Bridgeport (Connecticut) Community Conversations

Bridgeport (Connecticut) Community Conversations

English

Note: the following case is incomplete. You can help Participedia by adding to it. 

 

Problems and Puropose

A deliberative initiative was launched in order to address serious problems in the education system in a declining industrial city. Forty official "Community Conversations" were widely imitated in the city, leading to an unknown number of deliberative forums. Participants were called on to make difficult decisions, such as shifting limited resources from teen after-school programs to programs for younger children. The ultimate purpose of the initiative was to create a new school plan and to gain support for a ballot initiative.

History

The city filed for bankruptcy in 1991. The next mayor was sentenced to nine years in federal prison for corruption. The schools were so troubled that 274 teachers were arrested during a strike in 1978.

Originating Entities and Funding

Know who was involved in organizing and/or funding this initiative? Help us complete this section!

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The meetings were open to all citizens, but there was concerted outreach to parents, city officials, business leaders, and leaders on local colleges and universities. Approximately 139,000 people participated with some events registering 500 attendees. 

Methods and Tools Used

Know what methods and tools were used during this initiative? Help us complete this section!

Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

Forty official "Community Conversations" were widely imitated in the city, leading to an unknown number of deliberative forums. Study Circles were widely used. A community Summit in 2006 drew 500 people. Participants made direct decisions regarding education program measures to be included on the ballot such as shifting limited resources from teen after-school programs to programs for younger children. 

Influence, Outcomes and Effects

Know what outcomes and effects this initiative had? Help us complete this section!

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Specific Effort Made to Include Disadvantaged Groups

Some effort to address disadvantaged groups

The paper by Friedman et al includes a section on "inclusion" but it is not specific about the inclusion of disadvantaged groups. Poor and minority residents would, however, be predominant among parents and students in Bridgeport, CT. (96 percent of the city's students are low-income; 70% of city residents are African American or Hispanic.)

Specific Effort Made to Strengthen Democratic Capacities

The main purpose was to build skills and expectations of deliberation.

 

External Links

Will Friedman, Alison Kadlec, and Lara Birnback, Transforming Public Life: A Decade of Citizen Engagement in Bridgeport, CT, Case Studies in Public Engagement, no.1, Public Agenda Foundation, 2007.

The case is also mentioned in Elena Fagotto and Archon Fung, “Sustaining Public Engagement: Embedded Deliberation in Local Communities,” an Occasional Research Paper from Everyday Democracy and the Kettering Foundation, 2009.

Note

The original version of this case study first appeared on Vitalizing Democracy in 2010 and was a contestant for the 2011 Reinhard Mohn Prize. It was originally submitted by Peter Levine.

Case Data

Overview

General Issue(s): 
Specific Topic(s): 

Location

Geolocation: 
Bridgeport , CT
United States
41° 11' 11.5728" N, 73° 11' 42.6372" W
Connecticut US

History

Start Date: 
[no data entered]
End Date: 
[no data entered]
Ongoing: 
Yes
Number of Meeting Days: 
[no data entered]

Participants

Targeted Participants (Demographics): 
Targeted Participants (Public Roles): 

Process

Methods: 
[no data entered]
Facilitation?: 
No
If yes, were they ...: 
[no data entered]
Facetoface, Online or Both: 
Face-to-Face
Type of Interaction among Participants: 
Decision Method(s)?: 
[no data entered]
If voting...: 
[no data entered]
Targeted Audience : 
Method of Communication with Audience: 

Organizers

Who paid for the project or initiative?: 
[no data entered]
Who was primarily responsible for organizing the initiative?: 
[no data entered]
Who else supported the initiative? : 
[no data entered]
Types of Supporting Entities: 
[no data entered]

Resources

Total Budget: 
[no data entered]
Average Annual Budget: 
[no data entered]
Number of Full-Time Staff: 
[no data entered]
Number of Part-Time Staff: 
[no data entered]
Staff Type: 
[no data entered]
Number of Volunteers: 
[no data entered]

Discussions

No discussions have been started yet.