Climate Choices: How Should We Meet the Challenges of a Warming Planet? (NIFI Issue Guide)

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 25-page issue guide, Climate Choices: How Should We Meet the Challenges of a Warming Planet?, was published April 2016 from National Issues Forums Institute and Kettering Foundation, in collaboration with, North American Association for Environmental Education. Climate change is undeniable, this issue guide offers participants three options to use during deliberation on how to address our warming world. The issue guide is available to download for free on NIFI’s site here, where you can also find: the moderator’s guide, an options chart, and a post-forum questionnaire.

From NIFI…

The Environment and Society Series is designed to promote meaningful, productive deliberation, convened locally and online, about difficult issues that affect the environment and communities.

All around is evidence that the climate is changing. Summers are starting earlier and lasting longer. Heat waves are becoming more frequent and intense. Dry regions are getting drier and wet regions are seeing heavier rains. Record cold and snowfalls blanket some parts of the country, while record fires ravage forests across the West.

The effects are being felt across many parts of the United States. Farmworkers in California’s Central Valley, snow-weary New England business owners, crab fishermen in Alaska, and cattle ranchers across the Great Plains have all seen uncommon and extreme weather. Occasional odd weather and weather cycles are nothing unusual.

But the more extreme and unpredictable weather being experienced around the world points to dramatic changes in climate— the conditions that take place over years, decades, and longer.

Climate disruptions have some people worried about their health, their children, their homes, their livelihoods, their communities, and even their personal safety. They wonder about the future of the natural areas they enjoy and the wild animals and plants that live there. In addition, there are growing concerns about our national security and how climate change might affect scarce resources around the planet and increase global tensions.

This issue guide presents three options for deliberation:

Option One: “Sharply Reduce Carbon Emissions”
We can no longer rely on piecemeal, voluntary efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The only way to protect ourselves and the planet is to tackle climate change at its source by taking coordinated, aggressive action to reduce the CO2 we put into the atmosphere—enforced by strict laws and regulations, and supported by significant investment. If we don’t make averting further climate change our top priority, warming of the land and oceans will accelerate, increasing the frequency of droughts, fires, floods, and other extreme weather events, and damaging the environment for generations to come.

Option Two: “Prepare and Protect Our Communities”
Preparing for and coping with changing conditions must be our top priority. We should work together now to secure our communities and strengthen our resilience in the face of climate-related impacts. That includes protecting our infrastructure—roads, bridges, and shorelines—and ensuring that the most vulnerable members of society have the support they need to adapt to the effects of a warming planet.

Option Three: “Accelerate Innovation”
Across the country and around the world, many private enterprises are already responding to climate change by seeing opportunity. Agricultural biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta, for example, are poised to profit from newly patented drought-resistant crops. The water giant Veolia, which manages pipes and builds desalination plants, has expanded its operations to 74 countries on five continents. Lucid Energy, a startup in Portland, Oregon, generates electric power from the city’s domestic water pipes.

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: www.nifi.org/en/issue-guide/climate-choices

NIFI Hosts Climate Choices Deliberations on CGA Platform

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Roshan Bliss

We want to encourage our NCDD members to consider joining the National Issues Forums Institute – one of our NCDD member organizations – as they host a series of online events about climate change using their Common Ground for Action deliberation tool. These events will be a great opportunity to work with NIFI’s new Climate Choices issue guide and try out the CGA tool at the same time. You can learn more in the NIFI announcement below or find the original post here.

You’re Invited – Join an Online Forum about Climate Change

We have 4 forums coming up using the long-awaited Climate Choices issue framing. The National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) is very pleased to announce that the new Climate Choices issue guide is now ready to use in forums. We’d heard from the network for years that this was an issue the public wanted to deliberate, and now we have a guide [which we partnered with the prestigious North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) to produce] that is both scientifically rigorous AND deeply deliberative.

We have 4 online CGA forums using the new guide coming up- just register for the time that works for you. (All times Eastern.)

Friday, April 22, 2016, 1 – 3 pm
COMPLETED

Monday, April 25, 2016, 3 – 5 pm
COMPLETED

Wednesday, April 27, 2016, 10 am – 12 pm
REGISTER HERE

Friday, April 29, 2016, 6:30 – 8:30 pm
REGISTER HERE

You’ll receive an immediate confirmation email with everything you need to join the forum on the day you selected, and a link to download the issue guide so you can read it before the forum.

Looking forward to seeing you in a forum soon.
—
Amy Lee
Common Ground for Action
A Collaboration of NIF & Kettering Foundation
Superpowered by Conteneo

You can find the original version of this NIFI announcement at www.nifi.org/en/youre-invited-join-online-forum-about-climate-change.

Kettering and China: Thirty Years and Counting (Connections 2015)

Posted on April 24, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The three-page article, Kettering and China: Thirty Years and Counting by Maxine Thomas was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Thomas recounts the relationship Kettering and China have cultivated from dialogue over the last 30 years. Beginning in 1985, the dialogues have been an exercise to normalize relations with China. 2016 marks the 30th anniversary of the initial dialogue in Beijing, and a celebration is scheduled in fall of 2016 to honor the milestone. Below is a excerpt from the article and the full piece can be found here. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

From these humble beginnings, connections between Kettering and our Chinese colleagues have flourished. In 1985, Mathews and a small team went to Beijing to meet with several Chinese organizations and explore their mutual interest in establishing a dialogue among nongovernmental organizations to complement the work of the two governments. The purpose of these dialogues was to expand and deepen the interactions and understanding between the two societies. There were also concerns about Russia and foreign policy. This meeting began what has evolved into 30 years of collaboration.

Focus on the Public

As the foundation does in all its research, the work has focused on the public. At the first meeting in 1985, participants included David Lampton, now with the Johns Hopkins China Institute, Kettering vice president Rob Lehman, Kettering program officer Suzanne Morse Moomaw, Kettering vice president Phillips Ruopp, and conference coordinator Patricia Coggins. This initial meeting resulted in citizen-to-citizen meetings held the following year in the United States. Over time, participants on the US side included leaders like Robert McNamara, Kenneth Lieberthal, William Taft IV, James Leach, Donald Oberdorfer, and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Early dialogue members from China included Li Shenzhi, head of the Institute of American Studies in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Huan Xiang, head of the Center of International Strategic Studies of the State Council; and participants from the Beijing Institute of International Strategic Studies. It also included young scholars like Wang Jisi and Yuan Ming, who went on to have illustrious careers and now head the Institute of International and Strategic Studies at Peking University.

The central question for these dialogues was how to maintain a US-China relationship in the wake of China, Russia, and US-Russia challenges. All along, the two sides have struggled with the distinction between what our governments were doing and saying and what the public, on both sides, thought about the relationship. Over the years, Kettering networks held deliberative forums using National Issues Forums issue guides on the public’s views of China (China-U.S. Relations: What Direction Should We Pursue? and China-U.S. Relations: How Should We Approach Human Rights?), and Chinese colleagues began some innovative Chinese public opinion research (something not really done before in China). In 2001, we jointly published a volume in Chinese and English, China-United States Sustained Dialogue, 1986-2001, and a summary history of the dialogue. Along the way, we not only got to know more about each other but also were able to present deeper and more nuanced understandings of our countries, something the Chinese were particularly interested in. Each of our trips to China included visits to the US ambassador in Beijing, and Chinese colleagues also took the opportunity to meet with Chinese officials when they were in the United States.

About Kettering Foundation and Connections
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.

Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Thomas_2015.pdf

Alabama Prisons: Why We Cannot Look Away from Alabama’s Shame (DMC Issue Guide)

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The issue guide, Alabama Prisons: Why We Cannot Look Away from Alabama’s Shame, was a collaborative effort between David Mathews Center and AL.com, published 2014. The guide offers three approaches for deliberation to address the serious and widespread issues with the Alabama prison system. In addition to the guide, an eight and a half minute video was also created to summarize the realities of the Alabama prisons.

The guide offers three approaches for deliberation and within these approaches are five specific actions and consequences for each option. Below are the three approaches from the issue guide which were found on National Issues Forums Institute blog here. You can find more information about the issue guide, including the action/consequence of each approach and the brief video, on AL.com here.

From NIFI blog…

Approach One: “Increase Capacity and Improve Basic Conditions”
Alabama’s prison population far exceeds operational capacity, and conditions inside the facilities are raising constitutional questions. As a result, the Alabama Department of Corrections is now facing potential federal intervention and costly lawsuits. If the state does not significantly reduce overcrowding and improve basic conditions for inmates, then additional lawsuits may be filed and thousands of prisoners may be released. People want to feel safe in their communities, and many residents and lawmakers want to ensure that our prison system complies with the Constitution. If we want to avoid lawsuits, federal intervention and a potential release of prisoners, then we must increase capacity and improve conditions in the prisons. Our time line is limited and addressing difficult sentencing issues and root causes may take too long. If we want to solve this problem and stay tough on crime, then we must consider building new prisons, expanding existing facilities, and/or contracting with for-profit prisons.

Approach Two: “Address Root Causes through Education, Support and Rehabilitation”
Thousands of Alabamians are incarcerated every year, and the prison system is under stress. If we want to truly address the overcrowding issue, we cannot simply build more prisons. People must work to understand the root causes that lead residents to commit and re-commit crimes, and provide support to help remedy those deeper issues. Many people need educational support, community-based mentoring, substance abuse counseling and mental health services. Many offenders need access to educational services, job training and behavioral health support while incarcerated and after release. If we want to keep people out of prisons and avoid high recidivism rates, then we cannot ignore the real issues that drive individuals to break the law. By providing education, support and rehabilitation, we may also see benefits to communities, families, and the economy.

Approach Three: “Implement Alternative Approaches to Incarceration”
People who break the law must face consequences. Unfortunately, many Alabamians who break the law end up in state prison — resulting in overcrowding and dire conditions. Alabama’s increasing prison population is costing taxpayers a significant amount of money, and the long-term impact on communities and families is troubling. If we want to continue to punish criminal behavior and avoid the costly practice of mass incarceration, then we must consider alternatives to prison. Specifically, we must implement community corrections programs in every county, expand problem-solving courts and provide opportunities for restorative justice. We must also ensure that justice is applied in an equitable and consistent manner.

About DMC and the Issue Guides
The David Mathews Center—a non-profit, non-partisan organization—authors deliberative frameworks for people to carefully examine multiple approaches, weigh costs and consequences, and work through tensions and tradeoffs among different courses of action to current and historic issues of public concern.

David Mathews Center issue guides are named and framed by Alabamians for Alabama Issues Forums (AIF) during a biennial “Citizens’ Congress” and follow-up workshops. Alabama Issues Forums is a David Mathews Center signature program designed to bring Alabamians together to deliberate and take community action on an issue of public concern. Digital copies of all AIF issue guides, and accompanying post-forum questionnaires, are available for free download at http://mathewscenter.org/resources.

Follow DMC on Twitter: @DMCforCivicLife

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/groups/online-issue-framework-about-alabama-prison-reform

Creative Acts as Democratic Work (Connections 2015)

Posted on April 18, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The four-page article, Creative Acts as Democratic Work by Paloma Dallas and Melinda Gilmore was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. In this article, Dallas and Gilmore explore the role of art in civic engagement and community problem solving, in response to David Mathew’s query, “If the public has to do more than observe – if it has to be a citizenry-at-work – then the question is, how does art affect people doing the work of citizens?”

After much research, the two gathered a mixed group of folks for the first Civic Capacity and the Arts exchange at Kettering, and determined that the arts often play a critical role in community engagement. Below is an excerpt of some of the insights gained from Dallas and Gilmore’s research and multiple Kettering exchanges. Connections 2015 available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

A few insights are currently coming into focus. Like any discipline, there are many arts organizations that have a more conventional notion of their role and their place in community life. They tend to look to communities as their audience and their funders. This is fine, and even good. But those with whom we have been working see a different role for themselves.

The arts have an ability to tap into other ways of knowing. As Esther Farmer wrote in her article “Strange Bedfellows: Community Development, Democracy, and Magic” in a 2015 issue of Community Development, “Traditional models of democratic debate have tended to privilege abstract, ‘disembodied’ forms of reason. . . . These kinds of disembodied environments that are overly intellectualized and abstract are dangerous on two fronts; they engender boredom, the enemy of enthusiasm, creativity, and imagination (i.e. magic), and even worse, these heady environments can also engender feelings of resentment and inadequacy.” Another participant, a professor of communication studies who has been collaborating with a visual artist, speaks about his concern with the professionalization of dialogue and deliberative work. His collaborations with a visual artist are born of a desire to explore the full range of democratic participation.

Another ongoing theme has been the power of imagination. While an important democratic capacity is the ability to make sound collective decisions, another important capacity is to be able to imagine beyond one’s experience. Many see this as a key role for the arts. For some, art creates a space for play and imagination, which can open up new options and possibilities to explore. At the same time, art can be a word that leaves some people out. It can feel exclusionary.

Building Democratic Muscles

Again and again, we’ve heard that the practice of working with others to literally create something together can help build up “democratic muscles.” Making something together can create a sense of ownership as well as a sense of collective identity. As one participant said in a research exchange, “When I do things, they are embedded in me in a different way than when I am just talking in a head space.”

The research has continued to evolve. Many foundations and municipal governments are funding “creative placemaking” initiatives that incorporate the arts in efforts to build vibrant communities. In the summer of 2015, we held a research exchange with a group of people to look at the democratic potential in these creative placemaking efforts. The organizations we brought together are all trying to ensure that citizens in community drive the work.

As a new area of Kettering’s research, it has generated enormous energy and expanded the networks with whom we exchange. As with all of our work, the questions we are asking overlap with other areas of research. For example, in Kettering’s community politics research, cooperative extension agents began experimenting with the arts in naming and framing issues to encourage more members of the community to participate in solving public problems.

We’ve seen art affect the work of citizens in myriad ways; each discovery has opened up new questions. As we continue to move forward in this work, we’ve been thrilled to find experiments not only across the United States but also around the world. Insights about the role of the arts don’t just come from artists and arts organizations but from other professionals and organizations. They are created in community themselves.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Dallas-Gilmore_2015.pdf

Economic Vitality: How can we improve our communities?

Posted on April 12, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The 11-page issue guide (2016), Economic Vitality: How can we improve our communities?, was collaboration effort by the Southern Governors’ Association, Southern Economic Development Council, Consortium of University Public Service Organizations and Danville Regional Foundation. The Issue Guide was found on National Issues Forums Institute‘s blog and offers three options for participants to use for deliberation on the current economic situation in the US.

You can find the issue guide, moderator guide, and a post forum questionnaire, available for free download on NIFI’s site here.

From NIFI’s blog…

[Via Linda Hoke…]

Despite positive signs in terms of overall economic growth, the economy remains a key concern among many Americans. According to a Harris poll conducted in January 2016, Southerners were the most pessimistic about the future. For many in communities across the South, rapid change and an unclear future can create a sense of uneasiness, or even impending doom.

The Southern Governors’ Association, Southern Economic Development Council, Consortium of University Public Service Organizations and Danville Regional Foundation have partnered to develop materials designed to help communities come together to deliberate about the following key question: What should we do to improve economic vitality in our community? We encourage you to take a look at these materials to see if they can help your community – or a series of communities in your state – think through their options and paths forward.

We are glad to provide advice and assistance if you are potentially interested in holding a forum to help your community discuss the important issue of economic vitality. Please feel free to contact Ted Abernathy, Economic Development Advisor to the Southern Governors’ Association at ted[at]econleadership[dot]com or Linda Hoke, Director, Consortium of University Public Service Organizations at lhokesgpb[at]gmail[dot]com.

This issue guide presents three options for deliberation:

Option One: Make our community attractive to good and stable employers
This option holds that more attention is needed to the foundations that will make the community attractive to good and stable employers. This includes physical infrastructure such as airports and roads, as well as quality of life issues such as low crime rates and good schools. Annual surveys of business leaders identify these foundations as among the top factors influencing business location decisions. And, investments in infrastructure improvements such as broadband access offer rural communities the ability to overcome potential locational disadvantages in terms of accessing customers and employees. Without these investments, poorer or smaller communities may fall even further behind.

Option Two: Prepare workers and communities to be more self-reliant
This option holds that we need to do more to make workers and communities more self-reliant, to reflect the fact that employers- faced with global competition and the need to be more flexible – no longer provide the long-term security they once did. As a retired computer systems developer recently told Tulsa World as part of a series on the changing American dream, “There was a whole different atmosphere in the ’50s and ’60s as far as work went. Companies expected loyalty from you, but the company provided loyalty to their people.”

Option Three: Provide everyone in our community with opportunities for success
Unfortunately, many people who work hard and play by the rules still can’t get ahead because they have little access to opportunities for success, be it because of their lack of family support, lack of connections or simply their address. This option holds that we need to do more to ensure that everyone has opportunities for success.

About Issue Guides
This issue guides was done in the style of NIFI Issue Guides, which 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.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/groups/issue-guide-economic-vitality-how-can-we-improve-our-communities

Who’s Working on Issues of Income Inequality & Health Care?

Posted on April 5, 2016 by Sandy Heierbacher

A few months ago, I asked the NCDD network who was, is or will soon be working on engaging people around the issues of health care or income inequality. The Kettering Foundation was interested in learning about who is working on these topics (and still is!), as they are topics that the National Issues Forums Institute is currently addressing.

Later this month, Kettering will be holding its annual “A Public Voice” event at the National Press Club in DC, and NCDD has been honored to have played a role for the past several years in representing the broader dialogue and deliberation community in various ways — including in helping to create maps that represent the D&D community, like the one posted here.

This year, in addition to helping with a map and inviting some great people to attend the event, we are helping create a list of deliberative programs that have addressed (or will soon address) these issues. This list will be shown side-by-side with the list of National Issues Forums that have been held on these issues.

These lists will be featured in the publication that is given to the people who attend this year’s A Public Voice event (which includes some big names in DC and in our field!), and distributed online. We think this will be a great way to both highlight members of the DD community and NIF and give DC leadership a good sense of how robust and dynamic deliberative democracy is across the land.

Below is the list I’m starting off with, based on those of you who shared information about your programs with me several months ago. I want to grow both of these lists significantly, so please add your programs – or programs you know about – to the comments. I need locations, organization names, and program names or topics covered. Please include your contact info in case Kettering wants to learn more.

Income Inequality / Economic Security

Alabama
Montevallo, AL
David Mathews Center for Civic Life – Making Ends Meet and Economic Vitality

California
State-wide
California Air Resources Board and Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (Institute for Local Government facilitating) — Income Inequality, Climate, Wellness

Sonoma County, CA
Ag Innovations – Economic Wellness

Florida
Lake Worth, FL -The Guatemalan-Maya Center – Family Financial Planning

Illinois
Chicago, IL
The CivicLab in Chicago – Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Illumination Project

Iowa
Johnson County, IA
Iowa Program for Public Life – Affordable Housing

Dubuque, IA
Community Foundation of Greater Dubuque – Community Equity Profile

The Obermann Center Place-Based Inclusion Working Group – Are U A Good Neighbor? (affordable housing)

Massachusetts
Boston, MA
MA Office of Public Collaboration – Economic Security

Missouri
Kansas City, MO
Consensus KC – Forum on the Living Wage

New Hampshire
New Hampshire Listens – The Opportunity Gap

New Mexico
New Mexico First – Statewide Town Hall on Economic Security and Vitality

North Carolina
Winston-Salem, NC
Wake Forest Baptist Church – Making Ends Meet (this may already be covered in NIF listing)

Oregon
State-wide
Kitchen Table Democracy / Oregon Solutions / Oregon’s Kitchen Table and Oregon Business Council – Poverty Reduction Initiative

Texas
City of Austin, TX
Fair Chance Hiring for the Formerly Incarcerated

Virginia
Fairfax, VA
Unitarian Universalist congregation – Escalating Inequality
(also happening across the country!)

West Virginia
West Virginia Center for Civic Life – What’s Next, WV?

Washington
King County Executive’s Office – Income Inequality

Seattle, WA
University of Washington Dept of Communication and Center for Communication and Civic Engagement – Making Ends Meet (this may already be covered in NIF listing)

Washington, DC
Interactivity Foundation – Forums on Future of Employment, Rewarding Work, Retirement

Wisconsin
Eau Claire County
Clear Vision Eau Claire – Poverty Empowerment Summit (2016-2018)

Nationwide
National Dialogue Network – Nationwide Conversation on Poverty and Wealth in America

Health Care

Nation-wide
National Institute for Civil Discourse – Creating Community Solutions on mental health

Alabama
State-wide
David Mathews Center for Civic Life and Alabama Issues Forums – Minding Our Future: Investing in Healthy Infants and Toddlers

Mobile, AL
David Mathews Center for Civic Life and Bayou Clinic – Health, Education, and Financial Literacy

California
State-wide
Institute for Local Government and California Summer Meals Coalition – Income Inequality, Health and Wellness

San Diego, CA
The San Diego Deliberation Network – Forums on Health Care

Merced, CA
Institute for Local Government and Merced Healthy Communities Network – Health in the Built Environment

Florida
Miami, FL
University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine, Dept Public Health Sciences and Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy – Patient Engagement and Income Disparities in the Hospital System in the wake of ACA

Panama City, FL
Gulf Coast State College – Health Care Costs, Making Ends Meet, and How can we Stop Mass Shootings in our Communities? (this may already be covered in NIF listing)

Maryland
Statewide
Carnegie Mellon Program for Deliberative Democracy – Community Deliberative Forum on Allocation of Scarce Resources

Massachusetts
Cape Code, MA
Special Legislative Commission on LGBT Aging – Dialogue and formation of Coalition on Cape Cod re: LGBT Aging issues

Orleans, MA
Orleans Council on Aging – One Book/One Community Discussion of Being Mortal by Atul Gawande

Michigan
Global (NGO based in Michigan)
Common Bond Institute – Response to Disaster Health Care Services and Resettlement for Refugees in the Middle East and Europe

Missouri
State-wide
Missouri Foundation for Health – Cover Missouri

Minnesota
St. Paul, MN
Jefferson Center – Health Policy Development & Quality Improvement

New York
Syracuse, NY
Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration and the Jefferson Center – Using Public Deliberation to Define Patient Roles in Reducing Diagnostic Quality

Texas
Austin, TX
Health and Human Services Department – Provision of Affordable Health Care

Virginia
Alexandria, VA
S&G Endeavors – Community-Driven Strategies to Improve Health

Washington
State-wide
Community Forums Network / National Dialogue Network – Healthcare Reform

Washington, DC
Interactivity Foundation – Forums on Depression, Mental Health and Community, Human Genetic Technology

West Virginia
West Virginia Center for Civic Life
What’s Next, WV

The Dartmouth Conference (Connections 2015)

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The five-page article, The Dartmouth Conference by Harold Saunders and Philip Stewart was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Saunders and Stewart describe how the Dartmouth Conference came to be a long-time ongoing dialogue between the US and Russia since 1959. Read an excerpt of the article below and find Connections 2015 available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

[The] Dartmouth [Conference] is designed not only to reflect American public thinking to our Russian/Soviet partners, but also to share with the American public insights about the experiences, ideas, and thinking behind Russian policy and behavior gleaned from the dialogue. The Americans tend to see a two-way relationship—on the one hand, nearly all US participants accept as part of their responsibility to raise concerns prevalent among the US public. These ranged in Soviet times from Soviet treatment of prominent authors, such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, to pressing for the emigration of Soviet Jews, as well as other human rights issues; and today, from concerns about Russia’s role

…

The Dartmouth Conference produces three essential kinds of “products.” First, it produces creative proposals to convey to our governments and larger societies that address specific issues in our relationship. Many of these proposals have found constructive resonance in the policy arenas on each side. The March 2015 dialogue at Dartmouth XIX, for example, persuaded the participants that the absence of high-level working groups in those areas where the United States and Russia share interests, such as Syria, ISIS, and the arms control arena, is having a negative effect on the United States’ ability to address subjects clearly in our national interest, as well as the interests of our relationship with Russia.

Second, and as important, the Dartmouth Conference, by engaging many of the same individuals over time, enables each side to understand the experiences, the processes, and the reasoning that ultimately shape policy on each side. Especially today, this kind of in-depth understanding is sorely needed. At Dartmouth XIX, for instance, influential elements in the Russian leadership made clear that they continue to see Russia as a part of the broader Euro-Atlantic community. Russia continues to seek security arrangements within the Euro-Atlantic world that will permit Russia and its region to determine their own political, economic, and cultural future and looks at the future in that context. However, Russia also has its own regional relation- ships, interests, culture, history, traditions, and values for which it demands respect. It will defend these and will reject efforts by others to impose their models and values on Russia and its region.

Third, the diversity of backgrounds, experience, and outlooks represented in the Dartmouth delegations encourages the spread of insights into the “other” throughout our societies. Within a few days of the March 2015 conference, one American participant had been interviewed by CNN—one of a number of articles and blogs that appeared in other media.

…

The agenda at Dartmouth is cumulative, with issues raised but not fully explored at one session forming the basis for the next round. These include arms control, terrorism, regional issues, and opportunities for increased exchanges in fields like preventable diseases, journalism, religion, and others. Beyond these, at Dartmouth XX a central focus was deepening our exploration of how our Russian colleagues understand what they describe as “values” particular to Russia, how these values relate to their behavior toward neighbors, and how they impact their understanding of what it means in practical terms to be “part of the Euro- Atlantic economic, political, and security space” to which they claim to be committed. By pursuing this agenda with persistence, honesty, and integrity, the Dartmouth Conference will continue to play a vital role in enabling Russia and the United States, the only two powers with global reach and global commitments to collaborate more constructively to address critical global issues, from peace and security, to terrorism and development.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Saunders-Stewart_2015.pdf

Upcoming NIFI Online Forums on Economy & Health Care

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Roshan Bliss

As the team at the National Issues Forums Institute – an NCDD member organization – prepare to share the results of the national deliberative conversations they’ve had on the economy and fixing health care with DC policymakers, they are extending a few more final opportunities to have your input included. If you have yet to participate, we encourage you to register for one NIFI’s next Common Ground for Action forums. To register, check out the NIFI post below or find the original here.

Six More Opportunities to Participate in Online Forums In the Next 2 Weeks

As many of you know, each year Kettering reports insights from a particular NIF issue or two to policymakers in Washington DC at an event called A Public Voice. NIF is still convening forums on both of this year’s reporting topics, Making Ends Meet and Health Care Costs.

If you or someone you know would like to participate, but can’t make it to an in-person NIF forum, there are still 6 online Common Ground for Action forums happening in the next two weeks, all of which will be included in the reporting for A Public Voice.

To participate in a forum, all you need to do is RSVP at one of the links below! And even if you can’t make one of these forums, please help us create a diverse national conversation by sharing this post with your networks!

Tuesday, March 29 10-12 PM ET COMPLETED
Thursday, March 31 6:30-8:30 PM ET REGISTER
Tuesday, April 5 1-3 PM ET REGISTER
Thursday, April 7 10-12 AM ET REGISTER
Thursday, April 7 6:30-8:30 PM ET REGISTER
Friday, April 8 1-3 PM ET REGISTER

You can find the original version of this NIFI post at www.nifi.org/en/groups/cga-spring.

KF and Journalism: On Again! Off Again! On Again! (Connections 2015)

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Keiva Hummel

The four-page article, KF and Journalism: On Again! Off Again! On Again! by David Holwerk was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Holwerk discusses Kettering’s relationship with journalism and how over the last couple decades, the relationship has had its ups and downs. Kettering has had several active areas in journalism, especially during the 1990s emergence of the public journalism movement. Read an excerpt of the article below and find Connections 2015 available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.

From the article…

But even though Kettering was engaged with journalists on many fronts— broadcast projects, coverage of presidential elections, the link between journalism and public deliberation, the role of journalism education in shaping journalists’ ideas,
the Katherine Fanning Fellowship, which has brought many journalists from other countries to Kettering—the record (and my own experience as a journalist during that period) makes it clear that interest was waning, both inside the foundation and among journalists. And in fact, by 2000, it had almost disappeared.

…

And several things account for public journalism’s swift decline. Some were factors that affect any human endeavor but are not of interest here: personalities, competing ambitions, and battles for primacy of place in journalism’s weird class system. (If you’ve worked in the business you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t, take it from me, you didn’t miss anything.)

But other factors do have something to do with Kettering’s interests. Chief among them, public confidence in journalists and journalism continued to decline. To those paying attention, this suggested that the public journalism efforts weren’t bridging the gap between citizens and journalists. And in an environ- ment where instant feedback is the norm, that message carried a lot of weight.

Meanwhile, newspaper industry revenues rose sharply between 1993 and 2000. So the incentive to rethink the relationship of journalism to citizens and communities receded, and with it the sorts of initiatives that Kettering was interested in studying.

I’ll pick up the narrative of Kettering’s work shortly, but let me pause here to make a point about the connection between the financial success of journalism and the interest in citizens and communities. It’s commonplace to identify this connection as a sort of existential crisis. Journalists saw their livelihoods threatened, this storyline goes, and so they turned to connecting with citizens as a possible lifeboat.

That’s true to some extent, but identifying (okay, I’ll say it: naming) the incentive that way obscures something useful. Such circumstances—which occur periodically across the entire spectrum of institutional life—create moments when professionals are open to examining how their work connects (or doesn’t) to citizens and communities. These are the moments when institutions and the professionals who work in them are most likely to experiment. These self-examinations and experiments, and what happens as a result of them, is what’s important to Kettering, not whether the institution survives or dies.

But back to the narrative. There is no concise record of the foundation’s journalism work from 2000 on. But I can speak from my own experience beginning in 2008, when I got involved with Kettering again, as part of a workshop involving the National Conference of Editorial Writers. Much of the focus was on new interactive media, and involved discussions of questions, such as whether these media are by nature democratic. (For the record: they are not. Egalitarian, yes. Democratic, no.) These discussions were interesting,if you’re interested in gadgets and their effect on people and society. But what seemed to be missing were the experiments and innovations that, for better or worse, marked the public journalism days.

To my mind, that began to change in a 2010 research exchange with editorial writers. By that time, it was pretty clear that things were going to hell in the news business and that this time there would be no business rebound to bail them out. A number of the folks in that meeting seemed eager to try some different things. They also seemed ready to reexamine questions, such as whether their ideas about what citizens do in democracy were accurate or what it meant to serve the needs of citizens.

Since then, life in Kettering’s Journalism and Democracy internal working group has been increasingly busy and fruitful. Everywhere we look, we find journalists trying to figure out how to connect better with citizens and communities, or how to manage the difficult tensions that arise even in the best of such connections. Among journalism academics both here and abroad, we have found a deep wellspring of interest in questions related to democracy—not just theoretical questions, but practical ones related to the professional training of journalists. In both cases, a sense of existential crisis seems to have opened up the willingness to consider questions that just a few years ago were not on journalists’ agenda.

How long this state of affairs will last, I wouldn’t care to guess. Journalism itself, at least as we know it, could disappear, in which case Kettering would be left with nothing to examine. But as of this writing, the foundation’s on-again, off-again engagement with journalism and journalists is definitely on.

Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn

Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Holwerk_2015.pdf

Civic Studies

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

Category Archives: Kettering Foundation

Climate Choices: How Should We Meet the Challenges of a Warming Planet? (NIFI Issue Guide)

NIFI Hosts Climate Choices Deliberations on CGA Platform

You’re Invited – Join an Online Forum about Climate Change

Kettering and China: Thirty Years and Counting (Connections 2015)

Creative Acts as Democratic Work (Connections 2015)

Who’s Working on Issues of Income Inequality & Health Care?

Income Inequality / Economic Security

Health Care

The Dartmouth Conference (Connections 2015)

Upcoming NIFI Online Forums on Economy & Health Care

Six More Opportunities to Participate in Online Forums In the Next 2 Weeks

KF and Journalism: On Again! Off Again! On Again! (Connections 2015)