1. 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

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

3. 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 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 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. Determine if local forums reached common ground or a direction for policy. Determine to what extent participants have convened, moderated, and/or recorded local issue forms or facilitated this process. 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 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. Determine if local forums reached common ground or a direction for policy.

4. Objectives For PPI Participants Con’t. Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums. Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums. Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional personal settings. Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional personal settings. Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums. Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums. Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional personal settings. Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional personal settings.

5. Objectives For Forum Participants Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional and personal settings. Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional and personal settings. Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth. Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth. Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was achieved. Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was achieved. Determine the extent of public action resulting from public forums. Determine the extent of public action resulting from public forums. Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional and personal settings. Identify how participants have used the deliberative approach in professional and personal settings. Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth. Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth. Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was achieved. Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was achieved. Determine the extent of public action resulting from public forums. Determine the extent of public action resulting from public forums.

6. National Issues Forums(NIF) Project Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Public Choice” program Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Public Choice” program Non-partisan, non-advocacy Non-partisan, non-advocacy Nation-wide network (about 30 states) Nation-wide network (about 30 states) Issues identified each year Issues identified each year Issue books/videos Issue books/videos Local issue forums Local issue forums Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Public Choice” program Part of Kettering’s “Citizens and Public Choice” program Non-partisan, non-advocacy Non-partisan, non-advocacy Nation-wide network (about 30 states) Nation-wide network (about 30 states) Issues identified each year Issues identified each year Issue books/videos Issue books/videos Local issue forums Local issue forums

7. National Issues Forums (NIF) Philosophy “… rooted in the simple notion that people need to come together to people need to come together to reason and talk – to deliberate reason and talk – to deliberate about common problems. Indeed, about common problems. Indeed, democracy requires an on-going democracy requires an on-going deliberative dialogue.” deliberative dialogue.” NIF Overview NIF Overview “… rooted in the simple notion that people need to come together to people need to come together to reason and talk – to deliberate reason and talk – to deliberate about common problems. Indeed, about common problems. Indeed, democracy requires an on-going democracy requires an on-going deliberative dialogue.” deliberative dialogue.” NIF Overview NIF Overview

8. Public Deliberation A structured dialogue framed using 3-4 A structured dialogue framed using 3-4 policy approaches policy approaches A means to make tough choices about policy directions A means to make tough choices about policy directions A way of reasoning and talking together A way of reasoning and talking together - Weighs the views of other - Considers consequences and trade-offs - Respects the perspectives and values of others others A means to find common ground for action A means to find common ground for action A structured dialogue framed using 3-4 A structured dialogue framed using 3-4 policy approaches policy approaches A means to make tough choices about policy directions A means to make tough choices about policy directions A way of reasoning and talking together A way of reasoning and talking together - Weighs the views of other - Considers consequences and trade-offs - Respects the perspectives and values of others others A means to find common ground for action A means to find common ground for action

9. Anatomy of a Public Problem Public Problem FactsMythsValues/Beliefs Public Decision

10. CollaborationCollaboration Oklahoma State University Oklahoma State University University of Missouri Kettering Foundation

11. InstrumentInstrument Collaborative Development Collaborative Development Telephone Interview Format Telephone Interview Format Pilot Tested Pilot Tested –California –Florida –South Dakota –West Virginia Collaborative Development Collaborative Development Telephone Interview Format Telephone Interview Format Pilot Tested Pilot Tested –California –Florida –South Dakota –West Virginia

12. SampleSample Participants of five PPI’s (N=87) Participants of five PPI’s (N=87) Forum Participants (N=118) Forum Participants (N=118) Participants of five PPI’s (N=87) Participants of five PPI’s (N=87) Forum Participants (N=118) Forum Participants (N=118)

13. Public Policy Institute Participants Involvement In Issue Forums Number of Forums Number Number Percent of Total None 47 47 54.0 54.0 1-4 28 28 32.2 32.2 5-10 6 6.9 6.9 11-21 6 Total 87 87 100 100

14. Number and Types of Forum Involvement Issue Area Number of Forums Involved With Percent of Total Responses Family Centered Issues 18 18 18.6 18.6 Environmental Issues 6 6.2 6.2 Land Use Issues 20 20 20.6 20.6 Economic Issues 4 4.1 4.1 Race Related 10 10 10.3 10.3 Death & Dying 7 7.2 7.2 Governing 6 6.2 6.2 Community Related 13 13 13.4 13.4 All Other Issue Areas 13 13 13.4 13.4

15. Forum Involvement N=40 Forum Involvement N=40 Type of Involvement Number of Participants Percent of Total Organized group to support forums 23 23 57.5 57.5 Convened a forum 28 28 70.0 70.0 Moderated a forum 32 32 80.0 80.0 Recorded a forum 26 26 65.0 65.0 Participated in forum 15 15 37.5 37.5

16. Usefulness of Deliberative Approach Usefulness of Deliberative Approach Use of the deliberative approach Number Using Percent of Total Number rating Useful Very Useful Percent rating Useful Very Useful In your work 73 73 83.9 83.9 54 54 74.0 74.0 In your family life 46 46 52.9 52.9 8 17.4 17.4 In your civic life 59 59 67.8 67.8 41 41 69.5 69.5 In your religious community 26 26 29.9 29.9 15 15 57.7 57.7 In dealing with public issues 59 59 67.8 67.8 48 48 81.4 81.4

17. Forum Participants N = 118 N = 118 Three Counties In Missouri 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

18. Participant Preparation for the Forums Participant Preparation for the Forums Actions Taken Actions Taken Number Number Percent of Total Percent of Total Read materials 68 68 57.6 57.6 Discussed with others 72 72 61.0 61.0 Thought about the issue 101 101 85.6 85.6 Sought added information 30 30 25.4 25.4 Tried to get local information 54 54 45.8 45.8

19. Participant Rating Of Forum Dynamics Part 1 Participant Rating Of Forum Dynamics Part 1 Forum Dynamic Forum Dynamic Number Rating Dynam Charac. or Very Charac Percent of Total Percent of Total Forum was held in comfortable setting 96 96 81.4 81.4 All were encouraged to share their views 113 113 95.7 95.7 Moderator dominated the deliberation 18 18 15.3 15.3 Deliber. weighed costs/ benefits of each choice 60 60 50.9 50.9 A few did all the talking 51 51 43.2 43.2 There was ample opportunity to talk 112 112 94.9 94.9

20. Participant Rating of Forum Dynamics Part 2 Forum Dynamic Forum Dynamic Number Rating Dynamic Charac. Very Charac. Number Rating Dynamic Charac. Very Charac. Percent of Total Percent of Total Moderator was neutral 103 103 87.3 87.3 Differing views were expressed 97 97 82.2 82.2 All opinions were heard 112 112 94.9 94.9 Audience was diverse 75 75 63.5 63.5 Conversation was free- flowing 94 94 79.6 79.6 Persps. of those not present were consid’d. 37 37 31.3 31.3

21. Participant Rating of Forum Dynamics Part 3 Forum Dynamic Forum Dynamic Number rating Dynamic Charac. or Very Charac. Percent of Total Percent of Total Each choice got a fair and equal treatment 109 109 92.4 92.4 The issues and choices were clearly presented 95 95 80.5 80.5 Trade-offs and conseqs were considered 80 80 67.8 67.8 Common ground was identified 78 78 66.2 66.2 Comm. awareness about the issues increased 70 70 59.4 59.4

22. Outcomes of Issue Forums as Perceived by Participants Outcome Outcome Number indicating Number indicating “yes” “yes” Percent of total Percent of total indicating “yes” indicating “yes” A comm. task force or committee was organized 50 50 42.4 42.4 Contact was made with office holders 73 73 61.9 61.9 A study group was formed 50 50 42.4 42.4 Additional forums planned or conducted 70 70 59.3 59.3 Stories about the issue were feat. in local media 98 98 83.1 83.1 Issue is “now on the table” in the community 45 45 38.1 38.1 Partics.began to network with others on the issue 61 61 51.7 51.7

23. Participant Use of the Forum Experience Type of Participant Response Number indicating “yes” “yes” Percent of Total indicating “yes” Changed perspective on the issue 30 30 25.4 25.4 Changed how you talk to people about the issue 37 37 31.4 31.4 Shared materials with others 71 71 60.2 60.2 Organized another forum with other people 8 6.8 6.8 Organized a group to work on the issue 14 14 11.9 11.9 Joined a group to work on the issue 15 15 12.7 12.7

24. Other Participant Comments About Forum Experience Response Category Total Responses Percent of Grand Total Number of Positive/Neu- tr. Comments Number of Negative Comments See Issue - Forums as a Comm. Tool 17 17 11.60 11.60 16 16 1 Publicity, Awareness, Participation 10 10 6.90 6.90 3 7 Educational, Increased Knowledge 9 6.20 6.20 8 1 Preference Ranking Tool 9 6.20 6.20 0 9 Solutions,Outcomes 8 5.50 5.50 5 3

25. Other Participant Comments About Forum Experience Con’t. ResponseCategoryTotalResponses Percent of Grand Total Number of Pos./NeutralComments NegativeComments Moderation,Presentation 8 5.48 5.48 7 1 “Their Agenda” 6 4.11 4.11 1 5 Forum Structure 5 3.42 3.42 0 5 All Other Comments 18 18 12.3 12.3 13 13 5 None 56 56 38.4 38.4 Total 146 146 100 100 53 53 37 37

26. Conclusions for PPI Participants Use of Deliberative Approach Use of Deliberative Approach 46% active after the PPI participated in teams participated in teams returned to the community and formed a team-58% returned to the community and formed a team-58% participated in a forum soon after PPI participated in a forum soon after PPI Type of Use and Usefulness Type of Use and Usefulness Three highest ratings WorkWork civic life civic life dealing with the public dealing with the public

27. Conclusions for Forum Participants High Forum Ratings Exploring Issues In Depth High Forum Ratings Exploring Issues In Depth Weighing costs and benefitsWeighing costs and benefits Fair and equal treatment of choicesFair and equal treatment of choices Trade-offs and consequencesTrade-offs and consequences Identification of Common Ground Identification of Common Ground

28. Conclusions for Forum Participants Con’t. Extent of Action  Community Local mediaLocal media Office holdersOffice holders Additional forumsAdditional forums  Individual Sharing materials with othersSharing materials with others Changed how one talks to people about issueChanged how one talks to people about issue Changed perspective on the issueChanged perspective on the issue

29. For More Information Contact Sue Williams, Ph.D. Family Policy Specialist 405-744-6825 405-744-6825 sarahk@okstate.edu sarahk@okstate.edu Renee Daugherty, Ph.D. Education Methods Specialist 405-744-5776 radaugh@okstate.edu