1 / 14

Engaging Citizens: Building a Relationship Between Government and People

Engaging Citizens: Building a Relationship Between Government and People. Presented by: Danny Lenz & Dave Vratny. Table of Contents . Design & Process Online Interaction: Budget Simulator Face-to-Face Interaction: Focus Groups & Youth Forums Results Inclusion in Budget Deliberations

salma
Download Presentation

Engaging Citizens: Building a Relationship Between Government and People

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Engaging Citizens: Building a Relationship Between Government and People Presented by: Danny Lenz & Dave Vratny

  2. Table of Contents • Design & Process • Online Interaction: Budget Simulator • Face-to-Face Interaction: Focus Groups & Youth Forums • Results • Inclusion in Budget Deliberations • Lessons Learned

  3. Design of the Engagement Tools • BOCC Direction • Change in leadership • Low public hearing attendance • Low County service recognition • Budget Reductions beyond “trimming the fat” • Requirements • Wide accessibility and direct citizen involvement • Understanding of why • Face-to-face interaction of citizens and Commissioners • Commissioner buy-in without domination • Citizen feedback on County services • Two track approach

  4. Budget Simulator • Research of online tools • Custom build vs. “off the shelf” • Question Development • Choosing services to include • County funded • No cost shifting • Direct Services • Department input on question selection • User Interface • Personal link to data • Service descriptions • Usability • Testing & Deployment

  5. Adult Focus Groups • One per Commissioner District – 6 Total • Target size – approximately 14 adults per group • Location/Time • Recruitment of Focus Groups • Importance of a Facilitator

  6. Youth Focus Groups • 6 Senior government related classes • One chosen from each District • Class takes the simulator in advance of the focus group

  7. Adult and Youth Focus Groups • Informational video – about Johnson County • 15-30 minutes spent on the simulator (except in Youth Focus Groups) • Simulator results tabulated on site • Facilitated conversation with focus groups members • Final Commissioner and Chairman comments

  8. Adult and Youth Focus Groups Sample of Facilitator Questions: • What was the easiest choice to make? • Why did you make the choice you did? • What impact or consequences could result? • Would you change anything as a result of the conversation? • What values should drive budget decisions? • How should residents be involved in the future?

  9. Results Consistent Findings Across Groups: • Chose inconvenience over reductions to vulnerable populations • Influence of personal experience • Change of opinions based on conversation • Importance of preserving core services (adult) • Small reductions have little support (adult) • Retain quality of life (adult) • Surprised by role of County government (student)

  10. Results General Feelings about Johnson County: • Feel the County is a good place to grow up and raise a family • Believe education one of the most important drivers • Between High School and raising a family want to live somewhere more exciting • If the right jobs are here students will come back

  11. Results Participant responses about the engagement: • Liked the face-to-face engagement • Interested in more information • See value in public engagement • More understanding on how the budget impacts their lives • Want to know how the results affect the outcome

  12. Inclusion in Budget Deliberations • Simulator results compared to the discussions • Agreement and Contradiction • Reporting out • Inclusion in the budget • Consistency • Deviations • Advisory not direction

  13. Lesson’s Learned • What we got wrong • Online submission numbers • Simulator design & content • Focus groups • What we got right • Broad access • Face-to-face interaction • Recommendations • Structural changes • Full circle engagement

  14. Questions? Contact Info: Danny Lenz – danny.lenz@jocogov.org David Vratny – david.vratny@jocogov.org You can use the Budget Simulator at: http://maps.jocogov.org/budgetsurvey/

More Related