assessing impacts of citizen engagement through public deliberation
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Through Public Deliberation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Through Public Deliberation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 76 Views
  • Uploaded on

Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Through Public Deliberation. Presented by Sue Williams, Ph.D. Ron C. Powers, Ph.D. Renée Daugherty, Ph.D. Wendy Pettersen. Purpose of Study .

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Through Public Deliberation' - shandi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
assessing impacts of citizen engagement through public deliberation

Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Through Public Deliberation

Presented by

Sue Williams, Ph.D. Ron C. Powers, Ph.D.

Renée Daugherty, Ph.D. Wendy Pettersen

purpose of study
Purpose of Study

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

objectives for public policy institute participants
Objectives For Public Policy Institute Participants
  • Determine to what extent participants have convened, moderated, and/or recorded local issue forms or facilitated this process.
  • Determine if they organized a local steering committee or network to support local issue forums.
  • Determine if local forums reached common ground or a direction for policy.
objectives for ppi participants con t
Objectives For PPI Participants Con’t.
  • Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums.
  • Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional personal settings.
objectives for forum participants
Objectives For Forum Participants
  • Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional and personal settings.
  • Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth.
  • Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was achieved.
  • Determine the extent of public action resulting from public forums.
national issues forums nif project
National Issues Forums(NIF) Project
  • Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Public Choice” program
  • Non-partisan, non-advocacy
  • Nation-wide network (about 30 states)
  • Issues identified each year
  • Issue books/videos
  • Local issue forums
national issues forums nif philosophy
National Issues Forums (NIF) Philosophy

“…rooted in the simple notion that

people need to come together to

reason and talk – to deliberate

about common problems. Indeed,

democracy requires an on-going

deliberative dialogue.”

NIF Overview

public deliberation
Public Deliberation
  • A structured dialogue framed using 3-4
  • policy approaches
  • A means to make tough choices about policy directions
  • A way of reasoning and talking together

- Weighs the views of other

- Considers consequences and trade-offs

- Respects the perspectives and values of

others

  • A means to find common ground for action
anatomy of a public problem

Public Problem

Facts

Myths

Values/Beliefs

Public Decision

Anatomy of a Public Problem
collaboration
Collaboration
  • Oklahoma State University
  • University of Missouri
  • Kettering Foundation
instrument
Instrument
  • Collaborative Development
  • Telephone Interview Format
  • Pilot Tested
    • California
    • Florida
    • South Dakota
    • West Virginia
sample
Sample
  • Participants of five PPI’s (N=87)
  • Forum Participants (N=118)
forum participants
Forum Participants
  • N = 118
  • Three Counties In Missouri
    • Balancing Our Heritage With Our Horizons (locally framed issue)
    • Racial and Ethnic Tensions: What Should We Do?
    • A Nice Place to Live: Creating Communities, Fighting Sprawl
conclusions for ppi participants
Conclusions for PPI Participants
  • Use of Deliberative Approach

46% active after the PPI

      • participated in teams
      • returned to the community and formed a team-58%
      • participated in a forum soon after PPI
  • Type of Use and Usefulness

Three highest ratings

      • Work
      • civic life
      • dealing with the public
conclusions for forum participants
Conclusions for Forum Participants
  • High Forum Ratings Exploring Issues In Depth
    • Weighing costs and benefits
    • Fair and equal treatment of choices
    • Trade-offs and consequences
  • Identification of Common Ground
conclusions for forum participants con t
Conclusions for Forum Participants Con’t.

Extent of Action

  • Community
    • Local media
    • Office holders
    • Additional forums
  • Individual
    • Sharing materials with others
    • Changed how one talks to people about issue
    • Changed perspective on the issue
for more information contact
Sue Williams, Ph.D.

Family Policy Specialist

405-744-6825

[email protected]

Renee Daugherty, Ph.D.

Education Methods Specialist

405-744-5776

[email protected]

For More Information Contact
ad