Category Archives: civic infrastructure

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Cambridge Concludes its Inaugural Participatory Budgeting Effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– — –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Registration Open for August 5th Confab with Matt Leighninger & Tina Nabatchi

Posted on by
Reply

Join us on Wednesday, August 5th for NCDD’s next “Confab Call.” We’ll be talking with NCDD Members Matt Leighninger and Tina Nabatchi about their new book, Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. The confab will take place from 2-3pm Eastern (11am-12pm Pacific). Register today to secure your spot!

PP421CDPublic Participation for 21st Century Democracy is an exciting new book that aims to help people improve the infrastructure of public participation, the regular opportunities for citizens to take part in making decisions, solving problems, and strengthening community. It provides real-life examples and practical suggestions for renovating and creating new arenas for participation, as well as utilizing the skills and ideas of citizens.

On this confab, Matt & Tina will provide an overview and some highlights of the book, and share some of their learnings in putting this book together. They welcome your contributions to help improve and expand upon the book, so if you get a chance, check it out before the confab (here’s the link to Amazon)!

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.

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.

Our confabs (interactive conference calls) are free and open to all NCDD members and potential members. Register today if you’d like to join us!

More about the book…

Public 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.

The book is filled with illustrative examples of innovative participatory activities, and numerous sources for more information. This important text puts the spotlight on the need for long-term, cross-sector, participation planning, and provides guidance for leaders, citizens, activists, and others who are determined to improve the ways that participation and democracy function.

About NCDD’s Confab Calls…

NCDD’s Confab Calls are opportunities for members (and potential Confab bubble imagemembers) of NCDD to talk with and hear from innovators in our field about the work they’re doing, and to connect with fellow members around shared interests. Membership in NCDD is encouraged but not required for participation. Register today if you’d like to join us.

ILG Seeks Input on California Public Engagement Survey

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

Here’s how ILG describes the survey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

Teens Talk Mental Health

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

Why is mental health a hard topic to talk about?

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

How closely has mental illness affected you?

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

What has been helpful and not so helpful?

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

What’s the definition of mental health?

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

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

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

Facilitator’s perspective:

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

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

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

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

Public Agenda Launches Yankelovich Center for Public Judgment

Posted on by
Reply

We were excited to hear a recent announcement from the team at Public Agenda – one of our great NCDD organizational members – about the creation of the new Yankelovich Center for Public Judgment, and we encourage you to join us in congratulating PA and its co-founder, Dr. Daniel Yankelovich, on the accomplishment!

PublicAgenda-logoThe Center’s official inauguration took place at PA’s celebration of both its 40th anniversary and Dan’s 90th birthday, which you can read more about here. The Yankelovich Center was made possible with the generous support of another wonderful NCDD member organization, the Kettering Foundation, and Kettering has committed to a robust program of joint research through the Center. Kettering’s president David Mathews created a video to commemorate the occasion, which you can see here.

Here’s some of what PA said about the new Center:

…Public Agenda is pleased to announce the inauguration of the Yankelovich Center for Public Judgment. The Center will develop, disseminate and apply Dan Yankelovich’s seminal ideas about democracy, including how the public comes to judgment, the public’s critical role in the functioning of a just and effective democracy and the conditions that help the public to play that role. We surprised Dan with an announcement of the Center during Public Agenda’s 40th anniversary celebration, which coincided with Dan’s 90th birthday.

The Yankelovich Center will  conduct original research, create tools, convene practitioners and thought leaders and join public conversations relevant to its mission. Its audiences will include public officials, public engagement practitioners, community leaders, and the fields of public participation, deliberative democracy, civic education and governance….

The Yankelovich Center explores questions including:

  • How do our increasingly fragmented news media, highly polarized national politics, fast-changing information and communications technologies and changing demographics affect the public’s ability to engage issues productively and come to public judgment?
  • What are the prime obstacles and enablers of public judgment in communities on community problems and nationally on national and international problems?
  • How does public judgment affect important changes in public policy or community life?
  • What are the best ways to cultivate public judgment and civic engagement among millennials, groups with low voting and political participation rates, or among and across people from very different cultural backgrounds?
  • What can be done to encourage a broader understanding of the concept of public judgment among elected officials and the media? How can existing institutions better support a more active, engaged and informed public and what are the most promising new institutions, tools and strategies?
  • What role should the ideas and practices of public judgment and civic engagement play in K-12 and higher education?

Along with the new Yakelovich Center, the Public Agenda team also announced their new Restoring Opportunity initiative, a 10-year commitment to tackling the issues surrounding the decline of educational, economic, and civic opportunities in America.

We can’t wait to start seeing some of the work that Public Agenda is gearing up for, and we congratulate them and Dan on their wonderful history and bright future!

You can find more information from Public Agenda on the Yankelovich Center for Public Judgment at www.publicagenda.org/pages/yankelovich-center-for-public-judgment#sthash.mf5Z8rhs.dpuf.

Davenport Offers CA Cities $50,000 for Public Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

We encourage our NCDD members in California to check out an exciting grant opportunity being offered by NCDD organizational member the Davenport Institute. Davenport is offering $50,000 worth of training and support for public engagement work, and the deadline to apply is Sept. 14th, but don’t wait to apply. You can learn more in the announcement they recently made below or by clicking here.

2015 Davenport Institute Public Engagement Grant Program Application Period Now Open!

DavenportInst-logoIf you have a public engagement project that could use some financial support, now is the time to apply for the eighth annual Davenport Institute Public Engagement Grant Program! This year we will be awarding up to $50,000 in funded consulting services to California cities, counties, special districts, and civic organizations looking to conduct legitimate public processes on issues ranging from budgets to land use to public safety to water policy.

The Grants are made possible through funding from the James Irvine Foundation’s California Democracy Program. We anticipate awarding 2 – 4 grants with a minimum individual grant amount of $5,000 and a maximum individual grant amount of $20,000. Prior to beginning their public engagement campaign, grantees will receive training and consultation from the Davenport Institute to build understanding and support for the civic engagement effort amongst administrative and elected officials.

The deadline for the 2015 Public Engagement Grant is Monday, September 14.

Here are some FAQs:

Q1: Does the proposed public process need to occur immediately?

A: No. Most of our granted projects have taken place within one year of the application date.

Q2: Can we recommend a facilitator or web platform to receive support from the Grant Program?

A: Yes. Again, the purpose of our grants is to fund participatory (as opposed to “PR”) projects. Of course, we’d like to interview your recommended facilitator, but we’ve worked with designated consultants before. This actually helps us build our own “rolodex” of consultants!

Q3: Is the Davenport training an added expense?

A: No. Training for the grant recipient is now an integral part of the Grant Program, and is offered as part of the grant. All expenses – including travel – are assumed by Davenport.

Q4: How many grantees do you anticipate this year?

A: We tend to support between 2-4  grantees each year with the Grant Program.

Q5: Do you support “capacity building” efforts like “block captain”, “neighborhood watch”, “citizen academy”?

A: No. As a practice, the grants are intended to support actual public projects around “live” issues – from budgets to land use. We find with the training added, these grants build “civic capacity” through actual engagement.

The criteria are straightforward and the online application form is easy.

After reviewed by members of our Advisory Council, our 2015 grantees will be announced by early October. Please feel free to contact Ashley Trim at ashley[dot]trim[at]pepperdine[dot]edu or 310-506-6878 with any questions.

Call for Papers for New Journal of Dialogue Studies

Posted on by
Reply

We are happy to share the announcement below from Elena Liedig of the Dialogue Society. Elena’s announcement came via our great Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

Call for Papers for Journal of Dialogue Studies
Autumn 2015, Volume 3, Number 2
Dialogue and Democracy

Paper submission deadline: 07/11/2015

This is a call for papers for the Journal of Dialogue Studies, a multidisciplinary, blind-peer-reviewed academic journal published twice a year. The Journal seeks to bring together a body of original scholarship on the theory and practice of dialogue that can be critically appraised and discussed. It aims to contribute towards establishing ‘dialogue studies’ as a distinct academic field (or perhaps even emerging discipline). It is hoped that this will be directly useful not only to scholars and students but also to professionals and practitioners working in different contexts at various cultural interfaces.

The Editors would like to call for papers providing ‘dialogue and democracy’ for the forthcoming issue. However, authors are also welcome to submit papers that address the topic of the previous issues, namely ‘social scientific and historical analysis of dialogue practice’, ‘dialogue ethics’, ‘critiquing dialogue theories’, or indeed any other paper that comes within the remit of the Journal as described below. All papers, regardless of their particular theme, will be considered so long as they are in line with the aims and focus of the Journal. Please see below for more information.

For the Journal’s Editorial Team, Editorial Board, article submission guideline, style-guide and past issues please click here or visit: www.DialogueStudies.org.

Papers within General Remit of Journal

The Journal publishes conceptual, research, and/or case-based works on both theory and practice, and papers that discuss wider social, cultural or political issues as these relate to the practice and evaluation of dialogue. Dialogue is understood provisionally as: meaningful interaction and exchange between individuals and/or people of different groups (social, cultural, political and religious) who come together through various kinds of conversations or activities with a view to increased understanding.

Some scholars will want to question that description of dialogue, and others may be sceptical of the effectiveness of dialogue as a mechanism to produce increased understanding. The Editors of course welcome vigorous discussion and debate on these and other fundamental questions.

The Editors do not have any preference as regards the general disciplinary background of the work. Indeed contributions will be welcome from a variety of disciplines which may, for example, include sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, linguistics, the study of religion, politics, international relations or law.

Papers on ‘Dialogue and Democracy’

The Editors invite papers on dialogue and democracy, including papers critically appraising the following areas:

  • What is the relationship between dialogue and democracy?
  • How is dialogue espoused by different practitioners of democracy, from leaders to the general public?
  • The positive and negative impact dialogue can have on democracy.
  • What can democracy learn from dialogue?
  • Are politics and/or power structures within the context of a democratic system compatible with dialogue values and processes?
  • What role if any can dialogue play in supporting the processes that produce and develop government policies?
  • Are political ambitions and dialogic aspirations mutually exclusive?

Papers on ‘Social Scientific and Historical Analysis of Dialogue Practice’

  • Where do dialogue practices come from, sociologically and intellectually?
  • How has dialogue practice changed/developed over time in a particular place, religious/interreligious context and/or post conflict context?
  • How have dialogue practices been shaped by overlapping areas of theory, policy and practice?
  • How have dialogue practices themselves impacted upon societal issues or discourse?
  • Mapping the existing field of practice and study.
  • Sociological and historical analysis of the perception of the need for ‘dialogue’ given its current status as a preferred means of community engagement or management of community/intergroup tensions or conflict.
    (See Fern Elsdon-Baker, JDS 1:1)

Papers on ‘Dialogue Ethics’

The Editors invite papers with a focus on dialogue and ethics, including papers critically exploring the following areas:

  • Dialogic ethics as conceived by dialogue theorists such as Buber, Gadamer, Freire (and developed by others)
  • Ethics espoused and/or enacted by leaders of/participants in dialogue
  • Dialogue as a process of ethics formation/refinement
  • Underlying and perhaps unstated values in dialogue:
    • What kind of interaction is seen valid or as meaningful? What are the criteria? Who decides? (Fern Eldson-Baker, JDS 1:1)
    • Where building understanding is conceived as goal of dialogue, ‘what understandings are valued and how [are] such understandings… defined’? (Michael Atkinson, JDS 1:1)
  • Ethical pitfalls in the practice of dialogue

Papers on ‘Critiquing Dialogue Theories’

By dialogue ‘theories’ is meant developed, significant understandings or principles of dialogue. The Editors are open to papers exploring theories extrapolated by the author from the significant and distinctive practice of a dialogue practitioner who has perhaps not elaborated his/her ideas in writing. They invite papers which address critical/evaluative questions such as the following:

  • Which dialogue theories are/have been most influential in practice?
  • Do dialogue theories make sense in relation to relevant bodies of research and established theories?
  • Do dialogue theories sufficiently take account of power imbalances?
  • How far are dialogue theories relevant/useful to dialogue in practice?
  • Do normative dialogue theories have anything to offer in challenging contexts in which circumstances often suggested as preconditions for dialogue (for example, equality, empathetic listening, the bringing of assumption into the open, safety) simply do not obtain?

The Editors welcome papers which address these questions in relation to one or more than one specified dialogue theories. They also welcome critical case studies of the application of specified dialogue theories in practice.

In all papers submitted, a concern with the theory or practice of dialogue should be in the foreground.

While the Editors do not wish to be prescriptive about the definition of dialogue, they do specify that papers should have a clear bearing on ‘live’ dialogue – actual interaction between human beings; papers which analyse written, fictional dialogue without relating this clearly and convincingly to ‘live’ dialogue are not suitable for the Journal.

Case studies should include a high level of critical evaluation of the practice in question, and/or apply dialogue theory in a way that advances understanding or critique of that theory and/or its application.

Papers should be submitted by email attachment to: journal[at]dialoguesociety[dot]org and must be received by July 11th, 2015 in order to allow sufficient time for peer review. Manuscripts should be presented in a form that meets the requirements set out in Journal’s Article Submission Guidelines, provided here, and Style Guide, provided here. The running order for Volume 3, Number 2, listing the papers to be published in that issue, will be announced by the beginning of September 2015. For further information please click here.

Please send any queries to the Editorial Team via journal[at]dialoguesociety[dot]org.

NPR Covers Deliberative Polling Efforts in Tanzania

Posted on by
Reply

We recently read a fascinating article from NPR on the cutting edge work being done by NCDD member James Fishkin of the Center for Deliberative Democracy when he shared a link to the article a few days ago on our NCDD Discussion Listserv. It’s a story that we think would interest many of our NCDDers, especially those doing D&D work across cultures.

James and the CDD have been advancing the technique and process of deliberative polling for years. They have recently been experimenting with deliberative polling in Tanzania around questions of how to spend the African nation’s forthcoming natural gas income, and the process has been filled with expected and unexpected challenges, which the article explores.

Here’s how the article starts:

It’s Not A Come-On From A Cult. It’s A New Kind Of Poll!

You get a visit by someone you’ve never met before. You’re invited on an all-expense paid trip to your country’s biggest city for a two-day meeting on natural gas policy.

Oh, and if you show up you get a free cellphone!

It might sound sketchy. But it’s actually an innovative strategy that is being tested by researchers at a Washington, D.C.-based think-tank, the Center for Global Development, or CGD, to help the African nation of Tanzania decide how to spend its expected windfall from new discoveries of natural gas.

Participants listened, they asked questions and then they went home, where they’ll be polled on their views.

The approach was actually first developed in the late 1980s by James Fishkin, a professor at Stanford University. Fishkin has devoted his career to persuading leaders to consult their citizens before making difficult policy decisions. But he says you can’t just do a poll.

“If you have ordinary polls people usually are not well-informed. You don’t want to follow public opinion when the public just has a vague impression of sound-bites and headlines.”

So Fishkin created what he calls a “deliberative poll.” You gather a representative sample of a population for a one- or two-day meeting. You give them tutorials on the issue and a chance to question experts from all sides. Then, you send them home and poll them…

The article gets much more interesting from there as it goes into the challenges of literacy and low education rates in Tanzania as well as some of the unusual cultural hurdles that James and his team had to overcome in getting rural Tanzanians to participate.

We encourage you to read the full article, or you can listen to the radio version of the story by clicking here.

You can find the original NPR story by visiting www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/18/406462789/its-not-a-come-on-from-a-satanic-cult-its-a-new-kind-of-poll.

Participate in the National Day of Civic Hacking, June 6th

Posted on by
Reply

We want to make sure that our more tech-savvy NCDD members know the National Day of Civic Hacking, a cool event being organized by the good people with Code for America this Friday, June 6th with help from Second Muse and NASA.

All across the country on this day, people will be gathering to develop tech solutions that address a number of community and civic challenges that have been identified.

Here’s how Code for America describes the day:

On June 6, 2015, thousands of people from across the United States will come together for National Day of Civic Hacking. The event will bring together urbanists, civic hackers, government staff, developers, designers, community organizers and anyone with the passion to make their city better. They will collaboratively build new solutions using publicly-released data, technology, and design processes to improve our communities and the governments that serve them. Anyone can participate; you don’t have to be an expert in technology, you just have to care about your neighborhood and community.

Folks who are interested in participating are encouraged to join an event close to them, which can be found through the map on www.hackforchange.org, or register to host their own event.

We hope some of our NCDD members will participate!

Great Pre-Conference Sessions @ Frontiers of Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

Tufts-logoWe recently mentioned here on the blog that the pivotal Frontiers of Democracy conference is happening in Boston this June 25th – 27th, and the conference itself is reason enough to make the trip. But with the announcement of two pre-conference workshop, both headed by NCDD members, there’s even more reason to attend.

Both of these pre-conference sessions will happen on Thursday, June 25th from 1-4pm, so unfortunately, you have to choose one, but both promise to be excellent learning opporutinities.

NCDD Supporting Member Cornell Woolridge, founder of CivicSolve, will be hosting a pre-conference session called “Civic Engagement & Disability Advocacy: The Peril & Promise of Bursting Bubbles.” Here’s how Cornell describes the workshop:

Once one of the most ignored and abused populations in the nation, the disability community received long overdue recognition and protections through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In the wake of the ADA, much of the disability advocacy community has created bubbles of protection and shared experience, but what happens when that bubble gets in the way of integration? What happens when the disability advocacy community shifts focus from services, self-advocacy and support groups to civic education and community development? CivicSolve and the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD) have been working together for nearly two years to address these questions. This session will present the story of this partnership between CivicSolve & NACDD and explore how civic engagement can be a tool both for building community and building identity.

The other session will be co-led by NCDD Founding Member Nancy Thomas and NCDD Supporting Member Timothy Shaffer – co-leaders of the Democracy Imperative – and is titled “Political Learning and Engagement in Democracy 365.” Here’s how Nancy and Tim describe it:

According to the National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE) at Tufts University, only 47% of college students voted in 2012. Voting can serve as a gauge of student willingness or capacity to engage in public life. For example, Harvard’s Institute of Politics 2015 survey found that only 21% of young people consider themselves “political engaged or active” and only 7% engaged in a government, political or issue related organization over the past year. Polls suggest that Americans view the political system as inefficient if not corrupt, distant if not elitist, and willfully disdainful of their opinions.

Citizen disengagement is exacerbated by the reality that colleges and universities, both public and private, often shy away from politics, controversial issues, and educating students for social activism or political engagement. We found some exceptions, however. Using NSLVE data to select campuses, researchers conducted case studies to examine how institutions foster campus climates that support student political learning and engagement in democracy. On these campuses, students are taught to analyze, communicate, and debate information. Social connections are so strong that “movements” happen almost spontaneously. Students feel a sense of shared responsibility for their campus, their peers and their learning. Curricular and co-curricular experiences capitalize on student diversity of identity, perspectives, and ideology. Free speech, academic freedom, and controversial issue discussions are robust and pervasive. These are not isolated “best practices” but deeply embedded practices and norms that have been intentionally cultivated by the institution over time. Political engagement is not just for political science majors and it is not just for an election season. Engagement in democracy is pervasive, habitual, and 365 days a year.

In this workshop, we will examine the NSLVE findings and then move to a learning exchange on how campuses can foster environments conducive to political learning and engagement in democracy for all students.

We highly recommend checking out both of these pre-conference workshops at the Frontiers conference! You can learn more about the conference here or go ahead and get registered by clicking here.