5 Great Democratic Innovations from Around the Globe

Posted on April 6, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

Our friends at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation recently shared a great post on their Challenges to Democracy blog highlighting five examples of democratic innovation from Participedia that we found quite interesting (one even involves an NCDD member organization!). It’s invigorating to see concrete reminders that our work is making real changes, so we encourage you to check out the list below or find the original post here.

Looking for Inspiration? Five Noteworthy Innovations in Public Participation

Participedia is an effort that hopes to become a key resource for scholars, activists, policy makers, and citizens who are interested in new democratic practices and institutions. And it is always worth looking back to some of the most interesting cases recently added to Participedia for some inspiration. This selection from the frontlines of participatory innovation reflects both the diverse nature and the global span of Participedia.

1) Argentina – DEMOS

The purpose of the DEMOS project was to enable civic participation in the debate about high-profile law proposals in the Buenos Aires Legislature in Argentina, using the DemocracyOS software of the Democracia en Red foundation. The web app used was demos.legislatura.gov.ar and the initiative was open to civic participation for 35 days in November and December 2014.

In the project’s first phase, citizens were invited to rank their interests about 16 bills that had been introduced in DEMOS screenshot the legislature, corresponding to 12 political parties. The goal was for citizens to chose which were the 3 most important bills that should be debated online. And in the second phase, the top 3 bills were submitted for online discussion, both at an overall level and broken down into the sections of each bill.

Over 13,000 citizens visited the app and almost half of them signed up to participate. The online debate phase produced several interesting outcomes: there was one bill (about nurses’ working conditions) which received overwhelming support mostly because of the mobilization of activists from the party sponsoring that bill, and there was another very controversial bill (about informal parking guards) that led to high levels of polarization and disagreement among participants.

The DEMOS pilot was an unprecedented participatory initiative in Argentina’s history using online tools, and was relatively successful in terms of citizen turnout. The project was very innovative in enabling civic engagement in real-world bills that are important to the day-to-day life of citizens. One of the most interesting characteristics of DEMOS was that it was a success story of partnership with a government institution and with politicians from the whole political spectrum.

NW Initiative Creates Exemplary Civic Infrastructure

Posted on April 1, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

Recently, NCDD Board member John Backman wrote a guest piece on the CommunityMatters blog highlighting a great civic infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest called the Thriving Communities Initiative. TCI is an interesting case study of successful civic infrastructure, and John’s article pulls out some key lessons we can learn from it. You can read his piece below or find the original here.

Civic Infrastructure You Can See

Sometimes the raw materials of civic infrastructure are there but the connections are missing. Sometimes the connections are there but nobody sees them.

South Whidbey falls in the latter category. The residents of this Washington State community – about 20,000 people on the southern portion of Whidbey Island in Puget Sound – know one another well. Local organizations often work on similar issues. If any community would know its civic infrastructure, South Whidbey would.

And still the videos, highlighting unique and compelling community projects around the theme of food, surprised everyone.

One way to think of civic infrastructure is as “the underlying social structure – activities, meetings, community groups, etc. – that brings people together to address their challenges.” Despite all that activity, even the most robust civic infrastructures can go unnoticed… until a group arises to bring them to light.

“We all get so involved in our work that we sometimes don’t even acknowledge the wonderful overlaps,” said Jerry Millhon, executive director of the Whidbey Institute. “Video can showcase these connections and how powerful they could be.”

The videos were the first project of the institute’s Thriving Communities Initiative, whose mission is to connect and support grassroots leaders within and across communities in the Cascadian bioregion (which includes parts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California). Thriving Communities was born amid the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, when a question emerged for Millhon and his Whidbey colleagues: how could communities thrive and be resilient in such difficult times?

The first seven videos, produced in 2012, depicted unique and compelling community projects happening in South Whidbey. Since the theme of that year revolved around food, so did the video stories.

“The stories answered the question ‘How is food connecting people in a way that allows the community to thrive?’” said Millhon. “We saw many stories around dignity and respect and a sense of belonging – stories of food banks and community gardens. Food is a connective material.”

The project ended up connecting people far beyond South Whidbey. Thriving Communities used the videos as a launch point for its first conference, which more than 100 people attended – including Jeff Vander Clute, the co-founder of Thrive Napa Valley, who has been participating in Thriving Communities since its inception.

“The gathering promoted the kind of conversation and connection that inspired people to go home and do great things in their communities,” Vander Clute said.

The annual conferences have continued to inspire great things. At one gathering, grassroots leaders learned about Supportland, a rewards program that encourages consumers to shop local and local businesses to share customers; three communities have started Supportland-type programs as a result. An innovative model for food banks, presented at a Thriving Communities conference, is now the norm in a number of Northwest locations.

As effective as they are, the videos and conferences are not the only ways in which Thriving Communities fosters connections and makes them visible. The initiative is building an online library with a range of resources, including profiles of organizations engaged in effective projects. A new website and social media presence enable even far-flung communities to connect with one another. Whidbey Institute leaders are seeking out ways for Thriving Communities to collaborate with other community organizations.

The initiative continues to focus its efforts on a specific theme each year. From food in 2012, the team shifted to “living local economy” in 2013 and to health in 2014. This year’s videos tell the story of how different aspects of health create a thriving community.

As for the future of Thriving Communities, Millhon envisions many years, and many themes, to come.

“There is a hunger and energy around this work from communities, and it isn’t going away,” he said. “So much is going on within 100 miles of the institute. Even so, we don’t want to get too far out over our skis; for this to work, it must preserve a regional focus and the grassroots feeling it brings.”

You can find the original version of this CommunityMatters blog piece at www.communitymatters.org/blog/civic-infrastructure-you-can-see.

NICD Helps Build a “Caucus of the Whole” in VT Legislature

Posted on March 31, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

NCDD members are doing vital work to improve the political climate in our country every day, and we recently heard about a special example of that kind of work being done by the good people at NCDD member organization the National Institute for Civic Discourse.

Earlier this year, NICD’s Ted Celeste – an NCDD supporting member and one of our 2014 conference mentors – convened one of NICD’s Next Generation workshops aimed at helping legislators in Vermont develop better communication and more collaborative relationships. It was met with rave reviews and yielded some exciting results!

Here’s what a local Vermont news outlet had to say about this innovative dialogue effort:

When it comes to rancor between the two major parties at the Statehouse, Vermont has it pretty good compared to other parts of the country. But there is always room for improvement. That’s why 20 lawmakers – Republican, Democrats, and Progressives – sat down Wednesday to clear the air and learn to communicate better. It’s part of a national effort aimed at improving civil discourse in politics.

“There’s a real spirit and enthusiasm for trying to find the common ground,” said Ted Celeste, facilitator.

Celeste, a Democrat and former member of the Ohio Legislature, is on a mission. Working with the University of Arizona’s Institute For Civil Discourse, he crisscrosses the country to help lawmakers get along. Many, he says, have similar issues.

“There’s not enough time to get to know each other. The partisan politics gets in the way of finding common ground, so we cover a lot of the same issues,” said Celeste.

Members at the workshop say that unlike the old days when lawmakers would live and socialize in Montpelier during the session, many now commute every day and that collegiality has suffered. For others it’s pressure to toe the party line that’s a problem.

The article continued with thoughts from legislators who participated in the workshop. But what we found most interesting was the development of a “caucus of the whole”:

Vermont is still a long way from Washington, D.C. where members of the opposite parties won’t applaud during a presidential speech or talk past each other in sound bites, but Ted Celeste says it’s a good place to start… It’s a new effort at the Statehouse to rise above partisan politics.

Efforts to improve civil discourse at the Statehouse have resulted in a new “caucus of the whole.” While party members will continue to meet or caucus separately with their individual parties, the caucus of the whole is an opportunity to work together.

We salute NICD’s continued efforts to improve dialogue and collaboration among our nation’s political leaders, and we hope that, as with the emergence of Vermont’s “caucus of the whole,” their work continues to be successful.

We encourage you to check out the video of the news piece done on NICD’s workshop by clicking here, or you can read the full version of this WCAX.com story by visiting www.wcax.com/story/27964801/vt-lawmakers-learn-to-communicate-better-at-statehouse.

LGBT-Religious Conservative Dialogue Yields New Utah Law

Posted on March 25, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We were inspired by this wonderful piece from NCDD supporting member Dr. Jacob Hess of All of Life and Political-Dialogue.com on a controversial but promising development in Utah legislation that was brokered by long-term intergroup dialogue. Jacob’s piece explores how dialogue between religious conservatives and LGBTQ advocates created unlikely collaborations, and it holds a lot of insight for us in our work. You can read Jacob’s article below or find the original here.

Did Something Really Good or Really Bad Just Happen in Utah?

Leaning back in his chair, Jim Dabakis – an openly gay state senator from Utah – quoted one columnist who recently called him a “quisling” for his efforts to explore potential common ground with Mormon legislators.

He added with a wry smile, “I’m not even sure what that word means…but it doesn’t sound good!” (He’s right! quisling = “a traitor who collaborates with an occupying enemy force.”)

Depending on your perspective, something emerged from Utah’s 2015 legislative session last week that is either a “landmark,” a “watershed moment” and even a “miracle” – or a bill variously called “pathetic,” “shameful” and “the baddest of bad ideas.”

Disagreements aside, almost everyone might agree on how surprising it was to see Jim Dabakis hugging a Mormon apostle, Tom Perry, at the bill’s signing ceremony. What’s up with that?!

Background.

After the extensive Mormon support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, relations between the LGBT community and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were anything but tranquil. A year later, Church security detained a gay couple kissing on Temple Square in an incident that became another touch-point for hostility – ultimately compelling leaders from both the LGBT community and the church to begin meeting in person.

The first of these meetings, summarized in the L.A. Times and Salt Lake Tribune, was described as “awkward” and “quite uncomfortable” – until, at least, people began to share details of their personal journeys. Alongside surprising tears and laughter, one participant reflected that ultimately, “what everyone found is that we really liked each other.”

A second meeting was organized – then a third. They began to happen regularly. One Mormon who participated in these early conversations described them as “defined by feelings of love and respect and a desire to make things better.” Dabakis stated, “Both sides found out they had plenty to learn about each other, and both sides have come a long way in their mutual understanding.”

By the time Christmas season rolled around, the LGBT activists involved in the conversations were invited with their same-sex partners to be special guests at the popular Mormon Tabernacle Choir’s Christmas concert. Dabakis recalled,“We met in church headquarters, hugged, introduced all our partners. As they were taking us to the VIP seats, we walked across the plaza where the kissing went on. And a church elder said laughing, ‘Anyone want to kiss? No problem.’”

Reflecting on the significant change in atmosphere from these earlier years, Dabakis said, “there was a hostility and a bitterness and a disdain and a disrespect for each other, and we have gotten through that… Without those conversations, we’d still be two camps ensconced in the mountains shaking their fists at each other.” One participant said the discussions “reaffirmed for me the power of people talking to each other – even if you have incredible differences. You start to see the humanity.”

Embracing common ground.

Once actual relationships began to form, some basic common ground quickly became obvious. In a move that surprised many (if not the dialogue participants), the Church formally voiced public support for a 2009 Salt Lake City ordinance on housing and employment nondiscrimination for the LGBT community. “The issue before you tonight,” LDS Church spokesperson Michael Otterson said at the city meeting, “is the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against… In drafting this ordinance, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations.”

This event was the beginning of what some have tried to characterize as the church being “swayed” and experiencing a “change of heart” or even some contrition for earlier political involvement. Church leaders have described it much differently – as a continuation of action consistent with core beliefs in a changing political environment.

Apostle D. Todd Christofferson clarified, “This is not a doctrinal evolution or change, as far as the church is concerned,” the apostle said. “It’s how things are approached.”

Senator Dabakis agrees. In a 2013 interview exploring the ongoing dialogues, he emphasized that there are still many points of disagreement: “I don’t think the church has given one iota on gay marriage – maybe they never will – and neither have we. On the other hand, we have found a lot of commonalities that we can work on” – highlighting a joint efforts to help homeless kids.

In recent years, Church leaders have also increasingly encouraged members to follow the example of Christ in working with disagreements. Apostle Dallin Oaks encouraged Latter-Day Saints in 2014 to respond with “civility” when their views are not upheld in judicial or legislative decisions: “When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously, and practice civility with our adversaries.” He also encouraged members to reject persecution “of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation.”

The message has been that Church members can practice this respect without compromising their own theological convictions. As general women’s leader Neill Marriott explained at an early 2015 press conference, the Mormon belief in the traditional family “comes from sacred scripture and we are not at liberty to change it.”

At the same gathering, Dallin Oaks and others encouraged further exploration of balanced “legislation that protects vital religious freedoms for individuals, families, churches and other faith groups while also protecting the rights of our LGBT citizens in such areas as housing, employment, and public accommodation in hotels, restaurants, and transportation.” In a subsequent interview, he clarified the Church’s broader argument that neither religious freedom nor non-discrimination were “absolutes” – and that limitations and exceptions needed to be acknowledged for each.

Shortly after this press conference, legislators in Utah began meeting with gay rights and conservative leaders in extensive deliberations to explore potential policies that brought together both nondiscrimination and religious freedom elements into one bill (SB 296). Describing the experience, Senator Dabakis said, “I think it’s the most exhausting thing I’ve ever done in my life.”

Out of these deliberations, leaders and legislators gathered to announce a bill (SB 296) that represented common ground that both sides felt they could agree upon, as well as (slight) compromises [1] each were willing to make at this time. What exactly to make of this simultaneous policy initiative is a matter of widely diverging interpretation.

Best or Worst of Utah?

Some observers have insisted that what subsequently unfolded is simply another reflection of Mormon prejudice. “It is just another scheme, you watch,” one person said. Others called it “a PR stunt and nothing more” and “a craftily crafted crafting of crafty exemptions.” [2] Nancy Wilson from Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) argued that local gay leaders had become “pawns in a global strategy of placing religious rights over all other constitutional and civil liberties.”

Those most closely involved in the actual deliberations, however, almost universally saw the experience and outcome very differently. Equality Utah Executive Director Troy Williams called the action a “monumental day” and suggested that “This vote proves that protections for gay and transgender people in housing and the workplace can gracefully coexist with the rights of people of faith. One does not exist at the expense of the other.” Bill sponsor Steve Urquart stated, “LGBT rights and religious liberties are not opposite; they are not mutually incompatible.”

One legal consultant stated the bill gave “great assurances to religious believers that extending LGBT rights does not have to wash out the character of their faith communities.” Apostle D. Todd Christofferson agreed, describing the bill as a mechanism for protecting the LGBT community “in a way that was not threatening to other things that we hold precious.”

Senator Dabakis summarized, “It’s incredibly important in our community that we make sure that religious liberties are protected, and I think that [this bill] does that and it does it very, very well. It also protects the LGBT community against discrimination. That’s what we set out to do. I think that’s what we do.”

The LDS Church also issued a statement: “In a society which has starkly diverse views on what rights should be protected, the most sensible way to move forward is for all parties to recognize the legitimate concerns of others. While none of the parties achieved all they wanted, we do at least now have an opportunity to lessen the divisiveness in our communities without compromising on key principles.”

‘Compromise’ a good thing?

Recent surveys show the general public increasingly wants the U.S. Congress and other elected officials to find pragmatic compromises that diverse communities can live with. In our winner-take-all political atmosphere, however, the word “compromise” still retains a pejorative sense for many. As Washington Post journalists point out, citizens have mixed feelings about ‘working together’ on certain issues:

Everyone likes the idea of compromise – both in politics and in life more generally. We all like to think of ourselves as reasonable people who are always looking for the common-sense middle ground on a given issue and we want our politicians to reflect that approach. But, our desire for compromise goes out the window when it’s an issue that matters to us and/or where we are convinced we are right.

Some members of both communities reflected this kind of resistance. For instance, one person argued that when it comes to nondiscrimination, “‘balance’ or ‘compromise’ is not applicable here. You don’t compromise where the protection of your civil rights are concerned. You don’t beg and cajole for it. You don’t even ask politely…You demand it as your right as an American citizen.” Another said, “How about just saying you can’t discriminate for any reason. Period.”

Translation: When it comes to nondiscrimination, there are no exceptions, no limitations, and no compromises that should be considered.

Similar sentiments were heard from citizens on the right: “As a religious practicing Christian I can’t help but feel we just struck a deal with the devil to allow a little more wickedness to be accepted into society. Right is right and wrong is wrong… I feel like good Christians have just been pushed a little more out of the way for the LGBT movement’s agenda.” Southern Baptist Convention leader Russell Moore cautioned that proposals to address discrimination against gay people in employment or housing “inevitably lead to targeted assaults on religious liberty.”

Translation: When it comes to religious freedom, there are no exceptions, no limitations, and no compromises that should be considered.

Those involved in the Utah dialogues, by contrast, came to see win-win solutions by working together: “Both sides need protection under the law,” one person wrote. “I am glad to see compromise. We all want freedom to live and function under our convictions and life choices, religious or otherwise.” Senator Steve Urquhart stated, “That’s what we do in America – we balance rights. We balance liberties. And I think we’re doing a fine job of that in this legislation.”

Fred Sainz, a vice president with the Human Rights Campaign, agreed: “This is all upside. The fact that employers will be prohibited from discriminating, and the fact that the LDS church could work towards common ground should be a model for common ground.” He continued, “Legislation is about compromise. The idea is, were you able to preserve principles important to your [religious] community, and the principles most important to our [LGBT] community were preserved and strengthened.”

Remaining questions.

Both sides in the deliberation also agreed there is more work to be done. Kent Frogley, with the Utah Pride Center, called the bill a “huge step forward” – adding, “It’s not perfect, but there are still lots of opportunities to work together and continue to evolve.” And a summary from the Mormon Newsroom acknowledges the problem that to this point, no current bill yet addresses “the provision of goods and services in the marketplace” – noting this as “an area that is simply too divisive to find a middle ground at this time.”

As both communities take future steps towards additional common ground legislation, it will be helpful to acknowledge basic differences in how both discrimination and religious freedom are interpreted and viewed. For instance, there is not wide agreement concerning to what degree religious freedom is under threat – and what appropriate limits ought to be pursued or allowed. One commenter asked, “Religious freedom is already protected, so why go to such lengths?” Another said, “Religion needs no more protection. They have far too much protection as it is.”

The religious side, by contrast, points to public sentiments that highlight their own desire to affirm protections for open religious expression – e.g., comments such as “Keep it in [worship service] and no one will care. Share it in public and you get what you deserve.”/ “Leave your religion at home or at church where it belongs.”

When it comes to the meaning and limits of nondiscrimination, similar differences in perspective exist. Some, for instance, see Utah’s legislative compromise as simply a “license to discriminate” or “legalizing discrimination.” Others label the bill as “sidestepping discrimination laws” or “trying to justify discrimination in the name of god” or “freeing religious people to discriminate at will.”

By contrast, religious authors who advocate some practical benefits of the law, suggest that “the better view is that it is not discrimination for a religious organization to require behavior consistent with its religious doctrines.” Senator Dabakis himself also explained why he felt the bill’s protections were “even handed” in protecting “people in expressing their religious opinions – but also their expression of marriage and sexuality.”

These and other disagreements remain to be explored and considered in future deliberation, between both citizens and their representatives. The difference now is that people in Utah see a way forward that both sides can support.

Looking forward.

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois law professor who helped draft the “Utah compromise” legislation, stated prior to the bill’s passage, “If Utah can get this balance between religious liberty and gay rights right, I really think it will be the pivot moment for the country.” She described the legislation as “détente” and a “truce in the culture war”: “We have to find a way to live together. We just can’t endlessly be litigating against each other. We can’t endlessly be in culture wars.”

Senator Dabakis reflected, “We’ve found a way where people who have totally conflicting ideas, that were at the edge of war in 2008, have rolled up their sleeves, worked together, and built bridges rather than blow them up… Then we have walked across that bridge together.” He continued, “Oh, if the country could be like this. This bill is a model – not just of legislation, but more importantly of how to bridge the cultural rift tearing America apart… I know that, together, we can build a community that strongly protects religious organizations, constitutional liberties, and, in addition, creates a civil, respectful, nurturing culture where differences are honored and everyone feels welcome… I’m so proud of our state.”

Since every state is different, clearly the details of law won’t apply everywhere. But as stated by one journalist, perhaps it is “Utah’s path to newly passed legislation that… might be more of a template for the nation than the law itself.” This includes a long-term process of seeking understanding, combined with a willingness to act together. As former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt stated at a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution, “I think a key element of the secret sauce here is moving to meet the needs of both simultaneously. It has to happen at the same time because the other side will not trust that you will come back and protect them later.” [3]

Despite these intentions and hopes, Troy Williams, Jim Dabakis, and other gay rights leaders in Utah continue to be accused by some observers of being “sell-outs” – people who got “played” by Utah religious leaders.

These critics are wrong. The open-hearted approach Dabakis, Williams, and others (like Kendall Wilcox, with Mormons Building Bridges) have taken has been crucial in galvanizing a legitimately fresh and vibrant dynamic of good will and respect in Utah. Spend time with any of these leaders and you will learn for yourself the courage and grace these deliberations have required.

Even though none of these leaders are entirely happy with the legislation, there is a sense of empathy and appreciation that it represents the common ground Utahans are ready to stand on right now. As that empathetic spirit continues to shape the conversations ahead, this author believes that the LGBT community will find many in the Utah religious community willing to substantially compromise on public accommodations – even as other, more basic areas of free religious expression continue to be protected.

Even those who disagree on the ultimate worth of this legislation might agree that there’s something intriguing about the surprising degree of good will that characterized these events. In a spontaneous moment of celebration at the signing ceremony last week, Senator Jim Dabakis and Mormon apostle L. Tom Perry pointed at each other in appreciation and affection, “You did it!” “No, you did it!”

What’s up with that?!

You can find the original version of Jacob’s article on his website at http://political-dialogue.com/2015/03/20/did-something-really-good-or-really-bad-just-happen-in-utah.

EvDem Webinar on Recruiting for Dialogue & Action, Apr. 9

Posted on March 19, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We want to encourage our NCDD members to join the good people with Everyday Democracy, an NCDD member organization, for a helpful webinar they are hosting this April 9th at 4pm EST. The webinar is called “How to Recruit Leaders and Volunteers for Your Cause” and is a great chance for those of us who work with volunteers or are interested in growing our organizations.

The webinar will feature insights on recruiting and retention from Everyday Democracy Program Officer Janee Woods Weber. Here’s how EvDem describes the event:

Join us for a webinar on recruiting new leaders and volunteers on April 9 at 4pm ET.

This is a webinar to explore best practices for recruiting coalition members, facilitators, and participants for your dialogue and action work. We’ll talk about how to get started, how to recruit groups that are hard to reach, and 10 tips for recruiting new leaders. Join this webinar to get some great tips on getting people to sign up for your cause!

We hope you’ll take advantage of this great opportunity! You can register today by visiting https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7632196557590205953, or visit EvDem’s original announcement about the event by clicking here.

Learning from SUNY Racial Justice Deliberations

Posted on March 17, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

Our partners with the National Issues Forums Institute recently shared an interesting piece from SUNY Professor Scott Corely on his experiences hosting NIFI-style deliberations about racial and ethnic justice on campus. He shares rich insights and lessons that many of us could learn from, so we encourage you to read his piece below or to find the original NIFI post here.

A Report about Racial and Ethnic Justice Deliberations at SUNY Broome Community College

Overview and Explanation

In 2013, I began thinking about how civic engagement efforts can be eloquently, deliberately, and effectively combined with efforts aimed at promoting racial justice. Eventually I decided to update and modify NIFI’s Racial and Ethnic Tensions: What Should We Do? (published in 2000) so as to update the statistical information, include current events stories, and re-frame the guide away from “reducing tensions” to “promoting justice.” The revised deliberation guide utilized concepts drawn broadly from social justice, peace studies, and racial justice literature and specifically from the pedagogy of Intergroup Dialogue.

The frames are as follows:

Approach 1: Address racial and ethnic injustice and inequality on institutional and structural levels
Approach 2: Reduce racial and ethnic injustice by extensively encouraging education / training programs
Approach 3: Address racial and ethnic problems on an individual level

The fruits of my labor resulted in a 26 page deliberation guide (that still contains a good amount of text from the original version), a moderator’s guide, and a placemat. I’ve ran this deliberation on a very experimental basis involving only a handful of people twice for about an hour in the spring semester of 2014. More in-depth deliberations then took place the next academic year starting in the fall, 2014 in my Social Problems class, at an adjunct training conference, and for 25 VISTA and Americorps volunteers for 2-1/2 hours who participated in the discussion for anti-racism training purposes.

On February 17th, I ran this deliberation at SUNY Broome again with 24 attendees, half of whom were students and the other half BCC faculty and staff, for 3 hours. On February 18th, I ran this deliberation at Binghamton University, which is one of the state university’s flagship institutions, with approximately 40 students for 1-1/2 hours.

Initial Observations

My initial, and most important, observation is that the modified framework is effective. The 3 approaches “flow” into one another eloquently as they are relatively distinctive, but interconnected ways to address racial and ethnic injustice. I was pleased to notice how participants were able to discuss the approaches in and of themselves, but not without somehow referring to issues and concepts connected to the other 2 approaches. With good moderation, deliberation participants can clearly understand the major ideas associated with race, racism, and racial justice, but in relationship to advantages, drawbacks, tensions, and tradeoffs connected to various courses of action. Overall, I observed rich and informative conversations.

To increase the chances of executing this deliberation successfully, it seems vital that, similar to other deliberations, the run-time be at least 2 hours and audience (participant) composition should be as diverse as possible in every measure. I also believe that while discussion moderators need not be “experts” in social justice, cultural competency, or the like, moderation skills would no doubt be enhanced with a certain level of familiarity with major concepts and terminology associated with racial justice work. And in order to increase the chances that potential discussion participants can draw on the same information, have a base-line understanding of the topic, and are able to use the same language effectively, the modified discussion guide also needs to be shortened.

Future Efforts

Currently, there are plans to run this deliberation in SUNY BCC’s residence halls and at Binghamton University within the next few weeks. I will also have the opportunity to have SUNY BCC students deliberate about this topic using the modified Racial Justice guide in a criminal justice class, a public policy class, and during a student club general meeting. In the spirit of expanding the use of this deliberation beyond Broome County, I have hopes that New York Campus Compact and/or the State University of New York Diversity and Inclusion Taskforce may help provide incentives, encouragement, and infrastructure for other SUNY campuses to run this forum.

It may also be noteworthy to point out that I will begin developing another discussion guide on minority communities and law enforcement. With another colleague, I am organizing a panel discussion and open forum on March 5th which I will use to begin acquiring initial data to develop the framework. The panelists include a member of City Council, a police chief, a member of the NACCP, and an ACLU branch director.

The link contains more information and news coverage of the racial justice deliberation at SUNY BCC on February 17th: www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=37040.

The following link contains a brief newspaper article used for advertising purposes for the deliberation at SUNY BCC: www.pressconnects.com/story/news/2015/02/17/racial-issue-event-broome/23549099.

You can find the original version of this piece on the NIFI website at www.nifi.org/en/groups/scott-corley-report-about-racial-and-ethnic-justice-deliberations-suny-broome-community.

3 Tips on Preparing for Dialogue from PCP

Posted on March 16, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We encourage you to check out one of the most recent pieces from the Public Conversations Project, an NCDD organizational member, on key things to keep in mind about the importance of being preparation before dialogue. You can read the piece from PCP’s blog below or find the original here.

Preparation: Three Lessons from George Mitchell in Northern Ireland

George Mitchell didn’t enter Northern Ireland as a peacemaker. In February of 1995, President Clinton appointed him to a trade mission, meant to last until the end of the year. Rather than dedicating himself solely to policy, he spent his time building relationships, learning about the context in Northern Ireland, and earning the trust of all with whom he worked.

Before the end of his appointment, authorities from Britain and Northern Ireland accepted Mitchell as one of three chairmen on an international commission on the disarmament of paramilitary organizations. Of the work the three chairmen would do over the next two and a half years, they would spend a comparatively small amount of time, only seven months, in substantive negotiations.

What distinguishes Mitchell’s work? A model of preparation applicable in all levels of dialogue.

Over the course of months, Mitchell and his team created a series of documents based on their preparatory conversations that would guide the peace process. Similar to the framework of our flagship workshop, Power of Dialogue, these included ground rules, guidelines for conduct, an agenda for the opening plenary session, and terms of reference for the proceedings. Through this preparation, the parties voluntarily appointed Mitchell as chairman of the plenary sessions, and began to trust that he would act as a confidential and impartial facilitator of the ten parties involved – the British and Irish governments and eight Northern Ireland political parties.

In his account of the proceedings, Mitchell recognized, “Ultimately my ability to be effective would depend more upon my gaining the participants’ trust and confidence than on the formal description of my authority.” In spite of reoccurring violence, threats, attacks on his credibility, and leaks to the press, George Mitchell’s peace process plugged along, in no small part because of the framework and foundation he created with thorough preparation. The preparation did not minimize the divergences among the parties, nor did it attempt to begin building a solution. But preparation for any conversation – from a roommate conflict to a political conflict – can be invaluable.

As you begin to prepare for your dialogue, here are three things you can learn from George Mitchell:

1. Listen.

In his account of the process, Mitchell said, “For the two years of negotiations, I listened and listened, and then I listened some more.” Begin to understand what the people involved in your dialogue want to talk about. Ultimately, this is their dialogue and you are there to serve their purposes.

Feedback and information from party leaders directly informed everything from ground rules to the chairman and the agenda. Mitchell spoke at length with the British government as well as the representatives of North Ireland’s groups before beginning the dialogue to understand the full complexity of the conflict. (Granted the ramifications of this agreement would have an effect on British constitutional law, the Irish Constitution, and governance of Northern Ireland… but the principles are the same if the only effect is on house rules in a college dorm.)

2. Take the opportunity to ask the right questions.

At Public Conversations, we focus our preparation on questions that will equip the participants to participate in the dialogue as much as possible, such as: What would allow you to feel safe in these discussions? What would inhibit you from participating in these discussions? What are you afraid of? What do you hope to achieve if all goes well? Who are you responsible for and what do they think?

From the responses you gather, these conversations can help inform your structure of the meeting and the rules that guide it.

3. Don’t forget to build relationships.

As a facilitator, you are responsible for holding the participants of a dialogue to their rules and their process. To do so, they must trust you to lead them in an impartial and constructive way. Each participant must trust your confidentiality and your dedication to their purposes.

As the negotiations in Northern Ireland picked up speed, Mitchell writes, “The only people who observed the rule [of confidentiality] were the independent chairmen. I believe that was one reason why the three of us gained the respect of the participants.” And as others began to breach the rule, they looked to Mitchell for guidance.

Preparation has been at the core of Public Conversations work for over 25 years, and we’ve realized many of the same benefits Mitchell did in Northern Ireland. Whether on the international stage or at the office, we all feel the temptation to get to the “actual work” as quickly as possible. But preparation should be prioritized, as it can lay the foundation for a constructive dialogue. So as you strive to use dialogue to encourage connection across painful divides, we hope you consider using these tools to set a foundation for a more effective conversation.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project blog piece by visiting www.publicconversations.org/blog/preparation-three-lessons-george-mitchell-northern-ireland.

Update on Pastor-Scientist Dialogue Series from PA

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We have been watching the development of a fascinating series from the good folks with NCDD member organization Public Agenda wherein they are bringing together evangelical Christians and scientists for dialogue. We’ve shared their latest blog posts on how the dialogues have gone, and we encourage you to read it below or find the original here.

Diffusing Tension Through Dialogue – and a Touch of Humor

Public Agenda is partnering with AAAS to facilitate a series of dialogues between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors throughout the summer and fall. The purpose of the project is to improve dialogue, relationships and collaboration between these two communities, often viewed as staunchly divided. This blog is one in a series from our public engagement team, who write to reflect on their experiences moderating the dialogues. Read more about this project here and here, and download the discussion guide used during these conversations here. For more information, email Allison Rizzolo.

A few weeks ago in Atlanta, I found myself in a room surrounded by church pastors, evolutionary biologists, theology professors, mathematicians and a former Vietnam veteran turned evangelical Christian. I was there for the third dialogue in the Perceptions Project, which brings together individuals who self-identify as belonging to the evangelical Christian community or (though in some cases “and” is more appropriate) the scientific community.

Many of the participants seemed nervous at the start of the dialogue. Though I served as a co-facilitator and was not technically a participant, I admit that I too approached the conversation with a hint of reticence. Before boarding my plane to Atlanta, a friend told me to “watch myself” since he claimed that there was “no way those two groups could manage to be civil toward one another, especially down in the Bible belt.”

What I found, however, was quite the opposite of that presupposition.

The group certainly tackled some tricky topics – evolution, stem cell research, and abortion, to name a few. Still, the group my colleague Susan and I led was filled with some of the most empathetic, curious, and kindest people I had met in quite some time.

For example, one of the scientists in the room brought up the Institutional Review Board process. Through this process, scientists present their research projects to a group of their institutional colleagues, who determine whether or not that project is ethical and can proceed. The board is responsible for deciding whether the welfare of human participants is protected, among other things.

One pastor was shocked to learn that all scientists must go through this process, saying, “I had no idea that scientists actually cared about the sanctity of life.”

A biologist quipped, “We have morals too!”

Within a moment, laughter filled the room. The participants began to ease up, and suddenly the stage was set for true, honest, and constructive dialogue. Everyone in the room seemed to start abandoning their preconceived notions of the “other’s” theoretical identity and began to view one another as real people who deserved credit for having their own unique perspectives, all varying in scope and range. Not one person in that room fit the mold of a cookie-cutter stereotype. And the truth is, no one ever does.

One of the biggest takeaways of Public Agenda’s partnership with AAAS is that no barrier is ever too big to break down. Participants exchanged business cards across communities and made plans to continue the conversation after the workshop was over – a true sign of a successful event. While some participants agreed to disagree, they did accomplish one major feat, as the beloved Aretha Franklin would put it:

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me…”

And that, in my opinion, is exactly what happened in Atlanta.

You can find the original version of this piece by visiting www.publicagenda.org/blogs/diffusing-tension-through-dialogue-and-a-touch-of-humor#sthash.VEdpzNjV.dpuf.

A Participant’s Reflections on NCDD 2014

Posted on January 16, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We were so appreciative of the reflections on our 2014 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation that NCDD supporting member Cynthia Kurtz shared on her blog that we wanted to share them here on ours. There are great lessons she took away that all of us can learn from, so we encourage you to read her piece below or to find the original version here.

What I Learned at the NCDD 2014 Conference

So I’m back from my first real conference in ten years, and I learned a lot. This is the conference I mentioned a few blog posts back, of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation.

NCDDers-with-signs-border The first thing I learned was: I’m ten years older than I was ten years ago. Conferences have always been exhausting, but this one felt like a strange dream in which crowds of faces surged and receded while I surfed on crests of … of … lots of stuff. However, I survived; I have vague memories of the event; and I have some things to tell you.

Natural story workers

One thing that surprised me at the conference was how many people there do story work. Only a few people said they do story work, but a lot of people worked with stories in some way, while they were trying to get people to understand each other.

My initial reaction on pointing this out to myself was, “Sure, but they don’t really do story work. It’s not as intense or authoritative or authentic or deep or….” And in the midst of trying to justify myself to myself, I realized that I may be on my way to becoming pompous.

Do you remember the thing I’m always saying about how the best storytellers are the people who don’t realize they are telling stories? About how, once people begin to be proud of the quality of their storytelling, the quality of their storytelling declines? I’m starting to wonder if there is a parallel process in doing story work. Maybe the best story workers are people who work with stories without knowing it. Maybe, over the years, I have become not only a story performer but a story-work performer as well. I’d like to think I have passed through the story-work-performer state into a state of deep wisdom, where I have become both natural andskilled; but, alas, I find that my skills of denial cannot rise to the challenge of this assertion.

Solutions to pomposity and story-work performing I can come up with include the following.

I could stop doing this work for a while – six months or longer – and see if the pomposity goes away. However, this is not an option, because I still have many promises to keep.
I could keep reminding myself that I am not the owner of anything (except my good name) and that many people have had great ideas about story work. But I’ve been doing that all along, and it doesn’t seem to have saved me. No, humility alone is not enough. I need to take positive action.
I am always encouraging people to share stories. So why don’t I encourage myself to share story work? If I can make a conscious effort to recognize, respect, and connect with the story work other people are doing – even if they don’t call it that, or maybe especially if they don’t call it that – I can regulate myself to open my mind to all forms of story work. I’ve done some of this in the past, but honestly, I’ve done far less than I could have done.

Number three is my new plan. One part of the plan is the “translation dictionary” idea, which I think I mentioned here before. This idea is to develop a set of (relatively brief, don’t worry) writings about how PNI connects to as many fields and approaches and methods as I can possibly find. Before I went to the NCDD conference, I thought I should build a translation dictionary because it would be helpful to you. Now I think I need it even more than you do.

My least-favorite assumption is still alive and well

I am sorry to tell you that the “story work means telling stories” assumption is still going strong. People are still very little aware of natural, everyday story sharing and the functions it provides in society and in communities and organizations. When people talked to me about ideas for using stories in their work, their first impulse was always to talk about how they might use stories to communicate with the public — i.e., to tell stories.

I don’t ever want to minimize the function of storytelling as purposeful communication. It is reasonable and laudable to convey essential messages through stories. However, if this is the only thing people think they can do with stories, or get from stories, that’s a sad thing. Because using stories to communicate is just the tip of the iceberg of what stories can do for a community or organization (or society). Those of us who care about stories have more work to do to get that word out.

It’s getting crowded in here

In More Work with Stories, I connect PNI with nine other fields. But I have been realizing lately that I could probably connect it with ninety, if I broadened the scope to methods and approaches as well. Getting involved with the NCDD has helped me to learn that I have been hiding in a hole in terms of the many ways people have developed to help people make sense of things together. Just because a method doesn’t say anything about stories doesn’t mean it doesn’t have anything to do with stories. If it has to do with people and communication, it has something to do with stories.

For example, as part of my NCDD learning, I recently bought The Change Handbook, which describes 61 methods for helping people create positive change. Can you guess how many of those 61 methods I was familiar with before I found the book? Eleven. Why have I not been building more connections? (Because I’ve been writing a book, that’s why; but still.) Now I want to know: How does PNI connect with the World Café? The Art of Hosting? Dynamic Facilitation? Wisdom Circles? Bohm Dialogue? Open Space? Systems Dynamics? Charrettes? Non-Violent Communication? Future Search? And so on.

This universe of connections is yet another reason to build a translation dictionary. I had been thinking about the dictionary as a way for people to understand PNI, and above I described it as a way I could share story work more completely. But a translation dictionary could also help people move back and forth between PNI and a variety of other methods as they build the suites and composites that best fit their contexts and purposes.

I started thinking through what a template for a translation dictionary might look like. I came up with this process:

Summarize each of the two approaches with a paragraph or two. (One will always be PNI, but I’m trying to be general.)
Look for pairings in each of three areas: goals or principles; concepts or ideas; and methods or techniques. Come up with at least one and at most three pairings in each category.
For each pairing, decide whether it’s a similarity or a contrast. If it’s a similarity, describe how the two elements are similar, and how they are (subtly) different. If it’s a contrast, describe how the elements differ, and how they are (subtly) similar or at least complementary.
For each pairing, describe how it might be used in practice to combine what is best in the two approaches.

I visualize the whole pattern as something like this:

…where the grey circles indicate similarities, and the yin/yang symbols represent contrasts. Here I have vertical circle placements showing the relative centrality of each element to each approach, but that might be too fussy. I like diagrams, but I know some people would not get much out of the extra visual information.

So as I thought about this template, I realized that I had seen something similar before. What I was creating looked a little like a template for a pattern language. You could even say that my categories of goals, concepts, and methods are like the pattern language elements of context, problem, and solution.

Here’s a question for you: Everybody loves pattern languages, and rightly so, but why do we have to stop there? Could there be more kinds of languages than just of patterns? What about connection languages that, instead of describing patterns, describe connections? Might pattern languages, which are typically used within approaches (or transcending approaches), contribute to a lack of sharing among approaches? Maybe pattern languages could connect to connection languages, so that you could follow links from inside a particular approach, through its connection language, and into the pattern languages of other approaches.

What if lots of people made connection languages? What if, someday, it would be considered uncool to talk about one’s approach without also showing one’s connection language? What if connection languages were printed on cards, and people could use them to brainstorm about ways they could combine different approaches and methods to get results for their communities and organizations? What if, instead of going shopping for isolated approaches, groups could find the best combinations of methods and ideas for their contexts and purposes?

These are just wild speculations, and some might not agree with them. My plan right now is to make a start on my own connection language, using a template like the one above (which will evolve), and fold it into the second book. If you are interested in the idea of connection languages and want to work with me, or do something similar, let me know.

The great benefit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time

I went to the NCDD conference pretty much by accident. A champion of my book told me that he was going to the conference and planned to tell people there about my book. I said, hmm, what’s this, and if people there might like my book, should I think about going too? I had been thinking that I could start going to conferences again, now that my son is old enough that I can (stand to) leave home for a few days. So I joined the NCDD and signed up. (Sadly, my champion was not able to go due to a family emergency.)

Ending up in what seemed to be the wrong place at the wrong time was a revelation. Even though I might never have chosen this conference without someone else planning to go there first, it was just the right conference for me to go to. I have long complained about how there are no good story-listening conferences to go to, how people who do the work I do have to show up as beggars at knowledge management and decision support and management conferences. But I’ve now come to realize that this poverty is a strength in disguise.

I would have learned so much less at a conference where everyone already knew what I had to say, and where I already knew what everyone else had to say. It is so very mind-expanding to go to a conference you feel like you have no reason to go to! In fact, I am now resolved to seek out conferences that have as little as possible in common with what I have done before. If I will not be hopelessly lost and over my head, I should not go. If you know of a conference I should not go to, please let me know about it!

Essential energy

What excited me most about this conference was that I was able to connect with people who shared my passion for helping people get along and create better futures together. I sometimes feel alone in what I do, like nobody cares if we stop telling each other stories, like people are content to see stories used only to manipulate and influence. Our nascent PNI Institute is building a new community in the story space, so that’s changing already. But the people I met at the NCDD conference really cared about participatory democracy; about inclusion; about bringing power to the people; about bridging divides; about finding better ways forward. They didn’t consciously work with stories for the most part, but they cared about the things I cared about. Is this my tribe? I’m not a one-tribe person; I like to flit among several tribes. But this might be one of them.

The rest of the story

I have placed my full conference notes here for those who would like to read about what went on (that I saw) at the conference.

My favorite quotes from my conference notes:

Where do you find the public voice? It’s not a trained voice. We hear it every day in every place. In waiting rooms, in bars, around water coolers, in lines at the grocery stores. It is all around us. So why is it unavailable? Because we don’t recognize it for what it is. It is too ordinary.
There is no them once you know them.
It’s healing for people to experience people with other beliefs just listening to them.
Polarization is the antidote to American ingenuity.
Deliberation by itself is not nearly enough when big systems have strong tendencies, and when a merciless climate clock keeps ticking. It is not just an absence of public voice, but strong structural problems. There needs to be an ongoing critical conversation about what our world needs.
We need real human experiences, and a non-judgmental, non-politicized space to describe experiences.
Instead of coming to agreement, we can take the need to agree away and simply try to understand each other. If you do that, it is easier to understand, and you get to deeper issues.
We need to listen to each other in an open-hearted way. We need to have collaborative solutions that have the possibility of going to the next level of facing big issues.
We learn from breaking things, making mistakes, trying to do things when we don’t know how. A game is like that: a challenge you need to approach via play. People know how to play games. If we want to make it accessible, we have to draw on things they know. Drawing on inherent forms of communication and action works.
Giving people a voice ensures that justice and peace aren’t just about fighting each other. It’s the fact that people can work out their issues on their own. Justice will come about because of a common sense of peace.
We have the world’s greatest renewable resource: creativity.

Hooray for creativity! And for collaboration.

You can find the original version of Cynthia’s post on her Story Colored Glasses blog at www.storycoloredglasses.com/2014/10/learnings-from-ncdd-conference.html.

Officials’ Public Engagement Fears & 3 Reasons to Overcome Them

Posted on January 12, 2015 by Roshan Bliss

We want to share a great piece from our partners at Public Agenda – one of our NCDD organizational members that helped sponsor NCDD 2014 – that highlights some of the fears about public engagement that government officials shared during a workshop hosted by the Participatory Budgeting Project, another NCDD organizational member, at this year’s gathering of the National League of Cities. You can read how PA responds to such concerns – and get ideas for how you can, as well -in the post below.

We thank Public Agenda for their continued support of NCDD and for their leadership in the field, and we encourage you to read their piece below or find the original by clicking here.

Three Ways Deeper Engagement Improves the Relationship Between Officials and Residents

by Allison Rizzolo

Our local public officials are thirsty for better and deeper ways to engage the people they serve. This is a sentiment I heard again and again during last month’s National League of Cities Congress of Cities in Austin.

The sentiment was cast in sharp relief during a workshop on participatory budgeting that I attended as part of the conference. Our partners at the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP for short) presented to a variety of elected and appointed officials from cities across the country.

Participatory budgeting is a process through which residents are active partners in local budget decisions. We are partnering with PBP on research and evaluation of participatory budgeting processes in communities across the country.

During the workshop in Austin, PBP’s Josh Lerner and Maria Hadden provided participants with practical tools and training to launch participatory budgeting in their communities and better engage their constituents in local budget decisions.

Josh and Maria opened the workshop by asking participants about the barriers to constituent engagement that they face in their communities. Participants also talked about what they were hoping to get out of the conference to address those challenges. This conversation revealed a number of difficulties that local officials share when it comes to engaging their constituents in better and deeper ways, regardless of the size or demographics of their city, town, or county.

The concerns officials at the workshop named included:

Civic participation is currently quite low. How can we get more people to show up or weigh in? And how do we get them to do so thoughtfully?
City council meetings are boring. We need livelier, more energetic ways to bring the public into decision making.
Interaction between officials and the public, at city council meetings for example, can often be resentful, angry, or filled with drama. Media depictions of these events don’t help. How can we keep interaction constructive?
Past frustration on the part of constituents stands in the way of current relationship-building and future progress.
How do we increase participation while making the best use of our time, energy, and money?

While these concerns may be anecdotal, we heard similar sentiments in a 2012 survey we conducted of local public officials in California. For example, survey respondents told us they saw most residents as not well informed about the issues affecting their communities. In fact, 72 percent said community members do not keep abreast of the issues that affect their community’s well being. Nearly 7 in 10 said that community members have become much angrier and mistrustful of local officials in recent years.

It’s no wonder healthier, deeper engagement with constituents seems a monumental task to officials.

Sure, deep, thoughtful and authentic engagement of constituents may not be easy. But these forms of engagement, through methods embraced by Public Agenda, the Participatory Budgeting Project, and our peers, can contribute to a more informed citizenry and stronger communities.

Better engagement improves the relationship between officials and their constituents in many ways. Here are three:

Constituents become more thoughtful and informed.

Both Public Agenda and the Participatory Budgeting Project embrace deliberative methods for public participation that, by their nature, help foster a more educated and thoughtful body of voters. Let’s take Choicework discussion starters, a resource that Public Agenda has created and used to structure dialogue for decades.

Choiceworks present people with a range of different approaches to solving a problem, from a variety of perspectives. We take care to also illuminate the values, interests, pros and cons inherent in each choice. Choicework dialogues help people acknowledge that there are no simple answers but many valid perspectives. They also foster a more collaborative, open-minded attitude, instead of the adversarial one we too often see in political discourse.

In the participatory budgeting process, residents develop ideas for spending a set amount of the local discretionary budget. Then they vote on proposals based on these ideas, forcing them to reckon with competing priorities and a limited budget. After the votes are tallied, the local government implements the top projects.

By obliging participants to confront limitations and prioritize options, both the Choicework and PB processes help people understand the tough decisions and trade-offs that local officials face when making decisions. Having a personal stake and role in decision making also fosters a sense of stewardship among participants – they end up having a greater concern for and interest in public issues.

Engagement builds trust and promotes equity.

One way to build – or rebuild – trust is to ensure that communities who haven’t had a seat at the table in the past receive one. Broad and diverse participation beyond the “usual suspects” is a key principle of deep engagement.

Public Agenda often works with local governments and community-based organizations to help them undertake a community conversation process. We work with officials and organizations on recruitment so that the demographics of participants resemble the communities they come from. In particular, we strive to bring low-income communities, communities of color, non-English speaking communities and immigrant communities into the process.

In addition to active recruitment, simply making a meeting more interesting and participatory goes a long way in increasing and broadening participation. In participatory budgeting, because residents are invited to directly weigh in on ways to improve their own community – repaving the basketball court on the next block over, buying more tables for the cafeteria at the school their child attends, installing better lighting on their sidewalks – they’re more likely to participate. The process is just more interesting because it’s personal and interactive!

And it draws underrepresented communities in. In New York City, a much higher proportion of low-income residents participated in the Participatory Budgeting process than in the traditional election. Almost 4 in 10 participatory budgeting voters reported household incomes below $35,000 per year, compared with 21 percent of 2013 local election voters.

Engagement saves costs and effort.

Naturally, public officials are concerned about the return on investment for their time, resources and money. Will I actually be able to reach more constituents? How much will it cost me?

Processes that engage constituents in meaningful ways, as partners in decision making rather than as consumers of decisions already made, take a lot of time and effort up front. Over the long run, however, they are well worth it.

During the conference workshop in Austin, Josh of PBP identified two concrete ways in which he has seen the participatory budgeting process pay off for local officials. First, creating more transparency around budgeting can stimulate greater efficiency and cost savings. When they’re helping to make budget decisions, residents may be willing to explore ways to get more bang for the buck and are more likely to collaborate on cost savings rather than complain.

Secondly, bringing residents into the decision making process from the beginning can prevent officials from funding projects that the community doesn’t actually need, or projects that face pushback. Instead, community members decide together their needs and prioritize accordingly.

A lot of times public officials may feel as though the struggles they are facing are unique to their context. My experience at the participatory budgeting workshop demonstrated that, regardless of the characteristics and demographics of their localities, local officials share many similar challenges.

Engaging constituents more deeply may seem daunting, but rest assured you are not alone in facing this challenge – we can help.

You can read the original version of this PA piece by visiting: www.publicagenda.org/blogs/three-ways-deeper-engagement-improves-the-relationship-between-officials-and-residents.

Civic Studies

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

Category Archives: stories