Where Have All the Voters Gone?

Posted on August 17, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 6-page discussion guide, Where Have All the Voters Gone?, was created by the Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Civic Participation and Arizona State University Pastor Center for Politics & Public Service. It was updated in July 2016 and was adapted from National Issues Forums Institute. This discussion guide provides four approaches to use in deliberation on why voter turnout is currently low and has dramatically gone down since the 1960s, especially among communities of color. With each approach, the guide offers examples and suggestions; and concerns, trade-offs, and consequences. The end of the guide offers closing reflections on how participants’ thinking changed during the discussion and what can be done to remedy the low voter turn out in current US politics.

Below is an abbreviated version of the guide, which can be downloaded in full at the bottom of this page or found on NIFI’s site here.

From the guide…

Many Americans express frustration and concern about poor and decreasing voter turnout rates in local and national elections. Discussion about why citizens aren’t voting tends to focus on voter attitudes toward politicians and politics, and on the implications of a disengaged voting populace for the future of our democracy.

Given these concerns:
What, if anything, should be done to increase voter participation?
What are the key elements of a “healthy democracy”?

The discussion guide gives four options for deliberation:

Approach One: Eliminate the barriers
Proponents of this approach say that the act of voting has become too complicated and poses obstacles and barriers that can prove challenging for some voters to overcome. They suggest changes to the voting and elections system to make it easier and more convenient for voters to participate in elections.

Approach Two: Increase election issue awareness
Some research suggests that a major factor contributing to low voter turnout is a lack of awareness or familiarity with the candidates, positions, or ballot measures that will be voted on in a given election. Critics point out a declining emphasis on civics education in public schools as a cause for this trend. Others point to a vicious cycle for voters in communities that vote in low numbers: Candidates and campaigns focus efforts on communities that vote in high numbers. So minorities and poor voters, for example, get less information about elections, which leads to low turnout.

Approach Three: Reform the election process
Many voters and non-voters alike express concern and frustration about problems with the election and voting process. Some are concerned about security and accuracy issues relating to voter fraud and vote tabulation (“Will my vote even be counted?”), while others worry about the role and influence that the political party system, lobbyists and political campaigns have, and about the fairness and transparency of the election process.

Approach Four: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
Some policy leaders argue that it is not necessary or even ideal for all citizens to participate in every election. They say that voters will participate in elections that have particular interest for them, and will perhaps endure the consequences for not voting, and that that is the nature of democracy.

To explore the full discussion guide with examples, suggestions, concerns, trade-offs, and consequences; click the link below.

About Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Civic Participation
The Maricopa Community Colleges’ Center for Civic Participation (CCP) seeks to enrich public life and public discourse on our Maricopa Community College campuses and in our communities. The Center also serves to promote effective practices that support Maricopa’s mission relating to community education and civic responsibility.

About Arizona State University Pastor Center for Politics & Public Service
Located in the ASU College of Public Service and Community Solutions, the Center serves as a dynamic, student-centric hub of activity that promotes, publicizes, and encourages political engagement and public service among ASU students and the broader community. It embodies ASU’s commitment to being an active agent of change, addressing society’s problems.

About NIFI Issue Guides
NIFI’s Issue Guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, Issue Guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums

Resource Link: Where_Have_All_the_Voters_Gone

A Guide to Participatory Budgeting in Schools

Posted on August 15, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 57-page guide, A Guide to Participatory Budgeting in Schools, was a project of the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) and published in 2016. The guide’s curriculum design was created by Valeria Mogilevich, with project support by Melissa Appleton and Maria Hadden of PBP. This thorough guide gives details for implementing a participatory budgeting process within schools. Participatory budgeting is a process where people decide where to spend a portion of a budget by engaging their community- or in this case- their school, and vote on projects to make final decisions. The guide is rich with process details, helpful hints, plan layouts, and useable worksheets. There are 18 lesson plans and 6 worksheets provided in this guide to get a PB process launched in schools over the course of a semester or school year.

Sections include:
– Planning
– Idea Collection
– Proposal Development
– Voting
– Implementation and Beyond
– Worksheets

Below is an excerpt from the guide, you can find it in full at the bottom of this page and directly from PBP’s site here.

From the guide…

So, you’re interested in doing Participatory Budgeting in your school. Great! This guide will help you plan it.

Participatory Budgeting is a democratic process in which community members decide how to spend a part of a public budget. In this case, the community members are students and the budget is the school budget. Students collect ideas about the school’s needs, develop project proposals, and vote on projects to fund. We know Participatory Budgeting is a mouthful, so we’ll call it PB from now on.

The process was first developed in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil in 1989. In Porto Alegre, as many as 50,000 people have participated each year to decide as much as 20% of the city budget. Since 1989, PB has spread to over 1,500 cities in Latin America, North America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In the US and Canada, PB has been used in Toronto, Montreal, Guelph, Chicago, New York City, and Vallejo (California). Most of these PB processes are at the city level, for the municipal budget. PB has also been used, however, for counties, states, housing authorities, schools and school systems, universities, coalitions, and other public agencies.

We heard from a lot of people (through a PB process, actually) that they wanted help bringing PB to their schools. We wrote this for educators and principals looking to incorporate PB into their classroom during the school day.

Why PB?
Participatory Budgeting is great to bring into your classroom because:

It’s democracy in action.
It gives your students a positive civic engagement experience.
It serves as a bridge for your students to be engaged in politics and their community.
It strengthens the school community by building positive relations between students and the administration.
It shows students the benefits of getting involved.

By participating in a PB process, students will:

Increase their ability to work collaboratively.
Develop research, interviewing, and surveying skills.
Develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
Develop public presentation skills.
Increase their awareness of community needs and their role in addressing those needs.
Understand budgetary processes and develop basic budgeting skills Identify ways to participate in governance.
Increase concern about the welfare of others and develop a sense of social responsibility.

How it works
This curriculum is set up to take place:
In 45 minute-class periods
Once a week
Over the course of a semester

The idea is to focus on Participatory Budgeting one day of the week and leave the rest of your week to your regular content. We know that might not sound exactly like you. That’s OK! Everyone’s schedule and needs are different, so you can compress it by meeting more times a week. What you’re seeing here is the most efficient way to get through a Participatory Budgeting process. You can also spend more time on specific phases of the process and stretch it out into a whole year.

“Once you give young people the opportunity to help shape their community, they are incredibly willing and able to step up to that challenge. And students’ expertise is so needed as we work to improve education across the country. Youth-driven participatory budgeting in schools is an excellent tool to harness that expertise to create positive, constructive change.”

-Mia Salamone, Democracy in Action Coordinator, Mikva Challenge, Chicago, IL

“In our school we are low income and there’s negative stereotypes about our school and who we are, yet [our principal] is trusting us to make decisions about our education and never doubted parents and students like me would make the best decisions, and that is being shown by the project proposals we all have the ability to vote on.”

– Stephania Perez, Sophomore, Overfelt High School, San Jose, CA

To learn more about bringing participatory budgeting to schools, check out the guide in full below or on PBP’s site here.

About the Participatory Budgeting Project
The Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) is a non-profit organization that helps communities decide how to spend public money, primarily in the US and Canada. Their mission is to empower community members to make informed, democratic, and fair decisions about public spending and revenue.

Follow on Twitter @PBProject

Resource Link: Guide_to_Participatory_Budgeting_in_Schools

A Public Voice That’s Missing [Kettering 2016]

Posted on August 2, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 16-page report, A Public Voice That’s Missing, by David Mathews was published July 2016 and found on the Kettering Foundation’s site. This report grew from a speech David Mathews gave at the National Conference for Dialogue and Deliberation in 2014. This report discusses the need for more of a public voice presence in civic engagement from both “sides”; from the government or organization to more authentically engage the community and the citizenry to be more active in engage those who make decisions.

A feeling of hope for an increasing public voice is instilled throughout this report because of the rise of organizations dedicated towards working to engage the community via dialogue and deliberation. The public has deeply held values about the shape of their lives and this report proposes that the lack of interest from the public may be more a lack of connections being made by government or organizations from these values to decisions/policy. It is important to lift up these connections and also, working through the conflicts which may arise because of conflicting values. No matter the place, “it is important to know what people feel is valuable, what options they want to consider, what role they think citizens should play, what tensions have to be worked through, whether judgment is being exercised, and if people are ready to move forward in a direction they can ‘live with’.”

Below is an excerpt from the report and you can read the original on KF’s site here.

From the report…

Introduction
It is no secret that the American people have been unhappy with our political system for some time, and they doubt that the system can reform itself. The public’s loss of confidence in government as well as other major institutions is well documented and widely reported. Worse still, the distrust is mutual. Under these conditions, polarization flourishes. All of this is occurring despite numerous efforts by institutions to engage the public and demonstrate accountability. Many officials aren’t persuaded that what citizens have to say is useful. As one officeholder described the problem: he hears both everything and nothing from the public.

In Washington, as well as in our statehouses, policymaking is usually dominated by three voices. Obviously, one is the voice of elected officials. Another is the voice of special interests, whose number has grown enormously in a relatively short time, as have the issues they represent. The third voice, also quite powerful, comes from professionals who staff our bureaucracies. They speak in an expert voice. There is value in all of these, yet there is little of what I think of as a public voice being heard.

…

However, the issues where a public voice is needed most are those that have no well-defined solutions and no demonstrably right answers that can be measured objectively. We have to depend on our best collective judgment. At the end of the day, we, the people, have to decide.

Making a public voice more audible in our capitols won’t cure all our political ills. However, if the political system doesn’t seem likely to reform itself, people reason that they have nowhere else to turn but to themselves as a public. While a public voice may not be totally sufficient, it is certainly necessary.

The question is whether those in the best position to help this voice emerge realize the opportunity they have and what it will take to seize it. They are the only ones who can answer this question. I fervently hope they will.

Download the interim report for free here.

About Kettering Foundation
The 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: KF_PublicVoice_2016

Why and When Should We Use Public Deliberation?

Posted on July 27, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The five-page article, Why and When Should We Use Public Deliberation?, written by Stephanie Solomon and Julia Abelson, was published 2012 in the Hastings Center Report. In the article, Solomon and Abelson discuss the role of public deliberation in public policy decision-making. Public deliberation is an alternative process to determine public policy and can be a more effective method of creating policy than other familiar methods; depending on the circumstances of the issues, the level of engagement desired, and the needs of the community. Public deliberation can be an effective tool when working with conflicting values; for topics that require not just expert opinions but require the experiential knowledge and back ground that the community can provide; and when there is low trust among the people for public policy process. To explore this, the authors propose the question: why and when should we use public deliberation?

Below is an excerpt from the article and it can be read in full in the resource link at the bottom of this page.

From the article…

Introduction
Public deliberation is an approach policy-makers can use to tackle public policy problems that require the consideration of both values and evidence. However, there is much uncertainty about why and when to choose it rather than more familiar approaches, such as public opinion polls or expert panels. With guidance on the why and when of public deliberation, policy-makers can use it appropriately to inform public policy.

To answer the “why” question, we emphasize the importance of matching the method to purpose. Public deliberation is not right for all policy issues. Polls, surveys, and focus groups are appropriate when the aim is to access the “top of mind” or “general attitudes” of the public, and when the issue is one that people think about or have experience with in their everyday lives. In addition, there are purely technical or scientific matters for which experts alone should be consulted, such as determining which flu viruses should be used to make next year’s vaccine.

But for an increasing number of public policy problems, neither of these approaches is adequate. For these issues, public deliberation can contribute to more legitimate policy decisions than other approaches; it can yield recommendations that are more feasible, better framed, more accountable, more inclusive, more just, and more balanced. Public deliberation may also have intrinsic value, increasing public-spiritedness, buy-in, and trust in governing institutions and their decisions, which are also central goals for policy-makers.

The “when” question has two parts: When is a policy question most suited for public deliberation, and when in the policy-making process should the public deliberate? Both questions are important.

…

When in the Policy Process?
Many argue that public deliberation is most likely to have a direct impact on policy decisions when it is undertaken in close proximity to the decision being made. At that point, because policy-makers know which options are available, participants are only given choices that are legitimately on the table. Thus, those who argue that public deliberation should only be undertaken when it can have a concrete impact on policy are committed to public deliberation taking place only downstream.

However, some argue that deliberation held just prior to a policy decision has already been framed by dominant groups, which limits the opportunity for the public to entertain and provide truly alternative views and options. In other words, the practical policy choices provided to deliberators downstream may not accurately reflect the spectrum of the public’s views on the issues. While participants may not have a direct voice in the final decision if engaged upstream, they may feel their participation is more significant because it shaped the policy questions themselves. Critics of upstream deliberation worry that participants will expect that their voices will be heeded, and when they do not see any direct results of their time and energy, they will be less likely to engage in the future.

Our view is that both upstream and downstream public deliberation is crucial, but that their effectiveness depends on the clarity with which expectations are established from the start. If people are engaged only downstream, they can never challenge the fundamental questions and options of policy decisions; they can only choose among preestablished options. If people are only engaged upstream, they have the chance to express their views, but they are less likely to directly influence real policy choices. Groups considering public deliberation should weigh these trade-offs. If possible, both upstream and downstream engagement should be utilized. If not, the implications of either choice should be made clear to participants.

Those who want to make the best public policy recommendations and decisions are faced with a multitude of approaches, from public polls, expert panels, surveys, and, increasingly, public deliberation. The choice of when to use which strategy should reflect the types of policy issues at hand, the state of the public’s trust at the time, and the timing and pace of the policy-making process associated with the given issues.

Resource Link: Why_and_When_Should_We_Use_Public Deliberation

Beyond Business as Usual: Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 68-page report, Beyond Business as Usual: Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance, was published 2013. The report was in partnership with Institute for Local Government and the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University. Below is an excerpt from the report and you can read the original report (or download the PDF version) from ILG’s site here.

From ILG…

What opportunities do Californians have to engage with public issues and influence decisions that affect their lives? What stands in the way of productive dialogues between local officials and the residents they serve? What are the possible ways to strengthen relations between local government and the publics they serve?

The perspectives of civic leaders and their organizations

To provide some answers to these questions, we conducted a research study that sought the opinions of more than 900 local officials and 500 leaders of civic and community-based organizations in California. We asked these local officials and civic leaders about their efforts to engage the public in decision making, their experiences with traditional public hearings at council and commission meetings and their interests and attitudes toward newer forms of public engagement—especially methods that seek to give broad cross sections of the public the opportunity to deliberate over local issues and weigh the trade-offs of policy decisions that affect their lives.

This report—the second of two summarizing this research—presents what we learned from surveying and interviewing leaders from civic and community-based organizations across California.

This report is divided into two parts. We first present the findings from our statewide survey of 462 leaders of civic and community-based organizations. These findings complement those from our research on California’s local officials’ attitudes, experiences and concerns regarding the state of public participation in local government decision making, experiences and concerns of local city and county officials regarding the state of public participation in local government decision making. The second part of this report zeros in on the views of leaders from 20 community-based organizations that work predominantly with traditionally disenfranchised communities, including low-income, ethnic minority and immigrant populations. Finally, we discuss a number of important practical recommendations that emerge from this research and its companion study on local officials.

Executive Summary

What opportunities do Californians have to engage with public issues and influence decisions that affect their lives?

What are ways to strengthen relations between communities and their local governments?

We asked leaders of California’s civic and community-based organizations about their views on the state of public participation in local governance. The following report explores what these civic leaders say is working, what’s not, and how public engagement can be improved. Traditional models for including the public in local decision making, these leaders say, fail to meet the needs of both residents and local officials. Most see significant value and potential in more inclusive and deliberative forms of engagement, and many agree local officials are making increasing efforts to include residents more meaningfully. Overall, this research suggests civic and community-based organizations are looking for newer and more effective ways to engage the public and may be ready for stronger collaborations with local government.

The report also includes concrete recommendations for local officials and their institutions, civic leaders and their organizations, and foundations and other funders. The recommendations can help improve public engagement in local governance throughout California and, we hope, beyond.

Read the full report on ILG’s site here.

About the Institute for Local Government
The Institute for Local Government is the nonprofit research education affiliate of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. Its mission is to promote good government at the local level with practical, impartial and easy-to-use resources for California communities. The Institute’s goal is to be the leading provider of information that enables local officials and their communities to make good decisions. Founded in 1955, the Institute has been serving local officials’ information needs for 55-plus years. Some of the highlights of that history are detailed in the story below. While respecting and honoring its past, the Institute is also intently focused on the present and future. In these difficult economic times, the need for the Institute’s materials for local officials is even greater.

Follow on Twitter: @InstLocGov.

About the Davenport Institute
Since our founding as a multi-partisan and non-profit organization in 2005, The Davenport Institute (formerly Common Sense California) has worked to engage the citizens of this state in the policy decisions that affect our everyday lives. It is our firm belief that, in today’s world of easy access to information, and easy connectivity to others, California’s municipal and education leaders are seeking ways to involve the residents of their communities in the important issues they confront. Done legitimately, this new kind of leadership produces better, more creative policy solutions and better, more engaged citizens committed to the hard work of self-governance.

Follow on Twitter: @DavenportInst

Resource Link: www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/beyondbusinessasusual_publicagenda_2013.pdf

It’s Your Money. Where’s Your Say?

Posted on April 28, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The article, It’s Your Money. Where’s Your Say? written by Larry Schooler was published February 2016 on Huffpost Politics blog. Schooler discusses the juxtaposition of some governments relationship with the public- some increasing transparency and public engagement experiences, while others are quick to restrict public’s access to information and public control of the state’s budget. The article tips hat to the use of Balancing Act [from Engaged Public] in San Antonio (TX), and the steady increase in participatory budgeting processes around the US. Below is the article in full and you can find the original on Huffpost blog here.

From the article…

In our private lives, we have quite a bit of say over how we spend our money. Granted, an employer or client ultimately decides whether and what amount to pay us, but if we want to spend more on a house than on vacations, or more on our children’s education than on dining out, that’s our decision.

Seems strange, then, that when it comes to our tax money, our say often doesn’t amount to much. Often cities, counties, states, and the federal government take minimal input from the public on their budgets—ironic, given that a budget is widely viewed as the single most important policy a government approves. It’s almost like taking the decision about what house to buy away from the homebuyer.

I have been thinking about this for a few, somewhat contradictory reasons. I read this piece from Arizona, where the Governor decided to increase both transparency and input opportunities on his state’s budget, but the state House decided “not to allow public comment during departmental budget hearings to be held over the coming weeks.” Scheduled public hearings won’t help much because they’ll happen without any legislative budget to discuss.

On the other hand, more and more cities and state agencies are taking steps to increase public involvement in the city’s budget. San Antonio, Texas, used the user-friendly tool “Balancing Act” (in both English and Spanish) to help the public get their hands dirty figuring out how to manage city finances. Other cities, including Hartford, Connecticut, have taken similar steps with online budgeting tools. And in Austin, the “Budget in a Box“ gives groups and individuals a chance to talk with one another about how to manage city finances.

In San Antonio, officials found more than 1,200 unique users spent an average of more than ten minutes on their tool, suggesting they did more than offer knee-jerk reactions to the questions of what to fund and how much. But if this were just a game to make the public feel better, I would not have taken note. On the contrary: the city’s adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2016 (their largest ever) included a $23 million increase in street maintenance and a $10 million increase in sidewalk/pedestrian safety, all while reducing property taxes, all of which were the priorities citizens had in their responses.

Perhaps even more interesting is the explosion in the use of “participatory budgeting,” which got its start in Brazil but has spread to cities small and large across the U.S. This strategy gives the public the ultimate say over the way a portion of the budget gets spent, through a secret ballot vote that the sponsoring city or other agency commits to respect and implement.

So, why such a contrast? Why would some government officials want to keep the public out of budgeting and others bring the public closer in? As to the latter, an interesting study in, of all places, Russia found that participatory budgeting actually “increased local tax revenues collection, channeled larger fractions of public budgets to services stated as top priorities by citizens, and increased satisfaction levels with public services. “ It stands to reason that if you ask the public what they want to buy, and how much they want spent on those services, they’ll be happier.

As to why public input into budgeting might not be such a good idea, perhaps elected officials fear that greater exposure of their budgetary decisions would shine a brighter light on questionable moves that favor top donors or influential special interest groups, rather than the public as a whole. Perhaps they think that increased engagement would take too much extra time or, ironically, cost a lot more money than the status quo. But that perspective overlooks the unintended consequences that can accompany budget choices made without the public: the ongoing Texas public school finance fight comes to mind. Neither time nor money was saved; if anything, it’s taken a lot longer and cost a lot more than lawmakers ever intended.

To be sure, changes in the way governments involve the public in budgeting would require a paradigm shift for just about everyone: elected officials, public administrators, and even the public themselves. But it could end up making it easier for lawmakers to stomach otherwise difficult choices around tax rates and funding levels. After all, if a lawmaker can show how a budget truly reflects what the constituents want, that’s worth a lot in political, and campaign, capital.

About Larry Schooler
Larry Schooler manages community engagement, public participation, and alternative dispute resolution projects for the City of Austin, Texas, where he conducts small and large group facilitation, strategic planning, collaborative problem solving, consensus building, and mediation sessions. Larry also works as a mediator, facilitator, and public engagement consultant for outside clients. He is a senior fellow at the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life at the University of Texas; on the faculty of Southern Methodist University; and Past President for the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2-USA). His work has been featured by a variety of organizations and publications, including Governing Magazine and the National League of Cities.

Resource Link: www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-schooler/its-your-money-wheres-you_b_9114234.html

Racial Dynamics to Watch For

Posted on April 27, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The two-page tip sheet from Everyday Democracy, Racial Dynamics to Watch For, was published April 2010. The tip sheet gives pointers on how to keep racial dynamics in mind, in order to design better and more inclusive programs/events. The tip sheet gives advice for three categories: Planning and organizing, Dialogues and facilitation, and Working on Action. Below is an excerpt from the tip sheet and it’s available on Everyday Democracy’s site here.

From Everyday Democracy…

As you approach a large community-change initiative, pay attention to racial dynamics. Consider the following examples. Talk about how you might prevent or correct these situations.

Planning and organizing
– The organizing committee recruits one person of color to “represent” the African American / Latino / or Asian “community”.

-The chair of the group selects a large, prosperous, white church – or another venue frequented by whites – a a regular meeting site for the organizing team.

-The group decides to rotate meeting sites between a prosperous white church and a local black church. White attendance is very low when the meeting takes place as the black church.

…

Dialogues and facilitation
– The white facilitator seems to lead most of the times; the person of color who is co-facilitating tends to do more note-taking.

– The white organizer checks in with the white facilitator about how things are going.

– One or two people or color in a circle or 10 are asked to speak for their whole group.

…

Working on Action
– Action groups are often dominated by whites. While people of color may be invited to participate, they are more “for show”. Old habits and behaviors continue, and whites stay in the lead.

– As people form new partnerships to address problems in the community, they hesitate to include people from different racial groups.

– People who are most affected by new policies are shut out. They have no voice in the policy making.

…

This is a condensed version of Racial Dynamics to Watch For, the original can be found in full on Everyday Democracy’s site here.

About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/resources/racial-dynamics-watch

5 More Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement

Posted on March 23, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The article, 5 More Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement by Rebecca Reyes and Malana Rogers-Bursen was published in 2016 on the Everyday Democracy site, and is the second installment of challenges, after the first article of a similar name, 5 Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement. Again, the authors share 5 common challenges to getting youth to participate and offer solutions to address each of these challenges. These tips are helpful when designing events that are more inclusive for youth and also good to keep in mind for other groups of people. Read a condensed version of the article below and find it in full on Everyday Democracy’s here.

From Everyday Democracy…

Challenge #6: Transportation
Young people may not have a car they can use on a regular basis, or even a license. Your recruitment efforts won’t be successful unless they have a way to travel to the meeting place.

Possible solutions:
-Schedule meetings and events in locations that are easily accessible by public transportation.
-Consider meeting spaces at a local school or college campus, or at least within walking distance of one.
-Set up a carpool system.

…

Challenge #7: The same young people are always invited
It’s easy for existing group members to invite their friends or family members to a meeting. Often times this is the most effective tactic to boost membership. However, if you’re not intentional about inviting a diverse group of people, it’s easy for the group to be homogeneous…

Possible solutions:
-To make space at the table for different youth perspectives, reach out to local schools, colleges, community centers, youth groups, and other places where young people are.
-When reaching out to student and youth groups, don’t stop with student council and student government. Have you reached out to the Black Student Alliance? The statistics club? Tutoring services?
-In addition to getting recommendations from adults, also ask the young people in the group to suggest someone to join the effort. This gives young people a voice in decision-making even before they come to your meeting.

…

Challenge #8: Allowing young people to try something that didn’t work in the past
It would be impossible to follow up on every idea people proposed. However, many times adults quickly dismiss ideas because “we’ve tried that before.” Young people are more likely to suggest things that have already been tried since they were not around to hear about it the first time. When we invite young people to come to the table, we need to also make space to express their ideas and opinions.

Possible solutions:
-Give everyone a fair chance to explain an idea. Perhaps once you hear more details you’ll discover that it’s not exactly the same as what’s already been tried. They may have a different way of implementing the idea. Or, the timing might be better and there’s a good chance it will successful at this point.
-If you listened to the idea but still don’t think it would be in the program’s best interest to implement it, be sure to explain why. Simply saying “no” without an explanation can lead to misunderstandings. They might think that you’re dismissing the idea just because of their age, experience, skills, etc.

…

Challenge #9: Young people may not be aware of unspoken norms
Many of the norms your group follows likely come from working with groups of adults and/or work settings. Young people have limited experience in both of those areas. This can have an impact on things such as what experience to highlight when applying for a position, how to format emails, understanding what certain terms mean, or how to interject in a discussion.

Possible solutions:
-Sometimes we perpetuate certain norms just because we’ve always done it a certain way, even if it might not be the most efficient way of doing things anymore. Be open to new ways of doing things. Having new people in the group can be refreshing and can help you work more effectively, so take advantage of this opportunity. It might be helpful to develop group norms together for things like how to run meetings or how to communicate with each other.
-It may be helpful t ask young people if and how they’d like to get up to speed on the topics of conversation or how things are run. Make some suggestions, but let them decide what they think will work best. And, some may feel that they don’t need any guidance at the moment. Here are some ideas you could run by them:

…

Challenge #10: Understanding how young people can contribute
The idea that young people don’t have as much to contribute as adults is ingrained in our culture. And as adults, we often perpetuate the same things adults told us when we were young. Young people of all ages can make a contribution whether they go to school, work in a grocery store, or are a small business owner.

Possible solutions:
-Change your frame: instead of thinking that young people are at a deficit because they don’t have much experience, start seeing the opportunity for young people to build skills at a young age by contributing to your efforts.
-We all have things to learn; young people and adults can learn from each other. As with any group member, find out what they’re good at and challenge them to take it to the next level. If they are on the debate team, perhaps they’d be interested in helping to develop messages. If they are technically savvy, they may be able to help with some of the technical logistics of an event.

Read more solutions to each of these challenges on Everyday Democracy’s site here!

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/tips/5-more-ways-overcome-barriers-youth-engagement

5 Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement

Posted on March 7, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The article, 5 Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement by Rebecca Reyes and Malana Rogers-Bursen was published in 2016 on the Everyday Democracy site. The authors shared 5 common challenges to getting youth to participate and offer solutions to address each of these challenges. These tips are helpful when designing events that are more inclusive for youth and also good to keep in mind for other groups of people. Read a condensed version of the article below and find it in full on Everyday Democracy’s here.

From Everyday Democracy…

Challenge #1: Scheduling conflicts
Everyone is busy, including young people. They have packed schedules with school, extracurricular activities, work, and helping out at home. Some may be responsible for caring for younger siblings, or they may have young children of their own. If they are going to be giving up some of their time, they need to know it will be time well spent.

Possible solutions:
Recognize that “young people” as a group are very diverse – they have different levels of education, racial/ethnic backgrounds, and lifestyles. Think about the group you’re trying to reach and the scheduling challenges they might face. Evenings and/or weekends might be the best time to meet for many people. But, it depends on the group.

…

Challenge #2: Experience barriers
It is often assumed that more experience is always better. In addition, certain types of experiences like attending certain schools or working in a particular profession tend to be valued more than others. These values and assumptions privilege only certain types of experiences and they don’t leave room for young people. We need to recognize that young people do have valuable skills and knowledge and make room for different kinds and levels of experience.

Possible solutions:
– Aim to include people with a range of skills and knowledge in your group, instead of focusing only on those with many years of experience.
– Acknowledge that young people do have knowledge and skills to contribute, even if they don’t have related professional experience.

…

Challenge #3: Young people have a limited voice in meetings
As a young person, it can be intimidating to speak up in a group of adults, especially since young people are often outnumbered in meetings. Once they are at the table, it’s important to create an environment of respect that allows their voice to be heard.

Possible solutions:
-Set ground rules that you agree on as a group. Make sure the rules will make space for a respectful conversation.
-Practice active listening. As a group, talk about what it means to be an active listener. Consider doing a listening activity during one of your meetings. Continue reading →

Understanding Structural Racism Activity

Posted on February 11, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

Everyday Democracy published the five-page activity, Understanding Structural Racism Activity, on January 2015. This activity gives participants an opportunity for better understanding how structural racism manifests and how to design realistic events/actions from a structural racism lens. Participants will explore all three layers of structural racism: personal attitudes/beliefs, formal and informal practices, and policies and procedures- via group discussion and skit activity, then work through the issues that arise at all three levels to create realistic events/actions. Below is an excerpt from the activity and you can download for free from Everyday Democracy here.

From the activity…

This activity helps participants delve deeper in analyzing racism and start to learn how to use a structural racism lens. Many times, actions are focused on changing the personal beliefs without looking at the practices and procedures that contribute to the issue. Through this activity, participants will have the opportunity to break down the issue of racism at a structural level so that the group can come up with realistic action ideas for change.

Goal:

To get participants to analyze an issue through a structural racism lens

To engage participants in an interactive way to identify the personal beliefs, practices, and procedures that contribute to the issue

To create a compiled list of barriers impacting the issue on the structural level

Materials needed:

Structural Racism handouts
Chart paper
Markers

Preparation:

Review the Structural Racism handout. Familiarize yourself and understand all 3 layers to structural racism: the personal attitudes/beliefs, formal and informal practices, and policies and procedures.

Review the sample structural racism examples. If the sample examples do not fit the community specific issue, brainstorm a few examples for each level.

Identify the community specific issue the group will work on.

Part 1: Activity overview

Pass out the Structural Racism handouts. Give participants a few minutes to review them.

Explain each level of structural racism as participants look on.

Use the examples to help participants understand each level. Allow time for clarifying questions.

Divide participants into three groups. Group 1 will be “Personal Attitudes,” Group 2 will be “Formal and Informal Practices,” and Group 3 will be “Policies and Procedures.”

In the small groups, give participants 10 minutes to think of examples for their assigned group. Have the groups record their answers on chart paper.

Part 2: Skit Activity

Following the brainstorm, ask each small group to pick one example and create a 2-minute skit to illustrate the example.

Have each group set the skit’s context and perform their skit. Ask the audience to pay attention to how the skit illustrates the group’s assigned level.

After each skit, debrief with the following questions:

Was the skit realistic?

How was the skit an example of personal attitudes and beliefs/practices/policies and procedures?

After all the skits, ask all three skits to start up simultaneously. Wait about 20 seconds.

Then, stop the skits and explain that collectively, these are the different levels contributing to the issue. If one level is addressed, there are two other levels occurring at the same time. If this group wants to truly see change, actions need to address all three levels.
…

You can find access to the rest of the activity on Everyday Democracy’s site here.

Follow on Twitter: @EvDem

Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/resources/understanding-structural-racism-activity

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Category Archives: great for public managers

Where Have All the Voters Gone?

A Guide to Participatory Budgeting in Schools

A Public Voice That’s Missing [Kettering 2016]

Why and When Should We Use Public Deliberation?

Beyond Business as Usual: Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance

It’s Your Money. Where’s Your Say?