Kuna Study Circles (Idaho)

Kuna Study Circles (Idaho)

English

Problems and Purpose

The Kuna Alliance for a Cohesive Community Team (ACT) and its supporters knew they needed a vehicle to provide an infrastructure of collaborative discussion providing a place where citizens could gain ownership of the issues and discover and maintain common ground, creating a greater desire and ability to work together to solve local issues. What was needed was a community information gathering source: a place where the community gets a voice, a neutral setting facilitated by a non-profit, non-political, non-partisan group. Citizens needed a voice before decisions were made. Until the project's initiation, the only voice came from people showing up at meetings furious about a controversial issue or decisions made without input. Community leader's developed a plan to implement grass roots decision making, where study circle participants knew their ideas would reach the agencies that requested the information to be implemented into public policy. The goal was not a single event, but to be persistent in changing the way decisions were and are made in Kuna through a perpetual system webbed into the lifeblood of the Kuna Community.

History

Kuna ACT Study Circles began as concerned organizations and citizens came together to create community-wide awareness to, and identify possible solutions to the burgeoning community. During the late 1990s, the community of Kuna was experiencing a phenomenal growth of up to 17 percent. Residents' concerns included, growing drug use, gang activity, school buildings bursting at the seams, political wrangling, and lack of constructive communication between major political subdivisions in the community. City, school and community leaders were at an impasse. There was need of a trusted arena for open communication. Leaders and citizens alike were becoming tired of confrontation and desperate for resources. All residents were concerned about maintaining Kuna’s relaxed hometown atmosphere while addressing being among the fastest growing communities in the nation. While they watched bordering cities grow faster than their plans, Kuna wanted to manage their growth. Leaders and citizens resolved to move their community forward with the strength of synthesis provided by the deliberative democratic process. Subsequently, the Kuna ACT (Alliance for a Cohesive Community Team) was created “to improve the communication in our community by giving people a greater voice in making decisions, helping residents and organizations work together to solve problems, [and] getting citizens involved in long-term planning.”

Originating Entities and Funding

The Kuna Study Circles were initiated by the Alliance for a Cohesive Community Team (ACT), in partnership with Everyday Democracy/The Paul J. Aicher Foundation (formerly Study Circles Resource Center/Topsfield Foundation). The process was lead by the ACT with guidance ongoing support and training from the partner organizations. Everyday Democracy Program Manager Matt Leighninger proved an indispensible resource and anchor not only for the Alliance's beginnings, but in helping them with sound ideas and examples as they personalized a unique system for the Kuna Community. The resulting system continues to grow as the community collectively communicates through many issues and challenges.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

People are recruited to praticipate in study circles through the various groups and organizations to which they belong. This kind of recruitment goes beyond the old government practice of simply calling meetings and hoping people show up; the key is to map the community, figure out what people belong to, and get people within those groups and organizations to recruit people they already know. ACT makes it their priority to assemble a large and diverse body of citizens. To this end, the organization has engaged the Migrant Family Liaison to personally invite all Spanish speakers to all school related study circles. Spanish-speaking facilitators and recorders were present at these events and discussions were conducted in their native language. Recordings were later translated and incorporated into the official Study Circle public report.

Methods and Tools Used

The Alliance for Community Cohesion's work to implement deliberative, participatory democracy within the community goes beyond the use of study circles. Approaches taken by the group include:

  • Involving participants in a combination of small- and large-group meetings: structured, facilitated small groups for reasoned, deliberative dialogue; and large forums for sharing information, amplifying shared conclusions, and moving from talk to action. One common mistake made in other communities has been using large meetings for things (like dialogue) that only small meetings can do, and vice versa.
  • Giving the participants in these meetings the opportunity to compare values and experiences, and to consider a range of views and policy options. People have to be able to connect these issues to their own lives and what matters to them.
  • Effecting change in a number of ways: by applying citizen input to policy and planning decisions; by encouraging change within organizations and institutions; by creating teams to work on particular action ideas; by inspiring and connecting individual volunteers.

Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

Kuna’s established process is often tailored to match the needs of the issue, but has these basic features:

  1. A community concern is voiced. The Study Circle process is requested by the relevant professional entities.
  2. The Coordinator organizes public meetings implements wide variety of public invitation and notification.
  3. Study Circles convene:
    i. Discussion begins with a general presentation to those in attendance setting the stage by providing basic factual information
    ii. Attendees are divided into small diversified groups, given information packets, and groups are dispersed to reflect on discussion questions. Each group is led by a trained, impartial facilitator and supported by a recorder that documents confidentially the input from participants.
    iii. The Coordinator synthesizes the recommendations that come to the top into a public document for dispersal. This document is presented personally to the asking entity by the Coordinator or Kuna ACT Team. A full copy is maintained at the public library and emailed to all citizens requesting a copy. A report is also filed with the media.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The preeminent solution provided by these efforts is a trusted avenue of community involvement through a grassroots deliberative democratic process. 

Kuna ACT has organized multiple Study Circles in the Kuna Community since its beginning in 1999. The unique circle format has provided the community with valuable input for decision-making, and many solutions.

Solutions have been successful by holding Study Circles addressing the following issues:

  • “Keeping a Quality Kuna” - Managing the growth of our community and sustaining infrastructure towards positive planning and development, education, public safety, quality of life, physical appearance of the community services, recreation and government
  • “Disaster Planning” – Resources from all available entities came together in one room to provide a plan and an emergency disaster plan was instituted.
  • “Planning for the Kuna We Want” Collected input presented to the Planning and Zoning commission. Citizen input provided information for decisions on diversity of housing, development of commercial and industrial areas, protection of the ecosystem of Indian Creek which runs through town, working towards providing a recreation district, the priority of curbs and sidewalks, development of parks, and a new sewer system infrastructure.
  • “Bond for Kuna Schools” - As a result, a $15.2 million bond passed which had originally been defeated
  • “Teen Talk” written and carried out by student leaders in Kuna High School
  • “Developing a theme for the City of Kuna” – Result: a beautification plan and mission statement were formulated
  • “Juvenile Justice Program” This established the Kuna Juvenile Justice Council which is still actively serving first time offenders in the community.
  • “School Tax Bond Leveling” - The School Board received input from the community before deciding to implement bond leveling.
  • “Kuna Services and Curriculum Planning” – Input supported a School Resource Officer, another bond with priorities in using the monies for 3 new elementary schools and upkeep on existing buildings and citizens becoming involved in the District Curriculum Development Committee.
  • “Developing School Zones and Configuration” The School Board passing approval to adopt boundaries and implement a new school configuration. This was a very heated conversation with administration, teachers and parents in polarized conflict. Once a series of study circles were held, a more peaceable implementation occurred than was ever anticipated.
  • “What High School Graduates Should Know and Be Able to Do” Over 150 diverse citizens, from recent high school graduates to our retired folk prioritized important knowledge and skills Kuna High School students should obtain by graduation. The outcomes from this have been complied into binders which are in use for present decision making by our school administration.
  • “Budget Crisis” Because of the economic downturn, the school district has gone to the public using the Kuna ACT protocol to get input for hard decisions as we face tighter and tighter budgets for our schools. Because of this process, hard decisions have been made with understanding and support from parents and patrons of the school district.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

A full analysis of this intitiative was undertaken by Archon Fung of the Harvard Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Briefly, his findings include:

Participation

  • Limited information is available on participation rates but the ACT has made significant strides towards increasing participation and interest in the programme, evidenced by the high attendance rates (approx. 100 participants per circle on average)
  • While there are a core group of individuals that attend most events, participation shifts depending on the topic. This indicates the programme is reaching the relevant stakeholders in policy areas under focus for each event (eg. land use vs school funding)
  • The organization appears to lack the funding needed to conduct an extensive outreach campaign

Deliberation

  • Based on participant testimony, it appears that the Study Circles are effective in bring new ideas and perspectives to light. Dr. Fung notes that participants "repeatedly cite the important role played by ground rules, facilitators, randomization of groups, and neutral discussion questions as contributing to the quality of dialogue that takes place"[1]
  • Highly controversial topics tend to attract participants with strong opinions (who are, therefore, less willing to change their minds) while more 'neutral' topics tend to generate more original ideas and collaborative decision making

Embeddedness

  • The project's longevity is testament to its embeddedness in the community
  • Kuna ACT acts as a "institutional home and sponsor" for the active participation of residents in community deliberation.
  • The ACT provides a service to the decision makers by hosting and facilitating high-quality public deliberations on important community issues. According to Fung, "a significant number of community leaders from several different institutions seem to have bought into the idea that greater public participation in controversial decision making is desirable and that Study Circles are the appropriate venue for supporting that participation"
  • The organization dedicates itself to non-partisanship and neutrality which has allowed it to transcend political struggles and maintain a good standing with a wide range of stakeholders
  • The use of Study Circles for multiple issues has avoided pigeon-holing of the programme, helping it to maintain its relevancy even as new issues present themselves

[1] Fung, "Kuna Case Study", 17. 

 

Secondary Sources

Archon Fung, "Kuna Case Study," Kettering Foundation, November 4, 2004, http://www.archonfung.net/papers/KetteringMeet/KunaCase.pdf

External Links

What Democracy Looks Like, Kuna, Idaho

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 Arnette Johnson.

Case Data

Overview

Location

Geolocation: 
Kuna , ID
United States
43° 29' 30.5916" N, 116° 25' 12.4392" W
Idaho US

History

Start Date: 
Friday, January 1, 1999
End Date: 
[no data entered]
Ongoing: 
Yes
Number of Meeting Days: 
[no data entered]

Process

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

Organizers

Who paid for the project or initiative?: 
Albertson's Foundation...
Who was primarily responsible for organizing the initiative?: 
Type of Organizing Entity: 
Who else supported the initiative? : 
Kuna School District, City of Kuna, Ada County Sheriff's Office, Kuna Seniors, Kuna Chamber of Commerce, local church groups, and concerned parents...

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.