Register for IAP2 Trainings from the Participation Company

Our friends at the Participation Company are offering three great trainings this year, all of which NCDD members can get a discount on! The trainings are given within the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) framework and are a great opportunity to earn an official IAP2 certification. Learn more about the trainings in the announcement below or by clicking here.


Upcoming IAP2 Training Events in 2015-16

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

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

Foundations in Public Participation certificate program (5-Day):

PLANNING for Effective Public Participation (3-Days) and/or *TECHNIQUES for Effective Public Participation (2-Days).

  • December 14-18, 2015 Chicago, IL     Trainer: John Godec
  • February 1-5, 2016 Arlington, VA      Trainer: Doug Sarno

*The 3-Day Planning is a prerequisite to TECHNIQUES

Learn more about the Foundations training and registration clicking here.

Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation (EOP2): Moving from Rage to Reason (2 days):

  • October 28-29, 2015 Orlando, FL     Trainer: John Godec

Learn more about the EOP2 training and registration by clicking here.

The Participation Company (TPC) offers discounts to NCDD members. Visit www.theparticipationcompany.com/training for more information and on-line registration.

Join the “Going Viral” Online Engagement Webinar, Jul. 29

We encourage you to mark you calendars and register for a useful webinar being offered next week by MetroQuest, an NCDD member organization. MetroQuest is hosting this online event titled “Going Viral: How Your Project Can Engage Thousands Online” on Wednesday, July 29th from 1 – 1:45pm EST.

This webinar will be a quick and easy way to learn more about how to engage a bigger online audience, and we know it could be helpful to many of our members.

Here’s how MetroQuest describes the event.

This free webinar will explore case studies of planning projects with various transportation agencies that successfully used online technology to increase the reach of their public involvement efforts. Critical success factors, key strategies and best practices will be shared and discussed. The presentation will be followed by an open Q&A session.
This webinar will include case studies from:

We encourage you to learn more and register for the event by visiting www.metroquest.com/webinar-going-viral-how-your-project-can-engage-thousands-online.

Featured D&D Story: Reforming the Barcelona Football Club

Today we are happy to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action. This fascinating mini case study from Spain was submitted by NCDD Founding Member Alberto Lusoli of QuattrodiTre (4d3) via NCDD’s Dialogue Storytelling Tool. Do you have a dialogue story that our network could learn from? Add your dialogue story today!


ShareYourStory-sidebarimageTitle of Project:

Reforming the Barcelona FC, One Opinion at a Time

Description

The Manifest Blaugrana Association was born to promote a greater and equal participation of all the Futbol Club Barcelona members, to improve its democratic processes, and to go beyond the usual and common football club paradigm, based on a clear separation between the fans and administrators.

Organized and supported by about 200 shareholders of the Barcelona Futbol Club, the aim of the “Debats” initiative is to provide the next President with a set of guidelines collectively written by the members of the association and fans of the club. As 4d3, we have been involved in providing and customizing our collective decision-making platform Deebase to their needs.

Should the members’ register be opened, thus allowing the entry of new members? May the club set a salary cap regardless of UEFA regulations? These issues, among many others, are now finally open to fans’ discussion. Thanks to the Deebase deliberation process, which includes a scoring system and an assessment of opinions and arguments, ideas will be compared and voted by the community, allowing the most popular to bubble up.

The project has been released in conjunction with the electoral campaign that will lead to the election of the new president of the Club on July 18th. The aims of the project are:

  • to provide to the future President a set of guidelines developed collectively by Barcelona’s fans and shareholders.
  • to regularly publish and send to the Club’s management the results of the deliberations

What was your role in the project?

Technology supplier / Co-designer

What issues did the project primarily address?

Associació Manifest Blaugrana (Barcelona)

Lessons Learned

Lost in translation: one of the biggest challenges that we faced during the design phase was to translate the platform in Catalan and Spanish. Since the participants will be mainly Catalan native speakers, it was fundamental to provide a platform fully translated into Catalan. However, at the same time it was necessary to make the platform available and understandable also to Spanish, non-Catalan speakers. Therefore, having a system capable to manage different languages, and providing a hybrid Spanish-Catalan version of the platform was necessary in order to lower adoption barriers.

Where to learn more about the project:

Link to the initiative: http://debats.manifestblaugrana.cat
Link to the platform: http://deeba.se
Link to the association: www.manifestblaugrana.cat
Photo: www.manifestblaugrana.cat/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rebut.png

Registration Open for August 5th Confab with Matt Leighninger & Tina Nabatchi

Join us on Wednesday, August 5th for NCDD’s next “Confab Call.” We’ll be talking with NCDD Members Matt Leighninger and Tina Nabatchi about their new book, Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. The confab will take place from 2-3pm Eastern (11am-12pm Pacific). Register today to secure your spot!

PP421CDPublic Participation for 21st Century Democracy is an exciting new book that aims to help people improve the infrastructure of public participation, the regular opportunities for citizens to take part in making decisions, solving problems, and strengthening community. It provides real-life examples and practical suggestions for renovating and creating new arenas for participation, as well as utilizing the skills and ideas of citizens.

On this confab, Matt & Tina will provide an overview and some highlights of the book, and share some of their learnings in putting this book together. They welcome your contributions to help improve and expand upon the book, so if you get a chance, check it out before the confab (here’s the link to Amazon)!

Matt Leighninger is the executive director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, an alliance of organizations and leading scholars in the field of deliberation and public participation. With twenty years in the field, he has worked with public engagement efforts in over 100 communities, forty states, and four Canadian provinces.

Tina Nabatchi is an associate professor of public administration and international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. The author of several book chapters, monographs, research reports, and white papers, her research focuses on citizen participation, collaborative governance, and conflict resolution.

Our confabs (interactive conference calls) are free and open to all NCDD members and potential members. Register today if you’d like to join us!

More about the book…

Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy explores the theory and practice of public participation in decision-making and problem-solving. It examines how public participation developed over time to include myriad thick, thin, and conventional opportunities, occurring in both face-to-face meetings and online settings. The book explores the use of participation in various arenas, including education, health, land use, and state and federal government. It offers a practical framework for thinking about how to engage citizens effectively, and clear explanations of participation scenarios, tactics, and designs. Finally, the book provides a sensible approach for reshaping our participation infrastructure to meet the needs of public officials and citizens.

The book is filled with illustrative examples of innovative participatory activities, and numerous sources for more information. This important text puts the spotlight on the need for long-term, cross-sector, participation planning, and provides guidance for leaders, citizens, activists, and others who are determined to improve the ways that participation and democracy function.

About NCDD’s Confab Calls…

NCDD’s Confab Calls are opportunities for members (and potential Confab bubble imagemembers) of NCDD to talk with and hear from innovators in our field about the work they’re doing, and to connect with fellow members around shared interests. Membership in NCDD is encouraged but not required for participation. Register today if you’d like to join us.

Ford Foundation to Include Civic Engagement in New Funding Priorities

We recently read some news that our NCDD members and others in the D&D field should find encouraging. The Ford Foundation – the nation’s second largest philanthropic organization by assets – recently announced that after long deliberation and consultation with non-profit organizations, it is changing some important aspects of its focus in giving and how it gives. And we would all do well to take note.

In his letter about the change, Ford Foundation president Darren Walker wrote that the Foundation will turn its funding focuses to fighting global inequality. And in positive news for those in our field, Ford has identified “unequal access to the government and decision making” as one of six key drivers of global inequality, and has named “civic engagement and government” as one of the five areas that they will dedicate more of their funding toward to address political inequality.

Here’s an excerpt of the letter Ford released:

Among these many trends, the one we returned to again and again was the growth of inequality in our world. Not just the economic disparities that have emerged in global debates these past few years but also inequality in politics and participation; in culture and creative expression; in education and economic opportunity; and in the prejudicial ways that institutions and systems marginalize low-income people, women, ethnic minorities, Indigenous peoples, and people of color…

Remarkably, although manifestations varied by region, the assessment of underlying drivers was strikingly constant across the world. Broadly stated, we found five factors that consistently contribute to inequality:

  • Cultural narratives that undermine fairness, tolerance, and inclusion
  • Unequal access to government decision making and resources
  • Persistent prejudice and discrimination against women as well as racial, ethnic, and caste minorities
  • Rules of the economy that magnify unequal opportunity and outcomes
  • The failure to invest in and protect vital public goods, such as education and natural resources…

To address and respond to these drivers of inequality, we will be working in six program areas, very much reflective of the five drivers. They are:

  • Civic Engagement and Government
  • Creativity and Free Expression
  • Gender, Ethnic, and Racial Justice
  • Inclusive Economies
  • Internet Freedom
  • Youth Opportunity and Learning

The naming of “civic engagement and government” as a focus area for funding is obviously great news for those of us who have become familiar with the sad reality that it is quite a challenge to find money for the kind of work that we in the D&D field do. Much of our work fits quite naturally into this category, so hopefully Ford’s shift is an omen that this dynamic may be changing down the road.

But we should also note that the naming of “youth opportunity and learning” as another focus area could be important for our field as well. As many of you know, NCDD has been thinking since the run up to our NCDD 2014 conference about how our field can support Democracy for the Next Generation – both in terms of integrating next generation technology, but also in terms of involving young people, our literally “next” generation of adults and citizens. D&D work is especially impactful when it gives young people the skills, knowledge, and access they need to participate in deliberation and public choice work in their communities. And given that many of us already work with young people or could conceivably shift our work in that direction with relative ease, we should not forget that Ford’s new focus on youth could present an opportunity for groups in our field to attract funding by focusing simultaneously on civic engagement and youth learning.

The other important shift that Ford announced in the letter is not only will it shift its funding in different a direction, but it will also be changing how it funds non-profits. Walker wrote in his letter that, having heard a great deal of feedback about the instability that solely project-based funding can create for non-profit organizations, Ford will also begin working to make more of its funding work to help non-profits achieve long-term financial sustainability by funding more operational and day-to-day costs that organizations need to handle. This should also come as welcome news, as many of us are far too familiar with the conundrum of finding funding that will not only keep our projects afloat, but also our organizations.

If a leading foundation like Ford is shifting its focus and giving methods in these ways, it may also signal that other foundations will be paying attention and soon following suit. Maybe that’s reading too much into the announcement, but either way, the news from Ford bodes well for the future of our work.

We wanted to share this bit of hopeful news with you all not to encourage everyone to go running to Ford with new grant proposals, but to help us all stay aware of the shifting dynamics of our field and keep an eye on the ways our work and influence can continue to evolve in positive directions.

You can find the full text of the Ford Foundation’s letter at www.fordfoundation.org/equals-change/post/whats-next-for-the-ford-foundation.

ACR Environment & Public Policy Emerging Leaders Event, Jul. 21

If you live in the D.C. metro area, be sure to check out the invitation below to join the Association for Conflict Resolution’s Environment & Public Policy section‘s happy hour meet up this Tuesday, July 21st from 6-8pm EST. You don’t have to be an ACR EPP section member to attend, so we encourage local NCDD members to join the networking! Learn more in their announcement below or register here.


It’s about time we meet!

The Association for Conflict Resolution Environment and Public Policy (ACR EPP) Section is pleased to announce a kickoff event for its Emerging Leaders Network in Washington, D.C. If you are an entry- or mid-level professional in the field of environmental and public policy conflict resolution, please join us for a no-host happy hour to get to know your peers and expand your network in this growing field. There will even be a great drink special for you to enjoy!

If you are a senior-level professional – or shall we say, an “emerged” professional – please share this invitation with those who might be interested. Thank you for RSVPing and spreading the word!

Who: Entry / mid-level professionals (~0-10 years of experience) in the field of environmental and public policy conflict resolution

What: ACR EPP Emerging Leaders Network Kickoff

When: Tuesday, July 21 | 6:00-8:00 pm

Where: Science Club | 1136 19th St NW

Please note that this event is for ages 21+. Feel free to contact Jason Gershowitz (jgershowitz[at]kearnswest[dot]com) with any questions.

ILG Seeks Input on California Public Engagement Survey

We want to make sure that our NCDD members, especially those of you based in California, have a chance to hear about a key public engagement survey being conducted by the folks with the Institute for Local Government, one of NCDD’s member organizations.

ILG logoILG is looking for input from public officials and staff to help them and we encourage you to share the survey with folks in your network who they need to hear from.

Here’s how ILG describes the survey:

Does your community experience public engagement challenges? The Institute for Local Government (ILG) Public Engagement program provides information and resources to help local officials with the design, delivery and assessment of their public engagement processes. ILG has launched a survey and is seeking input from local officials and staff at all levels. The results of the survey will help ILG understand the community engagement experiences and needs of California communities.

This survey is part of a reflection, evaluation, and planning project funded by the James Irvine Foundation. ILG is seeking feedback from local elected officials and staff to better understand the impact of ILG resources and assistance, to help plan for the future.

Participants can enter to win one of ten $25 Visa gift cards. This survey will be open until July 31st. Please take the survey now!

We hope you’ll help ILG continue improving local public engagement by taking the survey yourself if you’re in the target audience or sharing it with those who are!

You can find the survey directly by visiting http://cacities.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe1/form/SV_bqI6PmKvsj7VBB3.

Reflections on a Text, Talk, Act Dialogue on Mental Health

We want to share an update on Text, Talk, Act – the youth mental health conversation initiative launched in 2013 by NCDD-supported Creating Community Solutions – that we saw on NCDD organizational member the Public Conversations Project‘s blog. They featured a piece by Nancy Goodman reflecting on the what was discussed in the TTA conversation she facilitated with high school teens, and it gives a great glimpse into how TTA works and how powerful these dialogues are.

We encourage you to read Nancy’s piece below or find the original PCP post here. Learn more about Text, Talk, Act by clicking here.


Teens Talk Mental Health

I am a transition coordinator at Gloucester High School and a Public Conversations training alumni. In May, I facilitated a group of students coming together to discuss the stigmas around conversations about mental health as part of the nation-wide “Text, Talk, Act” campaign, of which Public Conversations Project was a partner. The conversation was deeply personal, but also indicative of the more broadly felt silence we as a society hold around this topic. Here are some of the questions and ideas we explored together.

Why is mental health a hard topic to talk about?

The students’ answers included, “You can’t see it – compared to physical illness,” “We’re under so much pressure to be perfect, to be acting as if we’re coping well,” and “There’s such a stigma associated with mental stuff.”

How closely has mental illness affected you?

Three of the six students described experiencing some depression or anxiety; one of them had tried to commit suicide last winter. I was taken aback by this revelation and grappled with how to respond. I asked whether others in the group had been aware of her struggle. Some reported having had a sense that something was wrong and others had not known. The students took her announcement in stride, and it did not become a focal point of our conversation. One described struggling with PTSD and OCD. Another has siblings with autism and Asperger’s. Two reported that they have not had close contact with mental illness.

What has been helpful and not so helpful?

Students reported that the school psychologists are sometimes helpful and sometimes not helpful, that drama club has been a “lifesaver,” and that medication has been helpful. One girl reported that, even though she resisted her at first, she now loves her therapist a lot. One of the girls who described herself as generally upbeat said that something that is not helpful is people coming up to her and asking if she’s ok just “because I’m not all smiley and happy that day.” Another student said, “I am only close to two friends. Sometimes I wish other people would reach out and invite me to hang out.”

What’s the definition of mental health?

  1. No one is 100% healthy.
  2. It’s liking who you are as a person.
  3. It’s about eating well and staying active.
  4. It’s being able to ask for what you need.

What do you want to/are you willing to do next?

Although students liked the idea of talking more, they felt strongly that they didn’t want to become “spokespeople” for mental health. They felt they would be too vulnerable to the ignorant reactions from certain students. The two drama club students expressed interest in going through a similar set of questions within the drama club.

Facilitator’s perspective:

As the group facilitator, there are two impressions from the conversation I’d like to share. First, with all the work that has been done to empower young women, several of these girls undermined their own comments by giggling after they made a point or shared something personal. Beyond nervous laughter, this behavior betrayed a real discomfort with their own stories, not just the difficult topic at hand.

My second impression is that, as a society, we’ve chosen to medicate our children rather than to relieve the conditions that are contributing to their mental illnesses.

Overall I was thrilled to be part of this authentic conversation about a topic of real concern to these students.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project blog post at www.publicconversations.org/blog/teens-talk-mental-health#sthash.q8gyIMri.dpuf.

UN Hosts History’s Largest Global Climate Deliberation

Last month, the team with the Jefferson Center, an NCDD member organization, hosted one of 96 day-long deliberations that occurred around the world where average citizens discussed what should be done about climate change. It was the largest ever such consultation, and the results from Minnesota and abroad are fascinating. We encourage you to read the Jefferson Center’s piece about the process and the results below, or find the original here.


JeffersonCenterLogoWorld Wide Views in the Twin Cities

This past Saturday, we hosted 70 Twin Cities metro area residents at the Science Museum in Saint Paul to discuss climate and energy issues as part of a global day of public deliberation. Organized by the World Wide Views Alliance, 75 countries around the world conducted World Wide Views on Climate and Energy forums in the largest ever global citizen consultation on climate change. The goal was to gather quantifiable public opinion to inform decision makers at every level, but particularly negotiators at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference (COP21).

Each of the 96 host sites followed the same agenda and addressed the same questions. The resulting data is credible and consistent, making the results an important asset to both researchers and politicians. Every site, including ours in St. Paul, provided participants with the same informational materials on current international climate policy issues. Participants were asked to discuss and vote on a series of questions designed to reflect controversies that might arise at the COP21 talks in Paris this December. Voting results were uploaded in real time.

67% of the Minnesota participants identified as “very concerned” about climate change, and 79% felt that the UN climate negotiations over the past twenty years had not done enough to tackle climate change. National and global percentages were very similar. 97% of Minnesota participants (along with 95% of US participants) agreed that our country should take some measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions even if other countries do not take action.

Minnesotans were slightly in favor of a carbon tax for all countries (with gradually increasing costs for countries that do not reduce their emissions), although a significant portion of the room also completely opposed a carbon tax, much more so than the global average. On the other hand, Minnesotans – in agreement with 59% of the United States participants – were more enthusiastic about cutting fossil fuel subsidies than the rest of the world, and slightly more in favor of stopping fossil fuel exploration than the global average.

wwv-fossil-exploration

Twin Cities residents tended to agree with the rest of the world about international policy. 77% of Minnesota participants were in favor of a legally binding treaty in Paris, either for all countries or at least for developed and emerging nations. 97% of Minnesotan participants also agreed with the overwhelming national and global consensus that countries should update their climate commitments every five years after Paris.

Twin Cities participants were nearly unanimous (96%) in agreeing that all countries should report their emissions and report on the progress of their contribution to lower emissions, but were more divided about whether the UN should have the authority to conduct reviews for each country (55%) or only for global combined efforts (38%). These responses roughly reflect the average national and global data trends, but stand in stark contrast to the 70% of developed country participants in favor of the UN reviewing individual countries.

wwv-un-review

Similarly controversial: the lengths different groups of people were willing to go in order to stop climate change. 71% of developed country participants thought that the world should do “whatever it takes to limit temperatures exceeding 2 degrees Celsius of warming,” but only 54% of Minnesotans agreed.

Participants from the seven county metro area were selected to, as near as possible, reflect the racial, gender, age, and educational diversity of the Twin Cities, in order to elevate the opinions representative of all metro area residents. The results from all World Wide Views sites will be shared with the delegates attending the COP21 meetings, both ahead of and during the negotiations in Paris. Compare results yourself at the World Wide Views results page.

Stay tuned for more posts as we continue to unpack World Wide Views results.

Addressing 7 Myths about Audience Polling

We are pleased to share the piece below from NCDD Sustaining Member, David Campt, who recently authored a great new book on deliberative polling technology called Read the Room for Real. David submitted the piece below on common misunderstandings about deliberative polling, and if you like it, consider checking out his book on Amazon by clicking here.


Read the Room for Real on AmazonDavid Campt is the primary author (along with Matthew Freeman) of Read the Room for Real: How a Simple Technology Creates Better Meetings. In the book, audience polling is referred to as Speed Polling to Enhance Input and Knowledge, or SPEIK (pronounced as ‘speak”).

Myth 1: Audience polling is expensive.

With the advent of text-based polling about 8 years ago and the proliferation of polling based on web access or dowloadable apps, the cost of SPEIK systems has plummeted. Some services (such as Poll Everywhere) have monthly subscription services that you can join briefly, then suspend when you don’t need it. Costs per user can be as low as 1$ per user per month. For renting or buying standalone equipment (such as from Turning Technologies, usually called the industry leader), the cost per use is higher for one usage. However, if you buy the equipment and amortize the expense over a few years of usage, those costs start heading toward zero.

If you consider the cost of meetings in terms of people’s time, the marginal cost of SPEIK technology is minuscule compared to the full cost of the meting. And the value can be very significant.

Myth 2: SPEIK is unreliable.

We tell people that the technology is not as reliable as planes landing safely (99.999%), but is much more reliable than that chance a plane will arrive on time (about 75%). When problems happen, humans are usually at fault.

Myth 3: SPEIK is hard to use

Many of the systems use web based interfaces, or even just directly import questions from the Office suite of products. There are hard to use products out there, but for the most part, these systems are easy to program.

Myth 4: Audience polling takes the emotional heart out of group experiences.

Polling can be as emotionally deep as you want – it all depends on how you use it. In the book, we tell a story about using SPEIK to help a group of football players from a high poverty neighborhood have a conversation about a teammate who had been murdered in an apparent mistaken identity situation. Using SPEIK enabled these seemingly tough and unreachable athletes to anonymously express the degree that they felt fearful, sad, angry, or numb; the players could all know they were not alone. One assistant coach who had previously publically criticized the technology said using SPEIK was indispensable for creating the subsequent small group dialogue where they began processing their grief.

Myth 5: SPEIK is only good for large groups

The value of polling starts at about 10 people, and dramatically escalates at about 15 people. I have used it to help a group of 7 people when there was not a high sense of safety in speaking one’s mind.

Myth 6: SPEIK is only useful at certain times of a meeting

If people have seen the technology at the beginning of a session to build community or to set the table for dialogue, they think that is its primary usage. The same thing applies when people have seen it used at the end of a meeting to make evaluation more transparent or in the middle of an event to enrich the dialogue. People project based on successful uses they have seen. The truth is that SPEIK can add value at all parts of gatherings, and at all types of meetings. It can add value to speeches and panels focused on downloading information, to focus group settings where the point is to gather feedback from every person, and to workshop and dialogue settings where the point is to generate cross-talk among participants. The fact that it can aid all of these situations is partly why I think SPEIK is grossly underappreciated.

If facilitation is a meal, you can think of SPEIK as able to play a variety of roles. It can serve as an appetizer to get folks hungry for more interaction. It can be a side dish that complements the core dialogue and makes it richer. It can function as the main course, such as when surveying a group. It can be used like a desert at the end of the experiences so people walk away more energized and connected. It even can be used very sparingly like a condiment or spice that helps other facilitated processes work better.

Matthew and David are launching Read the Room for Real this weekend with the goal that America declare its independence from bad meetings. Their hope is that if the become an Amazon best seller (even just this weekend) through a focused push by the facilitation community, there will be greater public focus on issues of inclusion of diverse voices, group intelligence, and democratic decision making. If you buy the book through this link, 17% of the profits go to NCDD. Learn more about the book at www.readtheroomforreal.com. You can see their book trailer here.