Problems and Purpose

Climate change is a problem facing the world today with many subcategories such as pollution and climate mitigation. The purpose of this assembly is to provide a space for citizens to participate and engage in the policymaking process through educating them on the issue at hand then allowing them to take this information and provide solutions that would aid their communities.[2]

Background History and Context

While the U.S. has not officially declared a climate emergency, political leaders in the United States have been working to combat climate change. The state of Washington in particular, has made it a goal to be leaders in climate change in the U.S. The Washington government has stated, “Tackling climate change is a priority for us. We're working to protect fish, farms, and Washington's rivers, lakes, and coastline from the damage expected from rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns.” [4]

A deliberative democracy is not a new concept; however, an assembly of this kind is a relatively new concept in the U.S. The WACA was the first of its kind to occur in the United States.[5] At the same time, similar assemblies targeted at climate change were being held across the world. These assemblies are known as, “Climate Assembly UK, Scotland’s Climate Assembly, and the Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat.” [6] While there has not been an official assembly like the WACA in the U.S. there have been other events that included the deliberation of citizens to discuss political processes. Two events in Oregon that influenced the WACA were the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) and a pilot assembly regarding Covid-19 recovery. [7] Each of these events inspired and provided a basis of guidelines and foundation for the development of the WACA and how to effectively include citizens in the process.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

There were several independent teams involved to design and implement this event. The teams were: the Initiating Team, Monitoring Team, Design Team, Coordinating Team, Observers, Sortition Team, graphic recorder, and the PVOC. [8] The Initiating Team was put together by the PVOC and basically performed all the initiating tasks such as putting together the design team, organizing a hiring team, and funding the project. The Monitoring Team was responsible for drafting the Rulebook and appointing Observers for the assembly. During the assembly, the Monitoring Team ensured compliance with the Rulebook. The Design Team, then called the Center for Climate Assessembies, planned the assembly through creating the rules and processes of the WACA and advised the Initiating and Coordinating Teams. The Coordinating Team was broken down into two sub-groups known as the Core Team and Support Team who were led by Cascadia Consulting Group. Overall, the Coordinating Team was responsible for the organizational duties of putting the assembly together. This included recruitment, managing, setting the agenda, selecting speakers, and public outreach. The recruitment process was done in accordance with the Sortition Team, which included personnel from Strategic Research Associates, Harvard University, and Carnegie-Mellon University.The Observers were people who did not participate directly in sessions but had an interest in the subject and assembly in general. The teams all worked together with drafting, feedback, and voting on the Rulebook to establish rules and procedures. [9] The research team included the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service or the University of Houston-Downtown. 

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The goal of the participant recruitment process was to have participants who were representative of the Washington state population. The residents were sampled by the sortition team which consisted of Strategic Research Associates by using a stratified probability sampling method, “with strata including gender, age, Congressional district, income, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, and belief about humans’ role in causing global warming.” [10] Originally 80 participants were selected with 10 alternates. The study does acknowledge some of the qualities of the participants chosen that may impact the policy recommendations. For example, overall, most of the participants were center left whenever it came to their political views, more educated, and involved more politically than the average Washington state resident might have been. [11] In total, there were 77 participants who attended the assembly. 

During the recruitment process, a special effort was made to recruit a demographically representative sample. Equity was at the center of the recruitment process not only for participants but for speakers and experts as well. [12] The recruitment process was based on criteria from previous assemblies. In order to recruit participants, a Random Digit Dialing (RDD) process was used for gathering a representative sample of the population. To ensure that the sample was representative, certain groups were over sampled and others under sampled with the goal of achieving equal participation. This data was then put through an algorithm put together by a volunteer team from Carnegie Mellon and Harvard Universities to create 10,000 panel compositions. The WACA wanted to include 80 Washington residents in total. The 10,000 panel compositions were composed of 80 potential assembly members and had a 29% chance of being chosen. Each of the combinations were assigned a number. The recruiters then used dice to create a unique four-digit number then selected 80 residents and 10 alternates. [13]

Assembly members were offered a stipend of $500. [14] They were also contacted at the beginning of the assembly to see if that member needed additional compensation such as support for childcare, technological, or other access needs. During the assembly, there was live technology support provided for members. [15]

Methods and Tools Used

The main method used was a citizens’ assembly. The definition of a citizens’ assembly is as follows,” a body of citizens who come together to deliberate on a given issue and provide a set of recommendations, options, or a collective decision to the convening body.” [16] The purpose of the citizens assembly can vary. In the case of the WACA, the purpose is to gather residents to learn and deliberate with the purpose of developing policy recommendations that work to solve a problem that faces their community and lives. In order to have this assembly, one of the main aspects is deliberation. The assembly was a form of deliberation or a democratic deliberation. Deliberation “describes a communicative process with the goal of finding solutions to given problems.” [17] Online deliberation focuses on the platform of the deliberation. It takes the qualities of deliberation and takes it digital. [18] One factor of online deliberation that was important in this assembly is the act of notetaking. This served as a “deliberative guidance.” [19] Each of these forms of deliberation are all rooted in the original idea of a World Café. The world café follows six design principles as follows: set the context, create a hospitable space, explore questions that matter, encourage contribution, connect diverse perspectives, and listen to note patterns. [20]

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

In the process of creating the assembly, there were key qualities such as regulating, accountability and neutrality that were essential to the success of this event. [21] There were several groups created to help guide the event. There are as listed: the Initiating Team, Monitoring Team, Design Team, Coordinating Team, Research Team, and Sortition Team. [22] Each of these teams played a role in creating and implementing the assembly. 

There were three phases of this assembly: learning phase, deliberation phase, and voting phase. [23] The phases totaled to a 35-hour process. The assembly started with the learning phase. This phase consisted of seven sessions held from January 16, 2021, through February 6, 2021. In these sessions, participants were educated on climate change issues by different experts for three hours on Saturdays and two hours on Tuesdays. This phase was open to the public. In this phase, experts were brought in to educate the assembly members and any Washington residents who were interested in attending on climate mitigation. These sessions covered topics such as economy and climate mitigations, environment and climate mitigations, and social issues and climate mitigation. [24]

The second phase was the deliberation phase that was held from February 9, 2021, through February 27, 2021, for a total of five private sessions held for three hours on Saturdays and two hours on Tuesdays. During this phase the goal was for participants to work “on a set of key criteria for weighing policy alternatives, and then spend time weighing and refining a large set of policy recommendations.” [25] This phase was closed to the public to ensure the respect and comfortability of an online environment. In session one, assembly members mutually agreed upon priority principles that would guide their recommendations. In sessions two and three, members broke into small groups to discuss considerations, recommendations, and future visions. In sessions four and five, members worked in small groups to refine and filter through the recommendations created in previous sessions. They then released a preliminary list to the public for feedback. [26]

The final phase was a one-time session called the voting phase where Assembly Members reviewed public comments that had been received throughout the process and voted on recommendations to present to the state legislature. This process was done through a secret ballot. The final report consisted of 19 policy recommendations on climate mitigation. [1] During this session, assembly members considered the public comments they received and voted on recommendations. The recommendations were considered approved if they had the support from 80% of the members. In total, the members approved 140 policy recommendations in seven categories such as transportation, buildings, energy, natural solutions, education, social issues, etc. These recommendations were then given to the Washington state legislature for consideration. [28] Results have also been published and have been reviewed by research teams.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

In total, 140 policy recommendations on climate mitigations were developed by participants of the assembly. The recommendations were discussed under several categories such as renewable energy transitions, buildings, circular economy and zero waste, carbon mitigation, forest and soil health, reducing travel carbon footprint, center communities, etc. [29]

Ultimately, the 77 Washington residents involved were able to come together and accomplish the goals of the meeting. These results have also inspired the People’s Voice on Climate organization to try to expand this deliberative democracy model into other communities. This was the intention and goal of the assembly. In this sense, the development of policy recommendations and bringing demographically representative Washington residents to come together and learn, deliberate, and work together to create policies for the state, highlights the success to the theory of change behind the main theme of the assembly. It has also set the platform for future assemblies to be successful and provides a foundation of criteria. There was success in the involvement of the climate assembly as lawmakers attended events. [30] People’s Voice on Climate found this to be successful as they have shifted their focus to expand deliberative democracy initiatives to occur in other communities across the country.

It is difficult to measure the impact the WACA had on the state legislature. [31] the Research Team members attempted to reach out to state legislators for feedback on the impact of the assembly; however, due to a low response rate, it is hard to determine how legislators felt. From the few responses received the legislators were able to gauge some feedback on the assembly from the legislative perspective. For one, the state legislators seemed to show interest in hearing from citizens and receiving policy recommendations, but they did feel that the policy recommendations reaffirmed existing concerns. It seems that one of the main factors that may have caused the difficulty in knowing the full impact the assembly had was in the timing. By the time that the policy recommendations were available, it was towards the end of the legislative session, which made it difficult for legislators to discuss the results. [32]

Analysis and Lessons Learned

There was an academic evaluation performed to analyze and make recommendations for future assemblies. The research evaluated the assembly in terms of six criteria: “the representativeness of the sample of participants, the quality of deliberation, the quality of information presented to and created by participants, the independence of the assembly process, the initial impacts of the assembly, and the roles of the Initiating Team in organizing the assembly.” [33]

The representativeness of participants was criticized on the grounds that a larger share of assembly members identified as democratic or left-centered and were more highly educated and politically attentive than the state population. [34] The deliberative quality was evaluated based on responses from the members themselves. Overall, the deliberation led to a positive response and produced high quality analysis.However, the discussion groups were criticized for their size, which may have caused less deliberation. There was also less deliberation in different phases with the voting phase having the least number of opportunities to speak up. The members tended to have mixed reviews in the evaluation of the information presented. Overall, there were positive comments to the information presented but less positive comments when it came to accessibility and the balance of information between experts and witnesses. There were some reports of bias as there seemed to be a lack of diversity in opinions on climate change within the participants. The legislatures also provided recommendations for the future such as changing the timing of the assembly. Whenever it came to the financial aspect, the budget did not seem to be enough. [35]

There were aspects of the assembly that worked. It did have positive responses from legislators for future assemblies to occur as well as suggesting it as a model for future assemblies. [36] There was also the access that the online deliberation platform provided. [37] Many of the participants had positive responses to the outcome of the assembly. The recommendations encourage increased planning and to reconsider the time for the policy recommendations to be developed for the legislator to have a greater opportunity to consider the results. Overall, the assembly was seen as a success as a model for future assemblies. [11] It provided an opportunity to implement democratic deliberation during a time when in-person events were not feasible. The WACA has opened the door for future forms of online deliberation.

See Also

References

[1] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[2] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[3] UN Environment Programme. (2021, November 9). State of the Climate - Climate Action Note- Data You Need to Know. unep.org. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/climate-action-note/state-of-climate.html?gclid=Cj0KCQiA4aacBhCUARIsAI55maGc_K5myRByGBMKNgEubjYuUxu-uXfkVp4zLhny6jM3nfOlSbf8PtgaAgkrEALw_wcB

[4] Climate change and the environment. Climate change & the environment - Washington State Department of Ecology. (n.d.). https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-change/Climate-change-the-environment

[5] “People’s Voice on Climate.” People’s Voice on Climate, www.peoplesvoiceonclimate.org/.

[6] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[7] Richards, Parry L., Bowlsby S., Gakhal J., Sartor N., Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/592

[8] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[9] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[10] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[11] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[12] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[13] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[14] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[15] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[16] Participedia Case Study Team. (2021). Citizens' Assembly. Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/4258 

[17] Welton A., Bowlsby S., Participedia Team. (2019). Deliberation. Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/560

[18] Spada P., Participedia Team, Bowlsby S. (2020). Online Deliberation. Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/4232

[19] Rountree J., Richards R., Park C. (2022). The Washington Climate Assembly: Collaborative Note-Taking Design Across Digital Divides. 

[20] Haley, Participedia Team, Rosa. (2021). The World Café. Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/167

[21] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[22] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[23] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[24] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[25] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[26] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[27] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[28] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[29] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[30] Washington Climate Assembly. (2021). Washingtonians finding solutions together: Washington Climate Assembly final report. Washington Climate Assembly. https://81a84cbc-5f71- 4d22-9287- 6f567df5d228.filesusr.com/ugd/d6c986_9495356c240c4f1a976524905f9bf421.pdf

[31] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[32] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[33] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[34] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[35] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

[36] Park, C., Noori, K., Calderon, M., Kennard, A., & Richards, R. (December 8, 2021). Evaluation of the Washington Climate Assembly: Report. 1-94. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF8viHJ9OWCqXbrY1SZoXWoXLd2t9c9J/view

External Links

League of Women Voters of Washington. (2001, June) Citizens Jury on the Citizens Initiative Review: Final Report.

https://www.waclimateassembly.org/

Notes

The first version of this case entry was written by Alyssa Jones, a Master of Public Service candidate at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, and then edited. The views expressed in the entry are those of the authors, editors, or cited sources, and are not necessarily those of the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.