Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Using online tools   queensland slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Using online tools queensland slides


Published on

Slides for a webinar hosted by the gov't of Queensland, Australia, delivered by Matt Leighninger of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, on 'Using Online Tools to Engage - and be Engaged by - the …

Slides for a webinar hosted by the gov't of Queensland, Australia, delivered by Matt Leighninger of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, on 'Using Online Tools to Engage - and be Engaged by - the Public.

Published in: Technology, News & Politics

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • The DDC network includes practitioner organizations, operating foundations, and academic researchers
  • This is the challenge – and opportunity – we all face, no matter what kinds of organizations we lead or belong to
  • Face-to-face and online communication enrich one another; surveys show that online use increases desire for face-to-face communication. Name other partners?
  • Sometimes this means action by citizens that is seeded by gov’t with small grants
  • Refer to Using Online Tools guide
  • “ Embedded in the DNA of online tools are two values: democracy and transparency”
  • Change slide
  • Show movie here Systems, not just tools
  • Transcript

    • 1. The Deliberative Democracy Consortium
    • 2. Slides available Guides:
    • 3. How much experience do you have with public engagement? (a quick poll)A. Quite experienced with face-to-face engagementB. Quite experienced with online engagementC. Quite experienced with bothD. Some experience, mainly with face-to- face engagementE. Just beginning
    • 4. The big picture: Two impacts of the Internet1. Empowering individual citizens (web, email – wrapped up in other changes)2. Empowering citizengroups (Facebook,Twitter, other socialmedia)
    • 5. First impact: How have citizens* changed? More educated More skeptical – different attitudes toward authority Have less time to spare Better able to find resources, allies, information* “citizens” = residents, people
    • 6. Second impact allows for new forms of engagement More sustained Larger, more diverse numbers of people Easier for ‘engagers’ – recruitment doesn’t have to start from scratch More open to ideas from the ‘engaged’ Need joint planning for engagement infrastructure – not just tools
    • 7. What is not changing Need for face-to-face relationships Need for an overall engagement plan Importance of partnering with other groups, organizations, institutions
    • 8. Questions or comments?
    • 9. Successful recent public engagement tactics Proactive about recruitment Bringing diverse perspectives together Sharing experiences Giving people chance to make up their own minds (deliberative) Different levels of action: volunteers, teams, organizations, policy decisions Increasing use of online tools
    • 10. Successful tactic: Proactive recruitment Map community networks; Involve leaders of those networks; Hold a kickoff meeting; Follow up, follow up, follow up.
    • 11. Successful tactic: Small-group processes  No more than 12 people per group;  Facilitator who is impartial (doesn’t give opinions);  Can be online or face-to-face (or both)
    • 12. Successful tactic: Framing an issueProvide an agenda or guide that: Begins by asking people to talk about why they care about this issue or question Gives them the information they need, in ways they can absorb and use it Lays out several options or views (including ones you don’t agree with) Ends with questions that get people to plan what they want to do (not just what they want you to do)
    • 13. Successful tactic: Many levels of action
    • 14. Successful tactic: Online toolsParticularly good for:  Providing background information  Data gathering by citizens  Generating and ranking ideas  Helping people visualize options  Maintaining connections over time
    • 15. Digital divides (plural) Overall, Internet access growing “Access” – to Internet, to government – has never been enough Different people use different hardware Different people go to different places on the Internet Communities just as complex online as off – recruitment must be proactive
    • 16. Common mistakes Treating Internet as a one-way medium Not enough recruitment Transparency without proactive engagement Gathering ideas and not implementing them
    • 17. Questions or comments?
    • 18. Does this presentation match your experiences with public engagement? (a quick poll)A. Yes, this fits with my experienceB. No, it doesn’t fitC. In some ways it does, in some ways it doesn’tD. I really don’t have enough experience yet to judge
    • 19. “Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern Ontario • Began in 2009 • North West Ontario Local Health Integration Network, Ascentum • Issue: health care planning and improvement of health care services • 800 participants • Received IAP2 award
    • 20. “Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern OntarioElement 1 – Online choicebook that providedbackground information and data, described mainoptions
    • 21. “Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern OntarioElement 2 – Online “stories and ideas” tool that allowedpeople to share experiences, solutions
    • 22. “Share Your Story, Shape Your Care”Northwestern OntarioElement 3 – Conversation guide for face-to-face,moderated small-group meetings
    • 23. “Decatur Next”Decatur, Georgia Large-scale planning efforts in 2000, 2010 Initial Organizer: city government and a local nonprofit (Common Focus) Issues: schools, race, growth 450 participants in 2000, 680 in 2010 (city of 17,000)
    • 24. “Decatur Roundtables” Decatur, GeorgiaOutcomes: Decatur Neighborhood Alliance Promotion of tax abatement plan for seniors, other anti-displacement efforts Less tension between different groups New model for land use decisions Extensive citizen input into city’s strategic plan
    • 25. Successes, limitations of engagement so farSuccesses: Making policy decisions, planning Catalyzing citizen action Building trust Fostering new leadershipChallenges: Time-consuming (especially recruitment) Unsustainable (usually not intended to be) Meets goals of ‘engagers,’ not ‘engaged’ Doesn’t change the institutions Limited impact on equity Trust, relationships fade over time
    • 26. Questions or comments?
    • 27. Why plan for more sustainable kinds of engagement?1. Sustain the benefits2. Allow the ‘engaged’ to set the agenda3. Better address inequities4. Increase community attachment and economic growth5. Increase residents’ sense of legitimacy and “public happiness”
    • 28. Community engagement planners should consider some key building blocks:
    • 29. Resources••••••• On Facebook: “Deliberative Democracy Consortium” group page• The Next Form of Democracy
    • 30. Resources (continued)• On YouTube: the DDC channel• Using Online Tools to Engage – and Be Engaged by – the Public at• Planning for Stronger Local Democracy at – and other resources at
    • 31. Questions or comments?