Using online tools queensland slides

The Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Slides available at:
www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger

Guides:
http://bit.ly/M1pvMp
http://bit.ly/iwjgqn

How much experience do you have with
public engagement? (a quick poll)

A. Quite experienced
with face-to-face
engagement
B. Quite experienced
with online
engagement
C. Quite experienced
with both
D. Some experience,
mainly with face-to-
face engagement
E. Just beginning

The big picture:
Two impacts of the Internet
1. Empowering individual citizens (web, email –
wrapped up in other changes)
2. Empowering citizen
groups (Facebook,
Twitter, other social
media)

First impact:
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

Second impact allows for new forms of
engagement

 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’
 Need joint planning for engagement
infrastructure – not just tools

What is not changing
 Need for face-to-face relationships
 Need for an overall engagement plan
 Importance of partnering with other groups,
organizations, institutions

Successful recent public
engagement tactics
 Proactive about recruitment
 Bringing diverse perspectives together
 Sharing experiences
 Giving people chance to make up their own minds
(deliberative)
 Different levels of action: volunteers, teams,
organizations, policy decisions
 Increasing use of online tools

Successful tactic: Proactive recruitment

 Map community networks;

 Involve leaders of those networks;

 Hold a kickoff
meeting;

 Follow up,
follow up, follow
up.

Successful tactic: Small-group processes

 No more than 12 people per group;

 Facilitator who is impartial (doesn’t give
opinions);
 Can be online or
face-to-face (or
both)

Successful tactic: Framing an issue

Provide an agenda or guide that:

 Begins by asking people to talk about why they
care about this issue or question
 Gives them the information they need, in ways
they can absorb and use it
 Lays out several options or views (including
ones you don’t agree with)
 Ends with questions that get people to plan
what they want to do (not just what they want
you to do)

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

Digital divides (plural)

 Overall, Internet access growing
 “Access” – to Internet, to government – has
never been enough
 Different people use different hardware
 Different people go to different places on the
Internet
 Communities just as complex online as off –
recruitment must be proactive

Common mistakes
 Treating Internet as a one-way medium
 Not enough recruitment
 Transparency without proactive engagement
 Gathering ideas and not implementing them

Does this presentation match your
experiences with public engagement?
(a quick poll)

A. Yes, this fits with my experience
B. No, it doesn’t fit
C. In some ways it does, in some ways it
doesn’t
D. I really don’t have enough experience yet
to judge

“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”
Northwestern Ontario

• Began in 2009
• North West Ontario Local Health Integration
Network, Ascentum
• Issue: health care planning and improvement of
health care services
• 800 participants
• Received IAP2 award

Element 1 – Online choicebook that provided
background information and data, described main
options

Element 2 – Online “stories and ideas” tool that allowed
people to share experiences, solutions

Element 3 – Conversation guide for face-to-face,
moderated small-group meetings

“Decatur Next”
Decatur, Georgia

 Large-scale planning efforts in 2000, 2010
 Initial Organizer: city government and a local
nonprofit (Common Focus)
 Issues: schools, race, growth
 450 participants in 2000, 680 in 2010 (city of
17,000)

“Decatur Roundtables”
Decatur, Georgia

Outcomes:
 Decatur Neighborhood Alliance
 Promotion of tax abatement plan for seniors,
other anti-displacement efforts
 Less tension between different groups
 New model for land use decisions
 Extensive citizen input into city’s strategic plan

Successes, limitations of
engagement so far

Successes: Making policy decisions, planning
Catalyzing citizen action
Building trust
Fostering new leadership

Challenges: Time-consuming (especially recruitment)
Unsustainable (usually not intended to be)
Meets goals of ‘engagers,’ not ‘engaged’
Doesn’t change the institutions
Limited impact on equity
Trust, relationships fade over time

Why plan for more sustainable
kinds of engagement?

1. Sustain the benefits
2. Allow the ‘engaged’ to set the agenda
3. Better address inequities
4. Increase community attachment and economic
growth
5. Increase residents’ sense of legitimacy and
“public happiness”

Community engagement planners should consider
some key building blocks:

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

Resources (continued)

• On YouTube: the DDC channel
• Using Online Tools to Engage – and Be
Engaged by – the Public at
http://bit.ly/iwjgqn
• Planning for Stronger Local Democracy at
bit.ly/M1pvMp – and other resources at
www.nlc.org

Using online tools queensland slides

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Using online tools queensland slides (20)

More from Matt Leighninger (13)

Recently uploaded (20)

Using online tools queensland slides

Editor's Notes