Participatory Policy Making

Participatory Policy Making by Lucas Cioffi of Online Townhalls

1. Participatory Policy-
Making
Case Studies and Effective Practices
Lucas Cioffi
[email protected]

2. Table of Contents
Regulations.Gov
Alex Moll 202.566.0452, Twitter: @RegulationsGOV
Student-led public policy planning
Rebecca M. Townsend, Ph.D. [email protected]
Citizens’ Initiative Review
Tyrone Reitman [email protected]
Online Community Deliberations
Lucas Cioffi [email protected]
Public Engagement on Transportation Policy with Facebook
Susanna Haas Lyons [email protected]
Innovations in Philadelphia, PA
Iwanka Kultschyckyj [email protected]
Note: Slides in this presentation are filled with a large amount of text so that
the online audience can understand them without an in-person presenter.

3. Source: AthenaBridge.OrgThe Key: Fit the tools to your purpose.

4. Use divergent thinking,
then use convergent thinking,
and iterate!

5. Suggested Phases for Online Deliberation

6. Ladder of Participation
Learning
increases with
engagement.
Design with incentives in
mind to move
participants up the
ladder of participation.

7. Source: http://thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/about.html
Many citizens making small contributions can have a
tremendous impact. Design for many varying (low to high)
levels of commitment to the engagement process.
The “Long Tail” of Participation

8. Purpose & Objectives
•eRulemaking Program is a Federal-
wide program and consists of two
components: Regulations.gov &
FDMS.
•Regulations.gov is a single portal for
citizens to view and comment on U.S.
Federal rules and notices.
•Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) is an advanced
“back-end” docket management
system that provides Department and
Agency staff with improved internal
docket management functionality and
the ability to publicly post all relevant
documents on Regulations.gov.
•Objectives of the program aim to
expand public understanding of the
rulemaking process; increase the
amount, diversity, ease, and quality of
citizen access and participation in
rulemaking; and improve the quality of
Federal rulemaking decisions and the
rulemaking process.
Case Study #1: Regulations.Gov

9. Results
•Docket Management. The program has
increased access to the full lifecycle of
Federal regulatory content.
•Data Standardization. Program staff
continue to work with agencies to build
a common taxonomy and protocols for
managing dockets and regulatory
documents.

•Gov-to-Citizen Communications.
Launched in June 2009,
Regulations.gov Exchange enables
agencies to host formal on-line
discussions forums and collect public
feedback and consideration. Social
media enables informal discussion
forums.
•Public Input. ForeSee American
Customer Satisfaction Index allows the
Regulations.gov technical team to ask
specific questions targeting user
experience and suggestions for
improvements in web functionality.
•Web Design. Next iteration of website
to include increased navigation and
tracking of public comments, comment-
on-comment features, comment status
updates, improved search, and
educational tools.
Case Study #1: Regulations.Gov

10. Best Practices
•Program staff published the publicly
accessible document, “Improving
Electronic Dockets on
Regulations.gov and the Federal
Docket Management System – Best
Practices for Federal Agencies,”
which outlines strategic goals and best
practices for Federal agencies in
support of the President’s Open
Government Directive.
•This document represents the
combined efforts of the eRulemaking
Program, its partner agencies, and
stakeholders to support the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB)
Memorandum for the President’s
Management Council, “Increasing
Openness in the Rulemaking Process –
Improving Electronic Dockets” (May 28,
2010).
•Download the publication here.
Case Study #1: Regulations.Gov

11. Specific Example
•The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) under the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
received thousands of oral and written
comments regarding regulations that
protect killer whales from marine
vessels under the Endangered Species
Act.
•Rule writers grouped comments and
responded with reasoned, thoughtful
explanations (see final rule). They
acknowledged the efficacy of public
participation:
“Public comments on the no-go zone
raised several suggested alternatives
that we had not fully analyzed in the
draft EA [Environmental Assessment].
In addition, we recognize that to be
effective, regulations must be
understood by the public and have a
degree of public acceptance. Because
of the many alternatives suggested by
the public, and because of the degree
of public opposition, we have decided
to gather additional information and
conduct further analysis and public
outreach on the concept of a no-go
zone. Therefore, the final rule does not
adopt a no-go zone.”
POC: Alex Moll | (1) 202.566.0452
Twitter: @RegulationsGOV
Case Study #1: Regulations.Gov

12. Partnership for Inclusive,
Cost-Effective Public Participation
Student-led public policy
planning
Rebecca M. Townsend, Ph.D.
Asst. Prof. of Communication
Manchester Community
College
Great Path, PO Box 1046
Manchester, CT, USA
06045-1046
860-512-2685
[email protected]
Funded by the Federal Transit Administration’s
Public Transportation Participation Pilot Program
Case Study #2

13. Objectives
The Partnership for Inclusive, Cost-Effective Public
Participation addresses the needs and
commitments of many partners:
•Planners--to collaborate with people who tend to be
hard-to-reach in typical public involvement work,
•People traditionally under-heard--having their needs
heard by those who can make changes, and
•Community colleges--academic and service
commitments and
•Students--to get to and from school and develop civic
leadership capabilities.
•Community college students used their
existing social networks with community
groups consisting of youth, minority, and
people with low incomes to conduct transit
needs assessment discussions, with results
shared with Regional Planning Agencies.
•People in the “hard-to-reach” populations are
the most crucial for transportation planners to
collaborate with, since they tend to be transit-
dependent.
Case Study #2: Partnership for Inclusive, Cost-Effective Public Participation

14. Methods & Results
Methods: Students in Communication courses learned about group discussion facilitation and dynamics,
transportation planning basics and conducted culturally sensitive , low-key discussions held within
participants’ own organizations’ activities and languages; students used social media to assist with their
planning; helped participants complete written questionnaires; held large-scale community forums;
shared food over discussions; presented findings at student-community group-planner symposia.
Results & Lessons Learned:
4.Created a model of public participation for other CCs to adapt
5.Permanent partnerships forged for traditionally under-heard groups’ voices to help shape the region’s
plans
6.95 facilitators abided by the IAP2’s Core Values and Code of Ethics
7.29 “hard-to-reach” groups participated
8.Collaborated with 87% of people who had never before participated in transportation planning.
9.“Trust gap” between ordinary citizens and government officials was bridged through the use of students’
social networks (Churches, clubs, places of employment, etc)
10.Planners modified their public participation strategies
11.Replication has begun with collaborations at different CCs
12.Public participation is more deliberative & inclusive
13.Groups’ interest and involvement with planning increased while costs were reduced
14.Student leadership capabilities and civic involvement increased.
Final Report available January 1, 2012 via http://www.mcc.commnet.edu/academic/public-transit.php
Case Study #2: Partnership for Inclusive, Cost-Effective Public Participation

15. The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR)
The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is an innovative way of publicly evaluating
measures or propositions on the ballot for a popular vote, so voters have
easy access to clear, useful, and trustworthy information at election time.
The purpose of the Citizens’ Initiative Review is to provide a direct
counter-weight to the influence of political spin in ballot measure debates
and provide high-quality information to voters during measure elections.
The CIR was officially ‘piloted’ in Oregon during the 2010 election, and the
process was evaluated by a research team funded by the National Science
Foundation. The results showed that the CIR was a huge success.
In June, 2011, the Oregon Legislature adopted the CIR into law to make it a
function of state government and an ongoing resource to voters. The CIR
in Oregon is a national first, and a landmark victory for the fields of civic
engagement and deliberative democracy.
Case Study #3

16. How the Citizens’ Initiative Review works:
•During the Citizens’ Initiative Review, a panel of 24 randomly-selected and
demographically-balanced voters is brought together from across the
state to fairly evaluate a ballot measure / proposition. The panel hears
directly from campaigns for and against the measure and calls upon policy
experts during the multi-day public review. For each measure reviewed, a
new panel is convened.
•At the conclusion of the in-depth review, the panel then drafts a ‘Citizens’
Statement’ highlighting the most important findings about the measure.
Each ‘Citizens’ Statement’ is published as a prominent page in the voters’
pamphlet as a new and easily accessible resource for voters to use at
election time.
•See www.healthydemocracyoregon.org for more information.
Case Study #3: The Citizens’ Initiative Review

17. Lessons Learned
•A team of nationally recognized researchers, backed by funding from the
National Science Foundation, evaluated the 2010 CIR ‘pilot’ and
confirmed that the Reviews were high-quality, fair and of great use to
voters. In addition, the media paid close attention to the CIR pilot and it
was widely regarded as a huge success. The research team’s study
concluded that:
•A majority of Oregon voters who read the Citizens’ Statements found the
Statements to be helpful, gained new information or arguments, and
became more knowledgeable about the measures.
•Voters reported spending considerably more time reading the Citizens’
Statements compared to other parts of the voter’s pamphlet.
•Voters who read the Citizens’ Statements were much less likely to support
either measure reviewed. The result was narrowing the margin of passage
for one measure and increasing the opposition of another from a small to
a larger majority of voters.
Links: Research team’s summary and full report.
You can also watch a video about the report here.
Case Study #3: The Citizens’ Initiative Review

18. The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR)
In 2012 the Commission to oversee the CIR will be developed,
and in August 2012 future Reviews will be run in Oregon.
For an introduction the CIR process and how it is integrated
into Oregon’s election process, please see the
Citizens’ Initiative Review 2011 Legislative Video (please
note, the bill referenced in this video passed in June, 2011).
The Citizens’ Initiative Review is a project of
Healthy Democracy Oregon and the
Healthy Democracy Fund. The CIR process can be applied to
a wide array of policy questions in addition to those on the
ballot. To learn more about the CIR, or to lend your support,
please contact either organization listed above, or email:
[email protected]
Case Study #3: The Citizens’ Initiative Review

19. Community Deliberation Prior to Policy Making
•In Michigan, residents of the Bloomfield Hills School
District were divided over what to do about
combining two high schools due to a
reduced student population.
•Potentially the community’s taxes were set to
increase by $97 million in order to build a new
school.
•Local blogs hosted discussion on this issue, but it was
often heated, disrespectful, and unproductive.
•The architectural firm FNI blended
in-person forums with an online
townhall to increase the quality of discussion.
Case Study #4

20. Case Study #4: Community Deliberation Prior to Policy Making
Lessons Learned
•Using conversation mapping, a large online discussion on a
divisive issue can be civil and productive.
•The online conversation made the in-person forums more
efficient by getting issues on the table sooner.
•Anonymity was permitted. Usernames and email addresses
had to be managed
by the OnlineTownhalls
rather than the school
administrators to
maintain trust of the
community.
Lucas Cioffi
Principal, OnlineTownhalls
[email protected]
917-528-1831

21. Public Engagement on
Transportation Policy
with Facebook
www.gcc.ubc.ca
Susanna Haas Lyons
Researcher, University of British Columbia
Public Engagement Specialist, Engaging.ly
[email protected]
@zannalyons
www.engaging.ly
Case Study #5

22. Case Study #5: Public Engagement on Transportation Policy with Facebook

23. Project Purpose
•Provide residents and commuters an
opportunity to hear and share different
points of view about transportation in
Vancouver
•Identify key concerns and
transportation priorities for
consideration in the City of Vancouver’s
long term Transportation Plan
•Pilot a new methodology for engaging
the public on city-wide issues
Results:
•537 registrants, 27% active
•19 Recommendations on cycling, land
use, public space, transit and walking
•City responded to each idea in a
written report
•These and other public ideas heard in
spring 2011 are being considered for
draft Transportation Plan, expected in
early 2012
Innovative Public Engagement Tool
•In-depth social media public
engagement:
1.Discuss key issues in small
private groups
2.Evaluate strategies and propose
directions for the City’s
Transportation Plan
3.Share and promote top ideas in
public
•Facebook app, rather than native tools,
to ensure control over functionality and
look
•80% participants recommend using this
type of Facebook event for other public
discussions
Case Study #5: Public Engagement on Transportation Policy with Facebook

24. Phase I: 2.5 weeks
•In small private discussion groups,
with a facilitator, participants:
–Shared how they get around
Vancouver
–Explored key transportation
issues
–Brainstormed and responded to
transportation strategies
–Voted for their top three
transportation strategies
Phase II: 10 days
•19 ideas for Vancouver’s
transportation future emerged from
Phase One
•These Ideas presented, discussed,
liked, shared on public FB page
•Existing and new participants
•Opportunity to add your own idea
Case Study #5: Public Engagement on Transportation Policy with Facebook

25. Lessons Learned
•Mix of online and face-to-face
strategies accommodates trend of
young people overrepresented in
online methods and older people
overrepresented at public meetings
•Those who participate in Facebook
environment are not concerned with
privacy of their contributions; event
proceedings appearing in news feed
is valued
•Not everyone is on Facebook,
important to provide other online
and in-person engagement
opportunities
•Storytelling is an easier task for most
people than policy conversations
•Allowing an app to access to
Facebook account is a high bar
for some people. For those who
choose ‘don’t allow’, provide
additional information about how
access will be used and another
opportunity to ‘allow’ app access
•Make it easy to engage with
background materials by posting
in the discussions, promote in
emails and on Facebook event
page
•Visually demonstrate event
progression
•Technology is always buggy!
Case Study #5: Public Engagement on Transportation Policy with Facebook

26. Innovations in Philadelphia, PA
The following five concurrent projects include objectives and discussion groups online.
•OpenDataPhilly
–Objective: Opens Data, Imagery to the Public containing authoritative regional information on a wide variety of
topics to encourage citizens and web developers to leverage local info on over 100 free datasets, applications, APIs
–Discussion Group http://groups.google.com/group/opendataphilly
•Code For America [NCDD PARTICIPATION]
–Objective: Citizen engagement application opportunity for crowd-funding projects to facilitate implementation
and/or creation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) wizard for community groups to collectively contract with business.
–Discussion Group http://groups.google.com/group/code-for-america-philadelphia
•Project Open Voice [NCDD PARTICIPATION]
–Objective: Video-on-demand folders and a new video-centric & social-centric website will be released by October 28
and November 21, respectively.
–Discussion Group http://groups.google.com/group/project-open-voice
•Freedom Rings
–Objective: Support for digital inclusion and the specific computer labs in community centers
– Discussion Group http://groups.google.com/group/freedom-rings
•Outreach & Connections
–Objective: Introduces new people, groups and initiatives, establish and manage public
site, connect the projects and organize conference/unconference dedicated to Civic Fusion
on October 28, 2011
–Discussion Group http://groups.google.com/group/oapcivicfusion
Case Study #6: Innovations in Philadelphia, PA