Assessing Impacts of Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Citizen Engagement

Through Public Through Public DeliberationDeliberation

Assessing Impacts of Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Citizen Engagement

Through Public Through Public DeliberationDeliberation

Presented byPresented bySue Williams, Ph.D. Sue Williams, Ph.D. Ron C. Powers, Ph.D.Ron C. Powers, Ph.D.

Renée Daugherty, Ph.D. Renée Daugherty, Ph.D. Wendy Wendy PettersenPettersen

                                                     

Purpose of StudyPurpose of Study Purpose of StudyPurpose of Study

To determine the impact of To determine the impact of Public Policy Institutes (PPI’s) Public Policy Institutes (PPI’s) and subsequent local issues and subsequent local issues forums on fostering citizen forums on fostering citizen engagement through public engagement through public deliberation. deliberation.

To determine the impact of To determine the impact of Public Policy Institutes (PPI’s) Public Policy Institutes (PPI’s) and subsequent local issues and subsequent local issues forums on fostering citizen forums on fostering citizen engagement through public engagement through public deliberation. deliberation.

Objectives For Public Policy Objectives For Public Policy Institute ParticipantsInstitute Participants

Objectives For Public Policy Objectives For Public Policy Institute ParticipantsInstitute Participants

Determine to what extent participants Determine to what extent participants have convened, moderated, and/or have convened, moderated, and/or recorded local issue forms or facilitated recorded local issue forms or facilitated this process.this process.

Determine if they organized a local Determine if they organized a local steering committee or network to steering committee or network to support local issue forums.support local issue forums.

Determine if local forums reached Determine if local forums reached common ground or a direction for policy.common ground or a direction for policy.

Determine to what extent participants Determine to what extent participants have convened, moderated, and/or have convened, moderated, and/or recorded local issue forms or facilitated recorded local issue forms or facilitated this process.this process.

Determine if they organized a local Determine if they organized a local steering committee or network to steering committee or network to support local issue forums.support local issue forums.

Determine if local forums reached Determine if local forums reached common ground or a direction for policy.common ground or a direction for policy.

Objectives For PPI Objectives For PPI Participants Con’t.Participants Con’t.Objectives For PPI Objectives For PPI Participants Con’t.Participants Con’t.

Determine what type of follow Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums.up resulted from local forums.

Identify how participants have Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach used the deliberative approach in professional personal in professional personal settings. settings.

Determine what type of follow Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums.up resulted from local forums.

Identify how participants have Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach used the deliberative approach in professional personal in professional personal settings. settings.

Objectives For Forum Objectives For Forum ParticipantsParticipants

Objectives For Forum Objectives For Forum ParticipantsParticipants

Identify how participants have used the Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional deliberative approach in professional and personal settings.and personal settings.

Determine if local forums explored Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth.specific issues in depth.

Determine if common ground Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was identifying a policy direction was achieved.achieved.

Determine the extent of public action Determine the extent of public action resulting from public forums.resulting from public forums.

Identify how participants have used the Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional deliberative approach in professional and personal settings.and personal settings.

Determine if local forums explored Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth.specific issues in depth.

Determine if common ground Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was identifying a policy direction was achieved.achieved.

Determine the extent of public action Determine the extent of public action resulting from public forums.resulting from public forums.

National Issues Forums(NIF) National Issues Forums(NIF) ProjectProject

National Issues Forums(NIF) National Issues Forums(NIF) ProjectProject

• Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Public Choice” programPublic Choice” program

• Non-partisan, non-advocacyNon-partisan, non-advocacy• Nation-wide network (about 30 Nation-wide network (about 30

states)states)• Issues identified each yearIssues identified each year• Issue books/videosIssue books/videos• Local issue forumsLocal issue forums

• Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Public Choice” programPublic Choice” program

• Non-partisan, non-advocacyNon-partisan, non-advocacy• Nation-wide network (about 30 Nation-wide network (about 30

states)states)• Issues identified each yearIssues identified each year• Issue books/videosIssue books/videos• Local issue forumsLocal issue forums

National Issues Forums (NIF) National Issues Forums (NIF) PhilosophyPhilosophy

National Issues Forums (NIF) National Issues Forums (NIF) PhilosophyPhilosophy

“…“…rooted in the simple notion thatrooted in the simple notion that people need to come together topeople need to come together to reason and talk – to reason and talk – to deliberatedeliberate

about common problems. Indeed,about common problems. Indeed, democracy requires an on-goingdemocracy requires an on-going

deliberative dialoguedeliberative dialogue.”.”

NIF OverviewNIF Overview

“…“…rooted in the simple notion thatrooted in the simple notion that people need to come together topeople need to come together to reason and talk – to reason and talk – to deliberatedeliberate

about common problems. Indeed,about common problems. Indeed, democracy requires an on-goingdemocracy requires an on-going

deliberative dialoguedeliberative dialogue.”.”

NIF OverviewNIF Overview

Public DeliberationPublic DeliberationPublic DeliberationPublic Deliberation

A structured dialogue framed using 3-4A structured dialogue framed using 3-4 policy approachespolicy approaches A means to make tough choices about A means to make tough choices about

policy directionspolicy directions A way of reasoning and talking togetherA way of reasoning and talking together

- Weighs the views of other- Weighs the views of other- Considers consequences and trade-offs- Considers consequences and trade-offs- Respects the perspectives and values of- Respects the perspectives and values of

othersothers A means to find common ground for A means to find common ground for

actionaction

A structured dialogue framed using 3-4A structured dialogue framed using 3-4 policy approachespolicy approaches A means to make tough choices about A means to make tough choices about

policy directionspolicy directions A way of reasoning and talking togetherA way of reasoning and talking together

- Weighs the views of other- Weighs the views of other- Considers consequences and trade-offs- Considers consequences and trade-offs- Respects the perspectives and values of- Respects the perspectives and values of

othersothers A means to find common ground for A means to find common ground for

actionaction

Anatomy of a Public Anatomy of a Public ProblemProblem

Anatomy of a Public Anatomy of a Public ProblemProblem

Public Problem

Facts Myths Values/Beliefs

Public Decision

CollaborationCollaborationCollaborationCollaboration

Oklahoma State UniversityOklahoma State University

University of MissouriUniversity of Missouri

Kettering FoundationKettering Foundation

InstrumentInstrumentInstrumentInstrument

Collaborative DevelopmentCollaborative DevelopmentTelephone Interview Telephone Interview

FormatFormatPilot TestedPilot Tested

– CaliforniaCalifornia– FloridaFlorida– South DakotaSouth Dakota– West VirginiaWest Virginia

Collaborative DevelopmentCollaborative DevelopmentTelephone Interview Telephone Interview

FormatFormatPilot TestedPilot Tested

– CaliforniaCalifornia– FloridaFlorida– South DakotaSouth Dakota– West VirginiaWest Virginia

SampleSampleSampleSampleParticipants of five PPI’s Participants of five PPI’s (N=87)(N=87)

Forum Participants Forum Participants (N=118)(N=118)

Participants of five PPI’s Participants of five PPI’s (N=87)(N=87)

Forum Participants Forum Participants (N=118)(N=118)

Public Policy Institute Public Policy Institute ParticipantsParticipants

Involvement In Issue Forums Involvement In Issue Forums

Public Policy Institute Public Policy Institute ParticipantsParticipants

Involvement In Issue Forums Involvement In Issue ForumsNumber of Number of ForumsForums

NumberNumber Percent of TotalPercent of Total

NoneNone 4747 54.054.0

1-41-4 2828 32.232.2

5-105-10 66 6.96.9

11-2111-21 66 6.96.9

TotalTotal 8787 100100

Number and Types of Forum Number and Types of Forum InvolvementInvolvement

Number and Types of Forum Number and Types of Forum InvolvementInvolvement

Issue AreaIssue Area Number of ForumsNumber of Forums

Involved WithInvolved With

Percent of TotalPercent of Total

ResponsesResponses

Family Centered IssuesFamily Centered Issues 1818 18.618.6

Environmental IssuesEnvironmental Issues 66 6.26.2

Land Use IssuesLand Use Issues 2020 20.620.6

Economic IssuesEconomic Issues 44 4.14.1

Race RelatedRace Related 1010 10.310.3

Death & DyingDeath & Dying 77 7.27.2

GoverningGoverning 66 6.26.2

Community RelatedCommunity Related 1313 13.413.4

All Other Issue AreasAll Other Issue Areas 1313 13.413.4

Forum Involvement N=40Forum Involvement N=40 Forum Involvement N=40Forum Involvement N=40

Type of InvolvementType of Involvement Number of ParticipantsNumber of Participants Percent of TotalPercent of Total

Organized group to Organized group to support forumssupport forums

2323 57.557.5

Convened a forumConvened a forum 2828 70.070.0

Moderated a forumModerated a forum 3232 80.080.0

Recorded a forumRecorded a forum 2626 65.065.0

Participated in forumParticipated in forum 1515 37.537.5

Usefulness of Deliberative ApproachUsefulness of Deliberative ApproachUse of the Use of the deliberative deliberative approach approach

Number UsingNumber Using Percent ofPercent of

TotalTotal

Number rating Number rating UsefulUseful

Very UsefulVery Useful

Percent rating Percent rating UsefulUseful

Very UsefulVery Useful

In your workIn your work 7373 83.983.9 5454 74.074.0

In your family In your family lifelife

4646 52.952.9 88 17.417.4

In your civicIn your civic

lifelife

5959 67.867.8 4141 69.569.5

In your In your religious religious communitycommunity

2626 29.929.9 1515 57.757.7

In dealing In dealing with public with public issuesissues

5959 67.867.8 4848 81.481.4

Forum ParticipantsForum Participants

N = 118N = 118 Three Counties In MissouriThree Counties In Missouri

- Balancing Our Heritage With Our Horizons Balancing Our Heritage With Our Horizons (locally framed issue)(locally framed issue)

- Racial and Ethnic Tensions: What Should Racial and Ethnic Tensions: What Should We Do?We Do?

- A Nice Place to Live: Creating A Nice Place to Live: Creating Communities, Fighting SprawlCommunities, Fighting Sprawl

Participant Preparation for the Participant Preparation for the ForumsForums

Participant Preparation for the Participant Preparation for the ForumsForums

Actions TakenActions Taken NumberNumber Percent of TotalPercent of Total

Read materialsRead materials 6868 57.657.6

Discussed with othersDiscussed with others 7272 61.061.0

Thought about the Thought about the issueissue

101101 85.685.6

Sought added Sought added informationinformation

3030 25.425.4

Tried to get local Tried to get local informationinformation

5454 45.845.8

Participant Rating Of Forum Participant Rating Of Forum Dynamics Part 1Dynamics Part 1

Participant Rating Of Forum Participant Rating Of Forum Dynamics Part 1Dynamics Part 1

Forum DynamicForum Dynamic Number Rating Dynam Number Rating Dynam Charac. or Very CharacCharac. or Very Charac

Percent of TotalPercent of Total

Forum was held in Forum was held in comfortable settingcomfortable setting

9696 81.481.4

All were encouraged to All were encouraged to share their viewsshare their views

113113 95.795.7

Moderator dominated Moderator dominated the deliberationthe deliberation

1818 15.315.3

Deliber. weighed costs/ Deliber. weighed costs/ benefits of each choicebenefits of each choice

6060 50.950.9

A few did all the A few did all the talkingtalking

5151 43.243.2

There was ample There was ample

opportunity to talkopportunity to talk

112112 94.994.9

Participant Rating of Forum Participant Rating of Forum Dynamics Part 2Dynamics Part 2

Participant Rating of Forum Participant Rating of Forum Dynamics Part 2Dynamics Part 2

Forum DynamicForum Dynamic Number Rating Number Rating Dynamic Charac. Very Dynamic Charac. Very Charac. Charac.

Percent of TotalPercent of Total

Moderator was neutralModerator was neutral 103103 87.387.3

Differing views were Differing views were expressedexpressed

9797 82.282.2

All opinions were All opinions were heardheard

112112 94.994.9

Audience was diverseAudience was diverse 7575 63.563.5

Conversation was free- Conversation was free- flowingflowing

9494 79.679.6

Persps. of those not Persps. of those not

present were consid’d.present were consid’d.

3737 31.331.3

Participant Rating of Forum Participant Rating of Forum Dynamics Part 3Dynamics Part 3

Forum DynamicForum Dynamic Number rating Number rating Dynamic Charac. or Dynamic Charac. or Very Charac.Very Charac.

Percent of TotalPercent of Total

Each choice got a fair Each choice got a fair and equal treatmentand equal treatment

109109 92.492.4

The issues and choices The issues and choices were clearly presentedwere clearly presented

9595 80.580.5

Trade-offs and conseqs Trade-offs and conseqs were consideredwere considered

8080 67.867.8

Common ground was Common ground was identifiedidentified

7878 66.266.2

Comm. awareness Comm. awareness about the issues about the issues increasedincreased

7070 59.459.4

Outcomes of Issue Forums as Perceived Outcomes of Issue Forums as Perceived by Participantsby Participants

OutcomeOutcome Number indicating Number indicating

“ “yes” yes”

Percent of totalPercent of total

indicating “yes”indicating “yes”

A comm. task force or A comm. task force or committee was organizedcommittee was organized

5050 42.442.4

Contact was made with Contact was made with office holdersoffice holders

7373 61.961.9

A study group was A study group was formedformed

5050 42.442.4

Additional forums Additional forums planned or conductedplanned or conducted

7070 59.359.3

Stories about the issue Stories about the issue were feat. in local mediawere feat. in local media

9898 83.183.1

Issue is “now on the Issue is “now on the table” in the communitytable” in the community

4545 38.138.1

Partics.began to network Partics.began to network with others on the issuewith others on the issue

6161 51.751.7

Participant Use of the Forum Participant Use of the Forum ExperienceExperience

Type of Participant Type of Participant ResponseResponse

Number indicating Number indicating

“ “yes”yes”

Percent of Total Percent of Total indicating “yes”indicating “yes”

Changed perspective Changed perspective on the issueon the issue

3030 25.425.4

Changed how you talk Changed how you talk to people about the to people about the issueissue

3737 31.431.4

Shared materials with Shared materials with othersothers

7171 60.260.2

Organized another forum Organized another forum with other peoplewith other people

88 6.86.8

Organized a group to Organized a group to work on the issuework on the issue

1414 11.911.9

Joined a group to work Joined a group to work on the issueon the issue

15 15 12.712.7

Other Participant Comments About Other Participant Comments About Forum ExperienceForum Experience

Other Participant Comments About Other Participant Comments About Forum ExperienceForum Experience

Response Response CategoryCategory

Total Total ResponsesResponses

Percent of Percent of Grand TotalGrand Total

Number of Number of Positive/Neu-Positive/Neu-tr. Commentstr. Comments

Number of Number of Negative Negative CommentsComments

See Issue - See Issue - Forums as a Forums as a Comm. ToolComm. Tool

1717 11.6011.60 1616 11

Publicity, Publicity, Awareness, Awareness, ParticipationParticipation

1010 6.906.90 33 77

Educational, Educational, Increased Increased KnowledgeKnowledge

99 6.206.20 88 11

Preference Preference Ranking ToolRanking Tool

99 6.206.20 00 99

Solutions,Solutions,

OutcomesOutcomes 88 5.505.50 55 33

Other Participant Comments About Other Participant Comments About Forum Experience Con’tForum Experience Con’t..

Other Participant Comments About Other Participant Comments About Forum Experience Con’tForum Experience Con’t..

ResponseResponse

CategoryCategory

TotalTotal

ResponsesResponses

Percent ofPercent of

Grand TotalGrand Total

Number ofNumber of

Pos./NeutralPos./Neutral

CommentsComments

Number ofNumber of

NegativeNegative

CommentsComments

Moderation,Moderation,

PresentationPresentation

88 5.485.48 77 11

““Their Their Agenda”Agenda”

66 4.114.11 11 55

Forum Forum StructureStructure

55 3.423.42 00 55

All Other All Other CommentsComments

1818 12.312.3 1313 55

NoneNone 5656 38.438.4

TotalTotal 146146 100100 5353 3737

Conclusions for PPI ParticipantsConclusions for PPI Participants Use of Deliberative ApproachUse of Deliberative Approach

46% active after the PPI46% active after the PPI• participated in teamsparticipated in teams• returned to the community and formed a returned to the community and formed a

team-58%team-58%• participated in a forum soon after PPIparticipated in a forum soon after PPI

Type of Use and UsefulnessType of Use and UsefulnessThree highest ratingsThree highest ratings

• WorkWork• civic lifecivic life• dealing with the publicdealing with the public

Conclusions for Forum Conclusions for Forum ParticipantsParticipants

Conclusions for Forum Conclusions for Forum ParticipantsParticipants

High Forum Ratings Exploring Issues High Forum Ratings Exploring Issues In DepthIn Depth• Weighing costs and benefitsWeighing costs and benefits• Fair and equal treatment of Fair and equal treatment of

choiceschoices• Trade-offs and consequencesTrade-offs and consequences

Identification of Common GroundIdentification of Common Ground

Conclusions for Forum Participants Conclusions for Forum Participants Con’t.Con’t.Extent of ActionExtent of Action

CommunityCommunity• Local media Local media • Office holdersOffice holders• Additional forumsAdditional forums

IndividualIndividual•Sharing materials with othersSharing materials with others•Changed how one talks to people Changed how one talks to people

about issueabout issue•Changed perspective on the issueChanged perspective on the issue

For More Information Contact For More Information Contact

Sue Williams, Ph.D.Sue Williams, Ph.D.

Family Policy SpecialistFamily Policy Specialist

405-744-6825405-744-6825

sarahk@okstate.edusarahk@okstate.edu

Renee Daugherty, Ph.D.Renee Daugherty, Ph.D.

Education Methods Education Methods SpecialistSpecialist

405-744-5776405-744-5776

radaugh@okstate.eduradaugh@okstate.edu