Building Civic Infrastructure:Engaging residents in more effective,

sustainable ways

New Mexico Infrastructure Finance Conference

Taos, New Mexico

October 25, 2012

The Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Slides available at:www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger

Guides:http://bit.ly/M1pvMp

http://bit.ly/iwjgqn

“What drove me to try planned, structured public engagement was my awful experience with unplanned, unstructured public

engagement.” ─ John Nalbandian,

former mayor, Lawrence, KS

Three minutes at the microphone

Retrieved from Cincinnati.com, July 27, 2012

Less buy-in = less money

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, information

* “citizens” = residents, people

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

The context: Increased use of the Internet

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!

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.

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

Successful tactic: Many levels of action

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

(2) questions or comments?

In other (fewer) words, the key success factors are:

Diverse critical mass Structured Deliberative Action-oriented Online and f2f

This work challenges the thinking of:

Progressives

Experts don’t make all decisions

Forces gov’t to be more accountable

Gov’t not enough to solve problems

Conservatives

Electeds don’t make all decisions

Raises perceptions of gov’t

Free market not enough

Strengths of quality public engagement

Good for: Making policy decisions, plansCatalyzing citizen actionBuilding trustFostering new leadership

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

New model ordinance on public participation

Available at www.deliberative-democracy.netDeveloped as a collaboration of:

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.

Building blocks for civic infrastructure:

Building block:

Helping neighborhood and school groupsbecome more- effective- inclusive- participatory

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’

Building block: Youth leadership

“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

Don’t forget: Fun

Questions or comments?

“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

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 changein INS policy

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

“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)

“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

Building civic infrastructure:

Is relatively inexpensive (mainly political, not financial capital)

Is a cross-sector job (not just government)

Has other economic benefits

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

Slides available at:www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger

Guides:http://bit.ly/M1pvMp

http://bit.ly/iwjgqn

1. Make engagement easier, more efficient2. Build trust3. Give residents more control of the agenda4. Better address inequities 5. Increase community attachment and

economic growth6. Increase residents’ sense of legitimacy and

“public happiness”

Why build stronger civic infrastructure?

What is your vision for civic infrastructure?