Tiny House
More About The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation • Join Now!
Community News

Posts with the Tag “institutionalizing D&D”

Community Rhythms: Five Stages of Community Life

Communities have rhythms to them that we must come to understand so that our approaches, programs and initiatives — and the building of public capital — work with those rhythms, take advantage of them, even accelerate them. This 1999 report from the Harwood Institute describes five stages of community life: The Waiting Place, Impasse, Catalytic, Growth, and Sustain and Renew. According to the Harwood Institute, while a community can accelerate its movement through the Stages of Community Life, it cannot violate, or simply pass over, […] (continue)

Making Public Participation Legal

Most of the laws that govern public participation in the U.S. are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they pre-date the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public administrators and public engagement practitioners are hindered by the fact that it’s unclear if many of the best practices in participation are even allowed by the law. Making Public Participation Legal, […] (continue)

Building a Culture of Participation: Citizen Engagement in Vancouver, BC

The “Building a Culture of Participation” report describes workshop outcomes and participant ideas to empower citizens of Vancouver, British Columbia in official city decision-making. This May 2013 workshop brought together City of Vancouver employees, members of Vancouver’s Engaged City Task Force and community members and was jointly presented by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue, SFU Public Square and the City of Vancouver. Feature guest and community organizer Dave Meslin presented examples of active citizen engagement from his projects in the Greater Toronto Area. Meslin […] (continue)

CommunityMatters: Connecting Community, Activating Change

This 46-page report from the CommunityMatters partner organizations shares resources and highlights from sessions run by each of the partners (including NCDD) in February 2013 for a day-long workshop for local leaders in Newport, Vermont. The workshop focused on tools and techniques to encourage broad citizen participation, improve local decision-making, and to help Newport leaders work together to build civic infrastructure in their rapidly developing town. (continue)

Draft Municipal Public Participation Ordinance

This model ordinance was designed to be used and adapted by local governments, and to help local leaders begin to update and strengthen the legal framework for public participation. The ordinance was produced by the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation. Matt Leighninger, executive director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, can be contacted with questions at mattl@deliberative-democracy.net. The model ordinance, which consists of three sections (Definitions, Public Participation Policy, and Principles for Public Participation) describes “public participation” (inclusive of the terms public comment, public hearing, public engagement, […] (continue)

Eleven Tips to Improve Public Engagement on Realignment Issues

The Institute for Local Government offers the following general tips to help guide effective public engagement relating to public safety realignment as part of the 2012 Institute for Local Government Public Engagement Program. Here’s an excerpt, on “clarifying goals” when approaching public engagement: 1. Clarify Your Public Engagement Goals. Determine the intended goal(s) of your public engagement meetings or other activities. Do you want to inform the public about public safety realignment, its requirements and its impacts, answer questions, and/or ask residents or others to […] (continue)

Three Orientations of Local Government to Public Engagement: Passive – Active – Sustaining

Throughout California, most local agency efforts to involve residents occur occasionally as one-time public engagement activities that are focused on issues such as a general plan update, annual budgeting, a public works project, a public safety issue, a climate change plan, etc. Fewer cities and counties think about and “embed” a capacity to regularly consider and use public engagement tools as an ongoing part of local governance. This 2011 document from the Institute for Local Government Public Engagement Program (www.ca-ilg.org/engagement) provides several useful caveats for any […] (continue)

Planning for Stronger Local Democracy

A new guide can help citizens and local leaders decide how to make their communities more engaging, inclusive, participatory, and powerful. Planning for Stronger Local Democracy is built around two lists: the questions to ask about your community in order to take stock of local democracy; and the building blocks you might consider as part of a comprehensive, sustainable strategy for vitalizing civic engagement in your town. This is a publication of the National League of Cities and the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, and can be […] (continue)

Toward Wiser Public Judgment

Toward Wiser Public Judgment (2011) revisits and expands upon Yankelovich's seminal 1991 book, Coming to Public Judgment, which argued that people advance through several distinct stages to form politically meaningful judgments about public issues. In particular, citizens must "work through" the temptation to opt for easy answers or engage in wishful thinking, reconcile conflicting values, and come to terms with tough tradeoffs, before they can truly support a new course of action. (continue)

Fostering Canadians’ Role in Public Policy: A Strategy for Institutionalizing Public Involvement in Policy

This 2006 CPRN (Canadian Policy Research Networks) report by Lori Turnbull and Peter Aucoin looks at the structural, cultural and practical barriers to making citizen engagement a natural and permanent part of our policy processes. To document the benefits of citizen involvement in the policy process, and for accountability, we need accurate and comparable data. Despite progress in Canada and elsewhere on evaluation frameworks, a commonly accepted set of evaluation criteria has yet to be established. Abelson and Gauvin make suggestions for refining evaluation (evaluating […] (continue)

-