Beyond the Usuals: Ideas to Encourage Broader Public Engagement in Community Decision Making

Posted on September 16, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

This three-page tip sheet from the Institute for Local Government, Beyond the Usuals: Ideas to Encourage Broader Public Engagement in Community Decision Making (2015), are suggestions for achieving better inclusion and representation in public involvement and civic engagement efforts. Download the PDF here.

From ILG

Given the challenges facing cities and counties in California, local officials are increasingly asking residents to participate in public engagement efforts whose outcomes will help shape the future of their communities. These discussions are about land use, budgeting, affordable housing, climate change, transportation, public safety and many other local and regional issues.

However even with the best of intentions to encourage broad participation, local officials often find that only a relatively small number of community members actually take part in public conversations and forums.

A failure to involve a cross-section of residents limits the effectiveness of these public engagement efforts and negatively impacts the breadth and quality of ideas contributed. It can also reduce community support for the final decisions.

Most California communities have diverse populations and some have experienced rapid demographic changes. Residents vary by age, gender, ethnicity, immigrant status and income level. Some own homes and some rent. Community members may be long-time residents or new arrivals. People read and speak English with different degrees of proficiency. Some have disabilities. Individual residents, as well as whole communities, may have more or less experience, confidence, or capacity to participate.

Based on the ideas of many individuals and organizations, and on the experiences of communities throughout California, here are a number of ideas for achieving broader representation in local public engagement efforts.

DEVELOP RELATIONSHIPS –Less engaged communities are often critical of the public engagement process. Developing personal relationships with the community can lead to a more inclusive process and community buy-in.
BUILD COMMUNITY CAPACITY TO PARTICIPATE –Community members have varying degrees of familiarity with local government processes and functions. Providing educational materials or process at the beginning of the public engagement process will allow more meaningful participation from the broad community.
FIT YOUR PROCESS TO THE PARTICIPANTS– Once you determine the purpose of a public engagement process, think about the range of participants you hope to involve before selecting your approach or process(es) for that involvement. This will help you create opportunities for participation that will be more appropriate and welcoming for participants and reach the diversity community
GET HELP –Identify and consult community-based and intermediary organizations, including neighborhood and grassroots leadership groups, local clergy, faith-based organizations, community and ethnic media, and others that can as provide two-way conduits for communication between local officials and community residents on specific issues and polices.
COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY AND RESPECTFULLY –Stay current with your communities changing demographics, and develop culturally and linguistically appropriate communications material and strategies. Recognize the importance of communicating with residents in their first language to ensure their maximum understanding of issues. As appropriate, promote public engagement through ethnic media and other intermediary organizations that already serve and work with the communities you wish to reach. Plan ahead for translation services. Transportation assistance and childcare (perhaps through respected intermediary organizations) can often be helpful.
BE FLEXIBLE –Hold public meetings or other public engagement processes in community settings that are known and accessible to the communities you wish to reach. Explore what engagement tools and processes will best meet the needs and conditions of specific populations.
HAVE SPECIFIC GOALS –Take the time to create targeted goals for harder to reach communities. In general, encourage attention and learning about inclusive engagement throughout your agency, and include public information officers in these discussions. Individual departments can develop their own outreach plans to reach specific less engaged communities or populations.
STAY IN TOUCH– As appropriate, keep current lists of organizations and groups concerned about given issues and keep them informed of opportunities to participate.
SAY THANK YOU & FOLLOW UP –Express your appreciation for those who do become involved. Let participants know how their input was considered and impacted decisions.
KEEP LEARNING –Follow up after specific engagement efforts to determine what worked and what could be improved
BUILD IT IN –Explore the integration of diverse community voices as a part of your overall strategy to inform and support the goals and programs of local government.

About the Institute for Local Government
The Institute for Local Government is the nonprofit research education affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. Its mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. The Institute’s goal is to be the leading provider of information that enables local officials and their communities to make good decisions. Founded in 1955, the Institute has been serving local officials’ information needs for 55-plus years. Some of the highlights of that history are detailed in the story below. While respecting and honoring its past, the Institute is also intently focused on the present and future. In these difficult economic times, the need for the Institute’s materials for local officials is even greater.

Follow on Twitter: @InstLocGov.

Resource Link: www.ca-ilg.org/post/beyond-usuals-ideas-encourage-broader-public-involvement-your-community

The Creation of Politics Video

Posted on September 9, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

The short video, The Creation of Politics (2014), was created by Kettering Foundation, in collaboration with Momentum Inc., Danijel Zezelj, and Main Sail Productions. The video tells the story of villagers who came together to address the dangers they faced as a community and how this led to the creation of politics. Below is the blog post from Kettering describing the video in more detail and find the link to the video here.

From Kettering

Those of you who have participated in Kettering’s annual summer Deliberative Democracy Exchange have probably heard Kettering Foundation president David Mathews tell a story about a small village that faces a recurring flood. It is a fable of sorts. In spite of the villagers’ many efforts to stop the flood, the waters return again and again.

So the people in the story had to make a decision: should they move across the river, where another band of people already live? Should they stay in their homeland? Or, should they move to higher ground? And in coming together and making a collective decision, the people create politics.

The story is designed to be universal – one that belongs to all times, all people, all cultures. People in communities everywhere face difficult problems and must weigh the costs and benefits of potential actions and then decide how to act together. The story counters the idea that public deliberation is some kind of new technique to be used on communities and encourages a notion of democracy that is citizen-centered.

A team at the Kettering Foundation collaborated with Momentum, Inc., artist and illustrator Danijel Zezelj, and MainSail Productions to produce a new animated video, The Creation of Politics, which brings to life this archetypal flood story that imagines how politics was first created – and why.

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: http://kettering.org/blogs/new-video-creation-politics

Access Through Action Discussion Guide

Posted on August 31, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

This 22-page discussion guide, Access Through Action Dialogues, describes a five-meeting series of dialogues in Miami Dade County for the Health Care Access Summit Series #1 via the Human Services Coalition of Dade County. This dialogue series was adapted from the discussion guide, Thriving Communities, which was developed by Everyday Democracy (formally the Study Circles Resource Center) and the Northwest Area Foundation.

From the Intro

People in communities in Miami Dade County want to live in a place where they have access to quality affordable health care. People talk about health care in different ways. But when they talk about health care, one thing that always comes up is access in our community. Health care access issues are everywhere. It may look different in rural places than it does in cities or suburbs. But there are things about health care access that look the same in all these places. Access to health care may look different to each of us. A single parent might view access to health care as an unaffordable luxury. A senior who enjoyed health care while employed may be overwhelmed by the added burden of paying for health care after retirement. Some people may struggle to understand the complicated forms required to access some health care programs. A person who has health care through her employer may not worry about access for others. People new to the United States may not trust our institutions, or they may be worried that their immigrant status will affect their access to health care.

This discussion guide will help us talk about the kind of health care access we want to see in our community. No community is doing well when some of its members are denied health care. If we work on increasing access to health care, we can have a better community. And, by working on making the community better, we can improve access to health care. These two important tasks go hand in hand. Access to health care affects us all. Even wealthy parts of the community may struggle with health care access. We need to share our vision of what kind of community we want. We need to take action to change things so that we all can thrive.

The manual gives a break down of the five meetings and how they will lead to action to address the health care access issues in Dade County.

Meeting One: Get to know each other, talk about how we are connected to the issue, and begin to look at barriers to health care access.

Meeting Two: Create a vision of a community where everyone has access to health care and talk about what the health care system looks like in this community.

Meeting Three: Talk about why there are health care access barriers in this community.

Meeting Four: Talk about ways to reduce or eliminate barriers to health care access.

Meeting Five: Talk about the assets in our community and talk about how to make our ideas from Meeting Four happen.

This discussion guide was part of a larger civic engagement effort of multiple agencies within Dade County, to improve the community’s access to health care. In 1998, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation launched a nationwide initiative called, “Community Voices: Healthcare for the Underserved” and Miami was one of thirteen sites. The dialogues sessions described in this manual, in addition to the overall contribution of over 700 community members in similar dialogue processes; would become the recommendations for the Miami Action Plan (MAP) for Access to Health Care. Download the PDF below.

Resource Link: Access_Through_Action_Manual

This resource was submitted by Everyday Democracy via their Issue Guide Exchange.

Working Together to Remove Racial and Ethnic Barriers to Student Achievement (Facilitators Discussion Guide)

Posted on August 24, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

The 44-page guide, Working Together to Remove Racial and Ethnic Barriers for Student Achievement (Facilitator Discussion Guide) by Everyday Democracy, was published January 2009. The facilitators guide discusses the Montgomery Country Public Schools (MCPS) Study Circles Program and provides minute-by-minute details for how to facilitate this six session Dialogue-to-Change program. This Study Circles Program was created to remove the racial and ethnic barriers to student achievement and parent involvement within the Montgomery Country Public School system. The objectives of this program were to build a unified group of diverse parents, teachers, and students that understand the challenges and benefits of a diverse school; encourage an environment in which racial and ethnic issues are talked about openly and productively; and create personal and group action steps that address racial and ethnic barriers to student achievement.

More about the guide

This facilitator guide is organized to help participants:
-Build lasting relationships among diverse stakeholders
-Become more aware of the issues, their own beliefs, and the perspectives of people who are from different backgrounds
-Develop action plans that will address racial and ethnic barriers to student achievement and parent involvement.

Each session, and each activity, are designed specifically to meet these goals. As a facilitator, you need to pay attention to all three of these goals throughout the study circle. Study Circle groups however, are always different. They won’t respond the same way to all activities. You may need to adapt the sessions or activities to meet the specific needs of your group. To do this successfully, you must understand the goals of the activities, how they fit in with one another, and how they fit into the overall design of the study circle.

-Sessions One and Two are designed to develop trusting relationships.
-Sessions Three and Four are designed to have honest and challenging conversations about race and the impact of race on the student achievement and parent involvement.
-Sessions Five and Six are meant to develop actions steps that will address the racial and ethnic barriers.

To learn more and access the full workbook guide, download the PDF below.

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.

We have learned that some of the key components to ensuring racially-equitable systemic change include building relationships, establishing a diverse coalition, having trained peer facilitators during dialogues, building on assets, and linking actions to individual, community, and policy change. We provide online tools and in-person trainings on organizing, racial equity, facilitation, communications, and action planning. We act as a catalyst and coach for communities, knowing that the people of each community are best suited to carry out and sustain the work that will make a difference. The communities we serve are the focal point of our work. Our ultimate aim is to help create communities that value everyone’s voice and work for everyone, and to help create a strong national democracy that upholds these principles.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: Remove-Racial-Ethnic-Barriers-to-Student-Achievement.pdf

UC Davis Extension: Conflict Resolution Courses

Posted on August 20, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

From UC Davis Extension, The Conflict Resolution Professional Concentration, which has proven tools to resolve conflicts, negotiate agreements, deal with difficult people, facilitate groups and build consensus. In a streamlined format composed of three courses, the program prioritizes theory and practical tools to equip students to resolve every type of conflict and positively impact people, organizations, programs and policies. These courses are designed for professionals seeking to further develop their effectiveness and leadership skills in a broad variety of fields including government, business, health care, education, human resources, law, land use, water and natural resources.

Who should attend

This program is designed for a broad audience—for those seeking conflict resolution skills to benefit their current careers and for those interested in a new career in conflict resolution. It is recommended for anyone interested in developing knowledge and skills in mediation, facilitation, collaborative decision-making and other forms of problem solving and conflict resolution.

The professional concentration can be completed in less than a year while working in a full-time position.

Courses required

Fall: Introduction to Conflict Resolution (online, 2 units) $795
Winter: Fundamental Conflict Resolution Skills (Sacramento 3-day course, 2 units), $795
Spring: Advanced Conflict Resolution Skills (Sacramento, 3-day course, 2 units) $795

If you enroll in all 3 courses at once, you pay a discounted price of $1,995.

***Please note, you must call (530) 752-0881 to enroll and receive the discounted price.

About the courses

Introduction to Conflict Resolution:
Become a vital problem-solver in your organization or community. Build a solid foundation in the basics of conflict resolution, and learn theory and new techniques for mediating conflicts and facilitating group dynamics. Discover leading models in the field and apply these to current cases using practical strategies to effectively transform conflicts.

Fundamental Conflict Resolution Skills:
Learn the communication skills and mediation models essential for successful conflict resolution. Practice facilitation skills and techniques required for successful group and team meetings. Learn strategies to minimize and address conflict in difficult conversations and with difficult people. Explore tools to assess and meaningfully engage diverse interests and participants.

Advanced Conflict Resolution Skills:
Discover collaborative methods and techniques for consensus building, negotiation and resolving complex conflicts. Learn to find mutually agreeable solutions to challenging situations so projects and programs can move forward. Gain leadership skills to address tough conflict and negotiation settings.

For more information or to enroll, call (800) 752-0881, email extension[at]ucdavis[dot]edu or visit the website here.

More about UC Davis Extension
The continuing and professional education division of UC Davis, has been an internationally recognized leader in educational outreach for individuals, organizations and communities for more than 50 years. With 62,000 annual enrollments in classroom and online university-level courses, UC Davis Extension serves lifelong learners in the growing Sacramento region, all 50 states and more than 115 countries.

Follow on Twitter: @UCDExtension

Resource Link: https://extension.ucdavis.edu/areas-study/collaboration-center

The Future of Work: How Should We Prepare for the New Economy? (NIFI Issue Guide)

Posted on August 19, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

The National Issues Forums Institute published the 13-page Issue Guide, The Future of Work: How Should We Prepare for the New Economy?, in February 2015. This guide is designed to help facilitate balanced deliberation about how we should prepare for the future economic reality of work.

From the guide…

The nature of the work we do has changed in ways that few Americans a generation ago could have imagined, and it will undoubtedly be dramatically different in yet another generation. These changes will bring both opportunities and difficulties…

The stakes are high. Many Americans share concerns about the nation’s competitive edge, stagnant wages, and a sense that young people today will be worse off than previous generations.

We have choices to make together in shaping the future of work. Business, government, individuals, and communities all play a role in addressing this issue. This guide presents some of the options we might pursue, along with their drawbacks.

This issue guide presents three options for deliberation:

Option One: “Free to Succeed”
Give individuals and businesses the freedom they need to innovate and succeed

Option Two: “An Equal Chance to Succeed”
Make sure all Americans have a chance to succeed in an increasingly competitive environment

Option Three: “Choose the Future We Want”
Strategically choose to support promising industries rather than simply hoping that the changes in work and the economy will be beneficial

More about the 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.

Issue Guides are generally available in print or PDF download for a small fee ($2 to $4). All NIFI Issue Guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/en/issue-guides.

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/issue-guide/future-work

Does Culture Matter for Deliberation? Linguistic Speech Cultures and Parliamentary Deliberation in Switzerland

Posted on August 14, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

This 27-page case study, Does Culture Matter for Deliberation? Linguistic Speech Cultures and Parliamentary Deliberation in Switzerland by Seraina Pedrini, was published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The study explores the effects of culture on parliamentary deliberation in Switzerland.

Even though culture is seen as an important aspect of deliberation, empirical research on culture’s effects on deliberation is almost completely absent. This paper offers one of the first systematic empirical studies of cultural underpinnings on deliberation. It explores two conceptions of culture, namely ‘holistic’ vs. ‘contextual’. In the ‘holistic’ approach, culture is assumed to be a constant, while the ‘contextual’ approach assumes adaptive rationality of actors to different contexts. As an extension of the ‘contextual’ approach, this paper also explores the effects of different compositions of cultural groups on the quality of deliberation. The effects of the two approaches are evaluated by linking linguistic groups in the committee and plenary debates of the Swiss parliament to a broad variety of deliberative standards. The findings reveal that linguistic groups do not differ much in their deliberative behaviour, which defies ‘holistic’ approaches to culture. Rather, the results underline that speech culture is highly context-driven, which is indicative of a ‘contextual’ approach to culture. However, culture still plays a role, but mainly in the context of group composition: the proportion of minority-language speakers affects several deliberative indicators such as respect, common good orientation and clarifying questions.

Download the case study 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/vol11/iss1/art8/

Diverse Discourse: Analyzing the Potential of Public Affairs Magazine Online Forums to Reflect Qualities of the Public Sphere

Posted on August 12, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

Diverse Discourse: Analyzing the Potential of Public Affairs Magazine Online Forums to Reflect Qualities of the Public Sphere (2015), written by David Wolfgang and Joy Jenkins, was published in Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. This study explored the quality of public discourse within public affairs magazines and how the quality of discussion varied depending on whether the magazine was moderate and directed at a broader audience, versus liberal/conservative specific magazines which also held diverse perspectives.

From the Abstract

Public affairs magazines have expanded beyond their print editions to offer online editions with forums for readers to discuss important public issues. For magazines that cater to ideologically specific audiences, online forums could serve as forms of alternative publics for presenting diverse viewpoints and values. The conversations that emerge also hold potential for portraying characteristics of the public sphere. This study used textual analysis to examine online comments associated with 21 articles from six different U.S. public affairs magazines representing various positions on the ideological spectrum. Using Dahlberg’s (2001) six-part assessment of quality public discourse, the analysis showed that moderate magazines serving a broad readership induced a lower-quality discussion. In contrast, liberal and conservative publications, when encouraging diverse and ideologically heterogeneous perspectives, produced quality discourse. These forums showed higher levels of quality characteristics such as exchange and critique of normative positions, reflexivity, sincerity, and constructive dialogue.

Download the case study from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

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/vol11/iss1/art5

Deliberating While Voting: The Antecedents, Dynamics, And Consequences Of Talking While Completing Ballots In Two Vote-By-Mail States

Posted on August 11, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

The study, Deliberating While Voting: The Antecedents, Dynamics, And Consequences Of Talking While Completing Ballots In Two Vote-By-Mail States (2015), by Justin Reedy and John Gastil was published in Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 11: Iss. 1. The paper explores how the deliberative process occurs for citizens who voted by mail in Oregon and Washington, and how this influenced the way voters felt about the process itself.

From the Abstract

An overlooked context for citizen deliberation occurs when voters discuss their ballots with others while completing them at home. Voting by mail (or “absentee voting”) creates an opportunity for informal deliberation in the midst of exercising a basic form of citizen power. We examined this understudied context by blending prior theory with qualitative observations of dyadic and small-group absentee voter discussions to identify common features of such talk, which range from cynical joking and speculation on election outcomes to observing norms of politeness and engaging in heated argument. The hypothesized antecedents and consequences of those behaviors were examined in a survey of 295 Washington and Oregon voters’ recollections of their ballot discussions. Results showed that pro-deliberative features of discussion were reported most often by voters with more formal education and political knowledge. Contrary to hypotheses, the strength of voters’ partisan identities bore no relation to deliberative behavior. Finally, the presence of key discussion features had many of the expected effects on voters’ confidence in ballot choices and their respect for the electoral process, particularly for those voters with less political knowledge.

Download the case study from the Journal of Public Deliberation here.

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/vol11/iss1/art6/

Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy

Posted on August 5, 2015 by Keiva Hummel

The 368-page book, Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy, written by Matt Leighninger and Tina Nabatchi was published May 2015. The book aims to improve public participation infrastructure, the way that citizens are engaged, addressing issues that arise and strengthening the community.

Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy explores the theory and practice of public participation in decision-making and problem-solving. It examines how public participation developed over time to include myriad thick, thin, and conventional opportunities, occurring in both face-to-face meetings and online settings. The book explores the use of participation in various arenas, including education, health, land use, and state and federal government. It offers a practical framework for thinking about how to engage citizens effectively, and clear explanations of participation scenarios, tactics, and designs. Finally, the book provides a sensible approach for reshaping our participation infrastructure to meet the needs of public officials and citizens.

From Chapter One…

The problems we face are daunting, and our capacity to address them is remarkable. Climate change, terrorism, financial instability, and other challenges are indeed formidable, but our power to address them is more advanced than ever before.

The greatest element of our improved problem-solving capacity lies in citizens themselves. We enjoy higher levels of education and communication, and we are more committed than ever to the notion that all people deserve certain inalienable rights. Our ability to understand, use, and improve technology is growing by leaps and bounds: everyone, it seems, is a potential scientist, analyst, or inventor. The power of ordinary people, and the ability of government, civil society, and other institutions to unleash that capacity, is the key to our progress as a civilization.

The reality of rising citizen capacity is not, however, a comfortable fact for public leaders. Trapped in systems designed to protect their expertise from citizen interference, besieged by people who no longer believe their data or respect their authority, and faced with hostile constituents at public events, public officials, managers, and other leaders are understandably skeptical about the virtues, capabilities, and good sense of their fellow men and women.

In turn, citizens are skeptical about virtues, capabilities, and good sense of their public officials. Highly polarized policy debates, the inability of elected leaders to agree on seemingly common-sense measures, and the massive influence of moneyed interests have helped produce the highest levels of citizens distrust in government that we have ever seen.

The official, conventional processes and structures for public participation are almost completely useless for overcoming this divide between citizens and governments; in fact, they seem to be making matters worse. In large part, that is because the infrastructure for participation is inefficient and outdated; it does not recognize citizen capacity and it limits our collective problem-solving potential.

To supplement or circumvent this official participation infrastructure, local leaders have devised a host of new processes, formats, and structures for engaging the public. These include intensive face-to-face deliberations, convenient digital tools, and online networks that add dexterity to the power of face-to-face relationships. Many of these innovations not only satisfy the fundamental needs and goals of citizens, but also demonstrate that potential of public participation for making difficult decisions and solving formidable problems. So far, however, they have been pursued primarily on a temporary, ad hoc basis and have not been incorporated into the way that governments and communities operate.

Public participation can help protect our liberties, ensure justice and equality, and improve our quality of life. It is sometimes characterized as the interaction that makes democracy work- but it might be more accurate to say that public participation is the democracy in our primarily republican political systems. The greatest challenge we now face is how to transform those systems in ways that allow us to tap citizens’ full, democratic, problem-solving potential.

Illuminating that challenge is the purpose of this book. Before we explore the potential of participation (in Chapter 2), we will first examine the new attitudes and capacities people bring to public life. We also describe the existing infrastructure for participation and begin to explore why it typically fails to provide the things that citizens want.

Check out more of the book here on Amazon.

About the Authors

Tina Nabatchi is an associate professor of public administration and international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. The author of several book chapters, monographs, research reports, and white papers, her research focuses on citizen participation, collaborative governance, and conflict resolution.

Matt Leighninger is the executive director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, an alliance of organizations and leading scholars in the field of deliberation and public participation. With twenty years in the field, he has worked with public engagement efforts in over 100 communities, forty states, and four Canadian provinces.

Resource Link: www.amazon.com/Participation-Century-Democracy-Nonprofit-Management

Civic Studies

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

Author Archives: Keiva Hummel

Beyond the Usuals: Ideas to Encourage Broader Public Engagement in Community Decision Making

The Creation of Politics Video

Access Through Action Discussion Guide

Working Together to Remove Racial and Ethnic Barriers to Student Achievement (Facilitators Discussion Guide)

UC Davis Extension: Conflict Resolution Courses

The Future of Work: How Should We Prepare for the New Economy? (NIFI Issue Guide)

Does Culture Matter for Deliberation? Linguistic Speech Cultures and Parliamentary Deliberation in Switzerland

Diverse Discourse: Analyzing the Potential of Public Affairs Magazine Online Forums to Reflect Qualities of the Public Sphere

Deliberating While Voting: The Antecedents, Dynamics, And Consequences Of Talking While Completing Ballots In Two Vote-By-Mail States

Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy