Group Works Facilitation Training in BC, May 24

You’re invited to attend a facilitation training from our friends at Group Works this Memorial Day Weekend in British Columbia. The training will be a great professional development opportunity, so we encourage you to check out the announcement below or find out more by clicking here

Deepening Your Facilitation Practice

Workshop in Burnaby, BC - May 24th

Calling all project leaders, teachers, facilitators, coaches, public engagement practitioners, non-profit board members, and others whose work involvesempowering people to participate in groups, workplaces, and communities in a more dynamic and effective way!

We invite you to attend a professional development session where you will have the opportunity to:Â

  • Reflect on your practices
  • Share dilemmas with colleagues
  • Get support on upcoming meeting design
  • Storyboard events - past and future - to identify opportunities for more effectively employing the patterns of excellent group process
  • Integrate exemplary patterns into yourr professional life and start to speak the shared “pattern language” of facilitation
  • Engage with others who care about these things!

We’ll be using the card deck Group Works: A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings as our lens. While familiarity with the deck will be helpful, it’s not essential – you’ll recognize the patterns from your own practice and pick it up quickly.

If you participated in the last workshop Group Pattern Language Project offered in BC, we expect this session will be sufficiently different to make it worth your while to join us again.

When: Saturday May 24, 10:30am to 4:30pm. A simple soup/salad/bread lunch (vegan & gluten-free) will be provided.

Where: Cranberry Commons Cohousing, 4274 Albert St (at Madison just north of Hastings), Burnaby, BC.

Cost: Sliding scale $25-$150.

Registration

Please register in advance so your hosts can plan appropriately. Sign up at: http://groupworksdeck.org/event_reg/GPL_Reg.php. If you have any further questions contact Daniel Lindenberger at daniel@smallboxcms.com.

Pre- and post-event Work Sessions

The day before and the day after the workshop, we’ll be hosting work sessions for those committed to supporting this work in terms of growing the language, articulating potential new applications, and promoting and nurturing the project. Some of the issues we’ll be exploring are developing curricula for self-guided study of how to use the cards, new “e-versions” of Group Works, and outreach activities to spread the word.

Come participate and let others know too! This should be a great networking and peer learning opportunity. Hope to see you there!

Please share this invitation with other people you think might be interested in attending. If you’d like to participate or learn more about this, please email Dave at dave.pollard@gmail.com.

New Gettysburg Project Seeks to Bridge Research & Practice

We wanted to share the post below from the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation’s Challenges to Democracy blog highlighting an interesting new initiative to watch called the Gettysburg Project. Led in part by NCDD supporting member Dr. Archon Fung, the initiative explores the decline of public engagement and ways that we might improve the scope, diversity, and impact of organizing and mobilization of the public. You can read Xolani Zitha’s piece on the project below or find the original piece here


Ash logoHarvard Kennedy School faculty Archon Fung and Marshall Ganz have shared so many conversations over the years on the problems of American democracy, and specifically on failed efforts to improve the state of public engagement, that they decided together to do something about it.

Some months later, Fung and Ganz — along with co-organizers Anna Burger, Hahrie Hahn, and several others — have launched a unique initiative named The Gettysburg Project. The effort aims to both influence, and to pull inspiration from, the world of research and the world of practice. It will bring together scholars and practitioners with a wide range of interests to develop new understandings of consequential civic engagement in the United States.

At a meeting hosted by the Hauser Institute for Non Profit Organizations in April 2013, Professors Fung and Ganz first shared The Gettysburg Project with students. Below is a recap of that discussion, which progressed from the project’s background through its theoretical framework to its core activities.

Identifying and Acting Upon a Common Purpose

Professor Fung began the conversation explaining that the essence of The Gettysburg Project is a celebration of the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in particular the last line of the address—“government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the face of this earth.”

And the Project’s first proposition is that democracy in the United States is in grave danger. Professor Ganz characterized the most salient challenge to democracy in the United States as the lack of opportunity for ‘equality of voice.’ This political inequality manifests itself in many ways, not the least of which is unequal voting participation. Ganz observed that this idea of equality of voice has been articulated by many, including Harvard political scientist Sydney Verba, who noted that liberal democracy is based on the deal that unequal economic resources be balanced by equality of individual political voice and participation.

Watch a presentation on The Gettysburg Project by Marshall Ganz and Archon Fung, hosted by the Hauser Institute.

Yet when we think of the common purposes articulated in the US Constitution, i.e. “forming a more perfect union,” what often comes to mind are establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, and providing for the common defense. Thus Ganz posed the question, how does equality of voice translate into the capacity to achieve the primary functions of democratic government as spelled out in the Constitution?

Ganz went on to say that Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the knowledge of ‘how to combine’ trumps all other forms of knowledge. In his observations on the emerging democracy of the United States, de Tocqueville was concerned with the problem of radical individualism. He saw a solution in multiple stripes of civic associations, the point of which was not about having many competing groups but rather many ways in which individuals could come into relation with other individuals. Through the process of coming together, individuals learn to move beyond their narrow self interest. They move toward an enlightened self interest and a broader understanding of common interests and common purpose.

In addition to a critical role in articulating a common purpose, and thus making real the aspirations articulated in the Constitution, at the same time civic associations also develop our capacity to act on behalf of those interests. Through civic associations, or what de Tocqueville described as combination or coming together, equality of voice can translate into the power or the capacity to achieve common purpose.

Yet according to Ganz the mechanisms through which people come together and discern common purpose, then translate that purpose into collective action in the public domain, are dysfunctional and not working. Civic associations have become seriously crippled.

The Unresponsiveness of Public Institutions

Ganz argued that our public institutions are meanwhile too often opposed to preferences expressed by the public. For example, when Congress will not vote for issues that have overwhelming public support such as background checks for firearms licensing. Similarly, the debate over the cause of radical and growing inequality of wealth asks whether inequality is a manifestation of specific policy choices or the failure of public institutions.

This lack of responsiveness is a symptom of a deeper problem that economist Albert Hirschman has written about. Any political system will ultimately run down, and the challenge becomes correcting the deterioration. Hirschman found that voice mechanisms are one solution, in which those affected by the dysfunction of the system express their dissatisfaction in ways that will result in the system correcting itself. Through the process of competitive elections and public deliberation, democracy becomes a self-correcting mechanism through which ‘voice’ can work.

Archon Fung referred to Martin Gilens’ compelling research on the plutocratic nature of democratic government at present. On issues in which there are class differences in preferences, policymakers are responsive only to the top 10% of the population

If voice turns out not to work, then the alternative for citizens is to exit the system. Where there are competing institutions, individuals can choose to leave. There is a “tipping point” when everyone deserts an institution if no corrective action is taken. In the context of entrepreneurial capitalism in which firms compete, and the most efficient succeed, exit is an available strategy.

But in democracy, is exit an option? The Gettysburg Project is premised on a belief that it is an option with the ‘knowledge of how to combine.’ But a second premise is that the mechanisms for inputting an effective voice and something meaningful coming out the other end of the policy process are broken. Further, there are two strategies to exit in a political system. First, people can stop voting when they realize that voting does not make a difference. In only six states did it make a difference whether or not you voted in the 2012 presidential election.

The other exit is to seek private solutions for public problems such as contracting with private sector firms or non-profits. The result of this is that it weakens our capacity for public action, resting on the belief that privatization brings market mechanisms to solve public problems. There is some evidence to the contrary.

Building Organizational Capacity to Return to Equality of Voice

The focus of The Gettysburg Project is how to bring ‘voice’ back into the system in a meaningful way. But is the problem with individuals? Some would say that people don’t have enough civic virtue and are discouraged from participation, so they resort to an individualistic political culture. Or is the problem is with institutions? The electoral system itself is biased, while the role of money in politics makes the system dysfunctional.

There are a lot of people working on issues at the individual level covering civic education and culture, focusing on getting individuals to exercise more voice. There is a lot of other work on the structural side focusing on campaign finance reform, better voting machines, or getting rid of the Electoral College. In between the individual and the institution is the organizational level, at which people come together to exercise collective action in the de Tocqueville sense.

The Gettysburg Project assumes that none of these things will happen unless associations get together, especially the kinds of organizations that engage and mobilize broad sections of the American population in public life. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the organizations that did the job of integrating people are not able to anymore because the approaches that worked then are not working any more. Identifying the new structures that will replace labor unions and congregations will represent a solid step forward for American democracy.

Fung observed that The Gettysburg Project will also seek to build the capacity and strength of existing organizations that engage and mobilize people in public life. The Project will explore how much of the challenge has to do with internal organizational functioning, with how much organizations do or do not cooperate with each other, with the ways in which organizations try to influence public policy or electoral politics, and even with the effect of the Internet. There is an internal, horizontal, and external dimension to understanding the challenges of voice and public participation.

The Project’s intention is to bring together a group of 20-30 leaders of organizations with a successful track record in mobilizing people and activity. Individual participants are senior enough to have the capacity to change, the willingness and curiosity to figure things out, and many more years still left in their careers. They represent a variety of settings and contexts, allowing for a rich understanding of the nature of this problem from an organizational point of view.

An early meeting at the Roosevelt Institute in Hyde Park, New York brought together leaders from labor unions, community organizations, Dreamers, and others to test the idea. Surprisingly all organizations felt that they were in some way stuck in a rut in this area. And these leaders did not know about each other, even though they worked in the same field. Professors Ganz and Fung next hosted the first formal convening of The Gettysburg Project in March 2014. Check back on the blog for future updates on the key themes and discussion points that come up throughout the project.

You can find the original version of this post at www.challengestodemocracy.us/home/frontiers-of-democracy-research-the-gettysburg-project/#sthash.5fPnS9dZ.dpuf.

PBP Recognized with Brown Democracy Medal

We are proud to announce that our friends at the Participatory Budgeting Project – an NCDD organizational member – are the first-ever winners of Penn State’s new Brown Democracy Medal! Please join us in sending a huge congratulations to PBP for this well-deserved award. You can read more below, find Penn State’s original announcement here, or see PBP’s press release here.

PBP-logoA national organization that empowers citizens to exert greater control over public spending was selected as the first recipient of the Brown Democracy Medal, an award that will be presented annually by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy in Penn State’s College of the Liberal Arts.

The Brown Democracy Medal was endowed in 2013 by Penn State alumni Larry Brown (Class of 1971, history) and Lynne Brown (Class of 1972, education). The medal spotlights the best work being done to advance democracy in the United States and internationally. Under the award program, the McCourtney Institute for Democracy will recognize practical innovations, such as new institutions, laws, technologies or movements that advance the cause of democracy. In addition, future awards will highlight contributions in democratic theory that enrich philosophical conceptions of democracy and empirical work that promises to improve the functioning of democracies. Along with the medal, recipients will receive $5,000, give a public talk at Penn State, and have an essay published by a prestigious university press.

The inaugural medal winner, the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP), is a nonprofit organization that promotes “participatory budgeting,” an inclusive process that empowers community members to make informed decisions about public spending. More than 46,000 people in communities across the United States have decided how to spend $45 million through programs that PBP helped spark over the last five years.

Participatory budgeting invites citizens to collectively determine how millions of their tax dollars are spent. Josh Lerner, executive director of PBP, said that participatory budgeting “offers a fundamentally different way to engage with government, and meaningfully engages people in the budget decisions that affect them.”

John Gastil, director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy, noted that “The Participatory Budgeting Project exemplifies the essential features the award committee was looking for in its inaugural recipient. Political and economic inequality is part of the American national discussion, and participatory budgeting helps empower marginalized groups that do not normally take part in a process that is so critical for democratic life.”

Lerner said, “We are deeply honored to receive the Brown Democracy Medal, in recognition of our work to give thousands of people real power over real money. In just a few years, we have shown how a small nonprofit organization can bring together hundreds of partners to build a new model for local democracy.”

He will accept the medal on behalf of the PBP on Oct. 24 at a ceremony held at Penn State’s University Park campus. More information is at www.participatorybudgeting.org.

The Brown Democracy Medal review committee considered dozens of applications from across the globe, including creative policy innovations in Australia and Iceland. The committee evaluated submissions based on the criteria of the innovation’s novelty, its effectiveness and potential for diffusion across different societies and cultures, its nonpartisan orientation and the recency of the democratic innovation.

The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State promotes rigorous scholarship and practical innovations to advance the democratic process in the United States and abroad. The institute examines the interplay of deliberative, electoral and institutional dynamics. It recognizes that effective deliberation among citizens has the potential to reshape both the character of public opinion and the dynamics of electoral politics, particularly in state and local communities. Likewise, political agendas and institutional processes can shape the ways people frame and discuss issues. The institute pursues this mission, in part, through supporting the work of its partner units, the Center for Democratic Deliberation (CDD) and the Center for American Political Responsiveness (CAPR).

The original version of this announcement can be found on Penn State’s website at http://news.psu.edu/story/312850/2014/04/23/impact/participatory-budgeting-project-selected-brown-democracy-medal.

Community Branding Call with CM this Thursday

CM_logo-200pxWe are pleased to announce the next capacity-building conference call from our organizational partners at CommunityMatters, which is coming up this Thursday, May 8th from 4-5pm EST.

CM is working with the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design to host the call, entitled What’s in a Name? The Power of Community Branding. The call is described like this:

Your community isn’t Anywhere, USA. It has stories to tell – tales of historic moments, epic failures, innovative products, resilient businesses and colorful people. How can your community take its most distinct stories and turn them into a compelling and unified message?

Community branding brings local stories and sentiments to the surface, highlighting unique assets that make a place great.

On May 8, Ben Muldrow of Arnett Muldrow & Associates… will share his experience in working with small towns and rural places to create a strong brand that supports community and economic development outcomes.

Register today by clicking here. We hope to hear you on the call!

Before the call, we encourage you to check out the accompanying piece on the CM blog by Caitlyn Horose, which is cross posted below. You can find the original piece here.

What’s in a Name? The Power of Community Branding

The most compelling reminder that community branding matters is a simple question: Would you rather have a bachelor party in Las Vegas or Des Moines? No offense to Des Moines, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise that most people will pick Las Vegas. Des Moines just isn’t famous for its late night party scene – and it probably doesn’t want to be!

The strongest community brands create associations that seem painfully obvious. You say “Kentucky.” I say “Derby.” You say “Maine.” I say “lobster.” And, even if we’ve never been to Austin, it’s likely we both know that Austin is “weird.”

Place branding isn’t just about associations. The benefits of a positive and unified image impact many aspects of community. Here are a few examples of what branding can do:

Attract and retain strong talent. Glasgow, Scotland’s new brand - People Make Glasgow - acknowledges the skills and talent in the city, highlighting Glasgow as a place that’s great for business and tourists alike.

Shift negative perceptions. Newark, New Jersey was named the unfriendliest city by Conde Nast Traveler in 2013. Branding is aiding efforts to erase the negative and emphasize the positive, starting with the downtown Newark neighborhood of Washington Park. Strategies go beyond graphics and logos to include beautification of public spaces, cultural events in local parks, and food truck rallies.

Support economic recovery. When Oakridge, Oregon’s population dropped to 3,200 people, the community banded together for a branding project. Focusing on Oakridge’s natural resources and recreational opportunities, the town self-identified as “The Center of Oregon Recreation.” The brand promotes existing recreational offerings while providing focus to economic development tactics. Targeted support for outdoor-related businesses is now a top priority.

Stimulate demand. A small town in England is branding its local products and services. Shrewsbury’s “One-Off” campaign showcases the local handmade and artisanal culture. The campaign logo is intentionally flexible so that any business can adopt it.

Strengthen civic pride and a shared identity. Kentucky’s new brand – Kentucky Kicks Ass – was created with input from local residents. It seems the slogan is something every Kentuckian can get behind:

But what about those places where community identity hasn’t been crafted? How can small towns stop feeling invisible or change negative perceptions? What works in creating a well-loved community brand?

On May 8, Ben Muldrow, Partner with Arnett Muldrow & Associates will join CommunityMatters® and the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design™ for an hour-long webinar on community branding. Ben will share his experience in working with small towns and rural places to create a strong brand that builds civic identity and supports community and economic development goals.

Register now.

The original version of this blog post is available at www.communitymatters.org/blog/what%E2%80%99s-name-power-community-branding.

Scholarship of Engagement Award Deadline Approaching

For our higher education-based members, we wanted to make sure you heard about the 2014 Ernest A. Lynton Award for the Scholarship of Engagement for Early Career Faculty. The award deadline is next Friday, May 16 at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, so don’t delay in sending in your nominations. You can read more about the Lynton Award below or find more info here.

Sponsored by the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) and the Center for Engaged Democracy (CED) at Merrimack College, the 2014 Ernest A. Lynton Award for the Scholarship of Engagement for Early Career Faculty recognizes a faculty member who connects his or her teaching, research, and service to community engagement.

The Lynton Award emphasizes engaged scholarly work across the faculty roles. The scholarship of engagement (also known as outreach scholarship, public scholarship, scholarship for the common good, community-based scholarship, and community engaged scholarship) represents an integrated view of the faculty role in which teaching, research, and service overlap and are mutually reinforcing, is characterized by scholarly work tied to a faculty member’s expertise, is of benefit to the external community, is visible and shared with community stakeholders, and reflects the mission of the institution. In addition, NERCHE conceptualizes scholarly engagement in terms of social justice embedded in democratic ideals.

Award eligibility: Full-time faculty who are pre-tenure at tenure-granting U.S. public and private not-for-profit colleges & universities, or early career (within first six years).

The scholarship of engagement represents an integrated view of the faculty role in which teaching, research, and service overlap and are mutually reinforcing, and:

  • is tied to a faculty member’s expertise,
  • of benefit to the external community,
  • visible and shared with community stakeholders,
  • effects the mission of the institution.

The award recipient will have several opportunities to disseminate his or her community-based work, including:

  • presenting at the 20th Annual Conference of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities (CUMU), “Universities as Anchor Institutions: Driving Change” on October 5-7, 2014, at Syracuse University
  • presenting at the annual Lynton Colloquium on September 15, 2014 at UMASS Boston
  • publishing in the Metropolitan Universities Journal, and
  • participating in one or more webinars on community-based scholarly work

2014 Lynton Award Nominations

  • Nominations can be made by academic colleagues, administrators, students, and community partners. Each nominator should aim to present a comprehensive account of the nominee’s publicly engaged teaching, research, and service. To this end, the application provides for the inclusion of the names and affiliations of additional nominators. Further, endorsements from individuals familiar with one or more aspects of the nominee’s work can be included in the supporting documentation of the application.
  • In cases in which multiple individuals submit a single application for the nomination of a faculty member, one person should be designated as the primary nominator responsible for completing and submitting the application. Additional nominators can be noted in the appropriate section of the application.
  • More than one faculty member from a single college or university may be nominated. Please complete separate applications for each nominee.

Nominators will submit nominations via an online application. To submit an application, please see the Application Instructions.

Questions regarding this framework should be addressed to the Lynton Award Coordinator, Dr. Elaine Ward, at Merrimack College’s School of Education and Social Policy by email at lyntonaward@merrimack.edu (subject line: “Lynton Award Help”) or by phone at (978) 837-3572.

Learn more about the Lynton Award

Making Planning Documents More Engaging

NCDD supporting member and urban planning specialist Chris Haller recently wrote a great piece for EngagingCities on creating more engaging planning documents. We know his insights could be good food for thought for many of our members, so we encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.

engaging cities logoPlan documents. You know the type – long, squinty PDFs that can take forever to download and even longer to read. Agencies want to share their plans and priorities with the public, but they’re typically not at the top of anyone’s reading list, and they certainly don’t provide opportunity for feedback. What’s a community to do?

Believe it or not, plan documents actually CAN be engaging. The problem is not with the information itself, but rather with the presentation of it. People want to be drawn in, not forced to wade through long, text-heavy pages in search of points that are relevant to them. People want to experience information, not just read it. And if the content can be accessed on-the-go, quickly and easily, that’s a big plus too. Organizations that go the extra mile to engage the public through dynamic plan documents will reap the benefits of a more interested and involved audience.

Take, for example, this information sheet published by Plan East Tennessee (PlanET), a partnership of communities investing in the improvement of the Eastern region of the state. While the information in the document is important, it doesn’t leave a lasting impression or invite feedback. PlanET was on the lookout for something better. So they built their new Regional Playbook on a platform that would allow them to present their information online, in a more interactive and eye-catching way.

The app, called BrightPages, features a building-block format that can include interactive text, questions, and feedback options. The new PlanET online document brings the original PDF to life, inviting exploration of the subject and even including trivia questions relevant to the project. This is a “document” that will stick in the minds of users, and provides PlanET with valuable input from citizens of the region.

Similarly, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of Cleveland, Ohio needed a method to engage the public in a study to determine the best options for improving transit in a region of their service area. The original plan document bears the imposing title “Alternatives Analysis Methodology Report” and contains 22 pages of insight about the possible transit plan options. It’s a well-written and informative paper, but the likelihood of its being read by many laypeople is very low.

So the RTA, redesigned the plan document into an interactive, playful experience that users can access online. The new Explore Alternatives game presents the transit options in a question-and-answer format, making it easier for citizens to understand how different alternatives solve their needs. Further, information is displayed through engaging infographics and maps.

In Bannock County, Idaho, the Bannock Transportation Planning Organization (BTPO) is working on a long-range transportation plan of their own. Seeking the best solution for public outreach, the BTPO used BrightPages to create an engaging online activity for exploring scenarios, encouraging users to identify their top priorities and observe – in real-time – how their choices would affect which transportation plan matched their needs. With citizens gaining an in-depth understanding of the various options, the BTPO will have a greater chance of receiving well-informed feedback.

These organizations understood that complex information can be made engaging – and even fun – by thinking outside the .pdf box and taking 4 steps to create highly engaging documents:

1. Content Discovery

Who actually reads an entire plan document? Not many people, because the traditional presentation of a plan – even if it’s put online – is wordy, long, and technical. Breaking a document into readable, eye-catching chunks invites exploration and discovery rather than a cursory glance. Your plan documents contain important information – keep people from skimming by making your documents as visually appealing as everything else they see online!

The PlanET online playbook features easily digestible bits of information, highlighted by compelling infographics. The natural curiosity of the audience will guide them to click through to more detailed information about topics that matter to them, making it simple to get an overall feel for the project and find interesting content with ease. They can even share their discoveries via social media, automatically expanding PlanET’s audience.

2. Playful Exploration

Gamification has recently become a popular means to attract more participation to public processes. But can it actually be applied to something as mundane as planning documents and studies?

The new presentation of Cleveland’s RTA study provides excellent proof that it can. Visitors to the study’s website can pick their preferred mode of transit, specify their transit needs, and explore options for improvement based on their responses. Answers can be changed or rearranged, allowing users to fully explore and understand all the possibilities and trade-offs inherent in the project. Not your average study analysis!

3. Interactive Design

Most daily experiences in this Information Age are interactive. Why should plan documents remain static and dull? By bringing the information online and adding clickable links, questions, and other interactive content, you can draw people into the experience of reading your document. People feel more engaged when they have a part to play in the process of digesting online information.

Far from the yawn-inducing format of traditional read-only plans, the documents published by the BTPO are highly interactive, encouraging participation while adding to citizens’ understanding of the project. Slider maps invite exploration, a “brainstorm” box asks for input about the project, and a five-star rating system allows for quick feedback. Having a variety of interactive options means the BTPO will benefit from a wider range (and greater number) of response types.

4. Direct Feedback

What opportunities for feedback might you find on traditional plan documents? At the most, printed contact information or a website link. Adding opportunities to provide feedback directly to a plan document can dramatically increase the quality of feedback. Rather than simply putting out information and guiding participants somewhere else to provide feedback, you can use plan documents as an opportunity to learn more about the opinions, demographics, and preferences of your audience.

Cleveland’s RTA, in deciding how to handle transit development, knew that public feedback would play a critical role in determining the final course of action. Their interactive online document allows users to fill-in-the-blank, rate scenarios, and share information about where they live and how different transit options would affect them. As a result, the feedback the RTA receives from the public will be well-informed – a crucial change from the usual clamor of citizens whose opinions are not based on a working knowledge of the plan options.

In this age of technological wonders, it would be a shame if static documents were the only way to present content and invite feedback. Thankfully, there are much more creative strategies available. BrightPages has helped Plan East Tennessee, the Cleveland RTA, and the BTPO to bring their documents online and transform them into highly engaging experiences that are more likely to achieve the ultimate goal of any plan document – the interest and feedback of an informed public.

The original version of this piece can be found at www.engagingcities.com/article/4-steps-highly-engaging-plan-documents.

The Meaning of Being a Public Innovator

We are pleased to share another great thought piece from Rich Harwood of The Harwood Institute, this time on what it means to be a “public innovator.” We hope you’ll take a few moments to read his reflections below or check out the original post here.

HarwoodLogo

There’s an old adage that half of life is just showing up. Perhaps there’s some truth to that. But what about the other half? For public innovators, it’s critical. One of the key things that distinguishes public innovators is how they engage in the world around them.

I’ve been guiding people to become public innovators for over 25 years. Public innovators focus on how they can solve problems in communities and change how people and organizations work together. They are as interested in transforming how things get done as they are in moving the needle on specific challenges. These individuals hold and cherish firm ideals to improve society. They are equally pragmatic in wanting to see results. And they understand the necessity of taking risks but not foolhardy ones.

The best public innovators neverequate public innovation with creating something new or shiny. Nor do they think that the value of their public innovation is reflected in the complexity of their solutions. The challenge in communities is not a lack of complexity, but a lack of clarity. Too often there is a rush to embrace complicated initiatives, processes and structures while losing sight of what matters most to people.

Public innovators guard against these impulses and reflexes by doggedly understanding the world as it is. A clear view of reality allows them to gauge what needs to be done, where they want to go and how to begin. There is no substitute for being attuned to reality. Of course, this requires being open to learning about what is happening around you, figuring out how to adapt to it, and finding ways to re-calibrate one’s efforts as conditions change.

It means being ready and willing to see and hear others, especially those with whom we disagree. And to recognize that there are those we cannot even see or hear yet because they aren’t even on our radar. Public innovators want to know where or how they can find and engage such people.

The instinct of public innovators is not simply to adopt what has worked elsewhere but to focus on fit. They ask: What is the context in which I am working and what strategies will fit this context? Finding the right fit requires a certain fitness on the part of the public innovator: to make room to discover those answers that are harmonious with the surroundings.

None of this is especially easy. Public innovators must bring their full selves to their work in communities. They must be present, willing to listen, open to various signals, engaging with others. It means being intentional in the choices and judgments they make. It demands having enough humility to discern what they cannot control so that they can apply themselves to what they can affect. There is no room for resignation.

I’ve set a goal that by 2016 The Harwood Institute will train 5,000 public innovators and grow our Public Innovator Corps to 100,000 members. The good news is that every one of us has the innate potential to be a public innovator. You don’t need to have a certain title, live on a certain side of town, or have graduated from a certain college. I know public innovators who are presidents of some of the largest non-profits in the world and those individuals who work in local neighborhoods with little recognition. We need them all.

The original version of this post from the Harwood Institute is available at www.theharwoodinstitute.org/2014/04/8802whoispublicinnovator.

NCDD Member’s Work Featured in Progress Magazine

We were pleased to see that the work of one of our newest NCDD members, Tim Merry of the Art of Hosting community, was featured in the latest issue of Progress Magazine. Tim recently helped guide a public engagement process for a number of new public buildings in Halifax, Nova Scotia: the Nova Centre, Halifax Central Library, and the Halifax Seaport Farmers’ Market. And as the article details, the new buildings are more than just that:

 …these are more than just structures. They are fusions of ideas, dreams, and desires captured in a series of unique public-engagement activities. Their designs, from construction materials to landscape features, were shaped by comprehensive consultation processes that not only welcomed but also actively sought community input.

That consultation process was the result of a collaboration between Tim and Halifax city officials committed to engaging and collaborating with the city’s residents to really make the new buildings theirs. The engagement process was anything but ordinary:

The consultation processes merged both traditional and unconventional methods of public engagement to identify what Haligonians wanted in these buildings. From community gatherings to pop-up public-space dialogues—a strategy that aims to connect with people on the streets or in public spaces—these meetings and conferences offered residents multiple opportunities to participate both face-to-face and online. All of the meetings were live streamed. Participants exchanged views through social media, and websites acted as platforms to make public opinion visible and inform dialogue.

Many of the principles that Tim drew on for the Halifax effort are practices that are taught in the growing Art of Hosting community. One of the newer members of that community, Amanda Hachey, commented in the article on the AoH process:

Recently named one of Atlantic Canada’s Top 50 Emerging Leaders, Hachey was introduced to Art of Hosting when she was in Sweden pursuing a master’s degree in sustainability. She admits that she went from thinking the process was “flaky” to believing it was visionary… Hachey has since applied Art of Hosting’s conversational processes to a wide range of functions that she has facilitated, from visioning a marketing plan for organic farmers to action planning at the Nova Scotia Co-operative Council’s AGM. Indeed, the co-op she helped co-found, La Bikery, was created in typical Art of Hosting fashion, evolving from a dinner-table discussion among friends to an organization that represents more than 350 members.

We encourage you to read the full article on Tim’s work with Halifax at www.progressmedia.ca/article/2014/04/hosting-with-heart-0, and we hope the more of our NCDD members will familiarize themselves with the Art of Hosting processes. As we recently highlighted, NCDD members can receive a discount on AoH trainings, and are encouraged to share their experiences with them afterward.

As work like Tim’s continues to thrive, we are optimistic that participatory democratic processes like the one in Halifax and those NCDD members build and engage in every day will continue to occupy more mainstream space. Onward!

Learning from the NH Listens Initiative

Our partners at CommunityMatters recently shared a wonderful blog piece about the continuing success of a dialogue initiative in New Hampshire called  NH Listens. NH Listens is an NCDD organizational member, and the author of the post, John Backman, is an NCDD Board member. We hope you’ll take a moment to read about this innovative program below or find the original by clicking here.

Listening to New Hampshire: Grassroots Groups Assemble Civic Infrastructure for Dialogues

CM_logo-200px

The need was clear. All the pieces were at hand. The challenge was to mold them into a robust civic infrastructure to support dialogue about pressing issues in New Hampshire’s cities and towns.

Bruce Mallory and others took up the challenge, and NH Listens is the result—a network of local groups (currently nine in all) that bring residents together for facilitated, small-group conversations about the issues that matter to them.

“Before this began, there was little ability to convene dialogues on either a statewide or local level,” Mallory remembered in a recent interview. “All communities have issues that need conversation—school reform, master planning, taxation, disaster mitigation, you name it. Historically, few communities are prepared to have those robust dialogues, and there has not been a statewide infrastructure to support them.”

Many communities, however, already had the right pieces: strong webs of local relationships, neutral conveners willing to help, community champions respected across divides. As a civic engagement initiative of the University of New Hampshire since 2011, NH Listens has supported those people and organizations as they build local capacity for neutral, open, inclusive dialogues.

Mallory’s approach takes its cues from the principles of slow democracy. Rather than approach communities with the idea, he responds to requests for a Listens chapter. He works with a local, neutral convening organization to create an advisory committee with a diverse blend of people across local constituencies: business, healthcare, youth, the school district, religious institutions, and law enforcement, among others.

Perhaps most important, he allows the development of each local Listens organization to proceed at its own pace, within the comfort zone of local organizers. “Dover Listens existed for two years without ever having a community forum,” he recalled. “They eventually put a toe in the water by having small, facilitated candidate forums instead of a larger community forum about a controversial issue. It’s only recently that Dover Listens sponsored a city-wide conversation on the future of its schools.

“But that is hardly abnormal. In fact, it can often take one to two years to develop Listens projects to the point where they’ll be sustainable.”

The impact of these organizations is getting attention. Recently, a Listens chapter in New Hampshire’s North Country hosted a bipartisan dialogue with its elected state representatives and senators. The contrast between the local gathering and the climate in the federal government at that time—then in the midst of a shutdown—was striking. “The state representatives were so proud of their ability to engage in civil dialogue in light of the partisan gridlock at the federal level,” Mallory said.

All this local activity is starting to reverberate on the statewide level. “With local Listens groups in place, it’s much easier to trigger a statewide conversation when a major issue comes up,” Mallory noted. “We simply get in touch with the local leaders and ask them to organize dialogues on the topic on the same day.”

The results can be eye-opening. Last year, NH Listens used this infrastructure of local partners to organize a statewide dialogue about mental health, part of the White House’s national conversation on the topic. More than 400 people took part.

Not surprisingly, the state itself has begun to collaborate with NH Listens. Mallory and company have built dialogue capacity in three governor’s commissions, as well as in the Department of Environmental Services (to initiate dialogue with employees) and the Department of Transportation. With its successful model—and 140 trained volunteer facilitators currently in place,–NH Listens has further growth in its sights. Mallory envisions 15-20 active groups two years from now, as well as steps to build statewide capacity further.

In advancing this agenda, he will continue to leverage what he sees as keys to success: “frequent check-ins, a local champion to keep the effort moving forward, passionate volunteers who are seen as neutral brokers, continued recruitment and training of facilitators, and a deep respect for community dynamics,” he said. “As long as we use these ingredients, I believe we will continue to respond to a need. There is a tremendous hunger for this work.”

The original version of this blog piece is available at www.communitymatters.org/blog/listening-new-hampshire-grassroots-groups-assemble-civic-infrastructure-dialogues.

Discounted Registration for Master Class and Learning Exchange

The post below comes from NCDD supporting member Rick Lent of Meeting for Results via our 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!

FutureSearch-logoTake advantage of two great course offerings from the Future Search NetworkNCDD members can get a registration discount if they register early.

Change the World One Meeting at a Time: A Master Class with Sandra Janoff and Marvin Weisbord takes place Sept 9-10, 2014 in Philadelphia. The Master Class will explore the realms of practice beyond traditional models, methods and techniques, and go more deeply into personal and structural issues for leading interactive meetings. Together we will learn more about applying principles for meaningful, energizing meetings:

  • Working with polarized sub-groups
  • Using differentiation and integration as a key process in transforming group dialogue
  • Moving from individual intervention to system intervention
  • Knowing when and how to “just stand there” or when and how to actively intervene.

The Master Class will be followed by the Learning Exchange on Sept. 11-12. Join Sandra Janoff and Marvin Weisbord and members of the global Future Search community to explore how people are using the principles and philosophy of Future Search in meetings of all shapes and sizes in communities and organizations around the world.

NCDD members can register for both together for additional discount before June 1. You can learn more and register by clicking here.