Creating Spaces

for Change: Workingtowarda“storyofnow” incivicengagement

One MichiganAvenue EastBattle Creek, MI49017-4058USA269-968-1611TDD on siteTelex: 4953028Facsimile: 269-968-0413Internet: http://www.wkkf.org

“The W.K. Kellogg Foundation supports children, families and communities as they strengthen and create conditions that propel vulnerable children

to achieve success as individuals and as contributors to the larger community and society.” W.K. Kellogg Foundation Mission Statement, adopted December 2007

TheW.K.KelloggFoundation’s revisedmissionstatementreflects the foundation’sefforts tomoresharply focus itswork in alignment with W.K. Kellogg’s original intent. Part of that effort consists of a new strategic framework,whichintegratesprogramminginourareasofexpertise(EducationandLearning;Food,HealthandWell-Being;andFamilyEconomicSecurity),andwhichsupportsandunifiesthatprogrammingwithaninstitutionalcommitmenttoCivicEngagementandRacialEquity.In our on-going work to act on those commitments, in 2008 the foundation launched a “learning year,” featur-ingadialogueamong40organizations fromacross thecountry,all committed tocivicengagement,albeitusingavarietyofapproaches,withavarietyofobjectives.Theoutcomewasa rich,oftenchallenging,alwaysenlighteningconversationaboutcivicengagementmeans,goalsandterminology,amongpractitionerstoooftensiloedbytheirfieldortheirnetwork.Commissioned by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and written by Matt Leighninger of the Deliberative DemocracyConsortium, this paper reviews that conversation and extends an invitation to both deliberative democracy anddialoguepractitionersandtocommunityorganizerstocontinueit.Indoingso,itinvitescivicengagementpractitionersfromdiverseschoolsofthoughttoraiseandtackletough,importantquestions;todeepentheirmutualunderstandingofotherpracticesandapproaches,andofthevaluesunderlyingandunifyingtheirwork;andtoproposeideasforworkingtogethermoreeffectively,andwithgreaterimpact.Wehopethatasfundersandpractitioners,youwillreadthispaperbothasaninvitationtodialogueandasapathtomore innovative, inclusiveandeffective civic engagement in supporting children, familiesandcommunities in theireffortstohelpvulnerablechildrensucceed.Sincerely,

SterlingK.SpeirnAnneB.MoslePresident/CEOVicePresident–ProgramsW.K.KelloggFoundationW.K.KelloggFoundation

Whendescribinghowpeoplecometogethertoworkonissuesofcommonconcern,Marshall Ganzliststhreenecessarynarratives:the‘storyofself,’the‘storyofus,’andthe‘storyofnow.’Peopleneedtotellthestoryofselfinordertoarticulate(forthem-selvesaswellasothers)whytheycareaboutwhatthey’redoing.Collectively,theyneedtoweaveastoryofusthatencompassesthosesharedhopesandconcerns.Andtheymustdevelopastoryofnowthathelpsthemtranslatethoseambitionsintoaction.Thissimpleformulagainedvisibilityduringthe2008presidentialelection,whichwashistoricforthesheervolumeofcivicengagementbypeopleofbothpoliticalparties.Byaskingthemtodevelopthesethreenarratives,Ganzhelpedpreparethousandsofcitizenstoworkcohesivelyandeffectivelyonthepresidentialcampaign.1

Inthediverse,diffuse,andexpandingfieldofcivicengagement,wearetryingtoweavetogether those same threenarratives.Perhaps themaindividing line, andareaofnegotiation,liesbetweenthepeoplewhodescribethisworkmainlyintermsof“justice”or“equity,”suchascommunityorganizers,andthosewhoframeitintermsof“democ-racy”and“publicdeliberation.”Thesefriendly,intense,difficultstruggleshavebeenevident throughout the Kellogg Foundation’s Civic Engagement Learning Year(CELY),andtheywereondisplayat“NoBetterTime:PromisingOpportunities inDeliberative Democracy for Educators and Practitioners” (NBT), a conferenceorganizedbytheDemocracyImperativeandtheDeliberativeDemocracyConsortium.2The“storyofself”foreachsubsetofthefieldisbecomingmorewidelyknown;the“storyofus”isbeginningtocometogether,thoughchallengesremain;the“storyofnow”liesbeforeus,waitingtobejointlycreated.

Perhapsthemostpromisingdevelopmentisthat,astheyhaveheardoneanother’sstories, leaders representing the different forms of civic engagement have beenimpressed by the high level of collective commitment and mutual interest. Peoplerecognize that while they come to this work from different directions, they havelearned many of the same lessons and share many of the same goals. “It wasenlightening to see how many different kinds of people are committed to civicengagement,” says Jah’Shams Abdul-Mumin of the Los Angeles nonprofit Suc-cess:ANewBeginning.“Wemayusedifferentterminologyandhavedifferentlocalissues,butmostofthediscussionwasabouthowsimilarourworkis,”agreedEduardo MartinezoftheNewMexicoForumforYouthinCommunity.Thesegrowingrelation-shipsarecriticalassets for thefield;“relational transformation isoftennecessarybefore individualscandoanything together,”arguesHal Saundersof theInterna-tionalInstituteforSustainedDialogueandtheKetteringFoundation.

Forcivicengagementtodevelopfromadiffusesetofactivitiesintoamorecohesive,coherent field, these leaders will need to work out shared, mutually satisfactoryanswers to some fundamental questions about power and equity. How should webalance the need for equitable, inclusive processes with the desire for equitableoutcomes?Canweincorporatewhatwehavelearnedaboutorganizing,mobilizing,andinvolvingcitizensinthewayourcommunitiesfunction,sothatcivicengagementbecomesaregular,broadlysupportedcomponentofgovernanceratherthanaseriesof adhoc, intermittent, under-resourced exercises?Ultimately, howcanwe createsystemswherepeoplefeelvalued,independent,andpowerful?

The events that informed this report

The Civic Engagement Learning Year was

funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and

coordinated by PolicyLink in 2008-2009. It

engaged representatives from over 40

organizations across the U.S. to promote

learning within civic engagement through a

series of national convenings, working groups,

online exchanges, and joint projects among

organizations who approach civic engagement

from different perspectives, including community

organizing, deliberative democracy, race and

equity, youth and next generation leadership,

communications and technology, and outcome

measurement.

“No Better Time: Promising Opportunities in

Deliberative Democracy for Educators and

Practitioners” was a three-day conference in July

2009 that brought together over 250 practitioners

and researchers from the U.S. and other parts of

the world. It was organized by The Democracy

Imperative and by the Deliberative Democracy

Consortium. The focus of the conference, as the

title implies, was on deliberative democracy,

but it also attracted people who represent a

more explicit justice or equity perspective.

“Creating Spaces for Change” was written by Matt

Leighninger, Deliberative Democracy Consortium.

1

Who are we? The roots and branches of active civic engagement

“Active civic engagement” is a rather dry term for a concept with a rich historicaltradition. The work as we know it today is descended from at least a century ofsocialmovements:effortstomobilizeordinarypeopletoadvocatefortheirinterests.Thesemovementsforcivilrights,women’srights,labor,andothercauseshaveleftdeep imprints on the values and tactics of civic engagement today. Most currentpractitionersthinkoftheirworkaseitherdirectlyorindirectlycontributingtovalueslikejustice,liberty,andequity;theyarealltryingtomaximize“thepowerofpeopletomakechange,”asMartha McCoyofEverydayDemocracyputsit.Manyofthebasicstrategiespioneeredinthosemovementsarestillevident:emphasizingnetworksandrelationshipstorecruitpeople,givingpeopleopportunitiestosharetheirstoriesanddecidewhattheywanttoachieve,andencouragingpeopleinallkindsofactionefforts,fromvolunteerismtoadvocacy.

On the other hand, even though people in this field still like to use the term“movement”todescribetheirwork,civicengagementhaslostmuchofitsmovementflavor.Forexample,eventhoughmanycommunityorganizerstracetheirworktothehistoricalcontributionsofpeople likeCesarChavez,JaneAddams,or theRev.Dr.MartinLutherKing,Jr.,theyseemlesslikelytoconnectwhattheyaredoinglocallywithanypresent-daynational leadersor organizations.Furthermore, these tacticsarebeingusedinawidervarietyofsettings,partlybecausepeoplewhostartedoutascommunityorganizershavegoneontoserveaspublicofficialsandinmanyotherdecision-makingroles.Thesepolicymakershaveadaptedtheskillsandphilosophiesof traditional community organizing to fit the perspectives and needs of theirnewpositions.

Thereisasimilardegreeofdiversity–andasimilardisconnectbetween“national”leadersandtheir localcounterparts–within thesetofpeopleworkingtoadvancedeliberative democracy. The leaders who are mobilizing citizens to address publicissues, consider different policy options, and create action plans include publicofficials, planners, human relations commissioners, school administrators, policeofficials,funders,andneighborhoodleaders.Mostofthesepeopledon’tidentifywith“deliberativedemocracy”–andmanyhaveneverevenheardoftheterm.

Infact,deliberativedemocracymaybethemostmuddled,leastunderstoodstrandofcivicengagement.Partofwhathappenedatthe“NoBetterTime”conferencewasthe advocates of deliberative democracy explaining, to themselves as well as toothers,wheretheyhavecomefromandwheretheyaretryingtogo.Theytoohaveincorporated, and lifted up, elements of the earlier protest movements, includingcritical masses of participants, small groups that feature storytelling as well asdeliberation,andactionatarangeoflevels.Buttheyarejustaslikelytotracethesepracticestothegrassrootsadulteducationformatsofthelate19thCentury,ortothetownmeetingsof18thCenturyNewEngland,oreventoancientAthens.3

Key Terms

Citizen: There is intense discussion about the

use of the word “citizen.” Some argue that it has

acquired an exclusive meaning that privileges

some people at the expense of others. “It sends

a message of exclusion, especially with the

immigrant backlash,” says Maggie Potapchuk

of MP Associates. Others argue that we should

try to revive its broader, historic meaning rather

than giving it up entirely. In this guide, I use the

term “citizens” to refer to all kinds of residents,

not just citizens in the narrow legal sense.

Civic engagement is also a widely contested

term; it has been used to describe traditional

political activities, like voting; more active forms

of participation in government, such as public

meetings or advocacy work; and categories

of public opinion, like the level of attachment

that residents feel for their communities. This

report focuses on two of the main forms of active

civic engagement: community organizing and

deliberative democracy. Practitioners of these

approaches mobilize ordinary people to influence

and inform public decision-making, and (in some

cases) to contribute their own effort and ideas to

public problem-solving.

2

What confuses everyone else, at least in part, is that many of the practitioners and researcherswho identifywith“deliberativedemocracy”seedeliberationanddialogueamongdiversegroupsofpeopleasanendinitself,notjustavehicleforcombatinginjusticeandinequality.Theythinkofcitizenparticipationasbothaprocessandanoutcome.AsLaura HarrisofAmericansforIndianOpportunityputsit,“OurCELYgroupwassurprisedthatnoteveryonedefinescivicengagementasbeingallaboutsocialjustice.”

There is an important racial dynamic at work here as well: most of these deliberative democracyadvocates,atleastatthenationallevel,arewhite,whereastheleadersofcommunityorganizingandracial equity are a racially diverse group. Maggie Potapchuk ofMPAssociates says that“Racialequityorganizationshavenotfullyutilizedorevenbeenawareofdeliberativedemocracytechnologiesandprocesses.Thedisinterest ispartlydue to theperception/reality thatdeliberativedemocracy ispredominantlya‘whitefield’thatmaynotembraceprinciplesofequity.”

Whydidthishappen?Howdidasetofpeoplewhosharesomanyofthesameinfluencesandgoalsbecomesosegregatedthat theynowhave troubleseeingwhat theyhave incommon?Anumberofreasonshavebeenproposed.Somepeoplepointoutthatthe“national”or“organized”leadersaren’trepresentative of thepeople organizingdeliberative democracy efforts on theground– that at thecommunitylevel,thepractitionersaremuchmoreracially(andpolitically)diversethananyoftheofnationalcivicengagementcamps.Othersarguethatfewpeoplehavetheluxuryofdevotingtheirtimetoissuesofdemocracyandcitizenship,andthatthedemographicmakeupoftheinstitutionsofferingthosekindsofjobs–universities,foundations,certainnonprofitorganizations–tendsnottoreflecttheracialdiversityofthepopulationasawhole.

3

Personally, I wonder if another part of the answer liesin how the leadership of social movements changedover the last half-century. Before the 1960s, it wasquite common for white people, and white males inparticular,tobeamongtheleadingadvocatesonbehalfofothers–doingmuchofthetalking,helpingtocarrythebanner for the poor, orwomen, or people of color.Butby the end of the ‘60s the leaders of those movementswere almost invariably people who represented thosepopulations:peopleofcolor,women,andpoorpeoplewerethe ones doing all of the leading, talking, and banner-waving.BythetimeIgottocollegeinthe‘90s,itseemedevenmoreobviousthatotherdemographicgroupsdidn’tneedwhitemaleslikemeinthemostvisible,publiclead-ershiproles.Therewas,however,aneedforpublicspaceswhereallkindsofpeoplecoulddotheirowntalking–andwherethattalkcouldactuallyhaveanimpactonpoliticaldecisionsand,ultimately,onthelivingconditionsofordi-narypeople.4Sodeliberativedemocracy,whichtosomemay seem like an unappealing abstraction, became forothersofusacompelling,concretestrategyforachievingjustice, liberty,andequity.Astheworkhasproliferatedandastheorganizationshavebecomemoreestablished,wefindourselveswithasetofnationalleaderswhotalkininspiringtermsabouttheneedtoreorientdemocracyaround the needs of the broader public – and who arethemselves not terribly representative of that broaderpublic.Forme,thisisasomewhatawkwardrealization,becauseinthisanalysis,theworkofpeoplelikemecanalsobeviewedasawayforustomaintainourownposi-tionsandperceptionsofleadershipandworthtosociety–andinspiteofthat,Ithinkthatitisofworthtosociety.

Other factors contribute to the divide between thenationalandlocaladvocatesofcivicengagement(orthe“formal and informal fields” as Eduardo Martinezdescribed them). One factor may be the attitudes andcommunication styles of some of the national leaders.For example, “The organizing community often treatspeople in a pejorative manner,” argues Jah’Shams Abdul-Mumin. “Meanwhile, the deliberative democracycrowdincludesalotofextremelyintellectualtypes,”hesays.“Neithergroupownsuptothethingstheycandobettertorelatetopeople.”

national-levelpractitioners

and academics

local civic engagementleaders and practitioners

can also be described as the‘formal’ and ‘informal’ fields

Civic engagement is divided by geography, with some (but not enough)

overlap between local leaders and the academic researchers and

practitioners who communicate nationally.

Civic engagement is also divided by the issues people are working on locally.

crime youth issues

planning andland use

education

other issuesrace and difference

poverty public finance

4

Finally, localcivicengagementpractitionersmaysimplyhavea more pragmatic view of their work than the nationalleaders. They are motivated primarily by the need to makeprogress on a particular issue area, such as education, crimeprevention, race and difference, land use, poverty, or publicfinance. Many of the public officials are motivated by badexperiences in the past – they are trying to find ways ofworking with the public that reduce tension, rebuild trust,andleadtobetter,moreinformedpolicydecisions.Theydon’tnecessarilythinkoftheireffortsashavingtodowithdemocracyordeliberation.Similarly, localcommunityorganizersmaybeless likely than their national counterparts to use terms likesocialjustice.

These disconnects are apparent in the practice of civicengagement:somelocaleffortsappeartohavebeenmodeledonexamples from other communities, or based on guidelinesprovidedbyanationalorganization,butmanyothersseemtohavebeencreatedfromwholecloth.It isdifficult toestimatejusthowmanyofthese‘home-grown’effortshavetakenplace.One example is the state of California, where “Hundreds ofdeliberativeparticipationactivitiesaretakingplaceannually,”reportsTerry AmsleroftheCollaborativeGovernanceInitiativeof theInstitute forLocalGovernment.“Mostof themappeartobehomegrown,eithermanagedbycityorcountystafforbyprivateconsultingfirms.”Thebestprojectstendtoexhibitsomeof thesameprinciples– localorganizerssimply learnedthembytrialanderror,orappliedthemfrompreviousexperiencesinworkingwithcitizens.

Onethingseemsclear:thedemandforthiskindofworkisout-strippingthecapacityofthecivicengagement‘field’todescribeandsupportit.Asactivecivicengagementhasevolvedfromaseriesofsocialmovements,andanevenoldersetofdemocratictraditions,ithasbecomemorecommonandlessclearlydefined.“Peopledoingthisworkonthegroundneedpracticalapplica-tions they can use immediately,” says BongHwan Kim of theLosAngelesDepartmentofNeighborhoodEmpowerment,“andtheyoftendon’tknowwheretoturn.Infact,theyoftenfailtorealizethatotherpeoplearefacingthesamechallenges,sotheytrytoreinventthewheel.”Atatimewhenknowledgeabouthowtoorganize,mobilize,and involvecitizens ismoreneeded,bymoredifferentkindsofleaders,thaneverbefore,fewerpeopleseem to recognize that this knowledge already exists, or thatthereareorganizationsandindividualsequippedtohelpthemuseit. 5

What do we have in common? Riding the tide of civic change “simotiously”

Thisproliferationofcivicengagementactivitiesseemstobepropelledbylargershiftsincitizenshipandtherelationshipbetweenresidentsandgovernments.Overthelasttwentyyears,ordinarypeoplehavedevelopednewcivicattitudesandcapacities;theyarebettereducated,morediverse,lessapttodefertogovernmentandotherformsofauthority,moreadeptatusingnewtechnologies,andmorewillingtotakeproductive(ordisruptive)rolesinpublicdecision-making.

Allkindsofleaders–notjustelectedofficialsbutanyonewithanykindofmembershiporconstituency–havehadtoadjusttotheseshifts,andallthenewtensionsandopportunitiestheybring.Anumberofcommonadaptationshavedeveloped,oftenseparatelyfromoneanother.Michael Brown,fromtheNewMexicoForum forYouth inCommunity, describes it eloquently and creativelywhen he says that civicengagementworkhasevolved“’simotiously.’”

Allofthedifferentstrandsofcivicengagementhavebeenaffectedbythistideofcivicchange,anditseemstohavecreatedmorecommonalitiesbetweenthem:

6

•Becomingmoreproactiveinthewaystheyreachouttoallkindsofcitizens,whoarebusierthaneverandmoreselectiveabouthowtheyspendtheirtime.

•Becomingmorecommittedtobringingtogetherdifferentkindsofpeople–acrosslinesofraceandclass,politicalaffiliation,ordecision-makersvs.residents–sothatthosepeoplecaninteract,dialogue,andnegotiatedirectlyratherthanthroughintermediaries.

•Providingmoreopportunitiesforpeopletosharetheirexperiences–asJohn EsterleoftheWhitmanInstituteputsit,“emphasizingthepowerofstory.”

•Givingpeoplemoreopportunitiestomakeuptheirownmindsandtakeinitiativethemselves–Ian BautistaoftheUnitedNeighborhoodCentersofAmericasaysthatinhiswork,the“predispositiontowardworking‘with,’not‘on,’or‘for,’isanotherkeytietodemocraticpracticesanddeliberation.”

•Becomingmoreinsistentontheneedforpoliticallegitimacy,anddevelopingmoresophisticatedanalysesofhowpoweroperatesincommunities(thoughthedifferentcivicengagementcampscontinuetousedifferentlanguageaboutpower–moreonthatonthenextpage).

7

The notion of “deliberation” is often identified with advocates of deliberative democracy, but somecommunityorganizersarguethatwhiletheydon’talwaysnameitexplicitly,theideafiguresprominentlyintheirworkaswell.“Thepracticeofdeliberativedialogue...isalreadyutilizedbyourorganizationtocollectcommunityvoiceonanumberofissues,”saysEduardo Martinez.“Whilewedidnotrefertotheprocessas‘deliberativedialogue,’thedialogueprocessusuallyopensourForumsand/orcommunityplanningsessionsasanintroductiontodeeperstrategicorcommunityplanningsessions.”

ThesharedlessonsbecamemoreevidentthoughtheCELYmeetingsandtheNBTconference,totheextentthatdifferentkindsofpractitionersfeltthattheyarenowallinthesameboat.Manystereotypesfellbythewayside:itbecameapparentthatcommunityorganizersarejustaslikelytobuildrelationshipsandnegotiate with local officials as they are to “march on City Hall;” it was revealed that deliberativedemocracy practitioners do not routinely win “million-dollar grants.” It became clear to communityorganizersthatdeliberativedemocratsdoinfactcaredeeplyaboutmovingfromdialoguetoactionandtangibleoutcomes;deliberativedemocratswerereassuredthatcommunityorganizerscaredeeplyaboutthequalityofthediscussionstheyleadandconvene.“Stereotypesarenatural,”saysDanielle AtkinsonofMichiganVoice,“andthey’reoftenbasedinsomesortofreality–communityorganizersmaycaremostaboutaction,deliberativedemocracypeoplemayfocusmoreontalk.Butwhenwegettogether,werealizewehavealotmoreincommon,andthatthe‘other’isnottheenemy.”

A key part of puncturing these stereotypes was enabling participants to get beyond the sometimesimpenetrabletermsthataresocommonincivicengagement.Oncetheyunderstoodthelabelsmorefully,peoplerecognizedthesharedprinciplesthatlaybehindthem.Forexample,onecommonlyheardrefrainfrompeoplewhohadjustbeenintroducedtotheconceptofdeliberativedemocracywas“Ididn’tknowtherewasanameforwhatIwasalreadydoing.”5Differentpeoplegaveprominencetodifferentterms–forexample,Danielle Atkinsondefineddeliberativedemocracyasasubsetofcommunityorganizing–butitwasclearthattheyhadagreatdealincommon.

Someparticipantsdescribedthisrealizationinpersonallysignificantterms.“IhadanepiphanyinNewHampshire,” says William Burton of Common Ground Resolution Services. “I hadn’t expected to seeall thesealignmentswith things that I’malreadydoing.Oneof themost exciting takeaways forme isthat this field is a work in progress – I felt like ‘I’ve got to get in on this.’” The term “deliberativeorganizing,”coinedbyMaryanne GalindoofSuccess:ANewBeginning,begantogainsomecurrencyasawayofdescribingthemeldingofthesedifferentapproachestocivicengagement.

8

...And what are the differences?

Intherushofunexpectedharmonyandgoodfeeling,however,itisalmosttooeasytoglossoverthefactthatsomesignificantdifferencesremainbetweencivicengagementapproaches.Furthermore,thesedistinc-tionsmaybecomemorecritical,notless,astherisingtideofcitizenenergiesandexpectationsleadstoheightenedinterestinthewaysthatpeopleinteractwiththeirinstitutions.Inotherwords,ifthereisgreaterdemandforcivicengagement,itwillbecomemoreimportantthatwehaveacommonunderstandingofwhatengagementmeans.

Difference #1: Naming ‘the field’ and the goals of the work

Thereseemstobebroadagreementamongpeoplerepresentingdifferentstrandsofcivicengagementthatthelanguageweuseisoftenanobstacle.“Languageproblemsalwayshappentonewmovements,”Laura Harrislaments.6Therearetwolevelstothisdiscussion:themoresuperficialquestionaboutthetermsandlabelsweusetodescribeourwork,andthemorefundamentalquestionabouthowweexplainourgoals.

Itiseasierforpeopletotalkaboutthequestionofhowtoname‘thefield.’Nooneisfullysatisfiedwithanyoftheover-arching,macro-leveltermsforthepracticeofengagingcitizensinpubliclife.Civicengagement,publicinvolvement,publicparticipation,andalltheothercivicsynonymshavefuzzy,overlappingmeanings,andnoneofthesetermsseemscompellingtoordinarypeople.

Thisdissatisfactionwiththetermsalsoappliestothedifferentstrandsofcivicengagement.Manyadvocatesofdeliberativedemocracyadmit that“deliberativedemocracy” isoverlyabstract, intellectual,andoff-putting.Similarly,someproponentsof“communityorganizing”feelthatthattermhasbeenstretchedsofaroverthelastfortyyearsthatithaslostmuchofitsmeaning.

Inthisdiscussionoflabels,differentpeoplehavedifferentambitions.Someseemtobelookingforlanguagethatwillbecatchyandcompellingenoughtobuildbroadpopularsupportforcivicengagementoroneofitsstrands.Otherswantatermlike“deliberativeorganizing”thatwillhelpunifydifferentcamps.Stillothersarefocusedsimplyonfindingtermsthataccuratelydescribewhattheymean.(OneofthesurprisesatNoBetterTime,infact,wasthatpeoplewhohadconsideredthemselvesoutsiderstodeliberativedemocracythoughtitwasanaptandwelcomingterm.“Ithasmeaning,”saysWilliam Burton,“anditprovidesahookforalongerelevatorspeech.”“It’sawesome–don’tgiveitup!,”saysJah’Shams Abdul-Mumin.)

Ifourmainambitionistobuildpopularsupportandrecognition,onewayforwardwouldbetoconductmorethoroughresearchonhowordinarypeoplerespondtodifferenttermsandexplanations.Communica-tionsexpertsandorganizationscouldhelpcivicengagementadvocatesunderstandwhatkindsoflanguagewillresonatewiththepublic,andlayoutsomeinformedchoicesabouthowtodescribethework(eitherthe‘field,’orthedifferentstrands,oralloftheabove).

9

Thatkindof researchwouldbepremature,however, if thefieldhasn’tdealtadequatelywith themoresubstantive–anddelicate– sideof the languagediscussion: thequestionofhow toname thegoalsofcivicengagement.Manyadvocatesofdeliberativedemocracyarguethateffortstoengagecitizensmustbedescribedinbroad,open-ended,value-neutralterms–attemptstohelpthecommunity“makeprogress”onanissue,forexample,or“chartacourse”forthefuture.Theyclaimthatprojectsmustbeframedinwaysthatwelcomeabroadrangeofpeopleandviewpoints,includingconservativesaswellasprogressives.“Ourjobistocreatethespacewithinwhichdemocracycanhappen,”wroteonerespondenttothefollow-upsurveyfortheNoBetterTimeconference.“Iworrymoreaboutalienatingtherightthantheleft,”wroteanotherrespondent.

Someofthepeoplewhoidentifymorewithcommunityorganizingapproachessaythatgoalsof“equity”or“socialjustice”mustbestatedexplicitly.Somealsoprefertitlesanddescriptionsthatprivilegeparticularsegmentsofthepopulation–hearingthe“voicesoftheunderrepresented,”forexample.OnerespondenttotheNoBetterTimesurveyasked,“Whyworkfordemocracyorbeinademocracyifyouarenotworkingforjusticeandequality?Otherwise‘deliberativedemocracy’isjust[nonsense].”

Difference #2: “Neutrality” and equity in processes and outcomes

Aseparatebutrelateddifferencehastodowithwhathappensoncecitizenshavebeen‘engaged,’andarecommunicatingwithoneanotherabouttheirconcernsandpriorities.Fordeliberativedemocrats,thenotionthatgoodgroupprocesstechniquescanprovideasufficientlylevelplayingfieldforthesediscussionsistheconceptualbackboneoftheirwork.Theyputtheirfaith(andexpertise)inseveralstrategies:

•Assemblingasetofparticipantsthatmirrorthebroadercommunity,usuallybymobilizingaverylarge,diversecriticalmassofpeople;7

•Conveningpeopleinsmallgroups(generally8-12participants),atleastforthemostsubstantive partsoftheprocess;

•Trainingfacilitatorswhocanensurethatallparticipantshaveachancetospeak,thatarangeofviewpointsisconsideredbythegroup,andthatthegroupmanagesitstimeandtopicswisely–andwhocandothiswithoutinsertingtheirownviewsandopinionsintothediscussion;

•Givinggroupstheopportunitytosetoratleast‘buyin’toasetofgroundrulesornormsthatwillhelpthemgoverntheirbehavior;

•Encouragingparticipants,especiallyatthebeginningofaprocess,toshareexperiencesthatrelatetotheissueortopicathand;and

•‘Framing’publicissuesupfront,usuallyinsometypeofwrittenguide,inawaythatprovidesunbiasedbackgroundinformationandlaysoutarangeofviewsoroptions.

Deliberativedemocratsareconfidentthatthesetechniquescanestablishneutralityintheprocess.Further-more,theyfeelthatequitableprocessesproduceequitableoutcomes–thatdeliberativedemocracyisanimportanttoolforachievingsocialjusticeandracialequity,evenif(andperhapsbecause)thosegoalsareseldomlistedexplicitlybytheinitiatorsofaproject.“Ifthedeliberativeprocessistrulyopen,transparent,participatory,andbroadlydiverse,positiveprogressonsocialjusticewillemerge,”wroteonerespondenttotheNoBetterTimesurvey.

Many other civic engagement practitioners are skeptical about these assumptions. To them, the wholenotionof‘neutrality’soundsnaïve.“Neutralitywouldbebeautifulifitwerereal,”jokedEverette HilloftheNewMexicoForumforYouthandCommunity.“Beforetheconference,Inevereventhoughtofneutralityasakeycomponentofdemocracy,”saysDanielle Atkinson.Underneaththehigh-blownlanguage,criticssuspect,deliberativedemocracyprocessesmighteasilybeusedtosubmergecriticalvoicesandjustifythemaintenanceofthestatusquoinacommunity.“Twoquestionstypicallycomeup,”saysMaggie Potapchuk.“One,whether these technologiesarebeing implementedwith inclusionandequityprinciples,and two,whetherconsensus-buildingactivitiesincludeaccountabilitymechanismstoensurethemarginalizedvoiceshaveanequitablevoiceandroleinthedecision-makingprocess.”

“Thefieldofdialogueneedstoimproveitsabilitytotackletoughissuessuchasracism,”agreesChris WagneroftheSustainedDialogueCampusNetwork.“Moreattentionneedstobepaidtohowtoeffectivelydealwiththeseissueswithinprocessesthatareoftenopen-ended,drivenbypersonalexperience,andoftenconductedbycommunitymembersratherthanexpertsinsocialjustice.”

10

11

Practitionerswithamoreexplicitfocusonjusticeandequityusetheterm“democracy”toimplyequitableoutcomes,not justneutralprocesses.“Democracy isaboutmore than just ensuring that every voice isheard,”saysDanielle Atkinson.“Infact,sometimesparticipationmustbeinequitableinorderforout-comestobeequitable.”Thisinequitableparticipationtakestwomainforms:first,somepractitionersfocusonnumbersandrepresentation,andtrytoensurethatthe‘marginalized’or‘under-represented’membersofacommunityconstitutethemajorityofthevoicesatthetable.Theassumptionhereisthatthevoicesofthepowerful,andthosewhobenefitfromthestatusquo,arealreadywell-representedinpubliclifeanddecision-making, and so any attempt at broader engagement should favor populations who have notbenefited – typically the poor, people of color, and young people. John Gaventa of the Institute forDevelopmentStudies,whohasworkedextensivelyoncivicengagementeffortsintheGlobalSouth,arguesthatmuchofthisworkrelieson“creatingsituationswhereapublicofficialorsomeotherleaderisinaroomwithpeoplewhoarepooranddisadvantaged,andhastolistencarefullytowhattheyaresaying.”8

A variation on this strategy is to do a better job of incorporating under-represented groups in theplanningstagesofcivicengagementefforts, so that theeventualpoolofparticipants isnaturallymorediverse. Maggie Potapchuk, among others, points out that deliberative democracy projects are ofteninitiatedby relativelyhomogeneous sets of people, and that this oftenhasamajor impact on thewayissuesareframed.Potapchuksuggeststhat“deliberativedemocratsshouldalwaysbeasking,‘Whohasbeenaffectedmost?’byaparticularissueandpolicy–andsupporttheirleadershiptoframetheissue,recruitotherpeopleaffected,andhelppeoplemovefromdiscussiontoaction.”

Asecondtacticistofacilitatethediscussionsormeetingsdifferently.Facilitatorscanargueforviewpointsthatareunder-represented,presentinformationthatsupportsthoseclaims,orleadexercisesthatpromptparticipants to think more critically about mainstream views. “Facilitators need to understand powerdynamicsandstructuralracism,andhavetheskillsnecessarytointervene–whichincludesquestioningstereotypes,”saysPotapchuk.“Italsomeansaskingquestionsabout the impactofpolicydecisionsondifferent groups, having historical knowledge of cumulative and systemic advantages for whites anddisadvantagesforpeopleofcolor,anddiscussingcommonvaluestoensureequityforALL,notsome.”

Thereisnoclearconsensusonthesetwotacticsforachievingequitableoutcomes,evenamongpeoplewhoidentifywithanexplicitjusticeorequityfocus.Somepractitionersupholdtheneedtobringahigherper-centageof‘under-represented’voicestothetable,andrejecttheideaofnon-neutralfacilitation(“Ifyouhavetherightmixofpeopleintheroom,passivefacilitationisbetter,”saysAtkinson).Otherssupportthelatterandrejecttheformer:William Burtonsays,“Ihatetheideaofjustbringingthe‘marginalized’together.Therehastobeapointintimewherewecanallinteractandtalkaboutcommonaspirations.Infact,theideathatwecan’tcreatelevelplayingfieldsmayitselfbediscriminatory.”

12

I think that, fundamentally, all of these differences overneutrality and equity have to do with how people viewtheir relationship with government. Most communityorganizersthinkoftheirworkastakingplaceoutside‘thesystem’–theyaremobilizingpeopletohaveanimpactontheleaderswhoretaindecision-makingpower.Tothem,tryingtocreateneutralprocessesandarenasseemslikeadistractionat best; at worst, bringing in other viewpoints mayweakenthe independentvoiceandpowerof thebase theyhavebuiltinthecommunity.Deliberativedemocrats,ontheotherhand,aren’ttryingtoaffectthesystem:theyaretryingto reconstitute the systemalongmoreparticipatory lines.Theyaren’tbuildinganindependentpowerbasetochallengeornegotiatewithdecision-makers–they’retryingtochangewhereandhowthedecisionismade.

(A couple of caveats here: first, as is evident throughout this report, the views and strategies of community organizers and deliberative democrats are shifting and perhaps converging. The generalizations made in the previous paragraph are just that, and they are probably less true than ever before. Second, it would be easy to characterize community organizing efforts as civic engagement initiated by people outside government, and deliberative democracy projects as civic engagement initiated by governments. In fact, most deliberative democracy efforts are organized by leaders outside government, and many public officials have used community organizing strategies and messages to mobilize their constituents.)

Itmaybethatbothcommunityorganizersanddeliberativedemocratshaveafartoogovernment-focusedviewofpublicdecision-makingandproblem-solving.Framingeveryefforttoengagecitizensasifitwereeitherinoppositionto,orintheserviceof,governmentmayseverelylimitthepotentialofcivicengagement.

Situation(different approachesfit different situations)

community organizing

issueadvocacy

racialequity

deliberative democracy

13

Improving engagement and improving democracy

The“storyofus”thatisemergingfromtheseconversationsoncivicengagementrevealsagreatdealofconvergence among different practices and approaches. Even when they were confronted with thedifferences over questions like neutrality and equity, the participants in the CELY meetings and NBTconference tended to emphasize the commonalities and the idea that people should choose differentapproachesfordifferentsituations,ratherthanstickingtoasingle,“correct,”one-size-fits-allstrategy.

Thedifferentapproaches,manypeoplefelt,complementedoneanothermorethantheyconflicted.Danielle Atkinsondescribedthisasa“wheelofengagement”thatillustratestheimpulseto“getpeopleinvolvedsomewhere–eachactivityhasavalue–itisn’tahierarchy–youcanstepinanywhere”(seeillustration).9

Many others wanted to meld the different approach-es even further, by raising awareness of the commonprinciples and helping practitioners learn more fromthe tactics used in other strands of civic engagement.“What are the components of all these processes thatallow people to fully participate?” asks Laura Harris.Ian Bautista says that his network could “gain fromthe expertand seasonedpractitionerswhohave createdprocesses and refined practices around deliberativedemocracy. Likewise, our members’ experience andintimateknowledgeoftheirneighborsandtheirneighbor-hoodswouldbehighlybeneficialtodeliberativedemocracypractitionersinaccessinghardtoreachpopulations.Thiscombinationofskill,talent,andopportunitywouldlikelyleadtomoreenlightenedstrategiesforneighborhoodandcommunitydevelopmentgoingforward.”

Inadditiontonationalgatheringstofacilitatethislearn-ing, many participants spoke of their desire to worktogetheronmorespecificlocalprojects.“Itwouldbeanimmenseopportunity,”saysKwaku SrahaofNewMexicoVoicesforChildren,“toengagecommunitiesinallofyourwork by collaborating with funders to use deliberativedialogue to set priorities for issues.”“There is a lot ofroomforcollaboration,andIbelievetheconversationswearehavingnowarejustthebeginning,”agreesAlice Siu oftheCenterforDeliberativeDemocracy.

14

Butanevenhottertopicwasthequestionofhowtointegratetheprinciplesandstrategiesofcivicengage-mentmorethoroughlyinthewaythatcommunitiesfunction.Theurgencyofthisdesirecamepartlyfrompeople’sfrustrationwiththeoftentemporary,project-basednatureofmuchcivicengagementwork.“Inmymindthebetterquestioniswhenandhowdoweincorporate[thiswork]intothefabricofourcommu-nities,jurisdictionsandculture,”saysWilliam Burton.“Iamnotsurehowwecanhopetogetcitizenstoparticipatewithotherorganizationsandinstitutionswithouttherebeingtheexpectationthatthisishowwedobusiness.”Itwasalsobasedonashared,criticalanalysisofthestateofAmericandemocracy,which,asLaura Harrisdescribesit,isdominatedby“representativegovernmentandcorporatestructures–themostfrustratingformsofgovernance.”Everette Hillseemedtosummarizetheviewsofmanyparticipantswhenhesaidthat“Ourpurposeistotransformsystems.”

Thisquestionbringsthedifferentviewsaboutpowerintosharperrelief.Therewasbroadagreementthat,asWill FriedmanofPublicAgendaputit,“talkingabouthowto‘embed’thisworkincommunitylifereallymeanstalkingaboutpower.”“Deliberatingmaybetheeasypartoftheequation,”saysBurton.“Peopleandsystemsdonotgenerallyshareorrelinquishpowereasilyifatall.Yet,thelogicaloutcomeofadelib-erativeprocessisthatthepowerdynamicisalteredtobemorerepresentativeandauthenticallyinclusive.”Thechallengeofmovingfromsuccessfultechniquesformobilizingpeopletosuccessfulstructuresforself-governancemaybethe‘storyofnow’incivicengagement.

15

Whentheytalkaboutembeddingcivicengagementwork,theCELYandNBTparticipantsreferrepeatedlytoseveralkeyideas:

•Proven process techniquesforbringingcitizenstothetable,andformakingthediscussionsmeaningfulandproductive.“Thereisavaluableprocessperspectiveandasupportingskillsetthatcomesfromthiswork,”saysBongHwan Kim.“Mostneighborhoodleadersandelectedofficialsdon’tthinkaboutprocess–theythinkaboutmeetings.”

•Working directly with public officials.Manypeoplearguedthatelectedofficialsandotherleadersneedtobemoredirectlyinvolvedinmobilizingcitizensandinteractingwiththem.“Weneedtohavemoreelectedofficialsparticipatingincivicengagement,”saysRodney Locks,acitycouncilmanfromBrevard,NorthCarolina.“Youneedtobetalkingwithlocalofficialsandaskingwhattheyaredoingtointegratecommunityparticipationintheirwork,”agreesKim.“Ifyou’renotworkingwithgovernmentyou’remissingaprettykeyplayer.”

•Giving people the sense that they are valued.InasidediscussionattheNBTconferencethatincludedmostofthepeoplequotedinthispaper,termslike“legitimacy,”“membership,”and“belonging”keptcomingupoverandoveragain.“Legitimacy”wasusedtodescribethesensethatelectedofficialsandotherdecision-makersareinterestedinwhatpeoplehavetosay;“membership”referredtothesenseofbeingpartofagroupunitedaroundcommongoals;“belonging”meantthepsychologicalattachmentbetweentheindividualandthecommunity.Butallofthesewordswereusedtodescribethekindsoffeelingsthatweseektocreateasweworktomobilizepeople–feelingsthatkeepthosepeopleengagingwithoneanotheroverthelongterm.

•Recognizing that this work is about community, not just politics.Allkindsofcivicengage-mentpractitionershavemadethemistakeofover-emphasizingissuesanddecisions,andfailingtoprovidewaysforpeopletoconnectsocially.Jah’Shams Abdul-Muminenvisionsneighborhoodsandcommunitieswhere“peopleareconnectedwithoneanother,notjustonaparticularissue,butonanongoingbasis.Therelationshipneedstobetheconstant–wecheckinwitheachotheraspeople,thenweseewhatwecandotogether.That’swhatdemocracyis:‘checkinginwitheachother.’”

•Developing a stronger, more supportive legal frameworkthatupholdstherightsofcitizenstoparticipateinmoremeaningful,powerfulways.Laura Harris,whohaswatchedtribalgovernmentsstruggletocrafttheirownlegalcodes,reflectsthatallkindsofpeople“actlikeMoseshandeddowntheConstitutionandthatwasit.”Itisdauntingtothinkabouthowtocodifythetenetsofactivecivicengagement,whichhasbeenaveryfluid,organicmovement–andyetdoingsocanprovidecommunitieswithwhatHarriscalls“avehicleforliberation–thesafetyandtherichcreativeenvironmentwhereyoucandosomethingdifferent.”

Thisdiscussionof“embeddedness”(for lackofabetterterm)seemedtotranscendtheolder,narrowerquestionsaboutcivicengagement.ParticipantsintheCELYandNBTmeetingsdidn’tjustwanttodevelopbetterwaysoforganizingcitizenstoaffectpolicymakersor“getinvolved”ingovernment;andtheydidn’tjustwanttohelporcompelgovernmentstobecomemoreresponsivetocitizens.Instead,theywerelookingformoresustainableformsofpublicparticipation,inwhichgovernmentwasjustonepartofcommunitygovernance.Everette Hillarguesthat“Weneedsafespacesoutsidegovernment,andallothergroupsandinstitutions,inordertotapalltheassetsthatacommunitypossesses.”

16

New priorities and next steps

It is clear that practitioners of the different forms of civic engagement want to learn more from oneanother. They are also interested in doing someof this learning in community contexts, in addition tonational meetings. They want to look more closely at the relationships between process equity andoutcomeequity.Andtheyareresolvedto“transformsystems”–tofindwaystoshiftcivicengagementfromasporadic,temporaryactivityreliantonorganizerstoasustained,acceptedpartofcommunitylife.“Theparamountpoliticalquestion today,”saysHal Saunders,“ishowspacescanbecreated inwhichcitizenscandiscovertheircapacitytorespondtoorgeneratechange.”

Thisdiscussionsuggestsanumberofstrategicopportunitiestoadvancethedevelopmentofcivicengagement:1. Invest in systems for measurement, evaluation, and accountability–“Weneedstrongersystemsforcapturingandmeasuringimpact,”saysChris Wagner.Awealthofevaluations,reports,andacademicliteraturehasbeenamassed,andyetwhentheyarechallengedontheefficacyoftheirwork,mostcivicengagementpractitionersresorttotalkingabouttheirownexperiencesratherthanspeakingmorebroadlyforthefield.Evenmoreimportantly,communitiesarenottakingfulladvantageofthenewcapacitiesofcitizensandonlinetechnologiestomakeevaluationamorebroadlyshared,democraticactivity.Herearesomepotentialnextsteps:

•Assembleandsummarizealloftheexistingresults-orientedresearchoncivicengagement,soastoexplainmoreconciselythestateofourknowledgeaboutthefield.

•Conductin-depthresearchoncutting-edgequestions,suchastheimpactsof‘embedded’formsofengagementvs.temporaryorganizingefforts,andtheimpactsofcivicengagementonbasiclivingconditions.

•Developonlinetoolsfortracking,measurement,andaccountability–particularlymethodsandsystemsthatwouldallowordinarypeopletoparticipateintheevaluationprocessinwaysthatenhancelearningandaccountability.

17

2. Build a stronger infrastructure for civic engagement – Because this work has proliferated outside theboundariesofanysingleprofession,politicalphilosophy,orcivictradition,manylocalleadersandorganizersdon’tknowwheretoturnforadviceandassistance.Leaderswhohavesomefinancialresources(suchasgovern-mentofficials)turntoprivateconsultantswhomaybedisconnectedfromthelargerdiscussionsaboutequityandeffectivepractice.Leaderswithoutreadyfinancialresourcesareoftenleftreinventingthewheel.

•Matchupthesituationsandtacticsonthe“wheelofengagement”–Danielle Atkinson’swheelofengagement(seep.13)couldbeavaluabletoolforallkindsoflocalleadersandactivecitizens.Gettingdowntothespecificsofwhichapproachtouseinwhatsituationwouldbeanimportantfield-buildingconversationforcommunityorganizers,deliberativedemocrats,andothercivicengagementpractitioners.

•Convenenationalorstate-levelmeetingsforpractitionersofcommunityorganizinganddeliberativedemocracytofleshoutbroader,morecoordinated,andmoresustainablestrategiesforcivicengagement.Produce‘how-to’materialsthatsummarizetheconclusionsreached,andprovidethelatestlessonslearnedonface-to-faceandonlinecivicengagement.

•Providetechnicalassistancetocommunities(localcoalitionsthatincludepublicinstitutionslikegovernmentsandschoolsaswellasnonprofits,communityorganizers,andothers)tryingto‘embed’democraticpracticesinthewaytheydopublicbusiness.

•Convenenationalorstate-levelconferencestobringtogetherlocalofficials,communityorganizers,schooladministrators,andcivicengagementpractitionersaroundquestionsofcivicengagementand‘embeddedness.’

•Commissionresearchonpublicspacesthatexhibitqualitiesofjointownership.

•Createonlineresourcesthatgivepeoplebasicinformationaboutcivicengagement,includingrelevantcommunityexamplesandresourcesforfurtherlearning.

3. Advance the justice/democracy discussion so that civic engagement advocates can describe their work in more consistent, compelling ways –TheCELYandNBTgatheringshaveshownthathonestconversa-tionsbetweenpeoplefromthe“justice”and“democracy”perspectivescanbeproductiveandenlightening.Theyalsoshowedthatthelanguageofcivicengagementisnotonlyanimpedimenttounderstandingamongpractitioners,butamajorobstacletotheproliferationandadvancementofwhat(forlackofabetterterm)wecallcivicengagement.“InLosAngeles,wearejustturningthecornertowardtryingto‘popularize’theNeighborhoodCouncils,”saysBongHwan Kim.“Weneedtoframeourownmessagesothatitismoreeasilyunderstandablebypeoplewhohavenoknowledgeofthiswork.”

18

•Bringselectedgroupstogether–nationalcivicengagementpractitionersforexample,orstate-levelpractitioners,orfoundationstaffandgrantees–forhighlystructureddiscussionsortrainingsfocusedonracialequity,justice,anddemocracy.

•Diversifytheleadershipoftheexistingdeliberativedemocracynetworks.“Diversifyingthefieldisreallyimportant,”saysDanielle Atkinson.“Youcanthinkyou’rebringinginalltheperspectives,butyoujustdon’tknowunlessthey’reatthetable.”

•Commissionresearchthatfocusesonquestionsofprocessequityvs.outcomeequity,andhowtheyplayoutbothintemporarycivicengagementinitiativesandmore‘embedded’structuresforcivicengagement.

•Usetheconclusionsreachedinmeetingsofcivicengagementadvocatesandpractitionerstodeterminewhetherandhowthelanguageofthisworkcanreflectsharedgoalsandstrategies.

•Workwithacommunicationsfirmtodevelopnewlanguage,basedinpartontheoutcomesofthejustice/democracydiscussion,andtestitwithordinarypeople.

19

4. Mobilize the resources of higher education–Jah’Shams Abdul-Muminpointsout that“Collegesanduniversitieshaveawealthofinformationandmanpowerthatcouldbecoordinatedtohelpresidentsand other concerned citizens participate.”Thiswas in fact a common realization among practitionersinvolvedintheseconversations:thattherewerepeopleoncampuseswhohadsimilargoalsandhadresourcesthatcouldbehelpfultocommunitywork.Nancy ThomasoftheDemocracyImperativepointstotwokeyprioritiesforhighereducation:teachdemocraticprinciplesandpracticesacrossthecurriculum(notjusttoselectstudentsincertainprogramsoractivities),andteachyouthleadershipandpoliticalengagementskills.“Toaddressthesepriorities,”shesays,“Collegesanduniversitiesneedtorealignteachingmethodsandstudentlearningoutcomeswithdemocraticprinciplesandpractices.”Shealsourgesthecollegesanduniversitiesto“attendtothecivicleadershipdevelopmentneedsofeverydaycitizens,notjustmatriculatedstudents,andtoprovidecountlessopportunitiesforthecampusandlocalcommunitytocometogethertolearnaboutandgrapplewithpublicproblems.”Finally,shestressestheroleofschoolsofeducationand“theneedtoteachteacherstoeducatefordemocracy.”

•Convenestate-levelgatheringsthatbringtogethercivicengagementpractitionersandlocalleaderswithpotentialalliesoncommunitycollegeanduniversitycampuses.

•Developvariouskindsofcurriculathatuniversitiesandcommunitiescanusetoeducatestudentsandcitizensinparticipationskillsanddemocraticideals.Thesecouldincludecurriculafortraditionalcollegecourses,trainingprogramsthatappealtocommunitymembersormid-careerprofessionals,ormodulestobeusedasacomponentofservicelearningprograms.

•Provideopportunitiesforcollegeadministratorsandprofessors,K-12administratorsandteachers,andstudentleaderstodevelopnewmodelsfortheciviceducationofyoungpeople.

•Workwithpublicadministrationschoolsorotherdegreeprogramswithinhighereducationtohelpthemproducegraduateswiththecivicskillsandmindsetthatcommunitiesneed.“PAschoolstrainpublicadministrators,whoendupinpositionswheretheyneedtobemodelinganddoingcivicengagement,”arguesKwaku Sraha.

5. Focus on key policy targets in local governance–Thoughthereismoreattentiontothechallengeof ‘scalingup’civicengagementtothefederal level, themost innovativework isstillhappeningat thelocallevel.Overthelastdecade,localofficialsasawholehavebecomemuchmoreexperiencedincivicengagement, and have pushed the discussion of these issues into their state and national associations.The‘storyofnow’forcivicengagementandthe‘storyofnow’forlocalgovernanceneedtobebroughttogether.

20

•Convenenationalorstate-leveldiscussionsbetweenofficialsandcivicengagementpractitioners.

•Providetechnicalassistancetocommunitiesworkingoncutting-edgecivicengagementquestionsandchallenges.

•Developmoresupportivelegalframeworksforcitizenparticipation.Itisdauntingforcivicengagementpractitionerstothinkaboutthelegalaspectsoftheirwork.Laura HarrisandBongHwan Kimwarnusthatnotexploringtheseissuescanhavemajorconsequencesforcommunities.TenyearsafterthecreationoftheL.A.neighborhoodcouncilsystem,Kimreports,“InterpretingtheBrownAct(California’sopenmeetingslaw)isstillaproblem.”Harrishaswatchednativecommunitiesattemptvariouskindsofconstitutionalreform,“onlytohavethelawyersgetholdofitandchangeeverything.”

Articulating the ‘story of now’

Movingforwardinthesedirectionswillrequirehigherlevelsofcollaborationbetweenthedifferentstrandsofcivicengagement,betweenacademicsandpractitioners,andbetweenpublicofficialsandotherkindsofleaders.Inmanycases,itwillalsorequirenewinvestmentsbygovernments,foundations,orotherfundingsources–atallorderinthecurrentfinancialclimate.

The funding picture is also complicated by the fact that the divides and misunderstandings betweendifferent approaches to civic engagement are mirrored in the foundation community. John Esterle,chairofPhilanthropyforActiveCivicEngagement,suggeststhatfunderswouldbenefitbythesamesortof conversations that practitioners enjoyed during the Civic Engagement Learning Year and the NoBetter Time conference. Esterle, Atkinson, and others suggest that the techniques for productivediscussionpioneeredbycivicengagementpractitionersshouldbeputtouseinconversationsamongfunders,practitioners,andotherleaders.Esterlearguesthat“Theprocessesofdialogueanddeliberationwetalkaboutreallyneedtobepracticedbetweenandamongallthedifferentplayers–thatwillhelpusshiftintogeararoundsomeofthekeyembeddedness/infrastructureissues.”

Meanwhile, the tide of civic change will continue to present both challenges and opportunities for activecivic engagement.The shifting expectationsandcapacities of citizens, theattempts to employdemocraticprinciples in governance and on the campaign trail, and the continuing development and adoption ofonlinetechnologieswillgenerateevermorerenditionsofthe‘storyofself’andthe‘storyofus.’Inthisenvironment,adaptingtochanges‘simotiously’seemslikeanincreasinglyinadequateresponse.Tocatchupwiththeneedsandgoalsoftheordinarypeopletheywishtoserve,theadvocatesandpractitionersofcivicengagementneedtoarticulateamorecompellingandunified‘storyofnow.’

19

Acknowledgements

Anumberofpeopleprovidedinvaluablecomments,quotes,andsuggestionsforthisreport:

Jah’Shams Abdul-Mumin,Success:ANewBeginningTerry Amsler,CollaborativeGovernanceInitiativeoftheInstituteforLocalGovernmentDanielle Atkinson,MichiganVoiceIan Bautista,UnitedNeighborhoodCentersofAmericaMichael Brown,NewMexicoForumforYouthinCommunityWilliam Burton,CommonGroundResolutionServicesKara Carlisle,W.K.KelloggFoundationJohn Esterle,TheWhitmanInstituteWill Friedman,PublicAgendaMaryanne Galindo,Success:ANewBeginningLaura Harris,AmericansforIndianOpportunityEverette Hill,NewMexicoForumforYouthinCommunityBongHwan Kim,CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofNeighborhoodEmpowermentCaroline Lee,LafayetteUniversityRodney Locks,citycouncilman,Brevard,NorthCarolinaEduardo Martinez,NewMexicoForuminYouthandCommunityMartha McCoy,EverydayDemocracyMaggie Potapchuk,MPAssociatesHal Saunders,InternationalInstituteforSustainedDialogueAlice Siu,CenterforDeliberativeDemocracyKwaku Sraha,NewMexicoVoicesforChildrenNancy Thomas,TheDemocracyImperativeChris Wagner,SustainedDialogueCampusNetwork

1Ganz,alongtimecommunityorganizerturnedHarvardacademic,wastheprimaryarchitectofthe“CampObama”workshopsthatObamaorganizerswentthroughwhentheyjoinedthecampaign.Ganzfeelsthatmuchofthisknowledgeandresolvewerelostinthetransitionfromthecampaigntotheadministration–heandPeterDreier(PeterDreierandMarshallGanz,“WeHavetheHope.NowWhere’stheAudacity?”The Washington Post,August30,2009.)haveurgedthepresidenttorevive“’movement’tactics,fromleaflets,vigilsandnewspaperadstononviolentcivildisobedience,”inhisefforttopasshealthcarereform.HalSaundersgivesasomewhatdifferentcritique:“TheObamaAdministrationmaybefailingtodistinguishbetween(1)mobilizingsupportinanelectionorforapresident’sprogramsand(2)creating spaces where citizens can discovertheircapacitiesto‘rebuildAmericaoneneighborhoodatatime.’”Thisreportisinpartanattempttosortthroughthesedifferentapproachestoorganizing,anddescribehowtheymightbeincorporatedintotheworkofgovernance.2 A grant from the Kellogg Foundation enabled key participants in the Civic Engagement Learning Year to attend the No Better Timeconference.Thisreportisbasedpartlyonconversationswiththeseparticipantsattheconferenceandtelephoneinterviewsafterward.3JamesMorone’sThe Democratic WishandCarmenSirianni’sCivic Innovation in Americaarehelpfulforlookingatthelong-termandmorerecenthistoryofdemocraticgovernanceintheU.S.4Philosophically,thisnotionwasinkeepingwiththespreadofpostmodernistideas,whichemphasizedtheimportanceof“discourses”and“counter-discourses,”oncollegecampuses.5IanBautistasaysthat“Manyofourmembersstillemploy‘talkingcircles,’‘minutecircles,’orsomethingstrikinglysimilartoa‘studycircle,’asemployedbyourcolleaguesatEverydayDemocracy.Almostallofourmembersstillholdcommunityforumsatwhichneighborsaregiventheop-portunitytoprovideinputaboutandlearnaboutcivicdecisions,meetpolicymakers,meetanddiscerncandidatesforpublicoffice,discussimportantneighborhoodandcommunity-wideissuesandchallenges,andotherwiseengageindemocraticpracticesontheirterms.”6 Harris went on to say that “Part of the problem is that the right-wingers stole all our good words and ruined them.” Terms like“democracy,”“liberty,”and“citizen”nowhavenegativeconnotationsformanypeople.7Thereisalsoasetofdeliberativedemocratswhousepollingtechniquestorecruitasmallrepresentativesampleofthecommunity,insteadoforganiz-ingmeetingsthatareopentothepublic.TheyarguethattheseDeliberativePolls(tm),“citizens’assemblies,”andsimilarexercisescanbothprovideinformedinputtopublicofficialsandserveasamodelformorewidelydisperseddeliberations.8GaventaisaneloquentadvocateforthenotionthattheadvocatesandpractitionersofcivicengagementintheGlobalNorthhaveagreatdealtolearnfromtheircounterpartsintheSouth.SeeGaventaandNicholasBenequista,“ReversingtheFlow:ANewDemocraticConversation?,”Alliance,June2009.

9Theideaisthatthesituationdictatesthestrategy.Atkinsonalsosuggeststhatthewheelcouldbedrawnsothattheinnercirclereferstotheinterestsandskillsoftheindividual,ratherthanthesituation.

Photographs courtesy of Jessie Neikrie.

One MichiganAvenue EastBattle Creek, MI49017-4058USA269-968-1611TDD on siteTelex: 4953028Facsimile: 269-968-0413Internet: http://www.wkkf.org