In the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires, California is trying a new approach to recovery: a first-of-its-kind state effort, leaders say, to involve the public in policy making.
Responding to a large-scale disaster like wildfires typically falls on the shoulders of agencies and elected officials. California is offering the public a means to help shape what comes next through a pilot program called Engaged California.
The government used online discussions to provide policymakers with a data-based picture of the public's opinions, proposals, and priorities. The result, the administrator says, is something residents can use to hold their government leaders accountable.
Why did we write this
Proponents of a process called deliberative democracy say inviting the public to collaborate on community problems is a way to restore trust in government and neutralize political polarization. California uses this model as part of its fire recovery planning.
Engaged California published an action plan in November, based on data collected from 3,000 Los Angeles residents over a six-month period. The process used a form of deliberative democracy, which invites communities to participate in decision making by exchanging views and then talking to—and listening to—each other.
“The conversation was incredibly civil and incredibly productive,” says Jeffrey Marinodirector of the California Office of Data and Innovation, which is leading this effort with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
These efforts could provide a model for overcoming political polarization and weakening public trust in government, which is at historic lows: According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 17% of respondents said they trust federal leaders to do what is right. Deliberative democracy, which dates back to Aristotle, has had success in other countries and in the United States. citizens' meetings work closely with parliament. Fort Collins, Coloradoused it to develop a strategic housing plan.
In an era of ideological intransigence, purposeful discussion can encourage people to become more tolerant of the beliefs of others, says James Fishkin, director of the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University, who has advised Engaged California. The laboratory's work includes introducing the process to Mongolia, what now requires it as part of the process of amending the country's constitution.
“It increases trust in general. It increases respect for the people with whom you disagree most strongly. And it increases the propensity to vote,” says Professor Fishkin.
Solving common problems
Deliberative democracy aims to build consensus and strengthen bonds between legislators and the people they govern. When done right, advocates say, the public creates a problem-solving agenda and then finds solutions, rather than leaders trying to convince the public of their vision. Institutes such as the Center for Public Debate at Colorado State University host these discussions for local governments or nonprofit organizations.
Typically, the process consists of two parts: polling participants to determine what needs to be addressed, followed by a more in-depth guided discussion. Administrators randomly select players who are often paid for their time. Ideally, the composition of the group matches the demographics of the community.
Involved California followed a two-step survey and discussion process, but in order to hear from as many people as possible, it lowered barriers to participation: demographic information was requested but not required, people could skip survey questions, and the online discussion forum was not conducted in real time.
When a community comes together to find solutions to collective problems, “partisan identities tend to melt away,” says Sabrina Slagowski-Tiptonmanaging director of the Colorado Center. “We very rarely hear at an event, 'I'm a Republican and this is why I feel this way.' Or: “I’m a Democrat and I want to talk about this.”
But the process is labor-intensive and time-consuming, like the two-year project she worked on in Fort Collins that resulted in a housing plan, including the adoption of new land use codes.
Transparency in the use of source data is important, she said. And citizens are more willing to have good faith discussions with local agencies that are subject to discussion, even if they have complaints.
“More and more people are realizing how important and rewarding it is to feel part of their community,” she says.
Transition to recovery after a fire
The Los Angeles wildfires occurred in January as Engaged California was preparing to speak on a different topic. “Administrators saw an opportunity to support the fire response,” Mr. Marino said. The project's consultants resisted, he said, suggesting it could backfire by causing anger instead of thoughtful discussion.
The opposite happened: less than 5% of online discussions had to be suppressed, and much of this was due to people posting business links rather than spewing vitriol.
Another surprise was the agreement among participants: despite significant differences in the two communities most affected by the fires, they expressed the same priorities. “They wanted support in terms of speeding up the process, getting permits, getting more financial support and at the same time becoming more sustainable,” Mr. Marino says.
November report unveiled a plan that included five main areas: burying power lines and equipment underground, improving water systems for firefighting, improving emergency communications, helping survivors with financial assistance programs and helping residents obtain permits to rebuild.
Some participants were critical of what they said was a government program that was disconnected from the people it was trying to help. Joy Chen, a former deputy mayor of Los Angeles who heads the nonprofit Eaton Fire Survivors Network, called the platform disappointing.
“There was no place where they felt like they were collecting our real priorities,” she says. “They're asking, 'Well, what do you think about our priorities – state government?'” rather than, 'I'm concerned about your priorities.'
For example, each of the report directions links to steps Efforts are already underway to address these issues, such as executive orders from Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to streamline permitting, as well as a state order signed in March to speed up the burial of power lines in burn zones.
Mr. Marino admits there are some problems. Participants were not paid, meaning the process was open to anyone with the time and inclination, as opposed to administrators who could control demographics. And then there's skepticism – “the idea that your government is saying, 'No, trust us this time, this time we really mean it,'” he says.
But he said online interaction allowed all voices to be heard, not just the loudest. And the Office of Data and Innovation, which runs Engaged California, turned those interactions into information that policymakers used to develop recovery plans.
Along with the report, the state released more than 1,500 public comments, including the following (edited for brevity):
- “If people can't afford to rent somewhere, they should get a free, easily accessible permit to live on their property in a tiny house or ADU. [accessory dwelling unit] while their house is being restored.”
- “What kind of warning systems? There were escape routes in the Palisades, but there weren't enough of them.”
- “Knowing for a full week that the winds were coming, Los Angeles firefighters had no excuse to wait until the fires started before turning around.”
- “This is an opportunity to apply the lessons learned here and in other cities around the world and modernize the infrastructure.”
The final report documents what people consider their top priorities for recovery.
Program next topic already underway: Recruiting state employees will help make California government more efficient and effective.
The process of deliberative democracy “not only tells you what people think, but why they think it,” says Professor Fishkin, “and that in itself can have an effect on how people think about an issue.
“If we see this as a way to heal extreme partisan divisions and get people thinking about issues, we can really improve our democracy significantly.”
Editor's note: This article has been updated to correctly identify who rejected the idea of using a deliberative democracy model to put out fires.
