We wanted to share this post about a fun project called the CivCity Initiative that we found on the Gov 2.0 Watch blog, which is run by NCDD organizational member,the Davenport Institute. You can read it below or find the original here.
The Engagement Game
We have written a fair amount about gamifying civic engagement. Mary Morgan and Dave Askins, publishers of the local Ann Arbor Chronicle in Ann Arbor Michigan have partnered with existing programs to gamify local storytelling and are now looking for ways to do more:
CivCity’s website and Twitter feed refer to the mission of “cracking the nut of civic apathy.” CivCity stakeholders say disinterest in governance has intensified in recent years due to increased demands on people’s time, and it’s especially bad at the local level–even in a well-educated town like Ann Arbor.
“I think we take a lot for granted,” says CivCity board member Linh Song. “The lifestyle here can be pretty comfortable… I think a lot of folks just kind of check out and think, ‘Well, you know, Ann Arbor kind of takes care of itself. We don’t have to pay attention.’ But I’m hoping that’s changing.”
Morgan and Askins have ideas for a wide variety of programs to help effect that change, but their fledgling organization is taking it one step at a time. One of CivCity’s first projects is an online game called CivCity Quest, expanding upon the way the Chronicle “gamified” election results last summer. CivCity Quest would use the AADL’s Summer Game template to create a “playful” online competition for players to participate in various civic activities, from doing neighborhood cleanup to attending public meetings.
We encourage you to check out what promises to be a fascinating webinar that the Participatory Budgeting Project, an NCDD member organization, is hosting on Thursday, June 4thfrom 2-3pm EST / 11am-12pm PST.
The webinar is titled “Democratizing Schools with Participatory Budgeting” and will be an in-depth discussion of the nation’s first school-based participatory budgeting (PB) processes, featuring representatives from PB projects at schools in San Jose, CA and Chicago, IL. The webinar will seek to use insights from these cases studies to explore the impact that democratic processes like PB can have on young people, schools, and neighborhoods.
Here’s how PBP describes the webinar:
Schools and school districts operate large and complex budgets – often with minimal participation from the community members and youth they work to serve. But it doesn’t have to be this way!
Join the Participatory Budgeting Project to learn about how participatory budgeting (PB) can encourage transparency in school budgets, reveal the most pressing needs of students, and promote democratic decisions that result in better schools and neighborhoods…
The webinar will include an in-depth look at the first school-based PB processes in the U.S., highlighting three high schools around the country that are leading the charge to lift up student and parent voice. We’ll be joined by representatives from Californians for Justice to discuss the PB process at Overfelt High School in San Jose – recently profiled in EdSource – and from Mikva Challenge and Embarc Chicago to discuss the PB process at Chicago’s Sullivan High School.
Join us to learn about these case studies and explore how participatory budgeting could work in your school or school district.
This webinar promises to be a great opportunity to hear from people directly involved in some of the most cutting edge work on participatory democracy in schools, so be sure to mark your calendars for June 4th! You can register and receive more information on the event by clicking here.
Not familiar with PB?
Participatory Budgeting is a democratic process in which ordinary community members directly decide how to spend part of the public budget. It has been used around the world for 25 years, in over 1,500 cities, to lift up the needs of communities and make public spending more equitable. You can watch a short video about PB here:
We want to encourage our members to take a look at the newest issue of the Journal of Public Deliberation, which is not just a great resource for our field, but also features the work of some of our great NCDD members.
Journal of Public Deliberation is a peer reviewed, open access journal with the principal objective of synthesizing the research, opinion, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in the multi-disciplinary field of “deliberative democracy.”
NCDD hosted another great Tech Tuesday event this week on May 5th where over 50 of our members participated in a webinar presentation and discussion with Kevin Miniter, the co-founder of the deliberative online tool, Consider.it. Kevin gave an in-depth look at the many versatile functions and uses that Consider.it has, as well as a how-to on moderating your group’s decision-making process. We wrapped it all up with a great Q&A session – we all got a great perspective on this useful new tool!
If you missed the Consider.it discussion, you can find the recording of the presentation by clicking here. Consider.it also created a link on their website to give feedback on the presentation for those of you who were present or watch it afterwards to let them know what you thought. You can find that feedback page here.
We encourage you to learn more and try it out for yourself by visiting www.consider.it.
We want to encourage our members to check out a neat tool developed by NCDD organizational member Engaged Public. Their Balancing Act tool is an online budget simulator that lets citizens experience the challenges and trade-offs of public budgets, and it can be a useful tool to apply in many D&D settings. We encourage you to learn more from Engaged Public’s description below.
We at Engaged Public have been working on public budget simulation since our 2007 launch of Backseat Budgeter, which originally started as a learning aid at Colorado State University and eventually became the tool of choice for thousands of Coloradans who wanted to engage more deeply in their state’s fiscal decisions by trying their own hand at balancing the budget.
Well, we’re excited to announce that we have recently launched Balancing Act, our new and improved online budget simulator for school districts, special districts, towns, cities, counties, and states. Balancing Act is a web-based public engagement tool focused on the budget process. It not only increases fiscal transparency by publishing an entity’s budget in an easy-to-understand fashion with graphics, intuitive descriptions, and contextual details of revenue and spending items, but it also goes a step further with its interactive, built-in budget simulation, where residents can attempt to balance the budget as they see fit, subject to the same constraints decision makers have. These budget priorities are then sent back to the public body to be incorporated into its budget process.
Our partners include the City of Hartford, Connecticut – which integrated Balancing Act into its series of People’s Budget meetings and later expanded its use to the wider public – and the State of Colorado (via the Office of State Planning and Budgeting), which helped release a simulation of its 2015-16 General Fund budget. In time for Tax Day, we also unveiled a tool where Coloradans can view an estimate of their 2014 state income, sales, and gas tax, as well as see what those tax dollars paid for – the Colorado Taxpayer Receipt.
While Balancing Act is not a magic bullet for budget-related public engagement, it has proved effective at increasing the number and diversity of citizens who take part in the budget process, not to mention their appreciation of the often-difficult tradeoffs required in balancing public budgets, particularly in these difficult fiscal times. It has also given public officials valuable qualitative and quantitative data on residents’ own budget priorities in an easy-to-use, downloadable format.
We encourage you to learn more about Engaged Public’s Balancing Act tool by visiting http://abalancingact.com.
It’s time to start gearing up again for this year’s Frontiers of Democracy conference in Boston, MA this June 25th-27th! This anual conference has become a key civic infrastructure where leaders in the D&D field and democratic thought to gather to explore ideas at the forefront of advancing democracy, and we highly recommend you join us there!
While powerful forces work against justice and civil society around the world, committed and innovative people strive to understand and improve citizens’ engagement with government, with community, and with each other. Every year, Frontiers of Democracy convenes some of these practitioners and scholars for organized discussions and informal interactions.
Topics include deliberative democracy, civil and human rights, social justice, community organizing and development, civic learning and political engagement, the role of higher education in democracy, Civic Studies, media reform and citizen media production, civic technology, civic environmentalism, and common pool resource management. Devoted to new issues and innovative solutions, this conference is truly at the frontiers of democracy.
We are excited to be gearing up for NCDD’s next Confab Call this Thursday, April 23rd! Are you ready to join us? The call will take place from 1-2pm Eastern/10-11am Pacific.
As we recently announced, this week’s Confab will feature a conversation with NCDD Member Pete Peterson. Pete is the Executive Director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership, and in 2014, he ran for California Secretary of State on a platform of increasing informed civic participation and using technology to make government more responsive and transparent.
On this Confab, Pete will share lessons learned from running for office on a platform he described as becoming California’s first “Chief Engagement Officer,” and what promise and challenges the civic participation field faces when translated into a political context.
NCDD’s Confab Calls are great opportunities 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 in these calls.
There’s still time left to get signed up, but don’t delay! Register today and save your spot! We look forwarding to having you join us for this wonderful conversation.
There is a unique opportunity that the Participatory Budgeting Project – an NCDD member organization – is offering to folks in NYC this week. PBP is running yet another participatory budgeting voting process in NYC this week, and is inviting folks to catch a behind-the-scenes look at the actual process. The next chance is on April 18th, so if you’re in the city, check it out! Learn more in the PBP announcement below or find the original one here.
We would like to invite you to join us at voting sites across NYC between April 11 – 19 to see PB in action!
As part of this year-long process, residents of the 24 Council Districts participating in this year’s PB cycle have gotten together to discuss local needs, brainstorm ideas, and develop proposals to help meet those needs. Now it’s time to decide through a public vote which of those projects should get funded with our tax dollars!
Regardless of whether you live in a participating district, please join our staff at the following vote sites, to get a behind the scenes look at democracy in action:
Saturday, April 11
11a-1p – District 8: Harlem RBI, 1960 1st Avenue at 101st Street, Harlem
Saturday, April 18
11a-1p – District 39: Windsor Terrace Library, 160 East 5th St at Ft. Hamilton Pkwy, Brooklyn
12-2p – District 3: LGBT Community Center, 208 W 13th St at 7th Avenue, Manhattan
3-5p – District 38, Sunset Park Library Saturday, 5108 4th Ave at 51st Street, Brooklyn
Please RSVP to – info[at]participatorybudgeting[dot]org
You’ll also find out what’s on the ballot, see a map of proposed projects, pledge to vote, and volunteer to help with the Participatory Budgeting vote.
Our friends at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation recently shared a great post on their Challenges to Democracy blog highlighting five examples of democratic innovation from Participedia that we found quite interesting (one even involves an NCDD member organization!). It’s invigorating to see concrete reminders that our work is making real changes, so we encourage you to check out the list below or find the original post here.
Looking for Inspiration? Five Noteworthy Innovations in Public Participation
Participedia is an effort that hopes to become a key resource for scholars, activists, policy makers, and citizens who are interested in new democratic practices and institutions. And it is always worth looking back to some of the most interesting cases recently added to Participedia for some inspiration. This selection from the frontlines of participatory innovation reflects both the diverse nature and the global span of Participedia.
1) Argentina – DEMOS
The purpose of the DEMOS project was to enable civic participation in the debate about high-profile law proposals in the Buenos Aires Legislature in Argentina, using the DemocracyOS software of the Democracia en Red foundation. The web app used was demos.legislatura.gov.ar and the initiative was open to civic participation for 35 days in November and December 2014.
In the project’s first phase, citizens were invited to rank their interests about 16 bills that had been introduced in the legislature, corresponding to 12 political parties. The goal was for citizens to chose which were the 3 most important bills that should be debated online. And in the second phase, the top 3 bills were submitted for online discussion, both at an overall level and broken down into the sections of each bill.
Over 13,000 citizens visited the app and almost half of them signed up to participate. The online debate phase produced several interesting outcomes: there was one bill (about nurses’ working conditions) which received overwhelming support mostly because of the mobilization of activists from the party sponsoring that bill, and there was another very controversial bill (about informal parking guards) that led to high levels of polarization and disagreement among participants.
The DEMOS pilot was an unprecedented participatory initiative in Argentina’s history using online tools, and was relatively successful in terms of citizen turnout. The project was very innovative in enabling civic engagement in real-world bills that are important to the day-to-day life of citizens. One of the most interesting characteristics of DEMOS was that it was a success story of partnership with a government institution and with politicians from the whole political spectrum.
2) Australia – Tasmanian Deliberative Democracy on Biobanks
Biobanks – which store and catalog human tissue specimens (such as purified DNA, saliva, blood, and plasma) using genetic markers and other traits such as age, gender, blood type, and ethnicity – have come to play an increasingly important role in biomedical research. As biobanks have become more common, critical bioethical questions of privacy, ownership, and commercialization have also surfaced. A number of deliberative events have been conducted to address these questions, with the goal of enhancing communication between the research community, regulators, stakeholders, and the public.
One such process was recently conducted in Tasmania. This event brought 25 participants together to deliberate. It was led by faculty at the University of British Columbia and the Menzies Research Institute Tasmania. While the selection process was random, quotas were used to ensure that relevant demographic groups were adequately represented in the process. Participants learned about the issues in various ways. They were provided with an information booklet, they had access to a private portal on the project’s website, and during the first days of the process, they listened to presentations by experts and asked questions.
Deliberation over a period of two weekends in April 2013, with a 12-day break of dialogue and information in between, led to 17 conclusions on eight topics. The participants showed strong support for the continued existence of biobanks in general, and a Tasmanian biobank in particular. Throughout the deliberations, participants became part of the policy-making process as opposed to mere observers of decisions made elsewhere, and this helped create a strong sense of personal involvement and commitment to the process among participants. The use of random processes to select participants helped ensure that the process included those who might not be involved in more traditional consultation processes, and this, in turn, helped ensure that a diverse range of viewpoints and opinions were expressed.
3) United States – Boston’s Youth Participatory Budgeting
In 2014 the City of Boston launched “Youth Lead the Change,” the first participatory budgeting process in the US focused exclusively on youth. Its goals included civic education and engagement, and the inclusion of youth voices that are typically excluded from politics in the City’s capital planning process. Participants were primarily from Boston public high schools, and participation rates were high among young people of color from low-income neighborhoods.
The process, which was implemented by the Participatory Budgeting Project organization, had several key stages. First, a Steering Committee made up of youth organizations was established, and this Committee created a rulebook to guide the process. Second, youth assemblies were held in neighborhoods throughout Boston to generate ideas and identify priorities. This stage of the process generated 473 ideas and funding proposals, which were then divided into six categories by organizers. Third, a core group of young people was engaged as Change Agents to turn the ideas identified in the youth assemblies into specific investment proposals. They engaged in a dialogue with City officials who helped determined whether or not the ideas were eligible and feasible. The City also provided cost estimates for individual proposals.
The Change Agents made collective decisions deliberatively using a decision matrix that considered various factors including feasibility, impact, and need. Ultimately, 14 proposals were identified as priorities. At the end of the process, the Change Agents held a vote to determine which 7 priorities would be funded through the 1 million dollar youth budget.
Vouliwatch was launched on March 16, 2014 and went viral on the same day on Greek social media. As of January 2015, the project had 44,470 unique visitors. So far, 1,048 participants have submitted 409 questions to their representatives and the site has generated 25 crowdsourced policy ideas. Importantly, representatives have also embraced the project. They have, thus far, provided 50 official answers to questions raised by citizens.
The web application has five main functions: 1) it provides individuals with an opportunity to ask their representatives questions; 2) it functions as a source of crowdsourcing; 3) it helps citizens monitor the voting behaviors of representatives; 4) it provides users with a direct newsfeed of Parliamentary events; and 5) it provides an online debate forum that is, in effect, a “live” political chat lab.
Two additional features were introduced for the 2015 general election: 1) a “Policy “Monitor” function that allows voters to compare and evaluate party platforms; and 2) a “Candidate Watch” function which makes it possible for citizens to interact directly with candidates.
Despite widespread public skepticism of political institutions in Greece, the reticence of Greek politicians to engage their publics, and the divide between those with easy access to the internet and those without, Vouliwatch has managed to establish itself as a credible, non-partisan and independent source of information that extends beyond the limits of traditional online organizing efforts. In addition to partnering with numerous civil society organizations to promote open government (both locally and abroad), Vouliwatch has also sought close cooperation the Greek Parliament’s administrative system and the Ministry of Reform and e-Government in particular. Organizers and proponents of the site have been asked to join the Forum of the Open Government Partnership, which will assess opportunities for institutional reform in Greece.
5) Tunisia – Civic Participation in the Constitution Drafting
Tunisia’s democratic transition was one of the more successful revolutions associated with the 2011 Arab Spring. Tunisia has a new constitution that was developed through an extensive, representative, and participatory process. The participatory components of the process were supported, in part, by the expertise of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
As part of this effort, the UNDP sponsored and organized a dialogue between elected officials, individual citizens, and civil society organizations in Tunisia’s 24 governorates. In total, 80 members of the National Constituent Assembly were involved in the process. They were trained in the art of drafting legislative and constitutional clauses, and they were introduced to different public consultations techniques and procedures. In turn, more than 5,000 individuals and 300 civil society organizations participated in the dialogue. The fact that public officials were meaningfully engaged (and committed) to the process helped ensure that the contributions of citizens and their organizations were taken into account during the drafting of the new constitution.
The UNDP process also aimed to include two groups who are typically underrepresented in Tunisian politics: 1) young people; and 2) women. The Ministry of Higher Education worked with universities to encourage students to participate in the process, and a total of 320 students made contributions to the dialogue. The process might have been made even more representative if young people outside the university system were encouraged to participate as well. The representation of women was encouraged by a parallel UNDP program, which trained 4,200 women and sensitized them on democratic processes, with a focus on the constitutional process. This effort to include women is notable given the region’s track-record on women’s rights.
We look forward to another year of great new ideas and insights from these and other innovations in public participation in 2015. If you have an idea you would like to share, contact us or add it to the comments below!
Also note that the Ash Center will soon announce the finalists for its special Innovations in American Government Award recognizing government-led innovations that best demonstrate enhanced public engagement and participation. A key feature of the Ash Center’s Challenges to Democracy public dialogue series, the winner of the Roy and Lila Ash Innovations Award for Public Engagement in Government will receive a $100,000 grant to support replication and dissemination activities.
We recently saw a post on NCDD organizational member the Davenport Institute‘s Gov 2.0 Watch blog featuring a piece penned by Matt Leighninger – a long-time NCDD supporting member. Matt’s article asks the question “What would happen if the public could rate and review public engagement projects like it can restaurants and stores?” We encourage you to check out the article below or find the original Davenport post here.
A Yelp for Public Engagement?
Over at Tech President, Matt Leighninger discusses why just having public engagement options available isn’t enough – we also need a way for people to give feedback about how these processes are working.
What if your residents could “Yelp” your latest engagement process? How would it rate?
Unfortunately, we have trouble separating productive from ineffective opportunities for civic engagement, in part because of the way we try to measure it. We focus almost entirely on assessing the impacts of discrete projects and tools, when we should also be giving citizens the chance to evaluate their civic environments. People now have the power to rate all kinds of products and services: if they had similar opportunities to rate their opportunities to participate in public life, democracy would improve.
decision-making process. We wrapped it all up with a great Q&A session – we all got a great perspective on this useful new tool!
the legislature, corresponding to 12 political parties. The goal was for citizens to chose which were the 3 most important bills that should be debated online. And in the second phase, the top 3 bills were submitted for online discussion, both at an overall level and broken down into the sections of each bill.
