SCC-CIVIC-PG Track B: Improving Service and Resource Distribution Programs through Public Deliberation

政府在社区提供的服务和资源往往不足、效率低下和不公平，而公共机构在决策过程中很难让得不到充分服务的社区成员有发言权。该项目由学术研究人员与肯塔基州列克星敦的公民领袖合作领导，将评估一种新的模式，以提高列克星敦教育公平为重点，使公众以具有成本效益的方式参与服务和资源决策。列克星敦的公民领袖已经确定教育公平是他们城市自学的一个重要话题。这个复杂的问题延伸到住房、交通、就业机会等问题。通过关注一组相关的资源和服务的挑战，本研究将考虑是否审议社区参与改变社区成员如何看待自己，公民协会，和他们的地方政府。该项目有可能提供证据，证明更加公平和包容的公众参与可以改善地方政府的服务质量和资源决策。该项目的目标是建立一个新的进程，以发现当地社区面临的最大挑战，并共同努力制定定制的解决方案。除了在列克星敦实现更大的教育公平这一具体问题之外，项目团队希望证明，这些方法可以在全国范围内使用，以帮助服务不足的人口在地方决策中拥有更多的发言权，同时也提高了政府的合法性。该项目将填补公共审议文献中关于实现高水平包容性，审议质量和长期成果的成本效益方法的空白。研究人员将测试以下假设：1）在审议中成功招募不同的参与者; 2）沟通模式和促进方法的相互作用，以确保强大的审议;以及3）政府回应对公民自信心，对政府和公民协会的信任以及未来参与公共协商和参与的多方面影响。第一阶段的资金将为第二阶段的随机对照试验奠定基础，以测试这些假设。一个大样本的审议小组将被招募到六种模式之一，在2 × 3的设计，对比被动与有针对性的促进风格在三个通信模式，面对面的会议，在线视频聊天，和异步在线参与。数据将包括直接观察，成绩单和调查。该项目是对公民创新挑战计划-轨道B的回应。弥合基本资源和服务社区需求之间的差距-是NSF、国土安全部和能源部之间的合作。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

Government-provided services and resources in communities all too often prove insufficient, inefficient, and inequitable, yet public agencies have difficulty giving a voice to underserved community members in their decision-making processes. Led by academic researchers in collaboration with civic leaders in Lexington, Kentucky, this project will assess a new model for cost-effective public involvement in service and resource decisions using the theme of greater educational equity in Lexington as its focus. Civic leaders in Lexington have identified educational equity as a topic of importance in their city in self-studies. This complex issue extends into questions about housing, transportation, job opportunities, and more. By focusing on a cluster of related resource and service challenges, this study will consider whether deliberative community engagement changes how community members think about themselves, civic associations, and their local government. The project has the potential to offer evidence that more equitable and inclusive public engagement can improve the quality of service and resource decisions made by local governments. The project objective is to establish a new process for discovering a local community’s greatest challenges and working together to devise customized solutions. Beyond the specific issue of greater educational equity in Lexington, the project team hopes to demonstrate that these methods could be used across the country to help underserved populations have more voice in local decision-making while also increasing government legitimacy.Deliberative democratic theory has focused on rarefied processes that involve tremendous costs and float far above the on-the-ground realities of local governance. This project will fill gaps in the public deliberation literature concerning cost-effective methods for achieving high levels of inclusion, deliberative quality, and long-term outcomes. The researchers will test hypotheses regarding: 1) successful recruitment of diverse participants in deliberation; 2) the interaction of communication mode and facilitation method to ensure robust deliberation; and 3) the multifaceted impact of government responsiveness on civic self-confidence, trust in government and civic associations, and future participation in public consultations and engagements. Stage 1 funding will lay the groundwork for a randomized control trial to test these hypotheses in Stage 2. A large sample of deliberative groups will be recruited to meet in one of six modes in a 2 x 3 design that contrasts a passive versus targeted facilitation style in three communication modes—in-person meetings, online video chats, and asynchronous online engagement. Data will consist of direct observation, transcripts, and surveys. This project is in response to the Civic Innovation Challenge program—Track B. Bridging the gap between essential resources and services & community needs—and is a collaboration between NSF, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Energy.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.