public deliberation and action: key findings elena fagotto senior research associate john f. kennedy...

Public Deliberation and Action: Key Findings

Elena FagottoSenior Research Associate

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University(Archon Fung, PI, Funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation)

2006 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation

San Francisco - August 4-6, 2006

NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 2

Agenda…

1. Welcome, introductions and groundrules2. What this workshop is about3. Scope and design of research4. Embeddedness hypothesis5. Cases in brief6. Deliberative entrepreneurs7. Embedding deliberation 8. Deliberation to action


1. Welcome, introductions and groundrules

Welcome Round of introductions, why we are here Groundrules:

Interrupt and ask if concept unclear Respect for other participants Sharing finding of research but also

opportunities for participation


2. What this workshop is about: learning objectives

Together, we will explore: the connections between deliberation and public action how deliberation can influence public policy and

institutions the concept of “embedded deliberation” and how it can

sustain action ideas to maximize the impact of deliberation

We will NOT talk about: A specific deliberative process or technique Deliberation’s impact on individuals (personal change) Deliberation in the context of conflict resolution


3. Scope and design of research

Case studies to document of intentional deliberation and local decision-making

Conceptual framework of embeddedness: how non-deliberative practices and institutions are affected by deliberative events

Connections between deliberation, embeddedness and action


Scope and design of research (continued)

Case Selection Begin with national organizations: NIF, Study

Circles Identify “robust” deliberative initiatives Qualitative case study approach

Analysis of data and relevant materials Interviews Participation in trainings/observation of deliberative

events


Scope and design of research (continued)

Case study objectives Explain origins Characterize deliberative initiative — issues,

participants, problems addressed, exclusions and conflicts, decisions and outcomes

Connections between deliberative initiative and community institutions & organizations (embeddedness)

Actions that resulted from deliberation


What is Embedded Deliberation: Iterated use of public deliberation by groups, organizations, public institutions

Indicators of embeddedness:

Adaptation of deliberative models to address local issues

Adoption of public deliberation to advance specific objectives

Repeated use of public deliberation overtime

4. The Embeddedness Hypothesis

Hypothesis: Embedded deliberation is more likely to lead to action


The Embeddedness Hypothesis (continued)



“Completed” cases West Virginia, NIF South Dakota IIF Hawai’i, NIF, state

legislators Connecticut Community

Conversations Kuna, ID, Study Circles Portsmouth, NH, Study

Circles

Cases in progress Kansas City, KS, Study

Circles Montgomery County, MD,

Study Circles

5. Cases in Brief


Cases in Brief: West Virginia’s Forums

WV Center for Civic life, est. mid 1990s Betty Knighton, a strong local leader NIF model adapted for local framing Partnership with local organizations

Forums on domestic violence Forums on underage drinking University of Charleston, WV Local campuses


Cases in Brief: SD Indigenous Issues Forums Initiative to create a safe space to talk

about challenging tribal issues Dialogues in circle, using art, Native

American tradition More about process than issue Objective is personal transformation

and building relationship with other institutions, not policy change or action

Local partnerships and international work


Cases in Brief: Public Deliberation in Hawai’i

Public Policy Forums @ University of Hawai’i Some local framing Sen. Les Ihara: a local champion of deliberation Connection with State Legislators

Keiki Caucus, 15 years of deliberation Stakeholders provide input for public policies around children issues Year-round process, Keiki Summit (children, citizens) Creation of shared agenda, cross advocacy Legislative package


Cases in Brief: CT Community Conversations on Education

Since 1997, 6,000+ participants, 80+ communities Sponsored by local foundation, managed by LWV Requires large coalitions of conveners Emphasis on action and follow-up Some communities held numerous conversations Schools incorporate community input


6. How deliberation starts…Deliberative entrepreneurs

They identify a gap in the “market” for public deliberation

Needs: Engage citizens in public sphere

Public institutions and civil society organizations can use public deliberation as problem solving tool Public deliberation to provide input for policy-making

In most cases, “deliberative entrepreneurs” are crucial for the promotion of public deliberation


Deliberative entrepreneurs (continued)

Demand

• Citizens• Organizations• Policy-makers

Supply

• National Networks

• Deliberative Entrepreneurs

Short term: Identify appropriate spaces for deliberation

Long term: Create a culture of deliberation

GOALS



National networks

Deliberative entrepreneurs

Deliberative catalysts

Local institutional support



Deliberative entrepreneur

Deliberative catalyst

Local institutional support

Betty Knighton, WV, NIF West Virginia Center for Civic Life

University of Charleston

Ruth Yellow Hawk, SD

IIF

Indigenous Issues Forums

Limited

Dolores Foley, Les Ihara, Suzanne Chun-Oakland, HI, NIF, stakeholder engagement

Hawaii Public Policy Forums

University of Hawai’i, Hawai’i state legislators

Graustein Memorial Fund, Public Agenda

Connecticut Community Conversations

Graustein Memorial Fund, League of Women Voters



Discussion Points:

How do we support and cultivate deliberative entrepreneurs?

Only deliberative entrepreneurs or other strategies to bring deliberation to a community?

Strategies to “sell” public deliberation with community, institutions etc.

Other


7. Embedding deliberationAdapting Deliberation

for Local IssuesDeliberation to

Advance Objectives of Organizations

Repeated Use Overtime

West Virginia

Working families, opportunities for young adults

Curb domestic violence, underage drinking; local universities

University of Charleston

South Dakota

Tribal Language conservation, development on reservation

Some local partnerships Limited

Hawai’i Choosing a future for Hawaii, Democratic caucus retreat

Keiki Caucus to provide input to legislators

Keiki Caucus, 15 years

Connecticut Students time, school budget, gay teens

CT DOE to test early childcare needs, other local organizations

Bridgeport, since 1997 over 40 conversations, 1000+ people


Why embed public deliberation? Relevance: importance of topic, urgency of

certain issues (school, safety) Ownership: internalizing deliberation as an

adaptable problem-solving tool Positive dialogue: deliberation as an

alternative to traditional, more contentious meetings

Embedding deliberation (continued)



Six sponsors with institutional capacity Diverse planning committee Engaging key “observers” How deliberation is structured…from identifying

problems to “what can we do about it” Focus on follow up after deliberation and action

(setting date, compiling notes…) Grants for alumni Obstacles and how to face them

Intentional embeddedness: embedding deliberation by design



Because high investment required, organizers “own” Community Conversations

Topic chosen is highly relevant to form local coalition Organizers have incentives to maximize outcome, do

follow-up work Deliberation is “different” kind of meeting, new process

to engage citizens, positive experience to try again Some communities, like Bridgeport, “get it” and use

conversations overtime, creating critical mass Q & A


Discussion Points:

Best strategies to embed deliberation? Focus on design Deliberative entrepreneurs Local alliances

Are there best venues for embeddedness? Are there best environments for deliberation and

embeddedness (small town, more social capital…)

Other



8. Deliberation to Action

Difficult to isolate impact of public deliberation, can provide public input, build momentum

Action in four arenas: collective action public policy organizations and institutions personal transformation



Without embeddedness…

Deliberation to Action (continued)

Deliberative Entrepreneur

Deliberative Forum

Action

Our Findings: Collective action (no evidence) Impact on public policy (presentation of forum outcomes, limited impact) Impact on organizations and institutions (no evidence) Personal transformation (some evidence from IIF, not within our scope)


Deliberation to Action(continued)

Deliberative Entrepreneur

Deliberative Forum

Local orgs. & inst. act collectively

Embed Deliberation in local orgs.

& inst.

With embeddedness…

Our Findings: Collective action (Clarksburg, WV, various in CT) Impact on public policy (Keiki Caucus, HI, various in CT) Impact on organizations and institutions (WV forums on domestic violence and underage drinking, impact on schools in CT)


Because organizers “own” and “invest” in deliberation, embeddedness can lead to sustained action

For example…• Bridgeport, CT• Keiki Caucus, HI• Clarksburg, WV




Discussion Points: Are there other “action” spheres, paths? Beyond embeddedness, other strategies to

stimulate action? How to measure the impact of public

deliberation? Other…


Conclusions

Next steps with research Other areas that we should investigate How research can support your work Other Evaluation of workshop

public deliberation and action: key findings elena fagotto senior research associate john f. kennedy...

Documents

action ncdd conference

national conference

actionncdd conference

deliberationncdd conference

participationncdd conference

public action

deliberative eventsconnections

public policy