Monthly Archives: August 2014

NIF for the Skilled Facilitator: An NCDD 2014 Pre-Conference Training

Posted on by
Reply

Join Craig Paterson of the California NIF Network, Patty Dineen of the National Issues Forums Institute and Pennsylvania NIF and others (TBA) on Thursday, October 16 for a 6-hour workshop on moderating National Issues Forums to your skill set.

NIF-logoThis session, titled NIF for the Skilled Facilitator, is designed for experience facilitators who would like to add National Issues Forums to their répertoire. The aim of this workshop is to expand the use of NIF, grow the NIF network and, of course, add another ‘tool’ to the experienced facilitator’s dialogue and deliberation toolkit.

NIF is known for its amazing issue books and skilled “issue framing,” and for its close relationship with the Kettering Foundation. Check out many NIF resources in NCDD’s Resource Center on NIFI or visit the NIFI site at www.nifi.org for more information.

A modest fee of $25.00 will be charged to cover food and materials. The group will be intentionally kept small, with a maximum of 25 participants.

Please add this to your calendar if you’re interested — and make your travel plans for the 2014 NCDD conference accordingly. (You’ll want to arrive on Wednesday, October 15th if you’re flying in.)  A registration form will be online soon; just keep an eye on the conference schedule page.

Questions about the pre-conference workshop? Contact Nancy Gansneder at njg5w@virginia.edu.

Participatory Budgeting Expands in NYC for ’14 – ’15

Posted on by
Reply

We are excited to share the announcement from our friends with the Participatory Budgeting Project, and NCDD organizational member, that participatory budgeting is once again expanding in NYC to reach even more of its citizens. We encourage you to read PBP’s press release below about the expansion or find it on PBP’s website here.

22 districts will participate in next cycle to designate over $25 million

PBP-logoCity Hall— Today, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and the New York City Council announced the expansion of participatory budgeting to 22 districts that will designate over $25 million toward locally-developed projects, proposals, and initiatives in the next budgetary cycle. The expansion more than doubles the number of participating districts and represents a nearly 80% increase in funding allocated for participatory budgeting from the previous fiscal year.

“Participatory budgeting is a gateway to greater civic participation and leadership in our communities, encouraging collaboration between residents and local elected officials to find creative solutions to neighborhood needs,” said Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. “As we work toward a more inclusive, transparent city government, I am excited for 22 Council districts to take part in the participatory budgeting—more than doubling our participation from the previous cycle. This expanded process will give thousands of New Yorkers a hands-on role in making taxpayer dollars work for our communities.”

Participatory budgeting is a grassroots process through which district residents vote directly to allocate at least $1 million in capital funding toward proposals developed by the community to meet local needs. Through a series public meetings, residents work with elected officials for a year to identify neighborhood concerns and craft proposals to address them. Residents then decide which proposals to fund through a public vote.

Good government groups hail participatory budgeting as a powerful tool to increase civic participation and community engagement. The only identification requirement is proof of residency in the district; voting in participatory budgeting is open to all residents 16 years of age and older, removing traditional obstacles to full civic participation such as youth, income status, English-language proficiency and citizenship status.

Learn more about Participatory Budgeting and how you can get involved at http://council.nyc.gov/html/action/pb.shtml.

For the 2014-2015 cycle, the following Council Members are conducting a participatory budgeting process in their districts:

“The expansion of Participatory Budgeting to 22 districts in the City is a testament to the Council’s commitment to empowering New Yorkers and giving them the ability to decide where their tax dollars are spent,” said New York City Council Majority Leader Jimmy Van Bramer. “For the first time in Western Queens we will give the residents of the 26th District the ability to fund projects that are meaningful to their communities. I am proud to be a part of this historic expansion of Participatory Budgeting. The growth of this inclusive process helps build a better informed, and empowered citizenry which will make our City’s democracy stronger. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the City Council and New Yorkers who will be participating in this process. Together, we will empower our communities and deliver the projects local residents vote to fund in their neighborhoods.”

“After last year’s incredibly successful Participatory Budgeting process in the 38th District, with the highest number of participants in the City, it is my pleasure to re-launch this program for the coming budget cycle!” said Council Member Carlos Menchaca. “I will again be allocating a full $2 million dollars to capital projects proposed, and voted on by community members that focus on the improvement of local schools, streets, parks, and libraries. This process is central to the civic engagement of our residents, and I am looking forward to my continued involvement with local stakeholders, and with my Council colleagues to secure the success of PB, and to expand this model in a meaningful way.”

“I am pleased to join my Council colleagues and have always planned on carrying out an effective and well organized participatory budgeting process that engages a wide range of residents of my district,” said Council Member Paul Vallone. “I look forward to engaging and working with my community in the coming months to have participatory budgeting that is successful and productive.”

“My constituents have loved the opportunity to vote on how their tax dollars are spent,” said Council Member Mark Weprin. “I am pleased that so many of my colleagues in the City Council have embraced the participatory budgeting process, as it allows residents to play an active role in their government.”

“Participatory Budgeting has put budgetary decisions directly into the hands of the people and I am excited to see it expand throughout New York City,” said Council Member Stephen Levin. “I was proud to bring Participatory Budgeting to the 33rd District two years ago and I continue to hear from constituents about how much they enjoy being involved in determining which capital projects get funded in our District. We have all worked hard to make Participatory Budgeting a success and I look forward to seeing this transparent and democratic budgeting process continue to grow under the leadership of Speaker Mark-Viverito.”

“I was proud to be the first elected official from Queens to give my constituents a real say in how their money is being spent and I’m thrilled that my colleagues will be expanding participatory budgeting throughout the five boroughs,” said Council Member Eric Ulrich. “This will provide a real chance for anyone who wants to have a voice in the decision-making process or has an idea for a project that would benefit the community, to step up and get involved. As I have always said, this isn’t my money, it is the taxpayers’ money and they should be allowed a say in how it’s spent.”

“Participatory budgeting is an exciting tool of empowerment the East Flatbush community has engaged in for the past three years,” said Council Member Jumaane D. Williams. “It brings government closer to the people, and provides an open form of democracy that continues to gain momentum. I look forward to it expanding throughout the city, so that more New Yorkers can get engaged in the design and selection of capital projects that better their district.”

“I am proud to be bringing participatory budgeting to constituents in the Central Bronx. Local residents know what their community needs and should be directly involved in decisions around how their tax dollars are spent.” said Council Member Ritchie Torres. “It’s also through processes like participatory budgeting that we deepen the engagement of residents in our districts and cultivate effective civic leaders.”

“A new form of democracy is sweeping New York City, and I am proud that the City Council is taking the lead in growing this process,” said Council Member Donovan Richards. “I’m beyond excited to bring Participatory Budgeting back to my district this year. There is nothing like allowing the public to make decisions on how their community schools, parks, etc., should be improved.”

“When thousands of people get involved through participatory budgeting in making hands-on decisions about what our neighborhoods need, it models government as shared stewardship, in which we work together to tend the common good,” said Council Member Brad Lander. “I am very proud that the process has grown from just four participating Councilmembers to 22 – not bad for an idea that people dismissed as crazy just a short time ago. Participatory budgeting is a growing movement that is changing the way New Yorkers engage with their government: improving transparency, increasing voters’ say in how their money is spent and bringing neighbors together to be stewards of the public realm.”

“I congratulate Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and many of my colleagues for prioritizing the expansion of participatory budgeting in the FY16 budget, continuing successful efforts to get the program off the ground in NYC,” said Council Member Mark Levine. “Participatory budgeting gives people real decision-making power and empowers communities through the democratic process. I’m proud to join this growing movement by bringing participatory budgeting to Council District 7 this year, where we’ve already seen a huge outpouring of interest and ideas for projects to better our neighborhoods.”

“I am proud to join a growing list of my council colleagues who have made the commitment to participate in a progressive way of allocating fund,” said Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez. Participatory budgeting gives a direct voice to the residents of our districts and it is our job as their representatives to honor that voice. I look forward to a productive and engaging conversation with my constituents during this process of community empowerment.”

“This is a historic chance for residents across New York City to have a key role in deciding how their tax dollars are reinvested in their community,” said Council Member Mark Treyger. “I am proud to provide this great opportunity for community involvement in my district for the first time ever and to make sure that residents finally have a real voice in the budgeting process. I have no doubt that my constituents will use this unique chance to improve the quality of life throughout Bensonhurst, Gravesend, Coney Island and Sea Gate for years to come.”

“I am excited to bring PB to the 34th District this year,” said Council Member Antonio Reynoso. “My community is very creative, and I’ve heard lots of great ideas from my constituents already. I am looking forward to seeing how they decide to spend a million dollars.”

“I am thrilled to be partaking in Participatory Budgeting for the 2015-2016 budget cycle,” said Council Member Andrew Cohen. “This innovative process will give my neighbors a direct voice in how their tax dollars are spent on projects that will address community needs. It is my hope that through this process, we will be able to give City residents more confidence in government and increase civic engagement. The more participation and higher turnout we have will ensure that our communities will benefit in the long run. I am looking forward to further implementing this practice and hearing all of the terrific ideas that my neighbors will propose.”

“Participatory Budgeting and Upper West Side involvement go hand-in-hand,” said Council Member Helen Rosenthal. “The community is hungry to participate in this democratic process to identify and select projects for funding.”

“There is no greater vehicle galvanizing communities today than participatory budgeting,” said Council Member I. Daneek Miller. “It enables individuals to work together for common causes that will have a lasting impact on community needs. We have seen it in action already, members from across neighborhoods working side by side in harmony. I am proud to have begun the participatory budgeting process in my district this year and thank the Speaker for her assistance in getting this expansion off the ground.”

“The expansion of participatory budgeting (PB) to 22 council districts, and the institutionalization of the process in the City Council as a new way to govern, is truly exciting and a tribute to the success of the early cycles,” said Sondra Youdelman, Executive Director, Community Voices Heard. “Community Voices Heard is proud to have helped spearhead this process with Council Members, community organizations, and local residents. Looking forward, PB has the potential to engage new and diverse groups of people – including those typically most disenfranchised – more deeply in their communities and in the practice of governing. We’re anxious to see more people involved in the process and community power grow to influence more pots of money over time.”

“Participatory Budgeting in New York City is the largest and fastest growing such program in the country,” said Josh Lerner, Executive Director of Participatory Budgeting Project. “It has become an international model for real grassroots democracy, and for making city government more responsive to the people. We look forward to continuing to work with the Speaker and other city officials to take participatory budgeting to the next level.”

“The data that we have collected over the past three years shows that participatory budgeting is a gateway to civic engagement for New Yorkers that are often left out of politics and government such as youth, immigrants, and low-income people,” said Alexa Kasdan, Director of Research and Policy at the Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center. “With the expansion of PB in 2014-15, the Speaker and the NYC Council are creating even more opportunities for civic participation for the most disenfranchised New Yorkers.”

You can find the original version of this post at www.participatorybudgeting.org/blog/6049.

NCDD’s Long-Term Mapping Efforts

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, I announced the visual mapping process NCDD is conducting that leads into our national conference in October. I’m excited to say that about 30 graphic recorders have expressed interest in being involved, and that the interviews are going very well so far thanks to our interviewer, Kathryn Thomson!

At and after the conference, we plan to expand the project to more fully map our field in a way that creates a valuable product for all of us.

US-GoogleMap-outlinedWe are interested in creating several maps, or a single map with multiple layers, that can show things like:

  • The geographic reach of people working in dialogue and deliberation, and of their projects and programs
  • The capacities and assets represented in the field–especially in terms of capacity to convene dialogues, capacity to mobilize others to convene dialogues, and assets that could be considered tangible aspects of civic infrastructure (like facilitator training programs, physical and online spaces for convening, etc.)
  • Consultants and facilitators who are available for hire, including information about the topics they have experience with, the methods they have expertise in, and the training programs they’ve participated in. (Note: NCDD has a member map and directory, but we’d like to find a comprehensive tool that combines map and searchable directory features, and collaborate with other networks expand it well beyond NCDD’s membership.)

We are currently looking for help from those who’ve had direct experience with mapping or data visualization tools to share their experience so we can make a well informed decision about which tool or tools to use. Ideally we would like a tool that is easy to use both to create and to understand the output. The tool also has to handle a very large dataset.

Please contact me at sandy@ncdd.org if you’d like to help advise NCDD on this larger mapping project — or add a comment if you have specific ideas or recommendations. Questions that may help guide your response are…

  1. What tool have you used to create network maps?
  2. What do you think it did exceptionally well?
  3. What do you wish it did better?
  4. What tools would you avoid?

And for those of you with mapping experience, please add your name and email to the comments and plan to join me on Friday at 11am on a group brainstorming call to dig further into these questions and mapping technologies!

Peter Barnes: Leverage Common Assets to Reduce Inequality

Posted on by
Reply

Everybody talks a lot about economic inequality, but there don’t seem to be many credible proposals out there, let alone ones that have political legs.  French economist Thomas Piketty documented the deep structural nature of inequality in Capital in the 21st Century, but the best solution he could come up with was a global wealth tax.  Good luck with that!

What a pleasure, then, to read Peter Barnes’ new book and discover some sensible, practical ideas.  Barnes is a writer, entrepreneur and long-time friend; we worked together a decade ago with the late Jonathan Rowe in exploring the great potential commons in re-imagining politics, policy, economics and culture. The author of pioneering policy ideas in Who Owns the Sky? and Capitalism 3.0, Barnes has just published With Liberty and Dividends for All:  How to Save Our Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough (Berrett-Koehler Publishers). 

The book aims to reduce inequality not through the tax system or education and training, but by inventing new commons-based institutions that can generate nonlabor income for everyone.  The secret of the wealthy, of course, is that they don’t depend on salaries or wages, but on investment income from their equity assets. 

So how might commoners pull off this trick?  By generating income from common assets.  The money won’t come from government spending or redistribution, or from new taxes on business.  It will come from commoners seizing control of the shared equity assets they already own – the atmosphere, airwaves, the sovereign right to create money (now enjoyed by banks), and the public institutions that make stock markets and copyrights possible.

These equity assets belong to all of us. Unfortunately, most of the benefits from these assets have been privatized by banks, oil companies, telecom companies, the culture industries, depriving us of income to which we, as common property holders, are entitled.

Barnes proposes renting out various common assets to businesses that wish to use them.  This is a well-accepted principle – to pay for something owned by someone else.  Why should companies get a free ride on public assets?  Barnes proposes charging corporations for the use of the airwaves, the pollution sink of the atmosphere, and the right to monopoly protections such as copyrights, trademarks and patents.  Revenues from our common assets could be channeled into independent, non-governmental trust funds that would then regularly generate dividends for everyone.

read more

Pastors, Scientists to Continue “Perceptions Project” Dialogues

Posted on by
Reply

The team at Public Agenda, an NCDD organizational member and Partner of our upcoming national conference, has been reflecting on their experiences facilitating the Perceptions Project – a series of dialogues between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors – in a fascinating series on their blog. We encourage you to read the second reflection on their bridge-building work below, or find the original version here.

PublicAgenda-logoAs we make the final preparations for the next set of Perceptions Project dialogues, I can’t help but think back to our first dialogues in Pasadena.

We spent considerable time preparing for those conversations, between evangelical pastors and scientists. We worked with our partners on the project, AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of Science), thinking about who should participate and how the dialogues might unfold. We anticipated the tensions that might emerge – tensions that could stall conversation between the two communities. And we thoughtfully planned ways to surface areas of common ground and shared understanding.

Yet despite the many hours of planning that led up to the dialogues, I was unable to foresee what it would feel like to be in them. What I hadn’t, and perhaps couldn’t, anticipate was how eager participants would be to talk to one another and ask questions about each others’ experiences. While there was some tension between the groups, the overarching theme was curiosity.

One interaction in particular has stayed with me since that first dialogue. We were discussing the manner in which scientific data is presented in popular media. A few pastors expressed frustration with the seemingly constant stream of new evidence that is presented as fact yet often appears to be contradictory.

In response, several scientists described the scientific method. They also noted that they are limited in the claims they can make based on a single study and expressed their own frustration at the way their findings are often presented—and inflated—in the media without sufficient context or qualification.

This was an “a-ha” moment for one pastor who, prior to the dialogues, assumed that scientists were responsible for how their findings were presented in different media outlets.

That “a-ha” moment reminded me of the critical role that dialogue can have in connecting us in spite of our differences. For the Pasadena participants, dialogue provided an opportunity to break down misconceptions and provide each group insight into how the other community operates.

As the next dialogues approach, I eagerly anticipate the “a-ha” moments that lie ahead and wonder what questions participants will ask of one another that will deepen their understanding of each others’ experiences.

You can find the original version of this Public Agenda post at www.publicagenda.org/blogs/when-curiosity-reigns.

A Brilliant Story of Participation, Technology and Development Outcomes

Posted on by
Reply

Brazilian electronic voting machine

A major argument for democratic governance is that more citizen participation leads to better outcomes through an improved alignment between citizens’ preferences and policies. But how does that play out in practice? Looking at the effects of the introduction of electronic voting (EV) in Brazil, a paper by Thomas Fujiwara (Princeton) sheds light on this question. Entitled “Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence from Brazil” (2013), it is one of the best papers I’ve read when it comes to bringing together the issues of technology, participation and development outcomes.

Below is an extract from the paper:

This paper provides evidence on how improving political participation can lead to better service outcomes. It estimates the effects of an electronic voting, or EV, technology in reducing a mundane, but nonetheless important, obstacle to political participation: difficulty in operating ballots. The results indicate that EV caused a large de facto enfranchisement of less educated voters, which lead to the election of more left-wing state legislators, increased public health care spending, utilization (prenatal visits), and infant health (birth weight).

While filling out a ballot may be a trivial task to educated citizens in developed countries, the same is not true in Brazil, where 23% of adults are “unable to read or write a simple note” and 42% did not complete the 4th grade. Moreover, before 1994 Brazilian paper ballots required voters to write a candidate’s name or electoral number and involved only written instructions. This resulted in a substantial quantity of error-ridden and blank ballots being cast, generating a large number of residual votes (not assigned to a candidate and discarded from the tallying of results).

In the mid-1990’s, the Brazilian government developed an EV technology as a substitute for paper ballots. While its introduction aimed at reducing the time and costs of voting counting, other features of the technology, such as the use of candidates’ photographs as visual aids, the use of “error” messages for voters about to cast residual votes, and guiding the voting process step by step, facilitated voting and reduced errors.

(…) Estimates indicate that EV reduced residual voting in state legislature elections by a magnitude larger than 10% of total turnout. Such effect implies that millions of citizens who would have their votes go uncounted when using a paper ballot were de facto enfranchised. Consistent with the hypothesis that these voters were more likely to be less educated, the effects are larger in municipalities with higher illiteracy rates. Moreover, EV raises the vote shares of left-wing parties.

The paper will go on to argue that this enfranchisement of the less educated citizenry did indeed affect public policy. (…) I focus on  state government spending, in particular on an area that disproportionately affects the less educated: health care. Poorer Brazilians rely mostly on a public-funded system for health care services, which richer voters are substantially more likely to use the co-existing private services. The less educated have thus relatively stronger preferences for increased public health care provision, and political economy models predict that increasing their participation leads to higher public spending in this area.

Using data from birth records, I also find that EV raised the number of prenatal visits by women to health professionals and lowered the prevalence of low-weight births (below 2500g), and indicator of newborn health. Moreover, these results hold only for less educated mothers, and I find no effects for the more educated, supporting the interpretation that EV lead to benefits specifically targeted at poorer populations.

Fujiwara’s findings are great for a number of reasons, some of which I highlight below:

  • Participation and policy preferences: The findings in this paper support the argument for democratic governance, showing that an increase in the participation of poorer segments of society ultimately leads to better service results.
  • Institutions and context: The paper indirectly highlights how innovations are intrinsically linked to institutions and their context. For instance, as noted by Fujiwara, “the effect of EV is larger in the proportional representation races where a paper ballot requires writing down the name or number of the candidate (lower chamber of congress and state legislature) than in the plurality races where a paper ballot involves checking a box (senate, governor, and president).” In other words, the electoral system matters, and the Brazilian outcomes would be most likely to be replicated in countries with similar electoral processes (and levels of ballot complexity), rather than those adopting plurality voting systems. (If I remember well, this was one of the findings of a paper by Daniel Hidalgo (unpublished),  comparing the effects of e-voting in Brazil and India: the effects of e-voting for elections in the lower house in India [plurality vote] were smaller than in Brazil). In a similar vein, the effects of the introduction of similar technology would probably be lower in places with higher levels of educational attainment within poor segments of society.
  • Technology and elections: Much of the work on technology and accountability evolves around non-electoral activities that are insulated from existing processes and institutions, which tends to mitigate the chances of real-life impact. And, whether you like it or not, elections remain one of the most pervasive and consequential processes involving citizen participation in public affairs. There seems to be untapped potential for the use of technology to leverage electoral processes (beyond partisan campaigns). Finding ways to better inform voters (e.g. voting advice applications) and to lower the barriers for entry in electoral competition (why not a Rock the Vote for unlikely candidates?) are some of the paths that could be further explored. Fujiwara’s paper show how technology can enhance development outcomes by building on top of existing institutions.
  • Technology and inclusion: For a number of people working with development and public policy, a major concern with technology is the risk of exclusion of  marginalized groups. While that is a legitimate concern, this paper shows the opposite effect, reminding us that it is less about technology and more about the use that one makes of it.
  • Unintended effects: The use of technology in governance processes is full of stories of unintended effects. Most of them are negative ones, epitomized by the case of digitization of land records in Bangalore [PDF]: instead of transparency and efficiency, it led to increased corruption and inefficiencies. Fujiwara’s paper shows that unexpected benefits are also possible. While the primary goal of  the introduction of e-voting in Brazil was related to costs and time, another major unanticipated impact was better service outcomes. If unintended effects are often overlooked by practitioners and researchers alike, this paper highlights the need to look for effects beyond those originally intended.

All of these points, added to the methodological approach adopted by Fujiwara, are good reasons to read the paper. You can find it here [PDF].


The Most Urgent “Wicked Problem”

Posted on by
Reply

Wicked problems share these characteristics: there are no quick fixes; they are complex and multi-faceted; conventional methods (legislation, regulation, money, power, technology) don’t – and can’t – solve them; solutions depend on how the problem is framed. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.


Many of the wicked problems we confront today are familiar:

  • growing income inequality;
  • blocked social mobility;
  • political polarization;
  • climate change;
  • erosion of our social ethics;
  • a health care system spiraling out of control;
  • a prison system that warehouses the mentally ill and stigmatizes huge numbers of young black and Hispanic males;
  • a less democracy-friendly form of capitalism.

Our most urgent wicked problem, I believe, is our blocked system of social mobility. It poses the most immediate and gravest threat to our political stability and it makes all the other problems worse. When people feel trapped, large income inequalities and other frustrations become far less tolerable.

It has happened to other civilizations.
It can happen here.

Americans insist on a culture that encourages self-improvement. We crave the opportunity to better ourselves economically and socially. If we feel that the playing field is reasonably fair such that each of us has a chance to improve our lot in life through hard work and living by the rules, our society will remain reasonably stable. But if increasing numbers of us become convinced that the system is rigged against us, our political stability can be readily undermined.

If current conditions continue, radical movements on both the left and the right are bound to arise with virulently populist, violence-prone tendencies. In such a political climate, it will become impossible to adopt the sorts of thoughtful, long-term workable solutions to the wicked problems we confront.

It has happened to other civilizations. It can happen here.


Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.

Stay Angry

Posted on by
Reply

Because just like the Incredible Hulk, I’m always angry.

It seems the storm has passed in Ferguson, MO. As the Washington Post reported this morning, “hugs and kisses [have replaced] tear gas.” And that is truly great. The worst of this crisis, it seems, is behind us.

But there’s so much more to be done. So much to still be angry about.

For example, Mother Jones today examined the data on how often police shoot unarmed black men.

I was particularly stuck by the data from my hometown of Oakland, California:

In Oakland, California, the NAACP reported that out of 45 officer-involved shootings in the city between 2004 and 2008, 37 of those shot were black. None were white. One-third of the shootings resulted in fatalities.

(For those unfamiliar with Oakland, it may also be helpful to know that during that same time period, there were a total of 582 homicides in the city.)

Mother Jones attributes the discrepancy to racial bias in police officers. That’s something to be angry about.

Of course, I get a little persnickety about data interpretation, and I’m not quite ready to accept Mother Jone’s explanation.

Oakland isn’t nearly as segregated as some cities, but it’s still fairly segregated. The wealthy (well, wealthier, I really mean middle class) people live in the hills and the poor people live in the flats. Most of the wealthy people are white and most of the poor people are black and Latino. Most of the crime happens in the flats.

I don’t have the data to map where police shootings in Oakland take place, but if I were to venture a guess, I’d bet most of them take place in the flats.

So if the crime happens in the black part of town, and the police shootings take place in the black part of town, then it doesn’t necessarily follow that more shootings of black people is the result of racial bias.

Of course, the fact that “weapons were not found in 40 percent of cases,” does seem to indicate a level of racial bias. But then again, perhaps it’s equally possible that there is more police activity in the neighborhoods with more crime – thereby generally increasing police/civilian interaction, and police in those areas, knowing there is more crime, are more swiftly moved to action. Biased not by race, but by the higher crime rate.

While I personally believe that racial bias is an important factor, not only in Oakland but in cities around the country, let’s just go with this for a moment and assume that the Oakland PD is nothing but perfect in this regard.

But wait.

I’m still angry.

Even if you can attribute that disparity not to the racial bias of police officers but to the demographics of the area -

Isn’t that essentially saying: the problem isn’t with a hundred guys on the police force, the problem is with deeply ingrained, shamefully historic biases and disparities which have continually privileged everything white and degraded everything black to the point where all social, emotional, educational, and health outcomes are noticeable tipped in white people’s favor.

How is that argument supposed to make anything seem better?

Oh no, no, no. There is much to be done.

And I, for one, will stay angry.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

CM Call on Rural Design, August 20th

Posted on by
Reply

CM_logo-200pxWe are pleased to invite NCDD members once again to join our partners at CommunityMatters for the next installation in their capacity-building call series, which is jointly hosted by the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design. This month’s call is titled “How Design Sparks Rural Development”, and it will be taking place next Wednesday, August 20th from 4-5pm Eastern Time.

The folks at CM describe the upcoming call this way:

Urban, not rural, places are usually thought of as hubs of creativity and innovation, but this month’s CommunityMatters® and Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design™ webinar turns that notion on its head.

Emily Pilloton of Project H and Mark Rembert and Taylor Stuckert of Energize Clinton County, Ohio use the principles of good design to improve rural places, often in unexpected ways. Join us for an hour-long webinar highlighting community design that kick starts rural development. You’ll learn smart ways to introduce decision makers to design principles and find appropriate roles for “experts” and outsiders in resident-led design projects.

Register today by clicking here, and we hope to hear you on the call!

Before the call, we encourage you to check out the accompanying piece on the CM blog by Caitlyn Horose, which is cross posted below. You can find the original piece here.

Good Design Sparks Rural Community Development

Instead of focusing on developing products and services, now more than ever, architects, industrial designers, graphic artists, landscape architects, and other creative professionals are turning their attention to community development—working to solve bigger and messier problems. Just look at Human Centered Design from IDEO.org, a method for using good design to help people living in extreme poverty around the world. Association for Community Design, has supported community-based design and planning for more than three decades. Public Interest Design chronicles the growth of the community design movement in a cool infographic.

While this trend toward good design is exciting, it’s harder to find in rural community development. Many small towns aren’t bursting at the seams with graphic designers or architects.

Creative professionals are trained with an eye toward innovative and context-sensitive solutions to complex challenges. Without designers at our disposal we may fail to see all the great options for growing a village center, establishing welcoming public spaces or revitalizing downtown.

How might we encourage a greater emphasis on design in rural community development? Here are a few ideas from the forefront of rural design:

1. Introduce Elected Officials to the Principles of Good Design

Design Cents teaches public officials and community partners how to promote and implement good design to improve the quality of life in their communities. The workshop is offered by the Carl Small Town Center at Mississippi State University in Oktibbeha County (pop. 47,671).

2. Attract Creative People

Frontier Fellowship is a four-week program for creative professionals run by Epicenter in Green River, Utah (pop. 953). Fellows split their time between working on personal projects and contributing to a community improvement project.

3. Offer Pro Bono Design Services

By providing design services in the community decision-making process, Energize Clinton County in Wilmington, Ohio (pop. 12,448) aids conversations about local development proposals. Past projects include plans for a micro-brewery to catalyze business growth, design support for redeveloping historic buildings, and informational visualizations in community plan documents.

4. Design AND Build

Auburn University’s Rural Studio in Newbern, Alabama (pop. 181) emphasizes hands-on education. That’s why they didn’t stop at the blueprints when they designed a well-built, affordable housing alternative to the mobile home. The Rural Studio program designed and built 12 versions of the 20K House and is now exploring reproducing and designing on a large scale.

5. Community Education Through Design

Combining storytelling and story gathering with graphic narratives, the Beehive Collective in Machias, Maine (pop. 2,353) creates illustrations that are used for education—and conversation—starters around complex community issues.

While not a rural example (this one comes from New York City), we can’t resist mentioning the Center for Urban Pedagogy’s Envisioning Development toolkits. Using objects and plain language, participants learn about planning issues like affordable housing and zoning.

6. Balance Local Knowledge and Professional Expertise

The Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design™ (CIRD) offers annual competitive funding to as many as four small towns or rural communities to host community design workshops. The workshops bring together local leaders and national experts to develop actionable solutions to pressing design challenges.

CIRD has convened more than 70 workshops in all regions of the country. Follow the CIRD blog to keep up on the 2014 workshop communities.

7. Engage Youth in Community Design

When Project H founders Emily Pilloton and Matthew Miller wanted to bring design to a rural town, they started in an unlikely place: the poorest county in North Carolina. Bertie County had no licensed architect and more than one unfortunate statistic—24 percent of residents dropped out of high school and 65 percent of youth were unemployed.

Using education as a vehicle, the Project H team incorporated good design in improvements to the school computer lab and playground. The team’s next step was to rethink shop class, teaching design with construction and fabrication skills focused on building a farmers’ market. Project H then facilitated a summer youth employment program, paying students to build the 2,000-square-foot building, making the market a reality.

Watch the video below to hear Emily talk about the project, then head to the Project H website for a toolbox to bring design thinking into any classroom.

On Wednesday, August 20, Emily Pilloton of Project H and Mark Rembert and Taylor Stuckert of Energize Clinton County join CommunityMatters® and the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design™ for an hour-long webinar on design in rural community development. They’ll highlight additional examples of how community design has catalyzed rural economies, with thoughts about introducing decision makers to design principles and the role of experts and outsiders in community-led design projects. Space is limited, so register early!

Police Ethics in 1829

Posted on by
Reply

Sir Robert Peel is widely credited with the creation of modern policing. As the British Home Secretary, Peel passed the Metropolitan Police Act (MPA) of 1829, which created the first cohesive police force for London’s metropolitan area.

The Act was intended to diminish crime in this rapidly growing, urban city. But the effort to create a police force was a delicate one, which had to be careful of public opinion. As the U.K.’s National Archives explains:

The government was anxious to avoid any suggestion that the police was a military force, so they were not armed. Nor was their uniform anything like military uniform.

Every new police officer was issued “General Instructions,” outlining the ethical expectations of their post. These “Peelian Principals,” which may not have been developed by Peel himself, were as follows:

  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
  3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
  4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
  5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
  9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

To be fair, there will still issues with this inaugural police force. As the Metropolitan Police Historical Collection describes, “there was a high turnover of men, with many dismissals and resignations. Dishonesty, indiscipline, drunkenness were not tolerated.”

Which is to say, police officers were constantly being fired for being drunk, dishonest, or undisciplined.

So things were not perfect.

But in the nearly 100 years since these guidelines were published, I’d like to think we’ve advanced a little as a society. Improved ourselves and our methods. Built upon what seems like a good foundation to find even better solutions and more just approaches.

But clearly we have not.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail