Slides on why public engagement is being done, what kinds of engagement are happening, and how we can do it better - by building stronger civic infrastructure at the local level.

1. Building Civic Infrastructure:
Engaging residents in more
effective, sustainable ways
New Mexico Infrastructure Finance Conference
Taos, New Mexico
October 25, 2012

2. The Deliberative Democracy Consortium

3. Slides available at:
www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger
Guides:
http://bit.ly/M1pvMp
http://bit.ly/iwjgqn

4. “What drove me to try planned,
structured public engagement
was my awful experience with
unplanned, unstructured public
engagement.”
─ John Nalbandian,
former mayor,
Lawrence, KS

5. Three minutes at the microphone
Retrieved from Cincinnati.com, July 27, 2012

6. Less buy-in = less money

7. The context:
How have citizens* changed?
 More educated
 More skeptical – different
attitudes toward authority
 Have less time to spare
 Better able to find
resources, allies, informatio
n
* “citizens” =
residents, people

8. The context:
Families with young children
 Have the most at stake in community success
 More motivation to engage, but even less time
 Want to engage in community, not just politics

9. The context: Increased use of the Internet

10. Successful tactic: Proactive recruitment
 Map community networks;
 Involve leaders of those networks;
 „Who is least
likely to
participate?‟
 Use online as
well as f2f
connections;
 Follow up!

11. Successful tactic: Small-group processes
 No more than 12 people per group;
 Facilitator who is impartial (doesn‟t give
opinions);
 Start with people
describing their
experiences;
 Lay out options;
 Help people plan
for action.

12. Successful tactic: Framing an issue
 Give people the information they need, in ways
they can use it
 Lays out several options or views (including
ones you don‟t agree with)
 Trust them
to make good
decisions

13. Successful tactic: Many levels of action

16. 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

17. (2) questions or comments?

18. In other (fewer) words, the key
success factors are:
 Diverse critical mass
 Structured
 Deliberative
 Action-oriented
 Online and f2f

19. This work challenges the thinking of:
Progressives Conservatives
 Experts don‟t make  Electeds don‟t make
all decisions all decisions
 Forces gov‟t to be  Raises perceptions of
more accountable gov‟t
 Gov‟t not enough to  Free market not
solve problems enough

20. Strengths of quality public engagement
Good for: Making policy decisions, plans
Catalyzing citizen action
Building trust
Fostering new leadership

21. Limitations of quality public engagement
(as we practice it today)
 Lots of work for temporary gain
 Inefficient – every organization on its own
 Community moves back to „politics as usual‟
 „Engagers‟ set the agenda, not the „engaged‟
 Limited impact on equity
 Trust, relationships fade
 Laws on participation out
of step with practices

22. New model ordinance on public
participation
Available at www.deliberative-democracy.net
Developed as a collaboration of:

23. What is civic infrastructure?
The regular
opportunities, activities, and arenas
that allow people to connect with
each other, solve problems, make
decisions, and be part of a
community.

25. Building blocks for civic infrastructure:

26. Building block:
Helping
neighborhood and
school groups
become more
- effective
- inclusive
- participatory

27. Building block: Hyperlocal online forums
 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‟

28. Building block: Youth leadership

29. Don’t forget: Fun
“Sometimes you need a
meeting that is also a party.
Sometimes you need a party
that is also a meeting.”
─ Gloria Rubio-Cortès,
National Civic League

30. Questions or comments?

32. “Portsmouth Listens”
Portsmouth, NH
 Ongoing process since 2000
 Several hundred participants each time
 Addressed a number of major policy
decisions: bullying in schools, school
redistricting, city‟s master plan,
balancing city budget, whether to build
new middle school

33. Jane Addams School for Democracy
West Side of St. Paul, MN
 50-200 people in “neighborhood learning circles” every
month since 1998
 Involves recent Hmong, Latino, Somali immigrants
 Young people involved in circles and other activities
 Cultural exchanges - food, crafts, storytelling
 Has resulted in new
projects, initiatives,
festivals, and a change
in INS policy

34. Participatory Budgeting in Brazilian cities
 Commitment from gov‟t to adopt budget;
 Wide range of ways to be involved;
 A carnival
atmosphere;
 Started small,
now huge –
60,000+ people

35. “Kuna Alliance for a Cohesive
Community Team” Kuna, ID
 Recurring input-gathering process, used on
all major decisions
 Organized by Kuna Alliance for a Cohesive
Team (Kuna ACT), in collaboration with local
government
 Issues include: school funding, downtown
development, planning and growth
 500 participants annually (city of 6,000)

36. “Kuna Alliance for a Cohesive
Community Team” Kuna, ID
Outcomes:
 New comprehensive plan
 Passage of school bond issue
 Improvements
made to
downtown
 New strategy to
market community
as hub for “Birds
of Prey” area

37. Building civic infrastructure:
 Is relatively inexpensive (mainly political, not
financial capital)
 Is a cross-sector job
(not just
government)
 Has other
economic benefits

39. 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

40. Slides available at:
www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger
Guides:
http://bit.ly/M1pvMp
http://bit.ly/iwjgqn

41. Why build stronger civic
infrastructure?
1. Make engagement easier, more efficient
2. Build trust
3. Give residents more control of the agenda
4. Better address inequities
5. Increase community attachment and
economic growth
6. Increase residents‟ sense of legitimacy and
“public happiness”

42. What is your vision for civic infrastructure?