Ask Federal Agencies to Adopt the Core Principles for Public Engagement

sandy

Flag

Looks Promising!

397

I'm Not So Sure...

Over the past several months, experts in public dialogue, facilitation and collaborative decision-making worked together to develop 7 "Core Principles for Public Engagement." The authors and editors of these principles have spent years creating and honing innovative techniques that help people talk constructively about difficult issues that effect their lives--issues like health care, crime, and conflict between ethnic groups.

We consider these 7 principles to be the fundamental components of quality public engagement, and we propose that federal agencies adopt these principles to guide their public engagement work.

Engaging people around the issues that affect their lives and their country is a key component of a strong democratic society. Effective public engagement goes beyond public relations and information-sharing by providing ways for people with a variety of viewpoints to grapple with issues together and come up with creative solutions.

- The Core Principles for Public Engagement -

These seven recommendations reflect the common beliefs and understandings of those working in the fields of public engagement, conflict resolution, and collaboration. In practice, people apply these and additional principles in many different ways.

1. Careful Planning and Preparation
Through adequate and inclusive planning, ensure that the design, organization, and convening of the process serve both a clearly defined purpose and the needs of the participants.

2. Inclusion and Demographic Diversity
Equitably incorporate diverse people, voices, ideas, and information to lay the groundwork for quality outcomes and democratic legitimacy.

3. Collaboration and Shared Purpose
Support and encourage participants, government and community institutions, and others to work together to advance the common good.

4. Openness and Learning
Help all involved listen to each other, explore new ideas unconstrained by predetermined outcomes, learn and apply information in ways that generate new options, and rigorously evaluate public engagement activities for effectiveness.

5. Transparency and Trust
Be clear and open about the process, and provide a public record of the organizers, sponsors, outcomes, and range of views and ideas expressed.

6. Impact and Action
Ensure each participatory effort has real potential to make a difference, and that participants are aware of that potential.

7. Sustained Engagement and Participatory Culture
Promote a culture of participation with programs and institutions that support ongoing quality public engagement.

–

More details about each of these principles, info about who took part in creating them and how, and a growing list of endorsements can all be found at www.thataway.org/pep . Also feel free to email me (Sandy Heierbacher, Director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation) at sandy@thataway.org if you have questions or want to get involved.

Why Is This Idea Important?

As the term "public engagement" is used more and more, we hope criteria like these principles help public managers and community leaders to engage people in decision-making and collaborative activities in more productive, effective ways.

Idea # 62New Strategies and Techniques, participation, engagement, d&d, dialogue, public engagement, ncdd, principles

Comments

rebixler 10 months ago

I find these recommended principles helpful and speak to me in meaningful ways as I reflect on my own experience with collaboration. What is missing for me is a principle that emphasizes the importance of preparing myself to enter into such dialog. Is there not any principle that speaks to ongoing self reflection. It seems to me that there is a need for a principle that promotes reflection on the application of the other recommended seven principles to our own lives as we seek to empower others. I do not find that such reflection can just be assumed in my own life and work, but something that I must continually monitor and seek to understand.

solorzanomilton 10 months ago

Fine ideas, but I'm uneasy with any lobby group successfully enshrining its 'Go Team' mission statement as public policy. This forum is most effective, I feel, as a platform for individual voices.

The collective wisdom of your group is certainly welcome, there's never a surfeit of good advice. But when it comes to running our country the only collective decision I want are election returns.

lblong 10 months ago

For me, the greatest value of this contribution is precisely its reflection of "collective wisdom" and, perhaps more importantly, the collaborative work and dialogic communication that produced it. This is very much what effective and meaningful public engagement is about. We already have a system for voting system, and that is certainly very valuable. But democracy requires more than thumbs up or down and public engagement is more than voting.

johnruuu 10 months ago

This too appears to be a paid membership organization, whether some choose not to pay or not.

It reads in part,"One of NCDD’s core values is inclusiveness, so NCDD members are not required to pay the annual membership fee. In order to encourage those who can pay the fee to do so, paid members are eligible for discounts on the following trainings, courses and certificate programs offered by our partners"

sandy 10 months ago

NCDD (the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation) is a membership organization, John, and as you noticed, the membership fee is optional so no one is excluded due to income. We have over 1000 wonderful members, and you can learn more at www.thataway.org (feel free to join us!). But these principles were not just developed by NCDD. We worked closely with IAP2 (another membership organization, the International Association for Public Participation), the Co-Intelligence Institute, and many others to involve people with expertise in public engagement work to construct these principles together. (We don't consider these "NCDD's Principles.") We worked very hard to involve as many people in the process as we could, using organizations and networks that reach many public engagement practitioners and scholars. We then asked those organizations to consider endorsing the Principles, so we now have endorsers like the National League of Cities, the League of Women Voters, Public Agenda, AmericaSpeaks, the Institute of Cultural Affairs, and many others. They're all listed at www.thataway.org/?page_id=1444 . Hope this helps!

johnruu 10 months ago

That's fine, but http://www.thataway.org/ website effectively reads:

"Join NCDD Now!

The “dialogue and deliberation community” is a community of practitioners, organizations, researchers, public officials, activists, artists, students, and others dedicated to solving problems through honest talk, quality thinking and collaborative action. NCDD provides the infrastructure needed in this community so we can work together to increase both our individual and our collective impact.

If you or your organization actively practices, promotes, or studies collaborative, transformative communication, we encourage you to join the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation.

Please scan the page before joining so you know what to expect. Ready to join now?

* Join as an organizational member ($100 annual fee)
* Join as an individual member (optional $50 annual fee)"

Linda Blong 10 months ago

I think it would be best to focus on the principles rather than the organizational structure of NCDD, one of the conveners of the conversation that resulted in the principles.

johnruuu 10 months ago

Ok, so I did or about 2 minutes.

Where's the measurement and accountbility either within or surrounding the NCDD's proposed adaption of those principles by Federal agencies? And, what mechanisms are in place to pay for such proposed additional core principle compliance, if adopted? Also, what core principles do those Federal Agencies already have in place that either differ from the NCDD's list above or are void from the NCDD list?

solorzanomilton 10 months ago

Johnruuu identifies what gives me pause. Because NCDD is a pre-existing organization with a mission statement, organizational leadership, and (we presume) previous experience in attempting to sell/lobby their 'core values' I don't know that it's mission statement is appropriate for this forum, and certainly less appropriate for public policy. For example, the 1000 or so members of your group could get an e-mail instructing them to vote for your recommendation, thus skewing the results of what is intended to be an individual voices, individual votes platform.

More useful might be submitting each of the concepts you identify, and seeing if they're adopted on their own. Although, again, I think this forum isn't quite the place for vague principles like: 'Ensure each participatory effort has real potential to make a difference, and that participants are aware of that potential.' I'm not really sure how that specifically improves federal transparency.

sandy 10 months ago

Interesting questions, johnruu and solarzanomilton! A couple points of clarification...

Like I said in a comment above, these are not "NCDD's Core Principles." This was a collaborative project led by NCDD, IAP2 (the Int'l Association for Public Participation), the Co-Intelligence Institute and several others. Many dozens of leading organizations in the public engagement field were involved in crafting these principles, and you can view all the endorsements at www.thataway.org/?page_id=1444 . As the Director of NCDD, which is a large-ish network with a tiny staff, it's very important to me that people know these are not "NCDD's" Principles. (The last commenter mentioned "Core Values," and there is a different post about IAP2's Core Values; maybe that's a point of confusion.)

These principles were finalized very recently, so no - we haven't done any real lobbying for them yet. NCDD has never actually 'lobbied' for anything in the past, but our members are excited that concepts like "participation" and "public engagement" are actually being paid real attention to by the White House and we don't want to pass up these kinds of opportunities. We'd like the principles to be included somehow in the Open Government Directive, but even if they're not we think they are going to be very useful for our field, which before this hasn't really attempted to come to any widespread agreement about principles.

We have indeed asked our network to support this recommendation, as I've seen several other organizations do for a number of posts here. I haven't seen anything on this site that specifies that individuals and not organizations or networks are the ones who should be posting ideas and recommendations. It's hard to tell which posts are really coming from organizations, since all you see is a vague username and few people are identifying themselves or their affiliations in their posts. I know this whole process is an experiment that many will be learning from; maybe future forums will be earmarked for "individual citizens," and others for networks or organizations. But with online forums, it's hard to control such things.

I can see how this free-for-all approach could be seen as unfair to individuals if it ends up that those posts submitted and supported by organizations end up with many more votes. It will be interesting to see what happens. I noticed, though, that it says on the main page that, in the second phase of the process, "we will deepen the conversation about compelling topics raised during the brainstorming." It doesn't say we will deepen the conversation about topics with the most votes.

Also, with specialized topics like these, it makes sense for those who have worked in these areas to be the ones proposing most of the ideas. And oftentimes it's the organizations and networks that have really taken the time to develop concrete ideas, no?

johnruuu 10 months ago

Thank you Sandy.

marlacrockett 10 months ago

I'm an NCDD member, but have other affiliations and experiences that inform how I feel about practices in the field. So, whereas I might have tweaked some of the wording--and agree with the statement that there needs to be a more explicit principle addressing the conduct and role of practitioners--I endorse this list and thank those who worked so hard to craft it. A statement of principle is, by its nature, broad and intended for universal application. So, whether it was created by one group or a thousand, if the points are sound, they'll last. If they're not, they won't, nor will they attract widespread support. I think we'd all be well-served by viewing these ideas in a more impersonal light.

Johnruuu 10 months ago

It’s nothing personal. I was just watching ""the train" and trying to unravel the threads of motive or accountability within the post and unusually hgigh number of votes, whether or not the votes were for or against. Thataway.org, NCDD and the author and the various intertwined paid memberships thereto, including the authors own professional company are all factors I consider as to the quality of or content provided in their collective post.

jdg 10 months ago

As a representative of IAP2 I want to support Sandy's assurance that this was a transparent and 'collaborative project led by NCDD, IAP2 (the Int'l Association for Public Participation), the Co-Intelligence Institute and several others'. Several representatives of like-minded groups and organizations came together and initially developed these consensus principles, they'll remain a work in progress and truly are the 'wisdom of the crowd'.

hina 10 months ago

I think the Principles submitted by Sandy and a great place to begin. I also echo the need to include a principle about self-reflection, self-responsibility. We have a culturally induced habit of starting from "no" and looking for the holes, disagreement and superior/inferior. Let's start from "Yes,...and" and see where we go-even in this process. True Democracy is a fluid, having the capacity to change organically as we expand our consciousness. These principles can morph, refine,re-define as we move forward. The challenge for us on the table is to practice these principles and fellowship as we develop these very processes of open government.

What an incredible opportunity to facilitate a change in paradigm from a domineering one into a partnering one (thank you Riane Eisler). There's lots of work to do and undo.

michael 9 months ago

these seven principles all sound fine. a number of friends and colleagues of mine probably had some hand in writing them. and i think they miss the most important issue.

i see nothing about responsibility. i see lots of things that seem to assume that responsibility and power lie with government.

without some clear statement, in any situation, of what government can or must do and what *the people* can and must do for themselves, then all of these become really ambiguous and people just end up fighting over the different assumptions.

if the only principle is that in any situation the public conversation should begin and end with a drawing the clearest possible line between what is citizen responsibility and what is government or other org responsibility (or better, capability) then the rest of it would follow quite naturally and easily.

even more to the point, learning as i go here, is that everybody needs to do everything they can. so everybody should be looking into and talking about what *they* can do in a given situation, not what others can do.

every official and every citizen who shows up at a public meeting ought to be expected to start their rant at the microphone with some statement about what they want to offer toward a solution, what they are prepared or trying to do.

so i think one principle would do it, and it needs to be applied to government AND the people. otherwise, there will always be a difference between government and the people.

jgastil 9 months ago

One could come up with any number of lists of core principles (and I've seen plenty), but these strike me as quite reasonable and relatively comprehensive. I recognize that they came out of discussions of many people, so it's no surprise that they resonate with the best principles and practices in public deliberation and dialogue. Good job.

Stephen Buckley 9 months ago

Dear fellow "Idea" brainstormers and commentors:

For news and moderated discussion (public, but unofficial) about the
continuing development and implementation of the "Open Government
Directive", you are invited to either:

1. send mailto:opengovernmentdirective+subscribe@googlegroups.com

2. visit http://groups.google.com/group/opengovernmentdirective

NOTE: Because I am posting this to the Comment section of some
(but not all) Ideas, you may see this message more than once.
I apologize for that.

vr,
Stephen Buckley
http://www.UStransparency.com

Greg Elin 9 months ago

I would prefer if Federal Agencies adopted principles that were defined more operationally than these particular seven.

For example, number 3 strikes me as the general purpose of self-governance and communities: "Support and encourage participants, government and community institutions, and others to work together to advance the common good."

I would not know how to implement #3 or how to check to see if an agency was adhering to that principle.

An alternative to number 3 might read: "Post expected outcomes, measurements, and timeframes in order to facilitate conversations that align all participants to advance those outcomes."

I like the idea of core principles for public engagement. But I think more work is needed on the what those principles would be.

Greg Elin
http://twitter.com/gregelin

greenspringvalley 9 months ago

Excellent idea. I'm not certain that it's as good as it could be.

As for comments, given Murphy's law of how language can be misinterpretted, some things may need clarified or spelled out.

For example:

The later phrase: "unconstrained by predetermined outcomes"

adds clarity to the earlier phrase:

"Through adequate and inclusive planning, ensure that the design, organization, and convening of the process serve both a clearly defined purpose and the needs of the participants."

The phrase "clearly defined purpose" probably refers to open ended purposes like "better dialogue" or to address a specific issue, but it's open to interpretations.

flomarm 9 months ago

Find a way to start engaging kids at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Making that part of their education will only enrich this country. My home state of Florida, required that we complete community service hours. Engage those types of programs and requirements more actively across the country!

flomarm 9 months ago

Take the virtual social networking concept to government. A lot of these initiatives could be empowered through a Facebook-like service for government participation.

The Secretary of State recently launched a virtual diplomacy program--let's have that at all levels and in all branches of government.

steinlaura 9 months ago

Unlike "Collaborative groups" agencies have to be at least somewhat heirarchical if only for the sake of accountibility. So only some of the "7 Core Principles" could be applied. For instance, who would the "organizers" and "sponsors" of an agency action or proposal be? This doesn't fit very well, but I'm thumbs upping it anyway, because I can imagine great value if the intentions behind the principles were adapted for agency use.

merveilleux24 9 months ago

Not sure about the necessity of #2, but overall it looks good.

Debra Bryant 9 months ago

Want to see the surplus money the US government and all states, local governments have? http://CAFR1.com and http://TaxRetirement.com
and support Campaign for Liberty

Debra Bryant 9 months ago

Do a search in Google on "Government Wealth" then if you are inclined, support this man that has provided this great service for us that make up the USA. We need volunteers to audit their city, county, state, etc...

kozmo1066 9 months ago

None of the people posting comments on this subject have ever seen any kind of birth certificate from any U.S. President. I would bet that none of these people have ever seen any birth certificate of any elected official at any level much less President. Why now do you want to see President Obama's ? It's quite obvious isn't it.

Post New Comment

Related Topics/Ideas

Title

308

Categories

Why Is This Idea Important?