1.Bridging the Gap betweenPublic Officials and the Public:What legislators need and what adeliberating public can do

2. The ProblemPublic meetings and publichearings often dont workfor 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 andenergy 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 ornonprofits 5. Legislators value communicationwith constituents They want to hear theconcerns of real people not just lobbyists and special interests but they are frustrated with traditional formatsfor public engagement. 6. In town halls andpublic hearings, citizens: Seem uninformed Are increasingly uncivil or disrespectfultoward officials Disagree with one another and areunwilling to compromise Do not understand the economic,political, legal, and other constraints ongovernment 7. Is there another way?What drove me to try structured,planned public engagement was myawful experience with unstructured,unplanned public engagement. John Nalbandian, former mayor of Lawrence, Kansas 8. An alternative:Public deliberation Reaching out to recruit diverse groups ofcitizens not just the usual suspects Structuring discussions to allow peopleto be heard, to learn, and to consider arange of views and options Gathering input for public officials Sometimes, facilitating action planningby participants 9. Coverage of public deliberation project in MI 10. When interviewed,most legislators: Had no experience or knowledge of publicdeliberation and didnt understand howit differs from what they already do Said that extremes dominate thediscussion and control political outcomes Questioned why public deliberation wouldbe any different 11. Legislators said that to becredible, deliberation must be:1. Demonstrably neutral and balanced2. Diverse demographically and politically3. Civil and informed4. Able to foster civic skills and dispositions5. Successful in getting participants to address tough choices 12. 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 13. Image from Our Budget, Our Economy project 14. Our Budget, Our EconomyUnited States, June 2010 National conversation on our fiscal future Organized by AmericaSpeaks with partnersfrom across ideological spectrum 19 primary sites; 38 smaller ones Diverse group of 3,500 people Participants asked to make tough choices onbudget deficit and economic needs After discussion, conservatives more likely toaccept tax increases, progressives morelikely to accept spending cuts Positive reactions by participants 15. Citizens Initiative Review (CIR)Oregon, June 2010 Deliberations used to develop CitizenStatements on 2 ballot measures (minimumsentences and medical marijuana ) Statements distributed to voters in 2010 election CIR process approved by statelegislators, organized by Healthy DemocracyOregon Randomly invited citizens (2 panels, 48 people) Deliberations were respectful and rigorous Voting results went against CIR Statements In 2011, Oregon legislature created agency tocontinue CIR process 16. Hard Times, Hard ChoicesMichigan, November 2010 Deliberative Poll on tough state policies: taxes,school funding, health care, transportation Organized by By the People, with range ofstakeholders 314 randomly invited, demographicallyrepresentative residents Discussion found to be of high quality andrepresent diverse perspectives After deliberation, more residents supportedraising income and sales taxes, reducingbusiness taxes 17. #1: Neutrality and Balance Participants, observers, evaluators findfacilitators and process to be neutral Example: Oregon CIR - Satisfaction with process neutrality 18. #2: Diversity and Representation Participants can reflect make-up ofrelevant populationExample: Hard Choices project a true sliceof Michigan On age, race, gender, education andgeography, participants wereindistinguishable from random sample 29% of the participants non-white,including 17% African Americans 12% between 18 and 24 years old 19. #3: Civility and Respect Participants feel they are given a chance toexpress themselves Participants exchange information andreasons, and hear each others feelings &experiencesExample: Oregon CIR Equal chance to participate: A grade Consideration of different views: A grade Mutual respect: A- and A grades 20. #4: Civic Attitudes Participants emerge with a greater sense ofpolitical efficacy that they can have asay Participants feel that they have behaved likeresponsible citizensExample: Our Budget, Our Economy 21. #5: Facing up to Tough Choices In all three projects: Participants confronted constraints,disagreements Participants often moved towardmiddle of the road compromises Deliberation diminished the role ofideology in participants views 22. #5: Trade-offsExample: Our Budget, Our Economy Opinionchange on deficit reduction options, by politicalidentity 23. Public deliberation can producethe kinds of discussionslegislators say they wantNeutral organizers can recruit diverseparticipants who: Interact in a civil, respectful way Learn about issues and develop better civicattitudes Are willing to consider tough trade-offs Arrive at and articulate a sense of thecommon good 24. BUTthis necessaryevidence is not sufficient Legislators have trouble imagining whatpublic deliberation looks like Legislators say they need to experiencepublic deliberation directly Legislators doubt the viability of publicdeliberation especially its politicalfeasibility and relevance 25. The political logicof public deliberation Legislators see little political incentive for publicdeliberation: 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 inher/his district, on her/his issues, with her/hisconstituents. To influence a whole legislature, has to reachmultiple districts simultaneously and at scale Deliberation could be useful for politicallyinconsequential or politically unwinnable issues 26. How to bridge the gap?Recommendations for: Funders, the Field andLegislators 27. What funders can do: Provide resources to elected officialsumbrella organizations to enable members toattend relevant deliberations Require organizers to work with locallytrusted intermediary organizations Select issues for public deliberation with aview to political logic Enable targeted advance work: presentationsto elected officials that frame value of publicdeliberation in terms that make sense locally. 28. What funders can do: Expand ripple effect of deliberationsthrough consistent, opportunistic, andlocally driven follow-up, using media andlocal institutions (e.g., higher education) Explore methods of evaluation that willgauge direct and ripple effects ofdeliberation on voters Identify and fund innovative attempts toscale up public deliberation 29. What the field can do Partner with locally trusted intermediariesto engage individual legislators Approach legislators well in advance, andsolicit their input on topics and objectives Motivate legislators to attend deliberations -frame the value in terms of local andpolitical priorities 30. What the field can do: Take the political concerns oflegislators to heart: Involve a diverse group of constituents Reach a critical mass directly orindirectly Deploy deliberation on issues and incontexts and at a scale that makespolitical sense despite polarization 31. What the field can do: Structure local deliberations as a buildingblock for state/federal deliberations Develop innovative ways to scale updeliberations, e.g. using online tools Design documentation and evaluation toconvey value of deliberation as a politicallyrational and viable tool for governance Conduct an education campaign thatcaptures the character of deliberations --especially neutrality, and civic behavior 32. What legislators can do:LEARN more about public deliberation: Suspend your disbelief! Contact deliberative conveners andorganizations to learn about theirprocesses and get their evaluations Look closely and objectively at theevidence Work with trusted organizations to identifyand attend a deliberative event 33. What legislators can do:TRY public deliberation: Incorporate deliberative elements intothe engagement work you already do Work with a neutral organizer to launcha small-scale trial or pilot Use best practice in process design Use your convening power and workacross the aisle to help recruit diverseparticipants 34. What legislators can do:SUPPORT deliberative efforts: See local deliberations as a buildingblocks for large-scale state/federaldeliberations Foster deliberative desire amongconstituents and colleagues Collaborate with trustworthy organizationsand build bi-partisan coalitions to advocatefor deliberation Use your communications capacity tocreate a ripple effect from deliberations 35. Resources www.deliberative-democracy.net www.ncdd.org www.everydaydemocracy.org www.americaspeaks.org www.publicagenda.org www.kettering.org www.nlc.org