The following appendix describes five dialogue organizations: National Issues Forums Institute, Study Circles Resource Center, Public Agenda Foundation, Institute for Responsive Education, and Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes. A chart and a one-page summary provide background information on each organization. This is followed by a listing of additional technical and support organizations.

The first row identifies the organization and the contact person. Headings give an overview of the organization, such as a description of its mission or goals, the capacity building offered to communities, the types of groups it works with and resources available, and linkages to other projects or organizations.

The one-page summary provides more detailed information on the organization's approaches and technical support.

This list includes additional organizations that provide information, publications and other resources that promote collaboration, deliberation, problem solving, consensus building, and the democratic process. Although this resource list is limited, it provides an excellent starting place for communities interested in public dialogue.

Finally, the appendix concludes with a reading list detailing how communities use public deliberation to change schools, build partnerships, and broaden the dialogue about who students are, what they need, and the kinds of systems required to meet those needs.

National Issues Forums Institute

NIF Summary

The National Issues Forums (NIF) is a nonpartisan nationwide network of forums and study circles that has brought citizens together since 1982 to deliberate and make difficult decisions about current issues. These forums have been held in nearly 200 communities in 37 states. Some forums are one-time public meetings for a large group of several hundred people, whereas others are a series of meetings for small groups that come together regularly for a period of weeks. Outcomes from forums provide the basis for a public-affairs program called "A Public Voice," which is broadcast to more than 200 stations each year, including once each summer to a Washington press conference for the public.

Each year three major issues of national concern are identified by NIF conveners across the country, resulting in a clearly written, nonpartisan issue book and video for each of the issues. These are available in college, regular, and abridged editions. Recent issues have included affirmative action, freedom of speech, America's role in the world, family values, youth violence, abortion, health care, and racial inequality.

When involved in a forum, participants receive reading materials such as an issue book, or a shortened version of the issue book that may be printed in the local newspaper, or brief "kitchen forum" booklets for informal discussions. These materials present an overview of the subject and discuss the issue from three or four different perspectives. Citizens are encouraged to weigh the pros, cons, trade-offs, and consequences of all choices. After citizens share their personal views about the subject, they move to establishing common ground for making choices and taking action as a group.

To help create a forum in a community, NIF offers four publications. One is a brochure on public policy updated yearly which provides a list of Public Policy

Institutes (PPI) scheduled during the year. The other three publications are listed below.

• Talk Doesn't Have to Be Cheap
• NIF: A Valuable Part of Program; A Necessary Part of Politics
• Organizing Your First NIF/Study Circle

The public policy institutes provide conveners and moderators, whether they are NIF newcomers or veterans, with background on the program and with skills for sponsoring, organizing, and moderating forums.

An example of how issues are presented appears in The Boundaries of Free Speech: How Free Is Too Free? In this issue book, NIF describes the range of policy options for the issue in the following way:

• Choice 1: The Case for Legal Sanctions. Words and images that are obscene, hatemongering, or an inducement to violence pose a real danger. Strict limits, backed up with the force of law, are warranted when speech poses a threat to our physical and moral well-being.
  
  
• Choice 2: The Case for Self-Imposed Restrictions. While government censorship is ill-advised, sensible limits should be enforced by private institutions. Publishers, radio and television stations, college campuses, and other institutions should restrict offensive speech when it violates community standards.
  
  
• Choice 3: The Case for More Speech, Not Enforced Silence. Because speaking freely is the cornerstone of our liberties, freedom of expression should be abridged rarely, if at all. The best remedy for offensive messages is not restrictions but more speech.

Source: National Issues Forums, 1998

Study Circles Resource Center

Study Circles Resource Center Summary

Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC) began to promote small-group discussion programs in January 1990. The Topfield Foundation, with its history of grassroots participation in social and political issues, supports SCRC. SCRC works to bring communities together to resolve public problems through a process of small, democratic, and highly participatory discussions.

Study circles are small groups of people who meet regularly over a period of time to engage in resolving some social or political issue in the community. The accessibility of reading material provides a starting point for the group discussion. Members are encouraged to share their views, and ideas. By listening to each other, they learn together to respect and value the opinions and experiences of the group's membership. The study circles process differs from typical meetings in that the groups do not begin with set outcomes in mind.

Study circles are characterized by the following:

• The study circle involves 10-15 people who meet regularly over a period of time to address an issue in a democratic and collegial way.
  
  
• The study circle is facilitated by a person who helps the group keep the discussion focused, leads the group to consider different views, and asks the difficult questions.
  
  
• The study circle considers many points of view and encourages deliberation to find common ground.
  
  
• The study circle starts with a session on a personal experience (me and the issue) and progresses to sessions offering a broader perspective (others' perceptions of the issue), to a session that involves action (what action needs to be taken).

For some time, study circles have occurred within single organizations. However, SCRC staff have found that large-scale, broad-based discussion programs involving dozens of study circles have the greatest reach and impact. Therefore, Planning Community-Wide Study Circle Programs: A Step-by-Step Guide was developed. The guide is divided into five parts. Part 1 gives an introduction to the questions: What are study circles? What are community-wide study circle program? What do communities gain from communitywide study circles? And how does SCRC support communitywide discussion programs? Part 2 describes how to build a coalition to sponsor and organize the discussions. Part 3 offers sample materials, such as community survey, letters of invitation, press release for kickoff event, participant evaluation form, and other information. Part 4 documents stories of successful communitywide study circle programs. Part 5 contains the appendices which include an annotated bibliography, a handout comparing dialogue and debate, and an order form for information on resources for communitywide discussion programs.

SCRC offers a variety of services including assistance in creating a communitywide study circle program, advice on the development of materials, and provision of letters of support for funding. In addition, SCRC provides an array of discussion materials on issues concerning education, crime, violence, and race relations. The following guides are available in Spanish: La violencia en nuestras comunidades and El racismo y las relaciones interraciales. Some samples of "How-To Guides" include: A Manual for Study Circle Discussion Leaders, Organizers, and Participants; A Guide for Training Study Circle Leaders; and Guidelines for Creating Effective Study Circle Material.

Source: Study Circles Resource Center, 1998

Public Agenda Foundation

The Public Agenda Foundation Summary

The Public Agenda Foundation was founded in 1976 by former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and by social scientist and author Daniel Yankelovich. Today both are still involved with the organization: Mr. Vance, as chairman, and Mr. Yankelovich, as president. It was their hope that Public Agenda would function as a go-between, helping America's leaders to better understand its citizens while simultaneously creating a better model for broad public participation in democratic decision-making.

Through in-depth analyses and opinion studies, Public Agenda gives public officials and leaders a unique opportunity to discover what Americans are really thinking. This critical research enables government, industry, and organizations to address constituents' concerns thoughtfully and effectively. Public opinion reports include such titles as:

• Given the Circumstances: Teachers Talk about Public Education Today;
• Assignment Incomplete: The Unfinished Business of Education Reform;
• First Things First: What Americans Expect from the Public Schools; and
• Getting By: What American Teenagers Really Think about Their Schools.

Drawing on its research, Public Agenda also prepares a broad array of educational materials and reports that help explain policy issues to the public in a balanced and easy-to-understand way. Each year for the past 15 years, the foundation has prepared three discussion guides for the National Issues Forums Institute. Three different perspectives, including their associated costs, trade-offs, and implications, are discussed. Citizens can use this information to weigh various choices and make educated decisions.

Public Agenda Online, a new internet resource, offers in-depth opinion findings and background materials on more than 15 major public policy issues, such as education, health care, drugs and immigration. Available each issue are synopses of current public opinion, key facts and trends, summaries, and a list of resources and contacts. This service began in late 1997, targeted to journalists and policymakers and subsequently will be offered to the public.

The Institute for Responsive Education

The Institute for Responsive Education Summary

The Institute for Responsive Education (IRE), founded in 1973 by former United States Deputy Commissioner of Education Don Davis, is a nonprofit organization. IRE's original focus was on developing links between schools and their communities through field tests of innovative collaborative relationships between families and school personnel.

Today, through the Responsive School Project initiated in 1994, IRE has developed new strategies for engaging in dialogues about school reform, not only with parents and school personnel, but also community members, social workers, and older students.

The project's uniqueness is that its approach is school-based. School teams learn how to conduct focus groups with all relevant shareholders. After a series of focus groups, a process called Town Meetings for Learning brings the various focus groups and the larger community together for shared understanding and discussion. Typical results include:

• all shareholders having input regarding educational goals;
• educators forming new community partnerships; and
• increased parent and community support and involvement.

Topics usually discussed in focus groups include:

• changes that have taken place in society and what students now need to know and be able to do to be prepared for work and citizenship;
• new learning standards and tests and what they mean for the community's schools; and
• immediate priorities for school improvement and how different groups can help
  

The Institute is exploring ways of using the school community to bring about systemic change in American public education. IRE disseminates information nationally about "best practices" in school reform, and IRE senior staff work with district personnel to assess the impact of district-wide initiatives on local school change efforts. IRE offers opportunities for consultation and a range of technical assistance programs:

• Developing a Shared Vision
• Shared Leadership and Team Building
• Implementing and Assessing School Change
• Family Involvement and Community Engagement
• Creating Consensus on Core Values

IRE publications available are:

• Family, Community, and School Collaboration in the United States in 1996: Good News/Bad News - OCED Report
• Building A Learning Community - A complete set of four guides that includes: "Tools for Changing Schools," "Rethinking Teaching Curriculum, Assessment and School Structures," "Creating Family Driven School-Linked Services," and "Reaching Out to Families."
• How Schools Change: Lessons from Three Communities - A major study by Tony Wagner, president of IRE.

Also available are articles on systemic change, structured dialogues, seeking common ground and community consensus.

IRE is a former member of the Center on Families consortium funded by the Department of Education. Publications and reports are available through Johns Hopkins University at 410/516-8800.

Source: Institute for Responsive Education, 1998

The Jefferson Center

The Jefferson Center Summary

The Jefferson Center was founded in 1974 with the purpose of doing research and development on democracy. Initially it concentrated on a method for people to explore their own values in a group setting, a method of clarifying differences between experts on public questions, and the Citizens Jury process. The idea of a Citizens Jury, which has existed for over ten years, was created by Ned Crosby in 1971.^* The Jefferson Center considered it to be the most effective new democratic process and therefore a trademark was taken out to ensure its proper use.

• Advisory Committee. An advisory committee to oversee the project is composed of individuals who are knowledgeable about the topic and who represent a range of perspectives.
  
  
• Telephone Survey. A telephone survey is conducted. Citizens are selected for the jury on the basis of age, race, gender, education, geographic locale, and political affiliation or attitude.
  
  
• Opening Day Meeting. Jurors are given a charge, which they fulfill over the course of the hearings. They hold a preliminary discussion of the issues involved and hear an overview of the topic from a neutral expert.
  
  
• Hearings. Several days of hearings are held, and expert witnesses are called to address the key topics and discuss the issues with the jurors. The jurors reach conclusions and make recommendations.
  
  
• Final Deliberations and Results. The jury issues its findings and recommendation to the press and public, along with its evaluation of the process and the manner in which it was conducted.

In contrast to the Citizens Jury Process, public opinion polls often yield results that are misinformed, while lobbyists, though perhaps well informed, are not representative of the general public. The Citizens Jury Process comes closer to yielding outcomes the public would want if they were well informed on a particular issue.

Juries have addressed state and national policies and election issues. Some have been congressionally sponsored, while others have been conducted at universities. The Jefferson Center worked with Orono Public Schools to identify and manage the current and future needs facing the district. The jury met April 13-17, 1998. In this case, the Center and the community worked together to identify the issues and needs facing the district, while an independent survey company selected the jury.

Citizens Jury projects date from 1974 to the present. Some examples are:

• Yale Citizens Jury on At-Risk Children (1994)
• America's Tough Choices--Health Care Reform (1997)
• Dakota County's Comprehensive Land Use PlanHow Should We Grow? (1997)
• Issues in K-12 EducationCan We Afford the Future? (1997)

A full description of Citizens Jury on Traffic Congestion Pricing, which took place June 6-10, 1996, in Saint Paul, Minnesota, is available online. This document describes the complete process, from planning to findings and recommendations. Another example is the Executive Summary on Citizens Jury on Minnesota's Electricity Future, July 1997. The documentation includes information on the effect of the process based on a survey conducted before the jury convened and evaluations jurors submitted at the end of the process.

* In 1969, Peter Deinel, from the University Wuppertal in Germany, created a similar process known as a "Planning Cell."