Seattle’s Youth and Families Initiative

Structure, successes, and opportunities for improvement

Overview

• Announced in the Mayor’s inaugural address• Modeled after Norm Rice’s Education Summit• Long planning process involving both City

employees and community members• Mayor’s Office and Office for Education were

the leads for planning and execution• Over 3,000 people attended a meeting

between February 22nd and the middle of May

Overview, pt. 2

• Data was sorted into broad categories in May• The Kids and Families Congress on June 5th

was the culmination of the initial public engagement portion of the Initiative

Structure

• Two sizes of meeting: – 6 large group workshops (220-375 ppl each)

• Managed by MO & OFE directly

– 131 community caucuses (10-50 ppl each)• Contracted out to two sources:

– League of Education Voters (112 meetings)– Planning Outreach Liaisons through DoN (19 meetings)

• Regardless of meeting size, participants broken down into small groups of 10-15 ppl, each with a dedicated facilitator & recorder

• Facilitated discussion leading to 5 priorities from each group

Structure, p. 2

• 1 delegate chosen per group for the Kids and Families Congress on June 5th

• Delegates re-convened at the Congress and helped us narrow over 1,200 priorities into 45– See handout

• Material was presented to the delegates in the closing session the same day, reaction was overwhelmingly positive

Successes

• Meaningful engagement of historically underrepresented communities– Explicit goal of the Initiative as it was being planned– Great outreach assistance from a wide variety of City and

community partners– Conscious outreach to non-English speakers through the POL’s– Intentional outreach by LEV to specific groups

• Community caucus model– Open call for hosts helped turn around “my group wasn’t

included” into a positive relationship with the City– Allowed us to reach groups that don’t traditionally come to

community meetings

Successes, p. 2• Small-group facilitation (vs. a town hall structure)

– Allowed for a rich dialogue while still giving us control of the format of the conversation

– Allowed everyone to participate and let them see how their input was being carried forward

– Allowed uniformity between large group workshops and community caucuses—the small-group experience was structurally similar regardless of the size of the meeting someone attended

• Using volunteer facilitators– Gave highly engaged individuals a deeper sense of ownership of the Initiative – Helped facilitators build new relationships with each other and with the

Mayor’s Office• Why I’m here today (Kyla and Harla)

– Saved taxpayer money in difficult budget times

Successes, p. 3

• The Delegate/Congress structure– Allowed attendees to see that their input really was being

carried forward– Gave us precise information about who was coming to the

Congress, allowing for a greater level of organization– Provided both a ready-made list of highly engaged

individuals and a concrete activity through which to increase their engagement and re-commit them to the Initiative

– Left us with a concrete, 4-page document that can accurately be said to represent a distillation of the input we received from over 3,000 people

Successes, p. 4

• High quality data:– Attendee sign-in sheets

• Allowed for E-mail follow-up by small group the day after each large group workshop

• Allowed for good contact with delegates leading up to the Congress• Created an easy mechanism for high-quality follow-up to relay results and

ongoing next steps

– Priorities from the groups• Available online for anyone to see, participants or otherwise

– Allowed participants to verify that their priorities were accurately represented– Allowed delegates to review their groups’ priorities– Also allows outside groups/individuals to review the outcomes of the Initiative

• Sorted by group as well as by category– Allows for ongoing targeted follow-up opportunities by the Mayor’s Office (e.g.,

high utility rates)

Opportunities for improvement

• Initial delay in contacting delegates– No information other than date and general

location (Seattle Center) given to delegates when they were elected

– Decision was made to wait to contact delegates until categories had been finalized (for breakout purposes)• No delegate-specific communication until May• Some delegates were elected in late February

Opportunities for improvement, p. 2

• “Priorities” data from 5 community caucuses didn’t make it into the system in time for inclusion at the Congress– Unfortunately, mostly very enthusiastic early

groups who submitted results before we had an official intake system in place

– Breakdown in communications between Mayor’s Office and community caucus contractor

Opportunities for improvement, p. 3

• Lack of participation north of the ship canal– Large-group workshop location determined this

somewhat– Participation in community caucuses in the north

was weaker than expected, though

Opportunities for improvement, p. 4

• Inconsistent short-term follow-up between large-group workshops and community caucuses– Getting data back from community caucus groups

was often a lengthy process– No clear short-term follow-up expectations set

during planning phase– Non-English follow-up wasn’t built into the POL

contracts and had to be added later

Q&A