Author Archives: Roshan Bliss

Cambridge Funds 6 Projects in City’s 1st PB Process

Posted on by
Reply

In case you missed it, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation recently shared a great interview with a Cambridge, MA city budget officer on their Challenges to Democracy blog highlighting the success of the city’s first-ever participatory budgeting (PB) process. It contains some great lessons learned and looks into the future of PB in Cambridge, and we encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.

Cambridge Concludes its Inaugural Participatory Budgeting Effort

Ash logoCambridge residents welcomed spring with an enthusiastic show of democratic participation and civic activism. From March 22 to 28th, 2015, Cambridge residents age twelve and over were given the opportunity to determine a number of capital projects that the City of Cambridge would fund.

The voting was the culmination of a participatory budgeting process that had begun in December 2014, when Cambridge community members were invited to contribute ideas on how $500,000 would be spent on capital projects. Over 380 ideas were submitted using the City’s creative online platform.

Over forty “Budget Delegates,” volunteers chosen to research and evaluate the ideas, selected twenty promising project proposals to be voted on in March. Delegates were divided into four committees: Culture & Community Facilities; Environment, Public Health & Public Safety; Parks and Recreation; and Streets and Sidewalks.

Each committee was tasked with performing due diligence on project submissions – delegates made site visits, conducted community assessments, and consulted with City staff for input on the feasibility and cost of projects. The delegates then selected twenty of the most promising projects to put on the ballot with approval from the City Manager.

Over 2,700 Cambridge residents voted on the projects, either at one of twenty-five locations around the city or online. The following six projects received the most votes and will be funded in FY16:

  • 100 new trees and tree wells in low-canopy neighborhoods (1,441 votes, $120,000)
  • Twenty new laptops for the Community Learning Center (1,110 votes, $27,000)
  • Bilingual books for children (970 votes, $7,000)
  • Public toilets in Central Square (945 votes, $320,000)
  • Eight bike repair stations (917 votes, $12,000)
  • Free public Wi-Fi in six outdoor locations (875 votes, $42,000)

The allocations exceeded the $500,000 set aside for the pilot PB process, but the City chose to authorize the sixth project rather than scale it back. The total for all six capital projects is $528,000.

Building on the momentum of the first PB process, the City of Cambridge has authorized another round of PB to begin this summer. Meanwhile, City staff has initiated a process of feedback and reflection for residents and volunteers, with a formal session taking place on May 5th and the option of completing an online survey.

I recently spoke with Michelle Monsegur, an analyst at the City of Cambridge Budget Office. Monsegur, who helped oversee much of the PB process, shared her thoughts in response to my questions on this inaugural round of PB. Below is the text of our correspondence, edited for length and clarity.

Derek Pham: From the operations side of running this program, could you offer some comments on what you felt was one or two key lessons in implementing your first PB?  

Michelle Monsegur: One key lesson was that the pilot process’ timeline did not work well.  The proposal development phase of the process took place from January to March, which was tough for Budget Delegates (snow hindered site visits and transportation to meetings), City staff (busy with snow removal operations and budget season), and Budget Office staff (we put the City’s budget together from January- April). We are shifting the timeline so that the second PB process begins in May/June 2015 and wraps up before the holidays in December 2015.

In addition to a community feedback session, we’re disseminating a survey so that we can collect advice from a broad range of participants on how to improve the second time around.

DP: What percentage of Cambridge’s eligible voters took part in the voting of the projects? 

MM: The Steering Committee set a goal of 3,000 voters and defined voter eligibility as Cambridge residents who are at least 12 years old.  2,727 people voted in the pilot PB process, which was close to that goal and a good starting point.  Hopefully we’ll see many more people participate in the coming years.

We were the first city in the US to offer an online voting component for PB (ours was text message-authenticated), and we did that to make the process more accessible.  Although we held 25 voting events around Cambridge from March 22-28, 72% of the people who voted did so online.

DP: Building off the momentum of the first round of PB, what two or three things will you focus on as you move into the second round? 

MM: We would like to focus on additional outreach channels to spread the word about PB, including offering more information and materials in non-English languages. We may try to recruit a Steering Committee that is more connected to the local nonprofit community so that we can use those networks to reach more people. If the next Steering Committee decides that the minimum voting age should remain 12, we’d like to work with the schools to make sure all eligible students know they can participate in this process.

DP: Finally, what are two pieces of advice for cities interested in also starting up a PB initiative? 

MM: Public participation in the pilot process exceeded our expectations, so we recommend PB for municipalities who have a goal of getting residents more involved in the budget process in a meaningful way.  However, PB requires a tremendous amount of staff time and once you introduce PB, it would be very difficult to take it back, so cities need to be prepared to make a serious commitment to the process.

– — –

Many thanks to Michelle for speaking with me. As I wrote in an earlier post, in the beginning phases of Cambridge’s PB process the Steering Committee articulated four goals it wanted achieved through this endeavor. Though Cambridge will undergo its own evaluation of whether these goals were achieved, it is worth considering some of these goals.

First, make democracy inclusive. PB extended the vote to all residents twelve and over, allowed residents to easily participate in submission of ideas, and offered community meetings to gather a diverse mix of ideas and perspectives.

Second, have a meaningful social and community impact. Though perhaps harder to measure in the short term, residents voted on projects that would make the community a more attractive place to live. Residents now have more bike infrastructure, more trees, and outdoor Wi-Fi. The laptops and bilingual books are an investment in the future of the city’s human capital. All these projects suggest a positive, meaningful impact.

Third, create easy and seamless civic engagement. Rather than have City administrators decide on the projects, the City invited residents to volunteer as budget delegates. Moreover, the City leveraged technology to help bring in multiple voices and ideas in the process.

Fourth, promote sustainable public goods. The community will not only share in the benefits derived from the projects, but will also share in the benefits of the PB process, in general. There is greater social cohesion, greater civic advocacy, and greater attention to the role of the individual and his/her ability to affect positive change.

Cambridge’s successful first cycle of PB demonstrates the resiliency of democratic innovation and its ability to inspire and bring others together to advance solutions to shared concerns. A big thanks goes to the entire City of Cambridge’s PB planning team, Jeana Franconi and Michelle Monsegur from the Budget Office, and all Cambridge residents for taking on this valuable initiative.

As Cambridge heads into its second round of PB this month, visit the website for more information on how to submit ideas, get involved, and vote for projects. The City is currently setting up meetings between budget delegates and City staff to talk about implementation of the winning projects and working on a branding strategy that will make PB ubiquitous in Cambridge. The City has placed a call for new Steering Committee Members and is accepting applications until June 19.

You can find the original version of this Challenges to Democracy blog post at www.challengestodemocracy.us/home/cambridge-concludes-its-inaugural-participatory-budgeting-effort/#sthash.5o9H5E1G.ptVKXn6t.dpuf.

Register for IAP2 Trainings from the Participation Company

Posted on by
Reply

Our friends at the Participation Company are offering three great trainings this year, all of which NCDD members can get a discount on! The trainings are given within the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) framework and are a great opportunity to earn an official IAP2 certification. Learn more about the trainings in the announcement below or by clicking here.

Upcoming IAP2 Training Events in 2015-16

If you work in communications, public relations, public affairs, planning, public outreach and understanding, community development, advocacy, or lobbying, this training will help you to increase your skills and to be of even greater value to your employer.

This is your chance to join the many thousands of practitioners worldwide who have completed the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) certificate training.

Foundations in Public Participation certificate program (5-Day):

PLANNING for Effective Public Participation (3-Days) and/or *TECHNIQUES for Effective Public Participation (2-Days).

  • December 14-18, 2015 Chicago, IL     Trainer: John Godec
  • February 1-5, 2016 Arlington, VA      Trainer: Doug Sarno

*The 3-Day Planning is a prerequisite to TECHNIQUES

Learn more about the Foundations training and registration clicking here.

Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation (EOP2): Moving from Rage to Reason (2 days):

  • October 28-29, 2015 Orlando, FL     Trainer: John Godec

Learn more about the EOP2 training and registration by clicking here.

The Participation Company (TPC) offers discounts to NCDD members. Visit www.theparticipationcompany.com/training for more information and on-line registration.

Future Search Learning Exchange Offers NCDD Discount

Posted on by
Reply

The Future Search Network, an NCDD member organization, recently shared the opportunity for NCDDers to get a great discount on two workshops they are offering later this year. These two workshops will be offered this Aug. 17-23 in Berlin, Germany and again from Dec. 7-11 in Philadelphia, PA. The early bird deadline ends August 4th for NCDDers, so make sure to register ASAP. You can learn more from the FSN announcement below.

FutureSearch-logo

The Annual Future Search Learning Exchange

We hope you can join us! Future Search has events scheduled for August in Berlin, Germany and for December in Philadelphia, PA.

The theme of this year’s Learning Exchange is “Working With Future Search to Address our World’s Challenges”.

The Learning Exchange is for anyone who is interested in applying Future Search principles in their work and their lives – not only for those who regularly lead Future Searches. This event is open to members of the Future Search Network and to practitioners working with the principles of Future Search across other large scale, whole systems approaches to change.

As always, the Learning Exchange is your opportunity to:

  • Meet Future Search practitioners and advocates and hear their stories
  • Share your experience of Future Search and exchange ideas
  • Learn about what we are doing as a Network around the world
  • Reflect on who we are touching through our work
  • Explore how people are using the principles and philosophy of Future Search in meetings of all sizes, every day
  • Re-energize your practice and yourself, and have fun!

***We will extend both workshop early registration rates to August 4th for NCDD Members – SAVE up to $700 on tuition!*** 

The Learning Exchange will include two separate workshops in both locations. Here are the details on both:

Managing a Future Search – a Leadership Workshop
August 17-20, Berlin, Germany
December 7-9, Philadelphia, PA, USA .

This workshop is for leaders and facilitators who want to learn how applying Future Search principles and methodology enables an organization or community to transform its capability for action. You will experience this highly successful strategic planning method used worldwide by organizations and communities for social, technological and economic planning.
Learn more & register

Lead More, Control Less – a Master Facilitation Class
August 22-23, Berlin, Germany
December 10-11, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Based on the upcoming new book by Sandra Janoff and Marvin Weisbord, “Lead More, Control Less: 8 Advanced Leadership skills that Overturn Convention”. Learn about personal and structural issues for leading interactive meetings. Explore the realms of practice beyond traditional models, methods and techniques.
Learn more & register

 

Join the “Going Viral” Online Engagement Webinar, Jul. 29

Posted on by
Reply

We encourage you to mark you calendars and register for a useful webinar being offered next week by MetroQuest, an NCDD member organization. MetroQuest is hosting this online event titled “Going Viral: How Your Project Can Engage Thousands Online” on Wednesday, July 29th from 1 – 1:45pm EST.

This webinar will be a quick and easy way to learn more about how to engage a bigger online audience, and we know it could be helpful to many of our members.

Here’s how MetroQuest describes the event.

This free webinar will explore case studies of planning projects with various transportation agencies that successfully used online technology to increase the reach of their public involvement efforts. Critical success factors, key strategies and best practices will be shared and discussed. The presentation will be followed by an open Q&A session.
This webinar will include case studies from:

We encourage you to learn more and register for the event by visiting www.metroquest.com/webinar-going-viral-how-your-project-can-engage-thousands-online.

Ford Foundation to Include Civic Engagement in New Funding Priorities

Posted on by
Reply

We recently read some news that our NCDD members and others in the D&D field should find encouraging. The Ford Foundation – the nation’s second largest philanthropic organization by assets – recently announced that after long deliberation and consultation with non-profit organizations, it is changing some important aspects of its focus in giving and how it gives. And we would all do well to take note.

In his letter about the change, Ford Foundation president Darren Walker wrote that the Foundation will turn its funding focuses to fighting global inequality. And in positive news for those in our field, Ford has identified “unequal access to the government and decision making” as one of six key drivers of global inequality, and has named “civic engagement and government” as one of the five areas that they will dedicate more of their funding toward to address political inequality.

Here’s an excerpt of the letter Ford released:

Among these many trends, the one we returned to again and again was the growth of inequality in our world. Not just the economic disparities that have emerged in global debates these past few years but also inequality in politics and participation; in culture and creative expression; in education and economic opportunity; and in the prejudicial ways that institutions and systems marginalize low-income people, women, ethnic minorities, Indigenous peoples, and people of color…

Remarkably, although manifestations varied by region, the assessment of underlying drivers was strikingly constant across the world. Broadly stated, we found five factors that consistently contribute to inequality:

  • Cultural narratives that undermine fairness, tolerance, and inclusion
  • Unequal access to government decision making and resources
  • Persistent prejudice and discrimination against women as well as racial, ethnic, and caste minorities
  • Rules of the economy that magnify unequal opportunity and outcomes
  • The failure to invest in and protect vital public goods, such as education and natural resources…

To address and respond to these drivers of inequality, we will be working in six program areas, very much reflective of the five drivers. They are:

  • Civic Engagement and Government
  • Creativity and Free Expression
  • Gender, Ethnic, and Racial Justice
  • Inclusive Economies
  • Internet Freedom
  • Youth Opportunity and Learning

The naming of “civic engagement and government” as a focus area for funding is obviously great news for those of us who have become familiar with the sad reality that it is quite a challenge to find money for the kind of work that we in the D&D field do. Much of our work fits quite naturally into this category, so hopefully Ford’s shift is an omen that this dynamic may be changing down the road.

But we should also note that the naming of “youth opportunity and learning” as another focus area could be important for our field as well. As many of you know, NCDD has been thinking since the run up to our NCDD 2014 conference about how our field can support Democracy for the Next Generation – both in terms of integrating next generation technology, but also in terms of involving young people, our literally “next” generation of adults and citizens. D&D work is especially impactful when it gives young people the skills, knowledge, and access they need to participate in deliberation and public choice work in their communities. And given that many of us already work with young people or could conceivably shift our work in that direction with relative ease, we should not forget that Ford’s new focus on youth could present an opportunity for groups in our field to attract funding by focusing simultaneously on civic engagement and youth learning.

The other important shift that Ford announced in the letter is not only will it shift its funding in different a direction, but it will also be changing how it funds non-profits. Walker wrote in his letter that, having heard a great deal of feedback about the instability that solely project-based funding can create for non-profit organizations, Ford will also begin working to make more of its funding work to help non-profits achieve long-term financial sustainability by funding more operational and day-to-day costs that organizations need to handle. This should also come as welcome news, as many of us are far too familiar with the conundrum of finding funding that will not only keep our projects afloat, but also our organizations.

If a leading foundation like Ford is shifting its focus and giving methods in these ways, it may also signal that other foundations will be paying attention and soon following suit. Maybe that’s reading too much into the announcement, but either way, the news from Ford bodes well for the future of our work.

We wanted to share this bit of hopeful news with you all not to encourage everyone to go running to Ford with new grant proposals, but to help us all stay aware of the shifting dynamics of our field and keep an eye on the ways our work and influence can continue to evolve in positive directions.

You can find the full text of the Ford Foundation’s letter at www.fordfoundation.org/equals-change/post/whats-next-for-the-ford-foundation.

ACR Environment & Public Policy Emerging Leaders Event, Jul. 21

Posted on by
Reply

If you live in the D.C. metro area, be sure to check out the invitation below to join the Association for Conflict Resolution’s Environment & Public Policy section‘s happy hour meet up this Tuesday, July 21st from 6-8pm EST. You don’t have to be an ACR EPP section member to attend, so we encourage local NCDD members to join the networking! Learn more in their announcement below or register here.

It’s about time we meet!

The Association for Conflict Resolution Environment and Public Policy (ACR EPP) Section is pleased to announce a kickoff event for its Emerging Leaders Network in Washington, D.C. If you are an entry- or mid-level professional in the field of environmental and public policy conflict resolution, please join us for a no-host happy hour to get to know your peers and expand your network in this growing field. There will even be a great drink special for you to enjoy!

If you are a senior-level professional – or shall we say, an “emerged” professional – please share this invitation with those who might be interested. Thank you for RSVPing and spreading the word!

Who: Entry / mid-level professionals (~0-10 years of experience) in the field of environmental and public policy conflict resolution

What: ACR EPP Emerging Leaders Network Kickoff

When: Tuesday, July 21 | 6:00-8:00 pm

Where: Science Club | 1136 19th St NW

Please note that this event is for ages 21+. Feel free to contact Jason Gershowitz (jgershowitz[at]kearnswest[dot]com) with any questions.

ILG Seeks Input on California Public Engagement Survey

Posted on by
Reply

We want to make sure that our NCDD members, especially those of you based in California, have a chance to hear about a key public engagement survey being conducted by the folks with the Institute for Local Government, one of NCDD’s member organizations.

ILG logoILG is looking for input from public officials and staff to help them and we encourage you to share the survey with folks in your network who they need to hear from.

Here’s how ILG describes the survey:

Does your community experience public engagement challenges? The Institute for Local Government (ILG) Public Engagement program provides information and resources to help local officials with the design, delivery and assessment of their public engagement processes. ILG has launched a survey and is seeking input from local officials and staff at all levels. The results of the survey will help ILG understand the community engagement experiences and needs of California communities.

This survey is part of a reflection, evaluation, and planning project funded by the James Irvine Foundation. ILG is seeking feedback from local elected officials and staff to better understand the impact of ILG resources and assistance, to help plan for the future.

Participants can enter to win one of ten $25 Visa gift cards. This survey will be open until July 31st. Please take the survey now!

We hope you’ll help ILG continue improving local public engagement by taking the survey yourself if you’re in the target audience or sharing it with those who are!

You can find the survey directly by visiting http://cacities.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe1/form/SV_bqI6PmKvsj7VBB3.

Reflections on a Text, Talk, Act Dialogue on Mental Health

Posted on by
Reply

We want to share an update on Text, Talk, Act – the youth mental health conversation initiative launched in 2013 by NCDD-supported Creating Community Solutions – that we saw on NCDD organizational member the Public Conversations Project‘s blog. They featured a piece by Nancy Goodman reflecting on the what was discussed in the TTA conversation she facilitated with high school teens, and it gives a great glimpse into how TTA works and how powerful these dialogues are.

We encourage you to read Nancy’s piece below or find the original PCP post here. Learn more about Text, Talk, Act by clicking here.

Teens Talk Mental Health

I am a transition coordinator at Gloucester High School and a Public Conversations training alumni. In May, I facilitated a group of students coming together to discuss the stigmas around conversations about mental health as part of the nation-wide “Text, Talk, Act” campaign, of which Public Conversations Project was a partner. The conversation was deeply personal, but also indicative of the more broadly felt silence we as a society hold around this topic. Here are some of the questions and ideas we explored together.

Why is mental health a hard topic to talk about?

The students’ answers included, “You can’t see it – compared to physical illness,” “We’re under so much pressure to be perfect, to be acting as if we’re coping well,” and “There’s such a stigma associated with mental stuff.”

How closely has mental illness affected you?

Three of the six students described experiencing some depression or anxiety; one of them had tried to commit suicide last winter. I was taken aback by this revelation and grappled with how to respond. I asked whether others in the group had been aware of her struggle. Some reported having had a sense that something was wrong and others had not known. The students took her announcement in stride, and it did not become a focal point of our conversation. One described struggling with PTSD and OCD. Another has siblings with autism and Asperger’s. Two reported that they have not had close contact with mental illness.

What has been helpful and not so helpful?

Students reported that the school psychologists are sometimes helpful and sometimes not helpful, that drama club has been a “lifesaver,” and that medication has been helpful. One girl reported that, even though she resisted her at first, she now loves her therapist a lot. One of the girls who described herself as generally upbeat said that something that is not helpful is people coming up to her and asking if she’s ok just “because I’m not all smiley and happy that day.” Another student said, “I am only close to two friends. Sometimes I wish other people would reach out and invite me to hang out.”

What’s the definition of mental health?

  1. No one is 100% healthy.
  2. It’s liking who you are as a person.
  3. It’s about eating well and staying active.
  4. It’s being able to ask for what you need.

What do you want to/are you willing to do next?

Although students liked the idea of talking more, they felt strongly that they didn’t want to become “spokespeople” for mental health. They felt they would be too vulnerable to the ignorant reactions from certain students. The two drama club students expressed interest in going through a similar set of questions within the drama club.

Facilitator’s perspective:

As the group facilitator, there are two impressions from the conversation I’d like to share. First, with all the work that has been done to empower young women, several of these girls undermined their own comments by giggling after they made a point or shared something personal. Beyond nervous laughter, this behavior betrayed a real discomfort with their own stories, not just the difficult topic at hand.

My second impression is that, as a society, we’ve chosen to medicate our children rather than to relieve the conditions that are contributing to their mental illnesses.

Overall I was thrilled to be part of this authentic conversation about a topic of real concern to these students.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project blog post at www.publicconversations.org/blog/teens-talk-mental-health#sthash.q8gyIMri.dpuf.

UN Hosts History’s Largest Global Climate Deliberation

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, the team with the Jefferson Center, an NCDD member organization, hosted one of 96 day-long deliberations that occurred around the world where average citizens discussed what should be done about climate change. It was the largest ever such consultation, and the results from Minnesota and abroad are fascinating. We encourage you to read the Jefferson Center’s piece about the process and the results below, or find the original here.

JeffersonCenterLogoWorld Wide Views in the Twin Cities

This past Saturday, we hosted 70 Twin Cities metro area residents at the Science Museum in Saint Paul to discuss climate and energy issues as part of a global day of public deliberation. Organized by the World Wide Views Alliance, 75 countries around the world conducted World Wide Views on Climate and Energy forums in the largest ever global citizen consultation on climate change. The goal was to gather quantifiable public opinion to inform decision makers at every level, but particularly negotiators at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference (COP21).

Each of the 96 host sites followed the same agenda and addressed the same questions. The resulting data is credible and consistent, making the results an important asset to both researchers and politicians. Every site, including ours in St. Paul, provided participants with the same informational materials on current international climate policy issues. Participants were asked to discuss and vote on a series of questions designed to reflect controversies that might arise at the COP21 talks in Paris this December. Voting results were uploaded in real time.

67% of the Minnesota participants identified as “very concerned” about climate change, and 79% felt that the UN climate negotiations over the past twenty years had not done enough to tackle climate change. National and global percentages were very similar. 97% of Minnesota participants (along with 95% of US participants) agreed that our country should take some measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions even if other countries do not take action.

Minnesotans were slightly in favor of a carbon tax for all countries (with gradually increasing costs for countries that do not reduce their emissions), although a significant portion of the room also completely opposed a carbon tax, much more so than the global average. On the other hand, Minnesotans – in agreement with 59% of the United States participants – were more enthusiastic about cutting fossil fuel subsidies than the rest of the world, and slightly more in favor of stopping fossil fuel exploration than the global average.

wwv-fossil-exploration

Twin Cities residents tended to agree with the rest of the world about international policy. 77% of Minnesota participants were in favor of a legally binding treaty in Paris, either for all countries or at least for developed and emerging nations. 97% of Minnesotan participants also agreed with the overwhelming national and global consensus that countries should update their climate commitments every five years after Paris.

Twin Cities participants were nearly unanimous (96%) in agreeing that all countries should report their emissions and report on the progress of their contribution to lower emissions, but were more divided about whether the UN should have the authority to conduct reviews for each country (55%) or only for global combined efforts (38%). These responses roughly reflect the average national and global data trends, but stand in stark contrast to the 70% of developed country participants in favor of the UN reviewing individual countries.

wwv-un-review

Similarly controversial: the lengths different groups of people were willing to go in order to stop climate change. 71% of developed country participants thought that the world should do “whatever it takes to limit temperatures exceeding 2 degrees Celsius of warming,” but only 54% of Minnesotans agreed.

Participants from the seven county metro area were selected to, as near as possible, reflect the racial, gender, age, and educational diversity of the Twin Cities, in order to elevate the opinions representative of all metro area residents. The results from all World Wide Views sites will be shared with the delegates attending the COP21 meetings, both ahead of and during the negotiations in Paris. Compare results yourself at the World Wide Views results page.

Stay tuned for more posts as we continue to unpack World Wide Views results.

Addressing 7 Myths about Audience Polling

Posted on by
Reply

We are pleased to share the piece below from NCDD Sustaining Member, David Campt, who recently authored a great new book on deliberative polling technology called Read the Room for Real. David submitted the piece below on common misunderstandings about deliberative polling, and if you like it, consider checking out his book on Amazon by clicking here.

Read the Room for Real on AmazonDavid Campt is the primary author (along with Matthew Freeman) of Read the Room for Real: How a Simple Technology Creates Better Meetings. In the book, audience polling is referred to as Speed Polling to Enhance Input and Knowledge, or SPEIK (pronounced as ‘speak”).

Myth 1: Audience polling is expensive.

With the advent of text-based polling about 8 years ago and the proliferation of polling based on web access or dowloadable apps, the cost of SPEIK systems has plummeted. Some services (such as Poll Everywhere) have monthly subscription services that you can join briefly, then suspend when you don’t need it. Costs per user can be as low as 1$ per user per month. For renting or buying standalone equipment (such as from Turning Technologies, usually called the industry leader), the cost per use is higher for one usage. However, if you buy the equipment and amortize the expense over a few years of usage, those costs start heading toward zero.

If you consider the cost of meetings in terms of people’s time, the marginal cost of SPEIK technology is minuscule compared to the full cost of the meting. And the value can be very significant.

Myth 2: SPEIK is unreliable.

We tell people that the technology is not as reliable as planes landing safely (99.999%), but is much more reliable than that chance a plane will arrive on time (about 75%). When problems happen, humans are usually at fault.

Myth 3: SPEIK is hard to use

Many of the systems use web based interfaces, or even just directly import questions from the Office suite of products. There are hard to use products out there, but for the most part, these systems are easy to program.

Myth 4: Audience polling takes the emotional heart out of group experiences.

Polling can be as emotionally deep as you want – it all depends on how you use it. In the book, we tell a story about using SPEIK to help a group of football players from a high poverty neighborhood have a conversation about a teammate who had been murdered in an apparent mistaken identity situation. Using SPEIK enabled these seemingly tough and unreachable athletes to anonymously express the degree that they felt fearful, sad, angry, or numb; the players could all know they were not alone. One assistant coach who had previously publically criticized the technology said using SPEIK was indispensable for creating the subsequent small group dialogue where they began processing their grief.

Myth 5: SPEIK is only good for large groups

The value of polling starts at about 10 people, and dramatically escalates at about 15 people. I have used it to help a group of 7 people when there was not a high sense of safety in speaking one’s mind.

Myth 6: SPEIK is only useful at certain times of a meeting

If people have seen the technology at the beginning of a session to build community or to set the table for dialogue, they think that is its primary usage. The same thing applies when people have seen it used at the end of a meeting to make evaluation more transparent or in the middle of an event to enrich the dialogue. People project based on successful uses they have seen. The truth is that SPEIK can add value at all parts of gatherings, and at all types of meetings. It can add value to speeches and panels focused on downloading information, to focus group settings where the point is to gather feedback from every person, and to workshop and dialogue settings where the point is to generate cross-talk among participants. The fact that it can aid all of these situations is partly why I think SPEIK is grossly underappreciated.

—

If facilitation is a meal, you can think of SPEIK as able to play a variety of roles. It can serve as an appetizer to get folks hungry for more interaction. It can be a side dish that complements the core dialogue and makes it richer. It can function as the main course, such as when surveying a group. It can be used like a desert at the end of the experiences so people walk away more energized and connected. It even can be used very sparingly like a condiment or spice that helps other facilitated processes work better.

Matthew and David are launching Read the Room for Real this weekend with the goal that America declare its independence from bad meetings. Their hope is that if the become an Amazon best seller (even just this weekend) through a focused push by the facilitation community, there will be greater public focus on issues of inclusion of diverse voices, group intelligence, and democratic decision making. If you buy the book through this link, 17% of the profits go to NCDD. Learn more about the book at www.readtheroomforreal.com. You can see their book trailer here.