1 / 29

Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Through Public Deliberation

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. Purpose of Study .

shandi
Download Presentation

Assessing Impacts of Citizen Engagement Through Public Deliberation

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. 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 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 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.

  4. Objectives For PPI Participants Con’t. • Determine what type of follow up resulted from local forums. • 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. • Determine if local forums explored specific issues in depth. • Determine if common ground identifying a policy direction was achieved. • 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 • Non-partisan, non-advocacy • Nation-wide network (about 30 states) • Issues identified each year • Issue books/videos • Local issue forums

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

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

  9. Public Problem Facts Myths Values/Beliefs Public Decision Anatomy of a Public Problem

  10. Collaboration • Oklahoma State University • University of Missouri • Kettering Foundation

  11. Instrument • Collaborative Development • Telephone Interview Format • Pilot Tested • California • Florida • South Dakota • West Virginia

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

  13. Public Policy Institute Participants Involvement In Issue Forums

  14. Number and Types of Forum Involvement

  15. Forum Involvement N=40

  16. Usefulness of Deliberative Approach

  17. Forum Participants • N = 118 • 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

  19. Participant Rating Of Forum Dynamics Part 1

  20. Participant Rating of Forum Dynamics Part 2

  21. Participant Rating of Forum Dynamics Part 3

  22. Outcomes of Issue Forums as Perceived by Participants

  23. Participant Use of the Forum Experience

  24. Other Participant Comments About Forum Experience

  25. Other Participant Comments About Forum Experience Con’t.

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

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

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

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

More Related