Category Archives: stories

2014 Public Participation Interviews: Tyrone Reitman

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this year, we started reading a wonderful interview series from the talented team at Collaborative Services on public participation lessons they have learned in the last year, and we wanted to share their insights with the NCDD community.

The fourth and final interview in the series features the reflections of Tyrone Reitman of Healthy Democracy Oregon (an org member of NCDD), who shares his insights on the award-winning Citizens’ Initiative Review. You can read the interview below, or find the original on Collaborative Services’ blog by clicking here.

collaborative services logoFor the People By the People: Oregon’s Citizens’ Initiative Review

Elections bring a slew of information for and against different initiatives. But how much of what you read, see and hear can be trusted? After all, who is paying for the ballot measures you are voting on? Campaign ads can often cause negative reactions from viewers. They are an expensive way to get you to change the channel. The lack of quality coupled with biased information can be frustrating at minimum and misinform you at worse.

In 2011, recognizing the lack of available quality information, the State of Oregon took a new step forward by including public participation in reviewing citizen initiatives. The non-partisan and non-profit organization Healthy Democracy Oregon came up with a plan to get its state’s citizens more involved in their voting process and provide them with a stronger voice in how their state is run.

The review is the Citizens’ Initiative Review and it provides Oregonians with an unbiased review of ballot measures done by citizens just like you. Groups of 24 randomly selected, demographically representative citizens are selected to be part of a panel for each initiative. Their job is to provide an objective review of the upcoming citizens initiatives and write a statement highlighting their most important findings. The statements are then included in the voter’s pamphlets for citizens to consider when casting their ballot.

hd-logo-03This use of a citizen review is no new idea, but its use with ballot measures is. Cities have used various forms of citizen advisory committees on projects for years. So why not take a page from this book and apply it to the ballot initiative system? After all who better to review and comment on citizens initiatives than the citizens themselves.

This week as we continue our month-long look at public participation successes, we hear from we hear from Tyrone Reitman, co-founder of Healthy Democracy Oregon. He shares with us the challenges Healthy Democracy Oregon faced when creating the Citizens’ Initiative Review, who’s on the Citizens’ Initiative Review panels and how they are selected, and how this model can improve voting in other states. We welcome his insights.

- – -

What inspired the Citizens’ Initiative Review to be established?

Oregon pioneered the ballot initiative system in 1902 to give citizens a stronger voice in their government by bypassing the legislature to create laws directly at the ballot box. After 112 years, the system is going strong but showing some signs of strain. The number of measures on ballots has increased, and so has the amount of money campaigns spend working for and against them. Ballot measure campaigns spent close to a billion dollars in 2012, as voters decided 188 questions on 39 statewide ballots (when local measures are added, the count rises above 5,000). And while legislators have access to public hearings about bills they consider, the initiative process often asks citizens to make even more impactful decisions (for instance, constitutional amendments) with little information other than what campaigns provide.

So while polls show that voters like the initiative system, they’re frustrated by a lack of quality information about measures. A super majority of voters in several states report casting ballots on measures with which they are unfamiliar, and three in four voters say they often find the measures too complicated and confusing to understand.
Oregon_special_election_ballot
As a co-founder of Healthy Democracy, you saw the Citizens Initiative Review come to fruition over the course of five years. What challenges did you face along the way?

A key challenge was to build a trustworthy process that all sides recognize as being fair and free from bias. We talked to legislators on both sides of the aisle to gain their support for this first-in-the-nation program and trained our moderators to put citizen panelists in charge of directing the reviews. We hold a very open process and panelists anonymously report their satisfaction and any perceived bias to researchers each day. Not every campaign has chosen to participate, but we’ve developed a way to bring in other advocates and ensure a fair process whether or not they participate.

How did the process get designed?

As John Gastil, Head of the Communication Arts & Sciences department at Penn State says, “The idea behind the Citizens’ Initiative Review is simple. When we give citizens a chance to deliberate and inform one another, they usually yield well-reasoned and compassionate judgments.” We started with the jury process, which has been used for centuries to bring citizens together to answer factual questions in the legal system. Ned Crosby, founder of the Jefferson Center, developed a model to use citizens’ juries to address questions of policy and governance, and has spent multiple decades refining the process. We were fortunate to have him and talented facilitators as early collaborators to help design the process.

To what extent do you think the Citizens’ Initiative Review impacts Oregon voters’ decision-making process?

We are fortunate that an independent academic research team has studied our results over the past two cycles. In 2012, for the first time, the research team found that over half of Oregon voters were aware of and used the CIR when voting, and two-thirds of them reported that it helped them make voting decisions.

CIR-infographic-largeThe Citizens’ Initiative Review is a randomly selected, demographically balanced panel. How are people selected?

Initial invitations are mailed to 10,000 Oregonians selected at random from the list of registered voters, and those who agree participate are placed in a pool. For each review, 24 panelists are selected to match the demographics of Oregon’s population with regard to party affiliation, voting frequency, age, gender, ethnicity, educational attainment, and geographic location. At the end of the day our goal is to bring together a good faith reflection of the state’s voting population to deliberate, and we’ve had no trouble finding voters to do so.

How many people ultimately serve on the panel? How long do they serve?

24 panelists serve on each review, which lasts five days.

Does the panel select a chair? Is it facilitated in any way by a moderator?

The panelists meet for five days to review a ballot measure (they are compensated for their time and travel expenses). Trained moderators guide the panelists through the process of gathering initial information about the measure, selecting neutral policy experts to interview, and questioning advocates for and against the measure. The panelists deliberate and have the opportunity to ask further questions. As Maggie Koerth-Baker writes in the New York Times Magazine, “The panelists know they’re expected to base their opinions on hard evidence, and this expectation becomes part of their temporary identity. Under those conditions…facts suddenly matter.”

To conclude the Review, panelists draft a Citizens’ Statement that summarizes the most important aspects as well as how many panelists support and oppose the measure. What kind of feedback has this received from Oregon’s voters? What benefits do they express this process has for them?

An independent research team funded by the National Science Foundation and Kettering Foundationstudied the reviews in 2010 and 2012 and found that in 2012, over half of voters read a CIR statement, and two-thirds found it useful when casting their ballots. In the end, voters agreed with both 2012 panels’ assessments. Media have praised the CIR for offering “the most objective analyses of the issues we’ll be voting on” (La Grande Observer). Elected leaders from both parties compliment the process for offering voters a chance to provide quality information to their fellow citizens.

Prior to the 2012 election what outreach efforts and tactics were used to generate interest and familiarity with the Review?

States that allow citizen's initiatives are shown in dark blue. (Credit: csmonitor.com)

States that allow initiatives are shown in dark blue
(Credit: csmonitor.com)

Oregon is a vote by mail state, and our voters’ pamphlet is widely read (over 80% of voters spend more than a half hour reading it). Since the CIR is a state program, the results are put in the Voters’ Guide, which is where most voters encounter it. We also work with media (newspapers, television, and radio) to spread the results of the reviews.

How do you plan to further let voters know about this process and its analysis?

This year we’ll be enhancing our social media work to increase our reach with younger voters who are less likely to rely on the Voters’ Guide.

coverWe learned that your project is the first formalized voter deliberation resource of its kind. In what other ways, if any, would you like to see Oregon’s initiative process change?

There’s a lot of frustration with the initiative process from groups on both sides of the aisle, but polls show that two-thirds of voters support the initiative system the way it is. Right now we’re focused on the CIR, and more generally, we believe that the best way to help the initiative system achieve its initial purpose of giving the people a stronger voice in their democracy is to improve voters’ access to quality, factual, unbiased information at election time.

Not all states allow citizens’ initiatives – do you see the Citizens Initiative Review as a model for other ballot measures, such as constitutional amendments?

Yes, and in fact access to quality information is especially important for constitutional amendments, which have long-lasting impacts on a state and tend to be difficult to reverse once passed. The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Commission prioritizes constitutional amendments and measures with significant fiscal impacts when choosing which measures will be reviewed.

How can our voters get involved and encourage formalized voter deliberation in their home state?

Sign up for our newsletter or join our Facebook page to stay up to date on the latest in using citizen deliberation and fact-based, quality information to improve governance in America. We’re committed to providing support to groups in other states that are ready to start a Citizens’ Initiative Review, and we’ll connect you to those exciting efforts.

- – -

Healthy Democracy Oregon and  the Citizens’ Initiative Review is changing voting in Oregon for the better and helping set an example for other states to follow. Tell us how you would like to see voting and ballot measures improved in your state or other citizen review processes that you know of.

This interview is part of a blog series from Collaborative Services, Inc. - a public outreach firm in San Diego, California that brings people together from their individual spheres and disciplines to improve communities and help people adapt to an ever-changing world. The firm uses inter-disciplinary efforts to manage and provide services in stakeholder involvement, marketing and communications, and public affairs. The firm’s award-winning services have spanned the western region of the United States from Tacoma, Washington to the Mexico Port of Entry.

We thank Collaborative Services for allowing NCDD to learn along with them, and we encourage our members to visit their blog by clicking here. You can find the original version of the above article at www.collaborativeservicesinc.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/for-the-people-by-the-people-oregons-citizens-initiative-review.

Innovation Readiness Over Capacity Building

Posted on by
Reply

We wanted to share a great piece we found on the tension between merely improving capacity and being ready to innovate – even when it means making radical changes – at NCDD organizational member Rich Harwood’s blog. We are developing a partnership with the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation that we hope will contribute to building our own innovation readiness here at NCDD, so stay tuned for more details. You can read Rich’s piece below or find the original post here.

HarwoodLogoOne of the key obstacles in bringing about change in communities is that many organizations, leaders and networks (among other factors) need to beef up their capacities to help create change. Oftentimes the response to this challenge is to do “capacity building” – when it’s “innovation readiness” that’s needed most.

I make this distinction thinking about the scores of local United Ways, public libraries, public radio and television stations I’ve worked with and their own challenges in bringing about change. Or the countless number of conversations I’ve had with foundation presidents and program officers about their frustrations that more community change is not being produced as a result of their funding. And it’s the numerous meetings I’ve had with leaders of faith-based institutions and organizations that worry about their very relevance.

It’s not that capacity building isn’t necessary. My own organization has spent the last year strengthening its internal operations, board of directors and financial systems. Without this strength, it’s hard to move forward, and it’s impossible to sustain good efforts. Moreover, we all recognize that it is critical for individual leaders to develop new skill sets to run meetings better, improve planning, and learn to engage in an increasingly diverse world.

The problem is that too often “capacity building” helps us to do what we already do, only better. Our path forward remains largely the same. We can all name an organization or two that have undertaken new strategic plans under the banner of “change,” only to end up incrementally modifying their programs, or even creating new ones, but without having shifted their approach to tackling the challenges and underlying conditions in their community.

And yet challenges in our communities call for us to think differently about the best paths forward, and to act differently. In Spokane, Wash., for example, leaders of the local United Way started to ask themselves the question, “What would having a real impact in the community look like for us?” Ultimately, it meant upending their long-held model of raising dollars and distributing them to local agencies and instead focusing more on building collaborative efforts on education concerns.

This required the United Way’s leaders to organize their work differently, and to organize themselves differently. It meant changing their very notion of what constitutes a partnership – and changing their partners. It meant dislodging themselves from basic assumptions about what was actually needed in the community and their potential role. And it required them to imagine fundamentally different strategies for creating genuine progress.

Closer to home, my own Temple Micah, where I attend synagogue, came to the realization that our religious school could do better in producing the kinds of Jewish-spirited children we all want. Many incredibly smart and dedicated people there tried to “improve” the existing school, undertaking one “reform” after another, only to conclude that what we needed was a fundamentally different approach to education – one that integrates the congregation’s different generations, emphasizes hands-on learning, and helps each child develop a personal Jewish identity. That’s happening now.

My own experience is that “innovation readiness” takes a certain mindset and set of practices. I’ve just started to write my next book on this topic. But I’m curious about what you think and about your own experiences. What does “innovation readiness” mean to you?

You can share your answer to Rich’s question and other thoughts in our comment section below, or you can join the conversation already happening in the comments on the original post, which can be found at www.theharwoodinstitute.org/2014/01/capacity-building-vs-innovation-readiness.

ICMA’s State of the Profession Survey Results

Posted on by
Reply

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) recently released the results of its 2012 State of the Profession survey, and we think that the results make good food for thought. From feelings about the purposes of public engagement to the state of civic discourse, the survey provides insights on where we are and where we might go from here. You can read the ICMA write up on the report below or find the original at www.icma.org/en/press/pm_magazine/article/104159.

The Extent of Public Participation

by Robert Vogel, Evelina Moulder, and Mike Huggins

Local governments use a variety of strategies and techniques to encourage public involvement in local planning and decision making. The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) describes public involvement as occurring at five levels ranging from informing all the way to empowering.

In this article, we summarize the responses to ICMA’s 2012 State of the Profession Survey, which asked respondents to rate the importance of achieving the five levels of involvement in their communities. The levels are illustrated in a case study of an online public participation project in Rancho Cordova, California. We conclude with a list of questions to help local government managers improve their public participation strategy.

Goals of Public Participation

Previous ICMA surveys examined how local governments share information with residents. The 2012 survey delved more deeply into the nature and purposes of local government public participation efforts.

IAP2 has designed a widely-accepted Spectrum of Public Participation that identifies a range of interactions that a local government can have with its community. Distinguished by increasing levels of direct public involvement and intended outcomes, the IAP2 Spectrum includes the following five types of goals that a government can strive for in its public participation efforts: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. A number of the 2012 survey questions addressed the perceived importance of these types of public interactions within the local government profession.

Inform: Eighty-five percent of the responding local governments report that it is “important” or “highly important” to provide the public with objective information to assist them in understanding problems/solutions/alternatives.

Consult: Seventy-five percent indicate that it is “important” or “highly important” to work directly with the public to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

Involve: Some 70 percent report that it is “important” or “highly important” to obtain feedback from the public on analyses of problems, solutions, and alternatives.

Collaborate: The results show that 57 percent of respondents reported that it is “important” or “highly important” to partner with the public in development of alternatives, identification of the preferred solution, and decision making.

Empower: Nineteen percent of respondents indicate that it is “important” or “highly important” to place decision making in the hands of the public.

Feat1_Fig1

Being clear about the underlying purpose of the engagement effort as well as the promise it intends to make to the public is essential to the success of any public participation effort. Without objective information and a clearly understood purpose, the public cannot provide meaningful feedback nor can they partner with the local government in developing alternatives, identifying solutions, and making decisions. Unless concerns and aspirations are understood, problems cannot be successfully addressed.

Rancho Cordova: A Case Study

When residents of Rancho Cordova, California (population 67,000), asked their city council to loosen restrictions on raising chickens, the council wanted to first hear from a broad spectrum of residents. Before finalizing their decision, councilmembers wanted to encourage participants to first learn about the issue, then engage in a nuanced discussion without polarizing the community for or against the proposal.

Under the leadership of City Manager Ted Gaebler, the city decided to use the Open Town Hall online public engagement service to broaden the discussion beyond the few who typically attend in-person meetings. To encourage the public to understand the issues around this proposed new ordinance, the online service presented objective background information before inviting users to participate in the online discussion.

To ensure that the public’s concerns and aspirations were well understood and considered, the city created a map of “Engaged Rancho Cordova Districts,” enabling decisionmakers and others to see what residents from each district were saying. Anyone could click on the “word cloud” in the online tool to see statements containing frequently occurring words (e.g., enforcement) and on demographic tallies to see trends in perspectives by age and gender.

Compared with Rancho Cordova’s traditional face-to-face meetings, participation in the online forum was both large and civil. More than 560 residents visited the forum, 66 posted or supported a statement, and 147 subscribed to updates enabling them to remain involved after the forum closed. Statements were monitored for compliance with the city’s guidelines for civility and all but one were found in compliance.

Much like a public hearing, each participant was allowed to make only one statement. Monitoring statements and allowing only one per resident resulted in a collaborative online forum providing clear feedback on the proposed ordinance as well as potential improvements to that ordinance.

After the period for public discussion had concluded, the council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance that reflected the feedback and addressed the concerns expressed both on the forum and in other public venues. This outcome was also posted on the forum and e-mailed to forum subscribers to strengthen the partnership between the city administration and the public in the decision-making process.

In line with the preference of most of the respondents to the ICMA survey, Rancho Cordova chose not to place decision making directly in the hands of the public. The online forum was designed specifically to preclude the public perception of a public vote or a referendum.

The city never mentioned the “v word” (vote), and it chose to collect open-ended statements from residents rather than have them respond to a poll or survey that asked for a yes/no position on the proposed new ordinance. The forum can be found at www.peakdemocracy.com/1379.

Civic Discourse and Extent of Public Participation

Citing the complexity of issues and the breadth and depth of knowledge needed for sound policies, local government officials often express reluctance for expanding the public’s direct role in decision making. Over the past several years, the often disconcerting tenor of civic discourse has also contributed to concerns about greater public participation.

A perception of the public as increasingly “nasty, brutish, short” and polarized inevitably raises questions for local officials about the efficacy of their collaboration with that public.

Civic discourse. Close to 40 percent of ICMA survey respondents described the civic discourse in their community as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude.” Respondents in the New England division show the highest percentage (45 percent) reporting civic discourse in their community as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude,” as did 44 percent of respondents in those communities with the town meeting form of government. The 2013 Weber Shandwick and Powell Tate survey Civility in America, which was conducted nationally online, found 71 percent of respondents believed the lack of civility in the United States was worse than several years ago, and 82 percent believed the general lack of civility in politics is harming the country.

Slightly more than 50 percent of respondents with council/administrator/manager and council elected executive also described civic discourse as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude.” Of particular interest is that out of the 777 survey respondents overall who reported that civic discourse is “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude,” 399 also indicated that partnering with the public in development of alternatives, identification of preferred solutions, and decision making is “important” or highly important.”

Feat1_Fig4

If we look at the same group of respondents, we also see that 127 of them reported that it is “important” or “highly important” to put decision making in the hands of the public. Not surprisingly, when these 127 are examined by form of government, the town meeting and representative town meeting governments represent, respectively, 19 percent and 20 percent of the total respondents.

Level of resident participation. These are by far the highest percentages of respondents by form of government that rated putting decision making in the hands of the public as “important” or “highly important” and rated civic discourse as “very polarized and strident, often rude” or “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude.”

When asked about the level of resident participation, only 12 percent of respondents indicated that there is a high level of participation in their local government’s engagement efforts. A majority of local governments in communities under 10,000 population show low participation levels. Pacific Coast respondents show the highest percentage – 19 percent – reporting a high level of participation.

Outcome

Local governments are encouraging the public to participate in the identification of problems and their solutions, to share their concerns and aspirations, and to provide feedback and develop alternatives as part of the decision-making process. The outcome is optimized when local managers first ask themselves these six questions:

  • What is the readiness and capacity of my organization for public engagement?
  • Why am I involving the residents?
  • What do I want to achieve?
  • What do I want to know?
  • What is the role of the public?
  • How is that role communicated to the public in face-to-face and online interactions?

Answers to these questions enable local governments to constructively engage the public in both face-to-face meetings and online public participation methods. Through careful design and monitoring of online forums, localities can significantly improve the effectiveness of public participation by expanding the number of people participating, restoring the civility of their participation, and ensuring clarity about the role of the public in final decision making.

Peacebuilders Dialogue in NYC on Mar. 27th

Posted on by
Reply

We are pleased to share the announcement below from our partners at the Network for Peace through Dialogue, an NCDD organizational member. They’ll be hosting a wonderful dialogue event next Thursday in NYC that we encourage you to attend if you’re in the area. You can see the announcement below or visit www.networkforpeace.com for more info.

network for peace

The Network for Peace through Dialogue continues its PEACEBUILDERS SERIES

JOIN US! Thursday March 27, 6:30-9:00 pm

An evening with Jane Hughes Gignoux

Each of these Living Room Dialogues is held from 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm at the Network office, 240 East 93 Street, Apt. #3H. NYC.  We begin with sharing some food. Please bring a snack to share. Space is limited.  Call 212-426-5818 to sign up.

Jane Hughes Gignoux, storyteller, author gives witness to what’s involved in her moving away from living a “win/lose” life into a reality of interconnectedness and interdependence, in partnership all the way with spirit.

NCDD Member is New ED at Journalism that Matters

Posted on by
Reply

We are so pleased to announce that our friends at Journalism that Matters have selected a new Executive Director from NCDD’s ranks. Peggy Holman is a long-time NCDD member and friend, and we’re proud of her and all she’s accomplished. We look forward to continuing to work with her at Journalism That Matters. You can read the announcement below or read the original on JTM’s website here.

Journalism that Matters is excited to announce that Peggy Holman, a JTM co-founder and long-time board member is now serving as the organization’s Executive Director.

In 2001, Holman joined three career journalists in founding Journalism that Matters to support the pioneers who are shaping the emerging news and information ecology.

In her new role, Holman will oversee JTM’s growth as the organization matures beyond event production and expands into a hub for supporting journalism innovation and community engagement. Said Holman:

“I see an opportunity for us to fill a vital niche by connecting people who are reinventing ways in which the public’s voice enters into news and information. News organizations that are forging new ground around engagement often find themselves alone in the wilderness. We want to provide a place for them to benefit from each other’s work.”

Holman will continue to oversee the Illuminations Project, an initiative shining a light on what’s working in the changing news landscape, that JTM has produced since last year. She is also leading development of the Engagement Hub initiative, a collaborative endeavor to create a peer-based community of practice for sharing resources, connecting people, and growing understanding and skills for journalism that engages communities. Both projects were made possible by a generous grant from the Mott Foundation.

An author and consultant based out of the Seattle area, Holman brings to her new role her experience with engaging organizations and communities in discovering creative solutions to complex issues.

In the second edition of The Change Handbook, she joined with her co-authors to profile sixty-one engagement processes.  Her award-winning book, Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity, dives beneath these methods to make visible deeper patterns, principles, and practices for engagement that can guide us through turbulent times.

Journalism That Matters is a nonprofit that convenes conversations to foster collaboration, innovation, and action so that a diverse news and information ecosystem helps communities to thrive. A core belief: journalism matters most when it is of, by, and for the people. Best known for convening unconferences, JTM has a proven track record catalyzing disruptive innovation and fostering new collaborations within the news industry.

The original version of this post can be found at www.journalismthatmatters.net/jtm_announces_new_executive_director.

Next Generation Initiative Advances State Legislature Civility

Posted on by
Reply

We’re pleased to be able to highlight The Next Generation Initiative, a fantastic project driven by NCDD supporting member and former Ohio state representative Ted Celeste of the National Institute on Civil Discourse. Next Generation is trying to help state legislators find ways to be more civil with each other as they create legislation, and we think it’s fundamentally important work. To get a sense of what the initiative is about, check out this great article from Akron Legal News that recently covered Ted’s work. You can read more below or find the original piece here and on NICD’s blog here.

NICD_logo3When former state representative Ted Celeste campaigned for his Lakewood seat in 2006, he said he chose to run with civility.

“All the political pros said that the only way to beat an opponent is to beat them up. Do nasty things, go negative,” he said. “I said the only way I’ll do it is if I can run a positive campaign.”

“We did that and won.”

After taking that lesson to the Statehouse, Celeste embarked along with Ohio Sen. Frank LaRose (R – Copley Twp.) to take the message throughout the state and nation through their work in the General Assembly and Next Generation, an offshoot of the National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD).

On Jan. 16, both lawmakers addressed their plan to bring politesse back to American politics at the monthly Akron Roundtable at Quaker Station.

After failing in his 2012 U.S. House bid, Celeste founded Next Generation as a state-level project of NICD, which focuses on promoting civility within mass media and the legislative and executive branches of national government. Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton chair the nonpartisan center that formed in response to the shooting of former U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.

Celeste said he felt the need to launch Next Generation, which offers workshops to state lawmakers across the country, because over half of the United States Congress – hovering at all-time low approval ratings – consists of former state legislators.

“We are the feeder system,” Celeste said.

Next Generation offered an introductory workshop for state legislators that it has presented in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Washington, according to Celeste. Celeste also presented the workshop to the Council of State Governments’ Midwest and West conferences. He said he hopes to hold the workshop in a dozen other states by this year’s end.

“I’m excited for the fact it’s going so well nationally,” he said.

The project faces difficulty in the partisan culture that dominates state politics, and lawmakers received reprimands from their caucases for attending the civility sessions, said Celeste.

“Their leadership didn’t like the fact that they were working with a person across the aisle,” he said.

LaRose involved himself with Celeste’s mission after attending an NICD session soon after his election.

“When I first ran in 2010 I think I knew that policy tends to evoke strong emotions from people, but I didn’t really grasp it until I was out campaigning myself, then through service in Columbus,” he said.

“When it goes too far is when people take that passion they have and they manifest it in personal animosity against people that have a different opinion.”

LaRose, a first-term senator with a military background, has in only three years earned a reputation for reaching across the aisle. He and State Sen. Tom Sawyer (D – Akron) drew headlines for drafting legislation to fix Ohio’s much-maligned gerrymandering that passed the Senate but expired in the House the last legislative session.

LaRose told the assembled Akron-area professionals that he believes the nature of democracy tends to “actively discourage” mutual cooperation and courtesy, easily seen from the vitriol of recent Akron politics to the perpetually locked pitchforks in Congress. One of the underlying causes, according to the young lawmaker, is the lack of opportunities to personally interact with opposing politicians.

“Legislatures seem to have become in recent years a little more transactional than they used to be,” LaRose said.

“There are not the opportunities to build relationships and get to know one another, to learn about each other’s spouses and families, where you come from, what drives you and makes you excited.”

Celeste added that regulations that prohibit spending public funds on social gatherings have recently stifled social interaction between lawmakers.

Though LaRose acknowledged that mainstream media and cultural norms tend to exacerbate the problem, he focused on practical solutions to implement in the Ohio Statehouse.

For many, he said, the mindset remains “come to Columbus, make laws and go home.”

LaRose suggested launching a program in which legislators trade districts for a day to gain additional perspective. He also pushed for more training on civility at the mandatory new member orientation.

Redistricting reform, a topic for which he and Sawyer drew headlines last year, also presents a problem, he said. LaRose hopes their bipartisan plan will pass both houses this term.

“If we don’t get something done in the next few years, the window closes,” he said. “The closer we get to 2020, which is the next census and the next time we draw redistricting lines, the less likely we are going to be able to have bipartisan agreement on this.”

Both Celeste and LaRose also agreed that term limits hinder their mission for civility; by their estimation, more time to get to know colleagues translates to more amicable relationships.

“Civility isn’t caving in,” said LaRose. “It’s not sissy to be civil.”

Celeste and LaRose ended their presentation by answering a question from the audience: What can the average citizen do to promote civility in government?

Celeste and LaRose agreed that voters should support those that promote civility in that statehouse, but LaRose said they could do more.

“Don’t just vote for the person with the most yard signs out,” he said. “Pay attention to who you’re selecting.

“It’s also modeling that sort of behavior with your family and at work. It’s to change how we communicate with each other.”

The original version of this article can be found at www.akronlegalnews.com/editorial/9140. To learn more about the Next Generation initiative, check out the video below or visit http://nicd.arizona.edu/next-generation-initiative-state-workshops-civil.

2014 Public Participation Interviews: John Lewis on Outreach

Posted on by
Reply

We recently started reading a terrific interview series from the talented team at Collaborative Services on public participation lessons they have learned in the last year, and we wanted to share their insights with the NCDD community. The third interview in the series features the reflections of John Lewis of Intelligent Futures, who shares insights gained from the award-winning ourWascana engagement endeavor in Canada last year. You can read the interview below, or find the original on Collaborative Services’ blog by clicking here.

Multiple Entry Points into the Conversation Create Multiple Opportunities for Successful Public Participation

collaborative services logoThe uncertainty of change coming to a city’s crown jewel can cause an outpouring of different opinions. So how do you capture all of this input and make sure every voice is heard?

That’s the challenge one firm was tasked with in the summer of 2012, when it came to proposed change for Wascana Centre in Regina, Saskatchewan. Just shy of the Centre’s 50th birthday, the ourWascana Visioning Project was launched to collect citizens’ hopes and dreams for the future of Wascana and its beloved Centre. More than 3,300 citizens shared their 8,000 unique ideas during “ourWascana.” Their input is being used to create a sustainable future for this civic gem for the next 50 years.

This week as we continue our look at public participation successes we hear from John Lewis, President and Founder of Intelligent Futures and native Reginan. By providing multiple entry points into the conversation, Intelligent Futures was able to accurately collect public input and foster an open and honest dialogue during the ourWascana Visioning Project. Unique tools for collecting input such as sounding boards set up in Wascana Centre, a social media campaign and creative graphic design all contributed to the project’s success. ourWascana’s success was then reaffirmed on an international scale when it won the 2013 International Association of Public Participation’s Core Values Award for Project of the Year in the Member at Large category.

Today, Lewis shares with us his firm’s experience working on ourWascana, how their approach to outreach is evolving and some of the other exciting projects Intelligent Futures you should know about. We welcome his insights.

- — -

Given your client list, Intelligent Futures is clearly a veteran outreach firm. How has your approach to outreach campaigns changed or developed over the years?

I think we have become more creative in how we give the community an opportunity to provide input. We use the term “multiple entry points into the conversation” a lot. Whether it’s in-person or online, we are trying to create as many ways for people to find out and share their thoughts as possible. I think we’re also getting better at catching people’s attention (in a good way). We know people are really busy and there are millions directions you can take your attention. Through graphic design, plain language and surprising tactics, we try to make our projects interesting, relevant and if possible, fun!

What do you think is the most important act a host can do to foster constructive public dialogue?

Be honest. If you’re honest and clear – about the parameters of the dialogue, about what is being done with the feedback or your experience in a place – you’ll end up with a constructive conversation. I think the projects that get into trouble are the ones that aren’t honest in one way or another. Honesty is the only way to erode the skepticism that many of these projects face from the outset.

What tools, methods, and strategies were used in the ourWascana engagement process and which were the most effective?

We used the “multiple entry points into the conversation” approach extensively with ourWascana, but the three most effective were:

  1. Community “Sounding Boards.” This was a series of feedback boards installed within the park, allowing citizens to share their ideas within the space itself. It didn’t matter if you were attending a festival, having lunch or walking your dog at midnight, you could look around you and provide your ideas.
  2. An extensive social media campaign. ourWascana came out of a celebration of Wascana’s 50th birthday and was looking ahead 50 years. We collected a variety diverse, surprising facts about Wascana Centre and created a #50thingsaboutwascana campaign that generated a lot of interest in the community that translated to interest in the project. Overall, the project campaign was so successful that we ended up with more Twitter followers at that time than Wascana Centre Authority. An interesting, but good, problem to have.
  3. Use of extensive and creative graphic design. In order to generate interest as mentioned before, we took our visual identity and graphic design elements very seriously. We heard from a number of stakeholders that this was an important part of creating the project buzz, which obviously leads to more interest and responses. We especially heard good things about our “Wascana at a Glance” infographic that captured much of the diversity that makes Wascana Centre special.

A sounding board at the Wascana Centre (Credit: ourwascana.ca)

Were there any revisions to your campaign strategy once ourWascana was launched?

To be honest, not really. We took a great deal of time and care to plan the process, including extensive discussion and feedback from the Strategic Planning Committee of Wascana Centre Authority, and it really seemed to pay off.

Of the 8,000 ideas received during the community engagement process, more than 50% were submitted in person via Sounding Boards rather than through workshops or online. Were you expecting this type of response?

It is really difficult to predict the level of response. ourWascana represented our biggest opportunity to take all of our experiences and learn to date and apply them, so we certainly hoped we would receive great levels of feedback. Taking the time to understand the community and plan accordingly certainly helped.

Did any of the feedback surprise you?

Having grown up in Regina (and actually being married in Wascana Centre) I know the place fairly well. The only thing that really surprised me was how strongly the community feels about Wascana Centre. This masterpiece has been 100 years in the making and while any project gets excited about the change that can happen, it was really a validation of all the vision and hard work that created the place that exists today. People really want to ensure that is maintained and built upon in the future.

Credit: ourWascana.ca

Any time you propose a major design change to a civic jewel like the Wascana Centre, people are going to have very strong opinions. How did the ourWascana process ensure that every opinion was heard and considered?

ourWascana fed into the Comprehensive Review Project for Wascana Centre Authority, which will then lead to a review of the master plan for the space. Having said that, I have to give tremendous credit to the Strategic Planning Committee and Bernadette McIntyre, the Executive Director of Wascana Centre Authority. Throughout the process, they never wavered from our approach to have a completely honest, open conversation and to hold judgement and listen to what the community had to say. It was really remarkable to work with a group of people like that.

Do you know of any other communities that have used a model similar to ourWascana? Can you provide some of the best examples?

There are many communities that are shifting towards more creative and authentic community engagement. ourWascana was a hybrid of many approaches. Some of the folks we have drawn particular inspiration from are Candy Chang, Build a Better Block and Rebar Design Studio out of San Francisco. They are doing great things to make conversations about the future of our places more interesting, authentic and exciting.

Is Intelligent Futures still involved in the Wascana Centre Visioning Process today? 

Not formally. We are still in touch with how things are going, but hope to work there again soon!

What are some projects that your company is currently working on that the public should know about?

We are working on a number of interesting projects these days. Two in particular come to mind:

ReImagining: This is a developer-led engagement project to redevelop a former inner-city golf course. Through this project, we are trying to set the new standard for how developers engage with the community. This project is a three-phase process over six months that is all in advance of a formal application even being made to the local government.

Sustainability reporting: We have recently completed our third installment of Pathways to Progress: The Cochrane Sustainability Plan Progress Report. After working with the community to create this award-winning plan, we have been leading the monitoring of progress, which has been really interesting. We’re trying to make the information as user-friendly and graphically appealing as possible, so that the information is actually used.

- — -

Thank you John. It is great to see the community of Regina come together to take ownership of Wascana Centre and create the vision that future generations will enjoy for years to come.

This interview is part of a blog series from Collaborative Services, Inc. - a public outreach firm in San Diego, California that brings people together from their individual spheres and disciplines to improve communities and help people adapt to an ever-changing world. The firm uses inter-disciplinary efforts to manage and provide services in stakeholder involvement, marketing and communications, and public affairs. The firm’s award-winning services have spanned the western region of the United States from Tacoma, Washington to the Mexico Port of Entry.

We thank Collaborative Services for allowing NCDD to learn along with them, and we encourage our members to visit their blog by clicking here. You can find the original version of the above article at www.collaborativeservicesinc.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/multiple-entry-points-into-the-conversation-create-multiple-opportunities-for-successful-public-participation.

Betty Knighton Interview from Kettering

Posted on by
Reply

Our friends at the Kettering Foundation, a long-time NCDD organizational member, recently shared a great interview on their blog with Betty Knighton (also a member) that we found to be quite insightful. Betty is an accomplished public engagement professional in W. Virginia whose experience we can all learn from, so we encourage you to read the interview below, or find the original post at www.kettering.org/kfnews/betty-knighton.

kf You can learn a lot about an organization by who they learn from. One of the folks Kettering has learned the most from is Betty Knighton of Charleston, West Virginia. Betty is a master of citizen engagement, someone who’s figured out how to work with communities around her state. But unlike many folks with a supersized talent, she also has the even rarer ability of being able to tell you how she does what she does. If you haven’t had the pleasure of meeting Betty, either at one of Kettering’s many learning exchanges or in West Virginia, here are some of Betty’s unique insights into community engagement – in her own words.

Since 1998, Betty has run the West Virginia Center for Civic Life. The center, which functions as an impartial organization supporting public engagement on tough issues in West Virginia, believes in the motto of National Issues Forums: “Understand. Decide. Act.” Three simple words, yet many lament we rarely see this attention to public issues any more. The poor state of public discourse in many communities around the country makes her work all the more admirable and worthy of discussion. And like many people Kettering works with, Betty doesn’t fit the stereotypical public engagement personality: she isn’t an elected official, she’s not trained professionally in public administration, nor does she have a degree in political science. Betty is a former high school English teacher who was working at the West Virginia Humanities Council on a literature discussion program for teachers when she became interested in National Issues Forums. Through the council, she began to form a statewide coalition of partnering organizations to help West Virginians talk and work together on issues facing the state. Eventually, their work grew into the creation of a nonprofit, freestanding organization, the West Virginia Center for Civic Life.

Jack Becker: Can you talk about a current issue you’re working on?

Betty Knighton: We’re currently working on a project about the economic future of West Virginia. Like so many states in rapid economic change these days, West Virginia is struggling to find ways to move forward on many fronts. There are conflicting ideas in some of these areas, especially in how the state should use its natural resources. For us to be useful to the state and to communities, we’re focusing on identifying conflicting perspectives and helping community’s frame those perspectives into constructive conversations.

When we work with West Virginians to frame issues, we’re really engaging in a conversation with people about how they see the problem. The framing of the issue has to represent different points of view in order to help communities have a comprehensive discussion that leads to productive decisions. The framing of these discussions is integral to the integrity of the entire process. If the issue framework sidelines an entire group of people, it won’t help the state move forward in the way it needs.

We’ve also seen how important it is that the organizers of community discussions come from different sectors – nonprofits, faith groups, government agencies, educational groups, the private sector. Not only does this kind of coalition underscore the openness of the process, but also it allows working relationships to develop that will have a major impact as communities move from dialogue to action.

A big part of what you’re doing, then, is identifying when and where people come together, and sometimes catalyzing opportunities for that to happen. A lot of people are thinking about this as “civic infrastructure.” What are your thoughts on that?

While most communities don’t use the term “civic infrastructure,” those that are most intentional in building opportunities for people to talk and work together are actually thinking a great deal about what civic infrastructure entails. Recently, we’ve been working with several communities as they are identifying the existing connections and relationships in their areas.

They are asking themselves: Where do conversations occur naturally in our community? Or, what kind of informal relationships do we have that help our community move forward? People often have to think hard and dig deep to uncover what is happening in their communities since so much of it is outside formal processes and spaces. Everybody, from the mayor to any citizen, knows something about the civic infrastructure in his or her community. At the same time, nobody knows everything. The work community members are doing to “map” what is happening around them is increasing opportunities for connected work and for stronger relationships to carry that work forward.

Some communities have developed ongoing spaces for community conversations. Huntington has a weekly process they call Chat ‘n Chew – open to everyone – as a time Huntington residents can come together, talk about local needs, and often, to work to address the needs they’ve identified. During Chat ‘n Chews, they are also enjoying a social time together and building a more connected community in the process.

Many communities in our state are doing this, often at cafés or restaurants, over breakfast, lunch or dinner. What’s special here is that many people are intentionally building habits of coming together and to talk about issues. While these initiatives are all locally organized, we try to learn about what’s happening so we can share their practices with other communities in West Virginia.

So I’m hearing that there’s a bit of a tension between rapid response dialogue and the more long-term work of building civic infrastructure. Is that right?

In many cases, we’re seeing that communities that have been the most intentional about building – or surfacing – connections are the ones that are most equipped to respond to public issues. It won’t necessarily be done quickly; most of these issues are complex and difficult. But communities that have an informal infrastructure to support public framing of issues and productive dialogues are starting several steps ahead.

When we work with communities, we try to help them build on the capacity they already have. Sometimes, people think they have to have a great deal of professional expertise and training before they can bring the community together for a conversation. While certain skills are very helpful for these community moderators and conveners, most often, it’s a matter of redirecting the skills they already have into a new, more public purpose.

The language I hear you speaking is that of assets. Similar to what John McKnight and the Asset-Based Community Development Institute has worked on for years, you’re saying that focusing on a community’s assets rather than deficits can facilitate better problem solving?

Communities do have infrastructures and capacities; they just don’t always recognize them. In our work with communities, and especially in our current work on the economic future of the state, we are working with communities to build on existing assets rather than to develop a list of deficits. It’s important for people to understand the severity of problems, though. For example, many West Virginians’ eyes were opened to the severity of the state’s prescription drug abuse problem in the 120 community dialogues that have been held around the state. Fortunately, they also learned about much good work that was underway, and they were able to build on that and set directions for new work to fill the many gaps.

How does the infrastructure that supports dialogue impact the move to action?

We’ve seen that the strong community connections that support deep and broad public dialogue are the key indicator of whether community actions will evolve. No matter how good the discussion is, community actions don’t just spontaneously erupt afterward. The connections and relationships that create the dialogues, coupled with the new relationships that develop during the dialogue, provide a solid infrastructure to support the hard work of planning and implementing community actions. It’s been exciting to see communities work so intentionally and with such deep insight into the importance of these connections. We’re trying our best to learn along with these communities and to share their work with others.

2014 Public Participation Interview: Lessons from Hollywood

Posted on by
Reply

We recently started reading a terrific interview series from the talented team at Collaborative Services on public participation lessons they have learned in the last year, and we wanted to share their insights with the NCDD community. The second interview in the series features the reflections of Corri Planck of West Hollywood’s Social Services Division, who talks about the award-winning engagement project the Division ran in 2013. You can read the interview below, or find the original on Collaborative Services’ blog by clicking here.

Taking the Study to the People:
Successful Public Participation the “WeHo” Way

collaborative services logo There’s no place like home. This is true for the residents of the vibrant and eccentric city of West Hollywood, or “WeHo” as it’s lovingly known. When the City of West Hollywood’s Social Services Division conducted its 2013 Community Study it discovered that 90% of its residents responded that they have a good or excellent quality of life. Can you say the same about the place you live?

West Hollywood is home to the Sunset Strip, Santa Monica Boulevard, and the Avenues Design District. It has a land area of less than two miles. Here you can run errands and get to and from restaurants, bars, shopping and services all without a car. It is one of California’s most walkable cities according to Walkscore.

Its population of around 35,000 is as diverse as its land uses. Its residents are known for being socially minded. They are made up of various cultures, ages, religions and sexual orientations. It is also the second most concentrated Russian-speaking region in the United States.

With a city this compact and diverse, which services are most important? That was the question. The City’s Social Services Division set out to engage, listen to and learn from its residents during its 2013 Community Study to develop recommendations for the allocation of general funds and to update the city’s demographics. The Social Services Division used creative and flexible opportunities for public participation to bring the Study to the people. This type of engagement helped the City of West Hollywood to win one of the two 2013 International Association of Public Participation USA Core Values Awards for Project of the Year.

This week we hear from Corri Planck, the Program Administrator for the City of West Hollywood’s Social Services Division. She shares with us the unique and collaborative approach to public participation that was used with the 2013 Community Study. An approach to public participation that is sure to be part of the city’s legacy.

- — -

What is the Social Services Division’s role at the City of West Hollywood?

The Social Services Division for the City of West Hollywood has a rich and deep history of ensuring service and support for our community members. Though a collaborative funding process, the Social Services Division monitors $4.2 million annually in social services contracts.

In addition, the Division manages a variety of transit programs; develops and coordinates social and educational programming for a diverse range of issues and populations; and responds directly to constituent needs.

What findings were you hoping or expecting to gather from this year’s Community Study?

The purpose of the study was three-fold. We wanted to update our City’s demographics; develop actionable recommendations for the $4.2 million of general fund dollars allocated for social services contracts; and make sure we could continue to best understand West Hollywood and its residents.

What was your outreach approach and how early did you begin generating interest in the Community Study?

This was an exceptionally ambitious project – in its scope, in its commitment to unprecedented community engagement and certainly in its timeline. We began in January, and held our last community event in March. A preliminary summary report was issued in April, with the full, final report published in early August.

Our planning for the Community Study included a thorough outreach and communications strategy that utilized a full range of the City’s resources to get the word out. Our commitment was to consistent, constant communication.

There were the standard flyers, postcards, and posters as well as banners in our two major City parks. We crafted nine news releases on various stages of the process, placed an article in the City newsletter, worked with our Public Information Office to script a special episode of #trending, a magazine style talk show, exclusively dedicated to the Study on WeHo TV. We created a social media presence, and all printed materials were available in English, Russian and Spanish (including the survey itself). We created a special webpage dedicated to the Study that was updated throughout the process, and benefited from the e-mail signatures with the Community Study logo and hyperlink that our City staff members added to their outgoing messages.

We also relied on old-fashioned, face-to-face communication. Our Social Service staff and the City’s Human Service Commissioners visited every City Advisory Board and Commission, some more than once, during this process to keep them informed. We were able to utilize the Neighborhood Watch e-mail lists to engage residents, and did direct outreach to the West Hollywood-serving social service agencies. In addition, staff members generated multiple e-mails and phone calls to invite community members to participate in a number of the opportunities, from focus groups to stakeholder interviews to attending community meetings.

This year’s Community Study attracted a record high number of responses. Is there a single tactic or public participation event that created more interest to have the influx of new survey participants?

Our commitment to consistent and constant communication aided us across the board in increasing the level of participation.

We added pop-up workshops to this year’s process, guided by the idea of taking the public meeting to the people. We “popped up” in multiple locations throughout the City on various days and times.

Participants were able to engage in multiple activities, all designed to solicit their priorities for social services – target populations, service areas and budget priorities. It allowed people to give us their time as they chose – one of the activities could take 10 seconds, and others could engage people for 15-20 minutes. It was a really great way for us to hear from people who might not ever attend a traditional community meeting.

A pop-up workshop booth at the City of West Hollywood City Hall lobby
(Credit: PMCWorld.com)

The last Community Study was conducted in 2006. What are the most notable differences in how the Community Study was carried out between now and then?

The major difference was the addition of the community engagement activities — pop-up workshops — which took the study to the people.

Were you surprised by any of the feedback you gathered?

More than surprising, there were moments in this process that were completely inspiring, and it was absolutely affirming of the City of West Hollywood’s core values.

We found that 88% of residents rated as excellent or good the job the City is doing to provide services, and 90% rated their quality of life as excellent or good.

Last year, nearly 10,000 of our community members utilized a social service – whether it was a home-delivered meal or an HIV test or a shelter at night or an after-school program or any number of other services we provide. That’s nearly one-third of our total population.

The City’s commitment to social services is clearly a source of pride for our community members as well. The provision of social services is part of the City’s legacy and our residents feel a sense of shared ownership in this core value, in this ideal.  An email signature used by City of West Hollywood staff.

How do you plan to share the Study’s findings with the West Hollywood community?

The findings of the Community Study were put to immediate use by the Human Services Commission, our City Council and prospective partner agencies as part of the funding process for our Social Services contracts. The needs that were articulated in the Community Study process were directly addressed in that funding process – resulting in new providers, increased access to mental health services, and additional options for substance abuse services and programs.

We continue to report back to various City advisory boards and commissions, to our City staff and the Study itself has been made available to the public since it was published.

Some of the findings were just so great that we felt we should find additional, creative ways to share the info. We created a series of graphics to utilize via social media and as e-mail signatures.

What changes will you make, if any, to your next outreach campaign?

Because the City has a history of conducting these Community Studies, there are elements that will remain the same over time, primarily to ensure the consistency and validity of the comparisons over time. That said, it’s probably too early to commit to potential changes in outreach, given the speed at which technology and communications is changing. Our primary commitment, however, will remain the same – to secure the highest levels of community engagement possible.

Credit: The City of West Hollywood

What do you think is the most important act a local government can do to foster constructive public dialogue?

To foster engagement on a regular basis — provide information, ask questions, and listen. To ensure that we truly engage with our community and that we strive to do so in real, meaningful and purposeful ways.

- — -

Thank you Corri for sharing your insights with us. Taking the Study to the people is a great way to make it easier for them to get involved.

This interview is part of a blog series from Collaborative Services, Inc. - a public outreach firm in San Diego, California that brings people together from their individual spheres and disciplines to improve communities and help people adapt to an ever-changing world. The firm uses inter-disciplinary efforts to manage and provide services in stakeholder involvement, marketing and communications, and public affairs. The firm’s award-winning services have spanned the western region of the United States from Tacoma, Washington to the Mexico Port of Entry.

We thank Collaborative Services for allowing NCDD to learn along with them, and we encourage our members to visit their blog by clicking here. You can find the original version of the above article at www.collaborativeservicesinc.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/taking-the-study-to-the-people-successful-public-participation-the-weho-way.

Looking Ahead at Global Democracy in 2014

Posted on by
Reply

We have previously highlighted the Challenges to Democracy blog from Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, and we wanted to share one of their latest pieces on the year ahead for democracy around the world. You can read the article below or find the original piece here. 

Ash logoLooking ahead, 2014 is going to be a big year for democracy. According to The Economist, around 40 countries representing over 40% of the world’s population, and more than 50% of global GDP, will participate in elections this year.

Yet the pervasive mood in countries facing impending elections as well as those embroiled in people-led protest movements is that of disillusionment with politicians and (sometimes) elections. The calls for political accountability are becoming ever more emphatic. And in many cases the disenchantment is accompanied by an extreme polarization in voters’ choices.

It is interesting then to note that while the American voter seems to share this sense of disillusionment with politicians, it is not accompanied by a similar polarization in terms of political choices. If at all, the American voter seems to be losing interest in classic party affiliations.

What does the average American think about US efforts to promote democracy abroad? A recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows that only 18% of those interviewed believe that democracy promotion is a key foreign policy objective. This wariness with democracy promotion as a tool of foreign policy can partially be explained with the failed experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prevailing conditions in the Middle East where many promising pro-democracy movements have disintegrated into chaos.

A key lesson is that any effort to promote or strengthen democracy without regard for political and cultural context is never a good idea. While increased participation, transparency and accountability remain goals worth pursuing, the practice of seeking to transplant Western-style democracy anywhere and everywhere is fraught with problems.

One aspect of this sort of ‘democratization’ is the creation of democratic institutions to replace existing well-functioning and popular traditional institutions. Replacing traditional institutions with propped-up institutions often leads to a diffusion of authority and accountability.

Lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities perpetuates and even exacerbates the very corruption, inequity and injustice that democracy promotion programs intend to eradicate. Read more about an example from Afghanistan and another from Ghana, where consideration for context made all the difference.

Whether the efforts to strengthen democratic governance are endogenous or exogenous, it is important to remember that each case is distinct.  The year has barely begun and the news is full of the events in Ukraine, Thailand, Egypt and elsewhere. Contextual nuance will be the key to understanding the many democratic (and undemocratic) twists and turns countries over the world negotiate in the coming year.  2014 will indeed be a big year for democracy.