Directions for democracy

Directions for Democracy by KEN THOMSON

HO redly rules? W How much democracy is enough democracy? How much is too much? What are the critical sources of stability in a democracy? What are the sources of change?

These are questions that go to the core of the democratic ideal, and whose answers establish the realm of the possible for social change. In one form or another, they have been asked from the time of Aristotle. At first the answers were given in terms of small communities where face-to-face democracy was possible. When large, representative democracies became a reality, the answers became much more complex and could be given only in the broadest terms of class and faction, stability and revolution.

Citizen movements and government involvement efforts of the past two decades have taken giant steps to expand the frontiers of the possible in a democracy. From “maximum feasible participation” to federal mandates in hundreds of regulatory and grant programs to what Harry Boyte called the “Backyard Revolution” and the rise of a neighborhood movement across the country, citizen participation has taken on a new life and meaning.

What can we learn from our collective experience in these new directions for democracy? Which models of participation work under which circumstances? When is participation mere window dressing and when is it substantive policymaking? How much of the promise of citizen participation can be fulfiied?

Seeking Answers To answer such questions, the Lincoln Filene Center has begun the

Ken Thomson is director of citizen participation programs at the Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs and managing editor of the Citizen Participation magazine.

199

200 I NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW

National Citizen Participation Development Project, a three-year project funded by the Ford Foundation. We have collected information on citizen participation throughout the country, and have compiled a list of more than 900 recommendations about major participation efforts.

Our research effort is proceeding along two paths. Five cities have been selected for intensive study during the next two years of the project: St. Paul, Minnesota; Birmingham, Alabama; Portland, Oregon; San Antonio, Texas; and Dayton, Ohio. These cities have among the highest rates of citizen participation in the nation. In each of the cities, a team of researchers is completing an exhaustive set of intelviews with elected officials, administrators, citizen group leaders, and citizen participation representatives. By the time the research is over, we will have collected thousands of pages of documents and more than 100 hours of interview tapes from each community. We will be conducting two or three comprehensive public opinion polls in each city, following issues as they develop over a two-year period, and correlating key events with public opinion, citizen participation efforts, and formal policymaking.

The second research path includes a sample of approximately 100 efforts, strong and weak, across the spectrum of community participation. This will enable us to establish a baseline for our more intensive studies and compare a wide range of approaches to participation. We will be developing brief case studies from the sample, as well as conducting a national public opinion poll stratified by level of participation in these communities.

To select appropriate participation models and help us understand how they work, we have established a framework describing citizen phcipation. This framework has two basic parts: a measure of what goes into a participation system-the level of participation-and a measure of what comes out-accomplishment of the goals of participation. All political systems allow citizens some degree of participation. But

our level of participation is intended to describe the key ingredients that make the difference between the norm of politics in American democratic life and maximum effort needed to involve citizens in governmental policymaking. We have come up with four criteria:

1. Effective Outreach. Does the citizen participation effort provide a realistic opportunity for large numbers of community residents to par- ticipate? Low on this scale would be a single public hearing announced

DIRECTIONS FOR DEMOCRACY I 201

in the legal notices section of the local newspaper. High on the scale would be a series of meetings, mostly in the evenings or on weekends, publicized through radio, television, or newspaper announcements, and via door-to-door distribution of descriptive pamphlets.

2. Equal Access. Does the outreach effort provide participation op- portunities to all residents on an equal basis? A minimal effort here would be a blue-ribbon commission. A maximal effort might provide for neighborhood-based elections and open meetings. Ideally, small group sessions would stimulate input from a large number of people and build up in Delphi fashion to a near-consensus agreement.

3. Significant Policy Impact. Does the effort provide an effective avenue for participants to have a significant impact on final policy decisions? The low end: policymakers present the public with a single take-it-or-leave-it proposition. The high end: citizens are involved from the beginning of a policymaking process, and the consensus achieved in the participation process becomes the final policy.

4. Enactable Policy. Does the participation effort address a specific government policy or program decision being made at the appropriate level of government? Minimum: a citywide participation effort leading only to a proclamation that Congress should end war. Maximum: a citywide participation effort distributing the city’s capital funds to specific projects; or, a nationwide effort resulting in new EPA regula- tions governing toxic waste production and clean-up.

Participation Goals The second part of our participation framework focuses on goals.

Too often citizen participation promises everything to everybody. To the elected politician, participation promises citizen satisfaction and support, To the administrator, it promises a more enlightened citizenry, fewer hidden obstacles, and better policy. To the citizen, it promises a fair shake for the little guy and a fair share of the public pie.

In reality there are many trade offs. In order to understand those trade-offs, we need to understand the specific objectives of a participation effort and how well they are achieved. We have identified three broad goal areas, with several specific goals in each area:

1. Policy Outcomes Several goals focus on whether the policy outcomes meet the expressed needs and interests of community residents. The emphasis here is on the extent to which expressed needs were part

202 I NAllONAL CIVIC REVIEW

of the policy process and final policy, not upon changes in public attitudes toward their own roles, toward other citizens, or toward govemment in general. These goals include:

Open access to the policy agenda-ability of the citizenry to bring their issues to the attention of decision makers and decision- making bodies. Policy balance/responsiveness-equal weighting of all interests in final policy decisions; a share in policy victories for minority groups in proportion to their numbers.

2. Governance Goals Other goals involve improving the ability of government to do its job, whatever that job may be. These governance goals focus on the procedures that enable decisions to be made and implemented, and the support of citizens for the decision-making process and the subsequent action of government agencies. The substance of the policies or the nature of the policy balance obtained is not an emphasis here. These goals include:

Prevention of policy gridlock-The ability for policy decisions to be made and implemented, avoiding either stalemate or an endless series of special-interest bargaining. Confidence, satisfaction, and support of govemment-Citizen confidence in the integrity and capability of government officials to manage community concern effectively; satisfaction with the results; a willingness to lend support to policy implementation. Community consensus and conflict resolution-Reduction of community polarization and achievement of consensus on the final policy.

3. Capacity-Building A final group of goals focus on the individual. Achieving these goals depends solely on changes in individuals’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes about themselves and other citizens. These goals, which we will call capacity-building, can be completely fulfilled whether or not citizens use their new skills to improve governance or public policy. These goals include: - Tolerance-The ability of citizens to identify, understand, and ac-

cept the views of other citizens and to adopt more tolerant attitudes toward the expression of these views and toward the democratic process itself. Political efficacy-Achievement by citizens of a greater sense of personal effectiveness in influencing governmental policy.


Wider knowledge and participatory skills-The ability of citizens to better understand the problems involved and the alternatives available in pursuing an issue, and to communicate their interests and respond productively to the proposals of others.

Measuring Up What have we found so far? How well do the best participation ef-

forts measure up to these goals? What factors lead to success and what cause failure? While our work is still in its early stages, some preliminary observations can be made.

Target Cities. First, the level of sustained participation in the communities we’ve begun to examine is much higher than cynics would admit possible.

In St. Paul, a city of 270,000, we found what is perhaps the most comprehensive participation system anywhere in the country. Seven- teen district councils each have specific responsibilities in zoning, housing, and development issues; many have also tackled other issues, from environmental pollution to home health care. Each council can hire and fire its own staff, has a small budget from the city, and has the opportunity, which several have taken, to raise substantial additional funds on its own. An elaborate Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee system allows representatives from the neighborhoods to rate individually every capital proposal-whether from agencies or neighborhoods-and propose final allocations to each. Regular neighborhood newsletters are a common component of the communication between district council and community residents.

In Birmingham, we were astounded by the progress the city has made in just 20 years. From a community bitterly divided along sharp racial lines as late as 1963, the city has become progressive and committed to racial integration in all facets of community life. Areas that had been devastated by neglect of the most basic municipal services-including constant flooding from open sewer ditches-have received an enormous infusion of capital improvement funds directed almost entirely through the neighborhood association process. In a city with a popula- tion of 280,000, some 93 neighborhoods have leaders elected by open ballot, communicate monthly to every neighborhood resident in city-


funded mailings, and target capital improvement budgets as high as $500,000.

In Portland, we found one of the nation’s most lively and multi- focused set of participation efforts. Administrators and citizens alike emphasized the openness of public administration in this city of 370,000, and our preliminary investigation seems to bear this out. One example: To initiate a state-mandated waste separation program, the environmental services department went through a six-month process in- volving outside consultants, a series of public forums, and a formal Del- phi process to determine how to implement a dramatic program that would allow individuals to separate trash into as many as nine separate categories. More than $1.2 million is allocated through Portland’s Of- fice of Neighborhood Associations to support five district offices, provide technical assistance with neighborhood groups, and cover printing and mailing costs to communicate to neighborhood residents. A board of representatives from the neighborhood organizations hires and fires staff for the district offices and selects priority issues. An an- nual “neighborhoods needs” process allows each neighborhood to communicate its priorities to every city department.

In San Antonio, a sprawling community of 843,000, participation revolves around one key organization: COPS, Communities Organized for Public Service. In less than 12 years, this parish-based organization, which represents a large share of the city’s 53 percent Hispanic majority, has gained an influence on city politics unparalleled by any Alinsky-style organization in the country. Two other organizations, the Eastside Alliance and the Metropolitan Congregational Alliance, have formed similar spin-off groups to represent other sections of the city, and a range of neighborhood associations have been inspired by the great success of COPS. The political process, which had been completely dominated for more than 20 years by a small political machine, has been opened up to Mexican-Americans, blacks, and middle-income residents to a degree the city has not experienced since the turn of the century. The city is now gaining control over its own development and emphasizing the natural beauty of its riverfront and vast open spaces.

Finally, in Dayton, seven priority boards and 82 neighborhoods are intricately linked with a governance system that is a model of perfor- mance-oriented public administration. All city agencies work under a detailed management-by-objectives (MBO) system, and a key measure


of agency success is whether the public likes the results. They had better, because every five years the city has to face an all-or-nothing public vote on the local income tax-which is its primary source of revenue. A local university formally samples the opinion of the city’s 180,OOO residents each year to ensure citizen satisfaction with city services.

The priority boards in Dayton Serve as a critical link in the governance system. Each has at least two W-time staff members, funded by the city, screened by civil service and the city’s neighborhood office, and formally hired by the priority board itself. Priority board members are elected by precinct using mail-in ballots. Each board meets monthly with representatives of every major city agency. Board residents make up a majority of the citywide committee that allocates Com- munity Development Block Grant funds. Major city initiatives, from hazardous waste siting to employee residency requirements, are often brought to the priority boards for advice and neighborhood promotion. In economic conditions that have caused many neighborhoods to lose half their residents within a decade, the priority board system in Dayton has done marvels to target vital Services and maintain the quality of urban life.

Emerging Patterns. In addition to these city-by-city perspectives, some general patterns are beginning to emerge (one note of caution- these are still quite preliminary and may change upon further analysis):

1. In general, the major innovations took place in one large step, not gradually over time. In each city, the key structural elements established at the beginning of the program 10 to 15 years ago remain in place today.

2. Each participation system is built upon neighborhoods. Unlike most state and federal participation programs, which have many fea- tures that are not geographically-based, these successful city systems develop participation almost exclusively through neighborhood or district-based organizations.

3. The informal powers of the neighborhoods have far outweighed the powers they have been formally granted. In most cases, the formal ordinances provide only an advisory role, not decision-making power, to the participation system. Yet in St. Paul, for example, the neighborhoods have effective power over all development within their communities; in Birmingham, they have effectively controlled the use of


CDBG money. One formal structure stands out: the St. Paul CIB Com- mittee. While the Mayor and City Council technically have full authority, just as they do in the rest of budget matters, more than 70 percent of the projects eventually funded were initiated by the neighborhoods.

4. City funding for neighborhood organization development and for communication between the neighborhood organization and residents is an essential ingredient in all participation efforts except in San An- tonio. There COPS refuses any direct city funding or service role. When there is organizational funding, staffing questions-who hires and fires, and where the staff works-are central. The perceptions and roles of staff members are far different, for example, in Birmingham, where they are hired by the city and work out of City Hall, than in St. Paul or Portland, where they are hired by the district organization and work out of the district offices.

5. Timing and flow of information from the city to neighborhood organizations is the most consistent result of all these participation systems. This early warning system has substantially improved the effectiveness of many neighborhood groups, particularly those working on development, traffic, and environmental issues.

6. Comprehensive planning by neighborhood organizations can have an enormous effect upon neighborhoods-if it is linked to ongoing ad- ministrative action and legally actionable remedies, as it is in Portland. Where it is not-as in San Antonio, at present-neighborhood planning yields the same thing that many citywide planning efforts have-thick plans that are nothing but expensive paperweights.

7. The representativeness issue is crucial. In every city, questions have been raised about the extent to which neighborhood organizations reflect the neighborhood composition. The existence of clear and ac- cepted neighborhood boundaries; the ability of the neighborhood to speak in a single voice; and open and visibly legitimate neighborhood processes have made the difference between neighborhoods that stand or fall under pressure. Portland, particularly, is struggling with this issue in the wake of a major battle between neighborhoods and the largest supermarket chain in the metropolitan area.

8. None of the participation systems we are observing have success- fully translated the participatory power of the neighborhoods into citywide influence, with the possible exception of the citywide, and


even statewide, clout of COPS in San Antonio. Most participation deals with neighborhood issues; most citywide issues remain undiscussed. Even in St. Paul, where an effective citywide committee allocates neighborhood-based capital improvement money, the huge downtown developments are not addressed at all by the neighborhoods. Contact between neighborhood representatives on any citywide issue is rare. Consequently, the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) syndrome remains unabated on issues from halfway houses to toxic waste disposal.

The questions raised here are rooted in the long-range issues of democratic policymaking. They are also directed to some very specific, pragmatic needs for decisions on the part of foundations, government agencies, and citizen groups. What kinds and levels of funding for citizen groups and government participation pmgrams are most likely to achieve effective government, balanced policy, and an empowered citizenry? What specific governmental initiatives and programs work best to these ends? What citizen group strategies can achieve individual goals while at the same time working for the common good?

We hope that the observations and analysis that result from the Na- tional Citizen Participation Development Project will assist others in finding more complete answers and more lasting solutions to these questions.

Documents

Directions for democracy