Defining Public Innovation

We saw yet another great piece recently from our friends at the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation, an NCDD organizational member – this time reflecting on the meaning of “public innovation”. We encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.

This post was written by Rich Harwood, president and founder of the Harwood Institute.

HarwoodLogoRecently, I was on the public radio program “Innovation Trail” in Rochester, N.Y. to talk about “public innovation.” The station posted the following statement on its website about my appearance: “Two recent interviews by Innovation Trail served as reminders of how often the ‘innovation conversation’ is framed in terms of technology and economics…” But as we discussed on-air, there’s another way to define it.

Rochester is home to Eastman Kodak, the venerable though now long-suffering company best known for making camera film and now feverishly trying to transform itself into a digital technology company. To Kodak, innovation is about developing new product lines that generate high profits. But Rochester also is trying to transform itself from a town once dependent upon Kodak to a community with a more diverse economic base, a revitalized downtown and stronger public schools, among other goals.

Even when talk turns to innovation regarding community goals, the tendency among community leaders, funders, activists, and others is to focus on specific education reforms, local tax policy, or maybe infrastructure plans and the like. Other conversations about innovation often center on the use of mobile devices, development of new online platforms, or the launch of new citizen participation processes.

All potentially important. Each possibly necessary. But, I believe, they miss a larger point.

When the public radio hosts from Rochester asked me to define public innovation, I said that it is about how we choose to see what is around us in a community and to make intentional choices and judgments about how to move a community forward. In other words, public innovation isn’t necessarily about something shiny or new or complex, but about something that works better, leads to better results, and creates a better pathway forward.

It is about how communities generate and re-generate themselves. For example, The Harwood Institute is working with partners in Battle Creek, Mich. – including the local United Way, Chamber of Commerce, Kellogg Community College, Project 20/20, BC Pulse and the city government. These entities are focused on addressing issues concerning vulnerable children in a way that altogether changes how they and others work together in the community.

Indeed, the very output from being innovative may be so simple that it hardly seems to be an innovation. Consider, for instance, the following example: innovation can involve changing the way we talk about a common concern in a community. Is the discussion framed in terms of “problems,” which usually degenerates into people pointing fingers and placing blame for what’s wrong in the community? Or is it about our shared aspirations for what we are trying to do right?

The public innovation I have in mind starts with an orientation, a mindset: Are we turned outward toward our community? Put another way, is the community our reference point for our efforts, or is our reference point our conference room? This is a vital distinction. The danger here is that we innovate in a vacuum, based on our own wishes, our own beliefs on what we need, our own personal desire to increase our notoriety.

Innovation in a community is about how that community comes to take ownership of a common concern and how strategies are developed that fit the local context of the community. And yet so often we rush to plug-and-play solutions that may have worked elsewhere but aren’t right for our particular community. That’s not innovation.

Innovation is about how to actively create a community’s enabling environment: focusing on what it takes to generate the underlying conditions necessary for productive change to emerge, take root, and spread. Such conditions include norms for interaction, layers of leadership, networks for learning and innovation. The civic culture of a community – like the culture of an organization – is critical to whether a community can move forward.

Innovation is about knowing that while creating measurable impact is essential, so too is whether people hold the belief that they and others actually can produce something meaningful together. Engendering belief in a way that is authentic, real, and lasting requires us to rethink how people can feel part of something larger than themselves, how to engage people so that we work together, and even how to celebrate ways that lead to greater confidence within a community.

Innovation is understanding that stories and narratives play a critical role in signaling to people that change is even possible – and that their own engagement is pivotal to that change ever occurring. How to discover and construct such stories, and then weaving them into a naturally unfolding narrative requires innovation.

The type of innovation I am speaking about demands that we each step forward ready to engage in a different way. We must be willing to see and hear people around us, especially those who are different from us and who challenge our own comfort levels. It means that we must be willing to make choices and judgments about where to place limited resources.

Being “ruthlessly strategic” is at the heart of public innovation. We can’t be all things to all people. We must be willing to place a stake in the ground about the change we think is necessary, and we must be ready to re-calibrate those ideas as conditions around us change.

Public innovation starts with a turn – of ourselves.  We must be turned outward. Then we must engage differently so that we can move forward together.

You can find the original version of this piece at www.theharwoodinstitute.org/2014/03/what-does-public-innovation-mean.

Group Decision Tip: Detachment

In principle, detachment is the key to peace.

Group Decision Tips IconSometimes we are so attached to things that we are apt to fight for them, so attached that when they disappear it brings great pain, so attached that our judgment is clouded to the point where we see and feel only conflict.

While right-sized compassion brings comfort, oversized attachment to people, ideas, or feelings brings turmoil and tension. While right-sized determination brings achievement, unwavering attachment to goals or ideals brings conflict.

Practical Tip: Do not be too attached to your group’s cause or decisions that you think the group should make. Do not be too attached to how you think things should be or how others should behave.

It is often those group members who are unreasonably dedicated — those who give an unreasonable amount of time or energy — who cause the most conflict.

Give your best without conditions. Speak your truth without expectations. Use the key, find peace.

ICMA’s State of the Profession Survey Results

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) recently released the results of its 2012 State of the Profession survey, and we think that the results make good food for thought. From feelings about the purposes of public engagement to the state of civic discourse, the survey provides insights on where we are and where we might go from here. You can read the ICMA write up on the report below or find the original at www.icma.org/en/press/pm_magazine/article/104159.


The Extent of Public Participation

by Robert Vogel, Evelina Moulder, and Mike Huggins

Local governments use a variety of strategies and techniques to encourage public involvement in local planning and decision making. The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) describes public involvement as occurring at five levels ranging from informing all the way to empowering.

In this article, we summarize the responses to ICMA’s 2012 State of the Profession Survey, which asked respondents to rate the importance of achieving the five levels of involvement in their communities. The levels are illustrated in a case study of an online public participation project in Rancho Cordova, California. We conclude with a list of questions to help local government managers improve their public participation strategy.

Goals of Public Participation

Previous ICMA surveys examined how local governments share information with residents. The 2012 survey delved more deeply into the nature and purposes of local government public participation efforts.

IAP2 has designed a widely-accepted Spectrum of Public Participation that identifies a range of interactions that a local government can have with its community. Distinguished by increasing levels of direct public involvement and intended outcomes, the IAP2 Spectrum includes the following five types of goals that a government can strive for in its public participation efforts: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. A number of the 2012 survey questions addressed the perceived importance of these types of public interactions within the local government profession.

Inform: Eighty-five percent of the responding local governments report that it is “important” or “highly important” to provide the public with objective information to assist them in understanding problems/solutions/alternatives.

Consult: Seventy-five percent indicate that it is “important” or “highly important” to work directly with the public to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

Involve: Some 70 percent report that it is “important” or “highly important” to obtain feedback from the public on analyses of problems, solutions, and alternatives.

Collaborate: The results show that 57 percent of respondents reported that it is “important” or “highly important” to partner with the public in development of alternatives, identification of the preferred solution, and decision making.

Empower: Nineteen percent of respondents indicate that it is “important” or “highly important” to place decision making in the hands of the public.

Feat1_Fig1

Being clear about the underlying purpose of the engagement effort as well as the promise it intends to make to the public is essential to the success of any public participation effort. Without objective information and a clearly understood purpose, the public cannot provide meaningful feedback nor can they partner with the local government in developing alternatives, identifying solutions, and making decisions. Unless concerns and aspirations are understood, problems cannot be successfully addressed.

Rancho Cordova: A Case Study

When residents of Rancho Cordova, California (population 67,000), asked their city council to loosen restrictions on raising chickens, the council wanted to first hear from a broad spectrum of residents. Before finalizing their decision, councilmembers wanted to encourage participants to first learn about the issue, then engage in a nuanced discussion without polarizing the community for or against the proposal.

Under the leadership of City Manager Ted Gaebler, the city decided to use the Open Town Hall online public engagement service to broaden the discussion beyond the few who typically attend in-person meetings. To encourage the public to understand the issues around this proposed new ordinance, the online service presented objective background information before inviting users to participate in the online discussion.

To ensure that the public’s concerns and aspirations were well understood and considered, the city created a map of “Engaged Rancho Cordova Districts,” enabling decisionmakers and others to see what residents from each district were saying. Anyone could click on the “word cloud” in the online tool to see statements containing frequently occurring words (e.g., enforcement) and on demographic tallies to see trends in perspectives by age and gender.

Compared with Rancho Cordova’s traditional face-to-face meetings, participation in the online forum was both large and civil. More than 560 residents visited the forum, 66 posted or supported a statement, and 147 subscribed to updates enabling them to remain involved after the forum closed. Statements were monitored for compliance with the city’s guidelines for civility and all but one were found in compliance.

Much like a public hearing, each participant was allowed to make only one statement. Monitoring statements and allowing only one per resident resulted in a collaborative online forum providing clear feedback on the proposed ordinance as well as potential improvements to that ordinance.

After the period for public discussion had concluded, the council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that reflected the feedback and addressed the concerns expressed both on the forum and in other public venues. This outcome was also posted on the forum and e-mailed to forum subscribers to strengthen the partnership between the city administration and the public in the decision-making process.

In line with the preference of most of the respondents to the ICMA survey, Rancho Cordova chose not to place decision making directly in the hands of the public. The online forum was designed specifically to preclude the public perception of a public vote or a referendum.

The city never mentioned the “v word” (vote), and it chose to collect open-ended statements from residents rather than have them respond to a poll or survey that asked for a yes/no position on the proposed new ordinance. The forum can be found at www.peakdemocracy.com/1379.

Civic Discourse and Extent of Public Participation

Citing the complexity of issues and the breadth and depth of knowledge needed for sound policies, local government officials often express reluctance for expanding the public’s direct role in decision making. Over the past several years, the often disconcerting tenor of civic discourse has also contributed to concerns about greater public participation.

A perception of the public as increasingly “nasty, brutish, short” and polarized inevitably raises questions for local officials about the efficacy of their collaboration with that public.

Civic discourse. Close to 40 percent of ICMA survey respondents described the civic discourse in their community as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude.” Respondents in the New England division show the highest percentage (45 percent) reporting civic discourse in their community as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude,” as did 44 percent of respondents in those communities with the town meeting form of government. The 2013 Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate survey Civility in America, which was conducted nationally online, found 71 percent of respondents believed the lack of civility in the United States was worse than several years ago, and 82 percent believed the general lack of civility in politics is harming the country.

Slightly more than 50 percent of respondents with council/administrator/manager and council elected executive also described civic discourse as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude.” Of particular interest is that out of the 777 survey respondents overall who reported that civic discourse is “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude,” 399 also indicated that partnering with the public in development of alternatives, identification of preferred solutions, and decision making is “important” or highly important.”

Feat1_Fig4

If we look at the same group of respondents, we also see that 127 of them reported that it is “important” or “highly important” to put decision making in the hands of the public. Not surprisingly, when these 127 are examined by form of government, the town meeting and representative town meeting governments represent, respectively, 19 percent and 20 percent of the total respondents.

Level of resident participation. These are by far the highest percentages of respondents by form of government that rated putting decision making in the hands of the public as “important” or “highly important” and rated civic discourse as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude.”

When asked about the level of resident participation, only 12 percent of respondents indicated that there is a high level of participation in their local government’s engagement efforts. A majority of local governments in communities under 10,000 population show low participation levels. Pacific Coast respondents show the highest percentage – 19 percent – reporting a high level of participation.

Outcome

Local governments are encouraging the public to participate in the identification of problems and their solutions, to share their concerns and aspirations, and to provide feedback and develop alternatives as part of the decision-making process. The outcome is optimized when local managers first ask themselves these six questions:

  • What is the readiness and capacity of my organization for public engagement?
  • Why am I involving the residents?
  • What do I want to achieve?
  • What do I want to know?
  • What is the role of the public?
  • How is that role communicated to the public in face-to-face and online interactions?

Answers to these questions enable local governments to constructively engage the public in both face-to-face meetings and online public participation methods. Through careful design and monitoring of online forums, localities can significantly improve the effectiveness of public participation by expanding the number of people participating, restoring the civility of their participation, and ensuring clarity about the role of the public in final decision making.

NIFI Announces New “Linked Futures” Deliberations

We wanted to make sure that NCDD members, especially those in higher ed, saw the most recent edition of Higher Education Engagement News, the periodic update on the American Commonwealth Partnership from Harry C. Boyte. This edition announces a new stage of the collaboration between the Kettering Foundation and the National Issues Forums Institute – both NCDD organizational members – that builds on the Shaping Our Futures initiative. You can read the newsletter below or find it at the NIFI blog by clicking here.

Make sure to note that it’s not too late to be part of the “framework testing phase”, so if you are interested in facilitating a test deliberation around the future of higher ed as part of this new project, find the details for how to get involved below.


NIF-logo

March 2014 Higher Education Engagement News

Higher Education Engagement News is a periodic newsletter, edited by Harry C. Boyte, which responds to requests for updates and information about initiatives associated with the American Commonwealth Partnership (ACP). ACP was a coalition to strengthen the public purposes of higher education, organized for the 150th anniversary of the Morrill Act establishing land grant colleges in 2012, on invitation by the White House Office of Public Engagement.

This issue is devoted to Linked Futures – Communities, Higher Education and the Changing World of Work, a new deliberation being developed in association with the Kettering Foundation and the National Issues Forums. Linked Futures builds on the earlier Shaping Our Futures, 150 forums across the country on the public purposes of higher education. The Linked Futures deliberation will address the crucial question of how to think collectively about changes and challenges often described as an avalanche, which often seem overwhelming. The project is described below.

We are in the “framework testing phase” for the next month (until April 11th). This involves having small groups test how the framework works. The framework gives more detail on the three options described below, but is not a full National Issues Forum “issue guide,” like Shaping Our Futures.

If you are interested in getting in on the ground floor of this deliberation by testing the framework, please contact Harry Boyte (boyte@umn.edu) and copy our project administrator, Hunter Gordon (gordo430@umn.edu), who will keep track. If you want to test the framework we will send it to you, along with facilitator guidelines and an optional questionnaire.

Linked Futures – Communities, Higher Education, and the Changing World of Work

Linked Futures builds on Shaping Our Future – How Should Higher Education Help Us Create the Society We Want?, a National Issues Forum and American Commonwealth Partnership public deliberation launched at a National Press Club event on September 4, 2012, with Undersecretary Martha Kanter and higher education and civic leaders including David Mathews, president of Kettering Foundation, Muriel Howard, President of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Scott Peters, Co-director of Imagining America, Nancy Cantor, Chancellor of Syracuse University, and others. Shaping Our Future convened more than 150 forums across the country, bringing together college students, parents, faculty, employers, retirees, policy makers and others to deliberate about the purpose of higher education and its roles in the society.

The findings, described in Divided We Fail, a report by Jean Johnson of the public opinion and engagement group Public Agenda, revealed a gap between the ways in which lay citizens outside the policy making arena talk about higher education, and the debate among elected officials and other policy makers. As Johnson puts it, “Facing a more competitive international economy and relentlessly rising college costs, leaders say now is the moment for higher education to reinvent itself.”  In contrast, “Forum participants spoke repeatedly about the benefits of a rich, varied college education…where, in their view, students have time and space to explore new ideas and diverse fields.”  Lay citizens emphasized the need to broaden, not narrow, STEM education and preparation for other careers, in the context of rapidly changing work roles and globalized workplaces.

The next stage is Linked Futures. A design team with representatives of six Twin Cities institutions– Augsburg College, Century College, Hamline University, Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Metropolitan State University, and St. Paul College – working with the Kettering Foundation gathered concerns from hundreds of citizens in different settings. They addressed the question, “How can communities and higher education work together to address the changing world of work?”  A framework is being tested with three options to consider:

• Prepare Students for the Job Market:  Our colleges and universities have to raise academic expectations, tailor their programs to the real needs of employers, and direct more of their educational resources toward vocational and pre-professional training.

• Change Jobs for the Better. Many of the positions available to new graduates are poorly paid, offer little in the way of job security or job satisfaction, and are vulnerable to downsizing and outsourcing. Colleges and universities should take the lead in shaping a new kind of workplace…and a new kind of worker, one with the skills and habits of mind needed to thrive in a complex and rapidly changing world.

• Be a Good Partner to the Community. Colleges and universities represent vital anchor institutions, places where the community gathers, engages issues, organizes activities and makes common cause. We depend on them to provide the civic and intellectual leadership that can strengthen democracy and drive long-term social and economic progress.

The Linked Futures issue guide will be ready from the National Issues Forum Institute in September.

Montreal Symposium on Professionalizing Our Field

We recently heard about an exciting conference happening in Montreal this July that we want to make sure our NCDD members know about. The conference, hosted by the Canadian Institut du Nouveau Monde, takes place during the IPSA’s annual gathering, and is part of the important conversation about the professional future of our field. Check out the announcement below or find out more at the IPSA’s conference website here.


INM logoThe Institut du Nouveau Monde, a Canadian nongovernmental organization dedicated to public participation, is pleased to invite NCDD members to attend a symposium entitled “Developing expertise in the design of participatory tools: The professionalization and diversification of the public participation field”, that will be held in Montreal July 21-22, 2014 during the annual conference of International Political Science Association (IPSA).

The symposium intends to better understand the conditions involved in the negotiation of the participatory design by looking at the actors that initiate and organize public participation. What are the effects of this professionalization of public participation? Does it compromise or encourage the democratic aims associated with public participation? Is it better to use private consultants, to train public servants to oversee public participation, or to set up an autonomous public organization devoted to public participation? How does the approach that public participation professionals take affect their abilities to design effective public participation mechanisms? The approach chosen to answer these questions is a dialogue between researchers and practitioners for a heuristic confrontation of knowledge and experiences.

About twenty researchers are expected to participate in the scientific segments of the two-day programme (see “Panels” in the preliminary programme). Other segments of the Symposium, the “Round Table” and the “Open Space”, mean to engage with public participation practitioners. Our guest practitioners for the Round Table are:

  • Simon Burral, Executive Director of Involve (London, UK)
  • Carolyn Lukensmeyer, AmericaSpeaks Founding Member and Director and Executive Director of the National Institute for Civil Discourse (Washington D.C., USA)
  • Peter MacLeod, Principal and Co-founder of MASS LBP (Ontario, Canada)
  • Michel Venne, General Director of the Institut du Nouveau Monde (Québec, Canada)

You can view the preliminary program for more information.

Please don’t hesitate to forward this invitation through to anyone you think would be interested to come to Montreal to assist to this symposium. The more practitioners present, the more interesting the discussions will be!

Upon interest, there are two registration options:

  • Participation to this symposium ONLY (July 21-22th) costs $40 per individual (special event rate).
  • Participation to the ENTIRE IPSA Congress (access to all activities July 19-24) is $260 for early registration.

If you choose option 1, send an email to malorie.flon@inm.qc.ca and she will inform the IPSA secretariat to send you a special registration link.

If you choose option 2, you can now register on the IPSA website: www.ipsa.org/events/congress/montreal2014/registration. You will have to pay the association membership fee ($160 for a regular member, $50 for students). We hope to see you there!

You can find the preliminary program for this conference at www.ncdd.org/main/wp-content/uploads/IPSA-Prelim-Program.pdf. More information on the IPSA annual gathering is available at www.ipsa.org/events/congress/montreal2014/theme.

Webinar on Effective Board Meetings, Wed. 3/12

We recently were informed of a great opportunity coming up this week for those of us involved in non-profit work. Accomplished facilitator and NCDD supporting member Rick Lent is hosting a webinar this Wednesday, March 12th, from 1 – 2pm EST called “Tools for More Effective Non-Profit Board Meetings“.

Rick describes the webinar this way:

While each board situation is unique, there are common challenges facing the conduct of effective nonprofit board meetings. These challenges include board size (typically 10, 12 or more), use of time, decision-making, and ability to keep members engaged and committed to the work. In this session I share a number of tools that can help boards have more effective meetings. These tools help you structure the meeting and do not require special training or facilitation skills. You can use them to improve your very next board meeting.

I’ll give you tools for improving your meetings so that you can:

  • Conduct more efficient and effective board meetings.
  • Create meetings that build broader commitment to decisions.
  • Achieve broader engagement and follow-up.

If you are part of a non-profit board, we encourage you consider attending the webinar. You can find register for the session at www1.gotomeeting.com/register/570063769. For more information, you can find Rick’s listing of the webinar by clicking here.

PBP News: Funding Priorities & the 3rd Int’l PB Conference

PBP-logoI personally am a big fan of the work being done by our friends at the Participatory Budgeting Project, and they made two pretty exciting announcements recently that we wanted to share with you.

First, as an exercise in walking the talk, the PBP asked its donors to decide how they should spend the money they donated in the coming year, and the results of the vote are in:

The polls have closed and the votes are tallied…we are thrilled to announce the results of PBP’s second annual PB2 process! To practice what we preach, last fall we invited PB organizers far and wide to help us brainstorm and prioritize project ideas for moving PB forward in North America. Then we asked everyone who donated to PBP last year to vote on which projects to fund in 2014…

We committed to use half the money raised in donations to fund the projects with the most votes. Thanks to the generous contributions of 193 supporters, we raised over $28,000 total, so roughly $14,000 for PB2. This means that we can fund the top two projects above: an Organizing for PB Toolkit and a Youth PB Campaign!

Stay tuned for more info on these two projects! We’ll also do our best to move forward on the other priorities, through in-kind support and other revenue resources. And if you missed your chance to give and vote, please consider donating to PBP now, so that we can carry out more of your PB priorities.

Our young people will never be prepared to be effective participants in a democratic society if they never have a chance to practice, so it is quite exciting to see PBP focusing on engaging young people in their participatory process! We look forward to hearing more about how the work goes.

Second, PBP has announced the dates for their 3rd international conference:

PBP is happy to announce that our 3rd International Conference on Participatory Budgeting will take place September 25-28, 2014 in the San Francisco Bay Area, California.

Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll be posting information about flights, hotels, registration and conference venues. In the meantime, please mark your calendars and stay tuned.  You can browse past conference sessions here and send questions or comments to conference@participatorybudgeting.org.

If you haven’t already, sign up for our e-newsletter to receive regular conference updates.

We encourage you to save the date and consider attending this exciting gathering! You can find out more about PBP at www.participatorybudgeting.org.

Job Opportunities for Senior and Lead Facilitators/Mediators with Center for Collaborative Policy

We are pleased to highlight the post below, which came from Susan Sherry of the Center for Collaborative Policy, an NCDD organizational member, via our Submit-to-Blog FormDo you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!


The Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento is pleased to announce that is is now recruiting for both a Senior-Level and a Lead-Level Mediator/ Facilitator. Both of these positions call for a professional with demonstrated experience in mediating, facilitating and managing projects involving complex public policy and political issues that engage a diverse range of stakeholders and the public.

For detailed information and to view duties, qualifications and the application process, see www.csus.edu/about/employment. All submissions are done electronically through this University link. Application review will begin on March 7, 2014 and continue until the positions are filled.

If you would like a one-page summary of the job announcement, including the differences between the Senior and Lead positions, please make your request to: frontdesk@ccp.csus.edu

We would be very grateful if you could pass this announcement onto your professional colleagues in the field.

The Center for Collaborative Policy, established in 1992, is a self-supporting unit of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies at California State University, Sacramento. The Center’s mission is to build the capacity of public agencies, stakeholder groups, and the public to use collaborative strategies to improve policy outcomes. With an exceptional track record of success that has been well documented in both academic and public media accounts, the Center works on many of California’s most challenging public policy issues such as governance and fiscal reform, social and health services, natural resources, water, land use, air quality, transportation, and emergency services and homeland security.

The successful candidate will join a team of respected and highly qualified professionals who are committed to advancing the art and science of collaborative public policy making.

For more information, see the Center’s website: www.csus.edu/ccp.

Kettering Research Assistant Positions Now Open

kfWe want to give a heads up to our NCDD members, especially student and researcher members: It’s the time of the year when our organizational partners at the Kettering Foundation are taking applications for full-time Research Assistants for the next year.  This is a great opportunity that some of you may certainly want to apply for.

Applications are due by March 15, so don’t make sure to get started soon!

Here’s a little snippet of how Kettering describes itself and the position:

Kettering is an operating research foundation that explores practical ways democracy can be strengthened through innovation in public practices. Its research, done in collaboration with people and organizations around the world, emphasizes the roles of citizens and the qualities of their interactions as decision-making actors in public life.

The primary responsibility of research assistants is to provide Kettering staff with reviews of relevant scholarly and professional literature. We seek candidates whose interests complement and will be strengthened by the foundation’s interdisciplinary research. The successful candidate will have strong communication and writing skills, especially the ability to understand and translate technical ideas and language into coherent written reports.

Minimum requirements for the position include a bachelors’ degree. We especially encourage applications from scholars who have interests in topics such as deliberative democracy, civic engagement, social capital, civic education, civil society, and social movements.

To apply, applicants should send an CV, letter of interest, writing sample, and 2-3 letters of recommendation to abd@kettering.org. You can find out more about the openings at Kettering by visiting www.kettering.org/how-we-work/research-positions.

Good luck to all the applicants!

2014 Public Participation Interviews: John Lewis on Outreach

We recently started reading a terrific interview series from the talented team at Collaborative Services on public participation lessons they have learned in the last year, and we wanted to share their insights with the NCDD community. The third interview in the series features the reflections of John Lewis of Intelligent Futures, who shares insights gained from the award-winning ourWascana engagement endeavor in Canada last year. You can read the interview below, or find the original on Collaborative Services’ blog by clicking here.


Multiple Entry Points into the Conversation Create Multiple Opportunities for Successful Public Participation

collaborative services logoThe uncertainty of change coming to a city’s crown jewel can cause an outpouring of different opinions. So how do you capture all of this input and make sure every voice is heard?

That’s the challenge one firm was tasked with in the summer of 2012, when it came to proposed change for Wascana Centre in Regina, Saskatchewan. Just shy of the Centre’s 50th birthday, the ourWascana Visioning Project was launched to collect citizens’ hopes and dreams for the future of Wascana and its beloved Centre. More than 3,300 citizens shared their 8,000 unique ideas during “ourWascana.” Their input is being used to create a sustainable future for this civic gem for the next 50 years.

This week as we continue our look at public participation successes we hear from John Lewis, President and Founder of Intelligent Futures and native Reginan. By providing multiple entry points into the conversation, Intelligent Futures was able to accurately collect public input and foster an open and honest dialogue during the ourWascana Visioning Project. Unique tools for collecting input such as sounding boards set up in Wascana Centre, a social media campaign and creative graphic design all contributed to the project’s success. ourWascana’s success was then reaffirmed on an international scale when it won the 2013 International Association of Public Participation’s Core Values Award for Project of the Year in the Member at Large category.

Today, Lewis shares with us his firm’s experience working on ourWascana, how their approach to outreach is evolving and some of the other exciting projects Intelligent Futures you should know about. We welcome his insights.

- — -

Given your client list, Intelligent Futures is clearly a veteran outreach firm. How has your approach to outreach campaigns changed or developed over the years?

I think we have become more creative in how we give the community an opportunity to provide input. We use the term “multiple entry points into the conversation” a lot. Whether it’s in-person or online, we are trying to create as many ways for people to find out and share their thoughts as possible. I think we’re also getting better at catching people’s attention (in a good way). We know people are really busy and there are millions directions you can take your attention. Through graphic design, plain language and surprising tactics, we try to make our projects interesting, relevant and if possible, fun!

What do you think is the most important act a host can do to foster constructive public dialogue?

Be honest. If you’re honest and clear – about the parameters of the dialogue, about what is being done with the feedback or your experience in a place – you’ll end up with a constructive conversation. I think the projects that get into trouble are the ones that aren’t honest in one way or another. Honesty is the only way to erode the skepticism that many of these projects face from the outset.

What tools, methods, and strategies were used in the ourWascana engagement process and which were the most effective?

We used the “multiple entry points into the conversation” approach extensively with ourWascana, but the three most effective were:

  1. Community “Sounding Boards.” This was a series of feedback boards installed within the park, allowing citizens to share their ideas within the space itself. It didn’t matter if you were attending a festival, having lunch or walking your dog at midnight, you could look around you and provide your ideas.
  2. An extensive social media campaign. ourWascana came out of a celebration of Wascana’s 50th birthday and was looking ahead 50 years. We collected a variety diverse, surprising facts about Wascana Centre and created a #50thingsaboutwascana campaign that generated a lot of interest in the community that translated to interest in the project. Overall, the project campaign was so successful that we ended up with more Twitter followers at that time than Wascana Centre Authority. An interesting, but good, problem to have.
  3. Use of extensive and creative graphic design. In order to generate interest as mentioned before, we took our visual identity and graphic design elements very seriously. We heard from a number of stakeholders that this was an important part of creating the project buzz, which obviously leads to more interest and responses. We especially heard good things about our “Wascana at a Glance” infographic that captured much of the diversity that makes Wascana Centre special.

A sounding board at the Wascana Centre (Credit: ourwascana.ca)

Were there any revisions to your campaign strategy once ourWascana was launched?

To be honest, not really. We took a great deal of time and care to plan the process, including extensive discussion and feedback from the Strategic Planning Committee of Wascana Centre Authority, and it really seemed to pay off.

Of the 8,000 ideas received during the community engagement process, more than 50% were submitted in person via Sounding Boards rather than through workshops or online. Were you expecting this type of response?

It is really difficult to predict the level of response. ourWascana represented our biggest opportunity to take all of our experiences and learn to date and apply them, so we certainly hoped we would receive great levels of feedback. Taking the time to understand the community and plan accordingly certainly helped.

Did any of the feedback surprise you?

Having grown up in Regina (and actually being married in Wascana Centre) I know the place fairly well. The only thing that really surprised me was how strongly the community feels about Wascana Centre. This masterpiece has been 100 years in the making and while any project gets excited about the change that can happen, it was really a validation of all the vision and hard work that created the place that exists today. People really want to ensure that is maintained and built upon in the future.

Credit: ourWascana.ca

Any time you propose a major design change to a civic jewel like the Wascana Centre, people are going to have very strong opinions. How did the ourWascana process ensure that every opinion was heard and considered?

ourWascana fed into the Comprehensive Review Project for Wascana Centre Authority, which will then lead to a review of the master plan for the space. Having said that, I have to give tremendous credit to the Strategic Planning Committee and Bernadette McIntyre, the Executive Director of Wascana Centre Authority. Throughout the process, they never wavered from our approach to have a completely honest, open conversation and to hold judgement and listen to what the community had to say. It was really remarkable to work with a group of people like that.

Do you know of any other communities that have used a model similar to ourWascana? Can you provide some of the best examples?

There are many communities that are shifting towards more creative and authentic community engagement. ourWascana was a hybrid of many approaches. Some of the folks we have drawn particular inspiration from are Candy ChangBuild a Better Block and Rebar Design Studio out of San Francisco. They are doing great things to make conversations about the future of our places more interesting, authentic and exciting.

Is Intelligent Futures still involved in the Wascana Centre Visioning Process today? 

Not formally. We are still in touch with how things are going, but hope to work there again soon!

What are some projects that your company is currently working on that the public should know about?

We are working on a number of interesting projects these days. Two in particular come to mind:

ReImagining: This is a developer-led engagement project to redevelop a former inner-city golf course. Through this project, we are trying to set the new standard for how developers engage with the community. This project is a three-phase process over six months that is all in advance of a formal application even being made to the local government.

Sustainability reporting: We have recently completed our third installment of Pathways to Progress: The Cochrane Sustainability Plan Progress Report. After working with the community to create this award-winning plan, we have been leading the monitoring of progress, which has been really interesting. We’re trying to make the information as user-friendly and graphically appealing as possible, so that the information is actually used.

- — -

Thank you John. It is great to see the community of Regina come together to take ownership of Wascana Centre and create the vision that future generations will enjoy for years to come.


This interview is part of a blog series from Collaborative Services, Inc. - a public outreach firm in San Diego, California that brings people together from their individual spheres and disciplines to improve communities and help people adapt to an ever-changing world. The firm uses inter-disciplinary efforts to manage and provide services in stakeholder involvement, marketing and communications, and public affairs. The firm’s award-winning services have spanned the western region of the United States from Tacoma, Washington to the Mexico Port of Entry.

We thank Collaborative Services for allowing NCDD to learn along with them, and we encourage our members to visit their blog by clicking here. You can find the original version of the above article at www.collaborativeservicesinc.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/multiple-entry-points-into-the-conversation-create-multiple-opportunities-for-successful-public-participation.