Engaging Citizens: Building a Relationship Between Government and People

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/