Free Online Youth Engagement Seminar from CIRCLE

circle

We invite NCDD members to start the New Year off by taking the opportunity to contribute to the conversation on youth engagement. The good people at the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) are hosting a free 5-week online seminar that will invite young people, youth workers, the broader civic engagement community, and more to help build on their recent report on youth engagement beginning the week of Jan. 13th.

CIRCLE’s announcement describing the seminar says:

Since the release of “All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement,” the report of our Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge, CIRCLE has spoken with a wide range of stakeholders interested in improving the civic and political engagement opportunities and outcomes for all youth in the United States. To enhance and broaden those discussions, we have developed a FREE, five-week, open online seminar that will extend research and recommendations from the report.

The seminar will start the week of January 13 and is open to individuals and groups interested in strengthening youth engagement. We welcome and encourage young people, parents, educators, policymakers, youth advocates, researchers, and others to join this five-week learning community.

The seminar is designed to allow for multiple levels of participation and will have synchronous and asynchronous elements to accommodate those who need flexibility in their schedule.

Join us in pursuing this important work, and please share with those in your network whom you think would find this learning community of value and interest. The seminar will only be as strong as its participants.

If you are interested in participating in the seminar, you can go ahead and register here or learn more by visiting the community page for the seminar at www.civicyouth.org/tools-for-practice/learning-community. Contact circle@tufts.edu with questions.

We hope to see some of our NCDDers join up!

Participedia Looks Back at 2013

participedia-logoOur friends at the Participedia, the open knowledge community focused on democratic innovation and public engagement, just published a great year-end post reflecting back on six innovative case studies from across the world that were added to the site in the last year.

It has been another great year for Participedia. We hope to become a key resource for scholars, activists, policy makers and citizens who are interested in new democratic practices and institutions. Our team has made big strides towards reaching that goal. This year, 445 new members joined the website and 152 new cases were added to our collection.

As a fitting finish to 2013, we have profiled six cases that were recently added to Participedia. Reflecting Participedia’s diversity and the global span of participatory innovation itself, each of these cases comes from a different country or region of the world, and each employs a different approach to public engagement.

We think the NCDD community can learn a lot from taking a look at the projects Participedia highlights in the post.  They cover a wide range of projects including:

We highly recommend that you take a moment to reflect with Participedia on what lessons we can learn from these 2013 projects and how we can apply them in 2014. You can find the full article by clicking here.

Happy New Year, and happy reading!

New Transparency Report from ICMA

This is a cross-post from the Gov 2.0 Watch blog of our partners at the Davenport Institute. The new transparency report it covers could be a useful tool for our many open government-oriented members. You can read the post below or find the original here.

DavenportInst-logoGranicus recently released a report, outlining a comprehensive approach for gaining citizen input, prioritizing issues, and developing strategic approaches to solving problems. The “Transparency 2.0” vision is about more than simply posting government data online:

While open data comprised much of what online transparency used to be, today, government agencies have expanded openness to include public records, legislative data, decision-making workflow, and citizen ideation and feedback.

This paper outlines the principles of Transparency 2.0, the fundamentals and best practices for creating the most advanced and comprehensive online open government that over a thousand state, federal, and local government agencies are now using to reduce information requests, create engagement, and improve efficiency.

The report includes specific suggestions for effective open government online, such as posting a calendar of city council meetings and indexed meeting videos for citizens’ benefit, and examples of successful “Citizensourcing” initiatives in cities like Austin, TX.

To download the report from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) website, click here.

Nelson Mandela: His Legacy to Democracy

We recently read an inspiring piece from the Kettering Foundation, an NCDD member organization, that we hope you will take a moment to read. It is a heartfelt tribute to the amazing legacy of the late Nelson Mandela, written by KF Interntional Resident and graduate student at the the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, Jaco Roets. You can read it below or find the original here.

Mandela’s work in national reconciliation after his release from prison is perhaps one of the most significant examples in recent history of the power of dialogue to transform conflict. As dialogue and democracy practitioners, we are all heirs to his legacy, and we have some very big shoes to fill. This piece remind us of the importance of our work and the truly transformative impact it can have.


kf

Nelson Mandela stepped out of prison in February 1990 faced by a country more divided than ever. Celebrations surrounded his release, but as a nation South Africa was fragmented. Years of segregation and oppression have blinded citizens to the potential of collaboration towards positive change. Clouds of uncertainty and the smoke rising from violent clashes further obscured a shared vision for the future. And in this chaos, we discover the real Mandela. Mandela became what South Africa needed at the time. He gave us the courage to be who we needed to be. He was not perfect, yet he served as a voice for those who have been marginalized. He allowed us to rediscover our shared humanity.

In 1997 Mandela stepped down as president. His vision was of a nation of active citizens, allowing us to move away from years of debilitating paternalism suffered under colonialism and apartheid. One man could not drive the ideals of democracy alone. Democracy can only thrive where all citizens have the opportunity to agree and disagree concerning the road ahead. Mandela did not want to give us answers. Instead he chose to inspire us, allowing us to believe that if we work together, there can be a better life for all.

His long walk to freedom allowed us to consider the roads that we still needed to travel. He did not offer South Africa the solution to all ailments. He encouraged us to keep talking, to keep dreaming, and to keep on searching for solutions that would benefit us all. I would like to believe that South Africans will remember him for this. I hope that the world will remember him for this. His dream will remain; a vision of a nation where all had an opportunity to contribute and collaborate. A space where citizens have a voice, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, political orientation, religion or race. The power of Mandela did not lie in his politics or in his statesmanship. The power of Mandela can be seen in the reawakening of a people, eager to imagine a future that no one ever thought possible. The power of Mandela lies in bringing a diverse, divided public together. Ultimately he allowed us all to see that we are not that different at all. A rainy day in Johannesburg saw world leaders come together to say farewell to an icon. We are all different. We are often in conflict. We are rarely in agreement. But on that day, for a few hours, we were all Mandela’s children.

Hamba kahle Tata Madiba. In your spirit, we will continue to walk the unsteady road towards democracy. May we always cherish your ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony.

Recording of today’s Tech Tuesday with Dave Biggs of MetroQuest

We had a great Tech Tuesday event today, with about 100 people participating in a stimulating webinar led by Dave Biggs, Co-Founder of MetroQuest. Thank you, Dave, for the great presentation — and thanks to everyone who participated!

MetroQuest public involvement software is recommended as a best practice by the APA, TRB, FWHA and other agencies. Dave shared with us some of what he’s learned about best practices for online engagement generally, and gave us a demonstration of the MetroQuest software, and walked us through several recent case studies.

You can watch the hour-long webinar now if you missed it. Plus, feel free to download Dave’s PowerPoint presentation here if you want to check out the slides without audio.

In a nutshell, MetroQuest software enables the public to learn about your project and provide meaningful feedback using a variety of fun and visual screens. It’s easy to mix and match screens to accomplish the engagement goals for each phase of the project from identifying and ranking priorities, to rating scenarios or strategies, to adding comments on maps and much more. To ensure the broadest participation, MetroQuest can be accessed on the web or mobile devices, at touchscreen kiosks and in engaging town-hall style workshops.

Via the comments below, Dave will be answering some additional questions that were submitted during the webinar that we couldn’t get to.  Feel free to add more questions, and of course to interact with Dave and others here!

If you’d like to contact Dave directly, he can be reached at Dave.Biggs@MetroQuest.com or (604) 317-6200.


NCDD’s Tech Tuesday events are meant to help practitioners get a better sense of the online engagement landscape and how they can take advantage of the myriad opportunities available to them. Keep an eye on the Events section of the site (ncdd.org/events) for upcoming Tech Tuesdays, Confab Calls and other events.

Does SMS Make Engagement More Inclusive?

This cross-post from NCDD Member Tiago Piexoto’s tech and participation blog DemocracySpot reminds us that, as more and more public engagement efforts make use of SMS to reach broader audiences (like the Text, Talk, Act project of the NCDD-supported Creating Community Solutions initiative), we should keep asking “how well is this working?” That’s why we encourage you to read Tiago reflections on the results of a recent study looking at SMS participation’s impact on inclusiveness of engagement in Uganda, which holds useful insights for us here in the US. You can find his thoughts below or see the original here.


The Effect of SMS on Participation: Evidence from Uganda

Screen Shot 2013-11-30 at 11.19.05 AM

I’ve been wanting to post about this paper for a while. At the intersection of technology and citizen participation this is probably one of the best studies produced in 2013 and I’m surprised I haven’t heard a lot about it outside the scholarly circle.

One of the fundamental questions concerning the use of technology to foster participation is whether it impacts inclusiveness and, if it does, in what way. That is, if technology has an effect on participation, does it reinforce or minimize participation biases? There is no straightforward answer, and the limited existing evidence suggests that the impact of technology on inclusiveness depends on a number of factors such as technology fit, institutional design and communication efforts.

If the answer to the question is “it depends”, then the more studies looking at the subject, the more we refine our understanding of how it works, when and why. The study, “Does Information Technology Flatten Interest Articulation? Evidence from Uganda” (Grossman, Humphreys, & Sacramone-Lutz, 2013), is a great contribution in that sense. The abstract is below (highlights are mine):

We use a field experiment to study how the availability and cost of political communication channels affect the efforts constituents take to influence their representatives. We presented sampled constituents in Uganda with an opportunity to send a text-message to their representatives at one of three randomly assigned prices. This allows us to ascertain whether ICTs can “flatten” interest articulation and how access costs determine who communicates and what gets communicated to politicians. Critically, contrary to concerns that technological innovations benefit the privileged, we find that ICT leads to significant flattening: a greater share of marginalized populations use this channel compared to existing political communication channels. Price matters too, as free messaging increase uptake by about 50%. Surprisingly, subsidy-induced increases in uptake do not yield further flattening since free channels are used at higher rates by both marginalized and well-connected constituents. More subtle strategic hypotheses find little support in the data.

But even if the question of “who participates” is answered in this paper, one is left wondering “as to what effect?”. Fortunately, the authors mention in a footnote that they are collecting data for a companion paper in which they focus on the behavior of MPs, which will hopefully address this issue. Looking forward to reading that one as well.

Also read:

Mobile phones and SMS: some data on inclusiveness 

Unequal Participation: Open Government’s Unresolved Dilemma

Mobile Connectivity in Africa: Increasing the Likelihood of Violence?

Government Crowdstorming with the Public

What ever you call it, crowdstorming, ideation, or online idea generation, it’s my observation that this technique is the second most often used online method for governments to engage the public, after social media (like Facebook and Twitter). Government hosted crowdstorming is usually focused on generating ideas, and sorting them by public preference via votes.

The latest uses of these tools move away from asking the public to contribute many, many ideas for the government to sort through and perhaps act on. Ideation is now commonly used for internal engagement where government employees can make suggestions for improving the workplace and work products. Ideation is also being used in challenge competitions where government agencies use prizes to stimulate innovation to advance their core missions.

Why So Popular?

Nonetheless, it’s a useful tool to gain public input in early stages of policy development or program design. Why is it so popular? Well, here’s a few thoughts:

  • Easy to participate at any level of commitment. You can vote on an idea, comment or submit an idea yourself
  • Transparent without the risk of needing to engage with everything you hear. Good moderation recognizes participation, encourages participants to define their ideas and why they are important, and ignores ranters/ragers/trolls.
  • Shared ownership with the community. The community decides what’s most popular. The convener decides what they are going to do with those ideas (e.g. host an ideaslam for the top 10, use a public list of criteria to select 3 out of the top 10 to receive funding, etc.)
  • Proven. It’s easier to convince your leadership or colleagues to take a risk by engaging the public online when others have done it before you.

IBM Crowdsourcing Gov Cover

Resources

Thinking about doing it yourself? Here’s a few great resources from IBM’s Center for the Business of Government:

Top Five Considerations

Shaun Abrahmson, author of the book Crowdstorm: The Future of Innovation, Ideas, and Problem Solving, recently shared with the Huffingon Post his top five things to think about in setting up a project:

1. A great question – Solve a real problem, make it easy to communicate and share, and make it clear to potential participants

2. Rewards – How will you reward the best – sometimes tricky mix of good, attention, money, experience and stuff (games)

3. Recruiting – Your outcomes are only as good as your ability to reach and motivate loads of people who might be able to solve your problem

4. Choosing the best – You need to be clear on this so you can deliver fairly on your promises

5. Delivery – If you want to be able to work with crowds again, you need to be able to not just deliver rewards, but put the ideas/plans/prototypes into action (very often this is where crowdstorming fails)

Tools

There are lots of tools you can use for online crowdstorming including: IdeaScale, UserVoice, Spigit, Delib Dialogue App, Bubble Ideas, Salesforce Ideas, Mindmixer, Thoughtstream, OpenIdeo and more.

Examples

Here’s a small list of government-led ideation projects asking the public for their ideas. Know of others? Please leave them in the comments.

Government of BC Education Plan. 2012

USA Federal Communications Commission. 2010

UK Coalition Government’s Your Freedom Project, which was the world’s biggest ever political crowdsourcing project, gathering 10,000′s ideas from over 40,000 people, and with over 500,000 visits to the site
and the lessons learned from Delib, their engagement shop

City of Vancouver, Talk Green To Us. 2011
(not supported anymore so the layout is weird but the content is the same)

The following three were hosted by National Academy of Public Administration, which is a Congressionally chartered, non-profit, non-partisan institution

Open Government Dialogue on behalf of the Obama Administration. 2009
Lots was learned from this one, the highest profile test at that time

The National Dialogue On Health Information Technology and Privacy on behalf of the Bush Administration’s Office of Management and Budget
Disclosure: I worked on this
Video overview

The National Dialogue on Green and Healthy Homes on behalf of National Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Manor Labs, Texas

Improve San Francisco, 2010

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygene. 2012
and a description from the vendor, Spigit

City of Seattle. Share YOUR ideas for a better Seattle. 2010

Government of Ireland, Your Country, Your Call. 2010

Opportunity to Contribute to IIAS Study Group

We hope that you will consider taking advantage of a significant opportunity that NCDD Sustaining Member Dr. Tina Nabatchi shared with us recently from the International Institute of Administrative Sciences. Her study group is seeking paper submissions, and it could be a great way for some of you NCDDers to contribute to the field while also getting your work out there. For more information, read the full announcement below or find the original here.

Call for papers for the IIAS study group on ‘Co-production of public services’

IIAS WG logo

The IIAS Study Group on ‘Coproduction of Public Services’ is organizing its second open meeting. Our aim is to create and nurture an intellectual platform for the theoretical discussion and empirical analysis of coproduction and its implications for the organization and management of public services.

Topic 
Coproduction refers to the involvement of both citizens and public sector professionals in the delivery of public services. Although countries differ in the extent to which citizens play a role in the provision of public services, the idea of coproduction is gaining ground around the world. Financial crises, austerity in public finances, and growing doubts about the legitimacy of both the public sector and the market, have led numerous governments to involve and cooperate with citizens and civil society in the production of public services. Unfortunately, practice is leading both theory and research, and there is a need to bring together theoretical insights and empirical data to enable a better understanding of public service coproduction. Specifically, this study group is interested in:

  1. Coproduction in different national and policy contexts. What ideological and normative stances about the role of government shape the debate on coproduction? What variations are seen across the policy fields in which coproduction takes place? What variations are seen in national (western and non-western) structures of service provision, and what factors explain this variation?
  2. The organization and structure of public service organizations. Do existing structures enhance or work against coproduction?  How can public service organizations be better structured to utilize coproduction processes and approaches?
  3. Challenges of coproduction for the work of public sector professionals. How can professionals find ways to meaningfully interact with people using and coproducing services? What are the (dis)incentives for professionals in promoting and using coproduction?
  4. The role, capacity, and willingness of citizens to engage in coproduction. What characteristics distinguish citizen-coproducers from passive service recipients? What motivates citizens to engage in coproduction?
  5. The potential benefits and pitfalls of directly involving citizens in the production of public services. What is the impact of coproduction on efficiency, democratization, responsiveness, accountability of public service delivery?
  6. The way in which coproduction is accommodated in public law and/or constitutional law. How do various legal frameworks support (or not) coproduction? How can law be enhanced to further and sustain coproduction activities?
  7. The relationship between public spending and coproduction. What financial models can be used to nurture coproduction? Can coproduction compensate for the withdrawal of public spending in times of financial crisis, or does collaboration with citizen-users demand additional resources?
  8. What are the implications of a service-recipient/coproducer dominant approach to public services for the further study of public administration? What insights can be brought in from other disciplines, such as political science, law, economics, psychology, sociology and history? What insights can be gathered from complementing research on coproduction with research on active citizenship, service management and customer engagement, or citizen self-organization?

Meeting Format 
The meeting will open with keynotes by Prof. Elio Borgonovi, Professor of Economics and Management of Public Administration at the Bocconi University and Prof. Tony Bovaird, Professor of Public Management and Policy at the University of Birmingham.

The meeting will consist of individual paper presentations and conclude with a round table discussion about the study group’s plan for future intercontinental collaboration in coproduction research.

The goal of the study group is to shed light on the current theory, research, and practice of coproduction. Therefore, we welcome both theoretical and empirical papers on all topics addressed above. We also invite scholars to use a variety of disciplinary analyses: public administration, political science, law, economics, psychology, sociology, and history among others. Interdisciplinary papers are also welcomed.

As a study group of IIAS, we seek to establish an intercontinental discussion, and therefore invite scholars from both western and non-western settings to submit paper abstracts. Submissions are particularly encouraged from doctoral students working on the topic of coproduction.

Output 
The study group co-chairs aim at providing outlet for papers presented at the meeting, most likely through a special issue in an international public administration journal. A special issue of IRAS (International Review of Administrative Sciences) is in process, as a result of the successful first meeting of the study group, which was held in The Hague last May.

Moreover, the study group aims at setting up close intercontinental collaboration among coproduction scholars beyond the scope of this meeting, including the development and sharing a database of international cases on coproduction and strategies to enable effective interaction between professionals and citizen-users in the production of public services. In addition to special issues of international journals, the study group is exploring the possibility of a book project at the closing of its three-year (2013-2015) collaboration.

Date and Location 
The meeting of the Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services will take place in Bergamo, Italy from May 20 to 21, 2014.

Cost
The registration fee is 100 Euro. Participants are responsible for their own travel and accommodations.

Submissions 
Please submit abstracts (maximum 600 words) by March 15th, 2014 to mariafrancesca.sicilia@unibg.it and t.p.s.steen@cdh.leidenuniv.nl.

Participants will be notified of acceptance by March 31st. Full papers should be submitted by May 10th.

Organization
The IIAS study group on ‘Coproduction of Public Services’ is co-chaired by Trui Steen (Leiden University, the Netherlands and KU Leuven, Belgium), Tina Nabatchi (Syracuse University, US) and Dirk Brand (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa). The second meeting of the study group is organized by Mariafransesca Sicilia (University of Bergamo, Italy).

Will Crowdsourcing Revolutionize Government?

Our partners at the Davenport Institute recently shared a fascinating article via their Gov 2.0 Watch blog on the growing use of “crowd-sourcing” to seek the public’s help with government tasks. This innovative approach is definitely a way to engage the public, just not in the form we’re used to seeing. Read more below or find the original post here.


DavenportInst-logoJohn M. Kamensky, Sr. Fellow with the IBM Center for the Business of Government offers insight on how governments are embracing crowd-sourcing and how it can be used to best effect:

Most government leaders are restlessly on the search for new ideas, for innovation, for whatever is next. It may be their good luck that this is shaping up to be a Golden Age for engaging citizens, customers and employees. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the rapidly expanding use of “crowdsourcing.” This social-media tool is going mainstream in many communities as a source of innovative ideas.

. . . In the government sphere, crowdsourcing is an approach that uses online tools to break a problem down into manageable tasks and engages people to voluntarily help produce those results, according to Daren C. Brabham, a scholar at the University of Southern California who is following this phenomenon.

You can read more here.

New CommunityMatters Conference Call Series Starts Thursday

We are excited to share that our partners at CommunityMatters, in collaboration with the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design, are launching a new conference call series on moving community projects from planning through completion called “Making it Happen”. Their first call, “Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper”, will take place this Thursday, December 12th from 4-5pm Eastern Time. We highly encourage you to register now! You can read more about the call below, find the original post on the CM blog, or find more info on the series here.  


Start with Petunias: A Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper Approach to Community Action

CM_logo-200pxRaise your hand if this sounds familiar:

You’ve just finished a great community design or planning process. Hundreds of people participated, you came up with dozens of brilliant ideas for fixing your Main Street or revitalizing a run-down park, you drew up spiffy designs, and everyone is jazzed.

There’s just one problem: you don’t have the money to do much of anything. And your volunteers are tired. Oh, and you don’t even really know what to do first. (Make that three problems.)

We get it. You’re not alone. So where do you start? With the petunias.

Welcome to the school of Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper community action (“LQC”). When you’re just starting to implement designs and projects you need to build momentum, earn some quick wins, and make the most of every single dollar and volunteer hour. That means picking some ridiculously easy, cheap, and non-controversial projects that you can get done immediately and that will help build support for something bigger.

“Many great plans get bogged down because they are too big, too expensive, and simply take too long to happen,” writes the Project for Public Spaces (PPS). “Meanwhile the high cost of missed opportunities for economic development – and public life – continue to add up.”

Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper thinking and action can change all of that.

Here’s how it works: Forget trying to raise five-, six-, or seven-figure sums to implement all of your streetscape improvements right away. Instead, go spend $15 at a garden center, grab a helper, and transform one weedy corner with some new planter boxes. Once people see what a difference that can make, it won’t be hard to get $100 bucks and enough volunteers to create a sidewalk café for a day, showcasing the potential of the space. And when people see how cool that is, it won’t be long until you have $1,000 and to buy some tables and chairs and create a pop-up pedestrian plaza. And if that works? Then you think about shelling out more money and making it permanent.

Fun, right? But more than just fun, LQC is actually cutting-edge strategy. By choosing the right actions first, and testing things in an experimental and incremental way, you can have a surprisingly large impact while saving resources and building support for longer-term actions. LQC lets you hone in on the actions that will actually work the best for a place and the people who use it. And it lets you actually make places livelier, prettier and more functional fast – long before you could accomplish traditional big-budget projects.

On the December CommunityMatters conference call, in partnership with the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design, you’ll learn about the LQC model and how to apply it in your town.

PPS recommends a three-phase process:

  1. Start with amenities (like seating or gardens) and public art, which can quickly transform a space and encourage people to return.
  2. Then add events and “interventions” (such as temporary bike lanes or street closures) that can help test design solutions before fully implementing them.
  3. Finally, use “light development” (adaptive reuse, temporary structures, and building facelifts) to make changes quickly and relatively inexpensively.

But, there are somewhat messier stories from real communities that have moved from ideas to action.

Take Elkhorn City, Kentucky. Tim Belcher, a local attorney and President of the Elkhorn City Area Heritage Trust, has helped bring two Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design workshops to this town of just over 1,000 people. Elkhorn City wanted to find ways to increase tourism and economic development, and they focused on two of their biggest assets: whitewater paddling (they are located on the Russell Fork of the Big Sandy River) and theater (they are home to the renowned Artists Collaborative Theater). The community honed in on key action steps, experimented with small programs and events to build momentum, and leveraged that early work to attract more funding and complete more projects than many cities 50 times their size.

Still not sure how your community’s long-term plans can be transformed into a quick-and-dirty to-do list? Hundreds of other communities have paved the way, and their ideas are there for the taking. Start with “Spontaneous Interventions”, an exhibit at the recent Venice Biennale. Brendan Crain, Communications Manager at the Project for Public Spaces, was a member of the curatorial team for that project and will join us on the line to share LQC lessons and ideas from around the world. You can also get great ideas and advice from the Tactical Urbanism guides (Volumes 1 and 2).

So go ahead. Put that plan back on the shelf (for the time being) and just go buy some petunias. Read up on Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper community action at the Project for Public Spaces. Join us on December 12 to learn how to make your community stronger in a flash.

Think you have this LQC approach in the bag? This call is for you budding experts, too!  Tell us about your Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper success when you register for the call. We’ll ask a few people to share their story on the line!

This call is the first in a three-part series co-hosted by CommunityMatters and the Citizens’ Institute on Rural Design (CIRD). The series is designed to help any community move from a design or planning process into taking action.