Assessing Deliberation: Setting the Agenda, Implementing Policy, and Outcomes

Lisa-Marie Napoli, Ph.D.

Becky Nesbit, Doctoral Candidate

Lisa Blomgren BinghamKeller-Runden Professor of Public Service and

Director, Indiana Conflict Resolution InstituteIndiana 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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

IssuesImportant at

Start

Informed onIssues

Participants

Better Under-standing

Per

cen

tag

es

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 discussed 24% (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 recommendation 11% (4)

Don’t know recommendation 5% (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 areas 4% (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 2001-2004, 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 discuss 18% (7)

Policy recommendations implemented

16% (6)

School nurse policy (Charlotte) 16% (6)

Don’t know anything 13% (5)

Committee responsible for overseeing implementation

11% (4)

Not much implementation 11% (4)

Some implementation 8% (3)

Midwest Participant Interviews: Implementation

Do not know anything 54% (13)

Implementation process is just beginning

17% (4)

Regional plan created 13% (3)

Involvement of community action group

4% (1)

No policies implemented 4% (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

0102030405060708090

Rec'sPromoteCommonInterests

IncreasedTrust of

Part's andGov't

Rec's Betterthan

PreviousOnes

ParticipantsClients

Per

cen

tag

es

Midwest Participants: Agree or Strongly Agree

0102030405060708090

100

OpinionsHeard by Gov't

Make aDifference

ParticipantsPer

cen

tag

es

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

IncreasedTrust b/wPart's and

Org's

ProcessIncreased

Knowledge

Clients

Satisfied with Recommendations

Attention to Marginalized Groups

Per

cent

ages

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.