1. Citizen-to-Citizen
engagement
Citizen360 provides opportunities for
web-savvy citizens to participate in civic
matters even if they don't have the time
(or patience) to sit in meetings or read
through Council packets

2. Citizens become discouraged from
participating in civic matters because
of common structural problems --
 process is complex; opportunities
for meaningful input not clear
 public meetings inconvenient; often
dominated by “squeaky wheels”
 requests for public input perceived to be
perfunctory because officials only listen to *elites*
Citizen360 approach is designed to
promote meaningful, constructive,
INCLUSIVE civic participation

3. engagement *by design*
Citizen360 projects work with
officials/ governing authorities to
identify opportunities where citizen
input can make a difference
“Show your work” model – contributors provide
links to background material/ supporting evidence
Citizen360 provides a “safe, well-
lighted place” for sharing questions,
ideas and information online

4. problems with many online Citizen360
forums approach
random comments are each forum topic/
accumulated but never activity is designed to be
build toward anything worthwhile; in-synch with
official decision-making
questions are posed but process
never answered
suggestions often “info outpost” provides
contradictory with no venue where contributors
consideration of trade-offs can clarify assumptions,
address trade-offs
no accountability; easy to forum initially moderated by
initiate – or perpetuate – volunteers to help
misinformation, rumors, participants stay on topic;
personal attacks system of rewards will
promote “social monitoring”

5. Citizen360 approach:
participation opportunities designed to be
worthwhile
• relevant
frame questions • in synch with
official actions
• tie-in with info
outpost
provide context
• “show your
work”
• rationale
manage
expectations
• time frame
• follow-up

6. Citizen360 project-related
online Participation forum
is NOT about opinions or a
platform to air grievances
or launch attacks on public
officials or fellow citizens
authority Citizen360 plans to incorporate
points &/or
social social incentives and rewards
rewards to encourage constructive
contributions on project platforms

7. just as it is common for departmental “silos”
to arise in large organizations, so too
special interest
factions in a
community can “citizen
result in silos”
have a
“citizen silos” narrow
focus
Each group promotes their own
interests; directs demands toward
central authorities

8. Centralized, top-down control over citizen
outreach tends to reinforce
citizen silos, and
constrain the
flow of
information
hand-picked committees often
rely on “usual suspects”
placed

9. Citizen360 reaches out
Beyond “citizen silos”
 monitor social media,
 identify potential participants,
 make connections
interest
skills

10. Citizen360 approach includes
social media monitoring
Cal Ave
+ outreach example

11. Citizen360 outreach provides
on-going connections Cal Ave
example
Each project has a
unique SMS keyword.
Everyone who
subscribes to the
keyword receives
timely project-
related updates.

12. City staff receive many
questions from the
public via email
which are answered
one by one.

13. When citizen input is directed only at
City Hall, citizens lose the benefit of
seeing what's been asked
and how their own questions
might shed light on
otherwise overlooked areas
Citizen360 values the untapped potential for
good ideas and insights
that can arise from
shared knowledge

14. help build shared knowledge base
ask questions out loud
individuals can post
ideas, questions, and
topics they would like
to have discussed
greater transparency
can reduce redundancy
“info outpost” provides a shared
venue where contributors can
post background information, link to
official documents; clarify assumptions

15. Citizen360 approach recognizes that
not all questions are
created equal
online participation forum
provides convenient way
not only to ask questions,
but to indicate which questions/ ideas are
considered most important
participants can build on the ideas
of others by adding comments
and/or voting for a question or idea

16. participation opportunities designed to be
worthwhile – Cal Ave example
frame what questions would you ask
questions design candidates (+ link to RFP)
provide question re bike station linked to
context relevant “info outpost” entry
instructions included info re who
manage
would receive input + question/
expectations
voting end-date

17. Citizen360: Each project has its own
Cal Ave
participation forum example
Citizen360 uses a “toolkit” approach -- meaning that
different forum programs/ platforms may be used
depending on the needs of a particular project.
The Cal Ave pilot project used Google Moderator to
gather and rank citizen-submitted questions.

18. Constructive input vs. opinion-fest
Cal Ave
“show your work” example
each item can include a link to an
“info outpost” entry where visitors
can find background information +
supporting references

19. anyone can view forum activity
another form of
transparency

20. elected representatives and city officials
have the authority -- and ultimate
responsibility -- to set policy,
allocate resources, and
implement decisions
crowd-
Citizen360’s online sourcing
participation forum helps decisions
bring forward questions
and ideas for consideration

21. in-synch with official process
identify
opportunities/
frame questions
input
contributors
incorporated
*show work*
into process
authority
points/
social
rewards
summarize input/ public
share with city participation
21

22. constructive citizen input incorporated
into official process
Cal Ave
example

23. “no excuses” approach toward citizen
engagement
•limited ways to
participate; in-person
meetings inconvenient
•more people can
•top-down control over participate
outreach tends to rely C360 approach
•new voices; broader
on “usual suspects”
based acceptance
•centralized input does
•online forum + “show •greater
not promote sharing,
your work” model transparency, more
or build knowledge
manageable input,
base •social media more efficient use of
monitoring + active time
outreach
Structural •citizens ask questions
“out loud”; build on
benefits
problems the ideas of others
23

24. Local government
can’t *bestow*
engagement upon its
citizens.
If we expect more
from local government,
we should
expect more from
ourselves

25. local government can adopt policies to
encourage and support transparency
and citizen involvement, but
it’s up to individuals to become
informed
and participate