The Next Generation of Our Work

Posted on September 12, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 6-page article, The Next Generation of Our Work (2014), by NCDD’s own Co-Founder, Sandy Heierbacher, was published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 10: Iss. 1. In the article, Heierbacher shares her unique view of the rapidly growing dialogue and deliberation field and lifts up the shifts in the field that shape the next generation of D&D work. Changes are happening in regard to:

– collaboration with government
– openness to online tools for engagement
– consistently rapid growth
– increased energy devoted to collaborative efforts
– re-focus on the power of local
– funders are coming around
– attention to infrastructure

Read the article in full below ind the PDF available for download on the Journal of Public Deliberation site here.

From the article…

How does one comment on the state of a field that seems to be ever growing yet constantly in flux? As the director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), I have a bird’s eye view of this burgeoning, vibrant field. Yet I realize I see only a fraction of the great work that is being done to engage people in the decisions and issues that effect their lives.

Here are a few of the trends I have been noticing from my vantage point.

Collaboration with government. Many engagement practitioners are accustomed to working outside of government out of necessity, pushing on the edges of power but rarely getting through. This has been gradually changing with innovations like the Citizens Initiative Review and Participatory Budgeting being embraced by local and state governments. Additionally, government networks like the National Council on State Legislators and the International City/County Management Association are beginning to recognize deliberative public engagement as vital to effective governance.

Openness to online tools for engagement. Many group process experts are still skeptical that quality dialogue and deliberation can happen online. Yet there has been a growing interest among NCDD members to understand how they might utilize technology to engage new audiences and to support their face-to-face efforts. The popularity of our Tech Tuesday events and the quick acclimation our members have shown to our own online programs using tools like Codigital, Maestroconference and Hackpad are a testament to this shift.

Although skepticism is still par for the course among dialogue and deliberation practitioners who understand the power of in-person engagement, we are learning how to selectively invest our time and energy in online technology so we are not left in the dust as the world rapidly becomes more connected and digitized. Some examples of successful online engagement include recent experiments like Creating Community Solutions’ Text-Talk-Act project (www.creatingcommunitysolutions.org/texttalkact), which utilized text messaging technology to guide groups of young people through in-person dialogues, and our successful use of Codigital to get the NCDD community to crowdsource, hone and prioritize ideas for our upcoming conference. These experiences show how the deliberative democracy field is learning to appreciate the continuum Ethan Zuckerman of MIT Media Lab refers to as “thin engagement” (for texting, voting, clicking, sharing) and “thick engagement” (for the work our field is all about).

Consistently rapid growth. If NCDD’s membership is any indication, the deliberative democracy field is growing rapidly. After launching in 2002 with 50 organizational members, we now have more than 2,050 members and 33,500 subscribers. Lately, it seems like someone new finds and joins NCDD every single day, and we constantly learn of new organizations, networks and innovators we would love to bring into the network.

Increased energy devoted to collaborative efforts. Many in the dialogue and deliberation community recognize that their hopes for this work cannot be realized unless we combine efforts. An important recent example of cross-organization collaboration in the deliberative democracy field is Creating Community Solutions, an alliance of six organizations—AmericaSpeaks, the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, Everyday Democracy, the National Issues Forums Institute, the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, and the University of Arizona’s National Institute for Civil Discourse— which organized hundreds of dialogues across the country as part of Obama’s National Dialogue on Mental Health.

Also, two notable collaborative events are being planned to coincide with the National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation in October. First, the Mediators Foundation will lead a meeting-of-the-minds of top leaders and influencers in transpartisan dialogue work. Second, the CommunityMatters Partnership will convene a summit on civic infrastructure bringing together leaders in various sectors of public work. Both events will encourage collaboration and relationship building among people doing parallel, but often disconnected, work.

Other examples of successful collaboration include last year’s effort by a group of NCDD members to organize a public-at-all-levels infrastructure for national dialogue on a shoestring budget. Additionally, the Kettering Foundation has increased its attention to the opportunities for deliberative democracy organizations to collaborate, and as a field we are recognizing and dealing with the various barriers and snags we face while attempting to work together. These efforts are just a taste of the collaboration that is happening across this field.

A re-focus on the power of local. Though President Obama’s attention to open government caused a temporary spike in our field’s hopefulness that public engagement would be supported from the national stage, I’ve seen a strong swing back to a focus on the local level. Many new ultra-local efforts have formed and thrived in the past few years. These efforts tend to be self-supported, innovative, timely, and practical. One of my favorite examples comes from an NCDD member in Denver, local playwright and actor Evan Weissman, who founded an effort called “Warm Cookies of the Revolution.” Warm Cookies has created a “Civic Health Club” in Denver that runs creative civic events on everything from water treatment to pro sports—and serves milk and cookies at every event for the hungry activists and curious citizens who attend.

Even national efforts like Transition Towns and Resilience Circles, which help prepare people for environmental and economic fall-out, prioritize the establishment of local level groups. And we were reminded of the power of local relationships while running Creating Community Solutions for Obama’s national dialogue on mental health, when support, publicity and creativity came through in abundance at the local level while we struggled for attention and funds at the national level.

Funders are coming around. Though the lack of funding is a much discussed challenge facing practitioners of work focused on “process,” more and more funders seem to be focusing on convening, facilitation, and stakeholder collaboration. The Kellogg Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation both produced gorgeous guidebooks on convening last year. Community foundations across the U.S. and foundations that work intensively in select communities, like the Orton Family Foundation, are embracing their role as catalysts for community-wide dialogue and collaboration. And many foundations are devoting significant resources to “Collective Impact” efforts, which bring together issue-focused groups that typically compete with each other for funding and public attention, and facilitate and support them in setting, measuring and achieving joint goals.

Attention to infrastructure. Leaders in the deliberative democracy field are increasingly focused on infrastructure. NCDD dedicated its last national conference to examining the concept of “civic infrastructure” – the underlying structure and supports people need so they can come together to address their challenges effectively. There are also many other examples of dialogue and deliberation organizations raising questions about infrastructure. For example, the Community Matters Partnership (www.communitymatters.org/who-we-are), an alliance of seven national organizations involved in community building, place making and grant making, have turned their attention to understanding and proliferating the concept. New Hampshire Listens is working to build a statewide infrastructure to support public deliberation on complex issues affecting New Hampshire residents, and UIC’s Institute for Policy & Civic Engagement studied Chicago’s participation and activist infrastructure in order to build a robust dialogue and deliberation network in the city.

The Creating Community Solutions’ partnership has been looking at what kind of infrastructure is needed to support future multi-method nationwide deliberation efforts. Finally, NCDD is working with the Kettering Foundation to gain a better understanding of the capacity and infrastructure that already exists throughout our field, in order to uncover how this capacity can best be utilized.

What’s next for the field? Much of NCDD’s time is devoted to keeping our network strong and active, and providing valuable content and programming for our members. This is a time of extraordinary momentum and productivity in our field, and we could easily fill our staff time simply by highlighting our members’ programs on our blog and social media, sharing their resources in our online resource center, and providing them with more and more ways to connect with each other about their successes and challenges.

Yet the trends I outlined above point to a strong yearning in our field to break out of our current constraints, to find ways to collaborate more effectively with each other, to combine forces with those outside our field, and to scale up our efforts. At the 2014 NCDD conference, we will be exploring all these trends as we rally around the theme “Democracy for the Next Generation.” What do we want the next generation of our work to look like, and how can we work together to get there? Now more than ever, we have both the opportunity and, increasingly, the imperative to bring this work to a much larger stage in order to build a stronger democracy that is able to address society’s most pressing challenges.

Download the article from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

About the Journal of Public Deliberation
Spearheaded by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium in collaboration with the International Association of Public Participation, the principal objective of Journal of Public Deliberation (JPD) is to synthesize the research, opinion, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in the emerging multi-disciplinary field and political movement called by some “deliberative democracy.” By doing this, we hope to help improve future research endeavors in this field and aid in the transformation of modern representative democracy into a more citizen friendly form.

Follow the Deliberative Democracy Consortium on Twitter: @delibdem

Follow the International Association of Public Participation [US] on Twitter: @IAP2USA

Resource Link: www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss1/art23

Developing Materials for Deliberative Forums

Posted on September 6, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 36-page guide, Developing Materials for Deliberative Forums, was written by Brad Rourke and published 2014 on the Kettering Foundation site. In the guide, Rourke shares all the elements needed to design an issue guide to better inform participants during deliberation. An issue guide lays out multiple sides of a subject/issue to give participants tools to engage in more informed deliberation, the guide then offers examples of the options, as well as, drawbacks to each one. There is no one perfect way to develop an issue guide; so Rourke provides details on ways to design a guide that is effective at giving participants the information they need to deliberate on the issues at-hand.

Below is an excerpt of the article; it can be downloaded in full at the link on the bottom of this page or find it on Kettering Foundation’s site here.

From the guide…

Deliberation does not require a certain kind of guide, or framework, or language, or facilitator. But, because it can be difficult to face such choices, supporting materials can make it easier. Many community groups, national organizations, and others, including the National Issues Forums (NIF), develop materials meant to help groups deliberate together over difficult public issues. Through its research, the Kettering Foundation has learned about the kinds of materials that can spark this public work. This document explores the important elements involved in going from an initial topic to having a complete issue guide suitable to use in the kinds of deliberative forums that are the hallmark of the NIF.

Deliberative forums are used in different ways, depending on the community and who is involved. Some communities use them to set direction on important local issues. People in other communities may hold forums in order to give citizens the opportunity to think through an important national issue and what they and others might do about it. The results of deliberating together in these ways are sometimes passed on to public officials. Other times public officials personally take part in deliberating with other citizens.

There are many ways to create materials that will support such public deliberation. As long as they are accessible to all kinds of people, allow them to carefully consider options and weigh drawbacks, no one way is necessarily better than another.

Naming and Framing Issues in Public Terms
When issues are named and framed in public terms, we can identify the problem that we need to talk about (naming) and the critical options and drawbacks for deciding what to do about that problem (framing).

When citizens see their concerns reflected in the naming and framing of an issue, they are more likely to participate in making decisions and to see that they themselves have power to affect their future.This goes beyond simply using clear language (this is part of it, but not the only aspect). It means that the problem must be stated in terms that take into account the things that people hold deeply valuable. This is the essence of naming problems in public terms.

A framework that will prompt public deliberation should make clear the options that are available for addressing the problem and the tensions at stake in facing it. It should lay bare what is at issue in readily understandable terms.

Three key questions drive the development of a framework for public deliberation:

– What concerns you about this issue?
– Given those concerns, what would you do about it?
– If that worked to ease your concern, what are the downsides or trade-offs you might then have to accept?

Responses to these questions, together, can generate a framework that makes clear the drawbacks of different people’s favored options. Facing these drawbacks and coming to a sound decision about what to do is the ultimate concern of deliberation.

Issue framing is a practice, not a process or specific technique—akin to playing a musical instrument, knitting, martial arts, or exercising. The best way to learn about these things is by doing them. The more people work at the practice of issue framing, the better they get at identifying core concerns and articulating trade-offs. Like any practice, this develops over time.

In deliberating together, people wrestle with options, face trade-offs, and make decisions about how to act. Sometimes people and organizations in communities convene deliberative forums where people come together to do this work-NIF groups have been doing this for 30 years. An issue framework, or issue guide, is intended to support this. There is no perfect issue framework. Any framework that includes the public’s main concerns fairly represented and that includes the important drawbacks of each option can provide the structure for a group of people to deliberate together about how they will address a shared problem.

A Way to Do It
In developing materials to support public deliberation, writing an issue guide is just the tip of the iceberg. The earlier work that goes into naming and framing the issue—work that requires time and people—is most important. The sections that follow describe one way of naming and framing issues for public deliberation. The aim is to create an issue guide that will be used by many kinds of people in deliberative public forums. It is not the only way to achieve that goal, but it is one that has worked well over time.

Essential Elements
An issue guide should introduce and support deliberation, collectively, among a group whose individual experiences and inclinations may differ.

A well-framed issue guide contains enough factual material and data so that citizens from different circumstances who deliberate together have the knowledge they need to engage productively. However, it doesn’t need to serve as a primer or study guide. Its purpose is not to create experts but rather to illuminate what is at issue—the important conflicts or dilemmas that the issue raises—and allow people to make decisions about how to act together

Regardless of length, issue guides usually contain five elements:

– A title that reflects the major tension inherent in the issue. The title must convey that there is a difficult question or problem that must be faced and can’t be ducked. An excellent title that starkly conveys one problem at the core of the health-care issue might be: “The High Cost of Good Health Care.
– An introduction that explains what the issue is and why something must be done about it. The introduction should make the case that this is an important issue to talk about and should refrain from “arguing” for any of the options.
– Descriptions of each option for dealing with the issue. Each option is an overall strategy that is driven by a unique concern when it comes to the problem. These sections are at their best when they adopt a tone that argues for each specific option—that is, each one should be persuasive and an argument against the others. It should make its own strongest case. These options each have subsections.
– The first subsection includes examples of actions that would correspond to each option, along with who would do them. The actors should be real—and varied—such as government, police, schools, or neighbors. We have found that identifying four or five actions per option helps give people a clear sense of what the option is about and what people can do to work on solutions.
– The second subsection includes examples of the drawbacks or trade-offs inherent in each action. Every action that is presented should have an inherent drawback. Some may find a drawback tolerable, and others may not; however, talking through the consequences of a particular action against what you hold valuable is the crux of deliberation. The key is to make these choices clear.

Many participants will read the guide for the first time during the forum, so presenting data and facts as charts or other easily grasped formats makes it easier to use. In many issue guides, the options are summarized in the form of a grid, which provides the basic framework at a glance.

For more information, download the full guide at the bottom of this page.

About Kettering Foundation
The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: Developing_Materials_for_Deliberative_Forums

When Relationships Are Not Enough: Reconciling with Genocide

Posted on September 1, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The article, When Relationships Are Not Enough: Reconciling with Genocide, by Dave Joseph was published September 21, 2015 on Public Conversations Project’s blog. In the article, Joseph reflects on his recent trip to Rwanda and the many intense and challenging emotions that arose when paying respects at the Kigali Genocide Memorial. The memorial honors those murdered in the 1994 genocide committed against the Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Joseph explores how such an extreme atrocity can happen and how this affects people to dialogue- what is possible for reconciliation when such profound violence has occurred?

Below is an excerpt of the article and it can also be found on the Public Conversations Project blog here.

From Public Conversations Project…

What relationships make possible
As a dialogue practitioner and trainer, I have seen opponents recognize one another’s humanity, building an improbable bridge across differences in identities, core values and world views. I have witnessed participants listen to understand and for the first time, be able to see things from a new perspective. I have watched people move from a stance of certainty in their own “rightness” to entertaining the possibility that others might not be “wrong,” but might be approaching the issue from very different life experiences and values.

Dialogue holds the possibility of enemies transforming their relationships and finding ways to coexist, even as their differences remain. Dialogue makes possible the development and deepening of relationships, building of trust and mutual understanding that can lay the foundation for connection, coexistence, community, and collaboration. When people see each other as human beings, it becomes much harder to demonize, dehumanize, stereotype or do violence onto one another.

Where relationships were not enough
What I saw in the museum, however, challenged many of these beliefs. Hutus and Tutsis lived together, shared a common language, worshiped together, intermarried and watched their children attend the same schools. But from April through July, 1994, the “protective factor” of relationship did not prevent one of the most horrific genocides of the 20th century. The downing of the President’s plane triggered pre-planned attacks that quickly eliminated any potential opposition to the ethnic cleansing. Approximately 70% of the Tutsi population and 20% of the general population were slaughtered. Neighbor turned against neighbor; people were betrayed and killed by those whom they had previously trusted and with whom they had enjoyed long-standing relationships, friendships and fellowship.

How to reconcile with the unthinkable
I am left with the confusion of trying to make sense out of what was truly senseless. I still believe that relationships, connection, and trust lie at the heart of community and society. I still believe that while differences are inevitable, demonization, dehumanization and violence are not. We, as human beings, have within us the power to reach out, to connect, to respect each other even as we retain awareness of our differences. Equally challenging is avoiding the seductive pull of responding to difference with fear, which can overwhelm the “better angels of our nature” and lead to violence. What was so striking in the many accounts that I read and heard at the museum was how perpetrators attributed motivations and intentions to those whom they later destroyed. How tragic and ironic that they saw their victims as presenting the kind of threat that could only be responded to with deadly violence.

Why we must continue to foster mutual understanding
I still believe in the power of mutual recognition, of understanding and of connecting as fellow human beings. And I recognize that there will be circumstances in which this will not be enough. Each of us is called upon to act upon the courage of our convictions, to do what is right. To confront our awareness of difference, to look deeply within and to engage in ways that acknowledge our common humanity and interdependence. There were a few stories in the museum of incredibly courageous individuals who acted, at great danger to themselves, to shelter and protect their friends, family and countrymen. My trip to the Genocide Memorial included a visit to the mass grave where more than 250,000 victims were buried. It left me sobered by the thought that each of us has the opportunity and responsibility to work to try to heal this very broken world.

About Public Conversations Project
Public Conversations Project fosters constructive conversation where there is conflict driven by differences in identity, beliefs, and values. We work locally, nationally, and globally to provide dialogue facilitation, training, consultation, and coaching. We help groups reduce stereotyping and polarization while deepening trust and collaboration and strengthening communities.

Follow on Twitter: @pconversations

Resource Link: www.publicconversations.org/blog/when-relationships-are-not-enough-reconciling-genocide

Leading Organizational & Community Change

Posted on August 24, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

Leading Organizational & Community Change (LOCC) is an academic program available through Humboldt State University’s College of eLearning & Extended Education. Participants can take the courses individually to develop professional skills around collaborative decision-making processes; or may complete the five core courses to achieve a Leading Organizational & Community Change certificate.

To learn more about the courses and certificate program, check out the excerpt below or go directly to LOCC’s site here.

From the site…

The Program
Become a notably effective and engaging organizational leader, public official, facilitator, or consultant through practical, inspiring, and skill-based learning in the Certificate Program in Leading Community and Organizational Change.

Grounded in the behavioral and brain sciences, the curriculum is designed build your knowledge and develop your skills so you can work collaboratively and constructively with colleagues, constituents, neighbors, and clients to solve problems, resolve conflicts, build lasting agreements, develop public policy, and plan for the future.

Gain a solid understanding of the foundational and advanced skills of designing, convening, leading, and participating in collaborative planning and decision-making processes in order to strengthen organizations, boards, communities, and democratic institutions.

Designed for Professionals Like You
This program is designed for a broad audience: anyone who wants to be more effective in their roles and more skillful in creating desired change at work and in their communities or municipalities. This includes organizational managers, community leaders, elected officials, city managers and planners, facilitators and consultants, or members of communities and organizations in all sectors: government, business, education, and not-for-profit.

This certificate program is recommended for anyone who wants to either be more collaborative as a leader or who wants to help others find new and innovative solutions to tough issues through participatory planning and collaborative decision-making.

Five Core Courses
To earn a certificate, you must complete the five core courses. Courses are non-credit, with a credit option. Courses may be taken individually; completion of certificate is not required.

Graduates of the Cascadia Center for Leadership 10-day program need only complete Foundations of Meeting Mastery, Advanced Meeting Mastery, and Designing Collaborative Processes to be eligible for the certificate.

Foundations of Meeting Mastery: A Key to Vibrant Organizations & Communities: Learn and practice the essential elements of planning, opening, conducting, closing, and following up on meetings at work, in communities, or public “hearings.” Discover methods for collaboratively solving problems and finding mutually agreeable solutions among individuals, stakeholder groups, and organizations.
Advanced Meeting Mastery: Apply Theory, Tools & Skills: Increase and strengthen your process know-how as a facilitative leader or neutral facilitator. Add process tools and facilitative behaviors to your tool kit. Each participant will build on the knowledge and skills developed in Foundations of Meeting Mastery (or equivalent experience) and have the opportunity to practice leading or facilitating groups, dealing with difficult behaviors, and receive supportive and constructive feedback from participants and instructors including optional video review.
Designing Collaborative Processes for Communities & Organizations: Solve Tough Problems, Plan for the Future & Create Change: To effectively take on and solve complex issues, organizational and community leaders need to know how to design processes that involve a series of meetings over time with diverse stakeholders. Making such processes inclusive, understandable, transparent and collaborative is key to creating constructive and productive interactions. Participants will have the opportunity to learn about actual successful collaborative processes and receive help designing your own.Foundations of Meeting Mastery or equivalent experience is required. Advanced Meeting Mastery is helpful but not required.
Self Mastery: Who You Are Leads: Increase self-awareness and appreciation of your strengths so that you can make more conscious and considered choices about how to be as constructive as possible in your words and actions in everyday and difficult interactions.
Communication & Leadership Skills for Productive Interactions: Learn how to increase your ability to have your expertise and experience more fully utilized and your recommendations implemented. Whether you work as an independent consultant or in a staff position in your organization (e.g., planning, human resources, engineering, legal or financial), you will be better able to establish and maintain effective partnerships with your clients.

Above are the five available core courses; to see the complete list of current courses, check out LOCC’s site here.

Resource Link: www2.humboldt.edu/locc/

Organizing Study Circles with Young People

Posted on August 22, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 24-page guide, Organizing Study Circles with Young People, was developed by Everyday Democracy [who used to be known as Study Circles Resource Center] and published in 2003. Oftentimes younger people are excluded from participating in engagement efforts, even though youth have much to offer on making decisions and building community. Study Circles are a style of dialogue process, where a small, diverse group of participants can discuss different points of view; usually with the goal of moving from dialogue to action. The guide gives detailed steps for designing a Study Circles process for young people to come together and dialogue. This process encourages youth to be engaged with a variety of perspectives, to hear and be heard, and ultimately to become more active citizens.

Below is an excerpt from the guide and it can be found in full to download on Everyday Democracy’s site here or at the bottom of this page.

From the guide…

With the growth of study circles as a tool for community dialogue and problem solving, more and more organizers in communities and organizations are reaching out to include young people in study circle programs. This is critical, since young people have a stake in helping our communities work — and they bring unique energy, insights, and assets to public conversations and to solving public problems.

Young people get involved in study circles in many different ways: in schools; as part of community-based or neighborhood programs; in after-school programs or youth organizations; as part of large youth events and conferences, and in other settings where young people spend time. Sometimes young people and adults are together in study circles; sometimes the circles are for youth only. Through this process, young people learn about issues, gain new skills, have a chance to hear and be heard, and find ways to work with others on the issues that are important to them. In short, they have a chance to experience their own potential as active and involved citizens.

Using this guide
The purpose of this guide is to help young people and adults organize successful youth study circles in a variety of settings.

Part 1 provides an Overview of youth study circles, including the rationale for participation, study circle principles, and universal guidelines.

Part 2 covers the basic steps of Organizing study circles with young people.

Part 3 describes different Settings where study circles with youth take place, and advice for organizing in each of those settings.

Part 4 offers a list of Resources.

Part 1: An overview of youth study circles
Young people are key to building our communities and strengthening our democracy. They offer vision, energy, and a distinct point of view about our public concerns. Yet too often, young people are left out of community conversations and decisions — even when the issues directly involve and affect them! Adding these voices to critical community conversations benefits everyone. Young people should be part of the discussions about issues that affect our neighborhoods, schools, congregations, and other organizations. A study circle is a very different kind of conversation for youth and adults alike. The process — making room for all voices, respecting different points of view, emphasizing listening, and searching for common understanding — helps participants address some of our most difficult public issues. Participants find their voice, get involved with others different from themselves, and find ways to make a difference.

Youth study circles …
– offer a different way of talking and listening.
– expand understanding of an issue beyond one’s own view.
– help resolve conflict and promote critical thinking.
– build relationships and bridges among all kinds of participants.
– connect teens with adults and the broader world.
– help teens solve problems and take part in solutions.

Some study circles involve only young people as participants. In this case, the circles provide a structured process for diverse groups of young people to talk about issues they care about. Fostering important peer relationships, study circles promote honest dialogue without adult interference.

In other settings, study circles bring young people together with adults. This approach builds trust and understanding between generations that are often distant or even pitted against one another. With the help of strong facilitation, these study circles provide a setting that offers a new way of hearing one another and then working together. Adults and teens alike attest to the power of this experience.

This is an excerpt from the guide, it can be downloaded in full at the bottom of this page or from Everyday Democracy’s site here.

About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: Organizing_Study_Circles_with_Young_People

Where Have All the Voters Gone?

Posted on August 17, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 6-page discussion guide, Where Have All the Voters Gone?, was created by the Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Civic Participation and Arizona State University Pastor Center for Politics & Public Service. It was updated in July 2016 and was adapted from National Issues Forums Institute. This discussion guide provides four approaches to use in deliberation on why voter turnout is currently low and has dramatically gone down since the 1960s, especially among communities of color. With each approach, the guide offers examples and suggestions; and concerns, trade-offs, and consequences. The end of the guide offers closing reflections on how participants’ thinking changed during the discussion and what can be done to remedy the low voter turn out in current US politics.

Below is an abbreviated version of the guide, which can be downloaded in full at the bottom of this page or found on NIFI’s site here.

From the guide…

Many Americans express frustration and concern about poor and decreasing voter turnout rates in local and national elections. Discussion about why citizens aren’t voting tends to focus on voter attitudes toward politicians and politics, and on the implications of a disengaged voting populace for the future of our democracy.

Given these concerns:
What, if anything, should be done to increase voter participation?
What are the key elements of a “healthy democracy”?

The discussion guide gives four options for deliberation:

Approach One: Eliminate the barriers
Proponents of this approach say that the act of voting has become too complicated and poses obstacles and barriers that can prove challenging for some voters to overcome. They suggest changes to the voting and elections system to make it easier and more convenient for voters to participate in elections.

Approach Two: Increase election issue awareness
Some research suggests that a major factor contributing to low voter turnout is a lack of awareness or familiarity with the candidates, positions, or ballot measures that will be voted on in a given election. Critics point out a declining emphasis on civics education in public schools as a cause for this trend. Others point to a vicious cycle for voters in communities that vote in low numbers: Candidates and campaigns focus efforts on communities that vote in high numbers. So minorities and poor voters, for example, get less information about elections, which leads to low turnout.

Approach Three: Reform the election process
Many voters and non-voters alike express concern and frustration about problems with the election and voting process. Some are concerned about security and accuracy issues relating to voter fraud and vote tabulation (“Will my vote even be counted?”), while others worry about the role and influence that the political party system, lobbyists and political campaigns have, and about the fairness and transparency of the election process.

Approach Four: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
Some policy leaders argue that it is not necessary or even ideal for all citizens to participate in every election. They say that voters will participate in elections that have particular interest for them, and will perhaps endure the consequences for not voting, and that that is the nature of democracy.

To explore the full discussion guide with examples, suggestions, concerns, trade-offs, and consequences; click the link below.

About Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Civic Participation
The Maricopa Community Colleges’ Center for Civic Participation (CCP) seeks to enrich public life and public discourse on our Maricopa Community College campuses and in our communities. The Center also serves to promote effective practices that support Maricopa’s mission relating to community education and civic responsibility.

About Arizona State University Pastor Center for Politics & Public Service
Located in the ASU College of Public Service and Community Solutions, the Center serves as a dynamic, student-centric hub of activity that promotes, publicizes, and encourages political engagement and public service among ASU students and the broader community. It embodies ASU’s commitment to being an active agent of change, addressing society’s problems.

About NIFI Issue Guides
NIFI’s Issue Guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, Issue Guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums

Resource Link: Where_Have_All_the_Voters_Gone

Divisive Discourse: The Extreme Rhetoric of Contemporary American Politics

Posted on August 16, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 258-page book, Divisive Discourse: The Extreme Rhetoric of Contemporary American Politics, by Joseph Zompetti was published January 2015. In the book, he discusses the extreme rhetoric that currently prevails in American political discourse and its subsequent effects on people to disengage and the political environment to become polarized. Zompetti shares insight into this toxic political environment, sheds light on the extreme rhetorical practices performed in US politics, and offers critical thinking skills for people to better participate despite this.

Below is an excerpt from the book and it can be purchased on Amazon here.

From the book…

Divisive Discourse challenges assumptions about political ideology. The book examines the techniques and contents of the divisive discourse that pervades contemporary American political conversation. It teaches us about extreme rhetoric, thus enabling readers to be more critical consumers of information.

The book provides a framework for identifying and interpreting extreme language. Readers learn about rhetorical fallacies and the strategies used by political pundits to manipulate and spin information.

In subsequent chapters the author examines and analyzes how divisive discourse is used in discussions of specific political issues including homosexual rights, gun control, and healthcare.

Divisive Discourse provides insight into how divisive discourse leads to societal fragmentation, and fosters apathy, confusion, animosity, and ignorance. By exposing the rhetoric of division and teaching readers how to confront it, the book reinvigorates the potential to participate in politics and serves as a guide for how to have civil discussions about controversial issues. Divisive Discourse is an ideal teaching tool for anyone interested in contemporary issues and courses in political science, media studies, or rhetoric.

About Joseph Zompetti
Dr. Zompetti is professor of communication at Illinois State University where he teaches courses in communication and social issues, classical rhetoric, and political communication. Dr. Zompetti’s research interests include the rhetoric of critical cultural studies and the rhetoric of civic engagement.

Resource Link: Divisive Discourse: The Extreme Rhetoric of Contemporary American Politics

A Guide to Participatory Budgeting in Schools

Posted on August 15, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 57-page guide, A Guide to Participatory Budgeting in Schools, was a project of the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) and published in 2016. The guide’s curriculum design was created by Valeria Mogilevich, with project support by Melissa Appleton and Maria Hadden of PBP. This thorough guide gives details for implementing a participatory budgeting process within schools. Participatory budgeting is a process where people decide where to spend a portion of a budget by engaging their community- or in this case- their school, and vote on projects to make final decisions. The guide is rich with process details, helpful hints, plan layouts, and useable worksheets. There are 18 lesson plans and 6 worksheets provided in this guide to get a PB process launched in schools over the course of a semester or school year.

Sections include:
– Planning
– Idea Collection
– Proposal Development
– Voting
– Implementation and Beyond
– Worksheets

Below is an excerpt from the guide, you can find it in full at the bottom of this page and directly from PBP’s site here.

From the guide…

So, you’re interested in doing Participatory Budgeting in your school. Great! This guide will help you plan it.

Participatory Budgeting is a democratic process in which community members decide how to spend a part of a public budget. In this case, the community members are students and the budget is the school budget. Students collect ideas about the school’s needs, develop project proposals, and vote on projects to fund. We know Participatory Budgeting is a mouthful, so we’ll call it PB from now on.

The process was first developed in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil in 1989. In Porto Alegre, as many as 50,000 people have participated each year to decide as much as 20% of the city budget. Since 1989, PB has spread to over 1,500 cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, PB has been used in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, Chicago, New York City, and Vallejo (California). Most of these PB processes are at the city level, for the municipal budget. PB has also been used, however, for counties, states, housing authorities, schools and school systems, universities, coalitions, and other public agencies.

We heard from a lot of people (through a PB process, actually) that they wanted help bringing PB to their schools. We wrote this for educators and principals looking to incorporate PB into their classroom during the school day.

Why PB?
Participatory Budgeting is great to bring into your classroom because:

It’s democracy in action.
It gives your students a positive civic engagement experience.
It serves as a bridge for your students to be engaged in politics and their community.
It strengthens the school community by building positive relations between students and the administration.
It shows students the benefits of getting involved.

By participating in a PB process, students will:

Increase their ability to work collaboratively.
Develop research, interviewing, and surveying skills.
Develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
Develop public presentation skills.
Increase their awareness of community needs and their role in addressing those needs.
Understand budgetary processes and develop basic budgeting skills Identify ways to participate in governance.
Increase concern about the welfare of others and develop a sense of social responsibility.

How it works
This curriculum is set up to take place:
In 45 minute-class periods
Once a week
Over the course of a semester

The idea is to focus on Participatory Budgeting one day of the week and leave the rest of your week to your regular content. We know that might not sound exactly like you. That’s OK! Everyone’s schedule and needs are different, so you can compress it by meeting more times a week. What you’re seeing here is the most efficient way to get through a Participatory Budgeting process. You can also spend more time on specific phases of the process and stretch it out into a whole year.

“Once you give young people the opportunity to help shape their community, they are incredibly willing and able to step up to that challenge. And students’ expertise is so needed as we work to improve education across the country. Youth-driven participatory budgeting in schools is an excellent tool to harness that expertise to create positive, constructive change.”

-Mia Salamone, Democracy in Action Coordinator, Mikva Challenge, Chicago, IL

“In our school we are low income and there’s negative stereotypes about our school and who we are, yet [our principal] is trusting us to make decisions about our education and never doubted parents and students like me would make the best decisions, and that is being shown by the project proposals we all have the ability to vote on.”

– Stephania Perez, Sophomore, Overfelt High School, San Jose, CA

To learn more about bringing participatory budgeting to schools, check out the guide in full below or on PBP’s site here.

About the Participatory Budgeting Project
The Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) is a non-profit organization that helps communities decide how to spend public money, primarily in the US and Canada. Their mission is to empower community members to make informed, democratic, and fair decisions about public spending and revenue.

Follow on Twitter @PBProject

Resource Link: Guide_to_Participatory_Budgeting_in_Schools

Talking to Your Kids This Election

Posted on August 8, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The article, Talking to Your Kids This Election, was written by John Sarrouf and published August 1, 2016 on Public Conversations Project‘s site. In the article, Sarrouf shares a conversation he and his daughter had about her anxieties this election, and showed her the power she had to share her voice and listen to experiences outside her own. While the conversation was held with his 8-year-old, the lessons drawn from it can be shared with young and old alike. Especially within the dialogue and deliberation field, it is our ability to empower people to actively participate by using their voices and hold space to hear each other.

Below is the full article and it can also be found on the Public Conversations Project blog here.

From Public Conversations Project…

The idea that she and I could get on a bus and stand in the street – and that it would make a difference – tapped into something deep inside of her. It gave her some agency in a world that I can only imagine seems totally out of her control. After all, she cannot vote, she cannot write letters to the editor, she cannot donate money to campaigns or to meetings, she cannot even decide what time she goes to bed. She has very little control over her own world. That she might be able, with her own two feet and her small but mighty voice, to walk to the center of the world’s power and say “no” or ask for a “right” captured her imagination. And that is exactly where I want her imagination – thinking about her own power in the world, how to ask for what she cares about, how to use her voice alongside others.

This is the story we as champions of dialogue and courageous conversation can tell our children and our fellow community members. There is a place for you to be heard. Rather than talking about moving to Canada, let’s talk about how the country needs your participation. The country needs your involvement. You can make a difference if you use your voice. Our work is to help it be heard in the halls of power, in PTA meetings, in living rooms, in the challenging but utterly necessary conversations we have with each other about who we want to be together.

Especially in this moment of division in our country, we do not need to wait for our government to solve the problems between us – we can and must do that ourselves. And we must not allow the divisive rhetoric of our leaders keep us from reaching out to each other. We must make spaces for each other to hear and be heard – by one another and by our elected officials.

Our work as facilitators is to support those conversations, to make a space for those voices. We can turn our libraries, church basements, coffee shops, museums, living rooms into spaces of reconciliation and renewal. Tell your children that they have a voice and we will make space for their voice to be heard. Tell your children that they are the answer to our world’s problems and to do that, they must be willing to speak up and also to listen. The world can be a scary place to a child and the answer to some of those fear lies in their ability to make a difference. It is up to us to build a circle for them where they can find their own power, and encounter one another in new and healing ways.

Follow on Twitter: @pconversations

Resource Link: www.publicconversations.org/blog/talking-your-kids-election

Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth [RJOY]

Posted on August 4, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

In 2005, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth [RJOY] was co-created by Fania Davis and members of the Oakland community and government. RJOY works to implement programs within schools, the community and juvenile justice system; beginning with a pilot program at West Oakland middle school in 2007. In the places where restorative justice has been implemented, there has been a noticeable decrease in youth violence, crimes and recidivism; and an increase in victim satisfaction and reconciliation of affected parties.

Restorative justice provides an alternative to our current retributive justice system, by shifting to bring in all affected parties, addressing the harms done and find ways to heal all affected parties. Our current justice system is designed to answer the questions: “Who did what and how can we punish them?” In contrast, restorative justice asks the questions:

“Who was harmed? What are the needs and responsibilities of all those affected? “How do all affected parties come together to heal?”

Restorative justice has had remarkable success in shifting the way that justice is carried out to better benefit the affected parties and community as a whole. Modern practices of restorative justice have been around for 30+ years, but are grounded in ancient, indigenous justice practices.

To learn more about restorative justice and Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth [RJOY], check out the site here.

From the site…

History
The dramatic successes of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in healing the wounds of mass violence in South Africa and of restorative juvenile justice legislation in making youth incarceration virtually obsolete in New Zealand inspired civil rights attorney and community activist Fania E. Davis to explore the possibility of an Oakland initiative. In 2005, others joined the effort, including Oakland City Councilmember Nancy Nadel and community activist Aeeshah Clottey. Nancy hosted a series of meetings at her office, attended by community members, judges, educators, law students and representatives of the District Attorney’s, Public Defender’s, and Human Services offices. With a small grant from Measure Y, Oakland’s voter-approved violence prevention initiative, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY) was born.

Mission
Disparately impacting youth of color, punitive school discipline and juvenile justice policies activate tragic cycles of youth violence, incarceration, and wasted lives. Founded in 2005, RJOY works to interrupt these cycles by promoting institutional shifts toward restorative approaches that actively engage families, communities, and systems to repair harm and prevent re-offending. RJOY focuses on reducing racial disparities and public costs associated with high rates of incarceration, suspension, and expulsion. We provide education, training, and technical assistance and collaboratively launch demonstration programs with our school, community, juvenile justice, and research partners.

Beginning in 2007, RJOY’s city-funded West Oakland Middle School pilot project eliminated violence and expulsions, and reduced suspension rates by 87%, saving the school thousands in attendance and Title I funding. Inspired by the successes of our Middle School pilot, by May 2008, nearly 20 Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) principals requested training to launch programs at their sites. We have served over 1000 youth in Oakland’s schools. UC Berkeley Law’s Henderson Center for Social Justice evaluated the Middle School pilot and released a study in February 2011. A publication on implementing restorative initiatives in schools produced in collaboration with the Alameda County Health Care Agency is forthcoming. In 2010, the OUSD Board of Directors passed a resolution adopting restorative justice as a system-wide alternative to zero tolerance discipline and as an approach to creating healthier schools.

RJOY has enjoyed similar success in the juvenile justice arena. In 2007, we gave educational presentations to the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court and others. Impressed with the restorative justice model, the judge convened a Restorative Justice Task Force. RJOY provided education and training and helped initiate a planning process which engaged approximately 60 program directors- including probation, court, school, and law enforcement officials, as well as community-based stakeholders. In 2009, the group produced a Strategic Plan that charts reform of the county’s juvenile justice system through institutionalization of restorative justice. Two innovative restorative diversion and restorative re-entry projects focused on reducing disproportionate minority contact and associated public costs. The pilots have successfully served 19 youth of color. In collaboration with several partners, we now seek funding to expand the pilots.

RJOY has had programs at three school sites- West Oakland Middle School, Ralph Bunche Continuation School, and a three-year demonstration program at East Oakland’s Castlemont Community of Small Schools funded by a grant from The California Endowment’s Building Healthy Communities Initiative. Goals of the demonstration program were to reduce violence, arrests, and suspensions (particularly of youth of color) while decreasing associated costs and promoting parent and community engagement.

Having trained and made presentations to more than 1500 key justice, community, school, and philanthropic stakeholders as well as youth in the Oakland metropolitan area, and having significantly influenced policy changes in our schools and juvenile justice system, RJOY has already made headway toward its strategic goal of effectuating a fundamental shift from punitive, zero tolerance approaches to youthful wrongdoing that increase harm toward more restorative approaches that heal it.

Resource Link: http://rjoyoakland.org/

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Author Archives: Keiva Hummel

The Next Generation of Our Work

Developing Materials for Deliberative Forums

Leading Organizational & Community Change

Organizing Study Circles with Young People

Where Have All the Voters Gone?

Divisive Discourse: The Extreme Rhetoric of Contemporary American Politics

A Guide to Participatory Budgeting in Schools

Talking to Your Kids This Election