Embedding+deliberative+practices+-+Part+1

Measure “Embedded” Deliberative Practices **
 * Ideas Created by Session Participants about How to

The ideas below were developed by people who attended the session titled “Embedding Deliberative Practices in Local Democracy — Part I: What does it mean to “embed” public deliberation in communities and why should we care about it?” The session was part of the “No Better Time” conference convened at the University of New Hampshire on July 8-11, 2009**.**

During last forty minutes of the session, approximately fifty people working in groups of eight completed the exercise outlined in the box below.

· Each person has two large sticky notes and marker. · Each person writes one idea per note, in large letters as a 5-7 word bullet **(5 minutes)** · Each person puts the one idea they feel most strongly about on the table for everyone to see. Look for the ideas where the answers are similar, and then, as a group pick out the 3 ideas that stimulated the most energy. **(20 minutes)** · Each group posts their ideas on large flip chart sheets at the front of the room. · The session leaders group the responses into a smaller number of themes. · The ideas not posted are collected and shared as a “minority report”
 * Question 4:** ** What are the best ways to measure (a) the extent to which** ** deliberation is embedded in a community and/or (b) the effect it is having on the community? **

Here are the six themes that emerged. The bulleted text is verbatim from the sticky notes posted on the wall by participants.
 * The Most Highly Recommended Measures **


 * 1. Quantity**
 * Are more people involved in working on local issues (e.g., via voting & deliberation)?
 * Number of organizations and participants involved
 * Extent of youth involvement
 * Have deliberative practices led to continuing practices that, in turn, lead to more citizen involvement in the community, and/or awareness of local resources?


 * 2. Structure**
 * Deliberation is a way of doing business when contentious, important, and routine issues emerge
 * Presence of coordinated formal and informal systems and leaders
 * Number of public decisions made (policies, rules) that utilize proactive demographic representation and deliberative models
 * Frequency of deliberation that “re-visits” recurring policy decisions
 * Number and types of opportunities for citizens to work with local leadership


 * 3. Community Capacity**
 * Skilled individuals and healthy organizations with linkages between them
 * Diverse community institutions initiate, sponsor, or support engagement
 * Formal processes started by one leader are continued by the next one


 * 4. Responsiveness**
 * Measure the extent to which assorted processes result in policymakers (legislators & bureaucrats) (a) listen to diverse voices and (b) those voices impact policy decisions
 * Can elected leaders and/or policymakers take cover by pointing to the people?
 * Develop an accountability and embeddedness index (deliberative democracy embeddedness index = DDEI)


 * 5. Common Narrative**
 * Use of common language (and understanding of it)
 * Authenticity of discussion, e.g., parking lot conversations = official conversations; more questions, fewer statements
 * Widely shared narratives about deliberation among people of all backgrounds


 * 6. Ownership**
 * Public comes to view participation in deliberation as both a right and a civic duty
 * Sense of shared/mutual ownership of community assets, challenges, and decisions (measure of depth/level)
 * Survey people for sense of personal/individual responsibility for public decisions
 * Personal transformation, e.g., bridging social capital; trust; participation; people feel that they made a contribution

This is a comprehensive list that includes both the ideas listed in the above themes as well as another seventy-five or so. We have not yet attempted to theme the following ideas. (Any volunteers?)
 * Other Recommended Measures **


 * 1) Survey tolerance/openness for new ideas
 * 2) Level of empowerment: I have a say to solve problems, I have a place to go to be heard, and avenue to pursue
 * 3) Satisfaction re community participation/engagement
 * 4) Deliberation outcomes: openness or discussion
 * 5) Evaluate outcomes of DD: turnout, political efficacy
 * 6) News cycle: Is there a consistent public accounting of the impact of deliberation on decision-making/public policy outcomes
 * 7) Build trust people to people, people to government and connectedness, people to civic institutions
 * 8) Distinguishing process (structures, events, offices of DD) form outcomes (voter turnout, higher, more diverse elected, higher political efficacy
 * 9) Diverse community institutions initiate, sponsor, or support public engagement
 * 10) Ask people what they do when they have a concern or question about their community
 * 11) Study patterns of communication, who says/does what with whom and in what forms (how), effect of change over time
 * 12) Frequency of opportunities to engage in quality deliberative processes Public processes attract truly representative segments of community
 * 13) Citizens know where to go for help when they seek to address a deliberation gap
 * 14) Agreed standards for good public involvement process
 * 15) For cities and counties: clear goals/indicators for public engagement practices in decision-making bodies and departments
 * 16) People feel their voice is being heard and making a contribution
 * 17) Common language is being used, group learning and collective understanding’
 * 18) For cities and counties: staff with public engagement education/support responsibilities
 * 19) Measures: The ratio of questions to statements is growing in public sessions
 * 20) Does the parking lot conversation match the formal conversation?
 * 21) Whether a formal process started by one leader survives change of leadership
 * 22) Percentage who say they have worked on a community project (already a census question)
 * 23) How doe you measure: Quantity, count people involved, young categories
 * 24) Structure: What are opportunities, system community
 * 25) Community capacity, succession of leadership
 * 26) Peoples’ ability to engage
 * 27) Do people listen? Are there fewer gaps between what people want and what decision makers do?
 * 28) Common narrative, tell similar story about that community
 * 29) Ownership of public decisions at individual level and right/opportunities to participate and obligation to participate
 * 30) Effects: indices of social capital are up
 * 31) Higher levels of participation in public process
 * 32) Increase in bridging the social gap
 * 33) Social and political acceptability, avoidance of litigation, ability to engage in cooperative behavior in the future
 * 34) Sustainability of community organizations that address social issues
 * 35) People no longer look like deer in headlights when D word is used
 * 36) Number of citizens who have participated in deliberative forum
 * 37) Number of dedicated positions
 * 38) Extent of involvement in decision-making process on public polity issues
 * 39) A systematic set of measures, quality and effectiveness of outreach continually bringing in new voices, vibrant capacity building for leaders, experts, citizens, processes: mechanism of government, legislative and bureaucratic to engage the public
 * 40) Ongoing process exists for policymakers to listen to diverse voices
 * 41) Effect quality of public discourse
 * 42) How many organizations/institutions in the community use deliberative practices
 * 43) Measure citizens’ political efficacy over time
 * 44) Language of deliberation becomes common vocabulary
 * 45) Repeat successful projects, consistency increasing likelihood
 * 46) Public agencies seek and interface with deliberative public
 * 47) Public comes to expect deliberative processes
 * 48) The extent to which the majority of citizens have influenced a decision policy or initiative
 * 49) Initiation of dialogue prior to mandated decision-making in regulatory processes formative
 * 50) In participation in problem solving processes
 * 51) Consensus is implemented in some concrete way
 * 52) Participation grows as folks realize that their voices are essential to their community
 * 53) Willingness by public non-expert unelected to participate
 * 54) When a community assumes deliberation is the next step in addressing an issue
 * 55) When a community is inclusive
 * 56) Community confidence, buy in and engagement on policies (local government and national government)
 * 57) Level of involved citizens and diversity of citizen representation
 * 58) Engaged citizen organizations able to address problems through cross sector partnerships
 * 59) Change in percentage of public that expects to participate in decision-making process
 * 60) De most people know who to go to for what, e.g. Issues, needs
 * 61) Decisions take longer to make
 * 62) More people otherwise not engaged become engaged
 * 63) Level of process utilization
 * 64) Voting rate
 * 65) Number and types of unmet needs problems issues existing
 * 66) Difficult problems/challenges successfully are identified by recognized by a representative group of community members who attempt to find a collective way forward
 * 67) More community buy in to policy suggestions
 * 68) Extent to which specific deliberative mechanisms are taken for granted in political institutions
 * 69) Ask the people involved to say what has changed for them in their life
 * 70) Public officials have working relationships with nonprofits schools, community organizers, etc and use them regularly to address issues
 * 71) In 3-5 years is it clear how community addressing HOT issue?
 * 72) The way (the different kinds) the number of ways; the length/depth of engagements; the percentage and number and diversities represented within groups engaged for what purposes
 * 73) The number range/variety success or kinds of success in relation to original or related purposes
 * 74) Citizens and polity makers expect they will be engaged in decisions
 * 75) Extent citizens turn out to public meetings more readily more often in larger numbers.
 * 76) By means of written communications to public letters to the editor, blogs, and to officials, elected, appointed
 * 77) Extent of youth involvement
 * 78) Interview city members about their own evaluations of outcomes
 * 79) Measure numbers, attendance participations
 * 80) Deliberative decision-making happens in multiple venues and across sectors
 * 81) Deliberatively arrived at decisions are routinely implemented
 * 82) (Survey) Tolerance/openness for new ideas
 * 83) Level of empowerment, e.g., I have a say to solve problems; I have a place to go to be heard, and avenue to pursue
 * 84) Satisfaction with community participation / engagement
 * 85) Openness of discussion
 * 86) Turnout; sense of political efficacy
 * 87) News cycle – Is there a consistent public accounting of impact of deliberation on decision-making / public policy solutions?
 * 88) Build trust (b/w people & people; people & government)
 * 89) Connectedness b/w people & civic institutions
 * 90) Distinguish process (structures, events, offices of DD) from outcomes (voter turnout; higher, more diverse elected; political efficacy)
 * 91) Diverse community institutions initiate, sponsor, or support public engagement
 * 92) Ask people what they do when they have a concern or question about their community
 * 93) Change over time – Study patterns of communication. Who says/does what, with whom, and in what forms. (How)
 * 94) Frequency of opportunities to engage in quality deliberative processes
 * 95) Public processes attract truly representative segments of community
 * 96) Citizens know where to go for help when they seek to address a deliberation gap
 * 97) Agreed standards for good public involvement process