Using Online Tools to Engage and Be Engaged

Using Technology Series

Using Online Tools to Engage – and be Engaged by –The Public

Matt Leighninger
Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

TAB LE OF CONT E NTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Part I: Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Scenario 1: You want to know the immediate citizen reaction to a particular,
well-known issue or decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Scenario 2: You are in the midst of a high-profile situation in which different
sets of people do not agree about what should be done. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Scenario 3: You need new ideas, and more information, from citizens to help
make government more effective and/or efficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Scenario 4: You are trying to encourage citizens to take shared ownership of
an issue and participate in addressing it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Scenario 5: You are trying to educate citizens about a particular issue or decision. . . . 15
Part II: Tactics and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Tactic 1: Develop documents collaboratively via Wikis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Tactic 2: Create shared work space for citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Tactic 3: Facilitate large-scale deliberation online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Tactic 4: Use “serious games” to generate interest, understanding, and input . . . . 23
Tactic 5: Survey citizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Tactic 6: Aggregate opinions expressed on social media networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Tactic 7: Gather and rank ideas and solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Tactic 8: Work with citizens to identify and prioritize problems that
government can fix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Tactic 9: Help citizens to visualize geographic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Tactic 10: Help citizens to balance budget and revenue options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1

On behalf of the IBM Center for The Business of Government, we are pleased to present

FOR E WOR D
this report, Using Online Tools to Engage—and be Engaged by—The Public, by Matt
Leighninger, Executive Director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium.

President Obama’s widely publicized Open Government Initiative has generated a great deal
of buzz among federal agency managers as well as the public, especially as it relates to the
use of online tools to extend active engagement beyond the traditional bounds of public
hearings and comments on draft regulations.

While all federal agencies have developed open government plans, many managers find
themselves unfamiliar with what tactics and tools work best under different scenarios.
Mr. Leighninger’s report begins to pull back the veil on how online engagement tactics and Jonathan D. Breul
tools can be used, and when they work best.

His report is also a bit of an experiment for us. For the first time, we have created both a
hard copy and an electronic interactive version. The hard copy version of this report can be
a valuable reference for managers at all levels of government. We hope the online version of
this report becomes a ready resource for you. We will be adding to and revising this report
over time based on evolving best practices. As Mr. Leighninger notes, online tools are “a
moving target” and we hope we can move along with it!

We trust this report—both hard copy and online—will provide practical and concrete tactics
and tools for busy public managers as they actively pursue efforts to better engage both
their employees and citizens in uncovering innovative approaches, making better decisions,
and delivering more effective services to the public.

Melissa Marroso

Jonathan D. Breul Melissa Marroso
Executive Director Social Media Consulting
IBM Center for The Business of Government IBM Global Business Services
jonathan.d.breul @ us.ibm.com melissa.l.marroso @ us.ibm.com

2

How Should This Report be Used? The concern about the “digital divide,” which used to focus on the rel-
I NTR OD U CT I ON
atively simple question of how many (and what kinds of) people had
This report’s structure displays many of the capabilities of online tech- Internet access, has become more complicated as different populations
nology. The electronic version includes a link that allows you to submit coalesce within different online arenas and technologies. Before select-
additional online tools, examples, and comments. We will then use ing the best way to communicate with citizens, it is important to
this input to prepare periodic revised editions of this report. understand:
• Where they are online
The report can be read straight through—that is, it has a central thread • How they prefer to be engaged
of reasoning for you to follow—but you can also skip immediately to the • What they expect from government
sections that interest you the most, and delve deeper to find (within or
outside the report) the information that will be most helpful to your The most challenging term to define in “using online tools to engage
work. Using these functions will help you understand the different ways the public” is neither “online” nor “engage,” but “public.”
in which public managers can use online technologies to engage the
public. The report also exemplifies the mindset of 21st century citizens, It is also important to understand that engagement is now a two-way
who are increasingly expert at skipping and delving through content, as street: more than ever before, citizens have the capacity to engage
well as developing new ways to engage their government. their government and to insert themselves into policymaking pro-
cesses. The Internet has accelerated this shift, but it has been evident
for some time in traditional face-to-face settings, first in local politics
Engaging the Public in a Wired World and increasingly at the state and federal levels.

Faced with these new citizen capacities and expectations, government
Deciding how best to use online tools to engage the public may be the
leaders have realized the need to be more proactive in their approach
ultimate moving target for public managers. This is not just because of
to the public, resulting in a wave of civic engagement efforts over the
the rapid development of new tools, or “apps,” for engagement. The
past 10 years.
main challenges now facing government managers are understanding:
• The increasing complexity of how people organize themselves To engage a large and diverse group of citizens, public managers and
online other leaders have employed targeted, network-based recruitment. To
• Citizens’ evolving expectations of government ensure that the process is productive, they have employed techniques
like impartial facilitation, ground rules set by the group, and discussion
These challenges are faced by public officials in an environment of guides or agendas that lay out a range of policy options. Ten years ago,
dramatically increasing social media activity, where the worldwide these engagement initiatives were primarily face-to-face efforts; now
community of Facebook users now exceeds the population of the they commonly employ both online and face-to-face formats. Public
United States. In this changed environment, users are organizing managers should use the lessons learned from this work, the most basic
themselves into networks and communities defined by shared inter- of which is that engagement efforts must be built around the needs,
ests, relationships, or geography. goals, and concerns of the potentially engaged, not just the engagers.

3

Because of the nature of their training and their work, public manag- engagement. The two forms of communication have unique strengths

I NTR OD U CT I ON
ers tend to think in terms of situations, tactics, and tools. Whatever and limitations: nothing can beat the convenience and choice of online
the crisis or the opportunity, managers should assess the situation and tools, and nothing can beat the emotional impact of a face-to-face
find the tactics and tools that will fit the task. This report is intended conversation.
to help public managers do just that. Managers also need to carefully
define the public or publics that they are trying to reach. Without such The practical experiences of public managers and academic research
definition, using online tools can be like walking blindfolded into an support the notion that online and face-to-face engagement comple-
unfamiliar room where the movers keep rearranging the furniture. ment and reinforce one another well; one does not replace the other.
In their report for Public Agenda, Promising Practices in Online
Public managers should keep in mind that short-term thinking and Engagement, Alison Kadlec, Scott Bittle, and Chris Haller argue that
tools cannot replace the careful, collaborative planning and building of “There’s a growing body of evidence that suggests the most powerful
long-term engagement infrastructure. Productive engagement is based applications merge online and face-to-face interaction, switching
on long-term relationships between government and citizens. One-time, seamlessly from one to the other.”
time-limited strategies can provide initial connections, but in order to
ensure that engagement produces positive results for all involved, there In addition, a number of successful practices have emerged from the
needs to be a solid, broadly supported plan for interactive communica- online and face-to-face engagement efforts of the last decade:
tion between public managers and citizens. • Assembling a large and diverse critical mass of citizens (or in some
cases, a smaller, demographically representative set of people,
In managing 21st-century citizen engagement, public managers need to: intended to serve as a proxy for the larger population)
• Develop a long-term plan for public engagement (that includes • Involving citizens in structured, facilitated small-group discussions,
online as well as face-to-face communication) in the issue area in interspersed with large forums for amplifying shared conclusions
which they are operating and moving from talk to action. These have traditionally been
face-to-face meetings, but increasingly they are being held online,
• Respond to short-term needs, crises, and opportunities in ways
and other online tools are being used to inform and complement
that reflect the ideas contained in the long-term plan, that draw on
them.
the extra-governmental allies involved in the planning, and that
help to build the long-term resources and assets necessary for the • Giving participants the opportunity to compare values and experi-
plan’s success ences, and to consider a range of views and policy options. This
allows people of different opinions to decide together what they
think should be done about a public issue.

The Need for High Tech and • Producing tangible actions and outcomes. There is some variation
here: some efforts focus on applying citizen input to policy and
High Touch planning decisions, while others also seek to effect change at other
levels, including changes within organizations and institutions,
While this report focuses on online engagement, it is important to note actions driven by small groups of people, individual volunteerism,
that working productively with the public also requires face-to-face and changes in attitude and behavior.

4

The Challenge of Attracting • Map the networks of people within the public that managers want
I NTR OD U CT I ON
to engage—for example, the residents of a particular community,
Participants the stakeholders on the issue they are working on, or the people
who are likely to be most affected by a certain policy or decision.
One of the most common mistakes in online (and face-to-face) engage- Managers need to consider all the different kinds of online or face-
ment is a failure to proactively recruit participants. “The phrase ‘If to-face groups and organizations, based on workplace, faith com-
you build it, they will come’ definitely does not apply to social media,” munity, ethnicity, or shared interest.
argues digital strategist Qui Diaz. Indeed, it has been woefully inade-
quate for face-to-face meetings as well; depending on the level of con- • Reach out to leaders within those networks, groups, and organiza-
troversy, official meetings and hearings tend to attract either a lonely tions, and work with them to understand the goals and concerns
handful of attendees or a mob of people who rail at public officials and of their members and constituents. Managers should determine
leave more frustrated than they were before. whether their goals for engaging the public match the public’s
goals for getting engaged. Managers need to ask “Who is not at
While it is true that the Internet provides an atmosphere where sites, the table, who ought to be here?”
tools, or video clips can suddenly “go viral,” reaching a huge audience
because they have been tagged, or linked to, or talked about by just • Use conversations to develop a recruitment message that will
the right combination of people, this is not a common occurrence and appeal directly to people’s core interests. Managers should ask the
public managers certainly can’t assume that it will happen. “The leaders of various groups and networks to recruit participants,
Internet is full of engagement ‘ghost towns,’ many of them created using individualized messages—telephone calls, personal e-mails—
by government,” says Steve Clift of e-democracy.org. So in addition as much as possible.
to being part of a comprehensive, well-thought-out plan, any online
engagement effort should be prefaced by careful thinking about how
to recruit participants.
Using One-Time, Time-Limited
This is another area where the combination of face-to-face relationships
and online connections can make a huge difference. A personal, one-
Initiatives to Plan for Long-Term
to-one appeal from someone you already know is still far and away Engagement
the most effective means of recruitment, and those relationships are
usually based on face-to-face interaction. But because of the growth of When public managers are using an online engagement tool as part of
social media, it is easier than ever to tap into networks of people who a one-time, time-limited initiative, there are a number of ways that
already have these kinds of relationships. Online tools can also help they can use the lessons and momentum of their work in their plan-
public managers involve people more meaningfully in the planning and ning for long-term engagement infrastructure:
publicizing of events and processes. • Writing up the exercise and what the manager and the organization
have learned from it.
Successful engagement initiatives tend to use these recruitment
strategies: • Conducting a more comprehensive evaluation of the project, and
making that evaluation publicly available.

5

• Using the lessons learned from the initiative to set up an online federal levels, public managers continue to follow the traditional practice of

I NTR OD U CT I ON
space where different organizations and institutions can use the public hearings, written notices, and comment periods. They sometimes
technologies employed in the initiative. For example: also rely on advisory committees made up of non-governmental stake-
holders (at the federal level this work is codified in the Federal Advisory
• Adding Wiki tools so that both leaders and citizens can post
Committee Act of 1972). Generally speaking, these formats aren’t con-
documents for public comments and joint editing
sidered very effective for eliciting or structuring public engagement.
• Adding polling tools so that both leaders and citizens can Some officials have experimented with new ways of improving public
create and respond to surveys on relevant issues, with the hearings. Others have stuck with the traditional formats, partly because
results displayed for public comment they believe the laws on participation do not allow for such changes.
• Adding crowdsourcing tools so that both leaders and citizens There are now several major questions confronting public managers as
can issue calls for helpful ideas on specific issues and they begin to increase their use of new tactics and tools to engage citi-
challenges zens. First is the issue of the attribution by public officials and employ-
• Adding mapping tools so that land use options can be pre- ees when tweeting or blogging online. “Many public employees have
sented by citizens, developers, planners, and public officials now started to add disclaimers to their online accounts (on social net-
for discussion and assessment working sites), stating that these are their opinions and not the opin-
ions of their organization,” says Ines Mergel, a professor of public
• Publicizing the outcomes and policy impacts of public engagement administration at Syracuse University. “A huge amount of training is
efforts, both online and in traditional media necessary in this area. People withdraw instead of actually participating
• Connecting online engagement efforts with face-to-face delibera- because they fear retaliation.” Second, public managers are uncertain
tions and other kinds of meetings about how the laws on public meetings and public information should
be applied in online environments. Third, they are uncertain about how
geo-location technologies (such as Google Earth and SeeClickFix) will
The Uncertain Legal Landscape for be treated in light of an individual’s right to privacy.

Public Engagement In most of these areas, there simply are no easy answers. This is not
only because the laws vary, and are interpreted differently by different
Much of the legal framework for citizen participation predates the rise legal experts, but because in many places, the laws have yet to be
of social media and other online technologies. In fact, most of the laws written. Writing about geo-location technologies, legal expert Kevin
governing public engagement at the local, state, and federal levels are Pomfret states that these online tools “will never reach [their] full
several decades old, and do not reflect recent innovations. This has potential until consistent and transparent laws and policies surround-
created some confusion about what legal public engagement is sup- ing location privacy are developed!” The best that public managers
posed to look like. can do is to consult the legal resources available to them—including
legal staff within agencies, but also Guides from independent organiza-
On some kinds of policies, such as bond issues, budgets, and zoning tions such as the National Academy of Public Administration—and
decisions at the local level, and in most issue areas at the state and incorporate those recommendations as part of a long-term public

6

engagement plan that will guide both recurring activities and short- recruitment strategy. Second, the more meaningful and productive
I NTR OD U CT I ON
term initiatives. forms of engagement that have emerged in the last twenty years rely
heavily on well-structured interaction between citizens and govern-
ment, and among citizens themselves; to many of the practitioners
Deciding on the Right Tools in and public officials who are experienced with this work, one-way
transmissions of information don’t count as engagement at all.
Response to Differing Scenarios The table on the following pages summarizes the ten tactics most
Within the context of a long-range strategic civic engagement plan, commonly used to foster engagement with the public, matching up
there are different short-term online tactical tools that will make sense scenarios with the tactics and online tools that seem most appropriate
in different scenarios. Part I of this report presents the most common in each situation.
scenarios in which public managers seek to engage the public, sug-
The table is followed by Part I which presents five of the most common
gests the tactics and online tools that make the most sense for those
situations, or scenarios, where public managers might seek public
circumstances, and identifies the situations where face-to-face interac-
involvement. Following these scenarios, Part II presents details of how
tion may be crucial.
to use each of the ten tactics described, including specific tools that
One of the variables that is hardest to assess is how easily these tasks others have found useful.
and tools can be scaled up to engage thousands or even millions of
people. Historically, it has been easier to do public engagement at the
local level, since public managers are dealing with smaller numbers of
residents, and officials and employees are better able to interact with
citizens directly (either online or face-to-face). Now, managers at the
state and federal level are facing many of the same pressures and
opportunities as their local counterparts, and are trying to apply the
same successful principles.

A general rule of thumb—and one that applies to engagement at any
level of government—is that tasks that require only a one-way flow of
information are easier to organize and scale than activities based on
two-way interaction. Surveys that produce a batch of results for man-
agers, for example, or “serious games” that provide educational infor-
mation for citizens, can reach large numbers of people more easily
than projects that engage citizens in deliberation or action planning.

There are two caveats, however: first, the number of participants in
any engagement effort is heavily dependent on the effectiveness of the

7

Ten Tactics for Engaging the Public

I NTR OD U CT I ON
Tactic Why Do It? Online Tools

Collaboration

1. Develop documents You are trying to encourage • Wikispaces, free at basic level: www.wikispaces.com
collaboratively via Wikis citizens to take shared ownership • Wikiplanning,™ fee for service: www.wikiplanning.org
(Wikis) of an issue and participate in
addressing it

2. Create shared work space You are trying to encourage • Google Docs, free: docs.google.com
for citizens citizens to take shared ownership • Dropbox, free at basic level: www.dropbox.org
(Shared Workspace) of an issue and participate in • GoogleGroups, free: www.googlegroups.com
addressing it • Ning, fee for service: www.ning.com
• BigTent, fee for service: www.bigtent.com
• CivicEvolution, fee for service: www.civicevolution.org

3. Facilitate large-scale • You are in the midst of a high- • Ascentum Choicebook,™ fee for service: www.ascentum.ca
deliberation online profile situation in which people • DialogueApp, fee for service: www.dialogue-app.com
(Large-scale Deliberation) do not agree about what • Zilino: www.zilino.com
should be done • Microsoft TownHall, fee for service: www.microsofttownhall.com
• You are trying to encourage • IBM MiniJam and InnovationJam, fee for service:
citizens to take shared owner- www.ibm.com/ibm/jam/
ship of an issue and partici-
pate in addressing it
• You are trying to educate and
inform citizens about a
particular issue or decision

4. Use “serious games” to You are trying to educate and • Second Life, free at basic level: www.secondlife.com
generate interest, under- inform citizens about a particular • Zynga, fee for service: www.zynga.com
standing, and input issue or decision • Persuasive Games, fee for service: www.persuasivegames.com
(Serious Gaming)

8

Ten Tactics for Engaging the Public (continued)
I NTR OD U CT I ON

Tactic Why Do It? Online Tools

Survey Attitudes

5. Survey citizens You want the immediate opinions • SurveyMonkey, free at basic level: www.surveymonkey.com
of citizens • SurveyConsole, free at basic level: www.surveyconsole.com
• SurveyGizmo, fee for service: www.surveygizmo.com

6. Aggregate opinions You want the immediate opinions • ThinkUp, free: www.thinkupapp.com
expressed on social media of citizens • CitizenScape, fee for service: www.citizenscape.net
networks • Business Analytics, fee for service: www.ibm.com/software/analytics/
(Aggregate Opinions) • COBRA, fee for service: www.almaden.ibm.com/asr/projects/cobra/

Prioritize Options

7. Gather and rank ideas and You need ideas and information • IdeaScale, free at basic level: www.ideascale.com
solutions from citizens on a given issue or • Spigit, fee for service: www.spigit.com
(Idea Generation) issues • Bubble Ideas, fee for service: http://bubbleideas.com/
• Delib Dialogue App, free at basic level: www.dialogue-app.com
• Google Moderator, free: www.google.com/moderator/

8. Work with citizens to iden- You need ideas and information • SeeClickFix, free at basic level: www.seeclickfix.com
tify and prioritize problems from citizens on a given issue or • OpenStreetMap, free: www.openstreetmap.org
that government can fix issues • OpenLayers, free: http://openlayers.org
(Identify Problems) • WikiMapia, free: http://wikimapia.org
• Twitter, free: www.twitter.com

9. Help citizens to visualize You are trying to educate and • GoogleMaps, free: www.googlemaps.com
geographic data inform citizens about a particular • Virtual Earth, free: http://virtualearth.com
(Mapping) issue or decision • WorldKit, free: http://worldkit.org/
• CommunityViz, fee for service: www.communityviz.com
• MetroQuest, fee for service: www.metroquest.com

10. Help citizens to balance You are trying to educate and • Budget Simulator, fee for service: www.budgetsimulator.com
budget and revenue inform citizens about a particular • Budget Allocator, fee for service: www.budgetallocator.com
options issue or decision • Demos-Budget, fee for service: www.demos-budget.eu
9 (Identify Priorities)

Part I: Scenarios

Scenario 1: You want to know the immediate citizen reaction to a
particular, well-known issue or decision.
Scenario 2: You are in the midst of a high-profile situation in which
different sets of people do not agree about what should
be done.
Scenario 3: You need new ideas, and more information, from citizens
to help make government more effective and/or efficient.
Scenario 4: You are trying to encourage citizens to take shared
ownership of an issue and participate in addressing it.
Scenario 5: You are trying to educate citizens about a particular issue
or decision.

10

You want to know the immediate citizen reaction to a particular,
1 well-known issue or decision.
Basics
S CE NA R I O

Factors to consider: A key consideration here is whether to use a demo-
graphically representative sample of public opinion, or obtain a general
sense of what the most active and interested citizens think. Survey tools
can provide the former (if a random selection process is used), while
aggregation cannot. Surveys, however, can be limiting in that the language
and questions are dictated by the survey developer; aggregation is more
likely to reveal the terms and ideas people are already using to describe
an issue or problem.

Important to include face-to-face elements? No.

Relevant tactics: Tactic 5. Survey Citizens
Tactic 6. Aggregate Opinions

Gather Create Obtain Make Educate
Opinions Consensus Ideas Decisions Citizens
11 IBM Center for The Business of Government
SCENARIOS www.businessofgovernment.org

You are in the midst of a high-profile situation in which different
2 sets of people do not agree about what should be done.
Basics
S CE NA R I O

Factors to consider: It is very difficult to overcome polarization among dif-
ferent segments of the population if you do not bring those people
together in a structured environment. Even the most carefully constructed
compromises rarely suffice in these situations: citizens rarely accept com-
promises if they didn’t get the chance to participate when the agreements
were being negotiated. When people hear firsthand why people with dif-
ferent opinions believe as they do, when they have a chance to analyze
the same information, and when they are able to consider different argu-
ments or policy options, they are usually able to find a substantial degree
of common ground.

Important to include face-to-face elements? Yes.

Relevant tactics: Tactic 3. Large-Scale Deliberation


You need new ideas, and more information, from citizens to help
3 make government more effective and/or efficient.
Basics
S CE NA R I O

Factors to consider: The key question here is whether you are looking for
“out of the box” thinking about how government should operate (which
could include extensive, fairly sophisticated proposals on topics you didn’t
expect) or for more mundane details about everyday problems (potholes,
graffiti) that public employees are already trying to manage. If the former,
you need tools for gathering and ranking ideas—and you need to be open-
minded about the variety of suggestions you will receive, and how you will
use or respond to them. If the latter, you need tools to help citizens iden-
tify and prioritize problems, including a feedback loop that explains
whether and when government can fix them.

Important to include face-to-face elements? No.

Relevant tactics: Tactic 7. Idea Generation
Tactic 8. Identify Problems
Tactic 10. Identify Priorities


You are trying to encourage citizens to take shared ownership of
4 an issue and participate in addressing it.
Basics
S CE NA R I O

Factors to consider: Recommending solutions for others to implement is
relatively easy; deciding to take action yourself, even in minor ways, takes
a higher degree of commitment. Building that level of ownership usually
requires bringing people together in an information-rich environment
where they can decide what they want to do, how they will remain con-
nected—and how they will hold each another accountable for the commit-
ments they make.


Relevant tactics: Tactic 1. Wikis
Tactic 2. Shared Work Space
Tactic 3. Large-Scale Deliberation


You are trying to educate citizens about a particular issue
5 or decision.
Basics
S CE NA R I O

Factors to consider: Most people are visual and experiential learners: they
learn better in interactive environments where they can envision how dif-
ferent proposals will affect their lives, and where they can test the
strengths and weaknesses of different ideas. Informing citizens tends to
make them more aware of the pressures and tradeoffs facing public man-
agers, but it also tends to make them more determined to express their
preferences to government—so citizen education should not be considered
a one-way transmission of facts, but a robust two-way conversation.


Relevant tactics: Tactic 3. Large-Scale Deliberation
Tactic 4. Serious Gaming
Tactic 8. Identify Problems
Tactic 9. Mapping


Part II: Tactics and Tools

Tactic 1: Develop documents collaboratively via Wikis
Tactic 2: Create shared work space for citizens
Tactic 3: Facilitate large-scale deliberation online
Tactic 4: Use “serious games” to generate interest,
understanding, and input
Tactic 5: Survey citizens
Tactic 6: Aggregate opinions expressed on social media
networks
Tactic 7: Gather and rank ideas and solutions
Tactic 8: Work with citizens to identify and prioritize
problems that government can fix
Tactic 9: Help citizens to visualize geographic data
Tactic 10: Help citizens to balance budget and revenue
options

16

1 Develop documents collaboratively via Wikis

Basics Example: New Zealand
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: The “Wiki,” a website that allows a group of peo- The government of New Zealand wanted to raise awareness of and
ple to write and edit any number of interlinked web pages using a web increase public participation in the revision of the country’s 1958
browser, is one of the staples of Web 2.0 technology. Wikis have been Police Act. In 2007, the Police Act review team opened a Wiki-based
used in a wide variety of environments, the most famous of which is collaborative effort to rewrite the Act. They started by posting the
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Wikis have also been incorporated contents of the original law, allowing anyone to edit it as they would
in large-scale public engagement projects like the San Jose example a Wikipedia article. The Wiki was monitored by as many as four full-
on the following page. time employees at any given time.

Use this tactic when: You want to incorporate citizen ideas into a Ultimately, the Wiki served to build consensus among ideas which the
document (a plan, a report, or a statement on a public challenge or review team offered to legislators for consideration in their own draft-
opportunity) in a way that is transparent and will help build broad ing of the new legislation. The online initiative attracted extensive par-
public support. ticipation in New Zealand and media coverage from around the world.

Using this tactic online allows people to: Edit the document on their
continued on next page
own time through a process that tracks changes and contributors
openly and automatically, while minimizing staff time required for
coordination.

Limitations
If the online editing space is not connected strongly enough to the rest
of the participants’ daily activities (for example, if the editing process
does not automatically generate updates that go straight to the partici-
pants’ e-mail boxes, and/or it does not include face-to-face meetings),
then participation will wane, sometimes dramatically.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Wikis Shared Large-Scale Serious Survey Aggregate Idea Identify Mapping Identify
Work Space Deliberation Gaming Citizens Opinion Generation Problems Priorities
17
COLLABORATE SURVEY ATTITUDES PRIORITIZE OPTIONS

1
Example: San José, California

TA CT I C
The City of San José used
Wikiplanning™ to incorporate the input
of thousands of residents and employ-
ees into the 2040 Envision San José
planning process. The Envision San
José Wikiplanning site attracted almost
4,500 online participants in under four
months, with online participants posting
over 100 images, completing 2,784
surveys, and leaving 240 pages of
Online Tools
posted comments. The more traditional Wikispaces, free at basic level:
public workshop engagement process www.wikispaces.com
attracted 600 people for face-to-face Wikiplanning™ fee for service:
,
meetings over a two-year period. The www.wikiplanning.org
process engaged communities that have
largely been underrepresented in past planning efforts—especially 18- to 25-year-olds and people of
color. Recruitment was accomplished through an extensive invitation strategy built on contacts made
available through the steering committee and city council members, affinity groups, arts and culture
organizations, and social networking sites. The majority of respondents (88%) reported learning of
the process via an e-mail invitation, through a newsletter, or from a friend. Online participants signed
in with their e-mail address and zip code, and were then directed to their community’s online forum.
Once there, they could view a video welcome by a community leader and an activity guide intro-
duced by the project’s team leader. Activities for participation included online surveys with instanta-
neous results, a blog or message board, a mapping exercise, a page where pictures could be posted
and commented upon, and background information including maps, plans, and recorded and video + Submit additional online tools,
examples, or comments
presentations. Participants could read all the comments left by their peers, as could the elected lead-
ers. The costs of compiling the report were minimal, because the log of comments and the results of
the survey were cumulative, and written by the participants.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
18

2 Create shared work space for citizens

Basics Limitations
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Closed online “work spaces” can make it easier for If the online work space is not connected strongly enough to the rest
a group of people to communicate, plan, write, and make decisions. of the participants’ daily activities (for example, if the editing process
does not automatically generate updates that go straight to the partici-
Use this tactic when: Small groups of citizens, or some combination pants’ e-mail boxes, and/or it does not include face-to-face group
of citizens and public employees, are working together on an idea or a meetings), then participation will wane, sometimes dramatically.
plan.

Using this tactic online allows people to: Stay connected with one continued on next page
another and continue working together without having to be in the
same place at the same time. It can either replace or complement
face-to-face meetings. It can also encourage use of related online tools
for editing, polling, and research.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
19

2
Example: Geraldton-Greenough, Australia

TA CT I C
Twenty-one small action teams used
CivicEvolution to work on ideas that
have emerged from “2029 and
Beyond,” an initiative that has
engaged 4,000 residents in planning
for the future of Geraldton-Greenough,
a city in Australia. The CivicEvolution
platform guides participants through
a process of recruiting collaborators,
brainstorming solutions, discussing
Online Tools
pros and cons, identifying resources, Google Docs, free: docs.google.com
and planning for action. The action Dropbox, free at basic level:
team ideas range from establishing a www.dropbox.org
youth council to developing a new
workforce plan for the city to creating GoogleGroups, free:
a botanical garden. “2029 and www.googlegroups.com
Beyond,” which also uses an array of Ning, fee for service: www.ning.com
face-to-face processes, was named BigTent, fee for service:
one of the seven global finalists for www.bigtent.com
the 2011 Mohn Prize in “Vitalizing
Democracy.” CivicEvolution, fee for service:
www.civicevolution.org

+ Submit additional online tools,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20

3 Facilitate large-scale deliberation online

Basics Example: Germany
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Tools that create a more direct exchange between The German BürgerForum (Citizens’ Forum) 2011 is designed to
citizens, engaging them in discussion and dialogue on policy options. develop ideas that will “promote and strengthen social cohesion and
equal opportunities in an increasingly diverse society.” Over 10,000
Use this tactic when: The objective is for citizens to learn more about citizens, selected randomly from 25 German cities and towns, took
the issues, communicate with one another across divisions, wrestle part in the project. BürgerForum is supported by the Bertelsmann
with policy options, and find common ground on a particular decision, Foundation and the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation; it builds on the experi-
issue, or plan. The objective is to galvanize citizen-driven action efforts ence gained from a series of 350-strong citizen’s forums on Europe
in addition to gathering recommendations for government. and the economy, conducted by the foundations in 2008 and 2009.
In the first phase, participants clustered in 400-member online
Using this tactic online allows people to: Participate in a way that is
forums, centered on the 25 locations. They take part in moderated
generally more convenient and versatile than face-to-face deliberation.
online discussions broken down into sub-topics, culminating in propos-
People who are geographically very far apart can be brought together;
als for social cohesion and equal opportunity.
citizens who are more comfortable in online environments can be
included in the process; and “asynchronous” deliberation can take The discussions will be self-moderated, with assistance and training
place (in other words, people can participate on their own time rather from specialist teams. After the regional forums had concluded their
than having to be in a certain place at a certain hour). deliberations, all of the national participants debated the results on an
Internet discussion platform with 100 moderators, in order to create a
single national outcome document. The final project outcome will not
Limitations be formally bound into any specific political or government decision-
making process, but will be made available to all public bodies and
Lacks the emotional power and empathy level of face-to-face delibera- any other interested organization, as well as the citizens themselves,
tion. May also fail to generate the same political power of a concen- to build into whatever practical follow-up projects they wish.
trated group, if the participants are too spread out geographically to
create sufficient critical mass.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
21

3
Example: Ontario, Canada

TA CT I C
In Ontario, the North West Local
Health Integration Network (LHIN)
worked with Ascentum to organize
“Share Your Story, Shape Your Care,”
an engagement initiative that received
the International Association for
Public Participation (IAP2) inaugural
Innovation of the Year Award for
2009. The LHIN manages delivery
of health services and sought to
Online Tools
involve local communities in setting Ascentum Choicebook, fee for
™
a care plan for the future. Ascentum service: www.ascentum.ca
built a suite of online and in-person DialogueApp, fee for service:
tools to involve local patients, health www.dialogue-app.com
care workers, and stakeholders.
These included an online delibera- Zilino: www.zilino.com
tive Choicebook,™ a stories- and Microsoft TownHall, fee for service:
ideas-sharing platform, and a cre- www.microsofttownhall.com
ative community Conversation Guide IBM Jam, fee for service:
to empower people to host their own http://www.ibm.com/ibm/jam/
dialogues on local health care solutions at home, at work, or in their neighborhoods. By the time the
initiative had ended, the LHIN had engaged over 800 people across Northwestern Ontario, learned
more about patients’ and health professionals’ experiences with the health care system, identified
clear public values and priorities for the future of local health care, and gathered hundreds of ideas
on how to provide services differently and more effectively. + Submit additional online tools,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
22

Use “serious games” to generate interest,
4 understanding, and input
Basics Example: Spokane, Washington
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Online games give citizens a chance to test their
knowledge or come up with their own solutions to public problems.
When cleverly designed and disseminated, they can spread virally.

Use this tactic when: Publicizing public engagement opportunities,
encouraging creative thinking, and giving citizens a more informed,
realistic sense of the trade-offs involved in policymaking.

Using this tactic online allows you to: Offer a convenient and versatile
alternative for involvement, resulting in broader participation.

Limitations
Needs to be surrounded and supported by some of the other tactics in
order to have value.
In 2010, over 1,000 people played the “Thousand Visions Game,”
created by the city of Spokane, Washington, to help involve residents
in transportation budgeting and planning for the region. Participants
chose funding options, selected projects, and balanced the budget to
produce their own regional vision. This information is being used to
determine the priorities and funding options necessary to achieve the
unified regional transportation vision.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
23

4
Example: Maryland

TA CT I C
The Maryland Budget Game, a joint
project of the Maryland Budget and
Tax Policy Institute and the University
of Baltimore, allows users to develop
their own proposals for balancing the
state budget. The game presents dif-
ferent budget options in a range of
policy areas, along with background
information and factors to consider.
The game calculates a short-term
Online Tools
budget, and predicts a long-term bal- Second Life, free at basic level:
ance, based on the options chosen www.SecondLife.com
by the user. It also builds in predic- Zynga, fee for service:
tions for how different interest groups www.zynga.com
will react to particular budgets.
Persuasive Games, fee for service:
www.persuasivegames.com


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
24

5 Survey citizens
Surveying citizens

Basics Limitations
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Online survey websites that make it easy to design An online survey is not the same as a scientific opinion poll, unless
and disseminate surveys. the user builds in other aspects of traditional polling, such as random
selection of participants. And as with traditional polls, question word-
Use this tactic when: A quick reading of where people stand on a par- ing influences how people respond.
ticular issue or decision is needed.
In designing the survey, questions can be added that collect demo-
Using this tactic online allows you to: Reach more people with less graphic data to provide a better idea of who is responding, and how
time, effort, and expense than required by traditional polling. The sur- well they represent the broader community. But regardless of demo-
vey can also help connect users to other opportunities for engagement. graphics, this type of survey will tend to oversample informed, active
After answering the questions, the respondent can be presented with citizens and undersample those who are currently less engaged in
links to activities including the other types described in this report. public life.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
25

5
Example: Four-State Region

TA CT I C
An online survey has been
one of the key components of
the “Power of 32” initiative,
a two-year process to allow
residents of a 32-county, four-
state region to participate in
creating a shared vision for
the region’s best future. The
32 counties included in the
project—fifteen in south-
Online Tools
western Pennsylvania, ten in SurveyMonkey, free at basic level:
northern West Virginia, five www.surveymonkey.com
in eastern Ohio, and two in SurveyConsole, free at basic level:
western Maryland—represent www.surveyconsole.com
the economic region centered
on metropolitan Pittsburgh. SurveyGizmo, fee for service:
Power of 32 includes face-to- www.surveygizmo.com
face community conversations Keypad polling (usually done in face-to-
as well as online elements. face meetings where participants vote
on the same question at the same time,
using handheld keypads. It can be linked
to online polls, or to live keypad polling
being conducted simultaneously in other
places)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
26

6 Aggregate opinions expressed on social media networks

Basics Example: White House
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Aggregation tools allow the user to listen in on The White House is now using ThinkUp to track the “ripples”— com-
existing online discussions of public issues rather than try to bring ments, retweets, related posts, and so on—that emanate from the var-
citizens to a new online space. ious social networking sites used by the administration. The platform
is designed to help users search, sort, filter, export, and visualize these
Use this tactic when: Sampling the state of online conversation about online discussions.
a particular issue or decision, either by testing how often certain terms
are used, by finding more in-depth posts and statements expressed
online, or both.
Example: Singapore
The government of Singapore is monitoring citizen reactions to policy
Limitations decisions using a social media tool called Business Analytics. The soft-
ware, developed by IBM, looks for key words or phrases in social
The technology of aggregating opinions expressed online is still being media sites. By compiling lists of positive and negative terms, it aims
developed. Even when it is more fully operational, aggregation seems to identify trends in public sentiment.
unlikely to provide a representative sample of public opinion, not just
because of “digital divides,” but because the people participating in continued on next page
most online discussions are a self-selected group that is not necessar-
ily representative of the larger population.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27

6
Example: United Kingdom Local Governments

TA CT I C
Five local councils in the United
Kingdom were the first municipalities
to use Citizenscape, a web platform
that connects existing social web-
sites, such as community forums and
sites like Facebook and Twitter, to
participatory tools such as ePetitions,
webcasts, or consultations.
Citizenscape is designed to provide
an immediate picture of what online
Online Tools
users in a community are talking ThinkUp, free: www.thinkupapp.com
about. CitizenScape, fee for service:
www.citizenscape.net
Business Analytics, fee for service:
www.ibm.com/software/analytics/
COBRA, fee for service:
www.almaden.ibm.com/asr/projects/
cobra/


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
28

7 Gather and rank ideas and solutions

Basics Example: Department of Homeland
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Crowdsourcing, which allows participants to pro- Security (DHS)
pose and then vote on ideas or solutions, is perhaps the best-known
online engagement technique. Between July 16 and October 4, 2009, more than 20,000 stake-
holders from all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia partici-
Use this tactic when: Tapping into the skills and knowledge of people pated in the National Dialogue on the Quadrennial Homeland Security
outside government by asking them for ideas and solutions, then Review (QHSR). The comments and ideas solicited were used directly
bringing even more citizen skills and knowledge into the mix by asking to inform the study groups tasked with writing the QHSR report for
the “crowd” to rank the ideas that emerge. submission to Congress.

Using this tactic online allows you to: Cast an extremely wide net, The online dialogue was structured in three phases:
inviting suggestions not only from the local jurisdiction but potentially • An initial forum of participant ideas on the goals and objectives
from all over the world. The ranking system will help to sift through developed by DHS study groups across six topic areas
the proposed ideas.
• A deeper discussion into how best to prioritize and achieve the
proposed goals and objectives

Limitations • A review of the final products of each study group with participant
feedback and identification of next steps.
Unless accompanied by a broad-based recruitment effort, or limited to
a certain set of people (rather than being left open to anyone on the continued on next page
Internet), these tools can be co-opted by special interests.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
29

7
Example: Manor, Texas

TA CT I C
The city of Manor, Texas, operates a
web portal called Manor Labs, which
asks residents to make problem-
solving suggestions and then vote for
the ones they like best. The process
is open to anyone, not just Manor
residents.

When users register on the site, they
get 25,000 “Innobucks,” a virtual Online Tools
local currency. Users earn more IdeaScale, free at basic level:
Innobucks for activities such as com- www.ideascale.com
menting, voting, or submitting an
Spigit, fee for service:
idea. If users earn enough, they can
www.spigit.com
shop at the Manor Labs store for
prizes like a Police Department Bubble Ideas, fee for service:
T-shirt, a gift certificate at a local http://bubbleideas.com/
restaurant, or a chance to serve as “mayor for a day.” A department head evaluates the winning Delib Dialogue App, free at basic
ideas, and reviews each idea on a series of metrics, including whether it is sustainable and how level:
much, if anything, it will cost to implement. If the idea fails in any of these areas, the city provides www.dialogue-app.com
details explaining why it was rejected. Several ideas have been implemented so far, including an
RSS feed to notify residents of new construction, maintenance, and repair work, and an automatic Google Moderator, free:
debit system to pay utility bills online. www.google.com/moderator/


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
30

Work with citizens to identify and prioritize problems
8 that government can fix
Basics Example: Twitter Vote Report
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Instant citizen reporting of public problems using During the 2008 election, the Twitter Vote Report mobilized citizens
increasingly sophisticated cell phones and Geographic Information into a network of poll watchers who could share information and mon-
Systems (GIS) mapping. itor election procedures. Sponsored by a broad array of organizations,
the initiative employed phone hotlines as well as text messaging and
Use this tactic when: Harnessing the power of citizens to be intelli- Twittering. The hashtag #votereport was used to aggregate messages
gent sensors of the world around them, giving them the chance to on Twitter.
report problems—potholes, water leaks, broken streetlights, graffiti,
extensive litter—that public employees need to know about. National Public Radio used the aggregated information in a story
assessing the performance of poll workers and election officials.
Using this tactic online allows people to: Transmit precise data “Perhaps one of the greatest successes,” according to Public Agenda’s
quickly and easily. The same system can also allow residents to priori- Promising Practices in Online Engagement, “was the ability of Twitter
tize problems and also to organize citizen-driven efforts to fix some Voter Report to provide a venue to ask questions and build a database
problems, like graffiti. of information to give voters the help they needed. Questions poured
in … from ‘how can I know whether my voting rights are being
ensured,’ to ‘where should I go to cast my ballot.’ Twitter Vote Report
Limitations helped to facilitate answering such questions by enabling peer-to-peer
communication right at the polling place.”
Doesn’t address limits of government resources—if a public works
department doesn’t have enough manpower to fix the city’s potholes,
asking citizens to identify them won’t help, and may create unrealistic
expectations and increased frustration.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
31

8
Example: Washington, DC

TA CT I C
Online Tools
SeeClickFix, free at basic level:
www.seeclickfix.com
OpenStreetMap, free:
www.openstreetmap.org

DC 311 is an iPhone and Facebook combination application that enables users to report physical OpenLayers, free:
problems in Washington, DC. It allows iPhone users to document physical issues by taking photo- http://openlayers.org
graphs of graffiti, potholes, and other problems. The report is located using Global Positioning WikiMapia, free: http://wikimapia.org
System (GPS) capabilities of the phone and automatically uploaded to the city’s 311 database. The Twitter, free: www.twitter.com
system also allows Facebook users to view and submit service requests by category and by location
on Google Maps.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
32

9 Help citizens to visualize geographic data

Basics Example: New York City
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Interactive maps can incorporate economic, envi- Envisioning Development is a website that provides “teaching tools
ronmental, demographic, traffic, and other data, along with architec- about land use and urban development in New York City.” Designed by
tural and land use design tools, to depict different planning options. a nonprofit called the Center for Urban Pedagogy, the online and face-
to-face tools help New Yorkers navigate the arcane Uniform Land Use
Use this tactic when: Citizens need to see how their neighborhoods Review Procedure, which governs all land use decisions in the city.
and communities will look in order to better understand the possibili- One of the tools is an interactive neighborhood-by-neighborhood map
ties and ramifications of planning decisions. that shows median income, income distribution, and average rents for
a range of apartment sizes.
Using this tactic online allows people to: Reshape their visions on
the fly.

Limitations
Needs to be surrounded and supported by some of the other tactics
described in this report in order to have value.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
33

9
Example: Western Land Trust Alliance

TA CT I C
The “Heart of the Rockies” collabora-
tion, an alliance of land trusts in
Wyoming, Montana, Idaho,
Washington State, Alberta, and
British Columbia, used CommunityViz
to identify the private land most criti-
cal for conservation, and establish
shared 10-year conservation goals.
At an initial set of plenary meetings,
workshops, and small-group meet-
Online Tools
ings in 2002, participants formulated GoogleMaps, free:
three criteria to be used in the land www.googlemaps.com
analysis: biological importance, stra- Virtual Earth, free:
tegic ranchland, and lands of impor- http://virtualearth.com
tance to local communities. Data on
watersheds, wildlife species, farm- WorldKit, free: http://worldkit.org/
land soils, forest productivity, conservation easements, population demographics, historic sites, land CommunityViz, fee for service:
ownership characteristics, and other variables were fed into the CommunityViz software, which gen- www.communityviz.com
erated maps to help citizens and stakeholders develop priorities efficiently and effectively. Meeting MetroQuest, fee for service:
participants could see a clear visual representation of their values in one set of maps, and use “slider www.metroquest.com
bars” to test the impact of different factors. By 2007, the land trusts had completed 368 private
land conservation projects, conserving 411,000 acres of land, using the process.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
34

10 Help citizens to balance budget and revenue options

Basics Example: Chicago, Illinois
TA CT I C

What is the tactic: Making available public budget websites that allow The Participatory Budgeting Initiative in Chicago’s 49th Ward gives
participants to get a bird’s-eye view of a budget, and let them see how residents the opportunity to allocate $1.3 million of the ward’s capital
different choices affect the bottom line. budget. Citizens gather in face-to-face meetings and an online forum
to discuss budget options and vote projects into implementation. The
Use this tactic when: Giving citizens a more informed, realistic sense process begins with a series of neighborhood assemblies that generate
of the trade-offs involved in budget decisions, and obtaining from them ideas and volunteers; representative committees then prioritize and
a better understanding of their budget priorities. hone the ideas. Their lists are then proposed for commentary on an
online forum, and presented at another set of neighborhood assem-
Using this tactic online allows people to: Try different combinations of
blies. The entire ward then votes on the ideas.
service cuts, service enhancements, and revenue options in order to
balance the budget. In the 2009-2010 budget cycle, the representative committees (of
16-20 residents each) submitted a list of 36 proposals to better the
ward’s infrastructure. The voting process in April 2010 attracted
Limitations 1,652 of the 49th Ward’s residents, resulting in the recommendation
of 14 of the original committee proposals to the City of Chicago. The
Needs to be surrounded and supported by some of the other tactics winning ideas included sidewalk repairs, bike lanes, a dog park, a
described in this report in order to have value. community garden, and underpass murals. The process, which is now
in its second year, is led by a steering committee composed of over 40
community leaders from various local charities, churches, businesses,
and non-governmental agencies.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
35

10
Example: Belo Horizonte, Brazil

TA CT I C
In 2006, the Brazilian city of Belo
Horizonte launched a system of
“Digital Participatory Budgeting”
(e-PB) to parallel its face-to-face
participatory budgeting (PB) pro-
cess. Citizens were able to make
spending decisions for a fund of
US$11 million. Online voters could
choose among four public works
projects for each of the nine dis-
Online Tools
tricts of the city. Budget Simulator, fee for service:
www.budgetsimulator.com
The Internet makes it easier for citizens to take part, reducing the time and cost of participation; the
Budget Allocator, fee for service:
traditional PB required citizens to attend meetings at a certain time and place, whereas with the
www.budgetallocator.com
e-PB citizens were free to vote online within a period of 42 days. The e-PB was heavily promoted
and the website provided detailed information on the proposed works. Further information could be Demos-Budget, fee for service:
obtained by e-mail and a designated address was set up to respond to queries. The online platform www.demos-budget.eu
of the e-PB allowed users to interact and deliberate with one another. A discussion forum featured
nine different threads, one for each district; active participation reached a total of 1,210 posts. The
available data shows nearly one-third of the voters would not have participated without the option of
casting their votes through the Internet.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
36

Amsler, Terry, and JoAnne Speers. 2005. Getting the Most Out of Leighninger, Matt. 2009. Democracy, Growing Up: The Shifts That
R ESOU R CE S
Public Hearings. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Local Government. Reshaped Local Politics and Foreshadowed the 2008 Presidential
Election. New York, NY: Center for Advances in Public Engagement at
Bittle, Scott, Chris Haller, and Alison Kadlec. 2009. Promising Public Agenda.
Practices in Online Engagement. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
Leighninger, Matt. 2006. The Next Form of Democracy: How Expert
Clift, Steven. Sunshine 2.0. Forthcoming. Washington, DC: League of Rule is Giving Way to Shared Governance—And Why Politics Will
Women Voters of the USA. Never Be the Same. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

The Collaboration Project. 2011. Tools for Online Idea Generation: Mann, Bonnie, and Matt Leighninger. 2011. Planning for Stronger
A Comparison of Technology Platforms for Public Managers. Local Democracy. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
Pomfret, Kevin. 2010. Location and Privacy—What is the New
Fung, Archon, and Elena Fagotto. 2009. Sustaining Public ‘Reasonable?’ Spatial Law and Policy.
Engagement: Embedded Deliberation. Dayton, OH: Kettering
Foundation. Ryan, Deborah. 2010. Wikiplanning: Engaging the Public in New
Ways Online. Planning and Technology Today.
Ganapati, Sukumar. 2010. Using Geographic Information Systems to
Increase Citizen Engagement. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Scola, Nancy. 2010. Expert Labs Rolls Out ThinkUp, A Government
Business of Government. Social Media Dashboard. TechPresident.

Gotze, John, and Christian Bering Pederson, eds. 2009. State of the Smith, Aaron. 2010. Government Online. Washington, DC: Pew
eUnion: Government 2.0 and Onwards. 21gov.net. Internet and American Life Project.

Hicks, Robin. 2010. Singapore to Mine Citizen Sentiment in Social Smith, Aaron. 2010. Mobile Access 2010. Washington, DC: Pew
Media. FutureGov. Internet and American Life Project.

Ho, Alfred. 2007. Engaging Citizens in Measuring and Reporting Smith, Aaron. 2009. The Internet and Civic Engagement. Washington,
Community Conditions. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
of Government.
Vander Veen, Chad. 2010. Manor, Texas, Crowdsources Ideas for
Institute for Local Government. 2010. Social Media and Public Running the Town. Digital Communities.
Agencies: Legal Issues To Be Aware Of. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Local Government. Yankelovich, Daniel, and Will Friedman, eds. 2011. Toward Wiser
Public Judgment. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Leighninger, Matt. 2011. Citizenship and Governance in a Wild,
Wired World. National Civic Review, Spring 2011.

37

Matt Leighninger is the Executive Director of the Deliberative

AB OUT THE AU T HOR
Democracy Consortium (DDC), an alliance of the major organizations
and leading scholars working in the field of deliberation and public
engagement. The DDC represents more than 50 foundations, nonprofit
organizations, and universities, collaborating to support research activ-
ities and advance democratic practice, in North America and around
the world. Over the last seventeen years, Matt has worked with public
engagement efforts in over 100 communities, in 40 states and four
Canadian provinces.

Matt is a Senior Associate for Everyday Democracy, and serves on the
boards of e-democracy.org, the National School Public Relations
Association, and The Democracy Imperative. He has advised a number
of national associations on their public engagement strategies, includ- To contact the author:
ing the National League of Cities, NeighborWorks America, Centers for
Disease Control, and the League of Women Voters. Matt has also been Matt Leighninger
DDC’s representative to LogoLink, a network of civil society organiza- Executive Director
tions in the Global South. Deliberative Democracy Consortium (Washington, DC)
131 Chedoke Avenue
He has written for publications such as The Christian Science Monitor, Hamilton, ON
The National Civic Review, Public Management, School Administrator, L8P 4P2
and Nation’s Cities Weekly. His first book, The Next Form of Democracy: Canada
How Expert Rule is Giving Way to Shared Governance—and Why 905-972-0550
Politics Will Never Be the Same, traces the recent shifts in the rela-
tionship between citizens and government, and examines how these Website: www.deliberative-democracy.net
trends are reshaping our democracy. e-mail: mattl @ deliberative-democracy.net

He is a graduate of Haverford College, and holds a Master’s in Public
Administration from the School of International and Public Affairs
(SIPA) at Columbia University.

38

Reports from
For a full listing of IBM Center publications, visit the Center’s website at www.businessofgovernment.org.

Recent reports available on the website include:

Collaborating Across Boundaries Managing Finances
Environmental Collaboration: Lessons Learned About Cross-Boundary Collaborations by Strategies to Cut Costs and Improve Performance by Charles L. Prow, Debra Cammer
Kathryn Bryk Friedman and Kathryn A. Foster Hines, and Daniel B. Prieto
Managing Innovation Prizes in Government by Luciano Kay Managing Risk in Government: An Introduction to Enterprise Risk Management (2nd
The Promise of Collaborative Voluntary Partnerships: Lessons from the Federal Aviation Edition) by Karen Hardy
Administration by Russell W. Mills
Strategies for Supporting Frontline Collaboration: Lessons from Stewardship Contracting Strengthening Cybersecurity
by Cassandra Moseley
A Best Practices Guide to Information Security by Clay Posey, Tom L. Roberts, and James
F. Courtney
Conserving Energy and the Environment Cybersecurity Management in the States: The Emerging Role of Chief Information Security
Breaking New Ground: Promoting Environmental and Energy Programs in Local Officers by Marilu Goodyear, Holly T. Goerdel, Shannon Portillo, and Linda Williams
Government by James H. Svara, Anna Read, and Evelina Moulder
A Guide for Local Government Executives on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability by Nathan Transforming the Workforce
Francis and Richard C. Feiock
Engaging a Multi-Generational Workforce: Practical Advice for Government Managers by
Susan Hannam and Bonni Yordi
Fostering Transparency and Democracy Implementing Telework: Lessons Learned from Four Federal Agencies by Scott P. Overmyer
Using Geographic Information Systems to Increase Citizen Engagement by Sukumar
Ganapati Using Technology
Using Wikis in Government: A Guide for Public Managers by Ines Mergel
Improving Performance An Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement
Project Management in Government: An Introduction to Earned Value Management (EVM) by Gwanhoo Lee and Young Hoon Kwak
by Young Hoon Kwak and Frank T. Anbari How Federal Agencies Can Effectively Manage Records Created Using New Social Media
Strategic Use of Analytics in Government by Thomas H. Davenport and Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa Tools by Patricia C. Franks

39

About the IBM Center for The Business of Government For more information:
Through research stipends and events, the IBM Center for The Business of Jonathan D . Breul
Government stimulates research and facilitates discussion of new approaches Executive Director
to improving the effectiveness of government at the federal, state, local, and IBM Center for The Business of Government
international levels. 600 14th Street NW
Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
About IBM Global Business Services
202-551-9342
With consultants and professional staff in more than 160 countries globally,
website: www.businessofgovernment.org
IBM Global Business Services is the world’s largest consulting services organi-
e-mail: businessofgovernment@us.ibm.com
zation. IBM Global Business Services provides clients with business process and
industry expertise, a deep understanding of technology solutions that address
specific industry issues, and the ability to design, build, and run those solutions
in a way that delivers bottom-line value. To learn more visit: ibm.com

Stay connected with the IBM Center on:

or, send us your name and e-mail to receive our newsletters.

Using Online Tools to Engage and Be Engaged

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Using Online Tools to Engage and Be Engaged (20)

More from Bill Warters (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Using Online Tools to Engage and Be Engaged