Review the six building blocks for stronger participation in the infrastructure of education (Figure 4.3). Which are (or were) present in your school system? Were the activities conventional, thin, or thick? Which opportunities would you have liked to have had or would like to see now, and why?

Every participation program is based on the following six main building blocks: disseminating information, managing and acquiring data, discussing the connection between the groups, participating in neighborhood decision-making, participating in community activities, and encouraging public work. These six blocks construct the main structure of every participation program with changes according to the sector for which participation is designed. In the case study of Creighton Elementary School, the school involves parents in the parent-teacher combined education program. In this program, the parents are given coaching about their participation in the learning programs of students. The building block of data acquisition and management, as seen in this program, is about the child’s position in class and the whole class’s performance in subjects. The case study includes all six blocks of the participation program and shows an effective example of parents’ inclusion in the student’s education.

The students are provided education both in school and at their homes. This process involves parent-teacher meetings before the program, where parents are given guidance on their part in the program and how they implement the mathematics concepts at home. While students learn the concepts of mathematics in school, they implement these concepts at home when their parents apply these math skills. The parents are also given data on their student’s performance in the subject and their standing in the whole class. This method is effective due to the nature of parent inclusion in students’ learning in the program. The program can be improved if a concept of applied mathematics is added to the program. When students see the practical application of math concepts in their daily lives, their learning about the subject will increase drastically. This program required a large amount of planning and preparation before it could be applied practically. The parents were given tutorials and guidance on how they would implement these methods at home. Their coaching included all the processes on how the students will be accessed after the program. Future improvements can result in more efficient student learning and parent involvement in their children’s education.

Define patient compliance, patient engagement, and patient-centered care. How do they differ in terms of participation?

Patient compliance in the medical field is defined as the extent to which the patient sticks to his prescribed medicine. This factor needs the proper guidance of the patient’s doctor in terms of when and how the patient should keep his medicine schedule for quick improvement in health. This process needs a good patient-physician relationship as it totally depends on the patient’s satisfaction with physician care. Lack of trust in physician care, the incorrect hypothesis of disease, and less interest in the patient’s disease cure are all factors that contribute to patient compliance in the provision of care. The patient’s engagement in disease cure describes all the processes by which the patient can participate in his cure procedure. It includes a small personal assessment of health conditions like personal insulin level or blood pressure check and tracking of vital organs by observation of factors related to them. Patient engagement in their disease control and cure results in better outcomes of cure and early detection of anomalies that can lead to severe complications. If the patient regularly monitors his blood pressure, the chance of any heart attack or other cardiovascular complication can be reduced. The patient-centered care is provided by physicians, and it involves practices that are provided to patients other than their disease cure. These practices include listening to patient’s problems, informing them about their effective care, and their involvement in the curing process. This type of care respects the patient’s preferences and comfort and encourages the patient’s emotional support. The process involves patients’ families, too, and they are guided on how they can help in improving the patient’s physical as well as emotional self. All these three concepts differ in terms of their participation factor. The participation of the patient in the patient engagement procedure is maximum as the patient himself takes part in his disease cure. The concept of patient compliance may be less due to various trust issues and personal issues, and the patient may participate less in his cure. In the patient-centered cure, the patient does not directly participate in his cure. Rather, his physician helps him with information about his condition and involves his family in the program. However, it has been proved that a patient’s participation in his healthcare leads to the best results of any cure.

Summarize the current official settings for planning and land use at the neighborhood and community levels. How can participation at these levels be improved?

Public participation in the decisions about land use and planning of their neighborhood leads to a better living environment. This participation includes all processes that can improve the living standards of the neighborhood. Participation planning was done in the following areas: community visioning, planning for the development of the community, and major community zoning decisions. Good participation among the residents of the community can solve various problems without reliance on the government and can increase the overall status of a community. Community gatherings and meetings that are aimed at the benefit of the community and effective use of land can result in making centers for the community that serve as welfare for the community residents. The process can be started by asking the residents what they expect from the community leaders and what areas, according to them, need improvement in the community. Based on their answers, community leaders can conclude which area of the community needs improvement. To improve community participation in effective land use and planning processes, we can improve the participation infrastructure. The factors that can improve participation are as follows:

1. Community leaders have to set an example for the community and take the initiative by encouraging public participation in the policy-making decisions of the community. These community leaders should increase their participation network, include more and more people to participate in the community welfare programs, and spread positive vibes about the leadership of the community and the local government so that the people start trusting them and providing help as much as they can.
2. Effective use of six building blocks can cater to a lot of problems in participation programs before they even arise. These six building blocks provide a complete framework of how a participation program should be. They are applicable to any kind of participation program and provide effective methods of collecting and analyzing information, assessing and acquiring data, making decisions for neighborhoods and communities, and encouraging public participation. These methods, if applied effectively, can improve any kind of participation program. Their inclusion in land use and planning can provide a framework for improved community planning.
3. The use of a systematic approach to participation results in effective participation in land use and planning. These approaches include training and intervention of the local community, policy-making, professional skills development, funding, and budgeting methods.

What is the Open Government Directive? How does it promote public participation? What are the potential challenges in implementing this directive? Do you think it effectively encourages public participation?

The Open Government directive targets specific executive departments to implement methods of transparency, collaboration, and participation of various federal government agencies. The goals of this directive are to publish government information online, improve the quality of online content related to government, promote the culture of open government, and devise a framework for the open government plan. The directive is aimed at promoting public participation by encouraging agencies to publish government plans and increasing people’s knowledge about government decisions. Public engagement increases government effectiveness, and decisions are clearly declared in society. It encourages the common public to participate in government policy-making and take feedback from them on how they can improve their services and increase participation.

Public participation in open government plans faces some challenges due to the ineffective strategy of public inclusion in the policies. The public participation methods are difficult to develop, understand and implement. Most of all the policymakers who are responsible for public inclusion in the plans have less idea of how this plan works. Also, the government has given more emphasis on transparency and uploading of government data online as compared to public participation in government decisions.

The Open government plan though had public participation as one of its main emphasis factors initially but the government doesn’t seem to have practically included public participation in the plan of transparency or government data correction online. The plan has not given the opportunity to common people to participate in government policymaking. The reason behind this ineffectiveness is the challenges that restrict proper participation due to the understanding of the process and difficult methods of application of the participation plan.

References

Frank, L., Forsythe, L., Ellis, L., Schrandt, S., Sheridan, S., Gerson, J., … & Daugherty, S. (2015). Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Quality of Life Research, 24(5), 1033-1041.

Lourenço, R. P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323-332.

Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st-century democracy. John Wiley & Sons.