NoVo Foundation

Posted on August 18, 2013 by Courtney Breese

NoVo Foundation is dedicated to catalyzing a transformation in global society, moving from a culture of domination to one of equality and partnership. It supports the development of capacities in people—individually and collectively—to help create a caring and balanced world. NoVo envisions a world that operates on the principles of mutual respect, collaboration, and civic participation, thereby reversing the old paradigm predicated on hierarchy, violence, and the subordination of girls and women.

The foundation places a high priority on a compassionate view of the world and on the highest definition of philanthropy — in the roots of the words anthro and philo — “for the love of human beings.” NoVo sees itself as a learning organization and they believe they can be most impactful by being aware of the interconnectedness of all things.

They structure grantmaking around initiatives, rather than by program areas. These initiatives are varied in form, but all reflect NoVo’s commitment to building authentic partnerships with grantees and other funders, and to taking calculated risks.

NoVo initiatives include:

Empowering adolescent girls
Ending violence against girls and women
Advancing social and emotional learning
Promoting local living economies

NoVo was created in 2006 after Warren Buffett pledged to donate 350,000 shares of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. stock to the foundation.

About Jennifer & Peter Buffett
Jennifer and Peter Buffett are the Co-Chairs of NoVo Foundation; Jennifer also serves as President. Peter Buffett is the youngest son of investor Warren Buffett. Jennifer and Peter have been active philanthropists since 1997. They were named in Barron’s list of top 25 most effective philanthropists in 2009 and 2010.

Learn more about NoVo at www.novofoundation.org/about-us/.

Resource Link: www.novofoundation.org

International Journal of Collaborative Practices

Posted on August 7, 2013 by NCDD Community

The International Journal of Collaborative Practices brings together members of a growing international community of practitioners, scholars, educators, researchers, and consultants interested in postmodern collaborative practices.

This community responds to important questions in social and human sciences such as:

How can we make our theories and practices have every day relevance and how can our ordinary experiences have relevance for our theories and practices, for as many people as possible in our fast changing world?
What will this relevance accomplish?
And who determines it?

Globalization and technology are spawning social, cultural, political, and economic transformations in our shrinking and interdependent world. People everywhere are constantly exposed to real time events in the world and enlightened through television and the Internet. They are fast losing faith in the rigid institutions that treat them as numbers and ignore their humanity. People expect to be directly involved in whatever affects their lives and they demand flexible systems and services that honor their rights and respect their needs.

Faced with such local, societal and global shifts, with the unavoidable complexities they engender, and with their effect on our lives and our world, practitioners are wondering how best to respond. The Journal is designed to serve as one part of a timely and valuable response by spotlighting important interconnected issues such as:

The juxtaposition of democracy, social justice, and human rights;
The importance of people’s voices locally and globally; and
The fundamental need for professional collaboration.

The journal is published once a year, with new issues coming out in the Spring. Sponsored by the Houston Galveston Institute, the Taos Institute, and the Psychology Department at Our Lady of the Lake University, it is an open-access on-line publication that is offered in the spirit of promoting community and collaboration. You can subscribe by emailing journal@talkhgi.com.

As of August 2013, the Journal is on Issue 4. Harlene Anderson, Ph.D. and Saliha Bava, Ph.D. are the editors. The Journal is an open access on-line bilingual (English and Spanish) interactive publication. Your participation is invited through the submission of articles and your responses through the Journal blog.

Resource Link: www.collaborative-practices.com

Coping With the Cost of Health Care: How Do We Pay for What We Need? (NIF Issue Guide)

Posted on August 5, 2013 by Andy Fluke

One of the National Issues Forums Institute’s issue guides, Coping With the Cost of Health Care: How Do We Pay for What We Need? outlines this public issue and several choices or approaches to addressing the issue. National Issues Forums do not advocate a specific solution or point of view, but provide citizens the opportunity to consider a broad range of choices, weigh the pros and cons of those options, and meet with each other in a public dialogue to identify the concerns they hold in common.

Nearly three out of four Americans today worry that their income will not keep up with rising prices…These worries outstrip anxieties about losing a job, terrorist attacks, crime, and losing savings in the stock market. The questions we must address are: How can we get the health care we require, in the face of rising costs? How can we pay for what we need?

This issue framing presents three approaches for deliberation:

Approach #1: Reduce the Threat of Financial Ruin
Proponents of this approach say we need to make health insurance that covers major medical expenses available to everyone.

Approach #2: Restrain Out-of-Control Costs
Health-care costs are too high for too many people. This approach holds that they should be reduced directly through price controls and other means.

Approach #3: Provide Coverage as a Right
Proponents of this approach say that health care coverage is something every citizen is entitled to.

Read the report on this forum.

More about NIF issue guides…

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

NIFI offers various materials for each of the issues it produces issue guides on. The moderator guide or “guide to the forums” for each issue is available as a free download. Discussion guides (or “issue guides”) for participants are generally available in print or PDF download for a small fee ($2 to $4). DVD’s can also be purchased for some issues for just $6, for use at the beginning of your forums to introduce the topic and approaches.

All NIF issue guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/issue_books/.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=12&itemID=11480

Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and Getting Better Public Participation

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Courtney Breese

This 2013 report from the IBM Center for The Business of Government is based on five case studies of e-rulemaking experiments to better engage the public, and offers advice on how agencies can increase the quantity and quality of public participation. By authors Cynthia R.Farina and Mary J.Newhart with CeRI (the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative).

From Center Executive Director Dan Chenok’s announcement:

This report provides important insights in how governments can improve the rulemaking process by taking full advantage of Rulemaking 2.0 technology, building on the progress made by the U.S. Government’s longstanding Regulations.Gov initiative. The report’s findings and recommendations are based on five experiments with Rulemaking 2.0 conducted by CeRI researchers, four in partnership with the Department of Transportation and one with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

While geared specifically to achieving better public participation in rulemaking, the concepts, findings, and recommendations contained in the report are applicable to all government agencies interested in enhancing public participation in a variety of processes. The report offers advice on how government organizations can increase both the quantity and quality of public participation from specific groups of citizens, including missing stakeholders, unaffiliated experts, and the general public.

The report describes three barriers to effective participation in rulemaking: lack of awareness, low participation literacy, and information overload. While the report focuses on rulemaking, these barriers also hinder public participation in other arenas. The report offers three strategies to overcome such barriers:

Outreach to alert and engage potential new participants
Converting newcomers into effective commenters
Making substantive rulemaking information accessible

This report makes an excellent companion piece to two previous IBM Center reports. In 2011, the Center published Assessing Public Participation in an Open Government Era: A Review of Federal Agency Plans, by Carolyn Lukensmeyer, Joe Goldman, and David Stern. That report addresses how public participation can be increased via online public participation, face-to-face public participation, and formal public participation (such as rulemaking and federal advisory committees). An earlier IBM Center report, The Management of Regulation Development: Out of the Shadows, by American University President Cornelius Kerwin, addressed the need to government to give increased attention to its role in regulation development and rulemaking.

Table of Contents

Foreword
Introduction
- Purpose of this Report
- Intended Audience and Outline
Understanding the Barriers to Rulemaking Participation
- Case Studies
- Barriers to Effective Participation
Understanding Types of Potential Rulemaking Participants
- Type One: Sophisticated Commenters
- Type Two: Missing Stakeholders
- Type Three: Unaffiliated Experts
- Type Four: Members of the General Public
Strategies to Lower Participation Barriers and Enhance Participation Quality
- Strategy One: Outreach to Alert and Engage Potential New Participants
- Strategy Two: Converting Newcomers to Effective Commenters
- Strategy Three: Making Substantive Rulemaking Information Accessible
Recommendations
- Understanding and Getting Broader and Better Rulemaking Participation
- Building a New Culture of Rulemaking Participation—From Inside the Agency Out
References
Acknowledgments
About the Authors
Key Contact Information

About the IBM Center for The Business of Government
The IBM Center for The Business of Government connects public management research with practice. Since 1998, the Center has helped public sector executives improve the effectiveness of government with practical ideas and original thinking. They sponsor independent research by top minds in academe and the non-profit sector, and create opportunities for dialogue on a broad range of public management topics. The Center’s publications focus on the major management issues facing all governments today: e-government, financial management, human capital management, managing for performance and results, market-based government, and innovation, collaboration and transformation.

Resource Link: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/business-government/new-report-examines-state-rulemaking-20

Direct Download: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Rulemaking%202%200.pdf

Democracy Pays

Posted on July 19, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

The U.K.-based Democratic Society produced a white paper in association with Public-i Ltd., on how democratic engagement can help local government save money in a time of cuts.

Executive summary:

This is a time of fiscal pressure and service cuts. Councils are restructuring services and looking to cut back on non-essential areas of spending. Is democratic engagement one of those areas?

Aside from the moral argument for democratic engagement, there is evidence that investment in strong democratic participation is important if reformed local government approaches are to result in more efficient spending and better-targeted services.

The evidence of self-directed support and personalised budgets shows that involving citizens and users in service provision can produce better-tailored services that operate at lower overall cost.

Where councils need to cut expenditure, high-quality democratic engagement in the budget setting process can provide them with better information, while increasing participants’ opinion of the council.

In countries with a tradition of more participatory democracy, higher levels of participatory democracy correlate with more efficient services and greater willingness to pay tax.

Creating a single architecture for public consultation and engagement can also reduce the cost of duplication in consultation exercises.

If they can create an attractive offer on democratic engagement, councils should be able to realise benefits, because there is a large untapped market of people who want to get engaged in their local area, as well as broader reach and range for online democratic engagement tools.

Resource Link: www.demsoc.org/democracy-pays-white-paper-how-digital-engagement-can-save-councils-money/

Direct Download: http://www.demsoc.org/static/Financial-Case-white-paper.pdf

In the Goldfish Bowl: Science and technology policy dialogues in a digital world

Posted on July 14, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

This June 2013 thought piece from Sciencewise-ERC explores the opportunities and challenges of engaging online. The report represents a systematic attempt by Sciencewise to bring together two trends in public policy decision making: digitalization and open government, with a focus on how public dialogue efforts can harness the full potential of online and digital technologies.

The Sciencewise-ERC is the UK’s national centre for public dialogue in policy making involving science and technology issues. It provides co-funding and specialist advice and support to Government departments and agencies to develop and commission public dialogue activities in emerging areas of science and technology. The publication is authored by Susie Latta, Charlotte Mulcare and Anthony Zacharzewski from the Democratic Society.

From the Executive Summary:

Public opinion is increasingly driven by information obtained through digital means and policy makers are shifting the bulk of engagement exercises and public opinion-gathering online. Even where policy makers use offline tools such as focus groups or deliberative dialogue, these activities take place against a background of digitally-mediated understanding.

Digital engagement, if used well, can:

Amplify the impact of offline engagement and create better starting conditions for offline events
Help to build a baseline of technical knowledge to inform discussion
Widen access and increase transparency

On the negative side, digital routes can quickly spread misinformation that distorts or oversimplifies information, thereby undermining related policy debate. Similarly, digital media can exacerbate the problem of over-simplifying complex technological points, and can also be used to present a baseline of opinion rather than knowledge.

In this report, Sciencewise-ERC has developed a typology for digital engagement that illustrates how two key considerations, topic and method, can be used to group different digital communication tools, so that policy makers can match technique to need.

Reviewing current engagement with science-based policy, several key themes emerge as critical success factors:

utilising existing networks;
harnessing multiple digital channels;
using trusted experts to engage directly with participants in engagement;
looking to citizen-led participation;
ensuring transparency and openness throughout;
enabling the public to have a key role in setting the agenda for discussion;
bringing dissenters/sceptics into the debate;
informing how opinions have been taken on board; ensuring sufficient accessibility of technical information for those wishing to ‘mine into the data’;
and honesty during controversy.

Looking to the future, digital methods are increasingly likely to dominate engagement in science-based policy, perhaps even becoming the primary portal for debate.

Resource Link: www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/in-the-goldfish-bowl-science-and-technology-policy-dialogues-in-a-digital-world/

Download it directly at www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/In-the-goldfish-bowl-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

Sciencewise Expert Research Centre

Posted on July 14, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

Sciencewise is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) and aims to help policy makers commission and use public dialogue to inform policy decisions involving science and technology issues. Sciencewise aims to ensure that all future policy involving science, technology and innovation is robustly developed, informed by public concerns and aspirations and based on all the available evidence.

The Sciencewise-ERC consists of a comprehensive online resource of information, advice and guidance together with a wide range of support services aimed at policy makers and all the different stakeholders concerned with policy involving science and technology issues, including the public.

Support includes co-funding to Government departments and agencies to develop and commission public dialogue projects, a team of highly experienced Dialogue and Engagement Specialists (DES), general dialogue training and mentoring to policy makers and an online Community of Practice.

Resource Link: http://sciencewise-erc.org.uk

Political Fix: How Do We Get American Politics Back on Track? (NIF Issue Guide)

Posted on July 7, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

One of the National Issues Forums Institute’s issue guides, Political Fix: How Do We Get American Politics Back on Track? outlines this critical public issue and several choices or approaches to addressing the issue. National Issues Forums do not advocate a specific solution or point of view, but provide citizens the opportunity to consider a broad range of choices, weigh the pros and cons of those options, and meet with each other in a public dialogue to identify the concerns they hold in common. From the 12-page issue guide’s introduction…

The view that something is amiss in American government is now widely shared. “We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years,” say scholars Tomas E. Mann and Norman Ornstein, “and never have we seen them this dysfunctional.”…

Even some elected officials acknowledge they have a problem. “We need to change the way we do business,” says Tom Udall, a Democratic senator from New Mexico. “Right now, we have gridlock. We have delay. We have obstruction, and we don’t have any accountability.”

The troubles facing American politics are varied and complex. Observers point to a wide range of developments that, if left unchecked, are likely to further weaken the effectiveness of government. These include:

The flood of corporate money into American political campaigns.
The growing influence of lobbyists and special interest groups.
The increasing polarization and rancor of our political discourse.
Structural impediments, such as current redistricting laws that limit ballot choices and skew elections results.
The “permanent campaign” that encourages lawmakers to focus on short-term gains instead of long-term solutions.
Political leaders acting in their own interests rather than serving the public good.
The disengagement of ordinary Americans who turn away from politics in disgust rather than getting involved and making their voices heard.

This issue guide presents three options for consideration:

Option 1: Break the grip of special interests
The key to addressing gridlock and dysfuntion in government is to rein in special interests and curb the influence of big money.

Option 2: Increase responsibility
Our best hope of fixing American politics is to restore individual responsibility in communities and at every level of government.

Option 3: Fix the mechanisms of politics
The mechanisms of government are no longer responsive to the will of the people. We need major structural changes to make the system work as it was intended to.

More about NIF issue guides…

NIF issue guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/discussion_guides/index.aspx.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=6&itemID=24378

Building a Culture of Participation: Citizen Engagement in Vancouver, BC

Posted on July 4, 2013 by NCDD Community

The “Building a Culture of Participation” report describes workshop outcomes and participant ideas to empower citizens of Vancouver, British Columbia in official city decision-making. This May 2013 workshop brought together City of Vancouver employees, members of Vancouver’s Engaged City Task Force and community members and was jointly presented by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue, SFU Public Square and the City of Vancouver.

Feature guest and community organizer Dave Meslin presented examples of active citizen engagement from his projects in the Greater Toronto Area. Meslin proposed four pre-conditions for citizens to engage with their cities: confidence; knowledge of the political system; an expectation of malleability or responsiveness; and a sense of ownership over their city. A summary of Dave Meslin’s ideas is available in the 3-minute video at http://youtu.be/hHMKMjzRZiw produced for the visit.

Next, three local guests presented short case studies of successful citizen empowerment in the City of Vancouver. These included Nathan Edelson speaking on community planning in Renfrew-Collingwood; Peter Whitelaw providing an overview of the Arbutus Lands Co-Designing Process; and Shirley Chan discussing the successful opposition to building a freeway through Historic Strathcona and Chinatown.

Participants then engaged in a breakout exercise, with the goal of designing a model engagement process that would achieve citizen political empowerment in deciding the future of Vancouver’s False Creek South community. For the purpose of this workshop, Citizen Political Empowerment was defined as a citizen engagement process where the City and citizens work collaboratively to frame issues, develop options and identify preferred solutions, or processes where the decision-making power rests primarily in the hands of citizens.

The breakout groups shared many common themes and ideas. Approximately half of participant ideas focussed on outreach tactics to increase stakeholder awareness and input, such as using game-style formats to encourage team building and receive input. Several breakout groups proposed ambassador-style roles for citizens to deepen the connection to community members and support stakeholder groups participate in a city-led process as a means of reducing power imbalances.

Some groups went further by proposing methods for citizens to actively frame issues, develop options, and identify preferred solutions. Suggestions included facilitating dialogues that allow stakeholder groups to hear each other and find compromises, creating a panel of citizen representatives to certify the final plan against pre-determined principles, and presenting options to citizens for voting instead of asking for feedback on a single proposal. Finally, several breakout groups proposed that resident groups could manage major aspects of engagement if they met certain official standards to ensure full representation of their communities and neutrality on policy outcomes.

A full description of the workshop design, presentations and breakout group ideas is available in the final report.

Funding for Building a Culture of Participation was provided through the Centre for Dialogue’s Bruce and Lis Welch Community Dialogue, a yearly event designed to encourage transformative social change through dialogue.

For more information, please contact Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue at dial@sfu.ca or visit www.sfu.ca/dialogue.

Resource Link: www.sfu.ca/dialogue/programs/welch-dialogue/building-participation.html

Submitted by Robin Prest of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue via NCDD’s Add-a-Resource form.

Video: Dave Meslin on the Importance of Dialogue

Posted on July 3, 2013 by NCDD Community

Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue commissioned a series of short videos of the well-known Toronto-based community organizer Dave Meslin in May 2013. In this second video of the series, Meslin describes why dialogue is a critical but missing part of the political process.

The video series marks the 2013 Bruce and Lis Welch Community Dialogue, titled Building a Culture of Participation. This event brought together City of Vancouver employees, members of the City’s Engaged City Task Force and community members to explore opportunities for increased citizen political empowerment in official City decision-making. Activities included an interactive public lecture and an invitational workshop that was jointly presented by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue, SFU Public Square and the City of Vancouver.

At the invitational workshop, Meslin presented examples of active citizen engagement from his projects in the Greater Toronto Area. Meslin proposed four pre-conditions for citizens to engage with their cities: confidence; knowledge of the political system; an expectation of malleability or responsiveness; and a sense of ownership over their city.

Next, participants engaged in a breakout exercise, with the goal of designing a model engagement process that would achieve citizen political empowerment in deciding the future of Vancouver’s False Creek South community. For the purpose of this workshop, Citizen Political Empowerment was defined as a citizen engagement process where the City and citizens work collaboratively to frame issues, develop options and identify preferred solutions, or processes where the decision-making power rests primarily in the hands of citizens.

A full description of the workshop design, presentations and breakout group ideas is available in the final report, available at: http://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/programs/welch-dialogue/building-participation.html.

For more information, contact Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue at dial@sfu.ca or www.sfu.ca/dialogue.