Citizen Tools

We expect that the citizens who show up will feel a sense of entitlement. What if we don’t take that at face value?

Can we talk about what’s going on?

The previous post buried the most important point. Consider:

1. In public, the planner suggested that public participation was effective and worthwhile.
2. In private, he disclosed that it had little impact on government.
3. The difference between the public and private views is huge, but few people reading these words will be surprised.

So why is it difficult to discuss the value of a participative governance in a particular context?

Planners, consultants, government officials and others can’t be sure what to make of the role of the particular citizens who show up.

Who are these people?

The previous post suggested that there is a general expectation, at least for PR purposes, that the citizens’ wishes be honored and even implemented. But it’s easy to argue against that. Who, after all, are the particular citizens who show up?

• Government officials, themselves either directly elected or specifically responsible to elected politicians, can ask: how can these folks claim to represent anyone other than themselves?
• Developers, who have money, time, and reputation on the line, can ask: what stake do these folks have in the outcome?
• Planners, with their training, analytical tools and data, and specific professional responsibilities, can ask: what expertise do these folks bring to the table?

And yet government officials, developers, and planners are all supposed to treat the citizens as their superiors. (And consider that some of the criticisms offered “from the floor” would never be tolerated with such outward good humor if the roles were reversed.)

Lessons from democratic businesses

Businesses that attempt to run on democratic principles have to confront both of these problems: they’ve got to find ways to make participative governance work not just once, but over and over and over again, and they are generally structured so that participants in the process have vastly different expertise, face different risks, and come from unique and distinctive roles. What can we learn from them?

This will be an ongoing theme, so let’s start with just a taste. Worldblu recently convened a roundtable of democratic businesses to consider lessons learned. What emerged that’s most relevant to us is that democratic business processes work best when all participants

• Feel accountable, not entitled
• Are comfortable with transparency
• Recover from their mistakes quickly and with grace
• Understand their role in making the organization perform

How to placate support?

So let’s forego the temptation to placate the citizens who show up for our public process, or put them on a pedestal, and ask a different question: what are their specific responsibilities, and how can we help them fulfill those responsibilities?

At a public participation workshop a few years ago, I met a planner who ran the participation team for a large city. He spoke eloquently about working with citizens and with government on various, at times controversial, planning challenges and led us in some remarkably realistic exercises.

He took pains to point out that his group was advisory only – they had no role with the city government to enforce the results of public participation. So I asked him, privately, how these participatory planning sessions influenced city government; he smiled ruefully, and admitted that officials often paid very little attention to them.

I don’t think this is unusual, and it led me to consider who “wins” in participatory planning:

• Planners and facilitators often do: it can be stimulating to prepare for participatory sessions and great fun to run them;
• Politicians and other government officials may: they are seen listening to the people, and, if the project results are popular, they win big; if not, in the event that lack of follow-up is noticed, they can always argue that events have made the planning results outdated and impractical;
• Developers and other project sponsors may: if the bridge, hotel, or shopping mall gets built, even with substantial changes, they profit, and they can generally pull out if it seems likely that they won’t;
• But what of the “citizen participants”? They invest their time and often their energy and commitment, but at best it’s a gamble. Perhaps their concern will be addressed, perhaps their requests will be incorporated in the final design, but often, of course, they won’t.

As a wise gambler knows, the house always wins. If you play the slots in Nevada, even if you win from time to time, each pull of the lever on a $1 machine costs you, on average, around twenty cents.

An ethical casino publicizes its payout percentage, and emphasizes that gambling is entertainment not (for gamblers) a money-making activity. For a planner or facilitator, what’s the ethical way to recruit citizen participants and to structure planning workshops when we know that their invested time and energy may not pay off?

Relevant links:

• Local Online Citizen Engagement in the UK (DoWire)
• Listening to the City (DoWire)

12/11/2006 update
The Grassroots Champions Coalition has used Advokit to organize precincts throughout California.

Bruce Daniels describes their implementation approach here.

What if you had tools that allowed participants to share their networks with your effort, in addition to their time, thoughtfulness, and energy?

Robo-calling: tempting for campaigns, annoying for voters, ten times the expense

In the election just concluded, I received countless robocalls, mass mailings, and email messages from candidates and elected officials. I voted, of course, but the only thing that moved me to action was a friend’s emailed account of his own door to door efforts in the Virginia Senatorial campaign.

I’m not alone. The news is filled with stories of voters in Arizona, New York and other states who are tired of getting calls.

It’s some comfort to know that robo-calling, at $275 per new vote generated, is 10 to 20 times more expensive than canvassing or phone banks.

Friend to friend

Pat Dunlavey has found a way that’s more humane and more effective.

In 1998, 1999, and 2003, Dunlavey organized ballot measure campaigns in Massachusetts to allow local governments to increase taxes to fund needed local services.

1998: Ten supporters identified per canvassser via cold-calls

In his first effort, call lists were assigned by the campaign based on geography. 85 volunteers each made 30 contacts per person, and identified only one third of the contacts as ballot measure supporters. Volunteers generally completed only 60% of their assigned contacts and found the cold calling an unpleasant experience.

Although the ballot measure passed, Dunlavey was disappointed with the results, and sought ways to avoid cold-calling.

2003: Fifteen supporters identified per canvasser via friend-to-friend

In 2003, his volunteers used a custom web application (reborn in 2004 as Advokit) to scan the town’s voter database and “tag” or claim voters that they felt, based on personal knowledge, would be supporters of the ballot measure. The 55 initial canvassers recruited an additional 40, and then each canvasser contacted more than 26 people on average and identified 15 supporters. The 2003 group was both happier — completing 85% of the calls assigned — and more effective — they converted almost twice as many of of their contacts to supporters (57% in 2003 vs. 31%in 1998)

Netalyst worked with Advokit (and CivicActions) during the fall of 2004 to support the VoteAllYourValues effort , to design an easier to use “lite” interface and to develop strategies that would allow the campaign’s ambitious targets for calls generated to be reached.

Advokit was also used with good results in that year’s New York State senate races.

The Advokit website provides an online demo and free download of this open source software.

Text messages sent by cellphone — also known as Short Message Service or SMS — are becoming a powerful tool for political and civic participation.

Last fall, activists opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts recruited 25,000 volunteers for their Massive Immediate Response effort. Each volunteer agreed to respond immediately to a text message requesting that they call their Congressional Representatives. The 27% opt-in rate was five times that observed for the most successful commercial entertainment campaigns.

Rick Santorum, the Republican incumbent running for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, used SMS to reach out to his supporters.

On Halloween, Pat LaMarche, the Green Party candidate for Governor in Maine, asked her supporters to provide topic suggestions via text message for a speech at an upstate university.

Note that all of these initiatives relied upon participants who were already fired up for or against particular candidates and issues — SMS is less likely to be useful in converting a luke warm supporter into a passionate participant.

Almost one third of all cellphone subscribers send at least one text message per month, with younger Americans leading the way. A recent New Politics Institute study notes that cellphone subscribers comprise more than two-thirds of the population, that more than half of 18 to 34 year olds use text messages at least occasionally, as do one in five 35-54 year olds.

Among those 35 and under, text messaging reverses the digital divide. Five out of ten Hispanics, four out of ten African Americans, but only three of ten whites use their cellphone text messaging capability. So it should not be surprising that Voto Latino announced plans in July to register at least 35,000 Hispanic youths nationwide using cellphone text messaging tools.

These tools are rapidly reaching the “point and click” stage for campaign organizers. For instance, the Mozes service allows campaign manager to set up “text message ballots” easily. A “do it yourself” American Idol is using this service to let listeners to indicate the band they prefer in one on one matchups.

To track developments further, visit mopocket, textually, and the MobileActive Community Blog.

Update: 2006/11/17
The Democracies Online wiki provides a quick overview of SMS pros and cons and describes how SMS was used the Philippines, Lancashire, Bristol, and South Korea.