New NIF Issue Guide: Who Protects Our Privacy?

Privacy_cover_blueOur partners at the National Issues Forum Institute have developed a new issue guide, this time in partnership with American Library Association, that we encourage you to find out more about.  The guide is called “Who Do I Trust to Protect My Privacy?”, and it is designed to help guide conversations about how our personal information should be protected and by whom.  In our digitized and tech-integrated world, we have to find a way to strike the right balance between information accessibility and personal privacy – this guide can help you engage participants in quality discussions on how we actually get there.

This excerpt from the introduction gets to the heart of what this newest guide is about:

In an era of social networks, online databases, and cloud computing, more and more individuals’ personal information is available online and elsewhere. The ease of communicating information in the digital age has changed the way we live, learn, work, and govern. But such instant access to information also presents new challenges to our personal privacy. We depend more and more on evolving technologies and social norms that encourage the disclosure of personal information. What are our expectations for privacy in the digital realm? Is it reasonable to expect that information by and about us remain private? Who do I trust to protect my privacy?

As with other NIF guides, three options for moving forward are laid out for further deliberation.  The guide challenges participants to deliberate and decide on which of the following entities should have the final responsibility for protecting our privacy:

  • Option 1: The Marketplace
  • Option 2: The Government
  • Option 3: Myself

For a deeper look at how we might weigh these options, check out the NIF’s full blog post about the guide by clicking here.

You can also find more issue materials, including moderator guides and questionnaires at this link.

Enjoy the guide, good luck as you move forward with deliberations on how to better protect our privacy!

Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogues (Featured D&D Story)

Today we’d like to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, the Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue project. This mini case study was submitted by Libby and Len Traubman via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool, which we recently launched to collect stories from our members about their work.

We know that there are plenty of other stories from our NCDD members out there that can teach key insights about working in dialogue, deliberation, and engagement. We want to hear them! Please add YOUR dialogue story today, and let us learn from you!


Title of Project: D&D stories logo Face-to-Face Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue: crossing oceans to help others engage

Description
Since 1992 and during 254 meetings, our local handful of women and men — Muslims, Jews, and Christians — continue learning to listen and learn from one another while initiating hundreds of outreach activities across the nation and overseas to help other “adversaries” to successfully communicate and experience that “an enemy is one whose story we have not heard.”

Initial incentive came from coexistence models of the 1980s in the Middle East and Africa. Neve Shalom ~ Wahat as-Salam (Oasis of Peace) is a village where Jewish and Palestinian Israeli families live and learn together. Koinonia, Southern Africa, founded by Reverend Nico Smith during apartheid years, gathered thousands of brave Blacks and White to share meals and stories, sometimes in public at risk to their lives. Both initiatives were honored together during the San Francisco 1989 Beyond War Award Ceremony. The word Koinonia means “belonging together” or “communion by intimate participation”.

From 2003-2007, the Dialogue group partnered with Camp Tawonga over five years to bring hundreds of adults and youth from 50 different towns in Palestine and Israel to successfully live and communicate together at the Palestinian-Jewish Family Peacemakers Camp — Oseh Shalom – Sanea al-Salam.

Since 2007, six how-to documentary films have been created. The most useful has been the 2012 Dialogue in Nigeria: Muslims & Christians Creating Their Future. The films all stream freely online, and over 13,000 DVDs have been requested from from all continents and every U.S. state including citizens from 2,594 institutions, 2,601 cities, in 82 nations.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?

  • Sustained Dialogue
  • Compassionate Listening
  • Bohm Dialogue

What was your role in the project?
We co-founded and hosted the first 1992 gatherings in our home. With monthly 2-1/2 hour meetings now rotating among different participants’ homes, we continue to shepherd both the original San Mateo group (254 meetings) and the San Francisco gatherings (172 meetings).

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Interfaith conflict
  • Race and racism
  • Education
  • Human rights

Lessons Learned
1. Time, Dedication, and Patience are required for successful Sustained Dialogue, trust, learning to listen, relationship-healing, and collective cooperation and creativity.

2. Beginning a Dialogue — finding paticipants and convening the first meeting — requires inordinate totality, time, and persistence.

3. Sustaining an ongoing group also requires a person or core team with a vision and “religious” dedication to the people.

Where to learn more about the project:
FILM — 20 Years of Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue (1992-2012)
http://archive.org/details/20YearsOfPalestinian-jewishLivingRoomDialogue

Several hundred outreach activities
http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm

Six of the Dialogue’s how-to documentary films
http://traubman.igc.org/vids2007.htm

Making Municipal Laws More Accessible

We were quite impressed with the updated version of an innovative tool that our friends at the OpenGov Foundation have been working on that is called BaltimoreCode.org.  The website is designed to make the laws that govern Baltimore not only open and transparent, but open for comment, criticism, or input from everyday citizens.

Today, BaltimoreCode.org doesn’t just give you a Google-level law search engine. It doesn’t just give you a modern, user-friendly experience. Now, you can speak out and comment directly on the laws of Baltimore City.

That’s right. When you discover a law that isn’t working well for Baltimoreans, or that is a massive headache for you, you can quickly and easily identify it right there on the same page.

With municipal, state, and federal laws and their interactions being more complex than ever, this nifty tool could provide a great jumping off point for broader accountability, transparency, and participation in our laws.

You can read the original post about the new update on OpenGov Foundation’s blog here, or go straight to the www.BaltimoreCode.org to find out more.

Engaging Students on Policy with Choicework

We wanted to share a post from our friends at Public Agenda on the usefulness of their Choicework approach for teaching and engaging students in discussion about public policy, even when they are jaded on politics.  You can read more about the approach below or find the original post here.

PublicAgenda-logoLife on campus this fall will be very different from last year, when a forthcoming election enlivened debate from the dining hall to the lecture hall. But in an off year for national politics, how can you build your students’ interest in critical public issues?

Engaging students on public issues is not an easy task, and no wonder. It’s hard for most to connect with theoretical policy, especially when they see their political system as inept, broken, or otherwise unworthy of trust. For students enmeshed in social lives, academics, a job and, often, family responsibilities, talking about policy can seem even more hopeless. While many students may simply consider such matters as wholly theoretical abstractions far removed from the reality of their daily lives, we know they are not. Policy has the ability to change the answer to questions like: Will I have a job in my field when I graduate? Has technology forever changed the landscape of employment? What does the Affordable Care Act mean for me when I turn 26?

We’ve found that there are ways to make policy decisions come alive for students (as well as other members of the public). Together with the Kettering Foundation, Public Agenda developed the Choicework approach. Rooted in the theories of our co-founder, Dan Yankelovich, Choicework can be truly transformative for a few reasons. In the same way that storytelling can bring a news article, research or cause to life, Choicework roots policy approaches in finite and human choices, using accessible language and grounding the choices in essential values that people really connect with.

Choicework can make policy come to life. The point is not to choose one and only one approach; rather, by emphasizing the inherent choices and stakes in the issue at hand brings policy to life, Choicework helps students connect to it and envision how policy plays out in their own lives and the lives of others, and visualize other approaches and broaden the discussion.

In addition to Immigration, Public Agenda has published Citizen Solutions Guides on Jobs & The EconomyHealthcareEducationThe Federal Budget, and Energy. All of our CSG’s include introductory overviews of the topic, key facts, links to online supporting documentation, and illustrative charts and graphs.

Interested in experimenting with this approach in your classroom? Our nonpartisan Citizens’ Solutions Guides on some of our nation’s most hotly contested issues make great discussion starters in the lecture hall and are free to download. We’d love to hear your stories putting Choicework to use. Let us know how it works out!

The New “Slow Communities” Engagement Firm

We are pleased to be able to announce the launch of Slow Communities – a new engagement consulting service offering help to those who know that they need to “go slow to go fast.” Slow Communities was recently founded by Bill Roper, who served for 14 years with one of our partners, the Orton Family Foundation - first as Director of Programs, then as its longest-serving President and CEO. Bill, along with affiliate Barbara Ganley, is now offering his wealth of experience and knowledge as an engagement professional to foundations, non-profits, and municipalities as they work to build and sustain their communities.

Slow Communities will enlist the expertise of these experienced professionals in creative community engagement, planning and convening approaches, effective evaluation strategies and successful governance. In terms of the Slow Communities approach, their website has this to say:

We at Slow Communities have found that the knowledge you need is often right there in your organization, town or professional community, buried or overlooked. We help you to uncover that local expertise and experience by helping you to design open, creative avenues of participation and inclusion. Because perceptions develop quickly and are hard to dispel, careful planning right from the start will not only save you headaches and money later on, but will unleash incredible energy and opportunities for lasting success.

If you believe that great process is essential to great outcomes; if you believe in the wisdom of the crowds; if you want to build your town or organization’s capacity to steer change, then Slow Communities is the partner for you. Let us bring our innovative, effective and even (gasp) fun techniques and thinking to your town, foundation or non-profit.

We encourage you to explore the full list of services that Slow Communities will offer here, or check out their website at www.slowcommunities.org. You can also keep up to date on Slow Communities news by following their blog. We look forward to seeing how this exciting new service adds to our field, and wish Bill and Barbara the best of luck in their new endeavor!

Kettering’s David Holwerth on the Question “What is a Citizen?”

Kettering-Signs-borderOur partners at the Kettering Foundation recently posted about a write-up on their own David Holwerk’s talk at Rhodes University in South Africa on how journalists talk about citizens.  His remarks focused on the question, “What is a citizen?“, and how the answer is related to the role of the press in a democracy.

In the U.S. Constitution, the role of the press is given explicit protections, ostensibly because a free press that can cover whatever it wants is an integral part of a well-functioning democracy. Indeed, journalism is sometimes conceived of a service provided for citizens to be able to participate in an informed way in their governments.  But in a time like ours when news is often hard to discern from entertainment — with celebrities, Twitter commentary, and the results of award ceremonies often getting as much air time air time as local political issues, if not more — what do the big stories in our press say about what journalists are thinking about what is is to be a citizen?

Holwerk delved into the question’s implications for journalists:

Holwerk said that it seems to be a universal article of faith among journalists that they serve the needs of citizens in democracy. But journalists seem much less certain about what citizens actually do, which raises doubts about the ability of journalists to serve citizens’ needs effectively. “Why do people need things?” asked Holwerk. When you need something, he said, it implies that you want to do something. “If need implies action, then what is it that citizens do? They vote. We give them the information they need to vote. Why? Are citizens only voters?”

These are the questions Holwerk has been grappling with for the past four years. At the Kettering Foundation many political scientists and theorists have some ideas about what citizens do. So Holwerk started to think, “You ought to be able to figure out what citizens do by looking at what journalists do.” But when you look at newspapers, watch television or listen to the radio, it’s difficult to find citizens there doing anything, he said.

Journalists and editors need to develop a broader, denser, more robust understanding of what it is that citizens do, he said, but the conversation seems completely theoretical in the context of American journalism.

His reflections were made all the more powerful because  Holwerk was in South Africa, a country still relatively early on in its life as a democracy, where questions of citizenship are more regularly discussed in newspapers and the press.  But when it came to actually answering the question, “what is a citizen?”, Holwerk offered an insightful answer that pointed to the fact that other people in one’s community

Holwerk’s definition of “citizen” is actually a definition of “citizens” – casting the word as one necessarily addressed to implying a plurality of people.

What is a citizen?

Holwerk said an obstacle to journalists everywhere is not having a clear definition of the word. The legal definition of citizen is someone who is entitled to full rights, including voting rights, in their native state, he said, but this is both too broad and too narrow for the purpose of journalism. Another definition is anyone with the ability to act, he said, but if merely having the ability to act makes you a citizen and you choose not to act, there is no need for journalists to act, and nothing to cover.

Holwerk’s definition of citizens is two people working together to solve a shared public problem. For journalists, if two people work together to solve a private problem, it’s not news, but if they find a solution that benefits the public, that is news.

This definition of citizen is, for me, one of the best I’ve ever heard.  It gets to the heart of why we value things like dialogue and deliberation: at bottom, we know that we are in something together with other people around us, and we need to relate to and interact with them to make it work.  And when we engage in collaboration with others around us for our common good, that is getting to the essence of what it is to be a citizen.

How do you answer the question “what is a citizen?”  How does Holwerk’s definition strike you?  And what does it mean for the journalists of our nation?  Share your reflections with us in the comments section or in the NCDD Facebook group.

You can find the full coverage of Holwerk’s talk on the Rhodes University website here:  www.ru.ac.za/jms/jmsnews/name,93835,en.html.  

Is Twitter Really the New Town Hall?

DavenportInst-logoOur interest was piqued by two recent posts from the Gov 2.0 Watch blog (one of the blogs of the Davenport Institute, an NCDD org member). They have been posting recently about the ways social media can and is changing the way government interacts with the public, and we wanted to share two posts that provoke real considerations about how we should move forward with integrating social media into civic dialogue and deliberation.

First, Gov 2.0 Watch shared the post below on Lessons from Spain to be learned from the unprecedented use of Twitter in the Spanish city of Jun:

Mayor Jose Antonio Rodrigues, of the spanish town of Jun, has fully embraced twitter — and may have some lessons for other cities:

Because of this unprecedented Twitter integration into city governance, we have seen some great stories of what a “Twitter town square” can look like:

  • The mayor gathers city council agenda items via Twitter (@AyuntamientoJun) and displays a live, unfiltered Twitter feed during each public meeting.
  • Every town councilor has an individual Twitter handle; citizens have a direct line of communication with Jun’s leadership.
  • Residents can Tweet about issues of concern to the mayor, who replies publicly on Twitter about how these issues will be addressed, along with how and when the issue was resolved. For example, after exposed wires were reported, they were fitted with a proper cover in about 24 hours.
  • Jun encourages citizens of all ages to learn to use Twitter. Even older residents are active in civic life and engaged with others on Twitter.

You can read more here.

And that post was followed up by another that points to recent thought on the growth and evolution of social town halls from Harvard:

Stephen Goldsmith of the Ash Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School takes a look at how social media is evolving when it comes to public engagement with government:

Social media is the new town hall, where government leaders join residents in the constant digital conversation that occurs on Twitter and other sites. However, in addition to straightforward communication, social media offers much more in transforming how government works and listens. The use of social media is now evolving through four stages.

You can read about these stages here.

As we continue to see social media become a bigger part of our governance, dialogue, and deliberation, it will be crucial for our field to continue to explore, critique, and experiment with the ins and outs of its integration.

Do the above posts from Davenport raise questions for you or inspire reflections on social media and our work? Is Twitter the new town hall, or is it not? Share your thoughts with us in the comment section, or tweet them to our Twitter handle, @NCDD!

You can find the original Gov 2.0 Watch blog post on Spain here, and the original post on social town halls is here.

Write-up on mental health dialogues in Sacramento and Albuquerque

We hope you will take a moment to check out the following update on the Creating Community Solutions dialogue series from Carol Lukensmeyer of the National Institute for Civil Discourse, an NCDD organizational member.  This article was cross-posted with permission from Joe Goldman of the Democracy Fund. You can read the post in full below or find the original here: www.democracyfund.org/blog/entry/guest-post-creating-community-solutions.

NCDD is one of the main partners in this national dialogue effort, and we encourage you to get involved by hosting local dialogues or joining in our online dialogues at www.theciviccommons.com/mentalhealth.

Creating Community Solutions, part of the National Dialogue on Mental Health

creating solutionsBY CAROLYN LUKENSMEYER / AUGUST 13TH

On June 3rd, 2013, President Barack Obama hosted a National Conference on Mental Health at the White House as part of the Administration’s efforts to launch a national conversation to increase understanding and awareness about mental health.  At the event, President Obama directed Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Arne Duncan of the U.S. Department of Education to launch a National Dialogue on Mental Health.

An important component of the national dialogue is Creating Community Solutions, which is a series of events around the country that will allow people to engage in dialogue and action on mental health issues. The effort is being led by the National Institute for Civil Discourse and several other deliberative democracy groups [including NCDD]. The National Institute for Civil Discourse has joined in this initiative because we believe mental health is one of the most pressing issues facing our country, yet is one of the most difficult issues for Americans to talk about.  We hope to engage thousands of Americans in a range of setting: small-group discussions, large forums, online conversations and large-scale events. The dialogues are supported by an array of local officials, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, foundations, and health care providers.

In over 50 communities, planning has begun for the community conversations on mental health. The community conversations page at www.mentalhealth.gov describes the basic parameters of these events and the online map at www.creatingcommunitysolutions.org shows the full range of places and organizations involved. Two large-scale events of several hundred people each have already been convened this summer in Sacramento, CA and Albuquerque, NM.

In Sacramento, local and state officials and community leaders were extremely supportive, including Mayor Kevin Johnson who attended the event along with members of his staff. Congresswoman Doris Matsui attended and talked about the State of Mental Health Matters. Sacramento aggressively used social media to recruit young people and it paid off. Thirty percent of the 350 people in the room were between the ages of 19-24. Local television and print media provided good coverage, including a segment on the local NBC affiliate KCRA.

A diverse group of three hundred people attended the forum in Albuquerque. Former U.S. Senator Pete Domenici addressed the crowd, along with Mayor Richard Barry who joined people in the discussions and committed to act on some of the suggestions that emerged from the day. Albuquerque also received local television and print media coverage of the event, including a segment on KRQE.

Now that the events are completed, each city will have a Community Action page under the Outcomes section on our website, www.creatingcommunitysolutions.org. Information about next steps, the outcomes of the event, relevant documents and media articles will be housed there.

Both cities have robust action planning committees composed of local organizations and leaders committed to incorporating the strategies expressed by the participants into Community Action Plans that will guide their cities’ responses to mental health going forward. Some of those strategies included: strengthening existing resources, improving preventive services and continuity of care, teaching mental health services in schools, and communicating information about mental health services to young people using more extensive social media.

The Newest NIF Issue Guide: Bridging and Bonding

NIF-logoWe encourage you to take a few moments to find out more about the latest issue guide from the National Issues Forum Institute. The new guide, titled “Bridging and Bonding: How Can We Create Engaged Communities in a Time of Rapid Change?”, is a collaborative effort between the General Federation of Women’s Clubs and the Kettering Foundation that is designed to help guide conversations about creating better connected and integrated neighborhoods, towns, and communities despite contemporary challenges and shifting divisions.

This excerpt from the introduction gets to the heart of what this newest guide is about:

Changing economic conditions and technological innovations, including the ever-increasing pervasiveness of mass and social media, have transformed our personal lives and our communities. This has affected how families interact, how and where we work, and how we form and maintain relationships, both public and private. Today individuals may bond more strongly with an online community or colleagues at work than with their neighbors. The blurring of distinctions between work and home, made possible by technology, consumes time once spent on social and civic pursuits. Public spaces and even our own neighborhoods don’t seem as safe as they used to be. And a lack of trust in others makes bridging differences between those with differing social, political, religious, or cultural beliefs and experiences more challenging.

What we need to deliberate about is this: how can we create engaged communities in a time of such rapid change?

As with other NIF guides, three options for moving forward are laid out for further deliberation.  The guide challenges participants to deliberate and decide on one of three courses of action:

  • Option 1: Embrace Change and Affirm Differences
  • Option 2: Strengthen and Renew Traditional Ways of Connecting
  • Option 3: Meet People Where They Are

For a deeper look at how we might weigh these options, check out the NIF’s full blog post about the guide here: www.nifi.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=24688&catID=23664.

You can also find more issue materials, including moderator guides and questionnaires at this link: http://www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=15&itemID=24676.

Happy reading, and best of luck as you move forward engaging your communities in deliberation about how to better bridge gaps and bond with each other for the common good!

New Report on E-Petitions and Engagement

We are happy to share a great summary of the new report on government-sponsored e-petitions from long-time NCDD member AmericaSpeaks.  The paper compares e-petition platforms from the US, UK, and Australia, and it’s a useful guide for thinking through the ins and outs of the many different e-petition platforms aimed at helping public engagement specialists make better use of this emerging technology.

You can read the full article below, or find the original post on the AmericaSpeaks blog here.


AmericaSpeaks_Logo

Exploring E-Petitions

By Elana Goldstein

AmericaSpeaks doesn’t often have the opportunity to be involved with projects like this, so it was exciting for the organization to take a step back and look at citizen participation from a new angle. We see e-petitions as a new means for governments to encourage increased citizen interaction and involvement in the policy making process. Over the past two years, AmericaSpeaks has been working with funds from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to explore issues related to open government. The grant culminated at the beginning of the summer with the release of “Government Sponsored E-Petitions: A Guide for Implementation and Development,” a paper focused on electronic petitioning and local government.

The paper serves as a guide for public managers who are interested in e-petition design and implementation. The guide breaks down the key decision areas that a public manager may face throughout the implementation process. In addition, the guide includes three case studies, each of which examines a different governmental entity’s approach to e-petition implementation. The first case study looks at e-petitioning in the United States with the Obama Administration’s “We the People” e-petition platform. The second case discusses state level implementation in Queensland, Australia, with an emphasis on using e-petitioning as a way to overcome geographic barriers to citizen participation. The final case study examines implementation on the local level with the e-petition platform in Bristol, England.

While e-petition implementation is highly dependent on the local context, several issues emerged as best practices throughout the case studies. For example, the use of a trial period in the early stages of an e-petition process gives the government time to work out glitches in the platform, as well as work to get elected officials and the public bought in to the benefits of the system. Similarly, we recommend that all e-petition systems utilize a time response guarantee. So, if a petition gathers enough signatures it is guaranteed a response within a specific time frame. While the amount of time will vary across localities and platforms, the guarantee will provide a sense of accountability for citizen petitioners and create a petition response structure that treats all petitions equally.

As more communities implement and innovate around e-petitions, our notions of best practices will change. In the long history of petitions and governance, e-petitions, we must remember, are still in their infancy. However, it is safe to say that the spread of e-petitions is a positive development for the practice of democratic participation. For citizens, the continued use of e-petition systems can lead to a greater capacity for civic participation, a greater ability to get things on the government agenda, and greater expectations for political participation outside of the voting booth. Citizen participation and increased government accountability through e-petition processes has genuine potential to strengthen linkages between elected officials and the participatory public.

We hope that you take the time to read through the guide and share it with your elected officials. Enjoy!

Find the original article here: www.americaspeaks.org/blog/exploring-e-petitions. Find the full report here: www.americaspeaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/EPetitionPaperFinal.pdf.