Building Civic Infrastructure:Engaging residents in more effective,
sustainable ways
New Mexico Infrastructure Finance Conference
Taos, New Mexico
October 25, 2012
Slides available at:www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger
Guides:http://bit.ly/M1pvMp
http://bit.ly/iwjgqn
“What drove me to try planned, structured public engagement was my awful experience with unplanned, unstructured public
engagement.” ─ John Nalbandian,
former mayor, Lawrence, KS
Three minutes at the microphone
Retrieved from Cincinnati.com, July 27, 2012
Less buy-in = less money
The context: How have citizens* changed?
More educated More skeptical – different
attitudes toward authority Have less time to spare Better able to find
resources, allies, information
* “citizens” = residents, people
The context:Families with young children
Have the most at stake in community success
More motivation to engage, but even less time
Want to engage in community, not just politics
The context: Increased use of the Internet
Successful tactic: Proactive recruitment
Map community networks;
Involve leaders of those networks;
‘Who is least likely to participate?’
Use online as well as f2f connections;
Follow up!
Successful tactic: Small-group processes
No more than 12 people per group;
Facilitator who is impartial (doesn’t give opinions);
Start with people describing their experiences;
Lay out options;
Help people plan for action.
Successful tactic: Framing an issue
Give people the information they need, in ways they can use it
Lays out several options or views (including ones you don’t agree with)
Trust them to make good decisions
Successful tactic: Many levels of action
Successful tactic: Online tools
Particularly good for: Providing background information Data gathering by citizens Generating and
ranking ideas Helping people
visualize options Maintaining
connections over time
(2) questions or comments?
In other (fewer) words, the key success factors are:
Diverse critical mass Structured Deliberative Action-oriented Online and f2f
This work challenges the thinking of:
Progressives
Experts don’t make all decisions
Forces gov’t to be more accountable
Gov’t not enough to solve problems
Conservatives
Electeds don’t make all decisions
Raises perceptions of gov’t
Free market not enough
Strengths of quality public engagement
Good for: Making policy decisions, plansCatalyzing citizen actionBuilding trustFostering new leadership
Limitations of quality public engagement (as we practice it today)
Lots of work for temporary gain Inefficient – every organization on its own Community moves back to ‘politics as usual’ ‘Engagers’ set the agenda, not the ‘engaged’ Limited impact on equity Trust, relationships fade Laws on participation out
of step with practices
New model ordinance on public participation
Available at www.deliberative-democracy.netDeveloped as a collaboration of:
What is civic infrastructure?
The regular opportunities, activities, and arenas that allow people to connect with each other, solve problems, make decisions, and be part of a community.
Building blocks for civic infrastructure:
Building block:
Helping neighborhood and school groupsbecome more- effective- inclusive- participatory
Building block: Hyperlocal online forums
More sustained Larger, more diverse numbers of
people Easier for ‘engagers’ – recruitment
doesn’t have to start from scratch More open to ideas from the
‘engaged’
Building block: Youth leadership
“Sometimes you need a meeting that is also a party.
Sometimes you need a party that is also a meeting.”
─ Gloria Rubio-Cortès, National Civic League
Don’t forget: Fun
Questions or comments?
“Portsmouth Listens” Portsmouth, NH
Ongoing process since 2000 Several hundred participants each time Addressed a number of major policy
decisions: bullying in schools, school redistricting, city’s master plan, balancing city budget, whether to build new middle school
Jane Addams School for Democracy West Side of St. Paul, MN
50-200 people in “neighborhood learning circles” every month since 1998
Involves recent Hmong, Latino, Somali immigrants
Young people involved in circles and other activities
Cultural exchanges - food, crafts, storytelling
Has resulted in new projects, initiatives, festivals, and a changein INS policy
Participatory Budgeting in Brazilian cities
Commitment from gov’t to adopt budget;
Wide range of ways to be involved;
A carnival atmosphere;
Started small, now huge – 60,000+ people
“Kuna Alliance for a Cohesive Community Team” Kuna, ID
Recurring input-gathering process, used on all major decisions
Organized by Kuna Alliance for a Cohesive Team (Kuna ACT), in collaboration with local government
Issues include: school funding, downtown development, planning and growth
500 participants annually (city of 6,000)
“Kuna Alliance for a Cohesive Community Team” Kuna, ID
Outcomes: New comprehensive plan Passage of school bond issue
Improvements made to downtown
New strategy to market community as hub for “Birds of Prey” area
Building civic infrastructure:
Is relatively inexpensive (mainly political, not financial capital)
Is a cross-sector job (not just government)
Has other economic benefits
Resources
• www.participedia.net• www.deliberative-democracy.net• www.soulofthecommunity.org • www.everydaydemocracy.org• www.publicagenda.org• www.kettering.org• On Facebook: “Deliberative
Democracy Consortium” group page• The Next Form of Democracy
Slides available at:www.slideshare.net/mattleighninger
Guides:http://bit.ly/M1pvMp
http://bit.ly/iwjgqn
1. Make engagement easier, more efficient2. Build trust3. Give residents more control of the agenda4. Better address inequities 5. Increase community attachment and
economic growth6. Increase residents’ sense of legitimacy and
“public happiness”
Why build stronger civic infrastructure?
What is your vision for civic infrastructure?
Top Related