Designing for Civil Society

Salon goes with a swing

Last's night Salon about public participation at the Civic Trust went really well ... subject of course to any contrary opinions participants might wish to add below. Our engagement technique was simple and well-tested - ply people with lots of free wine* and encourage them to circulate. We added a few props ... over-sized badges, and flags.

The idea of the badges was that people added a few words about things they might wish to discuss with others. My designer friends at the Civic Trust took to the idea enthusiastically, and provided people with mini-placards which certainly did the job effectively.
The flags idea was something Drew Mackie and I have done before to help people cluster into groups ..... find a few other people with a shared interest and you get a paper flag to write your interest on and wave to attract more people.
In the event everyone was so gregarious that not much was needed to encourage circulation. We got into the appropriate frame of mind right from the start with some excellent jazz piano from Charles Condy, husband of the Trust's Heritage Days Manager Katya.
The Trust has been around for nearly 50 years, encouraging high standards of planning and architecture. It's had its up and downs over the years, but I sensed a lot of energy among its staff. The Trust's director Peter Bembridge has a technology background, unusual for an organisation in the planning and environment field - so I'm hopeful we'll see more of the Trust's activities reflected online. I know there is interest in equipping the hundreds of local civic societies, supported by the Trust, with better communication methods.
Amidst all the fun we also talked about participation, engagement, co-creation and such. Apart from one dissenting voice there was general interest in how to mix online activity with face to face workshops and other techniques, and I promised to set up a site where anyone interested could try blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 tools. My son Dan is grappling with Drupal modules and Flash plugins, and we should have a sort of online salon running soon. Quite what we'll do about the wine, I'm not sure.
* Thanks to sponsor David Prichard of Metropolitan Workshop

Technorati Tags: engagement

CampaignCreator brings Clift to advise the advisors

The Bristol project team developing the CampaignCreator tool - see Can a council host community campaigns? - has now recruited US-based e-democracy evangelist Steven Clift to help with their work. Steven will facilitate advisory group discussions, share draft guidebook content, and also invite others with community campaigning or online advocacy experience to join in the discussions. Stephen Hilton has already extended an open invitation to the group on his blog, so things should get interesting shortly.
One of the issues that I and others have raised, is whether a council can be expected to host discussions that may well be critical of politicians and officers. As Paul Hilder points out in a comment to my item:

There is a simple fix: the campaign portal should be owned not by the council, but by local civil society. In some areas there are community coalitions or CENs which could lead on this, and LSPs or councils could endorse or "dual key" this use of the technology without needing to sit atop it and control it in a way which will inevitably quell civic action.

I'm looking forward to discussion on whether Bristol council is prepared to give up control of the platform. Meanwhile you can keep up with Steven's other international assignments on his blog. I think he should bring a useful perspective to CampaignCreator.

Technorati Tags: e-democracy, Engagement 2.0

UK's Pledgebank pulls US commitment - and cash

The recent trip by Tom Steinberg to the US to promote mySociety online tools for individual community organising is starting to pay off with burgeoning interest in Pledgebank. This simple yet powerful tool enables people to tell the world "I'll do it, but only if you'll help me do it". US pledges already successfully completed include actions ranging from boycotting burger stores, to reclaiming New Orleans archives and returning unsolicited mail. The UK campaign to start a digital rights group is only 161 signatures short of the 1000 target.
Pledgebank US appealed so much to Chris Andersonthat he has pledged to give $1000 "to the person with the best eyepopping pledge idea offered here by the end of October, provided more than 5 people contribute an idea." So far 22 comments and growing.

Self-publishing challenges hierarchies - and facilitators

Former intelligence agent Matthew Burton provides a couple of insights from his world that have much resonance for me elsewhere. First, that networks reflect the culture of the organisations that run them, and second the importance of self-publishing to release creativity and challenge hierarchies. Matthew offers these in a comment to the item I wrote about his article on intelligence agency knowledge systems.
I've been to a couple of meetings in recent weeks where a day's discussion among participants drawn from a wide range of backgrounds, and mainly freelances, released a wealth of ideas for the convenors. In each case the purpose of the day was to develop ways forward for the organisers, working with the freelances - but of course people also saw many ways in which they could work together in pairs and groups without detriment to the central purpose. The network energy could add to the centre.
As each meeting closed, I made the suggestion, prompted by comments among participants, that it would be a good idea to have a better-than-email system to enable people to share ideas and work together since there were no plans for a further get-together for some time. I offered to set up a 'neutral ground' system since nothing was in place.
In each case the response was the same .... don't do that, we'll get around to doing it. They may... but I'm a bit sceptical, and by the time they do the momentum will have gone.
I don't have a great desire to manage yet more network communication systems ... whether email lists, forums, wikis or Basecamps. I was simply saying we needed something good-enough quickly so that we can build on the social and enterprise capital developed.
If the organisers had been social software enthusiasts, committed to a self-publishing, distributed approach to networking I would be fairly sure they would follow through quickly with a system we could all use flexibly. In the the two cases I mention the organisers didn't have that experience and I suspect instinctively reacted against losing control. They were fine about people making contacts during the day, and developing ideas together. They could see what was going on. But the notion of that common space continuing somewhere else, in a way that they didn't control, was problematic.
I'm perhaps being a little unfair because in each case it was a rushed conversation at the end of the day ... but I think I am right in detecting some instinctive anxiety about giving people a space with freedom to publish and a network structure different from the tightly moderated approach in the workshops.
A little self-reflection makes me think that behind my practical suggestions was also a desire to offer up that challenge. The great thing about social software is that the individual has that capability. In future I'll try and raise it earlier in the day.
Previously at Partnerships Online: Describing networks: joining us, joining in, or joining up

Knowing whether your community is strong or not

These days everyone seems to be in favour of community, cohesion, inclusion, engagement and so on at local level. Me too.... but how do you know if you've got it, and whether the work you may be doing is making things better or worse? Kevin Harris in Indicators of strong communities alerts us to some work published by the UK Government's Neighbourhood Renewal Unit that I think could be very significant.
The paper proposes how to measure 'community strength' against five main indicators. Interesting enough to researchers, but more generally significant, I suspect. This work may give some insights into the way government sees community development these days, and where policy and funding priorities will lie.
As Kevin reports:

There are five core indicators, which are presented as if carrying equal weight (although personally I favour the first two and am less concerned to see weight given to the last)
* Governance - percentage of residents who feel that they can influence decisions affecting their local area
* Cohesion and inclusion - percentage of residents who feel that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds can get on well together
* Volunteering - percentage of residents who affirm that they carried out voluntary work in an organisation once a month or more in the past year
* Voluntary and community sector - percentage of VCS groups and organisations affirming growth in activity over the past year in terms of (i) financial turnover and (ii) volunteering
* Services - Proportion of services in selected public service areas delivered by VCS organisations on behalf of the local authority.
Each has additional recommended indicators, an explanation, example, and actions associated with them. Quite a lot of work has also been done on methods and questions for collecting the data, with a case study included.

Kevin goes on to question the way that some of the indicators are framed:

And does it have to be 'volunteering' and 'voluntary work'? What about ‘community activity’ (or even community involvement)? Turning up on a cold wet evening and sitting in a committee meeting, maybe without saying anything to anyone, is probably community activity to most people but not voluntary work.

I think there are a lot of other issues worth discussing. Suppose people are broadly happy with their neighbourhood, and aren't too worried about getting involved ... and most of their neighbours are from similar backgrounds. Is their neighbourhood weaker than one with greater diversity and concern about the way the council is doing things? Maybe strength has something to do with how far people an organise when necessary.
I'm personally rather sceptical about the extent to which you can measure "community strength" in quite the ways suggested. Where do the indicators come from ... are they drawn from work on the ground, reflecting people's perceptions of what matters in a community, or are a rationalisation of current government policy enthusiasms? Why is there no press release, or encouragement on the NRU site to discussion? Maybe that will come ... at least they are published and Kevin's vigilence has given us a chance to start our own discussions. That wouldn't have been so easy a few years back.

Technorati Tags: neighbourhoods

Old-style knowledge systems hamper spooks too

Intelligence agencies are not very bright in the way they process the information they gather, according to an insider view. The reason is that they employ old-style top-down internal communication systems rather than the search and knowledge-sharing Net tools many people use in their homes.
Matthew Burton wrote to me earlier this year, as I reported in Reducing the fear of being wrong - for spooks too. At the time I wasn't sure how serious he was about revealing the shortcomings of spook software systems. However, he has now produced an article for Studies in Intelligence, which you can preview here.
In that he writes about the high expectations he had on joining the Defense Intelligence Agency in January 2003, and excitement he felt at using their systems.

The reality was a colossal letdown. Intelink-the network that was designed to negate the physical distance that separates intelligence agencies and their customers-seems anachronistic in comparison to the Web we use at home. As a technology enthusiast with seven years of Web development experience, I was appalled that the rest of the world had access to better online tools than did the US national security structure-the very creator of "online." Our search engines return results reminiscent of the pre-Google Web. Our online personnel directories are useless. Agencies and combatant commands use a hodgepodge of incompatible discussion and chat tools, furthering our tendency to speak only with those in our own buildings.

The reasons for failure, cited by Matthew, will bring additional re-assurance to those who argue for bottom-up development of knowledge systems. It seems blogs have potential benefits for spooks as well as home or business users.

Users should be involved as public services change

I've just spent a fascinating couple of hours losing a job .... but learning a lot about the realities of how councils may (or may not) carry through policies to bring public service delivery closer to users by greater involvement of nonprofit organisations. My conclusion - great idea, but it may be the service users who lose out because of the complexity of regulations involved.
My potential job was a small piece of work to evaluate the benefits of involving users (that is 'the community') in the development and running of a highly innovative rural bus service. Users can hop on, or call up to book a ride, and expect the bus to divert to pick them up within an hour.
On the face of it, the success of the project depends quite substantially on the promotional efforts of volunteers who helped get the service started, and the commitment of users to embrace 'their' service.
However, I held off accepting the brief because recent developments made it clear that any work should take account of a change in funding within two years as the development phase ended. What was needed was some forward thinking, not just evaluation of past performance. I wanted to sit in at an advisory group meeting, without commitment or cost to the client, agree a revised brief if appropriate, withdraw if not.

Technorati Tags: engagement

E-petitions help build campaigning communities

I have to confess that although I occasionally write about e-democracy, I haven't before signed an e-petition. I then got a nudge from Nancy Somerville who pointed me to an e-petition which Edinburgh's Active Citizenship Group (EACG) has submitted to the Scottish Parliament asking for a debate on the decision to withdraw funding from the Scottish Civic Forum. She explained:

EACG has run a number of seminars on how the parliament engages with the public and the Civic Forum has always been highlighted as an important element in that process. Edinburgh-based Civic Forum staff and volunteers have played an active role in helping to organise and run our public seminars. In December 2001, EACG and the Civic Forum jointly ran a seminar, 'Participation Matters' in Leith Academy. It brought together MSPs, members of the Scottish Executive and people from all over Scotland.
Our petition is on the Scottish Parliament's website (The full text is under 'information'.)
An e-petition was particularly important in this case in order to reach the wide membership of the Scottish Civic Forum which covers all areas of the country, not just the cities but also rural Highland and island areas where communities have embraced new technologies.

I found it really easy to sign the petition, to see who else had signed, and also look at the discussion forum. Clearly a good way to gather a community of interest around a topic online, with the chance that you may make some impact through more conventional democratic processes.
Nancy's nudge reminded me that e-petitions are one of the ideas that have been piloted under the national local e-democracy project in Kingston upon Thames and Bristol. I recalled the chair of the national project, Mary Reid, telling me that the petitions were working well in Kingston, where she is a councillor. You can see how it is working here.
As I wrote earlier, I'm a little sceptical about how Bristol's £395,000 Community Campaigner will work. E-petitions seem to be a simple and effective way to support campaigning without controlling the campaigners. Still it's early days on all this stuff. Nancy's email also reminded me that that a personal message can be the best way to spread the word. Thanks.

Technorati Tags: e-democracy

Can a council host community campaigns?

Bristol City Council has been given £395,000 of UK government funding to test whether councillors and officials, often under attack from activists in their local communities, can learn not only to react positively but actually provide support to their critics.

The project is funded under the Government's e-innovations programme:

The focus of e-innovations is to encourage practical examples of new and innovative approaches to joined-up working, effective service delivery and community engagement which are sustainable in the long term.

The Campaign Pack funding is being spent on software that will provide an online home for any campaign, and ways to develop pamphlets and other materials; a guide to campaigning; a forum for campaigners to share experience; piloting; and development work to make the tool available to other local authorities. The project description says:

Falling election turnout is citied by many as evidence of the growing crisis in democracy. The Community Campaign Project starts with a different premise and an open-mind as to what might be achieved.
The Community Campaign Project’s starting point is that it is not lack of opinions or ideas which leads to this sense of disengagement. Rather it is the lack of ability that individuals and communities have to make their voices heard and a lack of trust that anyone will listen when they are.
Campaigns start with people with ideas. This project sets out to prove that by providing the right support, encouragement and access to tools, councils can help “people with ideas” to become effective community campaigners and in so doing, can show themselves to be effective community leaders.

I'm on an advisory group for the project that was recruited when most of the development work had been done, and I'm still not really sure why we are there, or whether I will stay. I'm developing a suspicion that we may be a tick box, as in "you must have an advisory group if you are getting Government funds". I hope I'm wrong.
However, I think I can say without breaking any confidences that there is some lively questioning from a few of us about how far it is realistic for councils to provide platforms for campaigners ... and whether any campaigner really trying to make a difference would use a council-hosted platform.
For me the problem is the use of the term 'campaign'. If the project aimed to create a set of tools and processes by which councils, community groups and many other interests in an area could work out when to agree and when to disagree - and then get on with it - that would make sense.
But campaigning is something different - it is about challenging, and councils don't usually like that. I've heard of quite a few situations in which councils have restricted or closed down online forums just because contributors disagreed with them. Are they really going to host and support active campaigns?
On the advisory group we are being urged to be positive, and wait until we can actually have a go with the online platform. On that basis I thought "don't get cross, get creative", and came up with a couple of ideas.
The first is that the campaign tool could provide a great learning experience to help councillors, officials and activists understand each other better. How about a mixed group gets together for a few hours to invent a possible campaign issue - not a real one, so tempers are not frayed from the outset. They work out who might be involved on council and community sides. Then they exchange roles, and start campaigning with all the support that is planned as part of the project. At the end they get together to talk about what they have learned from each other, and how the campaign tool might be improved. (I'll declare an interest here ... I would love to be hired to help on that one).
The second idea is that the project staff and advisory group reflect on the experience we are currently having in trying to share ideas. As the project proposal says " ... it is the lack of ability that individuals and communities have to make their voices heard and a lack of trust that anyone will listen when they are" (which leads to this sense of disengagement). If the advisory group starts to feel that it isn't being taken seriously, I think we have the perfect reason for raising this lack of attention strongly with the council. If they won't take seriously people who are meant to be advisers, what hope will there be for community activists?
Either way, it is an experiment, and I certainly wouldn't want to criticise Government for trying something different. I just wish they would also be prepared to provide at least some recognition to the thousands of campaign activists and community volunteers who have struggled over the past decade or so to understand online tools and make their benefits available to people in their neighbourhoods and communities of interest.
Ah, that gives me the third idea. Look more widely at what else is happening in the field, and invite others to contribute ideas through the project's online forum or blog. These days advisory groups don't have to be closed.

Technorati Tags: e-democracy, Engagement 2.0

Explore Engagement 2.0 at a London salon

There's an opportunity later this month to explore the issues I raised in If Participation 1.x isn't working, let's develop Engagement 2.0 at a salon in London organised by the Civic Trust. It's free, with wine and nibbles thrown in too.
I rashly agreed to help with the salon a month or so back after a delightful tea with Alexandra Rook and Stuart Woodin, and the need to pull together some new ideas was one of the reasons I wrote the blog item. You can download an invite for the October 25 event here (pdf). It says about the salon programme:

We hope these occasional events will attract interested citizens and members of the public, our supporters and members in business, public service or civic societies, concerned with the quality of life in our urban environments and wanting to debate and draw out future trends and their implications for policy.
We are delighted David Wilcox has agreed to open the series with a discussion on community engagement. It will explore why it is often difficult to go beyond the usual suspects and whether simply more of the usual methodologies will combat consultation fatigue and apathy.
With community involvement at the heart of government policy, there is an imperative for all of us involved in making places to understand how best we can adopt new approaches and technologies to improve communication and develop collaboration.
David has been working in the field of regeneration partnerships and participation for over 25 years.
His October menu will include workshop games, storytelling, blogs, wikis … and how these may help foster the trust, transparency and authenticity needed for effective engagement and local democracy. Audience participation will be encouraged…

Phew. It's frightening when these things come back from the designers ... but then salons are about encouraging people to converse, so I'm hoping there'll be a good turnout of just the sort of people whose ideas I've been repacking over the years, ready for another round. Advance ideas, comments extremely welcome.
It's 6.30 for 7pm at 1-6 Essex Street WC2, just off the Strand. Finish 8.30pm, or maybe just move to one of the excellent pubs nearby. Space is limited, so please book a place by emailing scoleman@civictrust.org.uk

Technorati Tags: engagament2.0, participation