Public Deliberation and Action Key Findings Elena Fagotto

Public Deliberation and Action: Key Findings Elena Fagotto Senior Research Associate John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (Archon Fung, PI, Funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation) 2006 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation San Francisco - August 4 -6, 2006

Agenda… 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Welcome, introductions and groundrules What this workshop is about Scope and design of research Embeddedness hypothesis Cases in brief Deliberative entrepreneurs Embedding deliberation Deliberation to action NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 2

1. Welcome, introductions and groundrules Welcome n Round of introductions, why we are here n Groundrules: n Interrupt and ask if concept unclear ¨ Respect for other participants ¨ Sharing finding of research but also opportunities for participation ¨ NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 3

2. What this workshop is about: learning objectives Together, we will explore: n the connections between deliberation and public action n how deliberation can influence public policy and institutions n the concept of “embedded deliberation” and how it can sustain action n ideas to maximize the impact of deliberation We will NOT talk about: n A specific deliberative process or technique n Deliberation’s impact on individuals (personal change) n Deliberation in the context of conflict resolution NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 4

3. Scope and design of research § Case studies to document of intentional deliberation and local decision-making § Conceptual framework of embeddedness: how non-deliberative practices and institutions are affected by deliberative events § Connections between deliberation, embeddedness and action NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 5

Scope and design of research (continued) Case Selection § Begin with national organizations: NIF, Study Circles § Identify “robust” deliberative initiatives § Qualitative case study approach Analysis of data and relevant materials § Interviews § Participation in trainings/observation of deliberative events § NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 6

Scope and design of research (continued) Case study objectives § Explain origins § Characterize deliberative initiative — issues, participants, problems addressed, exclusions and conflicts, decisions and outcomes § Connections between deliberative initiative and community institutions & organizations (embeddedness) § Actions that resulted from deliberation NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 7

4. The Embeddedness Hypothesis What is Embedded Deliberation: Iterated use of public deliberation by groups, organizations, public institutions Hypothesis: Embedded deliberation is more likely to lead to action Indicators of embeddedness: § Adaptation of deliberative models to address local issues § Adoption of public deliberation to advance specific objectives § Repeated use of public deliberation overtime NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 8

The Embeddedness Hypothesis (continued) Hypothesis: Embedded deliberation is more likely to lead to action NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 9

5. Cases in Brief “Completed” cases n n n West Virginia, NIF South Dakota IIF Hawai’i, NIF, state legislators Connecticut Community Conversations Kuna, ID, Study Circles Portsmouth, NH, Study Circles Cases in progress n n Kansas City, KS, Study Circles Montgomery County, MD, Study Circles NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 10

Cases in Brief: West Virginia’s Forums n n WV Center for Civic life, est. mid 1990 s Betty Knighton, a strong local leader NIF model adapted for local framing Partnership with local organizations Forums on domestic violence ¨ Forums on underage drinking ¨ University of Charleston, WV ¨ Local campuses ¨ NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 11

Cases in Brief: SD Indigenous Issues Forums n n n Initiative to create a safe space to talk about challenging tribal issues Dialogues in circle, using art, Native American tradition More about process than issue Objective is personal transformation and building relationship with other institutions, not policy change or action Local partnerships and international work NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 12

Cases in Brief: Public Deliberation in Hawai’i § Public Policy Forums @ University of Hawai’i § Some local framing § Sen. Les Ihara: a local champion of deliberation § Connection with State Legislators § Keiki Caucus, 15 years of deliberation § Stakeholders provide input for public policies around children issues § Year-round process, Keiki Summit (children, citizens) § Creation of shared agenda, cross advocacy § Legislative package NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 13

Cases in Brief: CT Community Conversations on Education § Since 1997, 6, 000+ participants, 80+ communities § Sponsored by local foundation, managed by LWV § Requires large coalitions of conveners § Emphasis on action and follow-up § Some communities held numerous conversations § Schools incorporate community input NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 14

6. How deliberation starts… Deliberative entrepreneurs In most cases, “deliberative entrepreneurs” are crucial for the promotion of public deliberation They identify a gap in the “market” for public deliberation Needs: § Engage citizens in public sphere § Public institutions and civil society organizations can use public deliberation as problem solving tool § Public deliberation to provide input for policy-making NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 15

Deliberative entrepreneurs (continued) Supply Demand • National Networks • Deliberative Entrepreneurs • Citizens • Organizations • Policy-makers GOALS Short term: Identify appropriate spaces for deliberation Long term: Create a culture of deliberation NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 16

Deliberative entrepreneurs (continued) National networks Deliberative entrepreneurs Deliberative catalysts Local institutional support NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 17

Deliberative entrepreneurs (continued) Deliberative entrepreneur Deliberative catalyst Local institutional support Betty Knighton, WV, NIF West Virginia Center for Civic Life University of Charleston Ruth Yellow Hawk, SD IIF Indigenous Issues Forums Limited Dolores Foley, Les Hawaii Public Policy Ihara, Suzanne Chun. Forums Oakland, HI, NIF, stakeholder engagement University of Hawai’i, Hawai’i state legislators Graustein Memorial Fund, Public Agenda Graustein Memorial Fund, League of Women Voters Connecticut Community Conversations NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 18

Deliberative entrepreneurs (continued) Discussion Points: § How do we support and cultivate deliberative entrepreneurs? § Only deliberative entrepreneurs or other strategies to bring deliberation to a community? § Strategies to “sell” public deliberation with community, institutions etc. § Other NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 19

7. Embedding deliberation Adapting Deliberation to for Local Issues Advance Objectives of Organizations Repeated Use Overtime West Virginia Working families, opportunities for young adults Curb domestic violence, underage drinking; local universities University of Charleston South Dakota Tribal Language conservation, development on reservation Some local partnerships Limited Hawai’i Choosing a future for Hawaii, Democratic caucus retreat Keiki Caucus to provide input to legislators Keiki Caucus, 15 years Connecticut Students time, school budget, gay teens CT DOE to test early childcare needs, other local organizations Bridgeport, since 1997 over 40 conversations, 1000+ people NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 20

Embedding deliberation (continued) Why embed public deliberation? § Relevance: importance of topic, urgency of certain issues (school, safety) § Ownership: internalizing deliberation as an adaptable problem-solving tool § Positive dialogue: deliberation as an alternative to traditional, more contentious meetings NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 21

Embedding deliberation (continued) Intentional embeddedness: embedding deliberation by design § § Six sponsors with institutional capacity Diverse planning committee Engaging key “observers” How deliberation is structured…from identifying problems to “what can we do about it” § Focus on follow up after deliberation and action (setting date, compiling notes…) § Grants for alumni § Obstacles and how to face them NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 22

Embedding deliberation (continued) n n n Because high investment required, organizers “own” Community Conversations Topic chosen is highly relevant to form local coalition Organizers have incentives to maximize outcome, do follow-up work Deliberation is “different” kind of meeting, new process to engage citizens, positive experience to try again Some communities, like Bridgeport, “get it” and use conversations overtime, creating critical mass Q&A NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 23

Embedding deliberation (continued) Discussion Points: § Best strategies to embed deliberation? § Focus on design § Deliberative entrepreneurs § Local alliances § Are there best venues for embeddedness? § Are there best environments for deliberation and embeddedness (small town, more social capital…) § Other NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 24

8. Deliberation to Action Hypothesis: Embedded deliberation is more likely to lead to action Difficult to isolate impact of public deliberation, can provide public input, build momentum Action in four arenas: § collective action § public policy § organizations and institutions § personal transformation NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 25

Deliberation to Action (continued) Without embeddedness… Deliberative Entrepreneur Deliberative Forum Action Our Findings: § Collective action (no evidence) § Impact on public policy (presentation of forum outcomes, limited impact) § Impact on organizations and institutions (no evidence) § Personal transformation (some evidence from IIF, not within our scope) NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 26

Deliberation to Action (continued) With embeddedness… Deliberative Entrepreneur Embed Deliberation in local orgs. & inst. Deliberative Forum Local orgs. & inst. act collectively Our Findings: § Collective action (Clarksburg, WV, various in CT) § Impact on public policy (Keiki Caucus, HI, various in CT) § Impact on organizations and institutions (WV forums on domestic violence and underage drinking, impact on schools in CT) NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 27

Deliberation to Action (continued) Because organizers “own” and “invest” in deliberation, embeddedness can lead to sustained action For example… Bridgeport, CT • Keiki Caucus, HI • Clarksburg, WV • NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 28

Deliberation to Action (continued) Discussion Points: § Are there other “action” spheres, paths? § Beyond embeddedness, other strategies to stimulate action? § How to measure the impact of public deliberation? § Other… NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 29

Conclusions § Next steps with research § Other areas that we should investigate § How research can support your work § Other § Evaluation of workshop NCDD Conference, San Francisco August 2006 30