Contents of Winter 2006 Collaborative Solutions Newsletter:
In this issue:
Practice democracy, promote active citizenship and
empowerment
Overview
The Ladder
of Participation - How much participation do we want?
Variations
with youth, and public deliberation
How
do we encourage democratic participation?
Basic
practices
Collaborative
leadership
Microdemocracy
A Community
Story - The Cleghorn Neighborhood Center Fitchburg ,Mass.
Resources
Study
Circles, Public Conversations, Right Question Project, Youth on Board
Page Top
Practice democracy, promote active citizenship and empowerment
Overview
Practicing democracy
is the third core principle of collaborative solutions. Now you might
ask, “Why is practicing democracy a critical part of community building?
When we are facing serious community problems, shouldn’t we just
get professionals to solve the problems and avoid the messy process called
democracy?” The answer to this question is a resounding no.
While professionals have a great deal to offer along the path to solutions,
they understand the view from above, not the view from the ground. Without
everyone’s perspective, any solutions devised will focus on symptoms,
rather than root causes. (For an example of a situation where the democratic
approach could produce the best solutions, see the special
Fall 2005 issue of this newsletter concerning the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina. )
The next questions that
follow are: “Does democracy have a role to play in systems where
we deliver care or fix serious community problems? Does democracy belong
in the nonprofit sector and in service delivery and in health and human
services?” The answer to these questions is a loud yes.
Democracy has a role to play in every subsystem and community activity
within a democratic society.
Democracy is a process
through which the common people wield political power; where the majority
rules; and, where the principles of equal rights and equal opportunities
reign.
We often think
of democracy as being centered on voting. Democracy is so much bigger,
and more everyday, than that. Thomas Jefferson pointed out that beyond
having the power to vote, people must have avenues for “expressing,
discussing, and deciding." In a way, these interactions are more
important than voting. Voting may only happen once a year, or every two
years, or every four. Other democratic processes can affect our actions
in daily life, and they lay the groundwork for voting. The Right Question
Project suggests that every occasion where a resident encounters the system
( government, corporations, health care agencies etc.) is a moment of
micro-democracy where democracy may or may not be practiced.
Suzanne Morse (2004)
notes: “Public deliberation, the core of our democracy, rests on
the opportunity to discuss and decide what is in the public’s interest.
The stated goals are both to prepare people to act as responsible citizens
and to carve out ways in which meaningful participation is feasible and
possible. Public deliberation, as opposed to public debate, is an opportunity
to join with others to learn, discuss, and understand the multiple perspectives
that enliven democracy.”
Community building
requires community participation. These two concepts work hand-in-hand—we
cannot do one without the other. The community must be at the heart of
decision-making on issues that affect its members. We cannot come up with
effective solutions for a community without the residents’ contributions
in identifying the problem, exploring possible solutions, implementing
changes, and ultimately evaluating the community-development efforts.
Yet, within our democratic
society, change doesn’t always occur this way. Too often the community
is not only not at the heart of the decision making, they are barely consulted.
I was once asked by the mayor of a small city to work with his buddy,
who was charged with converting the old police station into a youth center.
It took three months to convince the mayor's buddy to invite youth to
our meetings. When we finally got some young people in the room, we asked
them what they wanted out of the proposed center. When they said “dances
on Friday night,” the mayor's buddy replied, “We won't do
that. What else do you want?” At that instant, the community-building
process for the youth center died. It was clear that their voices would
not be heard. Why would they even bother to participate in the process
any further? So-called discussions, during which we ignore the voices
of those most affected, take place much too often
It is our perception
that many institutions in America have suppressed the voices of their
constituents, so that these constituents no longer feel like they have
a say in the system and therefore do not participate. We see evidence
of this in low turnouts of voters for elections, in diminished parent
participation in schools, and in citizens who choose not to get involved
in local government. We also see this diminished democracy in the role
that recipients play in the design and implementation of health and human
services.
Our country wasn’t
always this way. Our country was founded because people objected to not
having a say and because they did get involved.
In order to build
a system of democratic public deliberation, we need to reverse the trend
away from involvement. As groundwork, we need to look carefully at how
our systems either encourage or discourage participation and democratic
decision-making. While we do this, we need to work with the people in
the community and with the constituents of the systems to encourage their
participation, to gain (or re-gain) their trust that their voices will
be heard, and to provide them with the skills and support that they will
need when they participate.
In sum, to fully encourage
democracy and promote active citizenship and empowerment in our community-building
work, the process of public deliberation in a democratic manner involves
two key components: First, the system must desire, and be willing to facilitate,
public deliberation. That system must have mechanisms for eliciting public
opinion that are fair, productive and that place decision-making power
in the hands of the people. Second, people within the community must have
the skills, confidence, and self-respect to productively participate.
We have to understand:
-
Our systems and how they encourage democracy,
-
The people whom we wish to engage, and, finally,
-
The interactions between our systems and our constituents.
The work is exciting.
It also requires preparation, flexibility, and an awareness of the full
range of alternatives. In this Newsletter issue we will focus primarily
on changing our systems. Working democratically may require profound,
and fundamental change.
Page Top
How much participation do we want? - The Ladder of Participation
Before we start along
this road to change, we have to ask ourselves: “Do we really want
participation? Do we really want democracy?”
There’s no simple answer
that applies to every situation, but evaluating potential levels of democratic
involvement will help us figure out what we’re getting into
and how we want to proceed—and will help us become aware of the
effects that will accompany shifting the way we make decisions in our
communities.
More than thirty years ago,
I ran across Sherry Arnstein’s “Ladder of Participation,”
which allows us to see the many levels of participation between totally
authoritarian and fully democratic decision-making. (Arnstein,1969). Arnstein
defines eight categories of citizen participation, clustered in three
groups. The bottom group, nonparticipation, includes manipulation
and therapy. The next group, called tokenism, includes informing,
consultation, and placation. The top group, called citizen power,
consists of partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. The higher
you go on the ladder—in the direction of citizen control—the
greater the likelihood that both citizen engagement and democratic
processes will occur.
When you are considering either
existing initiatives or programs that you are developing, you can use
the Ladder of Participation to ask, “What is our goal for participation
and how will we achieve it?” The Ladder of Participation can be
used with all projects. Just remember that shared decision-making cannot
happen when we areusing techniques at the low end of the ladder, the non-participation
categories.
Page Top
Variations on this theme:
Several useful variations of this instrument are available today.
A. Ladder of Participation
modified for working with young people.
(Photo courtesy of the Freechild Project)
Some who work with youth
have modified the ladder concept, probably inspired to do so because young
people are so often used as token representatives. (see Roger Hart 1997)This
ladder incorporates specific values. The first is that shared decision-making
is the democratic participatory goal toward which we are aiming. The second
is that participation is strongest when the project or program is community-initiated.
Hart has added appropriate categories to reflect these values such as
“community-initiated and directed agency-supported” and “community-initiated
shared decisions with agencies”.
If you are working with
young people and have decided that you want meaningful engagement with
them, you will find that you need to do more than just get the young people
to the table. You will need to modify the table. We have found, as have
many others, that it's very hard for adults and youth to find ways to
carry out respectful public discourse. Youth on Board (see resources)
has developed wonderful manuals, assessments, and practices that suggest
mechanisms for successful youth and adult interactions on boards of directors.
The materials developed by Youth on Board can be applied to other situations
as well.
B. The Ladder of Participation modified for working with public deliberation.
If we are to create
democratic community-building processes, we must be able to determine
whether our own work and processes are conducive to community participation
and democratic decision-making. Another instrument, based on Arnstein’s
work, can help us conduct this necessary self-reflection.
Williamson and Fung (2004)
use a variation of the Ladder of Participation in writing about public
deliberation in general, not just with youth. Their ladder covers six
categories: manipulation, informational, consultation, partnership,
delegated power,and citizen control.
These categories are listed from least to most democratic:
Manipulation: At the low-end of the empowerment scale
are occasions in which the objective of sponsors is to bring participants
around to their position or increase participants’ acceptance of
policies and decisions. Arnstein illustrates this category with examples
of citizen advisory boards used as a rubber stamp or as a public-relations
stunt.
Informational: The central objective of most forms of
public participation is to provide information to participants. In many
forms of public deliberation, information flows only from officials to
citizens, with no mechanism for meaningful feedback. Public meetings in
which officials announce policies and answer questions are informational.
Consultation: In consultative forms of public deliberation,
citizens are asked for their input but have no clear assurance that their
advice will be heeded. For example, at some public hearings, citizens
have the opportunity to speak although officials have little responsibility
for considering citizen comments. Other venues produce reports and recommendations
without assurance that policymakers will adopt them.
Partnership: Less frequently, some venues of public
deliberation invite citizens to participate as partners in public decision-making.
Such arrangements often create an accountability mechanism to ensure that
citizen input is not flagrantly disregarded. Some advisory boards, for
example, operate with a charter that requires policymakers to take the
advice of the board or to publicly justify their differing choices.
Delegated power: Still more rarely, government may delegate
authority over some area of policymaking to a venue of public deliberation.
Some neighborhood associations, for example, enjoy substantial zoning
authority; other such associations possess budget authority over local
projects.
Citizen control: Some venues of public deliberation
exercise authoritative decision-making power over a wide-open agenda of
issues. The classic example here is the town meeting in the New England
tradition, still practiced in hundreds of towns in the northeastern United
States.
Page Top
How do we encourage democratic participation?
So how do we go about
practicing democracy, promoting active citizenship, and empowering people
in communities?
One set of strategies
involves examining how we operate internally to see whether we encourage
and support civic engagement in a way that truly allows the airing of
diverse issues and the pursuit of new solutions. To achieve this, we need
to go beyond bringing those with the least power to the table. We need
to design ways for everyone to be heard and respected equally, regardless
of power or other status. Two excellent models for promoting community
deliberation on difficult issues, called Study Circles and Public Conversations,
are listed at the end of this newsletter (see resources).
Page Top
Basic practices:
What initial steps might we
follow when we set up a collaborative effort, in order to increase the
likelihood that community participation and democratic processes will
happen?
Some practices are simple and may be so obvious that we overlook them,
thinking they don’t really matter.
For example, it’s
helpful to set up the room so that participants take
seats in a circle, an arrangement that conveniently undoes
the authoritarian dynamics that are set up when an audience faces a leader
or group of leaders. Yes, moving the furniture is important. Just saying
“we’re all here as equals” doesn’t have the same
effect.
The next step is to start
the meeting by going around the circle and asking
for introductions. We have done these introductions with groups
of 60 or 70 people. Although the routine can be time-consuming, it communicates
the critical message that we are all here as equals, and all here to participate.
Introductions encourage those who are reluctant to talk, making a space
at the beginning in which they hear the sounds of their own voices in
the meeting.
Here’s an important
side note on introductions. Often when the a room contains many people
with formal community roles and only a few residents, the residents introduce
themselves by saying, “I’m just Jane (or John) Doe.”
Who taught people to introduce themselves that way? The word “just”
essentially devalues their position. This happens so frequently that we
cannot write it off as the result of individual low self-esteem. Instead,
we need to own the fact that we have previously taught people that their
voices are not valued in community decision-making. This is a sad conclusion.
Our challenge is to create settings in which people will feel that their
thoughts and opinions are valued.
We communicate a very
different kind of message as the meeting proceeds. When we ask for community
thoughts on a specific issue, we write everyone’s opinion
in letters of the same size on the same sheet of newsprint.
This represents the fundamental idea that the resident in low-income housing
and the mayor both have thoughts that are of equal value in this meeting.
Dominant voices are the
ones most likely to be heard in the meeting. As collaborative leaders,
we can use simple techniques and processes that encourage everyone
to have a say, regardless of his or her personality or decibel
level. We can create a worksheet to clarify the issue at hand, and ask
everyone to fill it out. The worksheet can contain questions like, “Where
do you want to go?” and “What are the barriers to getting
there?” We can then have participants share their answers in pairs
or small groups, which then report to the large group. This will dramatically
increase the likelihood that we will hear from the quiet participants
as well as the vocal ones..
When you think about it, these simple actions—sitting in a circle
while sharing issues and thoughts equally across the community hierarchy
in order to solve problems together—are what democracy is really
about. Unfortunately, this type of interaction occurs far too infrequently.
Page Top
Collaborative Leadership
To truly engage a large group
in community decision-making requires us to practice what is probably
an unfamiliar form of leadership called collaborative leadership. A successful
collaborative leader has the ability to share power, is flexible, can
see the big picture, is trustworthy, has patience, abundant energy and
hope.
Being
a collaborative leader requires a range of skills:
- Be inclusive, promote diversity
- Practice shared decision making
- Resolve conflicts constructively
- Communicate clearly, openly, and honestly
- Facilitate group interaction
- Nurture leadership in others and encourage top-level commitment
And here are some helpful “Dos and Don’ts” of collaborative
leadership
- DO remember to delegate
- DON’T try to juggle too many balls
- DON’T take it personally
- DO maintain an action orientation
- DON’T hog the spotlight
- DON’T avoid conflict
- DON’T forget to celebrate the small victories
(Collaborative leadership material adapted from Developing Community
Capacity, WK Kellogg Foundation 1994)
Page Top
The idea of microdemocracy
What happens in these meetings
can be understood better by looking at the Right Question Project’s
concept of microdemocracy. The Right Question Project believes that every
time a citizen has an interaction with any part of the democratic system
(at a doctor’s office, the welfare office, the bank, the Department
of Motor Vehicles, and so on), that moment offers an opportunity within
which democracy can be played out—during which the citizen can be
heard and respected, can ask questions, can maintain dignity and be a
locus of power. Or not. Too often our system fails at these opportunities
for microdemocracy. The Right Question Project teaches question-asking
skills as one way of increasing the odds that democracy may flourish during
these moments.
The Right Question Project
says, “When people are able to focus clearly on decisions, how they
are made, the basis for making them, and their opportunities for having
a say in them, they are asserting the centrality of transparent, accountable
and open decision-making processes in a democracy. Our educational strategy
and our vision of Microdemocracy offer a clear way to build a better and
stronger democracy.” [www.rightquestion.org]
Page Top
A Community Story
I've recently been doing some
work with the Cleghorn Neighborhood Center in Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
Cleghorn is a low-income Hispanic community in an economically struggling
former mill town. The neighborhood has had a generally negative reputation
in the community.
The Cleghorn Neighborhood
Center (CNC) decided to take a community-building and community-development
approach to its work, with the support of the Community Foundation of
North Central Massachusetts. The people at CNC began with an idealistic
commitment to visit door-to-door with every household in the 3500-person
neighborhood. During these visits, CNC staff made individual contact and
did not just ask what was wrong with the community. Building on the work
of Kretzmann and McKnight (1993), they also asked what was good about
the neighborhood, what the residents would be willing to do to help improve
the community, and how the residents thought they could become invested
in creating change.
The door-to-door surveys
indicated that 85 percent of Cleghorn residents are unemployed, 82 percent
are looking for employment, the majority speak only Spanish, and many
of these Spanish-speaking residents are not literate in their native tongue.
This has created interesting challenges for the community mobilization
process
The CNC also organized
a candidates’ night, at which the five candidates for the local
city council seat talked about their positions. Borrowing from the wonderful
work of Frances Moore Lappé and Paul Martin Dubois (1994), the
candidates were asked to go to five tables where the residents were sitting
and to listen as residents described their neighborhood. Then, instead
of getting up and giving a political speech, each candidate was to summarize
what he or she had heard. This was a huge success for all participating.
The format highlighted residents’ concerns and made a lasting impression
on all the candidates—especially on the one who was successful in
the election. He became a regular visitor to the center, attending all
resident meetings and maintaining a mail box on site! The residents began
to understand that what they say mattered, and that political candidates
might actually listen to them.
Building on the door-to-door
individual contacts and earlier meetings, a well-attended community meeting
was held in June of this year. Community members identified needs and
issues, and they formed problem-solving volunteer work groups. The residents
also identified and reported on the community’s strengths, which
were acknowledged by strong applause and smiling faces. This community
was not accustomed to talking about itself in positive terms.
During this year’s
campaign season when the city councilor was running unopposed, that councilor
held a candidates’ night for people running for other citywide offices,
such as city councilor at-large and school committee member, and located
this meeting in the Cleghorn neighborhood. The meeting was scheduled on
the night of a regular biweekly Cleghorn Community meeting, after which
a group of twenty community meeting participants marched over to join
the candidates’ night group. When they arrived, they were surprised
to see that the second meeting had been delayed for their arrival. The
city councilor who'd been elected the year before wasn't going to start
without the Cleghorn residents. The following week, eighteen of the residents
who had attended this second candidates’ night accompanied the CNC
outreach worker to the polls and voted for the first time in their lives.
If people are offered
respect, they will participate in the system, and their participation
will benefit all of us.
Page Top
Resources
Arnstein,S.(1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the
American Institute of Planning, 35, no. 4 : 216–224. http://partnerships.typepad.com/civic/2004/11/ladder_of_parti.html
Hart, R. (1997) Children's Participation: The Theory and Practice
of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental
Care, London: Earthscan Publications; New York: UNICEF. http://www.freechild.org/ladder.htm
Kretzmann,J & McKnight,J. (1993) Building Communities from the
Inside Out, ACTA Publications, Chicago.
Lappé,F. & Dubois, P (1994) The Quickening of America,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Morse,S. (2004) Practicing Democracy: How Communities Come Together to
Solve Problems, National Civic Review 93, no. 2: 31–41.
Williamson, A. & Fung, A. (2004) Public Deliberation: Where
Are We and Where Can We Go? National Civic Review 93, no. 4: 3–15.
A study circle …
- is a small, diverse group of between 8 and 12 people.
- meets for several two-hour sessions.
- sets its own ground rules. This helps the group share responsibility
for the quality of the discussion.
- is led by an impartial facilitator who helps manage the discussion.
He or she is not there to teach the group about the issue.
- starts with personal stories, then helps the group look at a problem
from many points of view. Next, the group explores possible solutions.
Finally, members make plans for action and change.
Study circles …
- involve everyone. They demonstrate that the whole community is welcome
and needed.
- embrace diversity. They reach out to all kinds of people.
- share knowledge, resources, power, and decision-making.
- combine dialogue and deliberation. They create public talk that builds
understanding and explores a range of solutions.
- connect deliberative dialogue to social, political, and policy change.
A study circle program
…
- is organized by a diverse group of people from the whole community.
- includes a large number of people from all walks of life.
- has easy-to-use, fair-minded discussion materials.
- uses trained facilitators who reflect the community’s diversity.
- moves a community to action when the study circles conclude.
The mission of the project is: To foster a more inclusive, empathic,
and collaborative society by promoting constructive conversations and
relationships among those who have differing values, world views, and
positions about divisive public issues.
The project serves:
- activists in adversarial relationships who are interested in talking
with each other directly, rather than through the media, in ways that
reduce stereotyping and defensiveness;
- groups and networks who seek to more effectively collaborate despite
differences of identity or perspective;
- civic leaders, political officials, and educators who seek to build
community and enhance democracy;
- religious leaders seeking to foster dialogue on divisive issues within
and across communities of faith;
- citizens interested in communicating across deeply rooted differences
of perspective, identity, or world view;
- mediators and other third-party practitioners interested in learning
new approaches to the design and facilitation of dialogue;
- scholars in the fields of alternative dispute resolution, communication,
and community-building; and,
- the public.
The Right Question Project (RQP) is mentioned in more depth earlier in
this newsletter. The organization’s goal is to help “people
. . . ask the right questions to advocate for themselves, and focus on
the decisions that affect them.” RQP also says, “When people
are able to focus clearly on decisions, how they are made, the basis for
making them, and their opportunities for having a say in them, they are
asserting the centrality of transparent, accountable and open decision-making
processes in a democracy.”
A social service provider and aide to a Member of Parliament from Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, shared RQP’s concept of microdemocracy with new
immigrants and remarked, “We live in a democratic society and it
is possible for us, for all of us, for everyone to have some influence
but it’s a matter of just getting involved. [RQP] is a way for people
to represent themselves, and to deal with government agencies, and to
be able to achieve something.”
The Youth on Board publication
14 Points: Successfully Involving Youth in Decision Making is
a winner. Here’s the organization’s description:
If you want to include young people in a program, initiative, or change
effort, or if you are already working with young people and want to do
so more effectively, then this is the resource for you. This 220-page
comprehensive guide to youth involvement is a logical starting point for
preparing young people to take ownership of their communities. It includes
guidelines, worksheets, tips, resource directory, and stories from the
street—all designed to help young people and adults work together
to improve their communities.
- Learn how to recruit, hire, train and mentor young leaders.
- Discover the importance of strong youth/adult relationship change
efforts.
- Hear about other successful youth involvement efforts.
- Learn how to sell others on the concept of youth involvement.
Also check out Youth on Board: Why and How to Involve Young People
in Organizational Decision-Making, which they describe as follows:
Produced in collaboration with BoardSource (formerly the National Center
for Nonprofit Boards), this booklet is perfect for the busy staff person
or board chair who wants to find out about involving young people in decision-making
but does not have time to read our book 14 Points. It features
an overview of Youth on Board’s 14-point system for successfully
involving youth in decision-making, and addresses why organizations would
want to include young people in their decision-making process. The booklet
is also great for providing introductory information to boards and committees
to help decide if this is the right route for them.