Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Kettering Foundation, Everyday Democracy, and the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, which collaborated in this research. Special thanks go to Martha McCoy, Patrick
Scully, John Dedrick, and David Mathews and to all those who participated in our research meetings in
Dayton, Ohio, for their insights. Joseph Goldman conducted the research for three of the case studies
cited in this report and helped us clarify important research questions. Finally, we are deeply indebted
to all the deliberative entrepreneurs, community activists, residents, experts, officials, and policymakers
who were willing to be interviewed or observed. This research is grounded in their important work, and
we hope it will assist them in their future practice of deliberation.
The interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of Everyday Democracy or the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, their staff,
directors, or officers.
Contents
Introduction 1
Methodology 5
Democratic Deficits 17
Conclusion 42
Introduction
The main sections of this report describe We argue that deliberative projects and
our general investigative process and the reforms in these communities work at a
results of our analysis. We begin by outlining deeper level as well. Though they themselves
our methodology and offering capsule may not recognize it, deliberative practitioners
descriptions of the nine communities we also address more fundamental shortcomings
investigated. These brief accounts highlight of the structures of local democratic
the distinctive deliberative accomplishments governance through their work. In the
of each. Together they offer beacons and section titled “Making Democracy Work,” we
benchmarks toward which other deliberative contend that local democratic governance
practitioners might strive. arrangements face certain characteristic
problems, or democratic deficits. These
The rest of the report grapples with the
deficits may include:
challenge of understanding—sometimes
interpreting—what these communities ●● weak social fabric,
have accomplished. We start by asking
●● unstable public judgment,
what challenges induced them to adopt
deliberative interventions. At the most ●● gaps in communication and
obvious level, each has used public accountability between officials
deliberation to address a concrete local
and communities, and
problem or issue. In a notable number of ●● insufficient governmental
those communities, deliberations address resources to tackle a range
challenges around public education, but of social challenges.
problems like urban planning and growth
management, racial tension and diversity,
The structures of organized public
domestic abuse, and child welfare also
deliberation can help address each of
appeared. The understanding of many
these deficits although different kinds of
deliberative practitioners and activists
democratic deficits require different forms of
in these communities was that public
public deliberation and deliberative action.
engagement and deliberation would help
If practitioners recognize this additional
solve these problems.
dimension of their work—if they come to see
T
of our cases enables us to observe how
deliberative practices evolved through time
he objective of these case studies was
and to understand their embeddedness and
to learn about the paths and patterns that
impact over a period of several years.
lead from deliberation to action and about
the conditions under which deliberation In each case, we conducted at least one field
becomes socially and politically embedded. visit of several days and observed deliberative
Therefore, our selection of case studies was events. These observations enabled us to
highly opportunistic. We singled out cases better understand different deliberative
where deliberative practices had become models, the dynamics among participants, and
fairly widespread and repeated over time the mechanisms employed to promote action.
and had led to some action around the In some cases, we attended trainings on the
issues. We selected these cases not only to specific deliberative model used, including the
illustrate successful examples of embedded National Issues Forums (NIF) model in West
deliberation, but also to explain the breadth Virginia and Hawaii and the Indigenous Issues
of problems that can be addressed through Forums model in South Dakota.
deliberative interventions. Subsequently, we
Our case studies drew upon different
wanted to focus on the reasons that made
deliberative approaches. Many were
these interventions successful, including how
informed by the study circles model, which
and why deliberation became embedded,
combines public deliberation (and dialogue)
the role of deliberative entrepreneurs, and
with community organizing. Participants—
the strategic choices they faced to promote
often numbering in the hundreds—meet in
deliberation. The advice of national experts
both large and small gatherings. Most of the
on community-level deliberations guided us
deliberations take place in smaller groups
in our process of case identification.
of 8 to 12 that meet in a series of sessions to
We selected mature or relatively mature cases. explore an issue with the guidance of peer
Efforts to influence policymaking or mobilize facilitators. Participants start by discussing an
communities are slow processes that require issue, then move on to explore concrete ways
1 In this report, the term study circles is used in two ways. Sometimes, the term describes the overall structure
of a public engagement process, and in other instances, it describes one, or a series of small-group meetings on
a public issue that form the centerpiece of the public engagement process. In 2008, the Study Circles Resource
Center (SCRC) changed its name to Everyday Democracy to better communicate the nature of its mission—and
also to signal its growing understanding that the term study circles, by connoting individual small-group meetings,
paints an incomplete picture of the organization’s work and that of its community partners. The authors use the
old study circles language in this report because the case studies were completed before the SCRC changed its
name and its sense of how to describe this work.
deliberations about workplace race relations. for various public policies and local officials
Subsequently, many area businesses, public gained a better grasp of public priorities and
agencies, community organizations, and sensitivities.
churches held study circles as well. Thus, the
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is a town of
YWCA and other community leaders managed
some 20,000 people that lies near the state’s
to build a deep and pervasive network for
southern border with Maine. Like Kuna, the
public deliberation about race that spanned
community has hosted several rounds of
the public, private, and nonprofit sectors.
study circles on issues like school violence,
In Kuna, Idaho, an organization called Kuna school districting, and community master
ACT began to convene study circles around planning. Approximately 850 citizens have
local controversies in 1999. Between 1999 participated in these circles. While the
and 2003, approximately 400 Kuna residents large majority of the town’s residents are
white, and racial divisions are not an issue, efforts in its schools and neighborhoods.
those with whom we spoke noted that the Beginning in 1999, the United Way and
community was nevertheless divided—in this the public school district initiated a study
case between many new and professional circles project designed to bridge the gap in
residents on the one hand, and long-time trust and understanding between schools
residents who were less well off, on the other. and parents. Subsequently, study circle
Against this background, one noteworthy techniques spread to community problem
accomplishment of the Portsmouth study solving around issues of public safety and
circles was to confront this class division in the local revitalization of the city’s public housing
context of school redistricting. projects. Since 1999, organizers estimate
that some 1,600 adults have participated
After the Portsmouth school board failed to
in more than 100 discussion sessions, and
gain popular acceptance of one redistricting
more than 1,800 students attended youth
effort, the group sponsored a round of
circles that explored diversity, tolerance, and
study circles on the issue in 2000. Over 100
responsibility. Some 150 adults have been
residents from different parts of the city met
trained as facilitators. Public deliberations
with one another and toured neighborhood
in Kansas City produced mentoring and
schools. They agreed on a set of principles
after-school programs, improved relations
to guide a redistricting plan that both the
between schools and families, and promoted
school board and town residents were willing
volunteerism. Participants in public housing
to accept. Subsequently, large study circles
projects formed tenant associations and
on several other topics were held and an
mobilized to rid their neighborhoods of crime
independent organization called Portsmouth
and improve their living conditions.
Listens was formed to sustain these public
deliberations. In many of our case studies, public
dialogues were introduced by deliberative
With resources and staff support from the
entrepreneurs in the civic sector. In
United Way of Wyandotte County, Kansas
Montgomery County, Maryland, however,
City, Kansas, has been home to community
deliberations started as an initiative of a
problem solving and public deliberation
public institution. In 2003, the Montgomery
2 The Community Conversations are an initiative developed in collaboration with Public Agenda.
sitting state legislator, State Senator Les Ihara, and draft annual legislative packages
who has led several initiatives designed to containing bills aimed at improving child
make policymaking more deliberative. In welfare. Over 400 participants have been
partnership with the Public Policy Forums, he involved in the Keiki Caucus thus far. The
helped convene forums that were coordinated caucus has been a fully embedded practice
with legislative activities. These public policy for over 15 years and legislators endorse most
forums are distinctive in that one of the main of the bills emerging from it because of the
supporters of public deliberation is a sitting legitimacy and reputation of the process. The
state legislator. Keiki Caucus has created a distinctive forum
for deliberative problem solving around social
The Keiki Caucus at the Hawaii state
policy and program implementation that
legislature focuses on issues related to
is directly and reliably linked to the state’s
children and youth and offers a quite different
legislative apparatus. The caucus is unlike
example of deliberation—this time as a
other instances of deliberation in our study in
collaborative governance tool. Launched
that its participants are not drawn from the
by two legislators, the Keiki Caucus brings
public at large. They are instead an array of
together policymakers, public agencies,
stakeholders: professional policymakers, social
service providers, NGOs, and other groups
service workers, and advocates for children’s
active in this area to exchange information
interests.
I
Americans and Hispanics, faced substantial
achievement deficits. A local foundation
n these case studies, community leaders,
decided to invest in an initiative called
civic activists, and policymakers were
“Community Conversations” to fill this
drawn to public deliberation first and
communication gap by engaging parents
foremost because it was a promising means
in dialogue with school administrators and
of addressing public problems in their
teachers.
communities. Communities turned to
deliberative strategies of public engagement Kansas City faced a similar challenge. There,
in the hope of mobilizing citizens to address many parents, especially those in the African
some pressing tangible challenge like failing American population, thought their children
schools or a longstanding social problem like were ill-served by the public schools and
racial inequality. In some cases, policymakers distrusted school staff and administrators.
turned to deliberation when faced with Many neighborhoods in the city were afflicted
logjams on specific policy choices. with decay, rampant crime, poverty, and a
pervasive sense of disenfranchisement. A
In the 1990s, for example, a significant
coalition of schools and NGOs began looking
communication gap caused a great deal of
for ways to restore trust between residents
finger-pointing between schools and families
and schools. They chose the study circles
in Connecticut. Educators believed schools
model and held dozens of deliberations
had improved over time. Many parents,
that resulted in increased mentoring and
T
institutions. When we say that democracy
isn’t working well, we mean the institutions
he previous section described these
and practices through which we make
cases of public deliberation as solving
collective decisions and take public action
various kinds of community problems. At a
have specific defects. To enumerate and
more fundamental level, however, the most
understand the most important of these
successful of these efforts also improve
deficits, we draw a highly simplified picture of
the quality of local democratic governance
the representative process of policymaking as
by repairing certain persistent problems
it is taught in secondary school civics classes
in the ways that local decisions are made
across the country (see Figure 1). 3
and public actions taken. Thus, those who
build institutions and practices of public Our institutions of political representation
engagement frequently work at two levels. create a chain that connects the interests of
Not only do they address urgently felt needs citizens to elected legislators to administrative
in their communities but, although they may agencies and public policies that, ideally,
not have intended it, they also improve the advance the interests of citizens. Briefly,
machinery of democratic self-government. citizens have fundamental interests such
as security, welfare, and liberty (1). They
3 Archon Fung, “Democratizing the Policy Process,” in The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, eds. M. Moran, M.
Rein, and R. Goodin (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Representation
ies
nces lic
o Exec
re u
P
Prefe
tio
Agencies
n
st
s Si g n es
m
e
Inter
Outco
Citizens als Politicians
Accountability
form political preferences—about positions, choose candidates with programs that will
policies, parties, or candidates—that will not serve them well. Well-meaning politicians
protect their fundamental interests (2). Based may lose touch with the citizens they serve,
on these preferences, citizens express their lose their trust, or fail to grasp their views on
political choices through voting (3) and those important issues. Sometimes, politicians use
votes produce mandates for politicians or their position to serve their own ends rather
parties (4). Using the authority provided by than to serve the public good. Finally, public
those mandates, representatives devise laws agencies may lack the wherewithal to produce
and policies (5) that are implemented by complex public goods and services, such as
public agencies (6). Ideally, laws and agency effective schools and safe neighborhoods.
actions produce outcomes that advance
The deliberative practitioners in our cases
citizens’ interests (7).
usually set out to solve local problems but
In reality, however, the links in this chain in so doing, they also repair these breaks
often break in predictable ways. Sometimes, in the chain of democratic governance
for example, citizens have little or no by complementing representation with
understanding of policies. They may fail deliberation and direct citizen participation.
to articulate their interests to politicians or
C
precondition for a healthy democracy.
onsider now how these breaks in the Through public dialogues, residents can
chain were specifically addressed in our cases. gain awareness of specific issues, change
One important lesson that emerges from this their individual behaviors, build trust among
analysis is that different challenges—different one another, and restore positive social
democratic deficits—call for very different interactions. By listening and sharing
forms of deliberative intervention and citizen personal stories, individuals have an
participation in order to be effective. opportunity to question their beliefs and
perhaps modify some of them.
Democratic Deficit #1:
Weak Social Fabric Deliberative activists in two of our case
studies focused on the health of relationships
When trust among citizens and between
between individuals in their communities.
citizens and government is low, citizens feel
The New Castle County study circles on race
disenfranchised and fail to engage in public
relations and the Indigenous Issues Forums
life. Although a weak social fabric is not strictly
in South Dakota were introduced (1) to
a deficit in the representative policymaking
address poor awareness of race relations and
chain (illustrated in Figure 1), democratic
tribal issues and (2) to strengthen individual
governance functions more effectively when
capacities to engage in dialogue and to
citizens are reflective and possess a high level
collaborate with one another.
of mutual understanding. Hence efforts to
In one sense, these cases do not appear In the rich ecology of organizations that
to have very lofty goals. Participants do promote public deliberation, some consider
Citizens often make poor judgments about In our case studies, we have observed
public issues because they lack information, this type of deliberative intervention in
or have not taken the pains to face the trade- communities in West Virginia, Hawaii,
offs that sound judgment requires. This and South Dakota. Participants in those
contributes to making poor choices at the communities discussed a variety of topics,
ballot box and, ultimately, inadequate public from health-care reform to immigration and
policies. To correct this deficit, citizens need public education. The West Virginia Center
to acquire additional information and test for Civic Life was particularly successful at
their views against those of others. Public involving large numbers of people in the
4 Daniel Yankelovich, Coming to Public Judgment (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1991) and The Magic of
Dialogue (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1999).
5 See Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro, The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
Study circles and Community Conversations In a noxious form of this democratic deficit,
also invite participants to consider competing politicians and policy professionals may
options to deepen their understanding choose to pursue their own agendas with little
of policy issues. Whether or not they regard for public interests and priorities—and
ultimately have an impact on policy, all apparently without fear of being checked by
public deliberations are designed to improve devices of public accountability. Deliberative
the quality of judgment of those who initiatives can improve the machinery of
participate by providing them with additional democratic governance by broadening
information and exposing them to the the channels of communication between
opinions of other citizens. politicians and the public and empowering
citizens to hold their representatives
Democratic Deficit #3:
accountable.
Gaps in Communication and Accountability
between Officials and Communities In Kuna and Portsmouth, local government
In the standard civic model of representative officials supported study circles because they
democracy, elections and campaigns provide faced contentious issues, and did not clearly
a central channel through which politicians understand what the public’s views were on
learn about the views and priorities of their these topics. So they sought the public’s
constituents. The need to compete in input through deliberation. When community
elections creates incentives for politicians to members in Kuna divided over a proposal to
hear from their constituents through public issue a school bond and on a drug-testing
meetings, social events, focus groups, and policy, deliberations helped articulate public
preferences and provided input to decision
effort. One of the strategies in his plan was improve their services. For many, especially
to strengthen communities so they could socially isolated minorities, it was the first
support schools. Together with the local time they could voice their concerns to public
United Way chapter, he formed a coalition authorities. Organizers estimate that the
to restore trust between families and program reached well over 5,000 people in
schools and to empower disenfranchised the state.
communities.
The Montgomery County school district
The Kansas City group adopted study realized that providing more resources to
circles to engage residents of public students and teachers was not enough to
housing complexes in deliberations that close the achievement gap: families and
led to strategies that reduced crime and other parts of the community also needed
improved their neighborhoods. Other to be involved. Study circles were adopted
study circles successfully connected schools to open discussions of race relations and
in need of resources with churches and to facilitate collaborative efforts involving
community members willing to help. These families, students, and school staffs to help
deliberations involved approximately all students achieve. The circles successfully
2,000 people, including hundreds of young involved about 900 people and are now
people. Mentoring programs and numerous spreading to reach all the schools in the
volunteer campaigns to support schools and district. Deliberations have created a safe
communities grew out of these deliberations. space to bring up challenging issues and built
trust among families and schools. As a result,
In Connecticut, a charitable foundation
parents have become more involved in school
sponsored dialogues designed to bridge
will vary over time. 6 Advocacy and activist become embedded into the procedures and
organizations by their nature have particular practices of these organizations.
substantive positions on issues, whereas the
Deliberations designed to provide public
point of public deliberation is to develop
input to policymakers are significantly more
such positions through natural discovery and
effective if embedded. There is no doubt that
reasoning.
embedding deliberation comes at a cost for
Embedded Public Action public institutions and other organizations:
they need to dedicate time and resources
While subjects in all of our cases tried to to the planning process, undergo training,
improve public reflection, some also tried and overcome internal resistance. They may
to enhance the quality of public action. also need to alter some of their decision-
When public deliberation is connected to making processes—for example, by formally
policymaking, policy implementation, or creating mandates for public input and by
other collective action in a sustained way, involving other organizational layers in the
we say that it is embedded in the routines deliberations to ensure that the public input
6 Issue neutrality is not, however, exclusive to public reflection. Kuna ACT and Portsmouth Listens, whose focus
is embedded public action, are independent organizations that, thanks to their neutrality, were called upon to
convene public deliberations on a variety of issues.
At its lowest level, collaborative governance nondeliberative ways, that may limit the
requires officials to take public deliberation impact of collaborative governance. Similarly,
seriously as an input into their decisions. At offices that occupy a high position in an
a higher level, as in Hawaii’s Keiki Caucus, institution’s hierarchical ladder may quash
collaborative governance produces policies collaborative governance initiatives coming
and public actions that are jointly forged. from lower levels. The Keiki Caucus in
Because collaborative governance involves Hawaii is a good example of deliberative
an explicit sharing of authority, it is typically practices that are well embedded in the
more difficult to achieve than other forms of legislative process. Even if a limited number
deliberation. of legislators participate in the meetings, the
legislative package developed by the caucus
Collaborative governance can occur fitfully
is broadly endorsed by a large number of
without being embedded in these ways.
policymakers because of the legitimacy this
For example, upon hearing that the city’s
deliberative practice has earned over the
planning committee is considering some new
years. Disseminating deliberation within an
developments in their area, worried neighbors
institution can deepen embeddedness and
organize a public deliberation to gather the
help reap the full benefits of collaborative
residents’ input. The neighborhood may hold
governance.
a forum and present its findings, but unless
the planners are ready to listen, residents’
recommendations may go unheeded, which
could further exacerbate relations. If, on the
other hand, the planning committee embeds
deliberation, it will design the forum together
with the neighborhood group and set up
mechanisms to work with the residents and
incorporate their input.
7 Joseph Goldman suggested this framework at a research meeting at the Kettering Foundation in Dayton, Ohio, on
May 24-25, 2007.
H
quality of strategic management
in deliberative organizations.
ow do we know whether deliberative
reflection and action are embedded in ●● It would facilitate comparative
community institutions and practices? In case research of the sort
detailed in this report.
this section we offer some benchmarks
that might be used to measure deliberative ●● It would aid in gauging
embeddedness, although discussion of these the relative merits of
indicators should be read as an exhortation to deliberative and participatory
governance compared to
further research and reflection.
other approaches that demand
In the course of this research project, we were less civic engagement.
unable to gather quantitative indicators for
our case studies, although clearly such data The most important purpose of developing
would be useful in the future. We encourage such criteria is to aid deliberative practitioners
practitioners to collect such data when it by guiding their actions and helping them
is available and to reflect upon what kinds diagnose the quality of their projects. It is
of quantitative indicators constitute valid easy to develop poor metrics or to misuse
and useful measures of deliberative success. otherwise helpful metrics. It would be a
The broader use of such indicators by both mistake, for example, to ignore the ways
8 Consider, for example, the case of the British Columbia Citizens’Assembly, where a randomly selected group of
160 citizens met for a series of deliberations throughout 2004 to study different electoral systems and propose a
new electoral law for the Canadian province. See: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
9 Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung, Embedded Deliberation: Entrepreneurs, Organizations, and Public Action (final
report for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, April 14, 2006).
over public policy choices, can also provide entrepreneurs. That is, public engagement
an opportunity for deliberative interventions. can sometimes help policymakers and
The Columbine shootings prompted a politicians break through political logjams.
Portsmouth coalition active on youth violence In Kuna, for example, school board members
issues to promote a 300-person forum on suffered a public rebuke in a ballot question
teen violence. In Kuna and Portsmouth, on school construction finance. Organized
tensions over controversial drug testing and public deliberation provided an opportunity
school redistricting policies were resolved by for them to explain their case and for
convening study circles, which gave voice to community members to reflect upon it.
the community.
In Hawaiian locales, Senator Ihara introduced
Civic and democratic benefits public forums to discuss polarized issues—
from death with dignity to allowing gambling
Some entrepreneurs focus on broader
in the state—that could not be addressed
purposes of public deliberation, such as
through traditional political bargaining.
improving relations among community
Forums helped reduce tensions and provided
members and, indirectly, improving the
people with a more nuanced understanding
quality of public dialogue and civic life. By
of the issues at stake and their implications.
and large, National Issues Forums are held
with the purpose of providing a venue where How do entrepreneurs form alliances
citizens can engage in a collective reflection with other groups that can help spread
over public policies. The Indigenous Issues deliberation and utilize these networks to
Forums intend to create a safe venue where advance the specific purposes they have? We
indigenous people can deliberate and where have observed that civic entrepreneurs make
individuals can learn to respectfully interact different strategic alliances, depending on
with others. the nature of the deliberative intervention
they promote. Let’s start by examining the
Embracing political roadblocks strategic choices civic entrepreneurs make
as opportunities when they want to achieve embedded public
Political challenges and circumstances can reflection.
provide a third point of entry for deliberative Institutional support is crucial to engage
Elena Fagotto
Elena Fagotto researches deliberative democracy, citizen engagement in
governance, and regulation by transparency. After working for six years at
the Harvard Kennedy School, where she is a member of the Transparency
Policy Project, Fagotto returned to her native Europe. On behalf of an Italian
policy analysis institute, she is currently investigating how transparency
could engage Italian communities and improve public education. She is
also a visiting professor at LUISS University in Rome. For her research, she
observed many deliberative events nationally and internationally. She
co-authored a book chapter, reports, case studies, and articles published in
the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, the International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, Economic Analysis, and Issues in Science and
Technology.
Kettering Foundation
www. kettering. org