How can legislators and other leaders help create more productive, healthy civil discourse? A new slideshow from the DDC summarizes recent research on legislators’ attitudes, and compares those findings with evaluations of deliberative projects. In these new materials, we ask whether public deliberation projects can create the kind of communication legislators say they want with their constituents. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for public officials, funders, and the field of public engagement.
Planning for stronger local democracy - Minnesota workshop
Bridging the gap between public officials and the public slides with video - compressed version
1. Bridging the Gap between
Public Officials and the Public:
What legislators need and what a
deliberating public can do
2. The Problem
Public meetings and public
hearings often don‟t work
for officials or citizens.
Why not? What can be done?
3. New sources of information
24 Interviews*
State legislators
Staff for federal legislators
Evaluations of 3 deliberative projects
One national project
Two statewide projects in Oregon and Michigan
* Supported by The Kettering Foundation
4. Legislators spend time and
energy to engage citizens…
Constituent service
Newsletters, e-bulletins, websites
Informal district gatherings
Communicating through the media
Public hearings
Town hall meetings
Meetings convened by advocates or
nonprofits
5. Legislators value communication
with constituents…
They want to hear the
concerns of „real people‟ –
not just lobbyists and special interests
… but they are frustrated with
traditional formats
for public engagement.
6. In town halls and
public hearings, citizens:
Seem uninformed
Are increasingly uncivil or disrespectful
toward officials
Disagree with one another and are
unwilling to compromise
Do not understand the economic,
political, legal, and other constraints on
government
8. Is there another way?
“What drove me to try structured,
planned public engagement was my
awful experience with unstructured,
unplanned public engagement.”
– John Nalbandian, former
mayor of Lawrence, Kansas
9. An alternative:
Public deliberation
Reaching out to recruit diverse groups of
citizens – not just the usual suspects
Structuring discussions to allow people
to be heard, to learn, and to consider a
range of views and options
Gathering input for public officials
Sometimes, facilitating action planning
by participants
11. When interviewed,
most legislators:
Had no experience or knowledge of public
deliberation – and didn‟t understand how
it differs from what they already do
Said that extremes dominate the
discussion and control political outcomes
Questioned why public deliberation would
be any different
12. Legislators said that to be
credible, deliberation must be:
1. Demonstrably neutral and balanced
2. Diverse demographically and politically
3. Civil and informed
4. Able to foster civic skills and dispositions
5. Successful in getting participants to
address tough choices
13. Does public deliberation deliver?
Findings from:
24 Interviews
12 state legislators
12 national staff for federal legislators
12 Democrats, 12 Republicans
Evaluations of Deliberations in 2010
National “Our Budget, Our Economy” project
“Oregon Citizens‟ Initiative Review”
Michigan “Hard Times, Hard Choices” project
15. “Our Budget, Our Economy”
United States, June 2010
“National conversation on our fiscal future”
Organized by AmericaSpeaks with partners
from across ideological spectrum
19 primary sites; 38 smaller ones
Diverse group of 3,500 people
Participants asked to make tough choices on
budget deficit and economic needs
After discussion, conservatives more likely to
accept tax increases, progressives more
likely to accept spending cuts
Positive reactions by participants
16. “Citizens’ Initiative Review” (CIR)
Oregon, June 2010
Deliberations used to develop “Citizen
Statements” on 2 ballot measures (minimum
sentences and medical marijuana )
Statements distributed to voters in 2010 election
CIR process approved by state
legislators, organized by Healthy Democracy
Oregon
Randomly invited citizens (2 panels, 48 people)
Deliberations were respectful and rigorous
Voting results went against CIR Statements
In 2011, Oregon legislature created agency to
continue CIR process
17. “Hard Times, Hard Choices”
Michigan, November 2010
“Deliberative Poll” on tough state policies: taxes,
school funding, health care, transportation
Organized by By the People, with range of
stakeholders
314 randomly invited, demographically
representative residents
Discussion found to be of high quality and
represent diverse perspectives
After deliberation, more residents supported
raising income and sales taxes, reducing
business taxes
18. #1: Neutrality and Balance
Participants, observers, evaluators find
facilitators and process to be neutral
Example: Oregon CIR - Satisfaction with
process neutrality
19. #2: Diversity and Representation
Participants can reflect make-up of
relevant population
Example: Hard Choices project a “true slice
of Michigan”
On age, race, gender, education and
geography, participants were
indistinguishable from random sample
29% of the participants non-white,
including 17% African Americans
12% between 18 and 24 years old
20. #3: Civility and Respect
Participants feel they are given a chance to
express themselves
Participants exchange information and
reasons, and hear each others‟ feelings &
experiences
Example: Oregon CIR
Equal chance to participate: “A” grade
Consideration of different views: “A” grade
Mutual respect: “A-” and “A” grades
21. #4: Civic Attitudes
Participants emerge with a greater sense of
political efficacy – that they can “have a
say”
Participants feel that they have behaved like
responsible citizens
Example: Our Budget, Our Economy
22. #5: Facing up to Tough Choices
In all three projects:
Participants confronted constraints,
disagreements
Participants often moved toward
„middle of the road‟ compromises
Deliberation diminished the role of
ideology in participants‟ views
23. #5: Trade-offs
Example: Our Budget, Our Economy – Opinion
change on deficit reduction options, by political
identity
24. Public deliberation can produce
the kinds of discussions
legislators say they want
Neutral organizers can recruit diverse
participants who:
Interact in a civil, respectful way
Learn about issues and develop better civic
attitudes
Are willing to consider tough trade-offs
Arrive at and articulate a sense of the
„common good‟
25. BUT…this necessary
evidence is not sufficient
Legislators have trouble imagining what
public deliberation looks like
Legislators say they need to experience
public deliberation directly
Legislators doubt the viability of public
deliberation – especially its political
feasibility and relevance
26. The “political logic”
of public deliberation
Legislators see little political incentive for public
deliberation:
The system forces them to cater to the loudest voices &
most powerful or wealthiest interests
The system “is itself not civil and deliberative”
To influence a legislator, deliberation must occur in
her/his district, on her/his issues, with her/his
constituents.
To influence a whole legislature, has to reach
multiple districts simultaneously and at scale
Deliberation could be useful for “politically
inconsequential” or “politically unwinnable” issues
27. How to bridge the gap?
Recommendations for:
Funders,
the Field
and
Legislators
28. What funders can do:
Provide resources to elected officials‟
umbrella organizations to enable members to
attend relevant deliberations
Require organizers to work with locally
trusted intermediary organizations
Select issues for public deliberation with a
view to political logic
Enable targeted advance work: presentations
to elected officials that frame value of public
deliberation in terms that make sense locally.
29. What funders can do:
Expand „ripple effect‟ of deliberations
through consistent, opportunistic, and
locally driven follow-up, using media and
local institutions (e.g., higher education)
Explore methods of evaluation that will
gauge direct and „ripple‟ effects of
deliberation on voters
Identify and fund innovative attempts to
„scale up‟ public deliberation
30. What the field can do
Partner with locally trusted intermediaries
to engage individual legislators
Approach legislators well in advance, and
solicit their input on topics and objectives
Motivate legislators to attend deliberations -
frame the value in terms of local and
political priorities
31. What the field can do:
Take the political concerns of
legislators to heart:
Involve a diverse group of constituents
Reach a critical mass directly or
indirectly
Deploy deliberation on issues and in
contexts and at a scale that makes
political sense despite polarization
32. What the field can do:
Structure local deliberations as a building
block for state/federal deliberations
Develop innovative ways to „scale up‟
deliberations, e.g. using online tools
Design documentation and evaluation to
convey value of deliberation as a politically
rational and viable tool for governance
Conduct an education campaign that
captures the character of deliberations --
especially neutrality, and civic behavior
33. What legislators can do:
LEARN more about public deliberation:
Suspend your disbelief!
Contact deliberative conveners and
organizations to learn about their
processes and get their evaluations
Look closely and objectively at the
evidence
Work with trusted organizations to identify
and attend a deliberative event
34. What legislators can do:
TRY public deliberation:
• Incorporate deliberative elements into
the engagement work you already do
• Work with a neutral organizer to launch
a small-scale trial or pilot
• Use “best practice” in process design
• Use your convening power and work
„across the aisle‟ to help recruit diverse
participants
35. What legislators can do:
SUPPORT deliberative efforts:
See local deliberations as a building
blocks for large-scale state/federal
deliberations
Foster “deliberative desire” among
constituents and colleagues
Collaborate with trustworthy organizations
and build bi-partisan coalitions to advocate
for deliberation
Use your communications capacity to
create a „ripple effect‟ from deliberations