Sustaining Public Engagement

Sustaining Public Engagement
Embedded Deliberation in Local Communities
by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

An Occasional Research Paper from
Everyday Democracy and the Kettering Foundation
Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

1
Everyday Democracy
111 Founders Plaza
Suite 1403
East Hartford, CT 06108
Tel: 860-928-2616
Fax: 860-928-3713
E-Mail: info@everyday-democracy. org
Web: www. everyday-democracy. org
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Kettering Foundation, Everyday Democracy, and the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, which collaborated in this research. Special thanks go to Martha McCoy, Patrick
Scully, John Dedrick, and David Mathews and to all those who participated in our research meetings in
Dayton, Ohio, for their insights. Joseph Goldman conducted the research for three of the case studies
cited in this report and helped us clarify important research questions. Finally, we are deeply indebted
to all the deliberative entrepreneurs, community activists, residents, experts, officials, and policymakers
who were willing to be interviewed or observed. This research is grounded in their important work, and
we hope it will assist them in their future practice of deliberation.
Everyday Democracy Kettering Foundation

Everyday Democracy, a project of The Paul J. The Kettering Foundation is an operating
Aicher Foundation, helps local communities foundation rooted in the tradition of
find ways for all kinds of people to think, cooperative research. Kettering’s primary
talk and work together to solve problems. research question is, what does it take to make
Using groundbreaking tools and methods democracy work as it should? Established
for organizing large-scale dialogue and in 1927 by inventor Charles F. Kettering, the
collaborative problem solving, Everyday foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization that does
Democracy works with neighborhoods, cities not make grants but engages in joint research
and towns, regions, and states, helping them with others.
pay particular attention to how structural
racism and other structural inequalities affect
the problems they address.
The interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of Everyday Democracy or the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, their staff,
directors, or officers.
Authors: Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Executive Editor: Patrick L. Scully
Editor: Ilse Tebbetts
Copy Editor: Lisa Boone-Berry
Layout and Design: coleimage.com
Production: Carrie Boron
Copyright © 2009 by Everyday Democracy and the Kettering Foundation
2 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement
Embedded Deliberation in Local Communities
Contents
Introduction 1
Methodology 5
What Does Success Look Like? 7
Solving Local Problems 13
Making Democracy Work 15
Democratic Deficits 17
The Concept of Embeddedness 25
Three Conditions of Embeddedness 30
Measuring Embeddedness: Tentative Benchmarks 34
Strategies for Establishing and Sustaining Deliberation 37
Conclusion 42

3
Courtesy Coleimage
Introduction
O ver the past four years, we have studied

local public deliberations in nine communities
Embedded Deliberation
across the United States. We searched for Embeddedness is a habit of

communities where it seemed that the deliberation among citizens.
practice of regular and organized deliberation When that habit is embedded
had taken root and grown. We wanted to in a community’s political
understand how what almost always begins institutions and social practices,
as a limited effort to mobilize citizens and people frequently make public
convene them to consider a public issue or decisions and take collective
political problem can sometimes grow into a actions through processes that
regular practice that involves many different involve discussion, reasoning, and
segments of a community and spans multiple citizen participation rather than
issues that bear scant relation to one another. through the exercise of authority,
Such communities, we thought, would be expertise, status, political weight,
interesting because they would be ones in or other such forms of power.
which the skills, practice, and organizational
wherewithal to conduct regular public
deliberation had become “embedded.”

Embedded deliberation takes the state of
the art one step farther—a community that
has embedded deliberation in its practices of
Consider the progress that has been made public reflection and action:
in understanding the practice of public
deliberation to date: ●● utilizes methods of more or less
formally organized deliberation
●● First, practitioners of public
deliberation, or deliberative ●● to consider a range of public
democracy, have by now issues or problems
mastered the art of creating ●● over a period of several years.
high-quality organized
deliberations as one-off As we shall see, it is also often the case that
events that last from a day to
deliberation in these communities is linked to
several weeks. Though never
a range of community-based or governmental
easy and often expensive,
organizations in ways that affect the decisions,
we know how to organize
resources, or policies of those bodies.
and convene citizen juries,
National Issues Forums, 21st-
century town meetings, study
circles, and deliberative polls. Indicators of
Embedded Deliberation
●● Second, networks like the
National Issues Forums A community that has
have created community embedded deliberation in its
institutions—such as the practices of public reflection
Public Policy Institutes—that and action (i) utilizes methods
house, host, and support of organized—more or less
public deliberations. formal—deliberation (ii) to
consider a range of public issues
●● Third, several investigators
or problems (iii) over a period
have looked at the practices
of several years. Often public
and realities of informal public
deliberation is (iv) linked to a
deliberation in communities and
community institutions. These range of community-based or
remarkable accomplishments governmental organizations in
in practice and understanding ways that affect the decisions,
mark real progress in the state resources, or policies of those
of deliberative practice. bodies.

2
Though they themselves may not recognize it,
deliberative practitioners also address more fundamental
shortcomings of the structures of local democratic
governance through their work.
The main sections of this report describe We argue that deliberative projects and
our general investigative process and the reforms in these communities work at a
results of our analysis. We begin by outlining deeper level as well. Though they themselves
our methodology and offering capsule may not recognize it, deliberative practitioners
descriptions of the nine communities we also address more fundamental shortcomings
investigated. These brief accounts highlight of the structures of local democratic
the distinctive deliberative accomplishments governance through their work. In the
of each. Together they offer beacons and section titled “Making Democracy Work,” we
benchmarks toward which other deliberative contend that local democratic governance
practitioners might strive. arrangements face certain characteristic
problems, or democratic deficits. These
The rest of the report grapples with the
deficits may include:
challenge of understanding—sometimes
interpreting—what these communities ●● weak social fabric,
have accomplished. We start by asking
●● unstable public judgment,
what challenges induced them to adopt
deliberative interventions. At the most ●● gaps in communication and
obvious level, each has used public accountability between officials
deliberation to address a concrete local
and communities, and
problem or issue. In a notable number of ●● insufficient governmental
those communities, deliberations address resources to tackle a range
challenges around public education, but of social challenges.
problems like urban planning and growth
management, racial tension and diversity,
The structures of organized public
domestic abuse, and child welfare also
deliberation can help address each of
appeared. The understanding of many
these deficits although different kinds of
deliberative practitioners and activists
democratic deficits require different forms of
in these communities was that public
public deliberation and deliberative action.
engagement and deliberation would help
If practitioners recognize this additional
solve these problems.
dimension of their work—if they come to see

that the deliberative practices they create are Drawing upon work with researcher Joseph
repairing democratic governance at the same Goldman, we suggest that three factors in
time that they solve local problems—our communities favor embedded deliberation:
hope is that they will tailor their projects in
ways that are suited to, and therefore more
effective remedies for, the particular deficits
●● Political authority
they encounter.
Elected officials must support
We attempt to understand why deliberation public deliberation and be
willing to consider its results
in our study communities has successfully
and even share authority with
spread over time by developing the concept
bodies of deliberating citizens.
of embedded deliberation. We explain the
characteristics of embeddedness and why it ●● Deliberative capacity
is helpful to understand embeddedness on Public or, more often, civic
two levels: some practices embed deliberative organizations in the community
must develop the resources
reflection while others also embed deliberative
and expertise to convene
public action. The first establishes habits of structured deliberations and to
ongoing deliberation to improve community mobilize people to participate
relations, clarifies the understanding of in those deliberations.
public policy problems, or provides input to
●● Demand for democracy
policymakers, while the second translates
Though rarely evident in
deliberation into action by mobilizing
our study communities,
communities and resources to solve local embeddedness requires a
problems. popular constituency that
presses for public deliberation
The first level of embeddedness is a when such engagement
necessary condition for the second. All becomes uncomfortable
of the communities that have embedded or inconvenient for local
public action have also developed habits of elites and authorities.
public reflection. Some communities do not
move from reflection to action because the
problems they attempt to solve, from limited The final sections of this report offer some
social trust to the need for public input, tentative thoughts about benchmarks and
require individual transformation or ad hoc measures of deliberative embeddedness and
involvement, not a sustained mobilization of the kinds of civic leadership and strategies
citizens. that are likely to sustain local deliberative
practices.

4
We singled out cases where deliberative practices had
become fairly widespread and repeated over time and had
led to some action around the issues.
Methodology capacity building, resources, and the creation

of strategic alliances. The relative maturity
T
of our cases enables us to observe how
deliberative practices evolved through time
he objective of these case studies was
and to understand their embeddedness and
to learn about the paths and patterns that
impact over a period of several years.
lead from deliberation to action and about
the conditions under which deliberation In each case, we conducted at least one field
becomes socially and politically embedded. visit of several days and observed deliberative
Therefore, our selection of case studies was events. These observations enabled us to
highly opportunistic. We singled out cases better understand different deliberative
where deliberative practices had become models, the dynamics among participants, and
fairly widespread and repeated over time the mechanisms employed to promote action.
and had led to some action around the In some cases, we attended trainings on the
issues. We selected these cases not only to specific deliberative model used, including the
illustrate successful examples of embedded National Issues Forums (NIF) model in West
deliberation, but also to explain the breadth Virginia and Hawaii and the Indigenous Issues
of problems that can be addressed through Forums model in South Dakota.
deliberative interventions. Subsequently, we
Our case studies drew upon different
wanted to focus on the reasons that made
deliberative approaches. Many were
these interventions successful, including how
informed by the study circles model, which
and why deliberation became embedded,
combines public deliberation (and dialogue)
the role of deliberative entrepreneurs, and
with community organizing. Participants—
the strategic choices they faced to promote
often numbering in the hundreds—meet in
deliberation. The advice of national experts
both large and small gatherings. Most of the
on community-level deliberations guided us
deliberations take place in smaller groups
in our process of case identification.
of 8 to 12 that meet in a series of sessions to
We selected mature or relatively mature cases. explore an issue with the guidance of peer
Efforts to influence policymaking or mobilize facilitators. Participants start by discussing an
communities are slow processes that require issue, then move on to explore concrete ways

they could address the problem, and come up Hawaii, which focuses on issues relating to
with specific action ideas. 1 children, convenes stakeholders, including
legislators, advocacy groups, and public
At NIF forums, a diverse group of participants
agencies. The caucus meets monthly to
(the number can vary greatly) may gather for
discuss pressing issues, prioritize needs, and
one or more deliberations, often lasting two
assemble a legislative package.
hours, about a public policy problem, such as
reforming health care or U. S. - international Most of these deliberative approaches were
relations. A moderator invites participants developed by national organizations. In every
to weigh different approaches, considering case, however, those in local communities
their pros and cons so they can deepen their adapted the different models to their specific
understanding, appreciate the complexity of circumstances and needs.
an issue, and move in the direction of making
We also conducted extensive interviews
a collective decision.
with those who could help us understand
The Community Conversations we observed these cases and illuminate our research
in Connecticut mobilize a large, diverse group questions. In general, we interviewed the
for an evening during which participants main promoters of public deliberation and
discuss public education issues in small those who were exposed to deliberation to
groups and formulate concrete action plans. register their reactions, as well as activists,
policymakers, experts, and organizations in
The Indigenous Issues Forums, employed by
which deliberation has been employed as an
Native Americans in South Dakota, are small-
instrument to advance their objectives. We
group dialogues where participants share
also examined available primary documents,
personal stories and explore tribal issues.
which ranged from simple lists of objectives
Facilitators invite participants to reflect about
recorded during a deliberation to newspaper
the characteristics of a healthy dialogue
stories, more formal reports, articles, and
process.
publications.
Finally, the Keiki Caucus (Children Caucus) in
1 In this report, the term study circles is used in two ways. Sometimes, the term describes the overall structure
of a public engagement process, and in other instances, it describes one, or a series of small-group meetings on
a public issue that form the centerpiece of the public engagement process. In 2008, the Study Circles Resource
Center (SCRC) changed its name to Everyday Democracy to better communicate the nature of its mission—and
also to signal its growing understanding that the term study circles, by connoting individual small-group meetings,
paints an incomplete picture of the organization’s work and that of its community partners. The authors use the
old study circles language in this report because the case studies were completed before the SCRC changed its
name and its sense of how to describe this work.

6
Courtesy Coleimage
What Does Success studies of nine communities. Readers

should not regard the experiences of these
Look Like?
communities as typical. Indeed, we selected
them because their experiences seemed in
W e began our study by identifying

communities in which efforts to create
their own ways extraordinary. But neither
can we say that we have identified the most
successful cases of local deliberation. Our
public deliberation seemed to have taken search methods and investigative resources
root and, in one way or another, resulted were necessarily limited; there are almost
in some kind of public action. We based certainly other communities in which
preliminary assessments of “success” on the public deliberation has been longer lived,
suggestions of staff members at national more widespread, more inclusive, or more
organizations, such as Everyday Democracy effective. Nevertheless, the experiences of
(formerly Study Circles Resource Center) the communities we selected were highly
and the Kettering Foundation, and word instructive. Each of these communities
of mouth in the community of deliberative succeeds deliberatively in its own distinctive
practitioners. We also looked at the database way. Between them, we believe, they
Everyday Democracy uses to track its work in constitute frontiers of deliberation that offer
the communities it assists. From this list, we many lessons for those who seek to spread
contacted principals in various communities deliberation and deepen democracy.
to verify that substantial and ongoing
deliberation did, in fact, occur there. The brief community profiles below are
intended to convey a sense of what we
Ultimately, we went on to conduct detailed thought success looked like.

Since 1997, New Castle County, Delaware, participated in dozens of circles on issues
has hosted widespread community like quality of life in a growing population,
deliberations about race relations, equality of public school finance, drug testing, and
opportunity, diversity, and tolerance. More comprehensive community planning. As
than 12,000 individuals have participated in an instance of successful deliberation, Kuna
this effort, making the New Castle program stands out in two respects. First, study circles
the largest of its kind in the country, as far as were convened on a wide array of topics—
we know. The success of this program lies in involving a variety of local public entities,
its broad inclusivity as well as in its sustained such as the school board, the planning
nature. Under the auspices of the YWCA but and zoning board, and local emergency-
joined by several dozen local organizations, preparedness agencies—over a period of
more than 600 people participated in many years. Second, these government
community-based study circles on race entities came to rely on Kuna’s study
relations in 1997. In 1998, more than 600 circles as an important two-way channel of
people in the Delaware Department of Labor communication and consultation. Residents
and in local public schools participated in improved their understanding of the reasons
The Y WCA and other community leaders managed to

build a deep and per vasive network for public delibera-
tion about race that spanned the public, private, and
nonprofit sectors.
deliberations about workplace race relations. for various public policies and local officials
Subsequently, many area businesses, public gained a better grasp of public priorities and
agencies, community organizations, and sensitivities.
churches held study circles as well. Thus, the
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is a town of
YWCA and other community leaders managed
some 20,000 people that lies near the state’s
to build a deep and pervasive network for
southern border with Maine. Like Kuna, the
public deliberation about race that spanned
community has hosted several rounds of
the public, private, and nonprofit sectors.
study circles on issues like school violence,
In Kuna, Idaho, an organization called Kuna school districting, and community master
ACT began to convene study circles around planning. Approximately 850 citizens have
local controversies in 1999. Between 1999 participated in these circles. While the
and 2003, approximately 400 Kuna residents large majority of the town’s residents are

8
Participants in public housing projects formed tenant
associations and mobilized to rid their neighborhoods of
crime and improve their living conditions.
white, and racial divisions are not an issue, efforts in its schools and neighborhoods.
those with whom we spoke noted that the Beginning in 1999, the United Way and
community was nevertheless divided—in this the public school district initiated a study
case between many new and professional circles project designed to bridge the gap in
residents on the one hand, and long-time trust and understanding between schools
residents who were less well off, on the other. and parents. Subsequently, study circle
Against this background, one noteworthy techniques spread to community problem
accomplishment of the Portsmouth study solving around issues of public safety and
circles was to confront this class division in the local revitalization of the city’s public housing
context of school redistricting. projects. Since 1999, organizers estimate
that some 1,600 adults have participated
After the Portsmouth school board failed to
in more than 100 discussion sessions, and
gain popular acceptance of one redistricting
more than 1,800 students attended youth
effort, the group sponsored a round of
circles that explored diversity, tolerance, and
study circles on the issue in 2000. Over 100
responsibility. Some 150 adults have been
residents from different parts of the city met
trained as facilitators. Public deliberations
with one another and toured neighborhood
in Kansas City produced mentoring and
schools. They agreed on a set of principles
after-school programs, improved relations
to guide a redistricting plan that both the
between schools and families, and promoted
school board and town residents were willing
volunteerism. Participants in public housing
to accept. Subsequently, large study circles
projects formed tenant associations and
on several other topics were held and an
mobilized to rid their neighborhoods of crime
independent organization called Portsmouth
and improve their living conditions.
Listens was formed to sustain these public
deliberations. In many of our case studies, public
dialogues were introduced by deliberative
With resources and staff support from the
entrepreneurs in the civic sector. In
United Way of Wyandotte County, Kansas
Montgomery County, Maryland, however,
City, Kansas, has been home to community
deliberations started as an initiative of a
problem solving and public deliberation
public institution. In 2003, the Montgomery

County school district launched a study an independent organization, they later
circles program to support dialogue on became fully embedded as a school program.
race in schools and close the academic The circles’ impact on the schools has
achievement gap between primarily white been so positive that some school district
students, on the one hand, and minority and departments organized special circles on
economically disadvantaged students, on the race for their employees. This expansion of
other. Organizers viewed study circles as a study circles has altered the ways in which the
potentially more appealing and inviting route school system addresses the challenge of its
to educational engagement than traditional academic achievement gap.
parent-teacher organizations. Since 2003,
Owing largely to the support of the League
more than 64 circles have been held, engaging
of Women Voters and the William Caspar
over 900 participants, including teachers,
Graustein Memorial Fund, Community
school staff members, parents, and students.
Conversations About Education have been
Some schools held repeated rounds of circles,
held in some 80 communities across the state
and in some high schools, students were
of Connecticut. 2 According to organizers,
trained to facilitate student-only deliberations.
well over 5,300 people have participated in
The circles brought to light prejudice and
these public deliberations since 1997. The
other challenges that minority students and
conversations are particularly well embedded
parents are faced with. Teachers and school
in the city of Bridgeport, which has held over
administrators gained awareness of racial
40 public deliberations thanks to the support
barriers and learned about ways to create a
of the local Public Education Fund. Residents
more inclusive school environment. Actions
of Norwalk and Hartford have held six and five
included hiring special outreach coordinators
conversations respectively.
and encouraging minority students to join
more challenging classes. The dialogues Conversations in various communities
also helped build trust among participants, aim to create shared understandings and
spurred collaboration and volunteering, and goals among educators, parents, and other
boosted the participation of minority parents. community members around challenges
and priorities in public education. Various
Study circles became increasingly embedded
communities have chosen to focus on issues
in the school district. Initially begun as a
like school funding, parental involvement,
school-sponsored initiative managed by
2 The Community Conversations are an initiative developed in collaboration with Public Agenda.

10
Various communities have chosen to focus practices. The center developed forums on
on issues like school funding, parental important local and regional issues, such as
involvement, school choice, child care, the relationship between citizens and their
educational standards, and family learning. public schools and the challenges facing
Community Conversations structure local low-income families in the state. Though
deliberation around different approaches the direct policy effects of these public
to addressing these challenges, to the deliberations are not as clear as in Kuna or
development of problem-solving strategies, Portsmouth, the center has developed good
and to the implementation of those strategies. relationships with state legislators in order
Community Conversations have led to to convey and make accessible the results of
coordinated social action—for example, deliberation.
improving the accessibility of child care,
In South Dakota we examined two
altering the structure of the school day to
institutions that promote public deliberation.
address student fatigue concerns, and taking
The South Dakota Issues Forums convene
steps to reduce substance abuse by students.
forums using the NIF approach. The
Established in the mid 1990s, the West Indigenous Issues Forums developed
Virginia Center for Civic Life is an important an original model that draws from both
deliberative catalyst for promoting the use indigenous traditions of deliberation in
of deliberation at the local level. Hosted at the Native American population and the
the University of Charleston, it has convened National Issues Forums, in order to create a
dozens of forums and disseminated safe space to talk about challenging tribal
deliberative practices in a number of issues. With an average of 25 events a
key organizations, involving over 2,000 year, the Indigenous Issues Forums have
participants. While it is not uncommon for involved approximately 800 participants.
agencies to join broad coalitions that support Participants are encouraged to listen with
deliberations, the West Virginia experience is respect and to suspend their cultural and
distinctive in that two organizations adopted personal assumptions. By focusing on the
public deliberations as a strategy to further procedural aspects of dialogue, participants
their advocacy missions. The center has are expected to gradually improve their ability
worked with organizations that seek to reduce to communicate, their self-understanding,
underage drinking and domestic violence, and their knowledge of their communities.
helping them raise awareness and mobilize Organizers of these forums aim to improve
residents through the use of public forums. interpersonal relations and restore the social
fabric of Native American communities.
Operating now for more than a decade, the
West Virginia Center trains students, faculty, The Public Policy Forums based at the
and staff at the university in deliberative University of Hawaii are distinctive in

The Keiki Caucus has created a distinctive forum for
deliberative problem solving around social policy and
program implementation that is directly and reliably
linked to the state’s legislative apparatus.
sitting state legislator, State Senator Les Ihara, and draft annual legislative packages
who has led several initiatives designed to containing bills aimed at improving child
make policymaking more deliberative. In welfare. Over 400 participants have been
partnership with the Public Policy Forums, he involved in the Keiki Caucus thus far. The
helped convene forums that were coordinated caucus has been a fully embedded practice
with legislative activities. These public policy for over 15 years and legislators endorse most
forums are distinctive in that one of the main of the bills emerging from it because of the
supporters of public deliberation is a sitting legitimacy and reputation of the process. The
state legislator. Keiki Caucus has created a distinctive forum
for deliberative problem solving around social
The Keiki Caucus at the Hawaii state
policy and program implementation that
legislature focuses on issues related to
is directly and reliably linked to the state’s
children and youth and offers a quite different
legislative apparatus. The caucus is unlike
example of deliberation—this time as a
other instances of deliberation in our study in
collaborative governance tool. Launched
that its participants are not drawn from the
by two legislators, the Keiki Caucus brings
public at large. They are instead an array of
together policymakers, public agencies,
stakeholders: professional policymakers, social
service providers, NGOs, and other groups
service workers, and advocates for children’s
active in this area to exchange information
interests.

12
Courtesy Coleimage
Solving Local Problems however, thought that school quality had

declined. Some groups, especially African
I
Americans and Hispanics, faced substantial
achievement deficits. A local foundation
n these case studies, community leaders,
decided to invest in an initiative called
civic activists, and policymakers were
“Community Conversations” to fill this
drawn to public deliberation first and
communication gap by engaging parents
foremost because it was a promising means
in dialogue with school administrators and
of addressing public problems in their
teachers.
communities. Communities turned to
deliberative strategies of public engagement Kansas City faced a similar challenge. There,
in the hope of mobilizing citizens to address many parents, especially those in the African
some pressing tangible challenge like failing American population, thought their children
schools or a longstanding social problem like were ill-served by the public schools and
racial inequality. In some cases, policymakers distrusted school staff and administrators.
turned to deliberation when faced with Many neighborhoods in the city were afflicted
logjams on specific policy choices. with decay, rampant crime, poverty, and a
pervasive sense of disenfranchisement. A
In the 1990s, for example, a significant
coalition of schools and NGOs began looking
communication gap caused a great deal of
for ways to restore trust between residents
finger-pointing between schools and families
and schools. They chose the study circles
in Connecticut. Educators believed schools
model and held dozens of deliberations
had improved over time. Many parents,
that resulted in increased mentoring and

volunteering in schools, programs to reduce In Kuna, community conflict catalyzed public
crime and clean up neighborhoods, and the deliberation. The school board was handed
formation of active tenant associations. a stinging—and to them, surprising—defeat
in a ballot proposal to fund new school
While crises often motivate civic engagement,
construction. At a later time, parents and
the New Castle County study circles were
students were divided over a drug-testing
not driven by a specific galvanizing event.
policy. In the face of these social conflicts,
The relevant problem there was a persistent
policymakers turned to public deliberations,
lack of opportunity for African American
in the form of study circles, to give residents
and Latino residents. Race and ethnicity
a venue to reflect on the issues and to offer
represented a substantial barrier to higher
policy guidance to the school board.
paying jobs, educational opportunities, and
home ownership. This was especially true In Portsmouth, city officials used study
in Wilmington, a city with a predominantly circles to obtain citizen input on issues, such
African American population (57 percent) as a school redistricting plan, which faced
located in a county in which only 20 percent strong opposition from parents. Parents
of residents are African American. A met in deliberations that crossed class and
coalition led by the local YWCA wanted to neighborhood lines. Exposure to a variety of
give residents an opportunity to become perspectives helped defuse opposition to the
actively engaged in discussing these issues. redistricting plan. In these cases, deliberative
The study circles model, with its blend of procedures reduced social conflict by giving
deliberation and action, enabled participants residents opportunities to inform themselves
to raise their own awareness of racial issues and provide input to policymakers.
and encouraged them to change their own
behaviors in collaboration with others.

14
Courtesy Kansas City, Kansas Study Circles
Making Democracy Work Democracy is a broad and elusive ideal,

but it is also a concrete set of practices and
T
institutions. When we say that democracy
isn’t working well, we mean the institutions
he previous section described these
and practices through which we make
cases of public deliberation as solving
collective decisions and take public action
various kinds of community problems. At a
have specific defects. To enumerate and
more fundamental level, however, the most
understand the most important of these
successful of these efforts also improve
deficits, we draw a highly simplified picture of
the quality of local democratic governance
the representative process of policymaking as
by repairing certain persistent problems
it is taught in secondary school civics classes
in the ways that local decisions are made
across the country (see Figure 1). 3
and public actions taken. Thus, those who
build institutions and practices of public Our institutions of political representation
engagement frequently work at two levels. create a chain that connects the interests of
Not only do they address urgently felt needs citizens to elected legislators to administrative
in their communities but, although they may agencies and public policies that, ideally,
not have intended it, they also improve the advance the interests of citizens. Briefly,
machinery of democratic self-government. citizens have fundamental interests such
as security, welfare, and liberty (1). They
3 Archon Fung, “Democratizing the Policy Process,” in The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, eds. M. Moran, M.
Rein, and R. Goodin (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Figure 1: The Representative Policy Process
Representation
ies
nces lic
o Exec
re u
P
Prefe
tio
Agencies
n
st
s Si g n es
m
e
Inter
Outco
Citizens als Politicians
Accountability
form political preferences—about positions, choose candidates with programs that will
policies, parties, or candidates—that will not serve them well. Well-meaning politicians
protect their fundamental interests (2). Based may lose touch with the citizens they serve,
on these preferences, citizens express their lose their trust, or fail to grasp their views on
political choices through voting (3) and those important issues. Sometimes, politicians use
votes produce mandates for politicians or their position to serve their own ends rather
parties (4). Using the authority provided by than to serve the public good. Finally, public
those mandates, representatives devise laws agencies may lack the wherewithal to produce
and policies (5) that are implemented by complex public goods and services, such as
public agencies (6). Ideally, laws and agency effective schools and safe neighborhoods.
actions produce outcomes that advance
The deliberative practitioners in our cases
citizens’ interests (7).
usually set out to solve local problems but
In reality, however, the links in this chain in so doing, they also repair these breaks
often break in predictable ways. Sometimes, in the chain of democratic governance
for example, citizens have little or no by complementing representation with
understanding of policies. They may fail deliberation and direct citizen participation.
to articulate their interests to politicians or

16
Democratic Deficits strengthen the social fabric of communities
through public dialogue build an important
C
precondition for a healthy democracy.
onsider now how these breaks in the Through public dialogues, residents can
chain were specifically addressed in our cases. gain awareness of specific issues, change
One important lesson that emerges from this their individual behaviors, build trust among
analysis is that different challenges—different one another, and restore positive social
democratic deficits—call for very different interactions. By listening and sharing
forms of deliberative intervention and citizen personal stories, individuals have an
participation in order to be effective. opportunity to question their beliefs and
perhaps modify some of them.
Democratic Deficit #1:
Weak Social Fabric Deliberative activists in two of our case
studies focused on the health of relationships
When trust among citizens and between
between individuals in their communities.
citizens and government is low, citizens feel
The New Castle County study circles on race
disenfranchised and fail to engage in public
relations and the Indigenous Issues Forums
life. Although a weak social fabric is not strictly
in South Dakota were introduced (1) to
a deficit in the representative policymaking
address poor awareness of race relations and
chain (illustrated in Figure 1), democratic
tribal issues and (2) to strengthen individual
governance functions more effectively when
capacities to engage in dialogue and to
citizens are reflective and possess a high level
collaborate with one another.
of mutual understanding. Hence efforts to

The Indigenous Issues Forums have reached not seek to bend the ear of politicians
numerous organizations and individuals, or other policymakers. They do not set
hoping to start a slow transformative out to forge durable links to legislators or
process that enables indigenous peoples bureaucrats. But, in another sense, these
to understand themselves, their history, efforts are more ambitious than those of
and each other in ways that generate the other policy-focused cases in our study. In
self-confidence and self-respect necessary order to be successful, efforts to build healthy
for democratic engagement. New Castle relationships across group boundaries and
County’s study circles on race have reached deepen self-understanding of individuals in a
thousands of participants and involved community must reach a substantial fraction
more than 140 organizations, many of which of the population they seek to affect. The
have held dialogues with their employees. majority of people in a community need not
Although it is too early to tell whether these participate directly in deliberative forums, but
initiatives transformed individual behavior the deliberative “treatment” must touch, at
and restored the social fabric in their least indirectly, a large number of people.
respective communities, data for New Castle
Deliberative initiatives—whether they
County show that participants became more
follow (or modify) the methods of Everyday
aware of prejudice and increased their ability
Democracy, National Issues Forums,
to communicate with others.
AmericaSpeaks, or some other approach—
These deliberative projects were not designed generally touch only a very small fraction
to inform participants’ political preferences, of a given community. Because they must
much less to influence the course of public affect so many, deliberative initiatives that
policy or governmental action. Rather, they aim at community change through personal
encouraged individuals to reflect more deeply transformation must hold many forums
about their situations in relation to others over extended periods of time. With some
through dialogue. By transcending mistrust 12,000 participants, the New Castle County
and misunderstanding, these initiatives study circles involved about 1.4 percent of
aim to strengthen the social fabric that the population in Delaware. We were unable
binds communities together. Transforming to establish the proportion of the relevant
individuals and restoring social fabric in populations touched by the Indigenous Issues
this way might be described as creating a Forums and we do not know the extent to
form of “stored action” that may enable civic which participants in these initiatives altered
engagement and collective action in the their perspectives or behavior as a result of
future. engaging in these deliberations.
In one sense, these cases do not appear In the rich ecology of organizations that
to have very lofty goals. Participants do promote public deliberation, some consider

18
public deliberation as an instrument to deliberation provides the opportunity to
mobilize groups for social change, so they remedy this deficit and improve public
accompany participants all the way from judgment through collective reflection.
deliberating to organizing and taking action.
Much of the work on deliberative practice
Others choose to limit their efforts to specific
aims to address the problem of unstable
steps in the continuum. Sometimes, the
public judgment. Daniel Yankelovich
activists and institutions that promote these
described the problem, and solutions to it,
kinds of deliberations see their work as a
in books such as Coming to Public Judgment
necessary step that lays the groundwork
and The Magic of Dialogue. 4 Before and after
for more sustained civic engagement, but
him, researchers and other political observers
they do not aim to translate deliberations
have documented the low levels of political
into public action or policy change. In this
knowledge among the general public. 5
view, too strong a focus on action would
dilute their efforts to improve the quality of Deliberative methods, such as those employed
human interactions and create the conditions by the National Issues Forums, intervene in
for healthier communities. They may also this problem area. They gather a diverse
choose to limit the scope of their activities group in a structured deliberation on a public
to the restoration of the social fabric with policy issue designed to help participants
the understanding that there are other develop a more complete understanding
institutions out there that can move groups to of problems. Participants also learn to
the next steps. appreciate the reasons given to support views
they would normally oppose and become
Unstable Public Judgment more open to deliberative exchanges.
Citizens often make poor judgments about In our case studies, we have observed
public issues because they lack information, this type of deliberative intervention in
or have not taken the pains to face the trade- communities in West Virginia, Hawaii,
offs that sound judgment requires. This and South Dakota. Participants in those
contributes to making poor choices at the communities discussed a variety of topics,
ballot box and, ultimately, inadequate public from health-care reform to immigration and
policies. To correct this deficit, citizens need public education. The West Virginia Center
to acquire additional information and test for Civic Life was particularly successful at
their views against those of others. Public involving large numbers of people in the
4 Daniel Yankelovich, Coming to Public Judgment (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1991) and The Magic of
Dialogue (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1999).
5 See Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro, The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

Whether or not they ultimately have an impact on policy,
all public deliberations are designed to improve the
quality of judgment of those who participate by providing
them with additional information and exposing them to
the opinions of other citizens.
deliberations. In Hawaii, a state legislator polls. Despite these mechanisms, gaps of

helped convene forums to defuse polarization trust and mutual knowledge often separate
on issues like gambling and euthanasia. policymakers from citizens. Those gaps
Both were controversial topics in the state can occur if politicians hear only from some
legislature, so involving both legislators and citizens and not from others or because new
stakeholders in deliberations resulted in a issues arise for which existing processes do
more balanced articulation of views. not generate clear preferences.
Study circles and Community Conversations In a noxious form of this democratic deficit,
also invite participants to consider competing politicians and policy professionals may
options to deepen their understanding choose to pursue their own agendas with little
of policy issues. Whether or not they regard for public interests and priorities—and
ultimately have an impact on policy, all apparently without fear of being checked by
public deliberations are designed to improve devices of public accountability. Deliberative
the quality of judgment of those who initiatives can improve the machinery of
participate by providing them with additional democratic governance by broadening
information and exposing them to the the channels of communication between
opinions of other citizens. politicians and the public and empowering
citizens to hold their representatives
accountable.
Gaps in Communication and Accountability
between Officials and Communities In Kuna and Portsmouth, local government
In the standard civic model of representative officials supported study circles because they
democracy, elections and campaigns provide faced contentious issues, and did not clearly
a central channel through which politicians understand what the public’s views were on
learn about the views and priorities of their these topics. So they sought the public’s
constituents. The need to compete in input through deliberation. When community
elections creates incentives for politicians to members in Kuna divided over a proposal to
hear from their constituents through public issue a school bond and on a drug-testing
meetings, social events, focus groups, and policy, deliberations helped articulate public
preferences and provided input to decision

20
makers. In Portsmouth, study circles were bridges between citizens and government. If
convened to clarify citizens’ opinions on a government is not involved, the bridge leads
controversial school redistricting plan and nowhere.
on the city’s master plan. This two-track
Second, deliberative activists in both Kuna
policy process—combining traditional chains
and Portsmouth convened highly effective
of representation and policymaking with
deliberations using variants of the study
deliberative mechanisms to gather public
circles model. These deliberations included
input—proved effective in both communities.
broadly representative sectors of their
Policymakers have returned to it on various
respective communities and they were well
occasions where the traditional process has
attended, well facilitated, and informative
proved inadequate.
for participants. Finally, success was made
The Keiki Caucus in Hawaii was formed by possible because the deliberations were
two state legislators to gather input from sponsored by capable community-based
stakeholders in order to draft more effective organizations—Kuna ACT and Portsmouth
child-welfare legislation. In that sense, it Listens—that had the know-how and
filled a gap in policymakers’ knowledge resources to organize effective events.
but it also strengthened the relationship Importantly, these organizations did not
between legislators and stakeholders and limit their efforts to one topic or controversy.
increased scrutiny on legislators’ decisions. Rather, they had the wherewithal to sponsor
The mechanisms of dialogue and information several different rounds of public deliberation
sharing also served to increase accountability, as important problems and issues arose over
both for policymakers and for the different the years.
public and private agencies represented in the
Kuna and Portsmouth are impressive in this
group.
regard. Few small community organizations
The deliberative initiatives in Kuna and manage to catalyze sustained public
Portsmouth share several characteristics. deliberation in this way. But these efforts
First, local policymakers in both places are also notable for what Kuna ACT and
supported and participated in a series Portsmouth Listens did not have to do. First,
of public deliberations. Whereas many they did not have to alter the perspectives
deliberative initiatives focus on citizens and behavior of a substantial portion of their
and perhaps on civic organizations, these communities. In the discussion above, we
initiatives worked because they engaged noted that the goal of repairing social fabric
the relevant officials from planning agencies, aims at community transformation and thus
school boards, and city hall. Repairing requires the involvement of a considerable
deficits caused by a limited understanding of number of citizens. Bridging gaps between
constituents’ preferences requires building communities and government, on the other

hand, can be achieved with greater economy Democratic Deficit #4:
of participation. Insufficient Governmental Resources to
Tackle a Range of Social Challenges
It can be enough, for example, that a
representative group of citizens deliberate Traditionally, public agencies are responsible
with officials if those officials listen well. If the for providing public goods and services,
problem is that policies fail to address citizens’ from functioning schools and public
needs, this limited deliberation can remedy transportation to safe neighborhoods. Some
the situation. If the problem is public distrust services, however, cannot be effectively
of politicians, the fact that politicians actually delivered without active engagement
listened, if widely known, can increase trust from the community. Strengthening local
even among those who did not participate schools and making neighborhoods more
directly in deliberative exercises. secure, for example, often demand not only
sound public policy, but also support from
Second, these deliberations did not require community members. Only residents have
the same individuals to participate over and the knowledge to identify areas of need and
over again. That is, they would have done suggest sustainable projects they would be
their job well if one set of residents had willing to work on.
participated in deliberations around school
financing, while an entirely different group Through public deliberation, residents can
convened to discuss sustainable growth discuss problems in their area, identify
management priorities. The deficit of poor solutions, mobilize for local problem solving,
communication between government and and strengthen their relationships with
citizens can be remedied with an economy public officials. A significant portion of the
of civic engagement that does not require deliberation is devoted to formulating action
particular citizens (except perhaps those steps and assigning responsibilities for follow-
who staff organizations like Kuna ACT and up so that participants will stay engaged
Portsmouth Listens) to devote themselves after the deliberations are concluded. This
intensively to ongoing deliberations. It type of deliberation, of course, requires
doesn’t require all the citizens to deliberate more sustained, frequent, and iterative
all of the time, or even some citizens to participation. And clearly, it can be successful
deliberate most of the time. It simply only if local government or other institutions
requires that some citizens engage in public take engagement seriously and are willing to
deliberation some of the time. collaborate with, or even delegate power to,
organized citizens.
The democratic deficit discussed in the next
section does, however require more intensive Our case studies offer several examples of
and sustained participation. successful deliberative interventions of this

22
sort. Communities in Connecticut, Kansas gaps between schools and families. In many
City, and Montgomery County were struggling areas across the state, school authorities
with problems that could not be solved by participated in productive conversations with
policymakers and bureaucrats alone. In parents and other residents. They learned
the 1990s, Kansas City’s superintendent of about areas of need they had previously
schools embarked on a bold school reform overlooked, and adopted new strategies to
Mentoring programs and numerous volunteer campaigns

to support schools and communities grew out of these
deliberations.
effort. One of the strategies in his plan was improve their services. For many, especially
to strengthen communities so they could socially isolated minorities, it was the first
support schools. Together with the local time they could voice their concerns to public
United Way chapter, he formed a coalition authorities. Organizers estimate that the
to restore trust between families and program reached well over 5,000 people in
schools and to empower disenfranchised the state.
communities.
The Montgomery County school district
The Kansas City group adopted study realized that providing more resources to
circles to engage residents of public students and teachers was not enough to
housing complexes in deliberations that close the achievement gap: families and
led to strategies that reduced crime and other parts of the community also needed
improved their neighborhoods. Other to be involved. Study circles were adopted
study circles successfully connected schools to open discussions of race relations and
in need of resources with churches and to facilitate collaborative efforts involving
community members willing to help. These families, students, and school staffs to help
deliberations involved approximately all students achieve. The circles successfully
2,000 people, including hundreds of young involved about 900 people and are now
people. Mentoring programs and numerous spreading to reach all the schools in the
volunteer campaigns to support schools and district. Deliberations have created a safe
communities grew out of these deliberations. space to bring up challenging issues and built
trust among families and schools. As a result,
In Connecticut, a charitable foundation
parents have become more involved in school
sponsored dialogues designed to bridge

life and new initiatives have been introduced initiatives that mobilize civic resources this
to meet the specific needs of minority way are more akin to community-organizing
students and their families. efforts than to the familiar “public forum”
image that is commonly used to describe
Deliberative initiatives that succeed in shoring
deliberative practices.
up insufficient capacity must mobilize citizens
to contribute their labor, ideas, and material In the sections above, we have characterized
resources to solving public problems. The what public deliberation at its best can
structure and demands of these initiatives achieve. It contributes to the solution of
are, therefore, quite different from those tangible local problems and, at the same
that address problems of unstable public time, helps to mend certain deficits in
judgment or the gap between citizens and the democratic process of representative
government. In particular, these initiatives government. These achievements, however,
required a substantial number of citizens can be short-lived and easily reversed. Thus
to invest themselves in problem-solving we turn now to an examination of the
deliberations over substantial periods of conditions that sustain deliberation over time.
time—months and even years. Deliberative

24
Courtesy Coleimage
The Concept of The concept of embeddedness highlights

how, in most places most of the time,
Embeddedness self-conscious and organized public
deliberation is a novel act. That is, processes
A central hypothesis of this research

is that deliberation’s impact will be
of problem solving, decision making, and
public action frequently occur without
substantial deliberative engagement from
sustained in a community only when citizens. Instead, professional politicians
deliberative practices become embedded and organized interest groups jockey for
in its institutions, organizations, and social position in shaping policies that favor their
practices. When members of a community constituents by bringing to bear money,
repeatedly utilize deliberative methods to authority, or adversarial mobilization. Policy
address community problems, we say that implementation occurs through the offices of
community has embedded deliberation. professional public servants.
Embeddedness is a habit of deliberation
By way of contrast, when deliberation is
among citizens. It requires an infrastructure
embedded, political institutions and social
of civic organizations and local government
organizations systematically include public
institutions prepared to act on public
deliberation in their repertoires of decision
input and to collaborate with residents.
making and action. Embedding deliberation
Deliberative events can engage residents
alters the decision-making processes of
in solving local problems even without
public institutions and other organizations
embeddedness, but unless competent
in ways that make them adept at convening
institutions are ready to listen and act on the
public deliberations and acting on their
public’s suggestions, deliberations are likely to
input. When they embed public deliberation,
have only a modest impact.

policymakers improve the formulation of hand, are an independent initiative anxious
policies and the delivery of public services. to preserve their autonomy and, although
When a community embeds deliberation, they cultivate relations with many local
it strengthens its social fabric by creating organizations, they are not formally housed in
a citizenry that is open to dialogue and any of them.
collaboration, improves the public judgment
of its citizens, and makes them more reflective
public actors. Finally, embedding deliberation Embedded Reflection,
may contribute to solving systemic deficits of Embedded Action
democratic institutions.
Embedded Public Reflection
Embedded Public Reflection When a community uses
When a community uses deliberation with deliberation with some regularity
some regularity to address problems of weak to address problems of weak
social fabric, to transform individuals, or to social fabric, to transform
inform public judgment, we say they have individuals, or to inform public
embedded public reflection. Often, small judgment, we say they have
organizations play an important role in this embedded public reflection.
type of embeddedness by convening forums
and training facilitators. Embedded Public Action
The deliberative entrepreneurs in our case When a community translates
studies have embedded public reflection public reflection into action to
primarily by creating or transforming provide public input, to mobilize
independent, nonprofit organizations communities and resources
whose mission is to organize deliberative to solve local problems, or
forums and mobilize community residents to achieve collaborative
to participate. Organizational capacity governance, we say they have
thus seems to be an essential element for embedded public action. For
embedding public reflection. In many cases, deliberation to be embedded in
deliberative entrepreneurs coopted existing public action and to improve the
organizations to adopt public deliberation character and consequences of
as part of their mainline activities. For
that action, deliberative initiatives
example, Betty Knighton in West Virginia
must be intimately connected
established the Center for Civic Life at the
to institutions and organizations
University of Charleston; the YWCA catalyzes
that possess the resources and
the discussions on race in the Delaware study
authority to address the social
circles; and National Issues Forums are housed
at the University of Hawaii. The Indigenous problems at issue.
Issues Forums in South Dakota, on the other

26
In both the cooptive and the independent of local public action. For deliberation to
approaches, the organizations that facilitate be embedded in public action and improve
public deliberation did not have specific the character and consequences of that
issue orientations. They were more civic action, it must be intimately connected to
than activist. While it would be premature institutions and organizations that possess
to say that these are necessary features of the resources and authority to address the
organizations that embed public reflection, problems at issue. We therefore suggest
there are reasons to think that both that deliberations that provide public input
characteristics are important. Issue neutrality to policymakers, local problem solving, or
may be important because the topics that collaborative governance are more likely to
merit broad deliberation in any community be successful when deliberative practices
There is no doubt that embedding deliberation comes at a

cost for public institutions and other organizations.
will vary over time. 6 Advocacy and activist become embedded into the procedures and
organizations by their nature have particular practices of these organizations.
substantive positions on issues, whereas the
Deliberations designed to provide public
point of public deliberation is to develop
input to policymakers are significantly more
such positions through natural discovery and
effective if embedded. There is no doubt that
reasoning.
embedding deliberation comes at a cost for
Embedded Public Action public institutions and other organizations:
they need to dedicate time and resources
While subjects in all of our cases tried to to the planning process, undergo training,
improve public reflection, some also tried and overcome internal resistance. They may
to enhance the quality of public action. also need to alter some of their decision-
When public deliberation is connected to making processes—for example, by formally
policymaking, policy implementation, or creating mandates for public input and by
other collective action in a sustained way, involving other organizational layers in the
we say that it is embedded in the routines deliberations to ensure that the public input
6 Issue neutrality is not, however, exclusive to public reflection. Kuna ACT and Portsmouth Listens, whose focus
is embedded public action, are independent organizations that, thanks to their neutrality, were called upon to
convene public deliberations on a variety of issues.

not be disregarded by other departments. problem solving in two main respects. First,
For organizations that invest in deliberation, effective collaborative governance may
acting on the public’s input is simply a way require less frequent deliberation than local
to maximize their return. By listening to problem solving. Collaborative governance
citizens and working collaboratively with often aims to establish framework decisions
them, institutions reap the full benefits of —for example school attendance boundaries,
embedding deliberation. urban plans, and city budgets—that are less
frequently revisited and updated than the
Effective local problem solving requires
more continuous stream of decisions and
that local institutions sponsor and endorse
actions that often characterize community
multiple and frequent deliberative events that
problem solving.
include both citizens who are affected by a
given problem and officials who are related Second, decisions involved in collaborative
to it in their professional capacities. It is very governance (as the term is used here) usually
likely that problem-solving deliberations involve higher levels of decision making
will call upon local government or other and authority: school board members
organizations to perform actions or alter their and superintendents rather than teachers
and principals, mayors and city councilors
practices. Embedded deliberative action
rather than police officers and other “street-
occurs when those local institutions alter their
level” bureaucrats. Because deliberations
decision-making procedures and priorities
are less frequent, and participants often
to facilitate ongoing public deliberation and
less numerous, the burden on sponsoring
incorporate its results.
organizations may be lighter. However,
Collaborative governance involves the joint collaborative governance almost always
determination of broad policies and public requires elected or appointed decision makers
actions through the deliberation of citizens to share their authority with others who join
the deliberations.
or their representatives. Operationally,
collaborative governance differs from local

28
Because collaborative governance involves an explicit
sharing of authority, it is typically more difficult to
achieve than other forms of deliberation.
At its lowest level, collaborative governance nondeliberative ways, that may limit the
requires officials to take public deliberation impact of collaborative governance. Similarly,
seriously as an input into their decisions. At offices that occupy a high position in an
a higher level, as in Hawaii’s Keiki Caucus, institution’s hierarchical ladder may quash
collaborative governance produces policies collaborative governance initiatives coming
and public actions that are jointly forged. from lower levels. The Keiki Caucus in
Because collaborative governance involves Hawaii is a good example of deliberative
an explicit sharing of authority, it is typically practices that are well embedded in the
more difficult to achieve than other forms of legislative process. Even if a limited number
deliberation. of legislators participate in the meetings, the
legislative package developed by the caucus
Collaborative governance can occur fitfully
is broadly endorsed by a large number of
without being embedded in these ways.
policymakers because of the legitimacy this
For example, upon hearing that the city’s
deliberative practice has earned over the
planning committee is considering some new
years. Disseminating deliberation within an
developments in their area, worried neighbors
institution can deepen embeddedness and
organize a public deliberation to gather the
help reap the full benefits of collaborative
residents’ input. The neighborhood may hold
governance.
a forum and present its findings, but unless
the planners are ready to listen, residents’
recommendations may go unheeded, which
could further exacerbate relations. If, on the
other hand, the planning committee embeds
deliberation, it will design the forum together
with the neighborhood group and set up
mechanisms to work with the residents and
incorporate their input.
Although it is the product of embeddedness,

collaborative governance may also be
enhanced by embeddedness. For example,
an institution may delegate some of its
prerogatives to the public, but if other
relevant functions are still carried out in

Courtesy Patty Dineen
Three Conditions of initiative and energies of civic organizations

and entrepreneurs. To endure through time,
Embeddedness
however, they must also be supported by
local politicians and decision makers or, at
W ith this definition of embeddedness

and the distinction between deliberative
least, they must find an environment in which
political leadership is not hostile. Without
official leadership that is willing to engage
reflection and deliberative action in hand, citizens, and at times delegate some of its
consider now what conditions are necessary authority, deliberation lacks authority and
for deliberation to become embedded. Three force.
factors seem to be important 7:
Though officials can often be expected to
●● political authority resist deliberative initiatives, endorsement
from a handful of leaders can lay the
●● deliberative capacity
groundwork for deliberative embeddedness.
●● demand for democracy In Hawaii, for example, Senator Les Ihara
promoted National Issues Forums and other
deliberative initiatives with legislators, and the
Political Authority
Keiki Caucus is chaired by two legislators. The
As we have seen, instances of public Kansas City study circles were launched by
deliberation are frequently born from the a coalition led by the school superintendent
7 Joseph Goldman suggested this framework at a research meeting at the Kettering Foundation in Dayton, Ohio, on
May 24-25, 2007.

30
In certain cases, leaders have a particular predisposition
for collegiality and power sharing, but in others they seem
to be motivated by more pragmatic considerations to en-
dorse public deliberation.
and the local United Way. of local decision makers to participate in

deliberative events and to utilize the resulting
It may well be that in certain cases, leaders
recommendations. Finally, connections
have a particular predisposition for collegiality
between those who deliberate and local
and power sharing, but in others they
institutions—community newspapers and
seem to be motivated by more pragmatic
radio, churches, schools, businesses, and
considerations to endorse public deliberation.
social service providers—extend the reach of
Local government in Kuna and Portsmouth,
deliberation beyond direct participants to the
for example, used study circles because they
many others who do not engage directly.
were dealing with thorny issues where public
input became an attractive way to overcome In our case studies, independent civic
an impasse. Self-interest can also sometimes organizations, such as Kuna ACT, Portsmouth
support deliberation. Moved by political Listens, and the United Way, housed local
calculations, officials sometimes decide that deliberative capacity. Less common,
they need to feel the public’s pulse before deliberative capacity is housed within
embarking on a course of action. Public governmental agencies. Provided they
deliberation can help them to gauge public can secure funding, such groups create
sentiment and reduce polarization among a professional home for deliberative
their constituents. entrepreneurs to practice their craft, organize
it, and reproduce it.
Deliberative capacity
Demand for democracy
Embedded public deliberation also requires
the maintenance of local capacities to Finally, we reason that lasting and durable
organize and convene such discussions. At embeddedness of public reflection, but
the very minimum, those capacities include especially public action, requires that
the presence of trained moderators and constituencies be disposed to mobilize to
facilitators in a community, the administrative defend their organizations, institutions, and
wherewithal to organize deliberative practices. Even in communities where local
events, and the capability to mobilize and politicians or policymakers are open toward
recruit participants. Another “deliberative public deliberation, they may be replaced by
capacity” is the ability to gain the attention others who are less favorably inclined. Or

they themselves may cool to notions of public
deliberation if it hampers their other priorities
or agendas. Three Conditions for
Embedding Deliberation
Given these very real possibilities—even
tendencies—local practices of deliberation
Political Authority
Political authorities must support
are more likely to be sustained when
public deliberation and be
countervailing forces, such as community
willing to take its results into
organizations or mobilized citizens, act
consideration and even to share
politically to defend or advance practices of
authority with bodies of directly
public deliberation. We can see this need
deliberating citizens.
in Hawaii, for instance, where Senator Ihara
champions public deliberation but finds tepid Deliberative Capacity
support among his legislative colleagues. Public, or more often civic,
organizations in the community
Although we were not able to identify
must develop the resources
instances when citizens mobilized to demand
and expertise to organize and
or defend deliberation, continued exposure
convene structured deliberations,
to deliberative practices may generate this
to mobilize people to participate
demand in the future. This aspect surely
in those deliberations, and to
constitutes an important topic for future
engage policymakers and other
research. In general, our cases obscure the
local institutions.
importance of this political factor because we
selected communities in which local officials Demand for Democracy
were supportive of deliberation. There should be a popular
constituency that is disposed
These three conditions are particularly to press for public deliberation
relevant for deliberative interventions in and to defend its practice when
instances where the impact of deliberations such engagement becomes
depends on the interaction between citizens inconvenient to local elites and
and government. Political authority and authorities. (This condition is very rare.)
demand for democracy may not be critical
when it comes to deliberative reflection
because its impact is confined to the personal
level.

32
Laying out these three conditions may aid many deliberative entrepreneurs lack the
deliberative entrepreneurs in selecting luxury of selecting places that are ripe for
promising communities in which to invest embedding deliberation. Although they may
resources in deliberative reform. Given a have to choose other options to drive social
choice, it is better to work in communities change, being mindful of the conditions for
where political leaders are friendly to embeddedness should nevertheless help
deliberation, where there are organizations them understand how to cultivate these
that can be long-term allies in sponsoring factors to prepare the ground for deliberative
forums and associated activities, and where interventions in the future. Understanding
the possibilities for forming organized these conditions may also guide reform
constituencies seem positive. Clearly, efforts in particular communities.

Courtesy Patty Dineen
Measuring researchers and practitioners would press the

Embeddedness: field forward in at least three ways:
Tentative Benchmarks
●● It would help to improve the
H
quality of strategic management
in deliberative organizations.
ow do we know whether deliberative
reflection and action are embedded in ●● It would facilitate comparative
community institutions and practices? In case research of the sort
detailed in this report.
this section we offer some benchmarks
that might be used to measure deliberative ●● It would aid in gauging
embeddedness, although discussion of these the relative merits of
indicators should be read as an exhortation to deliberative and participatory
governance compared to
further research and reflection.
other approaches that demand
In the course of this research project, we were less civic engagement.
unable to gather quantitative indicators for
our case studies, although clearly such data The most important purpose of developing
would be useful in the future. We encourage such criteria is to aid deliberative practitioners
practitioners to collect such data when it by guiding their actions and helping them
is available and to reflect upon what kinds diagnose the quality of their projects. It is
of quantitative indicators constitute valid easy to develop poor metrics or to misuse
and useful measures of deliberative success. otherwise helpful metrics. It would be a
The broader use of such indicators by both mistake, for example, to ignore the ways

34
Deliberative initiatives aim to repair different democratic
deficits, and different aims call for varied measures of em-
beddedness and success.
in which the particular circumstances of a

given community might make some metrics
inappropriate. As noted above, deliberative Tentative Benchmarks to
initiatives aim to repair different democratic Measure Embeddedness
deficits, and different aims call for varied
measures of embeddedness and success. 1. Number and frequency of
deliberative events.
We would say that deliberation—both in
its moments of reflection and of action—is 2. Relevance of the deliberations’
deeply embedded in a community where topics to the community.
citizens regularly convene to deliberate and
3. Number of participants. A
act on the results of their deliberations in
higher number of participants
response to important problems or challenges
may be relevant in cases of
arising in that community. If we presume
embedded public reflection, but
that problems and challenges arise with
smaller numbers of committed
some frequency in most communities, one
participants can also affect
important indicator of embeddedness is
public action.
simply the number and frequency with which
deliberative events occur. In places like New 4. Number of private or public
Castle County, Kansas City, Kuna, Portsmouth, organizations, agencies, or
and certain communities in Connecticut, government institutions touched
they occurred with some frequency. A more by deliberation.
refined measure would take into account
the importance of issues that spur public 5. Impact on individuals
deliberation. If a community deliberated (obtained from pre/post
about trivial matters while important ones interviews) and on policymakers
escaped collective notice and reflection, and public policies (more difficult
we would say that deliberation is not well to identify).
embedded in that community.

It is tempting to count the number of people require the formation of large organizing
who participate in deliberations over time coalitions, such as Community Conversations
as a benchmark of embeddedness. While in Connecticut or study circles in Delaware
more is usually better in this regard, it is and Kansas City, would be deeper than that
important to be attentive to the purpose of deliberative catalysts that convene forums
of some deliberative interventions. If the without involving many partners in the
aim, for example, is to repair social fabric organizing phase.
and address large social challenges through
Finally, measuring the impact of public
personal transformation, then it is indeed
deliberation is another way to quantify
important that a substantial percentage of
embeddedness. In this case, deliberations
the population engage in public deliberation.
that have a more profound and sustained
If, on the other hand, the aim is to inform
impact on individuals, communities, and
policymakers or hold them accountable,
institutions would be the most embedded.
the relatively small number of participants
The challenge in using this benchmark is that
in citizens juries and other associated
while measuring impact on individuals, using
mechanisms may be sufficient. 8 Deliberations
pre- and post-deliberative event surveys,
that aim to mobilize citizens to solve local
may be relatively easy, tracing the impact
problems and improve the quality of local
of deliberations on institutions and their
public goods fall between these two poles in
policies may prove more difficult. When
terms of the ideal number of participants over
we asked policymakers about the impact of
time.
deliberations on their decisions, by and large
Counting the number of organizations, public they responded that deliberations did have
agencies, or other government institutions some influence, but that they were generally
that at some point used deliberative practices just one factor among a number of others.
to carry out some of their functions is another Only rarely did they admit that outcomes from
reasonable benchmark of embeddedness. deliberations played a dominant role in their
Considering that inviting organizations to decisions.
deliberations, training them as facilitators, or
In spite of their limitations and lack of
involving them in the teams that organize
refinement, the measures of embeddedness
deliberative events could predispose
offered above are a first step in attempting
them to use such practices at a later time,
to quantify the success of community-level
one could use the overall number of
deliberation. Additional research is needed
organizations that have had some exposure
to shed light on these questions and identify
to deliberation. Clearly, using this measure,
more appropriate benchmarks.
the embeddedness of deliberations that
8 Consider, for example, the case of the British Columbia Citizens’Assembly, where a randomly selected group of
160 citizens met for a series of deliberations throughout 2004 to study different electoral systems and propose a
new electoral law for the Canadian province. See: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

36
Strategies for In most of the cases we examined, deliberative
entrepreneurs played a key role in introducing
Establishing and
deliberative reforms into previously
Sustaining Deliberation nondeliberative environments. As we
explained elsewhere, 9 these entrepreneurs
N ow that we know what kinds of

deliberative interventions can address the
identify “markets” or opportunities where
injecting public deliberation could improve
community relations or policymaking. The
democratic deficits of the policymaking entrepreneurs plant the seeds of deliberative
process and how embeddedness can sustain practice, and sometimes their work gives
the impact of deliberations, we turn to the birth to centers that promote deliberation
strategy and choices adopted by those and assist organizations that seek public
who first introduced deliberation in their input or want to increase civic engagement.
communities or organizations. Did they The presence of a deliberative entrepreneur
promote deliberation to achieve a specific is a sine qua non for the establishment of
purpose, or did they seize the political deliberation.
opportunity to introduce it at a time of
crisis? How did they succeed? What strategic Deliberative entrepreneurs operate with
considerations did they make? Were alliances different theories of change. Although we
with institutions formed to secure support have discussed this only marginally with the
and resources? deliberative entrepreneurs we interviewed
9 Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung, Embedded Deliberation: Entrepreneurs, Organizations, and Public Action (final
report for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, April 14, 2006).

(because this line of inquiry is beyond the citizens and to advance the objectives of
scope of our research), understanding certain public institutions that are willing to
their theory of change is highly relevant. collaborate with citizens or even delegate
Generalizing, we can identify two schools of some of their prerogatives in collaborative
thought among such entrepreneurs: focus governance arrangements.
on changing the beliefs and behaviors of
The visions of deliberative entrepreneurs
those who participate directly in public
are complex and nuanced and, clearly, this
deliberations or address citizens and public
is a highly stylized description, but it is
institutions more broadly.
nevertheless useful because it helps identify
The first group believes that instilling the areas where entrepreneurs can be supported.
principles of deliberation in citizens will Our theories of embedded public reflection
increase their tolerance of diversity, make and action may offer new perspectives to
them more reflective and informed, and those who espouse both schools of thought.
thus create more active and collaborative
What is the rationale that entrepreneurs use
citizens. Instilling these principles will
to justify deliberative interventions? That is,
improve communications and relations
how do they explain to themselves and to
among family members and colleagues
others why potentially costly and disruptive
as well as promote more awareness and
strategies of deliberation are worth pursuing?
reflection in public life. In turn this is likely to
Our observations suggest that they generally
translate into more reasoned political choices,
follow one or more of three entry points for
more civic engagement, and more demand
creating and increasing public deliberation:
for accountability from elected officials. In
specific local problems, civic and democratic
this view, social change is driven by citizens
benefits, and embracing political roadblocks
who would propagate the principles of
as opportunities.
deliberation in public life.
Specific local problems
The second group believes that deliberation
can better inform individuals and mobilize Entrepreneurs can lead by identifying
them to take action and that it also works seemingly intractable problems to promote
with public institutions—often at the local deliberation as a problem-solving innovation.
government level—to introduce deliberative For example, failure to involve minority
practices in their decision-making processes. parents in school life through traditional
For these deliberative entrepreneurs, channels was an important entry point
addressing citizens alone is not enough. to promote Community Conversations in
It is critical to involve institutions as partners Connecticut and study circles in Kansas City
in deliberation and public action. These and Montgomery County. Crises, such as
entrepreneurs use deliberation to mobilize episodes of school violence or polarization

38
We have obser ved that civic entrepreneurs make different
strategic alliances, depending on the nature of the delib-
erative inter vention they promote.
over public policy choices, can also provide entrepreneurs. That is, public engagement
an opportunity for deliberative interventions. can sometimes help policymakers and
The Columbine shootings prompted a politicians break through political logjams.
Portsmouth coalition active on youth violence In Kuna, for example, school board members
issues to promote a 300-person forum on suffered a public rebuke in a ballot question
teen violence. In Kuna and Portsmouth, on school construction finance. Organized
tensions over controversial drug testing and public deliberation provided an opportunity
school redistricting policies were resolved by for them to explain their case and for
convening study circles, which gave voice to community members to reflect upon it.
the community.
In Hawaiian locales, Senator Ihara introduced
Civic and democratic benefits public forums to discuss polarized issues—
from death with dignity to allowing gambling
Some entrepreneurs focus on broader
in the state—that could not be addressed
purposes of public deliberation, such as
through traditional political bargaining.
improving relations among community
Forums helped reduce tensions and provided
members and, indirectly, improving the
people with a more nuanced understanding
quality of public dialogue and civic life. By
of the issues at stake and their implications.
and large, National Issues Forums are held
with the purpose of providing a venue where How do entrepreneurs form alliances
citizens can engage in a collective reflection with other groups that can help spread
over public policies. The Indigenous Issues deliberation and utilize these networks to
Forums intend to create a safe venue where advance the specific purposes they have? We
indigenous people can deliberate and where have observed that civic entrepreneurs make
individuals can learn to respectfully interact different strategic alliances, depending on
with others. the nature of the deliberative intervention
they promote. Let’s start by examining the
Embracing political roadblocks strategic choices civic entrepreneurs make
as opportunities when they want to achieve embedded public
Political challenges and circumstances can reflection.
provide a third point of entry for deliberative Institutional support is crucial to engage

residents in regular dialogues that change respectively. In New Castle County, the local
them as individuals, or inform their public YWCA has supported deliberation. The
judgment and instill the habit of public Indigenous Issues Forums, on the other hand,
deliberation in a community. Institutional have chosen not to create a single strong
partners can provide credibility and resources. institutional alliance to embed deliberation.
Being affiliated with a reputable institution Instead, they established relationships with
with good connections in the community several local institutions, such as churches and
facilitates embedding deliberation and libraries, to promote deliberation.
forming partnerships. In New Castle County,
All these study sites have embedded
for example, YWCA promotion of study
deliberative public reflection to some extent,
circles facilitated a successful outreach
but some have been more successful than
effort. In West Virginia, public deliberation
others in holding frequent deliberations and
thrived due in part to a visionary deliberative
increasing the number of citizens exposed
entrepreneur, but also due to the strong
to deliberation. Promoting deliberation
backing of the University of Charleston.
with other institutions and harnessing
Institutions can also provide concrete their capacities and networks significantly
resources, such as financial support, staff, increased the number of participants, as
or office space. All of these elements are shown especially in the New Castle County
critical in organizing effective deliberations case, but also in West Virginia.
over time. Another important consideration
In New Castle County, more than 12,000
is the neutrality of the organizations. We
people participated in study circles. Because
noticed that many deliberative entrepreneurs
the initiative was sponsored by the YWCA, the
established alliances with nonpartisan
effort benefited from the network, reputation,
institutions, such as universities, because
and resources of its institutional sponsor,
deliberations that are perceived as self-
reaching out to more than 140 organizations,
serving or driven by partisan agendas can
which included not only public institutions
undermine participation.
like the Department of Labor and some
Deliberative entrepreneurs in Hawaii, local schools, but also large corporations like
South Dakota, and West Virginia depend on Dupont.
institutional support to sustain deliberative
The YWCA’s sponsorship has helped the
practices and conduct annual facilitator
New Castle County program in several ways.
trainings and public deliberations, mainly
First of all, because of its reputation, many
using the National Issues Forums model. In
organizations interested in hosting dialogues
these cases, institutional support comes
on race contacted the YWCA for assistance.
from the University of Hawaii, the Chiesman
Second, the YWCA has nurtured a large group
Foundation, and the University of Charleston,

40
of facilitators, who spread deliberation in their committees are generally well established
respective organizations. Third, the YWCA has and have the institutional capacity necessary
promoted study circles as a vehicle for social to continue to mobilize participants even
change with other organizations. It even after the deliberations to implement their
succeeded in embedding deliberation within recommendations, and to hold other
the Department of Labor, which held study members of the committee accountable
circles on race and on issues of gender and for doing the same. Shared leadership
disability, showing that deliberation has been teams bring together organizations with
adopted as a versatile problem-solving tool. different areas of expertise, spread organizing
and follow-up tasks evenly, and ensure
In West Virginia, several universities and two
accountability among team members.
NGOs adopted deliberations to advance their
Naturally, when action is desired the
missions. College students, faculty, and staff
institutional actors that have the authority
participated in deliberations, were trained as
and resources to implement deliberative
facilitators, and ended up holding additional
recommendations should be on board from
deliberations. Two NGOs trained their staff
the beginning.
to hold dozens of forums across the state on
issues of domestic violence and underage Study circles have a similar organizing
drinking. philosophy: there, too, convenors seek the
support of a broad network of institutional
Entrepreneurs who seek to embed public
partners to mobilize, from the beginning,
action face additional challenges. Like
the organizations and local government
entrepreneurs who promote embedded
institutions that have the capacity to
public reflection, they need to think
translate the deliberative input into action.
strategically of alliances that can secure the
Deliberations on underage drinking in
reputation, capacity, and resources to support
Clarksburg, West Virginia, were successful
deliberations. However, they also need to
because they were endorsed by the city
think of ways alliances can sustain action.
council, the police, and other public and
Consider the Connecticut Community private agencies. At a forum, this coalition
Conversations. The foundation that sponsors planned and implemented successful
the conversations secured resources strategies to curb underage drinking and
and alliance with the League of Women continued to work together well after the
Voters, which manages the project, and deliberations ended.
ensured credibility, outreach, and visibility.
The Montgomery County Study Circles enjoy
Additionally, the organizations that intend to
the highest level of institutional support
hold deliberations are required to form large
among all our case studies, but they are an
planning committees to guarantee outreach
atypical example, as they were introduced
to a diverse constituency.
by the local school district to close the
The organizations in the Connecticut planning achievement gap.

Conclusion and supporters of civic engagement efforts, or
at least to respond constructively.
I n several communities across the United

States, civic and political innovators have
All this is made still more complicated
and challenging because there is no
general recipe for embedding deliberation.
not only sponsored successful deliberations, Differences across contexts and communities
but they have also incorporated deliberative matter, but that is always true and should
practices into the ways that public decisions go without saying. More fundamental,
are made and public actions are taken. In deliberative initiatives often aim at quite
doing so, these deliberative entrepreneurs different problems with democratic
often begin with the aim of using methods governance—repairing social fabric,
of public reflection to address particular, improving public judgment, bridging gaps
identifiable community problems. As they between communities and government,
work to solve those problems, we have shown holding government officials accountable,
that they also develop reforms and structures and mobilizing civic resources and energies.
that improve the very process of democratic These different aims require different
governance. deliberative practices, organizational
strategies, and forms of embeddedness.
This is not easy work. Success requires At the very least, we hope this report
mobilizing citizens to engage in deliberation illuminates those differences and, perhaps
and often to take action following most important, in showing how several
deliberation. It requires building civic communities have quite remarkably managed
organizations that can sponsor and facilitate to improve the quality of local democratic
public deliberation over controversial issues governance by embedding deliberation, we
and community problems as they arise over hope we have provided some inspiration and
time. And success often requires deliberative guidance to others who may wish to pursue
entrepreneurs to persuade reluctant those ends.
politicians and policymakers to become allies

42
About the Authors
Elena Fagotto
Elena Fagotto researches deliberative democracy, citizen engagement in
governance, and regulation by transparency. After working for six years at
the Harvard Kennedy School, where she is a member of the Transparency
Policy Project, Fagotto returned to her native Europe. On behalf of an Italian
policy analysis institute, she is currently investigating how transparency
could engage Italian communities and improve public education. She is
also a visiting professor at LUISS University in Rome. For her research, she
observed many deliberative events nationally and internationally. She
co-authored a book chapter, reports, case studies, and articles published in
the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, the International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, Economic Analysis, and Issues in Science and
Technology.

Archon Fung
Archon Fung is the Ford Foundation Professor of Democracy and Citizenship
at the Harvard Kennedy School. His research examines the impacts of civic
participation, public deliberation, and transparency upon public and private
governance. Recent books include Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of
Transparency (Cambridge University Press, with Mary Graham and David
Weil) and Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy (Princeton
University Press). He has authored 5 books, 3 edited collections, and over
50 articles appearing in journals including American Political Science Review,
Public Administration Review, Political Theory, Journal of Political Philosophy,
Politics and Society, Governance, Journal of Policy and Management,
Environmental Management, American Behavioral Scientist, International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, and Boston Review.

44
www. everyday-democracy. org
Kettering Foundation
www. kettering. org

45

Sustaining Public Engagement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustaining Public Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustaining Public Engagement

Embedded Deliberation in Local Communities

by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Everyday Democracy Kettering Foundation

Authors: Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Copyright © 2009 by Everyday Democracy and the Kettering Foundation

2 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

What Does Success Look Like? 7

Solving Local Problems 13

Making Democracy Work 15

The Concept of Embeddedness 25

Three Conditions of Embeddedness 30

Measuring Embeddedness: Tentative Benchmarks 34

Strategies for Establishing and Sustaining Deliberation 37

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

O ver the past four years, we have studied

across the United States. We searched for Embeddedness is a habit of

1 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

3 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Methodology capacity building, resources, and the creation

5 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

What Does Success studies of nine communities. Readers

W e began our study by identifying

7 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

The Y WCA and other community leaders managed to

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

9 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

11 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Solving Local Problems however, thought that school quality had

13 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Making Democracy Work Democracy is a broad and elusive ideal,

15 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

17 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

19 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

deliberations. In Hawaii, a state legislator polls. Despite these mechanisms, gaps of

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

21 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Mentoring programs and numerous volunteer campaigns

23 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

The Concept of The concept of embeddedness highlights

A central hypothesis of this research

25 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

There is no doubt that embedding deliberation comes at a

27 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Although it is the product of embeddedness,

29 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

Three Conditions of initiative and energies of civic organizations

W ith this definition of embeddedness

Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung

and the local United Way. of local decision makers to participate in

31 Sustaining Public Engagement by Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung