Oc c a s io na l Pa p er / no.

3 / 2 0 0 9

Promising Practices in
Online Engagement
by Scott Bittle, Chris Haller, Alison Kadlec

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 01

Public Agenda’s Center for Advances in Public Engagement (CAPE)
researches, develops and disseminates new insights and practices
that help improve the quality of American public life by building the
field of public engagement and citizen-centered politics.

CAPE is dedicated to creating new and better ways for citizens to confront pressing public problems. CAPE is housed
within Public Agenda, a nonpartisan, nonprofit opinion research and public engagement organization founded in 1975
by social scientist and author Daniel Yankelovich and former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance.

For nearly three decades, Public Agenda has been working in communities to help citizens understand complex
problems and create momentum for change by building common ground, managing differences and creating new
partnerships. The Center serves the field by advancing three distinct but interrelated strands of work:

• The Public Engagement Research Project conducts and disseminates studies that clarify the dynamics and
impacts of specific public engagement practices. Among the questions it explores are: What are the short-and-long
term impacts of public deliberation on citizens, communities, leadership and public policies? What are the impacts
of framing public issues for deliberation in contrast to framing them for purposes of persuasion—and what are the
democratic implications of those differences for the media, political and civic leadership and civic participation?
Why do deliberative democratic habits and practices take root in some communities more than others? And how
can deliberation practices best go to scale, and be applied beyond the level of individual communities?

• The Digital Engagement Project experiments with and explores new Internet-based tools and their application
to engaging citizens in public deliberation and problem-solving. Guiding questions include: Can the Internet only
be used to link together like-minded people, or are there effective ways to produce greater “boundary-crossing”
online, bringing diverse citizens together to better understand their differences? Can blogging contribute to delib-
erative public engagement, or only to partisan electoral or interest group politics? Is deliberation feasible within
online communities?

• The Theory-Building Project promotes greater interplay between researchers and practitioners to improve the
field’s understanding of how public deliberation works and how it can work better. Principal areas and inquiry are:
How does the public come to judgment? How does public deliberation relate to political and social change?

Major support for CAPE has been provided by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
CAPE products have also been developed through work done in collaboration with the Kettering Foundation.

For more information on CAPE (http://www.publicagenda.org/cape) and Public Agenda’s public engagement work
(http://www.publicagenda.org/publicengagement), contact Alison Kadlec, Vice President, Public Engagement and Director,
CAPE, at 212.686.6610 x 40 or [email protected]. You can also find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

02 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

 Promising Practices in Online Engagement
by Scott Bittle, Chris Haller, Alison Kadlec

Foreword
by Alison Kadlec, Center for Advances in Public Engagement

The fact that the Internet is one of the most powerful potential is there to use the Internet to allow citizens to
organizing tools in history is both thrilling and vexing have a greater voice in naming and solving shared problems
to public engagement practitioners working to create the across boundaries. But so far, the Internet, especially the
conditions for more effective public involvement in public blogosphere and social networking platforms, is primarily
life. We know that the Internet supercharges political enabling people in partisan silos to network within their
campaigning and we know that like-minded individuals are own group. A lot of lessons still have to be learned about
more able than ever to connect with one another because how to use the Internet effectively for public engagement,
of the Internet. But what is still unclear is how the Internet yet a wide range of promising examples exist and the
might help build capacity and momentum for inclusive, opportunity to scale grassroots participation to national
collaborative and boundary-crossing problem solving politics beyond the capacity limitations of face-to-face
at all levels of public life (from the national level to the events is closer than ever before.
local level).
In this article we take a closer look at a range of online
For those who believe that citizens deserve the best possible engagement practices, from high-level national politics
opportunities to become partners in problem solving, the to the lowest common denominators, our neighborhoods.
public cannot be viewed just as an audience to politics or The patterns of opinion shaping, dialogue and decision
merely as customers of government. Instead, the public making on each level have changed through the widespread
should be treated as a vital resource for effective problem availability of new communication tools yet the differences
solving and community building. In our work at Public between scope of engagement and communication tools
Agenda we have seen over and over again that, under the can be tremendous. We work here to highlight multiple
right conditions, “ordinary” people’s ability to learn, to approaches that try to bridge partisan divides and seek
get involved and to come to thoughtful judgments about to bring together individuals from all over the political
difficult shared problems is far greater than most realize. spectrum in meaningful dialogue and deliberation.
Regular citizens, who may not be intensely interested in
traditional politics but who are greatly interested in the Because of the vast and complex nature of the Internet and
government choices that affect their lives, can make a major because of the rapidly changing e-scape it inhabits, we do
contribution in shaping policy and can effectively participate not imagine to have gathered a complete catalogue of
in local efforts to improve life in their communities. practices and we are certain that many interesting examples
have been left out of our account here. Therefore, we hope
From the perspective of public engagement, the seeming that you will take the time to provide your feedback, join
disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of what is the conversation, and help us build our and the field’s
made possible by the Internet is perplexing. The rhetoric, knowledge about the most promising practices in online
and indeed the intentions, of everyone involved in the engagement. Please join us and share your thoughts at
“digital democracy” movement line up perfectly with the http://www.PublicAgenda.org/pages/promising-practices-in-
aims of authentic public engagement. Everyone agrees the online-engagement.

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 01

Introduction
From the Internet’s earliest days as a truly public medium of online community, user-generated content, and public
in the early 1990s, Usenet and pioneering communities engagement to truly empower citizens.
like The Well showed how robust (if unruly) self-governing
online forums could be. The early challenge was to find In this paper on promising practices in online engagement we
ways of keeping the medium’s essential anonymity from want to take a closer look at a selection of online engagement
spawning bad behavior, like spamming and flaming, or at practices, from high-level national politics to our most
least keeping that antisocial behavior from driving out real immediate public realms, our neighborhoods. The patterns
discussion. Usenet never solved this problem and consequent- of opinion shaping, dialogue and decision making on each
ly has become a marginal section of the Internet. Others have level have changed through the widespread availability of
been more successful. Slashdot created a thriving technology new communication tools. Nonetheless, the differences
community by allowing users to rate the comments of others, between scope of engagement and communication tools
letting the group collectively reward constructive behavior can be tremendous. At a national level, partisanship strongly
and sanction misconduct. EBay uses a similar concept to affects the political discourse in the general online realm.
allow hundreds of thousands of anonymous buyers and sellers We will highlight multiple approaches that try to bridge
to create a trustworthy market. this divide and bring together individuals from all sides in
meaningful dialogue. While we focus here on a range of
But all of these successful sites have one thing in common: national and local examples, we have organized what follows
They are all communities of affinity; gatherings of like- according to a number of principles that we think are
minded people. That’s been true even from the beginning especially salient:
(it is no coincidence that The Well eventually became part
of the liberal e-zine Salon). The Internet is a powerful tool • Allow Citizens to Set Priorities
for bringing together people with similar interests – or • Use Citizens as Fact Finders
similar opinions. Only technologists use Slashdot. Only • Generate Bi-Partisan Buy-In
conservatives post at Free Republic. And the power to police
• Merge Online and Face-to-Face Engagement
bad behavior that these sites provide can easily become a
way to enforce conformity in opinion. (To test that point, • Help Experts and Citizens to Collaborate
try posting a liberal comment in a conservative blog • Foster Local Problem Solving
sometime, or vice versa.)
Online engagement and participation has matured and
There have been promising experiments with bringing produced a wide variety of methods and projects, often
together those with different views. People have been temporary and focused on particular topics or decisions that
brought together in Internet forums to discuss a specific help bring together partisan voices and create a productive
topic or task. But these experiments rarely seem to occur dialogue focused on problem solving rather than ideological
naturally in the way that communities of affinity develop in-fights. While political opinion is obviously a factor in any
spontaneously. So far, reaching out to disparate groups deliberative effort, we highlight approaches that have
online requires great effort, commitment and funding. In successfully included diverse voices and produced tangible
addition to the costs of suitable technology, these experi- results outside of party lines. All examples highlight key
ments require careful planning and consistent moderation. considerations for developing a successful online engagement
But perhaps there are pieces of the puzzle out there. Some strategy such as audience, objectives and process, and then
of the experiments show what might be done and suggest showcase what combination of tools was used to accomplish
core principles for what, eventually, we’re confident will be it. An attempt to identify a general online engagement
done. We can glimpse what best practices are for such a strategy framework concludes the report and provides an
community – a few basic rules for tying together the worlds outlook on the new challenges that lie ahead.

02 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

 Games & Deliberation
There’s no question that games are one of the most intense new media experiences but what do they have to
offer to dialogue and deliberation? Game designers in the “serious games movement” use the technology of
video games and virtual worlds to have an impact on the real world rather than as pure entertainment. However,
serious games are largely meant to persuade, inform or educate gamers, not to allow them to deliberate. Many
are created by advocacy organizations with the explicit goal of persuading gamers to their point of view, subtly
or not. Others are rooted in the world of educational software and attempt to inform the gamer. For example,
The McDonald’s Game is a fairly sophisticated game that takes the player through the entire production chain
of the fast-food industry, showing that it is destructive and unsustainable.

In general though, the gaming experience is largely defined by the gamemaker rather than the players. They can’t
change the rules or redefine a problem – which is where so much of the potential of digital democracy lies. So
how can opportunities for collaborative problem solving be made available to gamers interested in using games
to tackle serious issues?

Other game genres like simulations, e.g., the classic SimCity where players act as urban planners or new virtual
worlds like Second Life, which allow players to participate in creating worlds, offer opportunities to inform or even
host deliberative experiences. But it is still unclear how the seductive power of these types of games can be
harnessed to the creativity of the individual user. How can virtual worlds offer meaningful opportunities for people
to deliberate with others about complex, real-world problems, or even work on them together?

Please join us and share your thoughts in the comments section at http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/
promising-practices-in-online-engagement.

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 03

Allow Citizens to Set Priorities
Change.gov the participants used their time to discuss the platform itself
The Obama administration used its transition period or personal stories rather than the ideas presented. But on
between the November election and January inauguration the positive side, most of the ideas pushed into the “top 30”
to experiment with a range of online tools to bring citizens by the ratings system dealt with real policies and issues.
into the policy-making process. Examples of so-called
On the negative side, there continue to be questions as to how
“eConsultations” aren’t uncommon but it’s rare to attempt
effective this rather simple type of online idea generation is
it on a national level. Other countries, with Great Britain
on a national scale. Change.gov chose to allow participants
being a frontrunner, have had positive experiences with
to remain anonymous, rather than require them to identify
online petition systems like www.10Downingstreet.co.uk.
themselves. Anonymity provides room for inappropriate
But these systems rarely feature deliberative elements, which
comments and insults, while identification typically leads to
has been one of the key criticisms about the UK system.
a more constructive conversation online. In addition, anony-
Obama’s team tested a wide range of “white label” online mous participation allows “sock puppeting,” where interest
engagement tools on their transition Web site, Change.gov, groups attempt to influence the debate without revealing their
mostly focused around idea generation and storytelling. For real agenda. If real policy is at stake, transparency becomes
example the “Your Seat at the Table” section on Change.gov a critical issue.
allowed citizens to see and comment on what outside groups
Another real drawback that became obvious during the
were telling the Obama transition team. “Join the Discus-
engagement period was the “early submission bias.” Ideas
sion” featured weekly questions from the transition team to
that gained an early lead in voting rose to the top, while
start an online discussion, followed by a video response from
new ideas were still being generated. These early ideas have
the Obama team.
more exposure and therefore collect more votes while good
One of the most interesting but also controversial exercises ideas that are submitted late in the process are at a serious
on Change.gov was the online “Citizen’s Briefing Book.” The disadvantage. One such idea was Ending marijuana prohibi-
overall purpose for the transition team was to collect policy tion, which ranked at the top early on and at the end of the
ideas from the public to be presented to the president, the process earned the highest overall ranking by far (92,970
same way he receives input from other interest and advisory points). While the idea does have its place among the topics
groups in Washington. After registering on the site, individu- discussed, it is doubtful that it would have ended up in such
als were able pitch their ideas to the new administration. a key position without a prominent ranking from the start.2
Users were allowed to comment as well as rate the ideas of This idea’s high ranking was also the result of several commu-
others, with the best ones rising to the top. Categories were nities, such as the pro-marijuana groups, pushing their
provided to structure the process. All told, there were more supporters to participate on the platform and lobby for their
than 125,000 participants submitting 44,000 ideas and case.3 While this tactic is as old as letter-writing, it can also
casting 1.4 million votes.1 be viewed as “gaming the process” and raises questions about
how representative the online process can be.
The forum had both good and bad aspects. For one thing,
there was no active moderation present in the forum. This Finally, it remains unclear what the actual impact will be
led to several inefficiencies: At intervals during discussions, of the “Citizen’s Briefing Book.”4 The ideas range from very
some of the comments didn’t really mesh with the point specific ones that the administration had already embraced
that was being discussed. There were times when some of (“revoke the Bush tax cuts” and “increase MPG requirements

1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Citizens_Briefing_Book_Final.pdf
2
Bonnemann, Tim, http://www.intellitics.com/blog/2009/02/09/clay-shirky-on-changegov-and-crowd-wisdom/
3
Peterson, Pete, http://personaldemocracy.com/node/7322
4
Scola, Nancy, http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/whither-citizens-briefing-book

04 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

now”) to more conceptual (“no more wars on abstract At the core of the online dialogue about Health Care IT was
concepts”) to controversial (“revoke the tax-exempt status the desire to demonstrate to government that eParticipation
of the church of Scientology”). Whatever virtues many of can provide a different but effective way to work on these
these suggestions may have, it isn’t clear what impact this types of issues on a national level. As a group, participants
process will have on administration policy. came up with new ideas as well as recommending principles
Nor is it clear whether the top-rated ideas line up with the that were to be presented to the new administration at the
priorities of most Americans.5 Since the top-rated education inauguration in January 2009.
idea was “age-appropriate sex education” and the highest-
Three core components were necessary for this online
rank health proposal was in support of medical marijuana,
dialogue to be successful: First, awareness of the issue at
it’s fair to suspect that conservatives were not heavily
hand had to be generated to promote active participation
represented in the participation base.
by interest groups and the broader public. Second, the
Change.gov served as a useful experiment in how well Web site needed content to inform participants and create
different types of online engagement work on a national a similar starting point to the discussion for everyone.
scale and as a way for the public to express their ideas and Last, a sophisticated Web platform was needed to support,
beliefs. But the questions raised remain relevant and should capture and aggregate the dialogue.7
be addressed when designing future online participation
To get the word out to as many people as possible, a social
efforts on Whitehouse.gov. Those efforts must be capable
media strategy was applied which included channels such
of handling large amounts of input while fostering a con-
as Twitter along with outreach to blogs and even YouTube.
structive, multi-partisan dialogue.6 Devising online public
A YouTube video about the event was used to introduce the
participation that can help shape real policies in the future
issue and proved to be a valuable low-cost marketing tool for
remains an area in need of innovative tools and approaches.
this event that ended up being reposted on multiple blogs.
Attempts were made to get participants who weren’t outspo-
NAPA Health Care Forum ken to engage in the discussion. All team members, including
In contrast to the broad approach on Change.gov, the the organizers and even the advisory board members, actively
National Academy of Public Administration asked partici- communicated with the participants. The use of moderators,
pants to set priorities in a much more narrowly focused while using more of a passive facilitation approach, helped
topic: safeguarding patients’ rights to privacy while using to enforce ground rules and maintain a safe area to discuss
information technology now available to improve the issues. Multiple e-mail updates kept participants informed
health care system. about what was happening in the dialogue. The combination
of all these strategies made the effort a great success.

4
Scola, Nancy, http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/whither-citizens-briefing-book
5
See, for example, Gallup’s long-running survey question on the “most important problem” facing the nation, http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/
Most-Important-Problem.aspx, or
6
Towards the end of the editing phase of this publication, the White House has started its first true online dialogue since Obama took office, managed by the
National Academy for Public Administration. The dialogue was created as part of the Obama administration’s new Open Government initiative to engage the
public in a discussion of how to make government operations more transparent and open to public input, and to engage the citizenry in problem-solving. While
experimenting with a new platform, the shortcomings of earlier attempts during the transition seem to remain and, unfortunately, the discussion is being negatively
affected by spam from “birthers” – a fringe conspiracy group claiming that the President is not a legitimate U.S. citizen. All interactive Web sites are subject to
gaming, especially if not actively facilitated. The unprecedented scale and reach of a national dialogue makes active facilitation almost impossible and technical
improvements, such as the “Flag Off-Topic” button suggested by eDemocracy expert Steven Clift or mechanisms to combine repetitious posts, are currently not in
the toolbox of any dialogue software. While some of the shortcomings could have been avoided by having more staff dedicated to the project, a clearer facilitation
strategy and prior consultation with some of the leading online engagement practitioners in the dialogue and deliberation field, most lessons learned are in uncharted
territory and it remains to be seen what new online engagement practices for public administrations will emerge from it.
7
Reeder, Balutis, Christopherson, Lyles, Payton, “A National Dialogue – Final Report”

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 05

At the Web site,8 users were asked to register using a simple The time frame for the dialogue was set to one week, allowing
e-mail verification process prior to submitting content. enough time for busy people to find time to participate but
After logging into the site, participants were asked to submit short enough to avoid fatigue. This also helps to get momen-
their thoughts as one of four content-type categories. These tum going early on in the dialogue, as it is less likely that
categories consisted of Ideas, Concerns, Principles and Stories participants procrastinate or postpone their submissions to
to provide structure and reduce noise by untangling different a later date.
types of user input that often clutters discussions when not
separated. The Web site encouraged everyone to comment What are the lessons learned? By having users submit ideas
and vote on the submissions to explore potential tradeoffs and vote at the same time, the team experienced a phenom-
and to highlight the best submissions. enon introduced earlier as the early submission bias. Ideas
that were submitted on the first day and received a high
After a weeklong discussion, the site had more than 4,000 number of votes were more visible and therefore more likely
visits and 2,800 unique visitors. Some 420 users registered to receive more votes and stay on top. Additionally, ideas that
and submitted 120 unique concerns, ideas, stories and are similar in nature, but submitted separately, detracted
principles. Those submissions were commented on about from each other’s total score. Since the process was based on
500 times. For example “consumer-generated health infor- an idea-generation model, these two effects led to a signifi-
mation” was one of the early ideas submitted. Principles cant bias. Separating phases for submitting ideas, followed by
that were submitted consisted of suggested definitions for combining and refining them through collaborative editing,
terms such as confidentiality, privacy or security.9 and prioritizing and rating the ideas afterwards might be a
concept to prevent this issue.
The success of the online dialogue was dependent on several
key elements. First, the registration process was open for The rating system used for the ideas was a scale of 1 to 5,
participants long before the dialogue was due to start. This with 5 being the highest rating that could be given. This type
was accomplished by using a splash page for pre-registration of rating system might have skewed the data gathered, as the
which provided information about the upcoming dialogue, scale represents something different to every participant,
a form to submit name and e-mail address for notifications, which leaves open how an average score of 2.3 for a personal
and included a place to provide initial comments. As a result, story should be interpreted. An alternative would be to use
the outreach team was able to gather support and commitment a thumbs-up/down voting system to either promote the idea
for participation in the dialogue before it actually started. or demote it, as seen on social news sites like Digg.com.

When the dialogue began, comments made by thought The dialogue produced valuable insights into how citizens
leaders who were interested enough to participate and other think about issues regarding IT and privacy in the US health
pre-registered users already populated the forum. This eased care system, especially along three major themes that require
new participants in by preventing them from looking at further exploration: Health and Privacy Trade-Offs, Health
a blank page and giving them a better idea of what was Information Technology and Health IT Best Practices.10
expected by reading other submissions.

8
http://www.thenationaldialogue.org/healthit
9
Johnson, Janet Lee, http://janetleejohnson.com/2008/10/27/a-national-dialogue-on-health/
10
Reeder, Balutis, Christopherson, Lyles, Payton, “A National Dialogue – Final Report”

06 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

Use Citizens as Fact-Finders
Will Rogers famously said that “everybody is ignorant, just In St. Louis, for example, long lines at some polling locations
on different subjects.” But one of the lessons of modern were forcing voters to wait five hours or more. One person
social media is that the reverse is also true: everyone is tweeted that “In STL, poll workers shortstaffed, coming outside
knowledgeable, just on different subjects. And social media and asking random people if anyone can help! Poll workers
provides unique ways to tap into that knowledge. Phones require training. #votereport”. (The so-called hash-tag
have turned into small computers on the go and nearly #votereport was used to aggregate messages from Twitter.
everyone carries one. Additionally, entertainment shows like com). Voters were able to keep each other apprised to both
American Idol, which offers voting for contestants via text long lines and trouble as well as keeping each other cheered
message, have significantly increased mobile phone literacy up with positive notes about the good things taking place
amongst Americans. It comes as no surprise that experiments such as one who tweeted “MeanRachel: #votereport #6th and
with mobile phone engagement have started to increase and Lamar - people laughing waiting for cross walk eating free ben
early lessons have been learned. and jerrys. Is this what hope looks like? Yes.”11

The advantage of mobile phones is they are “always there, National Public Radio used the aggregated information to
always on.” This enables communication and engagement release a story detailing such incidents and other issues taking
in places outside of our homes or event venues. While more place on Election Day.12 Perhaps one of the greatest successes
sophisticated software and Web browsers for mobile phones was the ability of Twitter Voter Report to provide a venue
are still only accessible to the small but growing percentage to ask questions and build a database of information to give
of Americans that have smartphones, text messaging is still voters the help they needed. Questions poured in from
the most common denominator for mobile engagement. different voters such as “how can I know whether my voting
The limitations of 160 characters that come with the use of rights are being ensured,” to “where should I go to cast my
SMS are obviously a burden to more qualitative engagement. ballot.” Twitter Vote Report helped to facilitate answering
But, especially for on-the-ground reporting and organizing, such questions by enabling peer-to-peer communication
text messages have a proven niche. Most successful examples right at the polling place.
in this realm can be found around political activism,
from organizing protests to fundraising. Beyond this basic One interesting element of the mobile Web is that it blurs
application, a few examples exist where mobile engagement the lines between online and face-to-face communication.
was used to gather feedback or engage in events. Since most Americans carry their cell phones with them
anytime they leave their house, it is a communication
channel that is pretty much available everywhere. This can
Twittering
also be used to enhance traditional face-to-face approaches
In the run-up to the 2008 election, there was considerable with an additional back-channel.
concern among election-reform groups that the voting
problems seen in 2000 and 2004 would repeat themselves. In one of Public Agenda’s Community Conversations around
Twitter Vote Report, hosted by a large sponsoring coalition Math, Engineering, Technology and Science education in
from TechPresident to NPR, was designed to enlist mobile- Liberty, MS, a mobile phone-based survey was used to collect
phone-armed citizens into a network of poll watchers. Using opinions from the audience during dinner. Handouts on each
text messaging and phone hotlines, voters could alert others table asked participants a set of three questions and gave
of developing problems in real time. instructions on how to submit their answers via text message.
The polling software tallied the responses and, right afterwards,
the host was able to compare the results to a state-wide survey

11
Fine, Alison, http://afine2.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/twitter-vote-report-wrap-up/
12
Clark, Jessica, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=voter_protection_twitter_style

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 07

to highlight differences and similarities between the actively Media and Democracy, is to monitor the hidden worlds
interested audience and the general residents of the Kansas of the lobbying and public relations industries in politics.
City region. This technology, often referred to as text-to-screen Frequently, advocacy groups and “think tanks” portrayed
mobile technology, proved to be a great way to enhance the as independent analysts are in fact funded by industries and
meeting. It also showed that help is still needed to support lobbying groups with a stake in the debate. In particular,
participants who are unaware of their phone’s capabilities or SourceWatch is interested in “front groups,” organizations
who do not know how to send a text message. Tech savvyness that claim to be independent advocacy groups but who are
remains a barrier for live polling depending on the demo- in fact funded by industries. SourceWatch asks participants
graphics of the audience. Younger users are typically more to be “citizen journalists,” bringing what they know to the
familiar with their mobile phones than older adults. table. The organization does have one full-time editor to
police entries. The organization boasts nearly 37,000 articles
Nonetheless, mobile technology is on the rise and provides a on public relations firms, think tanks, industry-sponsored
whole new set of tools for audience interaction, from polls to groups and journalists. The Center for Media and Democ-
message boards. And with mobile technology maturing and racy has also launched Congresspedia, devoted to profiling
gaining widespread adoption, these kinds of exercises can be members of Congress.
applied in new and creative ways to enhance face-to-face civic
engagement. SourceWatch borrows heavily from Wikipedia in its policies,
but the fundamental rules are “be fair” and stick to the
Mobile applications, by their very nature, don’t support “documented facts.” The fact that it has a full-time staff editor
information gathering in depth. And some problems require provides a mechanism for dealing with inaccuracies, although
more in-depth analysis. But the public’s information- it is important to note that no one examines articles before
gathering talents can be drawn into this realm as well. they are posted – the editors’ job is to catch problems after
the fact. Since it uses the same “MediaWiki” platform as
SourceWatch Wikipedia, the SourceWatch pages offer a “discussion” option
where people can debate the quality of the entry – but unlike
Some sites, like OpenCRS, ask visitors to gather and share
Wikipedia, these pages are open only to registered users.
government information that wouldn’t otherwise be avail-
able. OpenCRS (www.opencrs.com) is devoted to making Until recently, data was exchanged as print-outs, static PDF
reports from the Congressional Research Service, the documents or burned on a CD-ROM. The latest generation
official “think tank” of Congress, available to the public. of Web applications set out to change that. So-called “mash-
CRS reports are public documents, prepared for members ups” are Web sites that aggregate content and information
of Congress and their staffs, and any citizen can request from different sources in real time, process it and often add
one (usually through their local congressional office). interactivity on top of it. Google Maps, which allows people
But the CRS, unlike other congressional agencies like the to display their own information on top of their map or
Congressional Budget Office, does not make its reports satellite image base layers, is one of the first and best-known
easily accessible online. OpenCRS asks citizens to request examples. Over the last years a large number of services have
CRS reports and pass them on so they can be posted online. been built on this concept, from Walkscore.com, a Web site
This provides a useful service – but of course it doesn’t that provides walkability rankings for neighborhoods by
include deliberation. aggregating geographical, business and other data, to Every-
Block.com, which overlays geographical information with
SourceWatch (www.SourceWatch.org) takes the transparency
crime statistics, news stories and election data on a neighbor-
effort further in the realm of deliberative democracy. The
hood level.
goal of SourceWatch, a wiki created by the Center for

08 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

FixMyStreet & PledgeBank load while reducing cost. FixMyStreet is a path-breaking
Government has been slow to adopt open data policies demonstration of how volunteers working together can
to provide its data for instant aggregation. Nonetheless, become a part of an official government offering.
entrepreneurs have come up with impressive tools that
PledgeBank is another example of volunteers working
can help strengthen our communities.
together for the betterment of their communities and
U.K.-based FixMyStreet has been one of the early success beyond. The same British organization, mySociety, founded
stories, providing a place for people to talk with fellow citizens PledgeBank, which went live in 2005, to provide a new way
as well as local authorities about infrastructure problems in for individuals to gather support for actions that go beyond
their community. The site was developed by mySociety along what anyone can do by themselves.
with the Young Foundation and funding from Department of
How does PledgeBank work? First organizers identify a
Constitutional Affairs Innovations Fund.
need that can’t be tackled by one person or small group by
FixMyStreet does exactly what the name implies: It lets themselves. They then create a “pledge” on the Web site,
people report infrastructure problems in their neighborhood promising to fulfill their part of the pledge if a certain
using a mapping tool. All new concerns are automatically amount of supporters will do the same. Last, they determine
forwarded to the relevant local administration. This brings a minimum and a maximum threshold for participation to
together reports to one central place rather than going be met as well as a deadline for completion. To spread the
through the painful process of finding the contact informa- word and organize support for their pledge, they may send
tion for the responsible department on the often complex e-mails, print flyers or contact friends and colleagues to let
municipal Web sites. In addition to passing this information them know about the pledge. When the deadline approaches,
on to the authorities, this also allows everyone in the the organizer checks to see if the minimum number of volun-
neighborhood to see problems and provide updates The teers has signed up to start the project. If there is enough
service now even features an iPhone version to conveniently support, all volunteers are asked to fulfill their pledge.
submit issues right on the spot.
Pledges can be everything on the form of time, skills, money
What has FixMyStreet accomplished? The British govern- or other goods. For example, in 2007, books and donations
ment has embraced the site as a way to provide user-friendly were needed to set up a small library for St. Jude Children’s
government service.13 In the meantime, some local adminis- Research Hospital in India. Facilitated by PledgeBank, 1000
trations have started to embrace the service and added people came together and donated the books for the hospital.15
procedures to automatically gather the information submit- This demonstrates the positive effect the Internet can have to
ted by the community on FixMyStreet and directly integrate bring strangers together to collaboratively work for a good
the submission of incidents to their own workflows and cause. The U.S. has had similar successful pledges to save
routines.14 Sending problems straight to the council’s books from landfills, donate blood and other worthy causes.
database without first going through e-mail decreases the Even Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, set up a
turnaround time, saves money and avoids frustration. In a successful pledge to find 100 fellow volunteers to become
way, the service helps local administrations to crowd-source patrons for a community sports club.16
some of the maintenance tasks thus decreasing their work-

13
Briggs, Dave, http://davepress.net/2008/12/21/fixmystreet-on-directgov/
14
Somerville, Matthew, http://www.mysociety.org/2008/10/02/fixmystreet-rss/
15
http://www.pledgebank.com/Bakul-Library
16
BBC, April 5, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4877598.stm

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 09

Foster Bipartisan Buy-in
10 Questions and Huckabee for the Republicans. The success of 10
Deliberative democracy, on or off-line, isn’t just about Questions was in the multipartisan support the initiative
technology. The right platform can enable good discussion got from other Web sites. Backers included major media
and collaboration and the wrong one can certainly impede organizations like MSNBC and The New York Times,
it. But the platform does not ensure nonpartisan or biparti- which certainly drew traffic. In the blogosphere, the project
san participation. There’s nothing in the technology of blogs was endorsed by sites as different as the Huffington Post
or message boards that causes people to self-select out by and Daily Kos on the left to Instapundit and Red State on
ideology. To actually gather a crowd that hasn’t already made the right. This gave the project bipartisan credibility and,
up its mind requires outreach and a willingness among those more importantly, a bipartisan audience. The submissions
you reach to believe the playing field will be fair. seemed to come from all points of view and the final 10
questions selected by the voters show a mix of liberal and
10 Questions, another initiative by TechPresident, had conservative concerns.
tremendous success in drawing a bipartisan crowd. Tech-
President is a blog on the use of technology in the 2008 A key element in this was the nature of TechPresident
presidential campaign put together by Personal Democracy itself. The bias of TechPresident and the Personal Democracy
Forum, the major U.S. conference on politics and technology. Forum is only that technology is reshaping politics. The
The concept behind 10 Questions was actually quite simple. conference and its associated blogs welcome people of all
Participants would submit their own video asking a question political stripes and that certainly gave 10 Questions
for all the presidential candidates. Users would vote on the credibility across the ideological spectrum.
10 best questions. Then the questions would be submitted
Public Agenda has had a similar experience with its Facing
to the candidates for their video responses.
Up to the Nation’s Finances initiative, a nonpartisan effort
Some 243 videos were submitted and more than 145,000 votes to deal with the national debt and the long-term fiscal
were cast. The questions had the virtue of going into much challenge. We found Public Agenda’s own reputation for
different territory than most of the media coverage. The nonpartisanship, and the fact that the Facing Up initiative
top-ranked question was on Net neutrality, which didn’t get includes organizations as diverse as the Heritage Foundation
much media attention at all in the primaries. Some of the other and the Brookings Institution, gave the initiative credibility
10 questions included “is America unofficially a theocracy,” on both sides of the aisle. On our Web site, FacingUp.org,
medical marijuana, and abolishing “corporate personhood.” we were able to create a blog carnival on fiscal issues that
(The full list is available at www.10questions.com.) drew from both conservative and liberal bloggers – a rare
accomplishment.
But the real success of 10 Questions was not the questions
themselves, nor the responses from the candidates. Indeed, Those dual advantages – a nonpartisan host and bipartisan
only five of the presidential candidates submitted responses: outside support – are critical to building online engagement
Obama, Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich for the Democrats initiatives that break out of the current partisan divide.

10 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

Merge Online and Face-to-Face Engagement
One of the persistent criticisms of online engagement has information and follow-up. A community-specific discussion
been its often tenuous relationship to the real world. There’s area on the Web site helped participants exchange ideas and
a growing body of evidence that suggest the most powerful resources. These conversations were often initiated at the
applications merge online and face-to-face interaction, Community Conversation.
switching seamlessly from one to the other.
The model of combining face-to-face events with online
follow-up provides significant value to civic engagement
Kansas City METS Engagement
events to keep participants in the loop all the way through
Starting in 2008, Public Agenda helped the Kansas City the implementation phase and to leverage their input and
Regional METS Leadership Coalition (regional leaders buy-in, something that typically proves to be challenging
dedicated to supporting Math, Engineering, Technology after events. And while the Web site itself can’t assure that
and Science achievement), to implement a multi-year public planning teams are actively pursuing the implementation of
engagement initiative to improve opportunities for young ideas that come out of Community Conversations, the Web
people and support economic growth through METS. site helps to support their work. Additionally, some of the
Community Conversations were held in multiple communi- information that surfaced in the discussions turned out to
ties around the region to discuss issues and ideas locally. be useful for the whole region and served as a starting point
Each of the participating communities joined an overarching, to build a resource section on the Web site. A shared events
region-wide online social network as a platform to continue calendar between the different communities began to be
the conversation amongst the participants of their own used more frequently to promote regional events such as job
events, but also to learn from each other and connect people fairs or science contests. Evaluation after completion of the
interested in improving METS education across the region. project will show whether the concept was successful and
helped form an active online community around METS
The Web site itself was designed as a gathering place for all education in the Kansas City region.
participants of Community Conversations in the region,
with the goal to create an overarching resource on a regional While large social networks like Facebook and MySpace
level. Before their respective events, some organizers used the are thriving with thousands of new users every day, what
platform to provide background information and materials goes into building a successful online community is often
to participants. Participants were introduced to the platform overlooked. It takes time and work to build a niche social
at their Community Conversation and invited via e-mail network that serves the need of the targeted audience and
right after the event to use the momentum generated that grows into a vibrant community over time. Generally,
night to kick-start the online conversation. After signing online community building efforts have shown us that only
in and creating a profile about their interests, skills and 1 percent of visitors make up the core group that consistently
background, members have been able to meet other partici- posts, asks and answers questions and acts as the life blood
pants and continue the conversation about how to make of a network. Another 9 percent are less frequently engaged
sure students get the math, engineering, technology and but post comments to the forum and contribute on their
science education they’ll need to succeed in life. The member own schedule, while the rest are mostly passive readers.17
profiles proved to be helpful to make connections between Knowing this, it becomes obvious that networks must be
the various stakeholders in the region that are often unaware formed around a meaningful topic that the targeted audience
of each other’s work. Meeting notes and final reports of strongly identifies with. On top of that, users judge the
each event were posted online to create a one-stop shop for community by its activity to determine if participation is

17
Nielsen, Jakob, “Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute” October 9, 2006, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 11

worth their valuable time. That means online communities Next, the ideas go back to all participants to be prioritized,
need a consistent stream of new content to encourage using the same channels as before. They use a written vote,
users to become actively involved and to return frequently. an Internet vote and the final citizen assembly to select the
Estimates are that the number of posts per day required 20 most important proposals. The results are submitted to
for a community to appear active is somewhere between decision makers who beforehand committed to including all
five and 10.18 In order to get a forum of this magnitude off feasible suggestions into the budget, as long as they fit within
the ground, the key is to recruit a group of volunteers early the framework of the budget laws. The final stage in the
on to participate and provide content before opening doors process is a citizen survey to see how the people who did
to the public and beyond just the core team of moderators. not participate react to the prioritized proposals.

Past outcomes for the Berlin Lichtenberg budgeting process

Participatory Budgeting in Germany
demonstrated that offering different channels for participation
The participatory budgeting process in Berlin-Lichtenberg, can increase participant numbers and diversity, with approxi-
Germany, is an example of online deliberation as part of mately 4000 people from all parts of the district taking part
a broader annual civic participation effort. The process in the first round in 2005/2006. Evaluation showed that this
combines face-to-face dialogues based on the Open Space approach leads to greater diversity, with people of various
technique with online dialogue to provide citizens with age, gender, nationality and education participating. Online
multiple channels to participate and contribute their participants outnumbered the participants of the various
budget ideas. events. In following years, approximately the same number
of residents took part while the cost of the process was
The Berlin-Lichtenberg participatory budgeting process significantly reduced.19
consists of a five-stage process. First, a kick-off meeting with
residents from the district is held to welcome the participants While online engagement methods have evolved and
and introduce the process. The second stage includes five matured over the past years, research shows that the Web
meetings where residents in each of the neighborhoods is not replacing traditional ways of civic engagement – it
generate suggestions for budget items while others do the is expanding the set of tools in the toolbox. But as the
same online. The dialogue platform not only allows discus- example of a multi-channel approach to public participation
sion via a forum, but has a second phase where participants in Berlin Lichtenberg shows, the integration of different
with similar ideas collaboratively create a final version of their channels of participation still must be refined and best
suggested budget item. The online platform is also used to practices identified. Further exploration into approaches
collect and track the progress of all suggestions no matter that combine face-to-face and online techniques is needed,
where they originated. The third stage consists of a one-day especially since rapid technological advancements offer new
meeting where a citizen’s panel edits and aggregates all the opportunities on a monthly basis.
submissions down to a comprehensive list of proposals.

18
Cohen, Heidi, “Building Online Communities by the Numbers”, Feb. 23, 2009, http://www.clickz.com/3632853
19
Governance International Case Studies, http://www.govint.org/english/Case%20Study%20Lichtenberg.pdf

12 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

Allow Experts and Citizens to Collaborate
One of the major concerns of the public engagement So how can experts and the public work together online?
movement is the extent to which the “culture of expertise” There are a number of interesting experiments from the field
that dominates decision making works to relegate citizens of “citizen journalism.” Citizen journalism embraces the idea
to the sidelines of public life. In traditional politics, and that, in the digital world, anyone can be a reporter – and
even more in the traditional efforts at “public outreach” even their own publisher. Blogging is an obvious example of
and “public comment,” experts tend to wall off the public this and so is YouTube. But clearly the quality of these sites
and treat citizens as clients, spectators or consumers instead varies widely. Some are excellent, some are terrible. Some
of potentially valuable resources for public problem solving. have in fact grown into sophisticated media forces, like
In a wide range of fields, from education to environment Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post.
to foreign policy, we have “professionalized” policy making
in such a way that it excludes the knowledge and insights At first, mainstream media organizations rejected these new
that ordinary citizens can productively bring to the table. voices out of hand. Newsrooms have long been tradition-
Decisions are largely in the hands of civil servants and bound places, deeply invested in their own professionalism.
interest group staffers who have devoted their lives to a But now, under substantial economic stress, many organiza-
problem. Clearly, there are benefits to that – someone who tions are opening themselves up to citizen participation. Often
has devoted their life to a subject (and presumably to public this is simply in the realm of accepting viewer video submis-
service) has built up a level of knowledge and professionalism sions, as both the BBC and CNN have done for some time.
that few average citizens can meet.
NewAssignment.Net
But in case after case, in public engagement projects across
the country, we’ve seen the unintended consequence of But the most intriguing efforts attempt to blend the best
professionalism: the alienation of the public from policy of both worlds. NewAssignment.Net, founded by New York
and the deepening divide between leaders and the public University journalism professor Jay Rosen, has created a
that fuels apathy and incites hostile partisanship. In fact, series of experiments in “pro-am” journalism, where citizen
in our public engagement work a “gap” between experts and journalists work together with professionals. The first attempt
the public on policy issues is so common as to be a routine was Assignment Zero, in partnership with Wired magazine,
barrier that must be overcome. Because few in the public where more than 900 citizen journalists and professional
have spent as much time researching problems as the experts editors worked together, with the professionals acting as
have, they don’t have the same knowledge base. Since they’re mentors. Based on their skill and interest, citizen journalists
drawing on their day-to-day experiences and media coverage, might be assigned any piece of a reporter’s usual work, from
rather than in-depth research, the public often frames the digging out sources online, conducting interviews or actually
issue in very different terms than experts. Frequently their writing articles. The resulting reportage was published in
starting point for the political debate is something experts Wired in 2007 (zero.newassignment.net).
consider simplistic or naïve. But in order for experts and
Further activities include Off the Bus, in collaboration
leaders to make sustainable progress on issues, they must find
with Huffington Post on the 2008 presidential campaign,
better ways to communicate effectively with the public and
in which citizen reporters are given assignments to cover the
to enlist the energies and knowledge of non-experts in
campaign, including events in their communities. The goal is
grappling with shared problems.
(in a twist on the classic book on pack journalism, “On the
Bus,”) to bring new voices into campaign coverage. Beatblog-
ging.org is designed to enable specialty reporters (who cover a
specific beat) to use social networking to connect with experts
and interested citizens on their coverage.

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 13

 Connecting Neighbors
These “pro-am” projects suggest a model for ways other kinds e-Democracy Local Issues Forums
of experts can engage with the public. If professional editors A great example of grass-roots, bottom-up citizen forums
can mentor and collaborate with interested citizens on that blend online and face-to-face activities to shape local
stories, why can’t educators create social networks of parents politics is e-Democracy.org’s Local Issues Forums. Started
on learning plans? Why can’t environmental regulators and in St. Paul, MN, and followed by 30 additional forums
citizens collaborate on a Superfund plan? The possibilities worldwide, these local online discussion boards are a place
of civic institutions enlisting interested citizens who buy into where citizens, local officials, or journalists post their
the institution’s values and are willing to actually do some questions and get an idea of how residents feel about these
of the organization’s fundamental work are endless. And issues. The objective of Local Issues Forums is “to give
while the debate over whether crowd wisdom can match everyone a greater voice in local decisions and encourage
experts and professionals may continue to rage, the fact is more citizen participation in local public policy making.”20
that expertise is too well embedded in our political system
to ignore. Professionals hold the levers of day-to-day power Often they have become vibrant online communities where
in society and you can’t realistically implement policy citizens connect with one another and collaborate. They are
without them. Their experience can help the “crowd” avoid a place that journalists visit to gather ideas for news stories
pitfalls that others have run into before. But policy profes- and where local politicians can listen to the opinions of their
sionals, like candidates, journalists and many in the business constituents. But one of the most important aspects of this
world, have to learn to “let go” and cope with this new, type of local forum is that it is completely citizen-driven to
engaged world. NewAssignment suggests new ways that empower people in the community. By encouraging both
professionals and citizens can work together amicably to on and off-line communication, people are getting to know
solve problems, surmounting one of the biggest challenges others within their neighborhood and a sense of community
to any public engagement project: the expert/public divide. emerges as citizens develop respect for each other’s ideas
and opinions.

The online forum itself works both as an e-mail-based

discussion similar to a listserv and as a bulletin board online.
People in the community subscribe to the site and view or
respond to comments via e-mail or on the Web site. Digests
are available for those with less time to more easily catch up
on what is happening in the forum.

As these forums are expanding to other communities,

potential hosts are advised to recruit at least a hundred
subscribers before opening the discussion group, to gain
initial traction. Each site has a community manager to recruit
and welcome new members and facilitate the forum. This
includes introducing new topics if the discussion is slowing
down or calming it when differences arise. Each community
develops their own set of rules and guidelines that emerge
over time to provide structure to the group and to keep the
discussion civil. Additionally, each participant has to post

20
Clift, Steven, http://e-democracy.org/if/guide.pdf

14 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

under their real name in order to make lasting connections The central idea behind the social network platform was to
with neighbors and to prevent inconsiderate posts. When generate and provide neighborhood information by neigh-
only two posts are allowed in a 24-hour period, people are bors for neighbors. This may consist of information about
more apt to consider carefully what they say and outspoken safety, health care, businesses in the community, community
individuals are prevented from dominating the forum.21 This event planning and local news.
encourages effective communication and a meaningful
exchange of ideas and thoughts. What can online social networks, such as Harringay Online,
achieve on a local level? A couple of examples highlight
While the results of Local Issues Forums are not instantly the usefulness of providing a Web site that goes beyond
visible, anecdotal evidence exists that underscores their simply offering a discussion forum with additional features
value. In multiple instances, discussions in the forum like profiles, event calendars, resources and sub-groups.
have influenced local politics and news articles rooted A community priorities survey hosted on the site had a
in a forum discussion have shaped the outcome of local remarkable 70-percent response rate. The Web site also
decision making. hosted the largest petition ever signed in the neighborhood
in response to local traffic issues. In the meantime, the local
What are the keys to success for Local Issues Forums? First, police have become active members of the site, providing
they encourage a culture of discussion that is not just about safety information while listening to the concerns of the
complaining, but rather a constructive exchange of different community.22 The online social network has provided a
perspectives on things that affect the community. Further, bridge between individuals, groups of individuals and local
the discussion is local only (the community actively encour- government officials, making it a true community working
ages participants to go to other online forums to discuss together for the benefit of the neighborhood. The practical
national issues) which means that participants who interact and emotional support that the site has provided to its
online are easily able, then, to also interact in person. The members has been a tremendous success.
citizen-driven and locally-focused nature of these efforts
makes it possible for participants to move between online Like many other online community building examples,
and face-to-face engagement in ways that strengthen local Harringay Online experienced a phase of slow growth.
communities and encourage productive problem solving. Organizers had to be patient and persistent until the
community was active enough to sustain with less input
from the core organizer team. This also proved true when
Harringay Online
trying to get involvement of local area groups. But, in
Harringay Online was launched in 2007, built on a white hindsight, this step turned out to be a critical part of the
label social network platform called Ning. The same tool success to broaden community involvement in order to
was used in the Kansas City example outlined earlier with create a feeling of co-ownership of the project.
similar features, while focus and scale differ. Harringay
Online was set up with the intention to strengthen the
neighborhood of Harringay in a North London borough.
The site was designed to blend a combination of Web-based
and real world neighborhood interactions.

21
Same as above
22
Azyan, Liz, http://www.lgeoresearch.com/LGEONewsletters/Vol1.pdf

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 15

Conclusion and Outlook
After looking at a variety of online engagement practices Over the last couple of years online engagement has
operating from the national level down to our neighbor- matured from initial experiments to a broad range of
hoods, the question remains how to best identify a success- proven methods. While the technologies and practices
ful online engagement strategy that works in your particular still have to prove whether they can handle the scale of
situation. And for those of you who come from the world engagement on a national level, online engagement has
of face-to-face civic engagement with defined and proven now become mainstream in government, business and
models, how can online elements become a part of your non-profit work.
civic engagement process?
Rather than replacing traditional face-to-face approaches
Planning is essential. So is a strong sense of your initia- to civic engagement, the Web has added new tools to
tive’s audience. We identify several steps to planning a the toolkit, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
solid campaign in the sidebar below. This kind of careful With this in mind, we as a field have just started to
analysis will protect against one of the more dangerous explore promising practices of how to best integrate
qualities of the Internet: its hipness. It’s a common online and on-site elements to create successful and lasting
situation. Somebody in your organization just read that civic engagement experiences. Sharing what works and
social networking on Facebook is the next big thing so what doesn’t is critical, as the possibilities appear endless.
“you should” create a group or fan page. Or “you should” Therefore, we invite you to provide your feedback and
set up a wiki to collaborate with your constituents. Too share your own experiences. Please join us and share your
often, online engagement is driven by technologies rather thoughts in the comments section at http://www.
than technologies being selected that fit into the overall publicagenda.org/pages/promising-practices-in-online-
process. Wikis or Facebook groups and pages might engagement.
become part of the mix, but the decision to use these
technologies should never be the starting point for any
online engagement strategy.

16 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

Appendix
Practical Suggestions for Starting an Online How much you can address communication preferences of
Engagement Effort your different audiences obviously depends on your specific
setting and classic issues like participation reluctance of
To organize your online engagement effort, we suggest
certain groups in the community. Those issues won’t go
that you follow a couple of simple steps. Start by taking
away by offering online options for community involvement.
a closer look at the different segments of your audience.
But one thing is clear, just offering one way to get engaged
Then, just as in any other project, identify your objectives
is becoming a less viable option by the day.
and goals and put together your overall process, with
typical phases like outreach, education, brainstorming, etc.23 Objectives
Let’s take a more in-depth look at the different steps: What are your objectives? It doesn’t make sense to pick
online tools or talk about your online process if you don’t
Audience
have a clear answer to this question. Objectives may vary
In civic engagement projects it is often challenging to
depending on the stage of your project. You might have a
identify a target audience. The target audience might simply
phase that is focused on education about your topic, followed
be the broader public, especially if we are trying to engage a
by actual deliberation about the options to identify strategies
diverse group that represents our community. Nonetheless,
and next steps. It is important at this point to identify
we need to consider the different segments of people that
measures of success. Later, this will help us to identify the
we are trying to reach.. If a large group that we want to
best tools to support each objective.
include is affected by the digital divide, then part of our
strategy must be to find the right face-to-face venues and Being honest about your objectives is key to building a
connectors in their communities to bring them into the positive relationship with your participants. Be clear about
process. On the other side, teenagers, parents or a large what happens with results, since the negative effects of
section of individuals working in office environments have dishonesty will remain highly visible online long after project
adopted new communication technologies as part of their completion.
daily lives and might prefer online participation instead of
spending a night or a weekend day of their busy lives at a Process
workshop. But even within those groups, the use of online Whatever civic engagement effort you are developing, most
tools varies. While older Internet users typically still prefer likely it will consist of different stages. You already have a
e-mail as the main channel of online communication, social better sense of what your objectives are; now is the time to
networks and instant messaging have left e-mail far behind translate them into a process. Depending on the complexity
in terms of actual usage among today’s kids. And just like in of your topic, you might have an outreach phase followed by
a face-to-face setting, more active users will contribute more, an education component and an idea generation phase. Ideas
while others who use the Internet more passively are more are then reviewed and participants collaborate to finalize the
likely to participate as observers or participate via low-thresh- outcomes. Or, something completely different. The question
old measures like rating. This will later inform your facilita- is, how can participants be involved in each stage and how can
tion strategy as well as the decision about your online we encourage them to stay involved along the whole process?
engagement platform and its features.

23
Inspired by POST method, Bernoff, Josh and Li, Charlene, “Groundswell”, http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2007/12/the-post-method.html

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 17

On a basic level, e-mail registration should be one of the we expect different demographic groups will use different
first things right at the start of the project. Collected e-mail channels to participate, how can we assure that they consider
addresses can be used to keep prospective participants each other’s opinions and deliberate across channels?
informed and send calls to action when the time comes.
Barack Obama’s campaign used cell phone numbers, as well Good answers to these questions are hard to find and not
as fans on social networks to send messages with announce- enough lessons have been learned. But as seen in the Berlin
ments. These measures provide bridges between different Lichtenberg example, a Web site can help to host results
phases and can be used to guide participants to the engage- from all venues, a citizens committee might be able to help
ment offerings they are most interested in. bring the results together and a phased approach can ensure
that results are going back to all participants. During the
Identifying a comprehensive process is more important in a METS dialogues in Kansas City, the momentum created at
complex setting with multiple participation channels. The face-to-face meetings helped get participants excited about
example of multi-channel participation to create budget ideas online follow-up. Once that is gone a few weeks after the
in Berlin-Lichtenberg highlights the possibility to provide event, participants are less likely to move to a different
different venues to accomplish the same goal during an idea channel and participate in the next phase. Use elements like
generation phase. momentum created during face-to-face meetings, media
partnerships or contests to connect phases and channels
Channel Strategy of your project.
Offering online and off-line participation in the same project
makes sense when dealing with a large geographic area or Technology
diverse time lines. As seen in the participatory budgeting After completing these basic steps, it is time to look at
process, further steps are required to combine results and technology. By now you should have a better sense for
create a deliberative experience across channels. To success- your technology needs. As mentioned before, the idea is
fully implement a civic engagement process that contains not to replace face-to-face elements but to take a critical
these elements, it’s critical to connect all channels. Too often, look at where you can gain an advantage by using online
online elements are add-ons, patched onto a process rather tools. This could be using social media as part of your
than being fully integrated. outreach to groups that you would have not been able to
identify otherwise. And we’ve seen that small social networks
Channels must be broken down further than just to the or further collaboration on a wiki can be great ways to keep
technical level of Internet vs. face-to-face. A Web site to participants engaged after events. Each tool in the toolkit has
provide information about the project is a different channel different strengths and weaknesses but, with a thorough
than the online dialogue hosted on the same Web site. The analysis upfront, you should have a better sense of what to
first one is a channel that provides one-way information; look for. Depending on your technical savvy and available
the second is a multi-way dialogue between participants. staff resources, you will have to decide whether to hire a
Text messaging might make sense as a point of entry to the service provider, use one of the free or paid white-label
process but not later, when you want to deliberate about platforms or build (what?) yourself. If you don’t have much
issues. An online dialogue might accompany your series of experience, it’s worth looking into hiring a service provider
face-to-face dialogues but how does the dialogue have to be that will help you identify a solid strategy and implement it
structured to make sure the results are comparable? And if for you. If you feel somewhat confident, it’s best to take a

18 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

look around and sort through the available services online.
Thousands of entrepreneurs have created a wealth of readily
available tools, often free in a basic version and paid-for
upgrades. Depending on your needs, some of these services
might be a great fit and embeddable into your existing Web
site, as seen on Whitehouse.gov, which used Google Modera-
tor to host its Open For Questions section. In case you need
special functionality, there’s often no way around building a
custom Web site. But today, open source platforms like
Drupal enable developers to build tailored solutions in a
short time without reinventing the wheel.

Engagement Plan
After identifying the tools that fit into the desired process
and support your objectives, it is time to look at the details of
successfully putting your technology to use. Do you need to
have participants identify themselves, for example, because
your project is limited by geography or you are discussing a
highly controversial topic and expect a heated discussion? Or
is the topic sensitive and anonymity gives participants the
freedom to express themselves openly without being afraid of
being personally attacked? Do you need a community
manager that welcomes members, provides support and
initiates conversations? Can you collect some input before-
hand and seed the conversation before opening the gates to
the public? The decision about online tools seems to be a
technological decision in the first place, but it is really the
implementation strategy that will determine the outcome.

We encourage you to experiment but keep in mind that, on

the Internet, the times of let’s-build-it-and-they-will-come
are over. Community building, whether as a temporarily
effort through a specific online dialogue or as a long term
endeavor with a niche social network, requires a lot of energy
and commitment from organizers. Your effort not only
competes with other causes worldwide but also the fantasy
football leagues on ESPN.com or participation on commu-
nity sites like Digg.com. Be mindful about what you are
asking your participants to contribute and provide the right
incentives to keep them engaged.

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 19

Publication’s Authors
Scott Bittle
Executive Vice President
and Director of Public Issues Analysis
[email protected]

Chris Haller
Public Engagement Associate and
Online Engagement Manager
[email protected]

Alison Kadlec, Ph.D.

Vice President, Public Engagement and
Director, Center for Advances in Public Engagement
[email protected]

20 | Promising Practices in Online Engagement Center for Advances in Public Engagement

Center for Advances in Public Engagement Promising Practices in Online Engagement | 021
Public Agenda’s Center for Advances in Public Engagement (CAPE) is at the forefront of efforts to research, develop and disseminate new
insights and best practices that build public engagement’s capacity.

Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public opinion research and civic engagement organization. Founded in 1975 by former U.S.
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential
public opinion polls, balanced citizen education materials and ground-breaking community-based engagement initiatives. Its mission is to
close the gaps between leaders and the public.

Visit Public Agenda Online – www.publicagenda.org. Webby-nominated Public Agenda Online has been named one of Time Magazine
Online’s 50 Coolest Websites. It is a Library Journal Best Reference Source and is a USAToday, MSNBC and About.com recommended site.
Public Agenda Online is the go-to source for unbiased facts, figures and analysis on issues ranging from education to terrorism to abortion
to illegal drugs.

Public Agenda
6 East 39th Street 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1090
New York, NY 10016 Washington, DC 20005
t (212) 686.6610 f (212) 889.3461 t (202) 292.1020 f (202) 775.8835 www.publicagenda.org