RFP Open Until 7/25 for Participatory Grantmaking Research

We just heard about a new RFP announcement from the Ford Foundation to explore participatory grantmaking research that we want to encourage folks in our network to apply for! The Ford Foundation is looking to award individuals and organizations that are generating evidence on the benefits and challenges of participatory grantmaking, with the goal to increase these participatory practices, specifically with large legacy foundations and high-net-worth donors. They will award $300K between 5-15 grantees who show the value of participatory grantmaking and offer evidence to back it up. Deadline to have proposals in is Thursday, July 25th, and the final decision will be announced in October. Learn more about the RFP below and find the original on the Philanthropy News Digest site here.


Ford Foundation Issues RFP for Participatory Grantmaking Research

The Ford Foundation has issued a Request for Proposals from individuals and organizations that are generating evidence on the benefits and challenges of participatory grantmaking. The foundation’s goal is to increase overall willingness to test and implement participatory approaches across philanthropy, but especially in areas with lower rates of adoption such as legacy foundations and high-net-worth donors.

As documented in a recent monograph, Participatory Grantmaking: Has Its Time Come?, and GrantCraft guide, Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory Grantmaking, a growing number of grantmakers and donors are using participatory approaches. These include involving non-grantmakers/donors in designating funding priorities and strategies, reviewing and assessing proposals, establishing decision-making criteria, making funding decisions, and conducting evaluations. While more grantmakers and donors are embracing participatory approaches, two constituencies have been relatively slow to do so — large legacy foundations (private foundations set up to conduct grantmaking) and high-net-worth-donors (generally defined as those with more than $50 million in bankable assets).

Encouraging wider consideration of the merits of participatory approaches among these audiences will require more information that “makes the case” for participatory grantmaking, including compelling arguments about and empirical evidence of its value, benefits, outcomes, and impacts.

As part of its philanthropy portfolio, the foundation has allocated $300,000 to support research that can help make the case and build a body of evidence for participatory approaches.

Participatory grantmaking is defined as the involvement of non-grantmakers/donors in developing funding strategies; designating funding priorities; reviewing and assessing proposals; establishing decision-making criteria; making funding decisions; and conducting evaluation.

Some examples of key questions and potential areas for more exploration include but are not limited to: What value does participation add to philanthropy? How should value be measured? What are the benefits and challenges of participatory grantmaking? What are the long-term benefit and costs of doing/not doing participatory philanthropy/grantmaking? Is foundation transparency, accountability, and feedback the same as participation? What is the role of donors/experts in participatory grantmaking and what value does it have? What would a cultural ethos of participation in foundations look like?

The foundation expects to award approximately five to fifteen grants in support of proposals that provide clear and persuasive arguments and/or empirical evidence that demonstrates the value and impact of participatory grantmaking. Our overarching and driving questions are: Does participatory grantmaking lead to better/stronger philanthropic outcomes/impacts? Why, and how do we know?

What would it take? How do we know if participatory grantmaking has been successful? How do we measure success in terms of process and results on the ground? What are the effects of participatory grantmaking on the people who are participating? Does this approach strengthen the efforts of larger movements? If so, how? If not, what needs to be leveraged to make such contributions? Does participatory grantmaking promote/advance diversity, equity, and inclusion? If so, how and how do we know? If not, why? What are the practical considerations funders need to consider when implementing participatory grantmaking? Where and how does participatory grantmaking “fit” with other kinds of participatory approaches/fields? What are the similarities and differences? Are there ways in which these approaches enhance each other and, if so, how? Where does participation fit into decisions about allocating non-grant resources?

Proposals will be evaluated by the steering committee based on criteria that includes: a strong alignment between the project and the goal of the initiative; the project’s potential for advancing participatory grantmaking across philanthropy, especially among legacy foundations and high-net-worth donors. (Will it “move the needle?”); demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion; potential for or involvement of new voices; capacity to carry out the project; a plan and capacity for disseminating findings; and adequacy of the budget and timeline for the project.

Projects should be completed by April 1, 2021.

To be eligible, applicants must be an individual or organization based in the United States and focus primarily on work taking place in the United States.

The deadline for proposals is July 25, 2019, with final grant decisions to be announced in October.

For more information, a copy of the full RFP, or to submit a proposal, email FFparticipatorygrantmaking@gmail.com. In the email, please include “Participatory Grantmaking RFP” in the subject line. If submitting a proposal, be sure to include in the body of the email the project name, a one- or two-sentence description of the project, and the name, organization, address, phone number, and email address for the primary contact.

JPD Seeks Submissions on Upcoming Special Issue

The Journal of Public Deliberation (JPD) is currently looking for contributions on an upcoming special issue, Citizens, Media and Politics in Challenging Times: Perspectives on the Deliberative Quality of Communication. JPD is a peer-reviewed journal on deliberative democracy and is a collaboration between the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC) and the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). We encourage folks in our network to learn more about the opportunity in the post below. Manuscripts need to be submitted by July 31st and decisions will be made this November with the goal of a 2020 publication date. Read the announcement below and find the original information on the IAP2 site here.


Journal of Public Deliberation: Call for Papers for Special Issue

Journal of Public Deliberation is a peer review, 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.”

Manuscripts due on 31 July 2019.

Growing anti-immigration attitudes, rising nationalist tendencies, landslide victories of populist figures as well as the dissolution of national and supranational entities – these are just some of the multiple political and societal challenges western democracies are facing nowadays. These challenges have been said to affect the way citizens, the media and political actors communicate among and with each other. More specifically, concerns about the deliberative quality of these communications have been put forward. While this observation has so far been corroborated by a series of isolated studies, which produced not more than a few islands of analysis, an integrative and comprehensive perspective on the deliberative qualities of citizens’, journalists’, and politicians’ communication is yet missing.

The special issue Citizens, Media and Politics in Challenging Times: Perspectives on the Deliberative Quality of Communication thus addresses this gap in the literature by systematically bringing together different strands of research on the deliberative qualities of citizens’, journalists’, and politicians’ communication. The special issue thus aims at providing an integrative and comprehensive picture on modern political communication in times western democracies are facing a multitude of disruptive challenges. Theoretical, empirical and methodological contributions focusing on the deliberative qualities of citizens’, journalists’, and politicians’ communication are welcome. Topics and questions of interest include, but are not limited to:

  1. The deliberative quality of political debates: To which extent do political debates come close to the genuine benchmarks of deliberation? How deliberative is political communication transmitted via different channels (e.g., media types, media formats) as well as by different actors (e.g., journalists, politicians)? How is the deliberative quality of these debates perceived by the public?
  2. Determinants and consequences of citizens’ deliberation: Which role do arguments and scientific evidence play in promoting the quality of citizens’ deliberation? Does civic deliberation indeed result in “better” outcomes? To which extent is civic deliberation positively related to political participation?
  3. Uncivil online communication and deliberative interventions: To what degree does the deliberative quality of user comments reflect the deliberative quality of the news coverage? How does online deliberation via user comments develop over time? How do users interact when encountering dissonant viewpoints? To which extent are online civic interventions a panacea for disruptive and uncivil online behavior?

Submission Guidelines

Submissions need to speak to the deliberative democracy and democratic innovations literature.

When preparing your submission, please check the JPD website for guidelines on style and paper length: https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/author_instructions.html

Please submit your manuscript to the following email address: si.jpd@mzes.uni-mannheim.de

Questions about the special issue shall be directed to the guest editors Christiane Grill and Anne Schäfer under the email address: si.jpd@mzes.uni-mannheim.de

The deadline for manuscripts to be considered for the special issue is July 31, 2019. Manuscripts will be peer reviewed and a decision rendered until November 2019 with a target publication of the issue in 2020.

Editorial Information

Guest Editor: Christiane Grill Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim

Guest Editor: Anne Schäfer Department of Political Science, University of Mannheim

Listen Now to Tech Tuesday Recording Featuring Ethelo!

Last week, we held our first Tech Tuesday of 2019 and took a deep dive into the participatory decision-making platform, Ethelo! We were joined by 40 participants as founder and CEO of Ethelo, John Richardson, shared the ins and outs of this civic tech tool that empowers groups to collaborate on complex challenges. If you weren’t able to make the call, we encourage you to listen to the recording of it here.

We first learned about Ethelo back in 2014 when the platform was still in its beta form and NCDD members had the opportunity to test it out then. It is phenomenal to see how robust Ethelo has evolved over the last five years and we’re grateful to John for showing us its new capacities!

On the call, John shared how the collaborative decision-making platform inherently brings in participants’ values into the process, allows space for people to weigh priorities, engage with each other, and take action on complex issues. Ethelo is great for any size group or organization and can be applied in business settings like project management and strategic planning, and in community applications like policy-making and participatory budgeting. We learned about an exciting new development on the call –  Ethelo is merging with the budget simulator software tool, Citizen Budget (used by 1/3 of the Canadian municipalities) and will now offer the Citizen Budget tools as part of the Ethelo platform. John shares a special offer for NCDD members that we encourage our network to utilize, but you have to listen to the recording to find out the details!

Here are some of our favorite takeaways from the Tech Tuesday call:

  • Ethelo started as a non-profit organization in 2011 with a vision to improve democratic policy-making using Internet technology.
  • The platform gives participants a meaningful role in the decision-making process, enabling them to evaluate options, discuss and add ideas, weigh priorities and do trade-offs.
  • What makes Ethelo unique is the voting function and ability to prioritize the options in order of support (AND with multiple visual options on the results)
  • Ethelo brings together a decision-making framework where participants apply the same criteria to whatever is being evaluated and prioritize the criteria (this brings in peoples’ values to the process).

THANK YOU to John and everyone who joined this call! We recorded the whole presentation if you were unable to join us, which you can access here. We had several excellent questions offered in the chat, which you can find the transcript of here.

Tech_Tuesday_Badge

To learn more about NCDD’s Tech Tuesday series and hear recordings of past calls, please visit www.ncdd.org/tech-tuesdays. Archives access is a benefit of being an NCDD member, so ensure your membership is up-to-date (or click here to join). If you have an idea for a future Tech Tuesday event, please email keiva[at]ncdd[dot]org with your great ideas!

Finally, we love holding these events and we want to continue to elevate the work of our field with Confab Calls and Tech Tuesdays. It is through your generous contributions to NCDD that we can keep doing this work! That’s why we want to encourage you to support NCDD by making a donation or becoming an NCDD member today (you can also renew your membership by clicking here). Thank you!

Don’t Miss Tomorrow’s Tech Tuesday with Ethelo – Register Now!

We want to remind our network of our next Tech Tuesday call happening tomorrow April 23rd from 2-3pm Eastern, 11am-12pm Pacific. This free webinar will explore the digital platform, Ethelo, a participatory decision-making space that leads to higher transparency among participants and greater overall buy-in of the process. Register ASAP to save your spot on the call!

In this webinar, we will be joined by John Richardson, founder and CEO of Ethelo. John will give a quick overview of the software and walk through some real-world examples of how its been used by different clients to engage stakeholders in solving contentious, real-life problems. Ethelo is particularly helpful for stakeholder engagement and communications professionals in the government, business and nonprofit space who need to engage large groups of people on sensitive and challenging issues. When an upfront investment in a fair, inclusive process is critical to prevent opposition down the road, Ethelo provides a robust and proven solution.

“Ethelo is a dramatic new technology that can facilitate democratic citizen participation in political decision making. As people insist on more say in the decisions that can affect them, Ethelo can make modern citizen engagement possible and practical.” – Judy Rebick, Founder Rabble

About our presenter

John Richardson is an internationally recognized social entrepreneur, with a background in mathematics, law, political policy and technology. In 2005, he was awarded an Ashoka Fellowship for his work in creating high-impact social initiatives. John and his colleagues founded Ethelo to develop online approaches for participatory decision-making that could scale to large groups. John is dedicated to advancing new approaches to digital engagement and direct democracy.

This will be a great chance to learn more about this . Don’t miss out – register today!

Tech Tuesdays are a series of learning events from NCDD focused on technology for engagement. These 1-hour events are designed to help dialogue and deliberation practitioners get a better sense of the online engagement landscape and how they can take advantage of the myriad opportunities available to them. You do not have to be a member of NCDD to participate in our Tech Tuesday learning events.

Check Out New Issue Guides Now Available from NIFI

This year, the National Issues Forums Institute – an NCDD member org, has published three issues guides to support conversations in deliberative forums on major issues facing this country. The three issue guides, House Divided, Keeping America Safe, and A Nation in Debt, each offer multiple talking points on both “sides” of the issue to give participants additional perspectives and help lead to a more robust deliberation. You can read the announcement below and find the original version on the NIFI blog here.


From Brad Rourke – About the Three New Issue Guides for 2019

The National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) has released three new issue guides for 2019. A House DividedKeeping America Safe, and A Nation in Debt are all available to purchase in digital and hard-copy formats on the NIFI website.

Brad RourkeKettering Foundation program officer and executive editor of issue guides, provided this note:

These new NIFI issue guides are highly salient and reflect some of the biggest concerns on the minds of Americans right now:

A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want?
“Division,” “polarization,” and “hyperpartisanship” are front and center throughout the current political discourse. This framework comes at the question not from a social perspective but from a political one. If we are so divided, how then shall we self-govern? This is not about “getting along” but rather about what we should do even as we don’t get along.

Keeping America Safe: What Is Our Greatest Threat? How Should We Respond?
The world is increasingly volatile, and the question of just what America’s role on the world stage should be lies at the root of many global conversations. This is not just a dry (yet important) question of geopolitical strategy; it also includes trade, our general stance toward other nations, and our relationships with traditionally stabilizing institutions.

A Nation in Debt: How Can We Pay the Bills?
The national debt has roared past the $21 trillion mark and appears on a course to keep increasing. The size of this debt, and the interest it takes simply to maintain it, is more and more a topic of concern as people think about how our economy can keep growing, what size government is right, and what direction tax rates should go. Should we take drastic action to shrink the debt, or would that upend the economy? (This guide was produced in partnership with Up to Us.)

These issue guides are nonpartisan supports for moderated, deliberative conversations among small groups. We try to portray the chief tensions that citizens need to work through to form sound judgments on difficult public problems. Kettering researches and develops them for publication by the National Issues Forums Institute, which makes them available to the NIF network of local convenors.

You can read the original version of this announcement on the NIFI blog at www.nifi.org/en/brad-rourke-about-three-new-issue-guides-2019.

Register for NCDD’s April Tech Tuesday Featuring Ethelo!

NCDD is happy to announce our April Tech Tuesday featuring Ethelo. This FREE event will take place Tuesday, April 23rd from 2-3pm Eastern, 11am-12pm Pacific. Don’t miss out – register today to secure your spot!

Ethelo helps their clients to offer more transparency and participation on the hottest public issues in a way that creates better outcomes and stronger buy-in. Their participatory decision platform has been used by all levels of government as well as the private and non profit sector ensure inclusive, fair processes and defuse opposition. It’s unique algorithms and ability to solve solve complex problems while building support has been described by the Canadian government as “an exceptional advance that is clearly ahead of competitors.”Ethelo has been used for community planning, project design and evaluation, budgeting, grantmaking, and policy development in North America and abroad.

In this webinar, we will be joined by John Richardson, founder and CEO of Ethelo. John will give a quick overview of the software and walk through some real-world examples of how its been used by different clients to engage stakeholders in solving contentious, real-life problems. Ethelo is particularly helpful for stakeholder engagement and communications professionals in the government, business and nonprofit space who need to engage large groups of people on sensitive and challenging issues. When an upfront investment in a fair, inclusive process is critical to prevent opposition down the road, Ethelo provides a robust and proven solution.

“Ethelo is a dramatic new technology that can facilitate democratic citizen participation in political decision making. As people insist on more say in the decisions that can affect them, Ethelo can make modern citizen engagement possible and practical.”Judy Rebick, Founder Rabble

About our presenter

John Richardson is an internationally recognized social entrepreneur, with a background in mathematics, law, political policy and technology. In 2005, he was awarded an Ashoka Fellowship for his work in creating high-impact social initiatives. John and his colleagues founded Ethelo to develop online approaches for participatory decision-making that could scale to large groups. John is dedicated to advancing new approaches to digital engagement and direct democracy.

This will be a great chance to learn more about this . Don’t miss out – register today!

Tech Tuesdays are a series of learning events from NCDD focused on technology for engagement. These 1-hour events are designed to help dialogue and deliberation practitioners get a better sense of the online engagement landscape and how they can take advantage of the myriad opportunities available to them. You do not have to be a member of NCDD to participate in our Tech Tuesday learning events.

Using Our Superpowers and Engaging Curiosity

Our ability to suspend our judgments and engage our curiosity can have powerful ramifications in our personal lives and in the larger society. NCDD member Debilyn Molineaux discussed how our curiosity can be one of our many superpowers in the article she wrote, Rush to Curiosity — Judge Later, shared on the Bridge Alliance blog and reposted from AllSides. If you are looking for a place to get some conversational practice to strengthen your curiosity, then we recommend folks participate in the National Week of Conversation kicking off later this week. You can read the article below and find the original version on BA’s site here.


Rush to Curiosity — Judge Later

We’ve all done it. We see or hear something (like a news story or meme/tweet) and are outraged — we MUST respond. We. Can. Not. Let. It. Go. Unchallenged.

Besides, we know we are smarter than whoever is offending us, right? (Cue music of self-righteousness.)

Whew. My blood pressure goes up just thinking about it! I’m not often caught up in outrage these days, but when I am, it may take me days to calm down again. And there is so much to be outraged about — from dehumanization to nasty rhetoric to all manner of injustice. It feels more dramatic and heightened than ever before.

So I’m curious — what would happen if we looked a little deeper, both into ourselves and into our society? Outrage isn’t part of who I want to be. What about you?

Our rush to judgment is biological. Our survival as early humans was not certain. Our judgement served us — protecting lives, families and communities. Our quick judgement was required. Is our personal and individual survival still at stake on social media? In our daily lives? Sometimes. Most often not.

Many people are living on the social or financial edge. So when we flood our brains with images via social media and the news, we react from a place of survival. As a result, our country experiences a collective hair trigger, both metaphorically and literally. Our fear means we will shoot to kill (with guns or with words) instead of pausing to check our judgement for possible errors. Pausing could literally save lives.

We seem to have forgotten our superpower of curiosity.

Curiosity is the mindset we use to:

  1. Explore and have adventures
  2. Discover new things
  3. Create beauty
  4. Experience wonder and awe
  5. Question what we see

Wouldn’t our lives be better if we employed more curiosity? Wouldn’t our country be better? I think so. It’s my daily aspiration and choice. What is yours?

What we do next will matter a lot. We can pull the trigger and respond with outrage. Or, we can hit “pause” and engage our curiosity to research if our anger is justified. Most often, it is not. Most of what we hear or see has an aspect of truth, but is far from the whole Truth. Most often, facts are selected and an interpretation is presented to provoke a fearful response in us. As a people, fear makes us more susceptible to manipulation.

The good news is we have the superpower of curiosity within us. And with practice, our ability to use it gets stronger. It’s easy! Once the “fear button” is pushed, stop and ask:

  1. Why should I be afraid right now?
  2. Who wants me to be afraid and what do they get out of it?
  3. What is the rest of the story?
  4. What are the facts and what is the interpretation of the facts?
  5. What can I do about this that would break the spell of fear for myself and others?
  6. How can I contribute in a positive way today?
  7. What is the best use of my time?

And here’s the real secret to curiosity. Even if we decide we should be afraid, there’s still time to use our judgement and act. But the same cannot be said of judging first and being curious second. Curiosity provides more options for our future. Use your superpower!

Rush to curiosity. Judge later.

Debilyn Molineaux is a transformation facilitator. She works with visionaries and movements in support of a new national and global social contract focused on personal dignity and sovereignty. Her work highlights the relationships between individuals, institutions and governments for conscious transformation. Debilyn is the Co-founder and Executive Director of Bridge Alliance, representing over 90 organizations. She also co-founded Living Room Conversations and National Conversation Project where people can learn skills to mend the frayed fabric of our nation. She has a Center bias.

You can find the original version of this article on the Bridge Alliance site at www.bridgealliance.us/rush_to_curiosity_judge_later.

NCDD Member Discount on TPC’s IAP2 2019 Trainings

The new year is a great time to learn some new skills and we encourage folks to check out the newly released training schedule from NCDD member org The Participation Company. TCP offers certification in the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)‘s model, and dues-paying NCDD members get a discount on registration! You can read more about the trainings in the TCP announcement below and learn more here.


The Participation Company’s 2019 Training Events

If you work in communications, public relations, public affairs, planning, public outreach and understanding, community development, advocacy, or lobbying, this training will help you to increase your skills and to be of even greater value to your employer.

This is your chance to join the many thousands of practitioners worldwide who have completed the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) certificate training.

The Participation Company (TPC) offers discounted rates to members of AICP, ICMA, IAP2, and NCDD. 

AICP members can earn Certification Maintenance (CM) credits for these courses.

Foundations in Public Participation (5-Day) Certificate Program:

Planning for Effective Public Participation (3-Days) and/or *Techniques for Effective Public Participation (2-Days)

  • Mar. 4-8 in Arlington, VA (5-Days, Both Planning & Techniques)
  • Mar. 6-8 in Fort Collins, CO (3-Day Planning)
  • Mar. 25-29 in Las Vegas, NV (5-Days, Both Planning & Techniques)
  • Mar. 25-29 in Charlotte, NC (5-Days, Both Planning & Techniques)
  • Apr. 2-3 in Fort Collins, CO (2-Day Techniques)
  • Apr. 29-May 3 in Chicago, IL (5-Days, Both Planning & Techniques

*The 3-Day Planning training is a prerequisite to Techniques training

We’re also working to add Denver and Salt Lake City for spring/summer and Phoenix in November. Please check our calendar for updates.

IAP2’s Strategies for Dealing with Opposition and Outrage in Public Participation (2-Days)
formally Emotion, Outrage – newly revised and renamed

  • Mar. 28-29 in Phoenix, AZ
  • Apr. 4-5 in Cleveland, OH
  • Jul. 25-26 in Chicago, IL
  • Oct. 7-8 in Saint Paul, MN

Register online www.theparticipationcompany.com/training/calendar

The Participation Company can also assist you and your organization in other endeavors! Our team of highly experienced professionals help government and business clients manage public issues to accomplish client’s objectives. We can plan and manage your participation project from start to finish. We can provide strategic advice and direction. We can coach and mentor your staff and managers. We help you build agreements and craft durable and defensible decisions.

You can find the original version of this announcement on the TPC site at www.theparticipationcompany.com/training/calendar/.

Moving Past Couch-Potato Democracy to Engagement

In the sixth installment of their series, democracy around the world, NCDD sponsoring member, the Jefferson Center, wrote this piece on how Americans can be more civically engaged and address our challenging issues. Many of the states in the U.S. are designed to give the people even more power to shape legislation through initiatives and referendums. The article challenges for people to push more into civic life and participate in government, especially when their elected officials are not. You can read the article below and find the original version of it on the Jefferson Center site https://jefferson-center.org/2018/09/initiate-democracy-across-the-united-states/here.


It’s Time to Initiate Democracy Across the United States

This is the sixth post in our blog series exploring democracy around the world, submitted by a diverse group of people interested in using deliberation, participation, and civic tech to solve challenges we face today. The following does not necessarily represent the views of the Jefferson Center or Jefferson Center staff.

John Hakes is a freelance writer and Certified Public Accountant who has worked with the U.S. Census Bureau and Questar Assessment Inc. He earned his Master’s Degree in Advocacy and Political Leadership from the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. – First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

In the opening blog of this series, guest blogger Ross Busch suggested a national assembly model recently employed by the country of Ireland– on an agenda of climate change leadership, aging population and abortion– might be used to address the seemingly intractable issue of gun control in the United States.

If Ireland, a nation with a centuries-long entrenched position on the sensitive abortion issue can use informed reasoning to assess the will of the people through assembly— the Busch reasoning goes– there is hope people could do likewise on other emotionally-charged issues.

We will now ‘wait ‘n see’ whether Busch’s clarion call takes root around the world. But meanwhile, in November, the twin ‘people power’ petition mechanism afforded to American citizens by the First Amendment will be exercised on the issue of gun control. That’s when Washington citizens will decide whether they wish to add parameters to the use of firearms through a vote of the people via Initiative I-1639.

The Initiative Tool

Should you call states like Hawaii, New Mexico, Iowa, North Carolina, Maryland, or around 20 others home, you may not be not familiar with the initiative process.

Unlike a referendum, where a question must come from a given jurisdiction’s legislative body, a citizen initiative is typically created when a certain number of ‘registered voter’ signatures are gathered on a question proposed to become law.  Initiatives can either be direct (where potential new law is decided on by voters) or indirect (where the affirmed petition question is handed to a Legislature for it to decide on).

The state of Washington’s citizen initiative process was enacted in 1897. The I-1639 effort began when the gun measure petition received the requisite number of signatures from across the state.  Naturally, the road from ‘obtaining a verifiable set of signatures’ to ‘Secretary of State approval’ to ‘finalized question on the November ballot’ has been met by significant counter challenges. But on August 24, 2018, a ruling of the Washington Supreme Court officially permitted the existence of the ‘gun measures’ question to be included on the November 6th ballot .

Initiative and Referendum in the U.S.

Less than half of the U.S. states allow their citizens to raise & legally install the answer to a question through the initiative process. More western than eastern states have this process in place.

At least partly due to the continually shifting voting preferences over time in a given electorate, states currently deemed ‘red’ and ‘blue’ both offer legislation-by-initiative. Washington & California are examples of so-called blue states while North Dakota and Arizona are counted among ‘red’ states that utilize initiatives.

Unsurprisingly, voter turnout in these states has historically been 5 to 7 percent higher than in states without initiative and referendum (states with one typically offer the other). The reason for this is simple: voters feel that their vote for or against a grassroots-raised issue on the ballot does make a difference.

Despite being a state that frequently leads the nation in voter turnout,  Minnesota–also well-known for possessing a strong political and civic culture–features neither an Initiative or Referendum component in its democratic procedural toolkit.

Like every other state, Minnesota does allow questions pertaining to  legislatively-referred, state constitutional amendments to be decided on by voters.  There have been three periods in which the right to decide by Initiative has been seriously considered in Minnesota, with the last push led by MN House Representative Erik Paulsen during the Jesse Ventura administration of the early 2000s.

Looking ahead

Although it’s true that social media has the power to amplify voices and mobilize people to achieve ‘a’ form of grassroots push on a given issue, such sentiments too often blow away with the wind of the next incoming news cycle.  Rather than focusing only on the  couch-potato democracy by electronic device, Americans in half of the U.S. states should exercise the legal levers they already have to permanently alter the law when their elected representatives don’t seem up to the task.

To quote the Busch piece again: “Conversations between ordinary citizens on complex topics are perhaps the greatest defense against the degradation of modern politics.”

What better way to begin stepping across the street for face-to-face conversation than to create outcomes on even an incredibly divisive issue through an Initiative provision, like approximately half of our country’s people have the legal luxury of doing?

And though founders like James Madison would likely be one to equate the Initiative process with ill-advisedly caving to the passions of the people, perhaps even our celebrated ‘Father of the Constitution’ might see the diligence and organization required of Initiative efforts as preferable to the Rule by Retweet method that regularly influences the course of events today.

Thanks to efforts like those who’ve advanced the I-1639 in Washington, political pockets of our country are arguably “deliberating, even when it’s difficult,” on important issues, as writer Ross Busch recommends.

You can find the original version of this article on The Jefferson Center site at www.jefferson-center.org/2018/09/initiate-democracy-across-the-united-states/.

Participatory Budgeting Lessons Over Last 30 Years

Participatory Budgeting has been rapidly growing across the world for the last 30 years, in all levels of government, in organizations, and in schools. There was a report released by the Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network on the current state of PB and its future; and NCDD member org, the Participatory Budgeting Project, recorded a webinar with the report authors, Stephanie McNulty and Brian Wampler. You can listen to the webinar in the article below and find the original on PBP’s site here.


Lessons from 30 years of a global experiment in democracy

The Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network recently funded a major new report on the lessons learned from 30 years of participatory budgeting (PB). In July, we hosted a webinar about the state and future of PB with report authors Stephanie McNulty and Brian Wampler.

Check out the webinar recording, slides, and key takeaways below.

We asked Stephanie and Brian about what it meant to write this report in 2018, a time of great change for PB and for democracy.

Stephanie spoke to how PB has grown since beginning in Brazil in 1989: “It’s sort of exploding, and happening all over the world in places that are very different from Brazil… It’s taking place faster than we can document and analyze.”

Brian shared about experimentation in PB happening with a variety of focus areas and in new contexts. Part of the power of PB is in how adaptable it is. Many folks experiment with how to design PB to best serve their community. And so, PB looks different in the more than 7,000 localities it exists in around the world.

“PB is probably the most widespread public policy tool to undertake what we consider democratizing democracy.”- Stephanie McNulty

In 30 years, PB has created significant impacts. Doing PB and studying it need more investment to further impact democracy. We’re still learning about the ways that PB can transform individuals and communities.

Early research suggests PB strengthens the civic attitudes and practices of participants, elected officials, and civil servants. Beyond changes at the individual level, the report documents changes at the community level. Changes at the community level include greater accountability, stronger civil society, improved transparency, and better well-being.

But, in the end, good PB doesn’t just happen; it has to be built. It requires intentional effort to ensure that PB practice lives up to its promise. It can yield benefits for those who participate in the early stages, but it takes time for those to expand to broader areas. PB is growing faster as more people learn about it’s potential. We need further research to  learn from what advocates on the ground know about PB’s impact—as well as it’s areas for improvement. The future of PB will require effort and sustained resources to support new ways of placing power in the hands of the people.

The report documents key ways PB has transformed over 30 years.

  • Scale. PB started at the municipal level in Brazil, and now exists in every level of government, and even within government agencies. PB is now being done for schools, colleges, cities, districts, states, and nations—places where people are looking for deeper democracy.
  • Secret ballots to consensus-based processes. When we spoke about what was most surprising or unexpected while writing the report, Brian talked about the shift in how communities make decisions in PB often moving from secret ballots to consensus-based processes.
  • Technology. New technologies are used for recruitment, to provide information, and to offer oversight. We don’t fully understand the benefits and limitations of this particular transformation, and look forward to more research on this question.
  • Increased donor interest. More international donors are interested in promoting and supporting PB.
  • A shift away from pro-poor roots. PB in Brazil began as a project of the Workers Party to pursue social justice and give power to marginalized communities and the disenfranchised. This is a core reason why many look to PB to solve deeply entrenched problems of inequity in the democratic process. Unfortunately today, many PB processes around the world do not have an explicit social justice goals.

We’ve learned that focusing on social justice actually makes PB work better. PB processes that seek to include traditionally marginalized voices make it easier for everyone to participate in making better decisions.

To wrap up our webinar, Laura Bacon from Omidyar Network, David Sasaki from the Hewlett Foundation, and our Co-Executive Director at PBP, Josh Lerner shared takeaways for grantmakers.

They discussed what we need to make the transformative impacts of PB be bigger and more widespread.

  • Medium and long term investment is important for PB success. One off investments don’t create the impacts of PB and can lead to a decline in quality.
  • Government support is crucial. PB works best when it complements government—not opposes it.
  • Watch out for participation fatigue. If the conditions for successful PB are not fully in place, residents and advocacy organizations can grow weary of continued involvement.
  • Funders should focus PB grantmaking in areas that have conditions in place for it to be successful. They should look at political, economic, and social contexts before funding the process.

Want more updates on the state and future of PB? Sign up for PBP’s Newsletter

You can find the original version of this article on the Participatory Budgeting Project site at www.participatorybudgeting.org/lessons-from-30-years-of-pb/.