May 07, 2015
The Deliberative Democracy Consortium
Slides available at:www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger
Guides:http://bit.ly/M1pvMp
http://bit.ly/iwjgqn
How much experience do you have with public engagement? (a quick poll)
A. Quite experienced with face-to-face engagement
B. Quite experienced with online engagementC. Quite experienced with bothD. Some experience, mainly with face-to-face
engagementE. Just beginning
The big picture: Two impacts of the Internet
1. Empowering individual citizens (web, email – wrapped up in other changes)
2. Empowering citizen groups (Facebook, Twitter, other social media)
First impact: How have citizens* changed?
More educated More skeptical – different attitudes toward
authority Have less time to spare Better able to find resources, allies, information
* “citizens” = residents, people
Second impact allows for new forms of engagement
More sustained Larger, more diverse numbers of people Easier for ‘engagers’ – recruitment doesn’t
have to start from scratch More open to ideas from the ‘engaged’ Need joint planning for engagement
infrastructure – not just tools
What is not changing
Need for face-to-face relationships Need for an overall engagement plan Importance of partnering with other groups,
organizations, institutions
Questions or comments?
Successful recent public engagement tactics
Proactive about recruitment Bringing diverse perspectives together Sharing experiences Giving people chance to make up their own minds
(deliberative) Different levels of action: volunteers, teams,
organizations, policy decisions Increasing use of online tools
Successful tactic: Proactive recruitment
Map community networks;
Involve leaders of those networks;
Hold a kickoff meeting;
Follow up, follow up, follow up.
Successful tactic: Small-group processes
No more than 12 people per group;
Facilitator who is impartial (doesn’t give opinions);
Can be online or face-to-face (or both)
Successful tactic: Framing an issue
Provide an agenda or guide that:
Begins by asking people to talk about why they care about this issue or question
Gives them the information they need, in ways they can absorb and use it
Lays out several options or views (including ones you don’t agree with)
Ends with questions that get people to plan what they want to do (not just what they want you to do)
Successful tactic: Many levels of action
Successful tactic: Online tools
Particularly good for: Providing background information Data gathering by citizens Generating and ranking ideas Helping people visualize options Maintaining connections over time
Digital divides (plural)
Overall, Internet access growing “Access” – to Internet, to government – has
never been enough Different people use different hardware Different people go to different places on the
Internet Communities just as complex online as off –
recruitment must be proactive
Common mistakes Treating Internet as a one-way medium Not enough recruitment Transparency without proactive engagement Gathering ideas and not implementing them
Questions or comments?
Does this presentation match your experiences with public engagement?
(a quick poll)
A. Yes, this fits with my experienceB. No, it doesn’t fitC. In some ways it does, in some ways it
doesn’tD. I really don’t have enough experience yet
to judge
“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario
• Began in 2009
• North West Ontario Local Health Integration Network, Ascentum
• Issue: health care planning and improvement of health care services
• 800 participants
• Received IAP2 award
“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario
Element 1 – Online choicebook that provided background information and data, described main options
“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario
Element 2 – Online “stories and ideas” tool that allowed people to share experiences, solutions
“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario
Element 3 – Conversation guide for face-to-face, moderated small-group meetings
“Decatur Next” Decatur, Georgia
Large-scale planning efforts in 2000, 2010
Initial Organizer: city government and a local nonprofit (Common Focus)
Issues: schools, race, growth
450 participants in 2000, 680 in 2010 (city of 17,000)
“Decatur Roundtables” Decatur, Georgia
Outcomes: Decatur Neighborhood Alliance Promotion of tax abatement plan for seniors,
other anti-displacement efforts Less tension between different groups New model for land use decisions Extensive citizen input into city’s strategic plan
Successes, limitations of engagement so far
Successes: Making policy decisions, planningCatalyzing citizen actionBuilding trustFostering new leadership
Challenges: Time-consuming (especially recruitment)Unsustainable (usually not intended to be)Meets goals of ‘engagers,’ not ‘engaged’Doesn’t change the institutionsLimited impact on equityTrust, relationships fade over time
Questions or comments?
1. Sustain the benefits2. Allow the ‘engaged’ to set the agenda3. Better address inequities 4. Increase community attachment and economic
growth5. Increase residents’ sense of legitimacy and
“public happiness”
Why plan for more sustainable kinds of engagement?
Community engagement planners should consider some key building blocks:
Resources
• www.participedia.net• www.deliberative-democracy.net• www.soulofthecommunity.org • www.everydaydemocracy.org• www.publicagenda.org• www.kettering.org• On Facebook: “Deliberative Democracy
Consortium” group page• The Next Form of Democracy
Resources (continued)
• On YouTube: the DDC channel• Using Online Tools to Engage – and Be
Engaged by – the Public at http://bit.ly/iwjgqn
• Planning for Stronger Local Democracy at bit.ly/M1pvMp – and other resources at www.nlc.org
Questions or comments?