Public Agenda
On the Agenda The Public Agenda Blog

12.19 Engaging Your Community: Overcoming Wishful Thinking and Other Barriers

Monday, December 19th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



When engaging people on a tough public problem like education reform or a region's transportation needs, obstacles and resistance are bound to creep up. Here are a few tips you can use to help them move beyond pipe dreams, recognize and accept trade-offs, and work through obstacles and resistance.

Help people move beyond wishful thinking


The trade-offs that are embedded in any issue that citizens must confront should be brought to the surface. A strong public engagement initiative will look for diverse ways to achieve realism and seriousness (not to be confused with humorlessness) in the public debate and help people move past knee-jerk reactions and wishful thinking. Challenge leaders who pander to people's wishful thinking and provide corrective information once it's become clear the public is "hung up" on a misperception or lacking vital information.


Expect obstacles and resistances


People are used to doing things in a particular way, and it is hard work to grapple with new possibilities. It may even threaten their identities or interests (or perceived interests) to do so. It therefore takes time, and repeated opportunities, for people to really work through problems, absorb information about the trade-offs of different approaches and build common ground.

Read earlier principles of public engagement. If you have any questions, just ask, either here, on our Facebook page or via Twitter.

We also have many more tools to help foster community and public engagement. These include Choicework discussion guides, deliberative discussion starters for flexible use among diverse participants, and their corresponding videos; reports outlining engagement recommendations and principles; and case studies in community and state engagement.

Also be sure to sign up for our biweekly newsletter to receive regular updates on what's going on in the world of public opinion research and public engagement.

Comment

11.14 Engaging Your Community: Use Information Wisely

Monday, November 14th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



While we were conducting the research for our recent study, Don't Count Us Out, members of the public told us that an abundance of technical information can be jarring and confusing, and that they are actually quite skeptical about the accuracy of statistics and measurements. When providing information for a group of people to help them deliberate an issue, it's crucial to weigh the amount, type and timing of that information:


Provide the right type and amount of information at the right time


It is helpful to provide people with carefully selected, essential, nonpartisan information up front in order to help them deliberate more effectively, but it is equally important to avoid overloading people with a "data dump." Concise and thoughtfully presented information is useful, but too much all at once can result in people feeling overwhelmed. It plays to the experts in the room while disempowering the regular citizens. In fact, too much information may actually erode public trust instead of augment it.

Instead, beyond a few salient essentials, people should themselves determine, through their deliberations, the information that will allow them to move deeper into an issue. Enabling people to better determine their informational needs is one of the most important purposes and outcomes of public engagement.

This blog post is part of our series on core principles for effective public engagement.

Read earlier principles of public engagement. If you have any questions, just ask, either here, on our Facebook page, via Twitter or email Allison Rizzolo.

If you are looking for tools for engagement, including information about our Choicework guides and their corresponding videos, as well as case studies in public engagement, check out the public engagement section of this website.

Also be sure to sign up for our biweekly newsletter to receive regular updates on what's going on in the world of public opinion research and public engagement.

Comment

10.26 Engaging Your Community: Framing for Deliberation

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



Is Social Security a failed system in need of replacement or a successful one in need of normal maintenance? Is the public school system the best hope for democracy or a state monopoly immune to reform? The presentation of information, facts and arguments is not neutral. Different presentations, depending on language and word choice, can have very different impacts and can evoke very different connotations and reactions from our listeners. This presentation provides a context, or a frame, through which people make a value judgments. How does framing matter in the context of engaging one's community? When working toward authentic engagement, it is important to frame an issue for deliberation, as opposed to persuasion. Framing for deliberation is another core principle for authentic engagement.

Frame issues for deliberation

Framing for deliberation involves clarifying the range of positions surrounding an issue so that citizens can better decide what they want to do. Your charge in engaging your community is not to get your audience to do what you want to do, and it is important you consciously avoid framing to persuade an audience by defining an issue to your advantage. Framing for deliberation can happen naturally, but in order to encourage this, it is important, again, to speak the language and address the concerns of your community members. Framing an issue for public deliberation requires focusing more on values-related conflicts and broad strategies than on technical details and tactical minutiae, which are more the province of experts. It means, in essence, helping people wrestle with different perspectives and the pros and cons of going down different paths. Framing for deliberation communicates that there are no easy answers and that many points of view are welcome and essential to the discussion. This technique (which Public Agenda calls "Citizen Choicework") also helps people with very different levels of expertise engage both the issues and one another more effectively than a wide-open discussion with no structure. Read more about framing or earlier principles of public engagement. If you have any questions, just ask on our Facebook page or via Twitter. Play online games at the best friv 2 games. Play online games at the best friv 2 games this website. Play online games at the best friv 2 games this website.

Comment

10.20 Community Conversations: Working together to improve student success

Thursday, October 20th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



The guest list for a community conversation in Coolidge, Arizona two weeks ago included small business owners, faculty and administration of colleges and universities, students, K-12 teachers and principals, representatives from local community-based organizations and even the chief of police. It was an impressively diverse group gathering to talk to about how to improve the success and completion rates of college and university students in their community.

The meeting is part of an initiative, funded by the Lumina Foundation, to increase productivity within US higher education nationwide, particularly among 2- and 4-year public institutions. As part of this effort, Public Agenda is training moderators and recorders for community conversations of this kind in multiple states.


After 2 hours of small group dialogues using our Choicework model as a discussion guide, the participants reconvened to share their thoughts on next steps. Every group agreed that partnerships between K-12 institutions, community colleges and universities will be essential for ensuring readiness and, ultimately, completion for their community's students. We are hopeful that communities across the country are able to capture the energy of dialogues like this one and mobilize to increase the success of students in their community.


Comment

10.18 Engaging Your Community: Core Principles Continued

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



Engaging the public in a genuine and robust manner will be central to moving our nation forward in these challenging times. Last week we described the first of the ten core principles that undergird our public engagement work. This week we bring you two more, both of which speak directly to the frustrations of the public in this moment:

Attend to people's leading concerns

It's a natural response to open up more readily to people who address your concerns, rather than ignoring them in favor of their own. Whether you are a leader in your community, engaging your constituents, or one community member trying to engage others, find out what matters to people, and keep those issues in mind. Especially when there are gaps between the priorities of different groups, people will be most receptive to your concerns if the issues that they feel most concerned about are acknowledged and addressed.

Reach beyond the "usual suspects"

It's easy to bring together and talk to those people who are already powerfully involved in an issue, as well as those who love to sound off in public. Finding ways to include or represent the broader public, especially those whose voices have traditionally been excluded, is a more challenging proposition. This takes special, creative approaches to public outreach, dialogue and engagement. For examples of this in action, check out our list of case studies, as well as Planet Forward-- an innovative, multimedia example of ambitious grassroots engagement.

Look for more principles of public engagement here in the coming weeks. In the meantime, if you have any questions, just ask—either here, in the comments, or on our Facebook page or via Twitter. We also have many more tools to help foster community and public engagement. These include Choicework discussion guides, deliberative discussion starters for flexible use among diverse participants, and their corresponding videos; reports outlining engagement recommendations and principles; and case studies in community and state engagement.

Comment

10.14 Occupy Wall Street: Can it become a force for change?

Friday, October 14th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



Our system is broken. While our leaders bicker about inconsequential issues and refuse to have constructive dialogue about the important ones, the voice of the average American is lost entirely.

Members of the public feel frustrated, powerless and dissatisfied over the way issues are being addressed and who has access to that conversation. This frustration has frequently bubbled over into protest the past few years. The latest manifestation of a variety of populist movements, Occupy Wall Street, seems to have caught on as it overflows into other cities.

Some have criticized the Occupy Wall Street movement for being unclear and not iterating actionable solutions. We are most concerned that this populist phenomenon could get unwieldy without a positive vision of a better way to solve problems.

The public, for all of its frustration, IS optimistic. In a recent poll from CNN, 81% of respondents said the government can be fixed. Can the Occupy Wall Street movement become a force for change, rather than degenerating into an oversimplification of the nation's problems or adding to the us-versus-them, name-calling status quo?

An essential part of this will be a clearer vision of an alternate way forward, one that is pragmatic and that doesn't oversimplify the many challenges, economic and otherwise, facing our nation.

Public Agenda believes that a better way exists, one that is less polarizing and that channels conflict into a resolution instead of gridlock. We believe that diversity of opinion is healthy, but that disagreements must not be emphasized so much that shared aims are lost completely, and that pragmatic solutions to the real needs that people are struggling with must take precedence over partisan gamesmanship or ideological purity.

We are optimistic that our country can have productive conversations that include diverse points of view, reach resolution and work together to move forward as a people. Working toward this goal is the challenge of our times.


Photo by Mat McDermott via Flickr. Some rights reserved.

Comment

10.11 Engaging Your Community: Core Principles

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



We are swiftly approaching the heart of another election cycle, and the town halls and open forums have begun. If past election seasons are any guide, at best these will be genuine, though inept attempts at including the public's voice. At worst, they will be a calculated farce. Meanwhile, the government again barely averted a shutdown, and partisan bickering has moved into the territory of twitter hashtags.

What is the failure of events like town halls? As Dan Yankelovich, cofounder of Public Agenda, points out, during these public hearings, in which citizens supposedly express their views, two kinds of “voices” tend to predominate: the angriest and the most organized. The general public, and certainly those who have been traditionally marginalized, are rarely represented in any meaningful fashion.

Authentic public engagement, by contrast, is a highly inclusive problem-solving approach through which regular citizens deliberate and collaborate on complex public problems. While this may sound complicated, and even overwhelming, there are a number of logical and concrete considerations to take into account. Paying attention to them will increase your success in initiating more inclusive dialogue, deliberation and collaboration on tough issues in your community.

But why should you? If we want to solve the complex and urgent problems we face as a nation, we must have more honest, authentic, well-designed dialogue that gives voice to the broader public to counterbalance the partisan ideologues that tend to dominate the airwaves. Rather than relegating people to the sidelines, authentic engagement invites them to join the public dialogue surrounding a problem and provides them the tools to do so productively. As a result, leaders know where the public stands as problem solving progresses, while citizens themselves contribute to solutions through their input, ideas and actions.

In short, authentic and skillful engagement with a broad cross section of community members improves results by:

  • Bringing together multiple points of view in order to inform decisions.

  • Creating legitimacy and a sense of shared responsibility by involving the public and diverse stakeholders early and often in a change process, rather than after decisions have been made.

  • Fostering new allies and collaborations.

  • Stimulating broad awareness and momentum for change.

While broad-based public engagement is not possible or appropriate for every decision, it can be the right move for addressing many kinds of public problems and developing and implementing many important decisions and initiatives—particularly those whose success and long-term sustainability will depend on the support and concerted actions of many varied stakeholders.

Now, where to begin? Whether you are an expert on the policy issues facing your community or simply someone eager to start productive dialogue and actually get things done, there are a number of principles to keep in mind.

Based on our three decades of experience in engaging various publics in important issues, we have formulated ten principles of public engagement in a "primer" on the topic, published by our Center for Advances in Public Engagement. In the coming weeks, we will break these down for you step by step, examining each part of the process individually and in more detail.

First and perhaps foremost among these is:


Begin by listening

Understanding the public's starting point—where they enter the conversation Be alert to the issues that people in your community care about, the language they use to discuss them, and their concerns, aspirations, knowledge base, misperceptions and initial sense of direction with respect to solutions. Doing so will allow you to meet people where they are and engage them in ways that are meaningful in light of their interests, concerns and natural language. It will help you avoid making faulty assumptions about people’s positions or using jargon that, however useful to experts, is counterproductive when it comes to engaging the public.

Look for more principles of public engagement here in the coming weeks. In the meantime, if you have any questions, just ask—either here, in the comments, or on our Facebook page or via Twitter. We also have many more tools to help foster community and public engagement. These include Choicework discussion guides, deliberative discussion starters for flexible use among diverse participants, and their corresponding videos; reports outlining engagement recommendations and principles; and case studies in community and state engagement.

Comment

09.14 Twitter & The Freedom Trail: Citizen Networks For High-Octane Democracy

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 | Francie Grace



Social media - Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, foursquare and more - is changing the world in ways previously never even imagined. For Public Agenda, it's a great tool for constructive dialogue on contentious public policy issues, as Francie Grace, vice president, managing editor and director of social media for Public Agenda, explains in this speech delivered at the #140 Characters Conference in Boston.

It's awesome to be here at John Hancock Hall.

I'm a journalist, from Public Agenda, where strengthening democracy is the mission. It's a big job, and worth doing. Our tools include public opinion research, public engagement, and social networks which give citizens a direct voice: that's right, direct voice, no political party allegiances suggested or required.

We hope that after you've hear what we're doing, you'll join the discussion. And you might want to start some citizen networks of your own.

The folks in our networks are hashing out a long list of issues: climate change, immigration reform, education and higher education, the economy, and a lot more. On Twitter, you'll find us at @PublicAgenda, @TheEnergyBook, @FiscalFuture and @FacingUp. Like most of you here in this hall, we're also on the web, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr.

Here's what makes Public Agenda different from most of what's out there: we're really, truly nonpartisan. That's not, by the way, the opposite of being an active citizen. Our followers and fans are very active. They're not afraid, and we're not afraid, to get right out there with the hard facts.

That could lead to typical partisan finger-pointing. But it can also mean reaching across party lines to listen to other points of view and build practical solutions to the problems this country faces. Now that's pretty radical: talking to the other side.

The stuff that's going on in journalism and the printed word right now is also pretty radical. I'm sure that in the future, all news, TV, movies, books and everything else [even Mark Twain's new book] will be in a YouTube-type format. Everyone will be commenting and interacting with each other in real-time as they experience words, images and other content.

But before I say any more about participation, democracy, and nonpartisan citizen networks, I'd like to say how very cool it is to be here on the stage in Boston, home of the biggest signature on the Declaration of Independence.

Clashing Loyalties, Common Ground

No one knows the partisan spirit better than Boston, a local check-in for Scott Brown, the Kennedys, and the Red Sox, who can teach us a lot about bitter rivalries.

The Yankees know a lot about that too. It's a little scary to stand here in the midst of Red Sox nation and say: I'm from New York. And I do like the Yankees. That didn't stop me from visiting Fenway yesterday and I've got to admit: it's beautiful.

How many Red Sox fans here today? How about Yankee fans?

Okay, I see I don't have a lot of company. The truth is: I love New York, but I was born in Boston. And steps away from the Freedom Trail seems like a good place to think about strong feelings and partisan pursuits.

There's no love lost between the Red Sox and the Yankees - numerous incidents, some awful, some comical, have made that clear. You wouldn't think they could agree on anything.

But they do agree - on quite a lot. What happens at the end of every season? The team bosses size up each other's players, using the same yardstick of excellence, bidding up the prices for the guys they both know are the best.

So it is possible to hang onto the most passionate of loyalties, and at the very same time, have a firm, clear-headed grasp on the objective facts.

This is something we need to keep in mind in politics. We are divided into teams - Democrats, Republicans, Independents and more - and we might dislike each other quite a lot. But that doesn't mean we can't check our hatreds at the door, find some things we do agree on, and work together.

That's a big part of what Public Agenda is all about: nonpartisan problem-solving by citizens who really care about the kind of world we're living in, and the kind of nation we want to be.

Electing representatives and just hoping they somehow do good things: isn't that an antique way of thinking about democracy? Especially with web sites and social networks, there's no reason why citizens can't know more about the issues and get directly involved.

Public Engagement: Setting The Stage For Progress

Political parties have leapt onto Twitter - most of you probably saw the study on that last week. Most, however, are coloring only within their own party lines.

We'll never solve this nation's serious problems by talking only to folks who think exactly like we do. But we might get something done by sitting down with our opposites, respecting each other, and trading some things we like... for stuff we need or like even more. Would it really be so bad if both sides won?

"Which Side Are You On?" More than a question, that's also the title of one of folk music's most powerful songs, written nearly 80 years ago by Florence Reece, the wife of a union organizer in the Kentucky coal mines.

Which side are you on? It's fine to know what side you're on. And with time and age, you may find your beliefs evolving in surprising ways. Arlo Guthrie, who won early fame for Woodstock and opposition to the Vietnam War, today plays with the Boston Pops. He says there are only two sides now: the people who care, and those who really don't.

No matter what side you're on, it's not fine to think that yours is the only side that should make all the decisions. That's not what democracy is all about.

And if you're really interested in getting your way, consider this: bitter partisanship isn't the best way to persuade people to support your ideas.

Many years ago, when I was very, very short, some kids on the playground demanded to know who I was backing for president. I was only six, so the truth was: I had no idea, but asked to choose, I did.

My answer got me beat up - badly - and shoved under the merry-go-round. Not a nice place to be.

This bloody experience did not make me want to learn more about the candidate favored by the kids who put me there.

Today, I'm still not afraid to choose, and my political opinions are based on facts, not playground bullies. But here's a good question: with the serious problems this country has right now, is partisan name-calling the best way to get us across the finish line with some real solutions?

Do we really think that politicians, humiliated by critics and opponents, will ever be in the mood to compromise?

Nonpartisan discussion, on the other hand, and especially by ordinary citizens, can produce progress. So that's what we're doing at Public Agenda: providing opportunities for dialogue, looking at the pros and cons of various proposals so that you can decide what side you're on, and what kind of world you want to create.

Social Media: New Opportunities For Dialogue

Each of our websites and social networks has a slightly different focus, and the great thing is, every person who logs on - every person in this room - sees the world with slightly different eyes. Shouldn't your voice be part of the discussion on immigration, education, foreign policy and health care? You can talk about those issues and others on our web site, on Twitter and on Facebook.

And how about Swamp Thing: the 1950s horror movie-size national debt? Shouldn't your voice be part of the process as elected officials decide what to cut, who and what to tax, and how much to spend, on what?

The deficit commission makes its recommendations in December; we recommend you log onto Our Fiscal Future, learn about your choices, and take a stand.

And shouldn't you be part of the decision-making as our nation figures out what to do about climate change, which fuels to use, and how to pay for it all? You'll find that debate underway at Who Turned Out The Lights and on Twitter at @TheEnergyBook.

Journalists have an important role to play here: democracy depends on objective discovery of the facts. The change is painful, but there's opportunity, too. Journalism is transforming into a format with very strong participation from the people who used to be just the audience. This new, louder chase for news, truth and opinion doesn't have to be a partisan affair.

Political parties are important. But they should be a means to an end, not an end in themselves. John Adams once said:

"In politics, the middle way is none at all."
But when dealing with really serious problems, none at all isn't always an option. If Adams' words were a tweet, I might tweet back with this quote, from Ben Franklin:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Widespread participation is what makes our democracy hang together. So make sure that you are part of it, and all sides are invited.

Comment

08.01 Supported Students Graduate: Training For New College Completion Initiative Kicks off in Miami

Monday, August 1st, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



College completion can be a precarious path for many students, especially those enrolled in community college. Students need support to succeed, and providing this support is the aim of Completion by Design.

This new initiative, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, imagines a world where community college students receive the support, inspiration and challenge they need to succeed. The partners in Completion by Design aim to prevent loss and increase momentum throughout the college process, from before students set foot on campus to the moment they graduate.

To kick off the planning year of Completion by Design, several of our staff members headed to Miami Dade College for an engagement facilitation training session. The event brought together over 70 participants from each of the CbD community colleges. These participants represented colleges in four different states and ranged from faculty and administrators to financial aid associates and student counselors.

At the end of the training, our goal was to send these representatives back to their campuses, ready to facilitate and record productive and engaging meetings on their campuses about the success of their students.

Public Agenda's Will Friedman, Alison Kadlec, Isaac Rowlett and Jyoti Gupta joined our partners at the Center for Civic Participation and the Center for Public Deliberation, and used some of our tested and proven methods to train the participants in basic facilitation skills for small group discussions. The participants took turns role playing and practiced the skills of moderating and recording. After each session, participants, observers and trainers debriefed, assessing themselves and others and offering comments and feedback.

"People at the beginning felt very confident that facilitation was easy," said Isaac. "They run meetings and head up classrooms on a regular basis. Yet what we heard is that they found true facilitation to be much more complex than what they had anticipated, and they were eager to continue to learn more."

Challenges to meaningful, authentic and comprehensive facilitation abound. Ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to speak, remaining neutral, balancing competing perspectives, dealing with time constraints and addressing some deeply and personally important issues are just some of the skills the facilitators worked to develop at this training.

Following the training, the representatives headed back to their campuses prepared to facilitate, throughout the next year, internal discussions with faculty, administration, student services and others about the challenges behind college completion, focusing especially on preventing loss and improving momentum. By encouraging these discussions, community colleges will determine where they are losing students and work to fix these loss points.

"The exciting thing," said Jyoti, "is that the energy around facilitation and the local and campus capacity building this training provided can be applied to any student success effort going forward in the future."

Comment

07.11 Don't Know Much About FAFSA

Monday, July 11th, 2011 | Allison Rizzolo



What does "FAFSA" mean to you?

Were you able to recognize the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the gateway paperwork to both federal and institutional aid? If not, you’re not alone: a full half of all young adults—those who benefit directly from the FAFSA—don’t know what it is, according to a new Public Agenda survey, One Degree of Separation: How Young Americans Who Don't Finish College See Their Chances for Success. What’s more, among young people with only high school diplomas, less than three in 10 know that FAFSA has something to do with financial aid.

The survey, the third in a series probing young people's attitudes on higher education and college completion, examined the views of more than 600 young adults aged 26 to 34 years old, both those who completed either a college degree or postsecondary certificate and those whose highest credential is a high school diploma.

Last month we told you how, among participants in the first survey of this series, seven in 10 of those students who left college before getting a degree did not have financial aid or scholarships. Meanwhile, previous Public Agenda research shows that the public's belief that a college education is necessary to get ahead is rising. These knowledge gaps about how to find help to pay for school, then, can be fatal hurdles for young people.

It’s not that young people with only a high school diploma don’t want to pursue higher education. Among participants in One Degree of Separation, nearly 4 in 10 say they've given "a lot of thought" to going back to school. And students who don’t have a college diploma are less confident about their financial future: only 36 percent of high school graduates say it's "very likely" they'll be financially secure in their lifetime, compared to 55 percent of college graduates.

Yet, while high school graduates admit to doubts about their financial future without a college degree, they are also greatly skeptical that going into debt for college would be worth it. Only 37 percent of high school graduates "strongly agree" that, even if you have to take out a loan, going college is worth it in the long run. Some 54 percent of college graduates strongly agree. Among both groups, almost nine in 10 agree that students have to borrow too much money to pay for college.

What do you think? Did you or your children complete the FAFSA form? Do students these days have to take out too much money to pay for college? Is a college education worth it in the long run?

The complete One Degree of Separation report, including full survey details and methodology, is available at www.publicagenda.org/onedegreeofseparation. Previous surveys in this series, which was sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, revealed other critical hurdles that keep young people from completing their education, such as the difficulty of juggling school, work and family life; and the limited counseling many students receive. Have a look at the reports in the series and weigh in on your thoughts here.

Comment

1  . . .   40   41   42   Page 43    44   45   46  . . .  59  Next >>