Civic Studies

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

Main menu

Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
  • Home
  • About
  • Discussion + Collaboration
  • Get Involved
  • Meet-Up

Category Archives: civic engagement

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Two Decades of Learning with Communities (Connections 2015)

Posted on February 23, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The four-page article, Two Decades of Learning with Communities, by Phillip D. Lurie was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. This article is about the Community Politics Workshops, which were developed train participants to understand delilberation and democratic public politics, then bring the knowledge back home to their communities. This process over these last two decades has revealed a lot about how communities work together democratically to address their problems. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here and read an excerpt from the article below.

KF_Connections 2015From the article…

When Communities Work Together

After more than a decade working with community-based teams, it is difficult to capture what we have learned in a few scant paragraphs. Moreover, these efforts have been one part of a larger research initiative, situated within KF’s Community Politics and Leadership program area, so the outcomes reflect the aggregation of data from all of these related efforts. Nonetheless, over the years, we’ve learned quite a bit about how communities work together democratically to address the problems they face.

• Community teams grew in their understanding of the goals and potential of deliberative practices.

As people began to engage in the practices of community politics, they tended to express their goals as either striving toward changing the political culture or making progress on a serious problem. This could be simplistically summarized as those who wanted to convene forums and change decision-making processes versus those who wanted action. However, over time, the thinking of most participants evolved to understand that both goals are intertwined. None believed deliberation was an end in itself, but they took differing views of the role of the convening organization in fostering action. Overall, we have learned that motivated citizen groups can understand the potential of public politics in their community.

• Deliberative practices, as conveyed to these community groups, were labor and time intensive.

One readily apparent problem faced by most teams, especially those that rely heavily on people who volunteer outside of their jobs, is that deliberative practices, at least as shared in the workshops, have been labor and time intensive. In many cases, team members report decreasing their activity because of other demands on their time. Finding ways to allow the public to do its work in ways that are less burdensome and more natural would allow teams, especially those without paid staff, to sustain the democratic practices over time.

• Community teams could frame issues and hold forums but had difficulty making an impact.

Overall, the community teams participating in these workshops could, with varying degrees of success, name, frame, convene deliberative dialogues, network, evaluate their efforts and progress, and, if desired, play a role in fostering citizen action. As a result, most community teams could claim some positive impacts as a result of their work. However, despite years of thoughtful effort, the Community Politics teams acknowledge that, at best, their work resulted in small pockets of change. At worst, some reflect that their efforts (despite being well thought out and labor intensive) had virtually no lasting impact on politics-as-usual or the community as a whole. Confronted with the limitations of largely volunteer teams and the realities of politics-as-usual in their communities, all of the community teams have struggled. Progress, if any, toward embedding and sustaining deliberative practices in the community in any way that really makes a difference or making a dent in serious problems has been uneven at best.

• Community teams often operated in a “parallel universe,” disconnected from politics-as-usual, or faced resistance when confronting politics-as-usual.

Community Politics teams had difficulty developing democratic practices that complement institutional practices. Oftentimes, community institutions used deliberative forums as a means to get input from citizens to justify existing proposals or satisfy a public participation requirement. Sometimes teams faced outright resistance from local institutions, which were hesitant to change. Team members often found that they were not able to bring enough local decision makers or funders to appreciate the need for deliberative public decision making, despite the best efforts of their team and their partner organizations. While the workshop series ended to allow for an internal review of our learning, the research has continued on in other ways. We are still experimenting today with how people in communities solve problems together. The foundation researches the ways that distinct groups attempt to constructively affect the politics of naming and framing problems in their community—as well as how they collectively address them. That is, how do innovations, which are designed to change the nature of the workings of political interactions in a community, work?

Learning exchanges are built around experiments and the practical implications of carrying out innovations. We are interested in learning more about:

1. how innovations can be initiated;
2. the potential barriers to trying new ways of solving problems together in communities;
3. assuming that innovations occur, the political outcomes of the innovations in practice, which includes changes in interactions regarding particular problems; and
4. the development of self-consciousness among citizens of key democratic practices and ways to make them citizen-driven.

We are studying how political entrepreneurship can be done with democratic intent.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Lurie_2015.pdf

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, collaborative efforts, community building, dialogue to action, highly recommended, JLA, Journals & Newsletters, Kettering Foundation, public engagement, tools | Leave a reply

Community Engagement Brings a Spark to City Revitalization Efforts

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The article, Community Engagement Brings a Spark to City Revitalization Efforts, was published on Everyday Democracy‘s website in October 2015. This article discusses the revitalization process that has been growing in Oakland, PA., due to the commitment of its community and the Oakland Planning Development Corp (OPDC). OPDC engaged local residents via community conversations, to develop a long term master plan, that is already creating change within the Oakland neighborhood and continues to develop throughout 2025. Below is an excerpt of the article and you can find the full piece on ED’s site here.

From the article…

Revitalizing a community is a big task to take on, and it’s one that the Oakland Planning and Development Corp (OPDC) knows works best when everyone in the community is involved in the process. Neglected properties, over-occupied homes, and public safety concerns were a few of the issues residents of the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pa., wanted to address.

These conditions were enough for OPDC to initiate a master plan for their neighborhood, aiming for an entirely renewed Oakland by 2025. As a community-based development corporation, community engagement is a fundamental component of the services they provide. Engaging local residents in shaping the master plan was no exception.

In 2011, after a year-long effort of dialogues with residents and plan development, OPDC hosted an action forum with over 200 people from the Oakland community, including local residents, students, business owners, and others to debrief from their conversations and move forward with action steps for their neighborhood.

Having everyone come together from different sectors of the community brought a lot of energy to the plan. “We knew the power of this model but it was very illuminating for members of the community to see and experience first-hand that people are really interested in being engaged in what’s going on in the community,” explained Wanda Wilson, Executive Director of OPDC. “It actually gets people engaged in the community,” commented one of the dialogue facilitators. “This system works to help people figure out together what needs changed.”

Wilson said there are many groups in the neighborhood taking on various issues, but too often volunteers get burnt out or feel isolated. By bringing the community together in the planning process, it was clear that there was a significant amount of interest and dedicated people working to creating positive change.

In just a few short years, the community of Oakland, Pa., has made significant progress toward revitalizing the neighborhood.

Some of the top issues participants identified through the dialogue efforts were housing issues, pedestrian and transit safety, and greening efforts. Wilson said the dialogues helped to begin a “planning while doing” process in which the residents could start taking action while the rest of the master plan was finished.

Read the rest of the article here on Everyday Democracy.

About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/stories/community-engagement-brings-spark-city-revitalization-efforts

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, collaborative efforts, community building, dialogue, dialogue to action, EvDem/Study Circles, planning, Reports & Articles | Leave a reply

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

Posted on February 12, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The four-page article, From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond, by John Dedrick was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Dedrick reviews the chronology of civil philanthropy, broken down throughout five distinct time periods between 1989 through present day. He discusses how major events during these time periods shaped how organized philanthropy responded and in-turn shaped the theory and practice of citizen-centered politics. Below is an excerpt from the article. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

KF_Connections 2015In 2003, Kettering and the Pew Partnership agreed to convene a series of dialogues that would include both veterans of the civil investing seminars and members of the communities that had worked with the partnership.

These conversations underscored themes from the work of Kettering and the Pew Partnership with communities and helped to clarify and consolidate what had been learned about community resiliency from the civil investing work. Importantly, the dialogues with the Pew Partnership illustrated that strong democratic practice is a central and explicit theme in community problem solving. While the conversations did not transform practices of the philanthropic sector at the time, new approaches to grantmaking that focus on building community as well as rebuilding communities, particularly among public sector and local funders, have emerged. Scott London’s Investing in Public Life provides an insightful analysis of dialogues.

After Hurricane Katrina and the Great Recession (2005-2015)
In late summer 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast. And once again, many in philanthropy asked: “What  are our priorities?” Three years later, in 2008, the bottom fell out of the US economy. In the period between these two events, resilience and community capacity became increasingly central themes for grantmakers. The Great Recession has had another effect as well, which was to resurface a set of questions about what philanthropy should be accountable for.

Kettering’s response to these developments has been multi-pronged. On questions of philanthropy’s role in community capacity, KF program officers Debi Witte and Derek Barker began convening meetings with community-based foundations, which led to a series of research collaborations with CFLeads, Philanthropy Northwest, and Grassroots Grantmakers. An occasional paper by Humboldt Area Foundation executive director Peter Pennekamp, Philanthropy and the Regeneration of Community Democracy, was one product from these exchanges. Kettering also worked with Public Agenda on research into accountability, reported in Don’t Count Us Out. Work with Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) resulted in Philanthropy and the Limits of Accountability as well as an article by PACE executive director Chris Gates and KF program officer Brad Rourke in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. And continuing the longstanding practice of working with foundation associations, KF program officer Carolyn Farrow-Garland joined the board of Grassroots Grantmakers, while I was invited to join the PACE board.

Finally, former Kettering board member Daniel Kemmis, who was then serving on the board of Philanthropy Northwest, began organizing exchanges on a range of topics from philanthropy’s role in strengthening community-focused nonprofits to enduring questions about the role of philanthropy in American democracy and its accountability to the public. One product of this work is Kemmis’ working paper, Philanthropy and the Renewal of Democracy: Is It Time to Step Up Our Game?

Summary Findings
What have we learned from this work? Five top-line findings head the list:

-Civil investing is actually investing. It’s philanthropic work that’s aimed at building and strengthening democracy.
-Building a nonprofit infrastructure is not the same as creating civic capacity. These may be related, but they are not the same.
-Investing in the capacities of community to do public work is labor and time intensive. It’s deeply relational and requires a long-term commitment.
-Communications and language are critical, and we don’t have a common language or effective communication strategy for this work.
-Accountability matters, but it’s about much more than metrics.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Dedrick_2015.pdf

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, David Mathews, economic issues, funders, JLA, Journals & Newsletters, Kettering Foundation, philanthropy | Leave a reply

From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond (Connections 2015)

Posted on February 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The four-page article, From Civil Society to Civil Investing, and Beyond, by John Dedrick was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Dedrick reviews the chronology of civil philanthropy, broken down throughout five distinct time periods between 1989 through present day. He discusses how major events during these time periods shaped how organized philanthropy responded and in-turn shaped the theory and practice of citizen-centered politics. Below is an excerpt from the article. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

KF_Connections 2015In 2003, Kettering and the Pew Partnership agreed to convene a series of dialogues that would include both veterans of the civil investing seminars and members of the communities that had worked with the partnership.

These conversations underscored themes from the work of Kettering and the Pew Partnership with communities and helped to clarify and consolidate what had been learned about community resiliency from the civil investing work. Importantly, the dialogues with the Pew Partnership illustrated that strong democratic practice is a central and explicit theme in community problem solving. While the conversations did not transform practices of the philanthropic sector at the time, new approaches to grantmaking that focus on building community as well as rebuilding communities, particularly among public sector and local funders, have emerged. Scott London’s Investing in Public Life provides an insightful analysis of dialogues.

After Hurricane Katrina and the Great Recession (2005-2015)
In late summer 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast. And once again, many in philanthropy asked: “What  are our priorities?” Three years later, in 2008, the bottom fell out of the US economy. In the period between these two events, resilience and community capacity became increasingly central themes for grantmakers. The Great Recession has had another effect as well, which was to resurface a set of questions about what philanthropy should be accountable for.

Kettering’s response to these developments has been multi-pronged. On questions of philanthropy’s role in community capacity, KF program officers Debi Witte and Derek Barker began convening meetings with community-based foundations, which led to a series of research collaborations with CFLeads, Philanthropy Northwest, and Grassroots Grantmakers. An occasional paper by Humboldt Area Foundation executive director Peter Pennekamp, Philanthropy and the Regeneration of Community Democracy, was one product from these exchanges. Kettering also worked with Public Agenda on research into accountability, reported in Don’t Count Us Out. Work with Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) resulted in Philanthropy and the Limits of Accountability as well as an article by PACE executive director Chris Gates and KF program officer Brad Rourke in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. And continuing the longstanding practice of working with foundation associations, KF program officer Carolyn Farrow-Garland joined the board of Grassroots Grantmakers, while I was invited to join the PACE board.

Finally, former Kettering board member Daniel Kemmis, who was then serving on the board of Philanthropy Northwest, began organizing exchanges on a range of topics from philanthropy’s role in strengthening community-focused nonprofits to enduring questions about the role of philanthropy in American democracy and its accountability to the public. One product of this work is Kemmis’ working paper, Philanthropy and the Renewal of Democracy: Is It Time to Step Up Our Game?

Summary Findings
What have we learned from this work? Five top-line findings head the list:

-Civil investing is actually investing. It’s philanthropic work that’s aimed at building and strengthening democracy.
-Building a nonprofit infrastructure is not the same as creating civic capacity. These may be related, but they are not the same.
-Investing in the capacities of community to do public work is labor and time intensive. It’s deeply relational and requires a long-term commitment.
-Communications and language are critical, and we don’t have a common language or effective communication strategy for this work.
-Accountability matters, but it’s about much more than metrics.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Dedrick_2015.pdf

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, David Mathews, economic issues, funders, JLA, Journals & Newsletters, Kettering Foundation, philanthropy | Leave a reply

How Kettering Discovered Democracy (Connections 2015)

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The four-page article, How Kettering Discovered Democracy by David Mathews, was published late Fall of 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. The article gives highlights of what Kettering has learned since the first issue of Connections in 1987 and how KF continues to evolve research practices to improve democracy.

In the article, Mathews shares how Kettering research pulled together many different concepts and ultimately, became unified by the concept of democracy. The alliance between Kettering and National Issues Forums created the opportunity to put KF’s research into practice and in turn, how NIF forums sharpened KF’s research to focus on a citizen-centered view of democracy.  Below is an excerpt from the article. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…KF_Connections 2015

Seeing democracy as a system in which the people collectively generate the power to shape their future has given the foundation a unifying concept for all of its research. We began to look at everything from the perspective of citizens and the work they need to do in order for democracy to realize its full potential. What we learned by using this perspective has become a distinctive characteristic of the foundation’s research. The litmus tests for Kettering have been (1) whether the research would respond to citizens who feel pushed to the political sidelines and aren’t sure how to make a difference, (2) whether it would be useful to communities that can’t solve their most wicked problems without the work only citizens could do, and (3) whether it would help institutions that are losing the confidence of citizens even as they struggle to reengage them.

This citizen-centered view of democracy pointed the way to a host of new studies and significantly shaped the way the foundation goes about its research, particularly the way the foundation relates to the networks that have developed around major areas of research. In fact, the foundation’s understanding of democracy helped Kettering recognize the value of networks.

…

For Kettering, the opportunities for collaboration are in networks of organizations that are interested in learning better ways to do their work. We all should learn from others, but no one can learn for someone else. In these networks, no one is dependent on others for answers; the relationships are based on a shared struggle to know more in order to be able to do more. As such, no one is at the center of these networks, like a hub of a wheel with all of the spokes attached. Communications flow in such a way that anybody can reach anybody else as directly as possible; that is, without having to go through someone else.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn.

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Mathews_2015.pdf

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, David Mathews, JLA, Journals & Newsletters, Kettering Foundation, National Issues Forums, public engagement, research | Leave a reply

Effective Public Engagement through Strategic Communication (ILG)

Posted on November 16, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

The five-page tip sheet from Institute of Local Government, Effective Public Engagement through Strategic Communication (2015), is a tool to provide guidelines for effectively engaging the public. View the guide below and download the PDF here.

From ILG…

Strategic communication is an essential tool for effective public engagement. This tip sheet offers advice on communication strategies before, during and after the agency’s public engagement effort.

ILG_PEprocess

I. Before the Agency Begins a Public Engagement Effort:
Understand the Audiences

In order to effectively communicate about a public process or program, the starting point is to understand who the agency seeks to engage.

  • Identify key audiences and stakeholders. What are their interests? How do they connect to the project or policy?
  • Identify the community values, commonly held principles or valued qualities, such as personal safety, freedom or fairness. Understanding this can help you craft your message.
  • Ask stakeholders about their preferences regarding communication. What communications channels work best for them? Getting this perspective during planning both enhances understanding of these key audiences and creates a valuable communication channel for further engagement.
  • Understand connections and relationships among audiences and individuals. Who are their trusted advisors? How willing are these influencers to act? Understanding these dynamics can help the agency broaden the impact of its engagement effort.

With the above information in mind, the agency can identify and prioritize communication channels that align with the needs, opportunities and resources of both the project or policy and the audiences that the agency seeks to engage.

Consider Both the Message and the Messenger

In developing a message for a policy or project, succinctly and clearly articulate the message.

  • What is at stake for the community.
  • Why the audience should care. Explain how the decision could affect what different people value.
  • The action the agency wants the agency the audience to take. For example, is the goal to help inform people, help them analyze and weigh in on different solutions to a problem, or take a specific step
  • What will happen if audience members do take action. Consider the choice of messenger and how it will affect the way in which people will receive the agency’s message.
  • Identify and support community champions who can speak with authenticity and power to the issue or need being addressed.
  • Consider developing an outreach working group to help extend the agency’s ability to reach into different audiences in the community.
  • Empower community members as storytellers. Personal perspective on a proposed policy or project can be compelling to broader audiences and the media. Tie the agency’s communication plan to the policy or project consideration process.
  • What are the policy or project decision-making milestones?
  • How will the agency communicate progress towards key decision-making milestones?
  • How will the agency communicate how public input influenced the final outcomes of the decision making process? Tie the agency’s communication plan to the policy or project consideration process?
  • What are the policy or project decision-making milestones?
  • How will the agency communicate progress towards key decision-making milestones?
  • How will the agency communicate how public input influenced the final outcomes of the decision making process?

Create a Media Plan that Integrates Both Traditional (Print, Radio and Television) and Online Outlets

  • Develop key story themes and messengers.
    • Find the right community partners and champions to help spread the agency’s information and messages. – Develop a sequence of messages that tie to key milestones in the policy or project.
    • Scale the level of media activity to fit the time frames and capacities of the media outlets and contacts in the area.
  • Create a list of media, reporters, key bloggers and online journalists who reach priority audiences.
    • Identify both larger and smaller community-based publications and outlets, including radio. Be sure to include the newsletters, blogs and events of key community partners.
    • Consider the different types of reporters and outlets who might cover various angles of the story (health, real estate, living, local agency beat, ethnic media, etc.).
  • Create a planning calendar for the decision-making process on the policy or project.
    • Include key milestones, events, news happenings and announcements that can engage the public.
    • Plug into other activities related to the policy or project topic locally, nationally and even internationally.
    • Brainstorm different ways to slice the story to ensure ongoing coverage.
    • List the different news opportunities (for example, at launch, when funding is secured, when a proposal is made, when success is achieved). Find the other relevant angles (for example, health, sustainability, education). Identify submission opportunities for opinion pieces and who are the right spokespeople and storytellers.
  • Monitor the media for opportunities to respond to other related stories with information about your policy or project.

II. During the Public Engagement Process:
Create opportunities for Sustaining Communication

Public engagement efforts are most successful when spokespeople consider context, content and commitment in relation to the audiences they seek to reach.

  • Create opportunities for engagement through channels and events both within and outside of the public agency.
  • Offer multiple opportunities for the public to communicate back to the agency (surveys, online forums and meetings) to reflect that different groups will have different preferences in terms of communications channels.
  • Show progress, new information or actions as proactively and quickly as possible.
  • Follow up on commitments made (for example, to get answers to questions) and (when possible) immediately ask for feedback about the agency’s communications and engagement efforts.
  • Recognize and thank partners and collaborating stakeholders for their efforts during the engagement process.

Expand Opportunities for Sustained Interaction with the Media to Maximize Strategic Communication and Public Engagement

  • Train spokespeople on the needs and tendencies of media representatives.
  • Develop relationships with key reporters and outlets:
    • Be respectful of deadlines
    • Provide them with only story ideas their audiences will care about.
    • Understand which outlets do and do not have reporters who routinely cover your topic, and adjust the background material you provide accordingly.
    • Don’t ask to review a quote or the story
    • Ask for corrections only if there are grave factual errors
    • Give them information they ask for even if it is not relevant to the policy or project.
  • Pitch news stories and submit opinion pieces consistent with the agency’s planning calendar. Consider an editorial board meeting with the local daily newspaper at the beginning of the effort. Another possibility is an “educational” news briefing with background information for outlets that do not have a reporter on that beat (such as ethnic media, recently downsized local papers, radio, etc.)
  • Communicate progress points and/or key lessons along the way to support champions and demonstrate that the community conversation is influencing the decision-making process.
  • Invite media to all community meetings and make spokespeople available for interviews.
  • Be prepared to take advantage of opportunities to react to news events. Have drafts of op-eds and letters to the editor that the right community member or other stakeholder can review, sign and submit quickly.
  • Share media coverage with priority audiences (for example, provide printouts at community meetings, post on the agency’s website and share through other online tools).

III. After the Public Engagement Process:
Measure and Evaluate the Engagement

At the conclusion of an engagement process, use quantitative and qualitative metrics to evaluate, adjust and improve your strategy. Lessons learned from both successful and unsuccessful strategies can help to refine the agency’s understanding of the values, interests and concerns of audiences and stakeholders. This will benefit future engagement efforts.

  • Gather qualitative data through surveys, interviews, focus groups or informal channels.
  • Use process measures to assess what you did including:
    • Materials distributed,
    • Outreach conducted,
    • Media engaged, and
    • Staff, friends, partners and others reached
  • Use outcome measures to assess what happened:
    • Did you achieve the goals?
    • How many new people did you reach?
    • Did you receive positive media coverage?
    • Who used the key messages?
    • Did you earn endorsements?
    • ho got involved and what did they do?
  • Ask for feedback and advice from stakeholders.

Create Opportunities for Ongoing Communication and Concentrate on Maintaining the Relationships with Stakeholders

As with any relationship, maintaining communication after an engagement effort has been completed will ensure that audiences and stakeholders stay informed-making them more likely to participate in future efforts.

  • Share findings and lessons learned from debriefing and performance assessments.
  • Circle back to stakeholders with information that shows how their efforts made a difference. Thank them for their involvement.
  • Use existing venues (governing body meetings, public events) and resources (website, e-mail newsletters) to celebrate new approaches, new relationships or specific successful outcomes that highlight partners or collaborating stakeholders.
  • Create an ongoing network for information sharing with stakeholders and community groups.
  • Look for ways to support or connect with stakeholders during the periods between major engagement efforts.

To learn more about measuring public engagement success, visit the Institute for Local Government’s public engagement resources at (www.cailg.org/public-engagement).

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

Resource Link: www.ca-ilg.org/EffectivePE-Strategic-Communication

 

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, communications, great for public managers, highly recommended, public engagement, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Tomorrow’s Change Makers: Reclaiming the Power of Citizenship for a New Generation

Posted on November 9, 2015 by NCDD Community
Reply

The 288-page book, Tomorrow’s Change Makers: Reclaiming the Power of Citizenship for a New Generation, published September 2015, discusses youth civic engagement in the US and how youth can be more civically engaged.

About the book… Changemakers_cover

Youth volunteerism and civic engagement has changed in America. While the numbers of young people who volunteer have risen substantially, recent studies show that very few find meaning and purpose through serving their communities. For many, volunteerism has become just another school requirement that bolsters a good college resume.

Dr. Marilyn Price-Mitchell suggests that in order for democracy to flourish, we must reverse these trends. Through real stories from civically-engaged youth, Tomorrow’s Change Makers illustrates the types of relationships and experiences that propel today’s young people to work toward the betterment of society. These narratives, combined with research in child and adolescent development, show why meaningful service should be at the heart of educating and raising American children. Introducing The Compass Advantage framework for understanding and applying core principles of positive youth development, Price-Mitchell demonstrates how families, schools, and communities not only play vital roles in raising tomorrow’s citizens, but also foster the conditions that help youth chart their own self-fulfilling pathways through life.

Each and every day, families, schools, and communities play important roles in raising compassionate young citizens. But how does this happen? How do we support young people to become their best selves in a global society?

Tomorrow’s Change Makers links the latest research on civic engagement with positive youth development, and provides practical, research-based advice on how to:

• Help young people transform volunteering, service learning, and civic engagement experiences beyond a requirement for college resumes to value-defining opportunities for personal growth and citizenship development.

• Utilize effective mentoring, coaching, and parenting practices that help young people believe in themselves and their abilities to improve the world.

• Cultivate eight core abilities that support youth development and engaged citizenship, helping children chart meaningful pathways through life and fulfilling roles in democracy and civil society.

• Encourage challenging and meaningful volunteering and service learning opportunities for every child, based on their unique strengths and interests.

For everyone who cares about the future of democracy and the wellbeing of generations to come, this book shows how families, schools, and communities play critical roles in raising and mentoring tomorrow’s citizens. Through powerful voices of passion-filled American youth, you learn about the relationships, experiences, and challenges that shaped their young lives of service, civic engagement, and commitment to causes bigger than themselves.

“Marilyn’s research study, based on interviews with highly engaged youth, is a scholarly, insightful, and impressive contribution to the field of civic engagement.” – Peter Levine, PhD, Associate Dean for Research, Tufts University Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service

More about Marilyn Price-Mitchell, PhD
She is a developmental psychologist and fellow at the Institute for Social Innovation at Fielding Graduate University where she studies how young people become caring family members, innovative workers, ethical leaders, and engaged citizens in an increasingly complex society. To learn more: www.mpricemitchell.com or read her blog: www.rootsofaction.com.

Follow on Twitter: @DrPriceMitchell

Resource Link: www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Change-Makers-Reclaiming-Citizenship/dp/0996585109/

Posted in All Resources, Books & Booklets, civic engagement, democratic renewal, education, must-have books, public engagement, research, youth | Leave a reply

Evaluating Participatory Budgeting Toolkit

Posted on October 13, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

Public Agenda (PA), in collaboration with the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP), created the 29-page Evaluating Participatory Budgeting (PB) Toolkit in September 2015. The toolkit has 15 metrics to support the evaluation of a specific PB site and use the data to inform the larger movement. Read more in the article below or directly from Public Agenda’s site here.

From Public Agenda…

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget.

Evaluation is a critical component of any PB effort. Systematic and formal evaluation can help people who introduce, implement, participate in or otherwise have a stake in PB understand how participatory budgeting is growing, what its reach is, and how it’s impacting the community and beyond.

We developed the Evaluating Participatory Budgeting Toolkit for people interested in evaluating existing PB efforts in their communities. It is meant to encourage and support common research goals across PB sites and meaningfully inform local and national discussions about PB in the U.S. and Canada.

Anyone involved in public engagement or participation efforts other than participatory budgeting may also be interested in reviewing the toolkit for research and evaluation ideas.

Click here to fill out a form and download the toolkit.

The toolkit includes:

  • 15 Key Metrics for Evaluating Participatory Budgeting: 15 indicators (“metrics”) that capture important elements of each community-based PB process and the PB movement in North America overall
  • Key PB Metrics Research Instruments: A set of Research Instruments (all customizable) to support local evaluation and facilitate the collection of data that address the key PB metrics:
    1. Idea Collection Participant Survey Template
    2. Voter Survey Template
    3. Questionnaire for Evaluators and Implementers
  • Introduction to the Instruments and Evaluation Timeline: An introduction to the above instruments, which also includes a timeline for how evaluation can fit into PB roll-out

New to PB and looking to introduce it to your community? You should start here instead! Once your PB effort is under way, come back to this page for tools to evaluate how you’re doing.

Click here to read more about Public Agenda’s work with participatory budgeting.

To develop the 15 PB metrics, the North American Research Board, Public Agenda (PA) and the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) drew on previous evaluations of PB in the U.S. and around the world, the academic literature on PB as a democratic innovation and the experience of local evaluators in the U.S. and Canada. To create the research instruments, Public Agenda and PBP adapted surveys originally developed and used by local evaluators in various PB sites across North America.

About the Participatory Budgeting Project
PBP-logoThe Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) is a non-profit organization that helps communities decide how to spend public money, primarily in the US and Canada. Their mission is to empower community members to make informed, democratic, and fair decisions about public spending and revenue. They pursue this goal by working with governments and organizations to develop participatory budgeting processes, in which local people directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Follow on Twitter @PBProject.

About Public Agenda
Public AgendaPublic Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that helps diverse leaders and citizens navigate divisive, complex issues and work together to find solutions. Through nonpartisan research and public engagement, we provide the insights, tools and support people need to build common ground and arrive at solutions that work for them. In doing so, we are proving that it is possible to make progress on critical issues regardless of our differences. In all of our work, we seek to help build a democracy in which problem solving triumphs over gridlock and inertia, and where public policy reflects the thoughtful input and values of the nation’s citizens. Follow on Twitter @PublicAgenda.

Resource Link: www.publicagenda.org/pages/participatory-budgeting-research-and-evaluation

Posted in All Resources, Assessment Tools, civic engagement, collaborative action, decision making, international, Participatory Budgeting, research, tools | Leave a reply

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

Posted on September 16, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

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

From ILG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow on Twitter: @InstLocGov.

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

Posted in All Resources, civic engagement, communications, great for public managers, highly recommended, public engagement, Tools & Handouts | Leave a reply

Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy

Posted on August 5, 2015 by Keiva Hummel
Reply

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

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

From Chapter One…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out more of the book here on Amazon.

About the Authors

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

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

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

Posted in All Resources, Books & Booklets, civic engagement, gems, great for beginners, great for public managers, highly recommended, public engagement | Leave a reply

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Connect with:

Contributors

This site brings together posts from these scholar and practioner blogs:

anotherpanacea
Centre for Deliberative Democracy
Civic Fizz
David Bollier
DemocracySpot
Eric Thomas Weber
Florida Civics
Harry Boyte
NCDD Community
Participedia
Peter Levine
Public Agenda
Sweet Sorrow
The Good Society

Email us if you would like your blog included

Recent Posts

  • AAUP v Rubio
  • consider the octopus
  • Tufts equity dataset
  • national narcissism
  • tips for democracy activists in 2025

Archives

  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • October 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • January 2011
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • January 2010
  • September 2009
  • July 2009
This site has grown out of the annual Summer Institute of Civic Studies and Frontiers of Democracy Conference, both hosted by the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University.
Proudly powered by WordPress