thinking tool.

Credit: Sherry Arnstein BEd MAC (1930-1997)

Summary:

Arnstein’s Ladder (pictured below) is presented as a metaphorical ladder, with each ascending rung representing increased levels of citizen agency, control, and power in decision making. On the left of the image below is a continuum of participatory power. Arnstein included these descriptions, ranging from non-participation (no power)  through tokenism (counterfeit power) to actual citizen power.

Real world application:

As State Manager responsible for the Launceston Tamar Valley Communities for Children initiative from 2010-2016, I was responsible for the distribution of approximately $700,000 per annum in grants for children’s programs. At the commencement of my tenure in the program the ‘decision making board’ that resolved which entities would be funded was a select group of funding recipients. Although they were seeking to represent the children and families in their charge they were conflicted and the families had no real voice in the process (except a token parent representative effectively fulfilling rung 1 of the ladder). Initially I resolved the conflict of interest issue by ensuring those that received funds played no role in the decision making process. However, following further research on strategies to democratise the process and honour the voices of children and their families I applied Arnstein’s Ladder to progressively align the decision making process with “consultation” (rung 4), then evolve it to “placation” (rung 5), then “partnership” (rung 6) and eventually “delegated power” (rung 7). Rung 8, “citizen control” could not be enacted given our arrangement with the Commonwealth funding body,  however we did establish “community committees” made up of citizens in each of the six suburbs/communities we served. It was their input, and direct involvement in the decision making process that resolved where and how funds would be spent. The committees developed at different speed, and confidence and competence of some developed faster than others, however actual power was redistributed – it was taken from the conflicted entities, and away from bodies claiming to represent families, and put with the actual families/neighbours who would benefit from the funds and earmarked services. There was some attempt to capture the voices of children in this process too. An art project identifying the wishes of children for their communities through drawing and painting was conducted (rung 4).

Concept detail:

Arnstein argues that genuine citizen participation in decision making requires a reallocation of power, particularly in the form of decision making authority. In the absence of any reallocation of power the status quo can be preserved as power-holders can claim all sides have been considered, but make it possible for only some of those sides to benefit. Arnstein was interested in redistributing power, particularly to those citizens traditionally and presently excluded from the political and economic decision making process.

The eight rungs (as described on the Organizing Engagement website) are:

1. Manipulation

An “illusory” form of participation, manipulation occurs when public institutions, officials, or administrators mislead citizens into believing they are being given power in a process that has been intentionally manufactured to deny them power. In Arnstein’s words: “In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on rubber stamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of ‘educating’ them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by powerholders.”

2. Education

Participation as education (or therapy as it was originally labelled) occurs when public officials and administrators “assume that powerlessness is synonymous with mental illness,” and they create pseudo-participatory programs that attempt to convince citizens that they are the problem when in fact it’s established institutions and policies that are creating the problems for citizens. In Arnstein’s words: “What makes this form of ‘participation’ so invidious is that citizens are engaged in extensive activity, but the focus of it is on curing them of their ‘pathology’ rather than changing the racism and victimization that create their ‘pathologies.’”

3. Informing

While Arnstein acknowledges that informing “citizens of their rights, responsibilities, and options can be the most important first step toward legitimate citizen participation,” she also notes that “too frequently the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information—from officials to citizens—with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation…meetings can also be turned into vehicles for one-way communication by the simple device of providing superficial information, discouraging questions, or giving irrelevant answers.” In informing situations, citizens are “intimidated by futility, legalistic jargon, and prestige of the official” to accept the information provided as fact or endorse the proposals put forward by those in power.

4. Consultation

Similarly, Arnstein notes that “inviting citizens’ opinions, like informing them, can be a legitimate step toward their full participation.” However, when consultation processes “not combined with other modes of participation, this rung of the ladder is still a sham since it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into account. The most frequent methods used for consulting people are attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings. When power holders restrict the input of citizens’ ideas solely to this level, participation remains just a window-dressing ritual. People are primarily perceived as statistical abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings, take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have ‘participated in participation.’ And what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving ‘those people.’”

5. Placation

Participation as placation occurs when citizens are granted a limited degree of influence in a process, but their participation is largely or entirely tokenistic: citizens are merely involved only to demonstrate that they were involved. In Arnstein’s words: “An example of placation strategy is to place a few hand-picked ‘worthy’ poor on boards of Community Action Agencies or on public bodies like the board of education, police commission, or housing authority. If they are not accountable to a constituency in the community and if the traditional power elite hold the majority of seats, the have-nots can be easily outvoted and outfoxed.”

6. Partnership

Participation as partnership occurs when public institutions, officials, or administrators allow citizens to negotiate better deals, veto decisions, share funding, or put forward requests that are at least partially fulfilled. In Arnstein’s words: “At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and powerholders. They agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, planning committees, and mechanisms for resolving impasses. After the groundrules have been established through some form of give-and-take, they are not subject to unilateral change.” Arnstein does note, however, that in many partnership situations, power is not voluntarily shared by public institutions, but rather taken by the citizens through actions such as protests, campaigns, or community organizing.

7. Delegated Power

Participation as delegated power occurs when public institutions, officials, or administrators give up at least some degree of control, management, decision-making authority, or funding to citizens. For example, a citizen board or corporation that is tasked with managing a community program, rather than merely participating in a program managed by a city, would be an example of delegated power. In Arnstein’s words: “At this level, the ladder has been scaled to the point where citizens hold the significant cards to assure accountability of the program to them. To resolve differences, powerholders need to start the bargaining process rather than respond to pressure from the other end.”

8. Citizen Control

Participation as citizen control occurs, in Arnstein’s words, when “participants or residents can govern a program or an institution, be in full charge of policy and managerial aspects, and be able to negotiate the conditions under which ‘outsiders’ may change them.” In citizen-control situations, for example, public funding would flow directly to a community organization, and that organization would have full control over how that funding is allocated.