assessing deliberation: setting the agenda, implementing policy, and outcomes lisa-marie napoli,...
Post on 17-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing Deliberation: Setting the Agenda, Implementing Policy, and Outcomes
Lisa-Marie Napoli, Ph.D.
Becky Nesbit, Doctoral Candidate
Lisa Blomgren BinghamKeller-Runden Professor of Public Service and
Director, Indiana Conflict Resolution InstituteIndiana University
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
AmericaSpeaks 21st Century Town Meetings
Format: Deliberative democracy taken to scale (1000 to over 1,300 people in the cases studied here)
Deliberative dialogue combined with computer technology and keypad polling
Facilitated table discussions (10-12 people at each table) Includes both small and large group discussion for collective
decision making Theme teams collect information, develop report
Goal to examine relationship of deliberation event to the policy process, not quality of deliberation itself
AS provides successful model in increasingly widespread use and thus good subject.
Research Questions
How did agenda setting for these 21st Century Town Meetings™ occur?
Were there policy recommendations that government implemented?
What are the impacts or outcomes of the process?
Methodology
Qualitative Research Structured interview protocol in person and on
telephone Descriptive data, some Likert scale questions Analytical grounded theory N6 NUD*IST qualitative software for analysis
Interview Data 66 people; 69 total interviews
24 participants: Citizens who attended Town Meeting 38 clients: Government, stakeholder organizations 4 AmericaSpeaks staff -- multiple interviews
21st Century Town Meetings in Three Cities
Cincinnati, Ohio: Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (January 12, 2002) 19 participants, 15 clients, 3 AS staff
Chicago, Illinois: Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (October 27, 2001) 5 participants, 11 clients, 1 AS staff
Charlotte, North Carolina: United Agenda for Children under the auspices of The Lee Institute (December 11, 2004) 12 clients, 3 AS staff Participant survey research ongoing and not
reported here
Agenda Setting
Citizens played a substantial role in shaping the agenda for the 21st Century Town Meeting.
AS used similar approaches in Midwest cities: public workshops to identify challenges and values relevant to regional plan. Collected and synthesized into an agenda for discussion
at the Town Meeting
In Charlotte, AS organized meetings with civil society in the form of nonprofit and social service organizations, government, and AS staff
Midwest Participants: Percent agree or strongly agree
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
IssuesImportant at
Start
Informed onIssues
Participants
Better Under-standing
Per
cen
tag
es
Issues became Important
Town Meeting and Policy Process What is relation of Town Meeting
agenda to policy process? Interviews: What decisions did the client
organizations want to make as a result of the forum?
Were there policy issues that emerged or surfaced during this project?
Client Interviews: Policy Recommendations?
General policy areas discussed 24% (9)
Process intended to get public input, not recommendations
18% (7)
School nurse recommendation (Charlotte)
18% (7)
Final report created; not recommendations
16% (6)
Specific policy recommendation 11% (4)
Don’t know recommendation 5% (2)
Midwest Participant Interviews: Policy Recommendations
Can not recall specific recommendations
63% (15)
Regional plan created; not specific policy recommendations
25% (6)
Not aware of policy recommendations
8% (2)
General policy areas 4% (1)
Conclusion: Lack of Clarity on Relation of Forum to Policy Process
Implementation
Open question: Is policy implementation a necessary part of planning for the deliberative process? During period of 2001-2004, AmericaSpeaks process
helped Midwest communities generate priorities and recommendations for regional plans; implementation was up to clients.
Committees, community action teams, accountability are issues
OH had CATs (community action teams) AS changing process to plan for implementation up
front
Client Interviews: Lack of Clarity about Implementation
Too early to discuss 18% (7)
Policy recommendations implemented
16% (6)
School nurse policy (Charlotte) 16% (6)
Don’t know anything 13% (5)
Committee responsible for overseeing implementation
11% (4)
Not much implementation 11% (4)
Some implementation 8% (3)
Midwest Participant Interviews: Implementation
Do not know anything 54% (13)
Implementation process is just beginning
17% (4)
Regional plan created 13% (3)
Involvement of community action group
4% (1)
No policies implemented 4% (1)
Conclusion: Confusion about implementation
Impacts and Outcomes Positive, short-term outcomes: participants find
the process energizing and engaging
Participants gain a better understanding of community issues through their participation
Cincinnati and Chicago produced planning
reports, cited as successful implementation
Longer term outcomes and impacts may depend on implementation and follow-through
Comparing Midwest Participants and Clients: Agree or Strongly Agree
0102030405060708090
Rec'sPromoteCommonInterests
IncreasedTrust of
Part's andGov't
Rec's Betterthan
PreviousOnes
ParticipantsClients
Per
cen
tag
es
Midwest Participants: Agree or Strongly Agree
0102030405060708090
100
OpinionsHeard by Gov't
Make aDifference
ParticipantsPer
cen
tag
es
Reconsidered own Opinion
Better Understanding of Policy Changes
Midwest Participant Interviews: Impacts & Outcomes
Positive impact on citizen-government relationship
50% (12)
Positive short-term impact of meeting; Uncertain future
17% (4)
Negative or no impact on citizen-government relationship
17% (4)
Potential is present to impact citizen-government relationship
8% (2)
Client Responses: Agree or Strongly Agree
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
IncreasedTrust b/wPart's and
Org's
ProcessIncreased
Knowledge
Clients
Satisfied with Recommendations
Attention to Marginalized Groups
Per
cent
ages
Client Interviews: Impacts & Outcomes
Forum did not alleviate policy conflicts
42% (16)
Process helped alleviate policy conflicts
39% (15)
Positive impact on citizen-government relationship
66% (25)
Town Meeting does not affect citizen-government relationship
16% (6)
Unaware if citizen-government relationship affected
5% (2)
Conclusions 21st Century Town Meeting agendas are
citizen driven Citizens and and client organizations need
more clarity up front about the relationship between the forum and the policy process
Impacts will depend on follow through, and right now there is limited evidence of government making concrete use of the plans or agendas from the meetings.
top related