Assessing Deliberation: Setting the Agenda, Implementing Policy, and Outcomes Lisa-Marie Napoli, Ph.D. Becky Nesbit, Doctoral Candidate Lisa Blomgren Bingham Keller-Runden Professor of Public Service and Director, Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs

AmericaSpeaks 21st Century Town Meetings Format: Deliberative democracy taken to scale (1000 to over 1,300 people in the cases studied here) Deliberative dialogue combined with computer technology and keypad polling Facilitated table discussions (10-12 people at each table) Includes both small and large group discussion for collective decision making Theme teams collect information, develop report Goal to examine relationship of deliberation event to the policy process, not quality of deliberation itself AS provides successful model in increasingly widespread use and thus good subject.

Research Questions How did agenda setting for these 21st Century Town Meetings™ occur? Were there policy recommendations that government implemented? What are the impacts or outcomes of the process?

Methodology Qualitative Research Structured interview protocol in person and on telephone Descriptive data, some Likert scale questions Analytical grounded theory N6 NUD*IST qualitative software for analysis Interview Data 66 people; 69 total interviews 24 participants: Citizens who attended Town Meeting 38 clients: Government, stakeholder organizations 4 AmericaSpeaks staff -- multiple interviews

21st Century Town Meetings in Three Cities Cincinnati, Ohio: Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (January 12, 2002) 19 participants, 15 clients, 3 AS staff Chicago, Illinois: Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (October 27, 2001) 5 participants, 11 clients, 1 AS staff Charlotte, North Carolina: United Agenda for Children under the auspices of The Lee Institute (December 11, 2004) 12 clients, 3 AS staff Participant survey research ongoing and not reported here

Agenda Setting Citizens played a substantial role in shaping the agenda for the 21st Century Town Meeting. AS used similar approaches in Midwest cities: public workshops to identify challenges and values relevant to regional plan. Collected and synthesized into an agenda for discussion at the Town Meeting In Charlotte, AS organized meetings with civil society in the form of nonprofit and social service organizations, government, and AS staff

Midwest Participants: Percent agree or strongly agree Better Under- standing Percentages Issues became Important

Town Meeting and Policy Process What is relation of Town Meeting agenda to policy process? Interviews: What decisions did the client organizations want to make as a result of the forum? Were there policy issues that emerged or surfaced during this project?

Client Interviews: Policy Recommendations? General policy areas discussed24% (9) Process intended to get public input, not recommendations 18% (7) School nurse recommendation (Charlotte) 18% (7) Final report created; not recommendations 16% (6) Specific policy recommendation11% (4) Don’t know recommendation5% (2)

Midwest Participant Interviews: Policy Recommendations Can not recall specific recommendations 63% (15) Regional plan created; not specific policy recommendations 25% (6) Not aware of policy recommendations 8% (2) General policy areas4% (1) Conclusion: Lack of Clarity on Relation of Forum to Policy Process

Implementation Open question: Is policy implementation a necessary part of planning for the deliberative process? During period of , AmericaSpeaks process helped Midwest communities generate priorities and recommendations for regional plans; implementation was up to clients. Committees, community action teams, accountability are issues OH had CATs (community action teams) AS changing process to plan for implementation up front

Client Interviews: Lack of Clarity about Implementation Too early to discuss18% (7) Policy recommendations implemented 16% (6) School nurse policy (Charlotte)16% (6) Don’t know anything13% (5) Committee responsible for overseeing implementation 11% (4) Not much implementation11% (4) Some implementation8% (3)

Midwest Participant Interviews: Implementation Do not know anything54% (13) Implementation process is just beginning 17% (4) Regional plan created13% (3) Involvement of community action group 4% (1) No policies implemented4% (1) Conclusion: Confusion about implementation

Impacts and Outcomes Positive, short-term outcomes: participants find the process energizing and engaging Participants gain a better understanding of community issues through their participation Cincinnati and Chicago produced planning reports, cited as successful implementation Longer term outcomes and impacts may depend on implementation and follow-through

Comparing Midwest Participants and Clients: Agree or Strongly Agree Percentages

Midwest Participants: Agree or Strongly Agree Percentages Reconsidered own Opinion Better Understanding of Policy Changes

Midwest Participant Interviews: Impacts & Outcomes Positive impact on citizen- government relationship 50% (12) Positive short-term impact of meeting; Uncertain future 17% (4) Negative or no impact on citizen- government relationship 17% (4) Potential is present to impact citizen-government relationship 8% (2)

Client Responses: Agree or Strongly Agree Satisfied with Recommendations Attention to Marginalized Groups Percentages

Client Interviews: Impacts & Outcomes Forum did not alleviate policy conflicts 42% (16) Process helped alleviate policy conflicts 39% (15) Positive impact on citizen- government relationship 66% (25) Town Meeting does not affect citizen-government relationship 16% (6) Unaware if citizen-government relationship affected 5% (2)

Conclusions 21st Century Town Meeting agendas are citizen driven Citizens and and client organizations need more clarity up front about the relationship between the forum and the policy process Impacts will depend on follow through, and right now there is limited evidence of government making concrete use of the plans or agendas from the meetings.