Category Archives: decision making

The Challenge of Populism to Deliberative Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

As populism sees a global resurgence, it is critical for our field to examine what this phenomenon means for our work. That’s why we encourage our network to give some thought to the insights offered in this piece from Lucy Parry of Participedia – an NCDD member organization. In it, Lucy examines the way citizens juries in Australia might violate core tenets of populism, and encourage us to consider how deliberative democracy – especially approaches using mini-publics – may need to evolve to avoid being delegitimized by populist challenges. You can read the piece below or find it on Participedia’s blog here.

When is a democratic innovation not a democratic innovation? The populist challenge in Australia

The following article by Participedia Research Assistant Lucy Parry was originally published by The Policy Space on October 11, 2016.

Democratic innovation is burgeoning worldwide. Over 50 examples from Australia alone are now detailed on Participedia, an online global project documenting democratic innovations. In some states, ‘mini-publics’ proliferate at local and state level. South Australia in particular has wholeheartedly embraced the notion of deliberative democracy and has embarked on an ambitious raft of citizen engagement processes including several Citizens’ Juries.

According to Graham Smith (2009) a democratic innovation must (a) engage citizens over organised interests and (b) be part of the wider political process. Mini-publics operationalise these aims through convening a group of citizens who are at least broadly representative of the wider population to deliberate on a given topic.

Despite fulfilling Smith’s criteria, democratic innovations in Australia run the risk of becoming neither democratic nor innovative. Scholarly debate over mini-publics peaked over a decade ago – isn’t it time to move on? Moving on necessitates moving with the times and dealing with contemporary challenges. One such challenge is the rise of populism. Australian democratic innovations typically rely on premises that are fundamentally opposed by populism: random selection and expert knowledge. This populist challenge cannot be ignored, and theorists and practitioners must meet it together.

Inside the room

A Citizens’ Jury is a well-known mini-public format: a small(ish) group of randomly selected citizens who meet several times to deliberate on a given topic. Random selection underpins the process in two ways. It aims to produce a descriptively representative sample, making the jurors literally a ‘mini public’ (Fung 2003; Ryan and Smith 2014): a microcosm of the wider population. Random selection also relates to deliberative quality: bringing together a group of random citizens reduces the likelihood of the loudest voices dominating. As Australian research organisation newDemocracy Foundation points out, ‘governments inevitably hear from the noisiest voices who insist on being heard’; lobbyists, Single Issue Fanatics (SIFs), Not-in-my-back-yards (NIMBYs) – call them what you will. Mini-publics are designed to foster a less adversarial, more nuanced debate with a group of random citizens.

I have observed Citizens’ Juries in the flesh and it is quite an extraordinary experience. Watching a room of disparate and diverse people evolve into a committed team negotiating technical topics like wind farm development leaves me feeling almost jubilant (I don’t get out much). When you are inside the room, watching the deliberative process at play, it really is wonderful. Australia is home to a number of practitioners including newDemocracy Foundation, DemocracyCo and Mosaic Lab, and it is undeniable that some great work is going on in Australia in this area.

But alas, the path of democracy never did run smoothly. Suffice to say that cracks begin to emerge when you are outside the room. If decisions are legitimate to the extent that they have been deliberated upon, then the decisions made by a mini-public suffer a legitimacy deficit, given the typically small group involved (Parkinson 2003). And although some recent Citizens’ Juries have sought to expand the number of participants, this diminishes the quality of dialogue (Chambers 2009). Furthermore, in the past 15 years a growing number of scholars have sought to move beyond the mini-public paradigm in deliberative democracy to tackle deliberation at the large scale – through deliberative systems (Dryzek 2009; Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012), deliberative cultures (Sass and Dryzek 2013) and deliberative societies.

Yet, the practice of deliberative democracy (in Australia at least) clings to the mini-public approach. South Australia is notable for its extensive citizen engagement yes, but is it really innovative? The Western Australian Department of Planning and Infrastructure undertook a similarly ambitious program of mini-public style engagements over a decade ago. This critique is not a reflection on the quality of democratic practice in Australia, nor is it a criticism of what goes on inside the room. It is instead a concern that further underpins the need for deliberative theorists and practitioners to work together.

Outside the room: the populist challenge

Remember those NIMBYs and SIFs that mini-publics aim to exclude through random selection? Their exclusion rests on the assumption that the quality and outcome of deliberation is better without those insistent voices. The aim is that through a process of deliberation, people will become ‘more public-spirited, more tolerant, more knowledgeable, more attentive to the interests of others, and more probing of their own interests’ (Warren 1992, p8). Producing deliberated public opinion involves weeding out weak and poorly informed arguments. Again, this is all very well if you are inside the room. If you’re outside the room, you may very well object.

And let’s face it, those objectionable voices are not going away. As Ben Moffit points out, ‘Populism, once seen as a fringe phenomenon relegated to another era or only certain parts of the world, is now a mainstay of contemporary politics across the globe’. The voices that a Citizens’ Jury wants to keep out of the room now have the room surrounded. If we continue down the mini-publics road, the very thing that allegedly legitimises mini-publics will also be its downfall. The assumptions underpinning random selection are that it is representative of the wider community; and that it facilitates better quality deliberation by bringing together everyday citizens rather than insistent voices. Whether these things are accurate or not is a moot point – what actually matters is how they are perceived by broader publics. It is sad but possibly true that for those outside the room, what goes on inside the room doesn’t matter. And I suspect that the argument that a Jury is representative and very well informed is simply not going to cut it.

Trust in the Australian political system is at a staggering low with very little trust in any level of government; mini-publics in Australia are almost invariably associated with a government body or statutory authority. Mini-publics rely on information presented by experts; populism rejects the knowledge of experts. With all the will and most independently-recruited-and-facilitated process in the world – people may just not trust it. And yet, even if there were greater trust in politics, the justification of random selection explicitly rejects populist public opinion – and vice versa. Bridie Jabour’s Guardian interviews with One Nation voters exemplifies this disconnect. One Hanson supporter is quoted as saying:

“I’m not a politician, I’m not an accountant, I’m not anybody who knows anything but I see stuff and think ‘that doesn’t look right to me’, the average Joe Blow feels things more than they actually understand or know, they feel things, they know stuff.”

The logic of randomly selected mini-publics goes against this. The question is how to respond; the populist challenge cannot simply be ignored or sneered at. Yet in a way, this is exactly what mini-publics can be perceived as doing.

The time is right

We are at a critical juncture in Australia. One option is to continue plying the mini-public trade and make extra efforts to engage more people in the process, and to better explain mini-publics to a wider audience. The question is whether we simply need to work on explaining ourselves better, or whether the populist challenge requires deeper reflection on the practice of democratic innovation and deliberative democracy. I am inclined toward the latter.

The challenge that populism poses should be seized as a catalyst to re-think the practice of deliberative democracy in Australia. Mini-publics are one of many worthy options; deliberative democracy is a far broader church – and democratic innovation even more so. Randomly selected mini-publics are not a cure-all. At best, they are an important piece embedded in a broader democratic process. At worst, they are a viable threat to the practice of deliberative democracy itself.

You can find the posting of this article on the Participedia blog at www.participedia.net/en/news/2016/11/13/when-democratic-innovation-not-democratic-innovation-populist-challenge-australia.

Lessons on Long-Term Participation Efforts from PBNYC

Posted on by
Reply

We wanted to share an insightful article from NCDD member org the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation that shares lessons we can learn about avoiding pitfalls of long-term public participation projects from participatory budgeting in NYC. The piece focuses on PBNYC, but breaks down universal issues in engagement like waning interest from politicians and the ever-important problem of scaling up. We encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.

How can PBNYC reduce the resource strain – without threatening its inclusive process?

To engage those often left out of democratic decision-making, Council Member district staffs and their volunteers rely on resource-intensive outreach work. They hand out flyers, knock on doors, staff booths at neighborhood events, and host information sessions at community centers.

Each district runs at least three events targeted to areas with less mobile populations or marginalized communities, such as NYCHA housing developments or senior centers. These face-to-face interactions have built trust – and proven crucial to engaging a rich cross-section of the city.

Behind the scenes, the City Council Speaker’s office offers centralized resources and guidance to help each participating district run its process. Meanwhile, nonprofit partners such as the Participatory Budgeting Project and Community Voices Heard spend hours building resources, running volunteer trainings, and evaluating the results of the process.

All of this work adds up to a voter base that is more representative of New York’s diverse population than general elections or other political processes. In 2014-2015 (the last cycle to produce detailed demographic data), 57% of PB voters identified as people of color, compared to 47% of local election voters.

Nearly a quarter of PBNYC voters would have been ineligible to vote in general elections, including 12% who were under 18 and 10% who were not U.S. citizens. It’s a dynamic and inclusive process that more and more Council Members want their districts to join.

Yet as PBNYC continues to grow to more districts and more voters, the long hours and large volunteer commitments become less and less sustainable. It would be tempting to use digital outreach to reach more residents more efficiently. But analysis of past PBNYC cycles shows that tactics like social media and emails from Council Members engage a disproportionately white, highly-educated, and high income group, to the detriment of more diverse voices.

The city faces the challenge of including more residents in the process without drowning out the voices PB was meant to raise up.

In meeting this challenge, PBNYC has rightly put its values first, continuing to emphasize the type of face-to-face outreach that pulls in new participants. The task going forward is to translate those values into new outreach tactics.

For instance, the city should explore digital technologies that expand participation rather than limiting it: using SMS texting rather than online applications, and providing communal digital resources at libraries and community centers. Central staff should continue streamlining their processes and reducing resources needed on the back end. Partnerships that let grassroots organizations continue to take the lead will allow PBNYC to bypass red tape and avoid getting stuck in bureaucratic slowdowns.

Now that the initial excitement has worn off, how can PBNYC continue to improve?

City Council districts vary widely in their demographics, physical characteristics, and needs. Each district’s staff and volunteers must decide what a successful PB cycle looks like. Should they provide translated ballots for those who speak the 5th most common language in the district? The 6th? The 10th? In a world of limited time and resources, how much outreach is enough?

In addition to this district variation, the devolution of decision-making to the district level makes it challenging for central staff to oversee performance or hold districts accountable to any particular standard. In the past, central staff have worked to ensure accountability and consistency through personal relationships. Districts that strayed from best practices were given extra attention and guidance. But as more districts participate, this level of oversight becomes difficult.

Meanwhile, political incentives have inevitably shifted. The original flurry of media attention and public praise has died down. And while there are plenty of incentives for a new Council Member to set up a PB process in her district, doing it well – engaging more voters and ensuring the process is truly inclusive – may seem to offer diminishing returns and little public recognition.

How can PBNYC build structures and incentives for accountability? One promising approach would be to provide more transparency for the public, in the form of open access to PB data. Central staff have considered posting a PB project tracker online to help the public track the progress of projects that have won funding.

The tracker would serve as a focal point for district-by-district praise or analysis, both of which would incentivize districts to continue improving their process. Publicizing yearly statistics on vote counts and other metrics would also help the public judge their districts’ performance and encourage improvement over time.

With the initial excitement worn off and longer-term results not yet visible, the program risks entering a dead zone of usefulness to politicians. As a particularly resource-intensive process, PB needs to start demonstrating tangible benefits or risk being on the chopping block.

Tracking and sharing longer-term results could provide evidence for the broader benefits that advocates have touted – benefits like more equitable government spending, happier communities, and more engaged citizens. Such results have started to come in from PB processes that began several years ago in Brazil. Evidence of longer-term benefits to communities would help re-engage politicians in the process, and would bolster New York City as a national leader in the civic engagement space.

The PBNYC example reminds us that pilot programs are useful testing grounds, but promising experiments are unlikely to translate into large-scale successes without careful effort. Such a transformation requires shifts in strategy and tactics, matched with steadfastness in mission and values. Those interested in government innovation can learn a lot from watching PBNYC as it charts this course for participatory budgeting processes around the world.

You can find the original version of this piece from the Challenges to Democracy blog at www.challengestodemocracy.us/home/pbnyc-the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-scale/#sthash.Hp0uKvoD.dpuf.

New IAP2 Trainings Schedule for 2017 from TCP

Posted on by
Reply

If you are looking for D&D trainings to kick off your year, we encourage you to check out the new calendar of trainings offered by NCDD member organization The Participation Company. TCP offers certification in the International Association for Public Participation‘s model, and dues-paying NCDD members get a discount on registration! We encourage you to to read more about the trainings in the TCP announcement below or learn more here.

The Participation Company’s 2017 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.

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

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

  • Jan. 23-27 in Phoenix, AZ
  • Feb. 6-10 in Arlington, VA
  • Mar. 27-31 in Austin, TX
  • Apr. 24-28 in Oakland, CA
  • May 1-5 in Orlando, FL
  • Jun. 5-9 in Denver, CO
  • Jun. 26-30 in Chicago, IL

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

IAP2’s Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation – Moving from Rage to Reason (2-Days)

  • Apr. 27-28 in Austin, TX
  • Jul. 20-21 in Phoenix, AZ
  • Aug. 17-18 in Chicago, IL

Register online for these trainings at www.theparticipationcompany.com/training

Introducing TPC’s newest course offering “FP3”

Facilitation for P2 Practitioners – FP3 (3-Days)

Building on best practices from both the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the International Association of Facilitators (IAF), this course introduces the basics of facilitation in the public arena. Participants learn how to design and conduct successful facilitated public involvement events. It is designed as a small, intensive interactive learning opportunity. For more information go to: www.theparticipationcompany.com/training/facilitation.

Is your organization interested in hosting a training event? Host discounts are provided. Contact us at melissa@theparticipationcompany.com.

Please check our website for updates to the calendar.

The Participation Company (TPC) offers discounted rates to NCDD members. 

TPC 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.

NCDD Members to Lead Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Posted on by
Reply

We are so pleased to share that three of our great NCDD members – Wendy Willis (who is also an incoming NCDD Board member), Bruce Mallory, and Kyle Bozentko – have been named as the new leadership of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium starting in 2017. The DDC has been a key organization in the D&D field for years, and we are excited for these three heavyweights to revitalize it. You can read more about the change in DDC’s announcement below or on their Facebook page here (while their website revamp is in the works).

The Deliberative Democracy Consortium’s New Leadership

DDC logoDear Friends of the DDC:

We are pleased and proud to announce that DDC has new leadership! Starting January 1, Wendy Willis will become DDC’s Executive Director, while Bruce Mallory and Kyle Bozenkto will begin their terms as co-chairs of the Executive Committee.

Wendy succeeds long-time director Matt Leighninger, who will continue to serve on the Executive Committee and assist Wendy with the transition. Wendy will attend to immediate tasks such as restoring the DDC web presence, communicating with Committee members and institutional partners, and reaching out to potential sponsors interested in advancing our mission. Her appointment comes at a critical moment for deliberative, participatory democracy in the US and around the world. DDC is honored to have Wendy help us set our course in these rough seas.

Wendy Willis joins DDC from Kitchen Table Democracy, where she has served as Executive Director for the past five years. Wendy will also continue as Director of Oregon’s Kitchen Table in the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University. Prior to joining Kitchen Table Democracy and the National Policy Consensus Center, Wendy served as Executive Director of City Club of Portland, as a Federal Public Defender in the District of Oregon, and as a law clerk to Chief Justice Wallace P. Carson, Jr., of the Oregon Supreme Court. She is also a widely published poet and essayist. Her first book of poems, Blood Sisters of the Republic, was published in 2012, and she has had poems and essays published in Utne Reader, Poetry Northwest, New England Review, Oregon Humanities, ZYZZYVA, and numerous other places. Wendy holds a J.D. from Georgetown Law Center, an M.F.A. in poetry from the Rainier Writing Workshop at Pacific Lutheran University, and a B.A. from Willamette University.  Wendy is an incoming board member for the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation and is the incoming chair of the board for Tavern Books.

Bruce Mallory is a professor of education at the University of New Hampshire. He was appointed Provost and Executive Vice President at the University of New Hampshire in July 2003 and served until July 2009. Previously, he served on the faculty and as Dean of the Graduate School at UNH. From 2011 to 2014, he was director of the Carsey Institute. He teaches in the areas of higher education, education and poverty, and social change.  He is co-founder of New Hampshire Listens and The Democracy Imperative, and serves on the Paul J. Aicher Foundation (Everyday Democracy) Board of Directors. Dr. Mallory received the Ph.D. in Special Education and Community Psychology from Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.

Kyle Bozentko is the Executive Director of the Jefferson Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. His work on citizen participation, democratic reform, and civic engagement has been published in GOVERNING Magazine, MinnPost, and InDaily (Adelaide, South Australia) and on the Independent Sector blog. He received his BA in Political Science and Religious Studies from Hamline University in Saint Paul and his Masters of Theological Studies from the Boston University School of Theology with an emphasis on sociology of religion and politics. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of International Association of Public Participation USA (IAP2 USA) and on the Advisory Board of Forum dos Cidadaos (Portugal).

Please join us in welcoming Wendy and Bruce and Kyle!

Phoenix Launches First-Ever School District PB Process

Posted on by
Reply

We were excited to learn recently that the team at the Participatory Budgeting Project, one NCDD’s member organizations, and Phoenix schools made history when they launched the first participatory budgeting (PB) process in the US to allow students across to deliberate on how to use district money. The effort will build D&D capacity in Phoenix’s student body, and we can’t wait to see how it goes. Read more about this historic initiative and how to spread School PB in the PBP blog piece below, or find the original here.

PBP-Logo-Stacked-Rectangle-web1Phoenix schools are making history AGAIN with PB

“We’re here to make history!” exclaimed Shari Davis, PBP Director of Strategic Initiatives, to a room full of students, teachers, principals, district administration, and sunshine.

Three years ago, the first high school-based PB process in the U.S. began at Bioscience High School in Phoenix, Arizona. This year, the Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD) is launching the first school PB process in the U.S. to use district-wide funds, beginning with five public high schools and intended to expand across the district in future years.

On September 24th, PBP hosted a PB 101 Training for more than 60 high school students, teachers, principals, and PUHSD staff. The training introduced participants to PB by inviting them to take part in a mock PB process that began with idea collection and culminated in a mock vote.

After learning PB by doing it, trained facilitators worked with teams of students, teachers, and principals from each of the five high schools to begin planning individual PB processes; each team discussed goals for their process, which model of school PB to use, who could participate in each phase of PB, and how they would begin collecting ideas.screen-shot-2016-10-19-at-9-06-20-am

In what we could call a (brain)storm in the desert, discussion among high school teams resulted in their commitments to creating student-driven PB processes that will develop student leadership, magnify student voice, involve entire schools in meaningful and transparent experiences, and build healthy and respectful relationships between students, teachers, and parents.

The models of school PB selected by each team ranged from steering committees made of single classrooms to committees led by student government and existing clubs. Some schools began planning for large idea collection assemblies involving the entire student body; others discussed utilizing advisory periods and online forms to collect project ideas. Regardless of specific strategies, all schools prioritized plans to include students that don’t often engage in school processes.

In a concluding activity, students and teachers were asked to share one word to describe how they felt at the start of the workshop and one word to describe how they felt at the end. Many shared pairs of words that expressed feeling nervous, unsure, confused, or tired when they arrived and feeling excited, energized, intrigued, and supported as they left. A group of teachers said they looked forward to continuing to connect across school teams to learn from and support one another in launching school PB. After participating in the mock PB process, one freshman student described what he hoped PB would accomplish at his school: “I’d like to see PB help other shy freshmen like me gain confidence and come to have a voice in our school community.”

So, what’s the problem with – and potential for – school budgets?

School districts operate large and complex budgets, often with little participation from the students and community members they serve. Schools have used PB around the world to engage students, parents, teachers, and community members in deciding which school programs and improvements to fund. School PB builds understanding of school budgets, provides leadership development for students, directs funds to pressing needs and innovative ideas, and helps students learn democracy and active citizenship by doing it.screen-shot-2016-10-19-at-9-09-40-am

Sound like something that could strengthen your school? Wondering how to start?

In response to increasing interest in School PB, PBP developed a free guide to PB in schools with 18 lesson plans and six worksheets – which walk through planning, idea collection, proposal development, voting, and implementation – to help teachers bring PB into their classrooms. Earlier this summer, PBP hosted a free webinar to review the Guide’s content and to support educators in learning how to use tools that strengthen the school community, cultivate collaboration, public speaking, and research skills, and teach democracy by doing it. Take the first step towards introducing PB in your school by downloading our free guide and watching our webinar!

You’re invited to join the movement!

It starts with you! Join the Phoenix Union High School District, Overfelt High School, the MET High School, Sullivan High School, and others in a growing movement for school PB. PBP welcomes you to take the first step in bringing your school community closer and educating your students in an engaging democratic process by downloading our free Guide, watching our Webinar, and centering your students as leaders in planning this student-driven participatory process.

Looking for more in-depth support from PBP?

Direct inquiries about working with PBP to launch PB in your school to Ashley Brennan at ashley@participatorybudgeting.org.

You can find the original version of this PBP blog piece at www.participatorybudgeting.org/phoenix-schools-are-making-history-again-with-pb.

Phoenix Launches First-Ever School District PB Process

Posted on by
Reply

We were excited to learn recently that the team at the Participatory Budgeting Project, one NCDD’s member organizations, and Phoenix schools made history when they launched the first participatory budgeting (PB) process in the US to allow students across to deliberate on how to use district money. The effort will build D&D capacity in Phoenix’s student body, and we can’t wait to see how it goes. Read more about this historic initiative and how to spread School PB in the PBP blog piece below, or find the original here.

PBP-Logo-Stacked-Rectangle-web1Phoenix schools are making history AGAIN with PB

“We’re here to make history!” exclaimed Shari Davis, PBP Director of Strategic Initiatives, to a room full of students, teachers, principals, district administration, and sunshine.

Three years ago, the first high school-based PB process in the U.S. began at Bioscience High School in Phoenix, Arizona. This year, the Phoenix Union High School District (PUHSD) is launching the first school PB process in the U.S. to use district-wide funds, beginning with five public high schools and intended to expand across the district in future years.

On September 24th, PBP hosted a PB 101 Training for more than 60 high school students, teachers, principals, and PUHSD staff. The training introduced participants to PB by inviting them to take part in a mock PB process that began with idea collection and culminated in a mock vote.

After learning PB by doing it, trained facilitators worked with teams of students, teachers, and principals from each of the five high schools to begin planning individual PB processes; each team discussed goals for their process, which model of school PB to use, who could participate in each phase of PB, and how they would begin collecting ideas.screen-shot-2016-10-19-at-9-06-20-am

In what we could call a (brain)storm in the desert, discussion among high school teams resulted in their commitments to creating student-driven PB processes that will develop student leadership, magnify student voice, involve entire schools in meaningful and transparent experiences, and build healthy and respectful relationships between students, teachers, and parents.

The models of school PB selected by each team ranged from steering committees made of single classrooms to committees led by student government and existing clubs. Some schools began planning for large idea collection assemblies involving the entire student body; others discussed utilizing advisory periods and online forms to collect project ideas. Regardless of specific strategies, all schools prioritized plans to include students that don’t often engage in school processes.

In a concluding activity, students and teachers were asked to share one word to describe how they felt at the start of the workshop and one word to describe how they felt at the end. Many shared pairs of words that expressed feeling nervous, unsure, confused, or tired when they arrived and feeling excited, energized, intrigued, and supported as they left. A group of teachers said they looked forward to continuing to connect across school teams to learn from and support one another in launching school PB. After participating in the mock PB process, one freshman student described what he hoped PB would accomplish at his school: “I’d like to see PB help other shy freshmen like me gain confidence and come to have a voice in our school community.”

So, what’s the problem with – and potential for – school budgets?

School districts operate large and complex budgets, often with little participation from the students and community members they serve. Schools have used PB around the world to engage students, parents, teachers, and community members in deciding which school programs and improvements to fund. School PB builds understanding of school budgets, provides leadership development for students, directs funds to pressing needs and innovative ideas, and helps students learn democracy and active citizenship by doing it.screen-shot-2016-10-19-at-9-09-40-am

Sound like something that could strengthen your school? Wondering how to start?

In response to increasing interest in School PB, PBP developed a free guide to PB in schools with 18 lesson plans and six worksheets – which walk through planning, idea collection, proposal development, voting, and implementation – to help teachers bring PB into their classrooms. Earlier this summer, PBP hosted a free webinar to review the Guide’s content and to support educators in learning how to use tools that strengthen the school community, cultivate collaboration, public speaking, and research skills, and teach democracy by doing it. Take the first step towards introducing PB in your school by downloading our free guide and watching our webinar!

You’re invited to join the movement!

It starts with you! Join the Phoenix Union High School District, Overfelt High School, the MET High School, Sullivan High School, and others in a growing movement for school PB. PBP welcomes you to take the first step in bringing your school community closer and educating your students in an engaging democratic process by downloading our free Guide, watching our Webinar, and centering your students as leaders in planning this student-driven participatory process.

Looking for more in-depth support from PBP?

Direct inquiries about working with PBP to launch PB in your school to Ashley Brennan at ashley@participatorybudgeting.org.

You can find the original version of this PBP blog piece at www.participatorybudgeting.org/phoenix-schools-are-making-history-again-with-pb.

Naming and Framing Difficult Issues to Make Sound Decisions

Posted on by
Reply

The 28-page report, Naming and Framing Difficult Issues to Make Sound Decisions (2016), was written by David Mathews and supported by the Cousins Research Group of the Kettering Foundation.

In the report, Mathews shares some core realizations Kettering has come to learn over the last 30 years of research about how people make decisions and take action. Kettering has found that there are two moments in the decision-making process that are especially important: naming and framing. The way a problem is defined and the how the different options are framed; significantly impacts how effective the process and response will be.

Below is an excerpt of the report and it can be found in full at the bottom of this page or on Kettering Foundation’s site here.

kf_nameframe

From the guide…

People are much more likely to work together if they have participated in the decision making about what to do. And in making the decision, they may come to a more complete understanding of the nature of the problem they are facing, which could open their eyes to untapped resources that they can bring to bear.

The obvious question is, what would motivate citizens to invest their limited time and other resources in grappling with problems brimming with emotionally charged disagreements? Generally speaking, people avoid conflict, and they don’t usually invest their energy unless they see that something deeply important to them, their families, and their neighbors is at stake. And they won’t get involved unless they believe there is something they, themselves, must do.

Therefore, in order for citizens to make sound decisions and take effective collective action, they have to:
• Connect with the things that are deeply important to them,
• Deal with normative disagreements that can lead to immobilizing polarization, and
• Identify those things that they can do through their collective efforts to help solve problems.

The Potential in Naming and Framing
There are opportunities to master these challenges at two critical moments in dealing with problems. One occurs when a problem is being named, that is, when someone defines the problem. This is usually done by a news organization, a professional group, or a political leader. While seemingly insignificant, Kettering Foundation research has found that who gets to name a problem— and how they name it—are critical factors that go a long way in determining how effective the response will be.

Another critical moment occurs when different options for dealing with a problem are put into a framework for decision making. There may just be one option on the table, a solution favored by a school board or championed by an interest group. Or there may be the predictable two options in a political debate, one being the polar opposite of the other. Our research suggests that deliberation is more likely to occur if the full range of options is available for consideration.

As every trial attorney knows, whoever controls the way an issue is framed in a court case has the upper hand. So how a framework for decision making is created— how the case is presented, as it were—plays a critical role in problem solving. This report describes ways of naming problems and framing issues that give citizens a greater ability to chart their future and solve problems. The results of this naming and framing might be a guide to use in forums or town meetings, or it might be a strategy used to break out of solution wars and give the public a stronger voice in decision making. Naming and framing can also be done in classrooms to introduce students to roles that citizens can play in politics other than campaigning and voting.

One clarification: while naming and framing are critical, they aren’t ends in themselves. They are just two elements in the larger politics of public decision making and acting. To reach a decision, people have to weigh various options for acting on a problem against all of the things they feel are at stake. Unless that happens, unless people face up to the consequences and sacrifices that are inescapable in every option, including the option they favor, there is no way to know how they will react when push comes to shove—as always happens on difficult issues. When people wrestle with the trade-offs they may need to make, they will often revise the name they have been using, or they may put more or new options on the table to consider.

In making decisions together, people also have to be mindful of the resources they will need, how they will commit those resources, and how they will organize the actions that need to be taken. These are other critical moments. When resources are being identified, they may or may not include resources that citizens have, such as the social relationships they can draw on. When resources are committed, the commitments may be limited to legally binding contracts and not include the promises people make to one another, covenants that also enforce obligations. When actions are organized, they may be bureaucratically directed and not make use of the self-directing capacities of citizens, such as networking. All of these are junctures when people are either drawn into or shut out of what should be the public’s business. And the way problems are named and issues are framed paves the way for all that follows.

This is an excerpt of the report, download the full guide at the bottom of this page to learn more.

About Kettering Foundation
KF_LogoThe Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/catalog/product/naming-and-framing-2016

Statewide Deliberative Forum Series Launches in Alabama

Posted on by
Reply

In case you missed it, we wanted to share some exciting news about deliberation in the South that we heard from the team at the National Issues Forums Institute. NIFI and the Mathews Center for Civic Life, both NCDD member organizations, will be partnering to host a series of deliberative forums aimed at helping Alabama residents plan for their futures over the next two years. We encourage you to read more about the initiative below or find the original NIFI blog post here.

“What’s Next Alabama?” Statewide Initiative Moving Forward

NIF logoThe David Mathews Center for Civic Life (DMCCL), based in Montevallo, Alabama, has launched an ambitious project to help residents of the state take stock of how well their communities are working for them, where people would like to see their communities be in the future, and how they might get there. Titled, What’s Next, Alabama? a recent DMCCL newsletter described pilot activities leading up to the initiative:

In preparation for our 2017-19 AIF initiative, What’s Next, Alabama? Mathews Center staff is piloting this new approach in Cullman, Alabama. Our second of three public forums is scheduled for October 25. The community will ask itself, “Where do we want to go from here?” as they uncover common ground for economic, community, and workforce development. From local news source Cullman Tribune, read about the first forum, focused on answering the questions, “Where are we now, and who else should be at the table?”

The following excerpt is from a more complete description of the initiative:

The David Mathews Center for Civic Life (DMC) is gearing up for its most ambitious forum series to date; throughout 2017 and 2018, we will launch our first-ever two-year Alabama Issues Forums (AIF) series entitled, “What’s Next, Alabama?” AIF is a series of community forums across the state that is designed to help Alabamians talk through issues, rather than just about issues. AIF provides citizens with an opportunity to come together and address an issue of local concern through public deliberation.

The issue at hand our upcoming AIF series will be focused on the hyper-local geography of prosperity and, with an eye toward the future, will urge each community to frame its own assets and challenges in order to intimately imagine new futures for the community by asking the question: What’s Next?…

Read the full description of What’s Next, Alabama?

The What’s Next, Alabama? initiative is modeled after the What’s Next, West Virginia? project that the West Virginia Center for Civic Life is coordinating in the state of West Virginia.

You can find the original version of this NIFI blog post at www.nifi.org/en/whats-next-alabama-statewide-initiative-moving-forward-david-mathews-center-civic-life.

Field Trip Option for NCDD 2016 – Youth PB Idea Collection

Posted on by
Reply

As if there wasn’t already enough to be excited about for this week’s NCDD 2016 conference, we wanted to make sure everyone knows about a great opportunity to take an experiential field trip during the gathering!

Field Trip: Participate in Boston’s Youth Lead the Change PB Process

NCDD participants will have an opportunity to not only learn about participatory budgeting (PB) but to participate in the historic Boston youth PB process. In 2014, Boston became the first city in the country to implement a citywide PB process focused on youth. The Youth Lead the Change program allows young people to directly decide how $1 million dollars of the city’s capital budget is spent every year.

Participants in this field trip will have the rare opportunity to join one of the official idea collection sessions in the Youth Lead the Change PB process – an event where youth PB participants get together to start formulating the ideas that will eventually become proposals to be voted on for how to spend this year’s $1M in PB funds. You can learn more about what the Boston youth PB experience is like for the young people in this write up from a youth participant.

By joining this field trip, you’ll have a chance to get an overview of PB, suggest ideas to make Boston better, and see one of the best PB process in the country live and in action. It’s an incredible opportunity! Then after the idea collection event is over, we’ll take some time to debrief and reflect together over dinner and drinks downtown.

The field trip will be co-hosted by Francesco Tena, the Manager of Boston’s Mayor’s Youth Council, and Shari Davis, Boston’s former Department of Youth Engagement and Employment Executive Director. Francesco and Shari have been involved in Boston’s youth PB process for years, and will be your expert guides and hosts for this unique experience.

We have space for 30 people in the bus, but the trip is filling up, so reserve your spot soon! Email our Logistics Manager Rob Laurent at robdotlaurent@gmail.com to claim your spot, and plan to bring a check for $35 or cash with you to cover your portion of the bus costs. The bus will leave at 4pm return to the conference hotel at around 10pm.

Haven’t registered for the 2016 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation? It’s not too late, but you have to register ASAP!