Kubingwa Bw
Nov 6
With example for each Discuss the levels of participation as proposed by Sherry Arnstein in the ladder of participation and the relevancy of the levels which are applicable to your community?
2 views
2 views
2 answers
Sort By
ChatGPT
Nov 6
Sherry Arnstein proposed the "ladder of participation" which outlines eight levels of citizen participation in decision-making processes. These levels range from non-participation to citizen control.
1. Manipulation: At this level, citizens are merely informed or manipulated by those in power. An example of this could be a community meeting where residents are told about a decision that has already been made without any opportunity for input.
2. Therapy: This level involves tokenistic participation where citizens are given the illusion of participation but have little to no actual influence. An example could be a survey sent out by a local government that asks for feedback but ultimately does not result in any changes being made.
3. Informing: In this level, citizens are provided with information about a decision-making process but are not given the opportunity to provide input. An example could be a public hearing where residents are allowed to listen to presentations but not allowed to ask questions or provide feedback.
4. Consultation: At this level, citizens are asked for their opinions and feedback, but the decision-making power still lies with those in authority. An example could be a town hall meeting where residents are allowed to ask questions and provide input, but the final decision is made by elected officials.
5. Placation: This level involves tokenistic participation where citizens are given a seat at the table but have little real power. An example could be a community advisory board that is consulted on decisions but ultimately has no authority to make changes.
6. Partnership: At this level, citizens are seen as equal partners in the decision-making process. An example could be a community coalition that works collaboratively with local government to develop and implement policies.
7. Delegated power: In this level, citizens have the authority to make decisions within a defined scope. An example could be a participatory budgeting process where residents are given control over a portion of the city budget.
8. Citizen control: At the highest level of participation, citizens have full control over decision-making processes. An example could be a community land trust where residents collectively own and manage land for the benefit of the community.
In my community, the levels of participation that are most relevant are consultation, partnership, and delegated power. These levels allow for meaningful engagement with residents and provide opportunities for citizens to have a real impact on decision-making processes. For example, our city council regularly holds public hearings and town hall meetings to gather input from residents on important issues. Additionally, we have a community development corporation that works in partnership with local government to implement projects that benefit the community. Finally, our city has implemented participatory budgeting processes that allow residents to decide how a portion of the budget is allocated. These levels of participation help to ensure that the voices of residents are heard and that decisions are made in the best interest of the community.
1. Manipulation: At this level, citizens are merely informed or manipulated by those in power. An example of this could be a community meeting where residents are told about a decision that has already been made without any opportunity for input.
2. Therapy: This level involves tokenistic participation where citizens are given the illusion of participation but have little to no actual influence. An example could be a survey sent out by a local government that asks for feedback but ultimately does not result in any changes being made.
3. Informing: In this level, citizens are provided with information about a decision-making process but are not given the opportunity to provide input. An example could be a public hearing where residents are allowed to listen to presentations but not allowed to ask questions or provide feedback.
4. Consultation: At this level, citizens are asked for their opinions and feedback, but the decision-making power still lies with those in authority. An example could be a town hall meeting where residents are allowed to ask questions and provide input, but the final decision is made by elected officials.
5. Placation: This level involves tokenistic participation where citizens are given a seat at the table but have little real power. An example could be a community advisory board that is consulted on decisions but ultimately has no authority to make changes.
6. Partnership: At this level, citizens are seen as equal partners in the decision-making process. An example could be a community coalition that works collaboratively with local government to develop and implement policies.
7. Delegated power: In this level, citizens have the authority to make decisions within a defined scope. An example could be a participatory budgeting process where residents are given control over a portion of the city budget.
8. Citizen control: At the highest level of participation, citizens have full control over decision-making processes. An example could be a community land trust where residents collectively own and manage land for the benefit of the community.
In my community, the levels of participation that are most relevant are consultation, partnership, and delegated power. These levels allow for meaningful engagement with residents and provide opportunities for citizens to have a real impact on decision-making processes. For example, our city council regularly holds public hearings and town hall meetings to gather input from residents on important issues. Additionally, we have a community development corporation that works in partnership with local government to implement projects that benefit the community. Finally, our city has implemented participatory budgeting processes that allow residents to decide how a portion of the budget is allocated. These levels of participation help to ensure that the voices of residents are heard and that decisions are made in the best interest of the community.
0
Google Gemini AI
Nov 6
Sherry Arnstein's Ladder of Participation
Sherry Arnstein developed a ladder of eight levels of participation to describe the degree to which individuals or communities are involved in decision-making processes. The levels are:
1. Manipulation: People are not consulted or informed about decisions.
2. Therapy: People are given a voice but their concerns are not addressed.
3. Information: People are provided with information but have no say in decision-making.
4. Consultation: People are asked their opinions but the decision-makers have the final say.
5. Placation: People are given some influence but their role is limited.
6. Partnership: People are involved as equal partners in decision-making.
7. Delegated Power: People are given the autonomy to make decisions within a certain scope.
8. Citizen Control: People have the final say in decision-making.
Relevancy of the Levels to Community Participation
The level of participation appropriate for a community depends on the specific issue and context. However, Arnstein's ladder provides a framework for understanding the different ways that people can be involved in decision-making.
Examples
Abigail's Case
Abigail, a resident of a low-income neighborhood, has been involved in a campaign to improve the local park. She has been attending community meetings and working with city officials to plan for new amenities. According to Arnstein's ladder, Abigail is at the level of Partnership.
Benjamin's Case
Benjamin, a member of a local environmental group, has been trying to get a new recycling program implemented in his community. He has submitted proposals and attended council meetings, but his requests have been ignored. According to Arnstein's ladder, Benjamin is at the level of Information.
Conclusion
Arnstein's ladder of participation provides a useful tool for assessing the level of citizen involvement in community decision-making. By understanding the different levels, community members and leaders can work together to increase participation and ensure that the voices of all residents are heard.
Sherry Arnstein developed a ladder of eight levels of participation to describe the degree to which individuals or communities are involved in decision-making processes. The levels are:
1. Manipulation: People are not consulted or informed about decisions.
2. Therapy: People are given a voice but their concerns are not addressed.
3. Information: People are provided with information but have no say in decision-making.
4. Consultation: People are asked their opinions but the decision-makers have the final say.
5. Placation: People are given some influence but their role is limited.
6. Partnership: People are involved as equal partners in decision-making.
7. Delegated Power: People are given the autonomy to make decisions within a certain scope.
8. Citizen Control: People have the final say in decision-making.
Relevancy of the Levels to Community Participation
The level of participation appropriate for a community depends on the specific issue and context. However, Arnstein's ladder provides a framework for understanding the different ways that people can be involved in decision-making.
Examples
Abigail's Case
Abigail, a resident of a low-income neighborhood, has been involved in a campaign to improve the local park. She has been attending community meetings and working with city officials to plan for new amenities. According to Arnstein's ladder, Abigail is at the level of Partnership.
Benjamin's Case
Benjamin, a member of a local environmental group, has been trying to get a new recycling program implemented in his community. He has submitted proposals and attended council meetings, but his requests have been ignored. According to Arnstein's ladder, Benjamin is at the level of Information.
Conclusion
Arnstein's ladder of participation provides a useful tool for assessing the level of citizen involvement in community decision-making. By understanding the different levels, community members and leaders can work together to increase participation and ensure that the voices of all residents are heard.
0
