations and discussion
Tools for broad public engagement planning
Building your public engagement plan
Facilitator Manual | 123
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Post-Session Four And Post-Workshop Evaluation
2. Why did you join this workshop?
3. What did you get out of the workshop?
4. How important is engaging the public for the success of your stormwater
management program and why?
5. What are two or three public engagement strategies or activities you believe will be
particularly effective moving forward?
1)
2)
3)
124 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Session Four | Course Handout: Post-Session Four and Post-Workshop Evaluation
6. What are the top three challenges you face in engaging the public on stormwater
issues?
1)
2)
3)
7. What are the top three challenges you face in paving for stormwater management?
1)
2)
3)
8. Now that we are at the end of the workshop, what do you feel better equipped to
do than you did before joining the sessions?
9. Anything else you want the facilitator or organizers to know about your experience
in these sessions?
If you want to include your name, please feel free to add it here:
Facilitator Manual | 125
-------
-------
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo Journal
2
128 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo journal
9:00 AM
Introductions, workshop sessions
overview, ground rules, and agenda review
9:45
Visiting speaker presentation
10:15
Q&A with visiting speaker
10:45
BREAK
10:55
Municipal inventory of stormwater program
needs and costs
Session One
11:25
Review of stormwater program
needs and costs
11:45
LUNCH
12:15
Foundational principles of negotiation
theory for quality stakeholder engagement
1:00
Stakeholder mapping exercise
1:55
Next steps
2:10
Evaluations
2:15
Adjourn
3
KUIXS - Pulfi
I
i
* o
r. c."
» i mv* »<* F*
rtiMumwte pe^airuu^
11pprr i ;¦ rv
REVIEW GROUND RULES
-UftM Wfvi ortfRs a-
¦ VtrFAt i \ /$otc?.<;?, ,-c
iJ l^ixw, *
¦ Uow to flfi1CTTf)Ei,W'JIW&.
. VfcKC l*ft ¥ct T* nvmf MSf,
> |>mV ART FWLf
¦i>Mu wim t»Bnfiiiit|ir»en
< U kft OvnuDltli,' Cf h'fPT # '
Ptn', mi*'
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo Journal
l\i &ocp has
- cv*«pws
& o1^ o-Wne^ -fcwris / 5,\ki
IAjW \KJ^S °TF\^
01 -^-'lf v C f -v* 0 T,WfirfH? 6 ne\rp^
o fcewAo^ wMc* V • cwcil^ A W" wp* *"f ***s
J>oV\ ^aH^cUefs a^^t:fL ™ b
,. , lfe o |+ V^fceo dun V*fc*-
Q&A with visiting speaker
FACILITATOR TRACKS QUESTIONS & IDEAS FROM SPEAKER/PARTICIPANTS
4
| yjvwi off, +v. si?e«^
UJW*>T#V-P< f.Mf »
(VW»«WMlf plpfi
^ V1V ^ '~fj' 'HI-
k* -,>-W wrc*"
^ if m W *>
fV* 11 r rntv «P - .... 1
ww*k t-
.. , ttc
B Vvf.^n * *f **
1
5 m
r0 .
whf ujt
tV-rl'u.-,
It
firry-
OOCLMEN'
DISCUSSION
TjHEMES
W. nm-
SET UP THE EXERCISE
Municipal inventory ofSW
program needs & costs
130 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo journal
T
VyjVAO IS o\
m
e
„ bosses
c JpU^Kies^S
o oai^w^s
6
'CVw^c/riS
« uja+e^hfd c gjoapJ d\
f*WWWS fT* « oqU o*»4«-
Stakeholder mapping exercise
FACILITATOR ASKS PARTICIPANTS TO LIST STAKEHOLDERS & DOCUMENTS THEIR IDEAS
Aaat
' t
Uni\ref^iVi^
6 ^\oCVM CP*ndfcC-'
o SHej(^s
o 7 fee.
Vovuo
\f^ueW
Vcwj®^!
\jft\J0nK
A
V^UOXf
HE6T
we-
^E®>5
^Nt>
L£SS
T1N\E
E§p - -?
1 + +
$>H3V0
f {VfrSCToftCO
/'Jfiqbp mfluk-w
Int^T/sfate
'fl Outeovif.
/Sfflte to Outewie
Stakeholder mapping
exercise
I
Facilitator Manual | 131
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo Journal
9:00 AM
Welcome and Introductions
9:10
Reflections/questions from the last session
or fieldwork
9:20
Review and discuss stakeholder maps and
key questions
10:00
Crafting a great stakeholder interview
11:00
BREAK
Session Two 11:15
Active listening lecture and activity
12:10
LUNCH
12:40
Separating interests from positions
1:40
Final review of interview questions and
protocol
2:10
Evaluations
2:15
Adjourn
9
10
132 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo journal
Crafting a great
stakeholder interview
| NT CF€$T
Jo ty>u eJ, -jh* "tow^'5
c.w«mt ^ornikiAtcr iVnm«i) rue
AASi P«rn..t '-Ull
| ptrAllt faj
nature •{»>Jut)
Iv'3'«7
jo won Sa ^ 'J**! uw( tr
W IW ffliti? _
incnimj rt-iJ / pnKvfia: fonJ)
•f>. Oou I5SWS Gow,
,11Mb «l»» waiv/MWi•/iWiu.te'
isjuts m (nw« a«w -f«-<
i, ( ttou Wrf M ?
•%X3FW| "I"*', „
. „ . Utt, iff as 11* fctotta ¦**
•SaiSf^SE? £¦»
s. l«i -h»uw\?
• i\M- Ut ;¦< 4«
maW Ho-> J; wt i
• Witt w*- h wl"1!) * A
CoVtfKWV (Vl*l i
fall! fft».At«n«1tt
¦ WW <« 9" l |t?
«K ft
«$¦ a & £r
SNftuUftfesr
M+ W/rt t*
"If
At- 'sjttens.
- PrttpGSfcJ
C 'S+irWliMf*
on N\SU ^ie«mpefAENTS?
2) l/dadd be- wtensln) io
¦pctwihaI (ou^ivievi cppcp+vnifie^
0^som«) ^ *>3«pW\^ +owapds m/kM***
fawmwfflte miM
eecfC^^ wewli" lot
4V*e C-fcA, ase ^
"to
• " i .«> ¦ttw'p
ortent'iiWi^ sw«"^ ¦
s'pwrvrf
I?) ^ W<^«^ revA&ttj
MX tc**«k*e.\e <*& puW.c be«^
a^i -^Wfr-^ew-
^nvO > Vtcw-1 "iVX^ ft® Griped ^
\ k^ixw vv*a ^wwc Vi^y i«»mcv no
Welcome and introductions
Reflections/questions from the last session
or fieldwork
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A
Municipal progress report
BREAK
In Principle: Identifying hey interests and
themes using content analysis
In Practice: Identifying key interests and
themes using content analysis
LUNCH
Report out results from pre-lunch exercise
Making sense of feedback and connecting it
to your stormwater program
Review agenda and fieldwork for final
session
Evaluations
Adjourn
11
12
Facilitator Manual \ 133
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo Journal
13
>vVrVK'b> CugefefcES Yw* <¦'*'. 'I
MX* - ' '
0Kftef^«M)S r^V n^_. , % I I ,:V..vr
\p0^,_v'\ J S£fl?vj w rt
^ moW"
^ 6^^*^
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo journal
15
NG&S 1AA r
L>*l Bv fn-r
UTftf m«lnpi^
W L<#€S
QUESTUHfe
L
Ki^/Jur
w
ifw i Ml
'0(£
ih as" f
PKUlciputS
THAr EMER6e TrttoutHuHf
^ IWteMi
SuG-tesno^
Ot Dt«>UJ|tf
rHAr 6A*;
£>£ ^oweo
P05 I ft 0N<
frrlr,** f"' >*,
JZwtea,'.
Ju fi
C&seh*Ger
^ iKw
J
'oofa*
f. j> f tfir ¦'
V//» i//f £_
•/®
16
Facilitator Manual | 135
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo Journal
17
"TVWb
r (j )W V»c-
((jrWE^\tcp_ j
¦** tmmtfmp*
- b*ex#vt \ _,'lKu u
" ^ «i
~'T.
~t*Ml On VMrx
Ice nBucitei"7-
MUNICIPALITY 2
18
Report out results from pre-lunch exercise
136 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo journal
-
9:00 AM
Welcome and introductions
9:20
9:45
Visiting speaker presentation and Q&A
Presentations by municipal partners
10:50
BREAK
11:00
Presentations by municipal partners
12:00
LUNCH
Session Four
12:30
Tools for broad public engagement
planning (part 1)
12:45
> _
Tools for broad public engagement
planning (part z)
1:35
Parting comments
\ W
2:05
Evaluations
2:15
Adjourn
""V
19
Presentations by municipal partners
20
Facilitator Manual | 137
-------
Appendix A | Facilitator Guidance: Pilot Photo Journal
PARTICIPANTS NOTE WHAT THEY ARE DOING NOW
(BLACK) AND BRAINSTORM FUTURE IDEAS (RED)
DESCRIBE USE OF MAP FOR TYPES OF ENGAGEMENT
21
Using Tools to Plan for Public Engagement
Tools for Broad
Public Engagement
Planning
22
138 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Appendix B | Facilitator Guidance: Sample Email Communications
Facilitator Guidance
Sample Email Communications
Although not compulsory, the fieldwork components make this workshop more effective. There
will inevitably be varying levels of engagement in fieldwork. Municipal staff are busy and
moreover, some people procrastinate. Participants should not be chastised for failing to
complete fieldwork; however, in between sessions they should be invited and encouraged to
complete fieldwork as many times as needed! The value of frequent follow-ups cannot be
overstated. Participants will be asked to do work that is well outside of their comfort zones and
they will need positive encouragement and hand-holding. This is particularly important after
Session Two, when they will be planning and conducting interviews.
Below are sample emails the facilitator may use to communicate with participants about
participation in the series and about the fieldwork between sessions. The facilitator should feel
free to use all or pieces of these emails in their own communications. Individual follow-ups will
likely be needed in addition to these group emails.
PRE-SESSION ONE:
Hello all,
We are thrilled that you will be joining us for the 4-session workshop, "Getting Community Buy-
in for Stormwater Funding," starting on [date].
The participating municipalities include [list town/city names] — a great spread geographically
and in terms of demographics, local governance structures, and stormwater challenges. I have
already spoken with a few of you, and I am really looking forward to getting to know everyone.
Also, with such a diverse and interesting group (we have [list a few participants' roles, e.g., DPW
Director], to name a few), I am hopeful that you will benefit even more from learning from each
other than you do from the kernels of wisdom we provide through the workshop curriculum.
We are planning to start at 9:00 AM and end at 2:15 PM. Please plan to arrive a bit early so we
can start right on time and expect to put your phones away, so everyone's full attention is on
the workshop. In the morning of the first session, we will get to know one another, and I will
review the objectives of all four sessions and explain how they fit together. You will hear from
[visiting speaker] in the morning and you will take some time to reflect on the state of your
stormwater program as it stands currently. We will be using select resources from
https://www.mapc.org/resource-librarv/stormwater-financing-utilitv-starter-kit/ which I
encourage you to explore fully on your own time. In the afternoon, I will teach some
fundamental stakeholder engagement theory based in the field of negotiation. We will end the
day with each of you creating a stakeholder map, which you will then review with some of your
internal partners back home before the next session on [date],
[Provide location/directions/parking information & lunch availability]. All your materials will be
prepared for you when you arrive. Please find attached the agenda for Session One.
We are looking forward to seeing you on [date].
Facilitator Manual | 139
-------
Appendix B | Facilitator Guidance: Sample Email Communications
POST-SESSION ONE (FIRST WEEK OUT):
Send an encouraging reminder a few days after each session concludes. Re-state the fieldwork
assignment for the upcoming session, invite questions and clarifications, and encourage them to
send pieces of their work for review.
Hi everyone,
We had a great time with you all last week at our first session of the workshop "Getting
Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding." Thank you again for your time and the energy and
focus you put into the session. We hope you feel it was time well spent.
The next session is on [date], 9:00 AM - 2:15 PM in [location]. It's an exciting session. You will
use your revised stakeholder maps to determine whom you would like to interview, and you
and your colleague(s) will discuss and agree on a strategy and a set of interview questions.
I'll send more details closer to the date.
Please remember to review your stakeholder map with 2-3 trusted colleagues who were not in
the session. Here are a few questions you might ask them:
1) Are we missing anyone who you think should be on the map? (Remind them that you
want to include likely proponents AND opponents on your map).
2) Would you plot any of these people in a different location on this map?
3) Our next step is to interview a few people to learn what they think about the issues in
our community that are affected by stormwater management. Whom do you think we
should interview?
It is important that the people who review your map have different networks than you, and it's
preferable if they think differently about stormwater funding than you do. You should learn
something from these review conversations and have your knowledge/assumptions challenged,
not get a pat on the back for building a perfect map. Make sure you bring your revised map to
Session Two on [date].
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact [facilitator/organizer, phone number,
email],
PRE-SESSION TWO (A WEEK PRIOR):
Hi folks,
I am looking forward to seeing you on [Session Two date] for our second session in the
workshop series "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding."
Please see the attached agenda. Remember we are starting at 9:00 AM and ending at 2:15 PM.
Same location [or provide location details],
[Provide lunch details],
I hope you have enjoyed reviewing your stakeholder maps with colleagues who are not
attending the sessions, and that you have learned some interesting things in the process. If your
map is "done," meaning you have done all the work on it that you intend to do before Session
Two, will you take a photo or scan of the map and send it to me? It can be messy. I just need to
140 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Appendix B | Facilitator Guidance: Sample Email Communications
see all the maps before the session to prepare for our discussion. Please send by [set deadline a
day or before Session Two date].
Also, please take 15 minutes before [deadline] to fill out the attached worksheet titled
"Identify Key Stakeholders & Draft Interview Questions." Please do this individually, not as a
group with your colleagues. The worksheet will guide you to identify the 5-10 people you think
should be interviewed (individually or in small groups of 2-3 interviewees) between Sessions
Two and Three (consult your stakeholder map) and to articulate 1-3 questions you would like to
ask each of those people specifically (no need to write down questions you would like to ask
everyone—we will focus on those questions in Session Two). You can print the worksheet and
fill it out by hand or type your questions directly into the template. Either way, please send me
a copy by [deadline]. (You can just take a photo and send it if you fill it out by hand).
Thanks, and I'd be happy to answer any questions or review your maps or worksheets before
[deadline].
Also, please remember to bring your Participant Workbook binder with you to the next session.
POST-SESSION TWO (FIRST WEEK OUT):
Hi folks,
We covered quite a lot of ground in Session Two—thanks for having fun with it and for being
supportive of one another. I hope you enjoyed yourselves and found it useful as you prepare
for interviews in the next few weeks—I certainly feel you are ready to move forward.
Keep in mind that scheduling interviews will take longer than you think. As soon as possible
(today! before the end of the week!), I challenge you to send out your initial invitations to the
5-10 people (individuals or small groups) with whom you'd like to sit down with. You will find
sample language in the Participant Workbook, which you can use in emails, over the phone, or
in person - we want to make this as easy as possible for you.
As you wait for initial confirmations, get your interview template into shape (remember, plan for
10-12 questions per hour, plus an additional 1-2 questions tailored to each interviewee). Again,
feel free to pick and choose from any sample language and questions we have provided. Please
send your interview templates so I can review them—please do not hesitate to send drafts in
any shape or form. I am also happy to review your interview invitations or answer any
additional questions or concerns you have by email or phone. Once they've accepted your
initial invitation, be sure to send the template along so they know what to expect and confirm
with them that you would like to take notes. No surprises!
When you have a few conversations under your belt, please also send me a copy of your notes
so I can begin to prepare for our work in Session Three. I don't mind if they're messy, you can
just take a photo and send it if they are handwritten.
I very much look forward to hearing how it goes for you!
Facilitator Manual | 141
-------
Appendix B | Facilitator Guidance: Sample Email Communications
POST-SESSION TWO (THREE WEEKS OUT):
Ask for a progress update a little prior to mid-way between Session Two and Three. This way, any
stragglers have a chance to quickly schedule interviews if they have not already. Encourage
participants and invite them (a second time) to send pieces of their work for review.
Hello Stormwater Funding Interviewing Superstars,
I hope all is going well with your interviews! It is exciting and hard work, and I hope you're all
learning interesting and useful things in the process. Will one person from each municipality
send me a quick note with the following information? Please copy your colleagues.
1) Have you been able to complete any interviews yet? If so, how many?
2) Do you have more interviews scheduled? If so, how many?
3) Do you have any questions or concerns about getting your interviews done before
[Session Three date]?
As I mentioned in the last workshop, if you would like me to review your interview template,
I am happy to do that. Please feel free to call me if that is easier [include phone number].
Be sure to follow up with municipalities individually if they have not responded within a week.
Acknowledge their busy schedules or possible vacations. Do not hesitate to send another friendly
reminder requesting a progress update. This interim check-in is very important—if a municipality
has not yet scheduled any interviews at this point, there is still time for them to do some last-
minute scheduling. Not every municipality will be able to fit in 5-10 interviews; however, even 1
interview is better than zero! If you are not receiving any responses via email, pick up the phone
and give them a call. It is harder to ignore someone over the phone.
If a municipality is lagging behind with interviews, be prepared to work with them individually.
Make sure they feel comfortable regardless of what they were able to accomplish. Work
together to establish what they have done thus far, both in the sessions and prior to the sessions.
Then break down the work into smaller, achievable next steps. For example, work closely with
them to create a foolproof interview template. Then, they might start by scheduling a practice
interview or two with someone they know and trust, such as a stormwater funding proponent.
If possible, encourage them to next try scheduling an interview or two with someone they are
less familiar with. Send frequent reminders and encouragement. Once they have gotten over the
hurdle of the first few interviews, it becomes easier to do subsequent interviews.
PRE-SESSION THREE (TEN DAYS PRIOR):
It will be important to know what each municipality has accomplished before Session Two.
Participants will likely be in the midst of interviews at this point, and a reminder requesting notes
will help to spur along any last-minute progress.
Hi all,
I am looking forward to seeing you on [date] at [location] from 9:15 AM to 2:15 PM.
142 | Facilitator Manual
-------
Appendix B | Facilitator Guidance: Sample Email Communications
If you have not yet sent me notes from your interviews, please send them! No need to edit
them at all or make them pretty. If you took notes by hand, just take a photo and email the
photo to me.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call [include phone number],
PRE-SESSION THREE (THREE DAYS PRIOR):
Hi folks,
I am very much looking forward to seeing you on [date] at [location] from 9:15 AM to 2:15 PM.
You've put in a lot of hard work in the last few weeks, and as a result, I anticipate that Session
Three will be very productive for folks. If you have not yet sent your interview notes, PLEASE
THEM SEND ASAP (today!) (now!).
Please see the agenda attached. We are very pleased that [visiting speaker] will be able to join
us as a visiting speaker in the afternoon. Please remember to bring your Participant Workbook
binder with you to the next session.
[Lunch availability or information].
If a municipality is practicing avoidance tactics, continue to follow up individually.
If you've been unable to conduct interviews for any reason, it's fine. It will be interesting for the
group to hear about the challenges you've faced. However, please let me know ASAP so I can
plan for Session Three! There will be plenty of material to work with from other municipalities
and we look forward to seeing you in Session Three.
POST-SESSION THREE (FIRST WEEK OUT):
Hello all,
The next and final session is on [date], 9:00 AM - 2:15 PM in [location]. It's going to be a great
session because it's a chance to hear from each municipality.
Please remember the presentation is only 5 minutes and will be timed! It's a challenge to put
together an effective, short pitch but you may not get more than 5 minutes with an elected
official or in front of your board or council. We hope this will be a useful tool in the future, so be
sure to select a realistic audience and create the presentation as if for them—this is your chance
to workshop your presentation with like-minded people and to get some good feedback.
1) Please email me your intended audience in the next day or so (board/council,
appropriation committee, interest group, or other).
2) Please send me your slides (if you plan to use slides) by [deadline] so I can cue them up
the day of Session Four.
3) Take a good look at the Instructions - Municipal Stormwater Presentations (p. 51 in your
Workbooks). Use plenty of visuals, reduce slide text, tell your story, and make it
personal.
If you have any questions or would like feedback on your presentation product, please don't
hesitate to shoot me an email or call [include phone number].
Facilitator Manual | 143
-------
Appendix B | Facilitator Guidance: Sample Email Communications
PRE-SESSION FOUR (A WEEK PRIOR):
Hello folks,
I am very much looking forward to seeing you on [date] for our final session! We will be at
[location] from 9:15 AM to 2:15 PM.
Please see the attached agenda. A few things to note:
1) We are excited to have [speaker], join us as the visiting speaker for this session. S/he
participated in the workshops last year and will be sharing what s/he has done to move
forward on stormwater in [municipality] since then.
2) I'm looking forward to your presentations. Each municipality has five minutes to present
and then we'll discuss and give feedback for 10 minutes. I have scheduled [4
municipalities] first, then we'll take a short break and [4 municipalities] will finish us up.
Please let me know if any of you need to change the order for any reason. If you're
concerned about the presentation for any reason, please let me know ASAP. It's fine. I
just need to know what to plan for.
3) Please bring your stakeholder maps again. In the afternoon, we'll be returning to those
maps as we talk about a few new public engagement tools. Please also flip through the
sample public engagement plans briefly, if you have time.
4) Please bring your Participant Workbook binder with you to the next session.
POST-SESSION FOUR (A WEEK OUT):
Dear Workshop Participants:
Thank you for your participation in the "Getting Community Buy-in for Stormwater Funding"
workshop series over the last four months. Your knowledge and enthusiasm really brought the
entire process together, especially during our session last week. We hope that you found the
presentations useful; we certainly learned a lot by listening to your presentations and have an
even greater appreciation for the challenges and opportunities that you all face within your
municipalities.
Your involvement made this workshop an engaging, informative and useful experience for all
and we thank you for that, especially since we know how busy you all are. We hope that the
skills you learned will be helpful as you move forward engaging your stakeholders and finding
ways to finance stormwater management practices in your town.
It was truly a pleasure to meet you all.
144 | Facilitator Manual
------- |