Bridging Our Divides on Criminal Justice Reform

As we look toward NCDD’s 2016 national conference on Bridging Our Divides, we want to lift up stories of D&D projects that are actively showing how people can work together across huge differences, and NCDD member organization Living Room Conversations is a powerful example of that kind of work.  We wanted to share a recent article from their blog about the change LRC has brought to the criminal justice reform conversation, and we encourage you to read it below or find the original here.


Living Room Conversations & Criminal Justice Reform

LRC-logo

Critics of dialogue often ask, “what’s the point of talking?  It’s not like it’s going to change anything, right?”

In January of 2013, a Living Room Conversation took place between Joan Blades, co-founder of MoveOn and Mark Meckler co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.  After being surprised to discover how much they all agreed about criminal justice reform, Joan and Living Room Conversations partners decided to make this topic a priority in future efforts.

Front page coverage of the conversation between Joan and Mark led to a grant from California Endowment to organize Living Room Conversations about realignment (a change in CA prison policy that keeps non-serious offenders in county)  and community safety.  Those California conversations have prompted further conversations in Portland and Kansas City.

In 2013, Joan and Mark were invited to speak together on stage at Citizens University and Harvard Kennedy School – a clip of the Citizens University presentation was shared widely on Upworthy.

Joan wrote op-eds  about criminal justice reform with Grover Norquist and Matt Kibbe in 2014.  As the Living Room Conversations project got more and more attention, so did criminal justice reform – including a World Affairs Forum presentation that highlighted Living Room Conversations’ contribution to the the new momentum for criminal justice reform.

In October of 2014, these efforts led to Joan and Debilyn Molineaux helping convene a meeting of leaders in DC on the left and right,  from inside and outside D.C., to talk about opportunities to work together to achieve meaningful progress on criminal justice issues where we already have fundamental agreement. That meeting helped inspire the creation of the cross-partisan Coalition For Safety and Justice – bringing together the Center for American Progress, Koch Industries, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Tax Reform, FreedomWorks and others in the unlikeliest of alliances.

In December civil rights activist Van Jones co-hosted an event for Living Room Conversations focusing on criminal justice reform.  He shared details about his new partnership with Newt Gingrich to form #Cut50, aimed at reducing the prison population. This April Van and Newt hosted a bi-partisan summit in D.C. on reducing the prison population.  They had a fabulous turnout!

It is increasingly evident that criminal Justice Reform has reached a new place in the public consciousness. In May the NY Times had front page reports of presidential candidates on the right and left proposing to reform our system because there are too many people in our prisons and our drug policy is not working.  Culture leaders like John Oliver and John Stewart recently eviscerated civil asset forfeiture laws and incarceration that is caused by poverty rather than breaking criminal laws.  And leaders in Texas and Georgia now brag about reducing their prison populations.  Laws and enforcement practices are beginning to change and prison populations are declining.

So maybe there’s a point in talking after all?

You can find the original version of this Living Room Conversations blog post at www.livingroomconversations.org/2016/06/living-room-conversations-criminal-justice-reform.

Are Relationships the Real Product of Deliberation?

Last week, NCDD supporting member Peter Levine shared the message below on the NCDD discussion listserv summarizing some key lessons from a book review he wrote of two recent books authored by NCDD members Caroline W. Lee and Josh Lerner. Peter argues that a key contribution of public deliberation lies in bolstering capacity for engaging in “relational politics” – not necessarily democracy or deliberation. We encourage you to can read his insightful piece below, find his original blog summary here, or read his full review article here.


Saving Relational Politics

In the June edition of Perspectives on Politics, I have an article entitled “Saving Relational Politics“* I review Caroline W. Lee’s Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry and Josh Lerner’s Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics and I advance an argument of my own.

I argue that what’s most valuable about activities like public deliberations, planning exercises, and Participatory Budgeting is not actually “deliberative democracy.” Neither political equality (democracy) nor reasonable discussion about decisions (deliberation) are essential to these activities. Instead, they are forms of relational politics, in which people “make decisions or take actions knowing something about one another’s ideas, preferences, and interests.” That makes them akin to practices like one-on-one interviews in community organizing or Augusto Boal’s Theater of the Oppressed.

Relational politics has disadvantages and limitations – it’s not all that we need – but it is an essential complement to well-designed impersonal forms of politics (bureaucracies, legal systems, and markets). And it’s endangered, because genuine forms of relational politics are not valuable to governments or companies. Relational politics still occurs at small scales, but we need strategies for increasing its prevalence and impact against powerful opposition.

Lee’s book is a useful critique of typical strategies for expanding relational politics, which involve developing small models and trying to get powerful organizations to adopt them. Lerner contributes a strategy, which is to make processes more fun so that they are desirable to both citizens and institutions. I review both books positively but argue that they leave us without a persuasive strategy for saving relational politics. After considering some alternatives, I argue that relational politics is most likely to spread as a by-product of mass movements that have political agendas. However, we need some people to pay explicit attention to the quality of the participatory processes.

*Per the copyright agreement, I am posting the “version of record” on my personal web page after its appearance at Cambridge Journals Online, along with the following bibliographical details, a notice that the copyright belongs to Cambridge University Press, and a link to the online edition of the journal:

“Saving Relational Politics.” Peter Levine (2016).  Perspectives on PoliticsVolume 14, Issue02, June 2016, pp. 468-473. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=10356927

You can find the original version of the post from Peter Levine’s blog at http://peterlevine.ws/?p=17055.

5 Chances to Deliberate Online with NCDD Member Orgs

Attention civic tech geeks and newbies alike! This month, there will be several opportunities to participate in online deliberative forums about how we can tackle major issues facing our society. If you’ve never had the chance to participate in an online deliberation, we highly recommend you take advantage of the chance to participate in one of these upcoming events!

There are three great NCDD organizational members hosting forums this month. The Kettering Foundation (KF) and National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) are teaming up to host four forums using Common Ground for Action (CGA), the great new civic tech tool that they partnered to create. And Intellitics is hosting a special week-long deliberation using their text-based deliberation platform, Zilino.

All of these forums will be using NIFI’s expertly-made issue guides to help participants walk through deliberation about major decisions related to immigration, economic inequality, and health care. The dates, topics, and registration links to all five online deliberative forums are below. You can learn more about the NIFI/KF forums in the NIFI blog post here and about the Intellitics forum here.

We hope to “see” many of you later this month at one or more of these online events:

Climate Choices with NIFI & KF
Friday, June 17, 12-2 pm EST
Register here

Making Ends Meet with Intellitics
Monday, June 20 at 9am EST – Friday, June 24 at 3pm EST
Register here

Immigration with NIFI & KF
Wednesday, June 22, 12-2 pm EST
Register here

Making Ends Meet with NIFI & KF
Thursday, June 23, 3-5pm EST
Register here

Health Care with NIFI & KF
Thursday, June 30, 3-5pm EST
Register here

Super Early Bird Registration for NCDD2016 Ends TODAY!

We wanted to post a reminder for you all that, as we mentioned previously, our “Super Early Bird” discount rate on registration for NCDD 2016 ends today!

bumper_sticker_600pxToday is the last day to save $100 on registering for one of the premier learning and networking events for our field! This is the last time that you’ll be able to take advantage of the lower registration rate and lock in your spot with 400+ leaders, innovators, and practitioners in dialogue and deliberation as we work vision and learn together about Bridging Our Divides this October 14th-16th in the Boston metro area – don’t miss it!

You can learn much more about this year’s national conference at www.ncdd.org/ncdd2016, and register today at www.ncdd2016.eventbrite.com to take advantage of the Super Early Bird rate.

Want to get a better sense of what our conferences are like? Check out the Storify page the features great pictures and comments about our 2014 conference by clicking here.

Also, don’t forget that our call for NCDD2016 session proposals is open! You can learn more about what we’re looking for by clicking here or find the application here.

D&D CAN Hosts Call on Networks & Climate Change Work

We encourage our NCDD members to register for the next D&D Climate Action Network (D&D CAN) conference call coming up on Tuesday, June 21st from 5-7pm Eastern / 2-4pm Pacific!

D&D CAN is a network led by NCDD supporting member Linda Ellinor of the Dialogue Group that is working to foster shared learning, networking and collaboration among those seeking to use dialogue, deliberation, and other process skills to address climate change. The monthly D&D CAN conference calls are a great way to connect with the network, and we encourage you to register to save your spot in their next conversation by clicking here.

This month’s call features NCDD sustaining member Beth Tener, who will lead a conversation on the topic of Networks: New Paths for Collaborative Climate Change Work. The call will focus on stories of network models that are springing up among people and organizations to connect and align around larger goals. Here’s how D&D CAN describes the call:

To address most of the challenging complex issues we face, such as climate change, the solutions cannot be achieved by one organization alone or one sector, such as business, advocates, or government. New models are springing up based in the principles of networks, where the work of many people and organizations can connect and align around a larger goal to enable them to have greater impact individually and together. On this webinar, Beth Tener will share stories of network approaches related to climate change, from her work as a facilitator and strategy coach, with an emphasis on how D&D professionals can use their skills in new ways.

The D&D CAN calls are being hosted on the QiqoChat platform, which is run by NCDD member Lucas Cioffi and about which we hosted a recent Tech Tuesday call (you can hear the recording of the call here).

The combination of online D&D technology and powerful ideas makes this call an exciting and dynamic conversation, so be sure to learn more and register today at https://ddcan.qiqochat.comWe hope to hear many of our members on the call!

 

MetroQuest Hosts Online Engagement Webinar, 6/14

We encourage NCDDers tpo participate in an educational webinar on a case study of successful online engagement from British Columbia tomorrow, June 14th at 1pm that will be hosted by Metroquest, an NCDD organizational member. We originally heard about the webinar in the post below from the Davenport Institute and their Gov 2.0 Watch blog. You can read the post below, find the original post here, or go ahead and register for the webinar here.


Webinar: Online Engagement

Head’s up for a webinar offered by MetroQuest looking at how the city of Abbotsford, BC has implemented a successful online engagement called Abbotsfwd.

When: Tuesday, June 14, 2016
1:00-1:45 pm ET, 10:00- 10:45 am PT

Registration is required, but free of charge. You can register here.

More from the Metroquest description of the webinar:

This highly visual 45-minute webinar will present research findings and proven best practices, practical tips and award-winning case studies to guide agencies towards the successful application of online community engagement for planning projects. Participants will walk away with an understanding about how to leverage digital engagement to achieve unprecedented results using cost-effective tools. This session will feature our special guests Abbotsforward who will be online to talk about the innovative ways they combined online and targeted face to face community engagement to involve over 8,000 community members in the creation of an official plan for Abbotsford, BC. They will also share advice for agencies seeking to improve the breadth and effectiveness of their community engagement efforts and talk about the positive difference that broad community support is making in their implementation process.

You can find the original version of this Gov 2.0 Watch blog post at http://gov20watch.pepperdine.edu/2016/06/webinar-online-engagement.

OSU Launches Divided Community Project

We were happy to receive the announcement below from The Ohio State University, which recently launched an important and timely project called the Divided Community Project, and they have selected NCDD supporting member Grande Lum, one of our featured speakers at NCDD2014 when he headed the US Dept. of Justice’s Community Relations Service. We congratulate Grande and look forward to seeing the Project’s work develop. Learn more at the Project’s website by clicking here.


Ohio State announces Divided Community Project – Grande Lum joins as Director

Today The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law announces the Divided Community Project.  The project aims to strengthen community efforts to transform division into action and focuses on how communities can respond constructively to civil unrest as well as on how they can identify and meaningfully address the reasons underlying community division.  Earlier this year the Project published its first publications:

 

Both documents are licensed using the Creative Commons so that (with attribution) they may be copied, shared, adapted and tailored to fit the needs of a community or interest group.

The Project is pleased to announce that Grande Lum, Gould Research Fellow and Lecturer at Stanford Law and former Director of the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service, has joined Ohio State’s Divided Community Project as the Director.  In guiding the project, Grande will draw on his extensive experience dealing with civil unrest with the Community Relations Service, where he directed a staff of about 40 conciliators intervening in major domestic conflicts over the last few years, as well as his past experience working, writing and teaching in the dispute resolution field.  Grande will advance the Project’s initiatives to establish pilot programs which plan in advance of civil unrest, offer suggestions for improving practice, develop conflict assessment tools, and advocate for the use of collaborative methods for turning community division into positive action. 

On joining the Divided Community Project, Grande wrote: “I am thrilled to be joining the Divided Community Project, at a time when the country is grappling with polarization at seemingly every turn. I look forward to working with the Project’s extraordinary team to move divided communities toward peace and justice.”

The Divided Community Project’s steering committee is composed of seasoned dispute resolution practitioners and academics: Nancy RogersJosh StulbergChris CarlsonSusan CarpenterCraig McEwen,Sarah Rubin, and Andrew Thomas. Bill Froehlich, Langdon Fellow in the Program on Dispute Resolution at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, serves as the Project’s Associate Director.

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Program on Dispute Resolution serves as the host institution. The JAMS Foundation provided significant funding for the creation of the Project and the Kettering Foundation partnered in its early work.  The OSU Democracy Studies Program and Emeritus Academy have both awarded financial assistance that has supported valuable student research assistance for the project.

Lessons from NCDD Members Bridging Partisan Divides

One of the most salient divides in our nation today that we will be focusing on during NCDD 2016 is the divide between the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Bridging the partisan divide, especially in an election year, is crucial work that many of our NCDD members have taken on, and we wanted to share the article below in which NCDD member Mark Gerzon of the Mediators Foundation poignantly shares lessons to be learned from their efforts. The original version of Mark’s piece appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and can be found here.


Four Ways to Fix American Politics

It’s not just young revolutionary Bernie Sanders supporters or angry-as-hell Donald Trump fans who want to “change the system.” It’s also the president of the United States of America.

The future we want “will only happen if we fix our politics,” said President Obama in his 2016 State of the Union address. “If we want a better politics, it’s not enough just to change a congressman or change a senator or even change a president. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves.”

But exactly how do we do that? The president did not say. And when William Jefferson Clinton in 1992 and George W. Bush in 2000 expressed the same noble sentiment, they didn’t tell us how either.

Our last three presidents did not tell us because they don’t know. They are products of the system and clearly are not going to reform much less revolutionize it. They have risen to the top of the leadership pyramid by playing the partisan game. Them telling us how to work together would be like an alcoholic telling us how to get sober: He knows everything about the topic except doing it.

On both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans are recognizing that they are in a long-term political marriage that needs help. But even if both donkeys and elephants want to repair their broken relationship, they still need to learn how. The primary causes of dysfunction that Obama identified – the gerrymandering of congressional districts and the tyranny of money in campaigns – are certainly real. But these and other causes will never be effectively addressed unless we stop restating the problem and start focusing on the solutions.

The good news is that we not only can bridge this political divide; in fact, we already are.

I have recently interviewed and profiled dozens of Americans who know how to solve problems across the divide. They are doing so in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill; in living rooms and town halls; between corporations and anti-corporate activists; with police departments and minority communities; and in almost every sector of our society. When diverse groups connect in constructive dialogue, they make progress on issues ranging from criminal justice reform to internet privacy to education reform.

Literally dozens of major initiatives have had concrete successes bringing Left and Right together to break down the partisan wall and find common ground. They have succeeded where Capitol Hill has failed. This movement to reunite America is gaining momentum because it starts with four fundamental shifts that are a vital part of fixing our politics.

From Confirming to Learning.
Anyone who thinks that political leadership means thinking that whatever we believe is automatically right – and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong – is not part of the solution. Simply confirming what one already knows is not leadership; it is an addiction to being right. The movement to reunite America is redefining leadership to be about learning rather than about being know-it-alls. (Check out Public Conversations Project, Everyday Democracy or Citizen University as examples of this shift.)

From Control to Relationship.
Particularly during elections, winning seems to be everything. “Controlling” the Congress and the White House appears to be the goal. But on the day after the election, whoever won or lost must forge a relationship with the opposition. Making relationships across the divide strong and healthy is today the key to accomplishing anything that endures. (Learn more from Living Room Conversations or the 2000-member National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation).

From Position-Taking to Problem-Solving.
America has a surplus of leaders with rigid positions and a deficit of leaders who solve problems. It’s time to reverse that imbalance. Across the country, a host of problem-solving organizations are gaining ground. (Examples include No Labels in Washington, D.C., to Future 500 in San Francisco, from the Village Square in Tallahassee to the American Public Square in Kansas City.)

From Endless Campaigning to Effective Governance.
The line between campaigning and governing used to be clear. Campaigns were brief preludes before Election Day, not never-ending tit-for-tat attacks that became a permanent part of civic life. But today campaigning is benefiting from unprecedented levels of investment, and governing is being paralyzed. Fortunately, from the offices of city mayors to state-level initiatives and even on the edges of Capitol Hill, red-blue coalitions are finding common ground on a wide range of policy issues ranging from criminal justice reform to education to defense spending. (The National Institute of Civil Discourse’s “Next Generation” project, for example, has convened across-the-aisle collaboration in scores of state legislatures.)

So we Americans do know how to work together. But we have to get past the soaring rhetoric from the right and the left about how they alone can “save America.” We have to get down to the real business of learning and applying boundary-crossing skills. If we actually want a “system that reflects our better selves,” let’s start with what works. Let’s take to scale the scores of projects where that is already happening.

You can find the original version of this Christian Science Monitor article at www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2016/0425/Four-ways-to-fix-American-politics?cmpid=gigya-tw.

Bridging Divides in the Methodist Church on LGBTQ Issues

As we prepare to think together about how we can bridge our nation’s divides during our NCDD 2016 conference, there’s much to be learned from the piece we’ve shared below from the Public Conversations Project, an NCDD member organization. In it, PCP’s Jessica Weaver reflects on key lessons that can be learned how the Methodist Church has been dealing with its perennial conflict about LGBTQ people in the church. You can read her article below or find the original piece here.


Three Lessons About Embracing Difficult Conversations from The Methodist Church

PCP new logoAs you may have read in the last few weeks, a deep conflict within the Methodist Church has surfaced once again. More than 750 congregations within the Church have formed the Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates for the inclusion of LGBT people in a denomination that has barred them from being ordained, and from marrying a person of the same sex.

“It’s the perennial issue that will not go away, and for better or for worse, it’s the main battle flag issue between the liberal side of the Church and the conservative side of the Church,” said Mark Tooley, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute on Religion & Democracy, as quoted in the Religion News Service.

Understandably, this conversation has a history of being emotionally and politically fraught, disrupting conversations, gatherings, and relationships. The narrative I’ve noticed emerging from major media outlets about this movement is that it’s a sign of struggle, of irrevocable conflict, of failure. But I look at this story and I see something beyond a deeply emotional, and seemingly intractable conflict. I see resilience, a willingness to come to the table in the midst of deep differences, and an intentional approach, not only to the outcome of this critical discussion, but to how those conversations take place and how relationships can be preserved. Here are three strengths I think we should celebrate amidst this very difficult – and very public – divide.

1. A perennial conflict isn’t a sign of failure, it’s a fundamental reality of being part of any human community: there are differences we have to live with, not overcome.

The mainstream media has drawn out notes of exasperation in its coverage of this resurfacing issue. From within the U.S., where same-sex marriage is legalized and supported by the majority of the American public, the Church’s struggle is being criticized as backwards and behind the times. Research reveals, however, that almost two-thirds of church members accept homosexuality in society, simply not within the Church (i.e. would not want the Church to ordain someone who identifies as LGBTQ). Broader social acceptance of gays and lesbians in American society is complicated by the Church’s recent expansion into regions of the world where homosexuality is flatly banned.

In other words, it’s far more complicated than “liberals vs. conservatives,” as a number of factors are pulling factions of the church in different directions. That it is once again up for debate is not a sign of the Church’s failure to engage in a difficult conversation, or a sign that previous conversations have failed. There will always be differences in identity: in sexual orientation, faith, and relationship to scripture. What matters most is the community’s continued willingness to engage in these difficult conversations; to keep listening through the hard conversations.

2. How the conversation happens is just as important as the outcome.

Before diving into the specifics of the issue, the Church’s top lawmaking assembly (the Commission on the General Conference) decided to define a structure for discussing this divisive and often emotional issue. “We need to expand the ways that we can make decisions and be in conversation with each other,” said Judi Kenaston, the commission’s chair. The resulting “Group Discernment Process” called for smaller committees to meet and draft petitions to be submitted to a larger body of elected members. On Wednesday, however, that process was voted down.

While deep disagreements persist around how to even have this conversation, at least the “how” is being broached with intentionality and transparency. That’s not the case for so many divisive community issues. So it seems the Methodist Church acknowledges something critically important: no constructive conversation can proceed without an effective process in place.

3. “Togetherness” isn’t a monolith, and it doesn’t mean consensus.

In such a divided environment, talk of schism or splintering has inevitably arisen. Prominent leaders in the Church have openly admitted that it’s a possible outcome, especially in the midst of such a polarized age, when the “nation’s third-largest denomination and many of the political and theological divisions that divide America into its red and blue camps.” Those same leaders, and many more, are also exploring the nuances of what “unity” means and are unwilling to prematurely name the future of the Church. Said the president of the Methodist Council of Bishops, “we remain open to new and innovative ways to be in unity. We will remain in dialogue with one another and others about how God may be leading us to explore new beginnings, new expressions, perhaps even new structures for our United Methodist mission and witness.”

So what we have here is messy. It’s the hard, raw stuff of deep differences and human pain. But it’s worth noticing when public conflicts are handled with resilience and curiosity instead of posturing and accusation. This is a community struggling to remain intact and understand exactly what that means, how to reconcile individual beliefs with a community’s story. Let’s not shame them; let’s name what they’re doing right.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project piece at www.publicconversations.org/blog/three-lessons-about-embracing-difficult-conversations-methodist-church.

Join NICD’s “Revive Civility” Campaign this Election Season

As many of you may have heard yesterday, the National Institute for Civil Discourse – one of our NCDD member organizations – just launched a new campaign, and we want to encourage our NCDD members to participate. The effort is known as the Revive Civility, Our Democracy Depends On It Campaign.

Through the campaign, NICD is inviting people across the country to join them in trying to shift from the toxic tone of US politics and the rhetoric that this year’s election is generating. They have laid out a strategy that they feel will give people options of actions to take to move our politics toward more civility and respect, and they’re asking for everyone – average citizens, media, and candidates – to sign on to their Standards of Conduct for civil politics.

But don’t take it from us. Below is the call the NICD has sent out to join the campaign:

Please join the National Institute for Civil Discourse as we launch our Revive Civility, Our Democracy Depends On It Campaign this Wednesday, May 25th: www.nicd.arizona.edu/revivecivility.

This nationwide campaign provides tools every American can use to help revive civility during one of the most negative campaigns we have seen. The citizen toolkit provides ideas and actions everyone can take to help Revive Civility.

On Wednesday, please go to our website, read our Standards of Conduct, and if you agree, sign them. Your support along with others across the country will help us get out the message that Civility Matters, especially when we are talking about the future of our country. Upon signing the Standards, you will become a Citizen for Reviving Civility, and we will send you a weekly bulletin on the Revive Civility campaign and how you can take action to revive civility in our politics and everyday lives.

Please also pass this information along to all your friends, colleagues and neighbors who are as concerned as the rest of us about the impact of the incivility in the 2016 campaign.

We encourage all of our NCDD members to consider signing on to the Standards of Conduct, and to spread the word to your networks. You can join the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #ReviveCivility. We hope to see many of our members become Citizens for Reviving Civility!