The Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Slides available at:www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger

Guides:http://bit.ly/M1pvMp

http://bit.ly/iwjgqn

How much experience do you have with public engagement? (a quick poll)

A. Quite experienced with face-to-face engagement

B. Quite experienced with online engagementC. Quite experienced with bothD. Some experience, mainly with face-to-face

engagementE. Just beginning

The big picture: Two impacts of the Internet

1. Empowering individual citizens (web, email – wrapped up in other changes)

2. Empowering citizen groups (Facebook, Twitter, other social media)

First impact: How have citizens* changed?

More educated More skeptical – different attitudes toward

authority Have less time to spare Better able to find resources, allies, information

* “citizens” = residents, people

Second impact allows for new forms of engagement

More sustained Larger, more diverse numbers of people Easier for ‘engagers’ – recruitment doesn’t

have to start from scratch More open to ideas from the ‘engaged’ Need joint planning for engagement

infrastructure – not just tools

What is not changing

Need for face-to-face relationships Need for an overall engagement plan Importance of partnering with other groups,

organizations, institutions

Questions or comments?

Successful recent public engagement tactics

Proactive about recruitment Bringing diverse perspectives together Sharing experiences Giving people chance to make up their own minds

(deliberative) Different levels of action: volunteers, teams,

organizations, policy decisions Increasing use of online tools

Successful tactic: Proactive recruitment

Map community networks;

Involve leaders of those networks;

Hold a kickoff meeting;

Follow up, follow up, follow up.

Successful tactic: Small-group processes

No more than 12 people per group;

Facilitator who is impartial (doesn’t give opinions);

Can be online or face-to-face (or both)

Successful tactic: Framing an issue

Provide an agenda or guide that:

Begins by asking people to talk about why they care about this issue or question

Gives them the information they need, in ways they can absorb and use it

Lays out several options or views (including ones you don’t agree with)

Ends with questions that get people to plan what they want to do (not just what they want you to do)

Successful tactic: Many levels of action

Successful tactic: Online tools

Particularly good for: Providing background information Data gathering by citizens Generating and ranking ideas Helping people visualize options Maintaining connections over time

Digital divides (plural)

Overall, Internet access growing “Access” – to Internet, to government – has

never been enough Different people use different hardware Different people go to different places on the

Internet Communities just as complex online as off –

recruitment must be proactive

Common mistakes Treating Internet as a one-way medium Not enough recruitment Transparency without proactive engagement Gathering ideas and not implementing them

Questions or comments?

Does this presentation match your experiences with public engagement?

(a quick poll)

A. Yes, this fits with my experienceB. No, it doesn’t fitC. In some ways it does, in some ways it

doesn’tD. I really don’t have enough experience yet

to judge

“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario

• Began in 2009

• North West Ontario Local Health Integration Network, Ascentum

• Issue: health care planning and improvement of health care services

• 800 participants

• Received IAP2 award

“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario

Element 1 – Online choicebook that provided background information and data, described main options

“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario

Element 2 – Online “stories and ideas” tool that allowed people to share experiences, solutions

“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario

Element 3 – Conversation guide for face-to-face, moderated small-group meetings

“Decatur Next” Decatur, Georgia

Large-scale planning efforts in 2000, 2010

Initial Organizer: city government and a local nonprofit (Common Focus)

Issues: schools, race, growth

450 participants in 2000, 680 in 2010 (city of 17,000)

“Decatur Roundtables” Decatur, Georgia

Outcomes: Decatur Neighborhood Alliance Promotion of tax abatement plan for seniors,

other anti-displacement efforts Less tension between different groups New model for land use decisions Extensive citizen input into city’s strategic plan

Successes, limitations of engagement so far

Successes: Making policy decisions, planningCatalyzing citizen actionBuilding trustFostering new leadership

Challenges: Time-consuming (especially recruitment)Unsustainable (usually not intended to be)Meets goals of ‘engagers,’ not ‘engaged’Doesn’t change the institutionsLimited impact on equityTrust, relationships fade over time

Questions or comments?

1. Sustain the benefits2. Allow the ‘engaged’ to set the agenda3. Better address inequities 4. Increase community attachment and economic

growth5. Increase residents’ sense of legitimacy and

“public happiness”

Why plan for more sustainable kinds of engagement?

Community engagement planners should consider some key building blocks:

Resources

• www.participedia.net• www.deliberative-democracy.net• www.soulofthecommunity.org • www.everydaydemocracy.org• www.publicagenda.org• www.kettering.org• On Facebook: “Deliberative Democracy

Consortium” group page• The Next Form of Democracy

Resources (continued)

• On YouTube: the DDC channel• Using Online Tools to Engage – and Be

Engaged by – the Public at http://bit.ly/iwjgqn

• Planning for Stronger Local Democracy at bit.ly/M1pvMp – and other resources at www.nlc.org

Questions or comments?