I am delighted to announce a new issue book developed by the Kettering Foundation for the National Issues Forums titled: Immigration in America: How Do We Fix a System in Crisis?
This issue guide, authored by my good friend and colleague Scott London, is the latest in the Kettering Foundation issue book library of which I am executive editor.
Immigration In America: How Do We Fix A System In Crisis?
Immigration in America: How Do We Fix a System in Crisis?
Most Americans agree that our immigration system needs an overhaul. Too many immigrants slip across our borders undetected and too many are here on expired temporary visas. Backlogs and bureaucracy prevent high-skilled foreign workers from getting the permits they need and hinder family members from being reunited with their loved ones in the United States.
Tackling the immigration issue requires that we take a fresh look at it and get beyond the polarized debates that too often divide the country rather than bringing it together. Our challenge today is to build a system that reflects our essential values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. This issue guide explores three different options for doing that.
Option One: Welcome New Arrivals
America is a nation of immigrants, a people welded from many nations and races, bound together by a common vision of opportunity and freedom. That diversity has always been the backbone of America’s strength. A 21st -century immigration system must reflect these characteristic values along with a humanitarian commitment to refuges and those seeking freedom from persecution.
Option Two: Protect Our Borders
Some of America’s most serious social and economic problems are exacerbated by the influx of unauthorized immigrants. By failing to control illegal immigration, we’ve undermined our national security, stiffened competition for scarce jobs, and strained the public purse. This option argues for tighter control of our borders, tougher enforcement of our immigration laws, and stricter limits on the number of immigrants legally accepted into the country.
Option Three: Promote Economic Prosperity
Protecting American jobs while at the same time increasing economic competitiveness requires a multi-faceted immigration strategy, one that acknowledges the important contributions made by high-and low-skilled immigrants alike, but does not depress the wages of disadvantaged American workers or drain our public resources, especially during economic hard times.
I am delighted to announce a new issue book developed by the Kettering Foundation for the National Issues Forums titled: A Nation In Debt: How Do We Pay The Bills? This issue guide, authored by my good friends and colleagues Tony Wharton and Noelle McAfee, is the latest in the issue book library of which I am Executive Editor.
Click to download from the NIFI website
We worked very hard getting this guide finished — researching, writing, testing and re-testing. I am really proud of it.
The following is from the introduction to A Nation in Debt: How Can We Pay the Bills?
It’s become apparent to many Americans that if we do not act decisively on the nation’s debt soon, our economy will be seriously hobbled and we will dump an unsustainable burden on our children and grandchildren.
“What’s decided (or not decided) over the next few years will spell big changes for the way we live our daily lives,” write Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson in Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis. “How the country solves or doesn’t solve this problem will affect our paychecks, our investments, our mortgages, our kids’ prospects in life, what kind of health care we’ll get, our chances of ever getting to retire-even whether we live in a country that’s fair, stable and prosperous.”
This 12-page issue guide presents an overview of the problem and three options for deliberation.
Option One: Agree to Make Sacrifices Now - We need to compromise on our differences and act now to reduce the national debt. If this generation doesn’t make needed sacrifices, we’re simply passing the burden to the next generation. It’s time to face this urgent problem. We need to raise taxes and cut spending; neither will get the job done alone.
Option Two: Strengthen Checks and Balances - We cannot just hope that personal discipline and basic legislative safeguards will control the urge to spend. Citizens willingly accept more benefits than government can afford and leaders are too willing to help us dig this hole. Our top priority should be to make systemic changes to increase fiscal responsibility.
Option Three: Invest in Growth First - We need to encourage economic growth and invest in research, development, infrastructure, and science education. Growing the economy will boost tax revenues, make the debt more manageable, and will be better for the country in the long run. Drastic cost-cutting measures would likely harm the economy as it tries to recover.
I am proud to let you know about a new report released today by United Way Worldwide at an important Town Hall event in DC where United Way announced its pledge to generate 1,000,000 new volunteers in mentoring and tutoring for education. (United Way’s pledge is a great example of the level of educational leadership I wish we could see more of now a days.) I was fortunate enough to be asked to write and do the chief research and focus group work for the report.
I’ve posted an announcement of the report at my company’s site, the Mannakee Circle Group. Here is the piece I posted there:
Soledad O'Brien talks to Oakland Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha at the Town Hall
Today at a National Town Hall event at Trinity Washington University moderated by CNN’s Soledad O’Brien and featuring Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Corporation for National and Community Service head Patrick Corvington, and White House Domestic Policy Adviser Melody Barnes, United Way Worldwide releasedVoices For The Common Good: America Speaks Out On Education.
Mannakee Circle Group president Brad Rourke conducted focus group research, reviewed notes from the field, and did the principal writing for this report. (Available here.)
The national report is the result of extensive work by United Way listening to community members talk about their aspirations and concerns when it comes to their communities and education. It is based on more than 150 community conversations with thousands of participants, held by local United Ways in 17 cities — along with six focus groups in Billings, MT; Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Los Angeles, CA; New York City, NY; and Washington, DC.
Key findings in the report include:
When you improve schools, you improve communities — and vice versa
People feel disconnected from schools
Instilling values is just as important to people as teaching academics
We’ve reached a turning point in education
People want to work together but aren’t sure what to do
The community conversations were conducted using a framework developed by my friend and colleague Rich Harwood. Special thanks to another good friend and colleague, Mike Wood, vice president of field engagement at United Way, for bringing me in to this project.
The Civic Health Index is developed using data from the U.S. Census, and is mandated by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009. The National Conference on Citizenship developed a national report, and partnered with a variety of local organizations in developing a number of state and local reports.
I am proud to say I was the chief author of the report. My very good friends at CIRCLE did the core data analysis and I am deeply indebted to them.
In addition to the census data, the Maryland partners convened a number of community conversations throughout the state and culminated this listening effort with a Civic Literacy Summit held on October 23 where workgroups made recommendations for moving forward.
All this is given in detail in the report. I will release a link to the report after it is made public on December 8 in Annapolis. The report can be found here.
Below is the event announcement:
ANNAPOLIS, Md. – A coalition next week will release the first-ever report on the civic health of Maryland, evaluating in numerous areas how Marylanders work together in society for the common good, and how their level of work and engagement compares to residents of other states.
To evaluate the Free State’s civic health, the first-ever Maryland Civic Health Index looked at indicators that include volunteerism, social connections, voting habits and political engagement, among others. The report sketches a picture of Marylanders engaged in their communities more than residents of many other states. But it also suggests that given its higher than average median income and education levels and proximity to Washington DC, it is not as high as expected.
The report will be released at a press conference, details below.
Press Conference Details
What: Release of Maryland Civic Health Index 2010
When: Wednesday, Dec. 8, 9 am
Where: Miller Senate Building
Who:
Judge Robert Bell, Chief Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals
Dr. Nancy Grasmick, State Superintendent of Schools
Barbara Reynolds, Director, Governor’s Office on Service and Volunterism
Senator Allan Kittleman, Chair, Commission on Civic Literacy
Marcie Taylor-Thoma, Vice-chair, Commission on Civic Literacy
Dr. Stephen Frantzich, Professor of Political Science, USNA
Brad Rourke, The Mannakee Circle Group, report author
Susan Schreiber, Common Cause Maryland
The 31-page report was prepared by the Mannakee Circle Group, the Maryland Commission on Civic Literacy, Common Cause Maryland, and the National Conference on Citizenship. It is based on analysis of state data from the National Conference on Citizenship’s America’s Civic Health Index, and conversations with Marylanders throughout the state in summer and early fall of this year.
I am delighted to announce that the Case Foundation has just released a new report that I wrote about a recent White House / Case Foundation conference. The report is called Promoting Innovation: Prizes, Challenges and Open Grantmaking. Here’s the Foundation’s description:
Promoting Innovation: Prizes, Challenges and Open Grantmaking
In spring 2010, the Case Foundation together with the White House Domestic Policy Council and the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy teamed up to host a daylong public-private strategy session focused on promoting innovation through the use of prizes, challenges and open grantmaking. . . . This report is a summary of the lessons, learnings and findings discussed at the conference, and highlights some of the shining examples of the power and pitfalls of crowdsourcing ideas and innovation.
We’re proud today to release a new report as part of our “Case Studies” from the spring gathering, Promoting Innovation: Prizes, Challenges and Open Grantmaking, a daylong strategy session we co-hosted along with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Domestic Policy Council. This event brought together over 200 individuals representing more than 35 government agencies and 35 private sector and nonprofit organizations to discuss lessons and strategies from experiments in prizes, challenges and open grantmaking.
The Promoting Innovation report is meant for anyone who may have missed the conference, or wants to share some of the chief learnings with colleagues who weren’t able to attend.
As many friends and colleagues know, I have enjoyed a long association with the Kettering Foundation. When I first came to know the Foundation while I was working at the Institute for Global Ethics, I felt I had discovered an intellectual and philosophical home. And I was right.
Over the years, the good people at Kettering have become more than colleagues — they are friends and family. For some years, I have been proud to say I am an Associate of the Foundation. (This means I am not an employee but an independent professional working on a range of learning projects.)
The Kettering Foundation is a research foundation (not a grant making foundation) that studies the question: What does it take to make democracy work as it should? A fundamental part of that is to study public deliberation — how people make choices in communities. An excellent overview of Kettering research is in this brochure.
To further its research, the Foundation supports the development of issue books on various topics and makes them available to organizations throughout the National Issues Forums and to others. These issue books can serve as the basis of public deliberative forums where people wrestle with the difficult issues of the day such as energy, health care, economic security, the national debt, and more. I have written some of these issue books over the years.
I am thrilled and humbled to report that I’ve taken on a deeper role as a Kettering Associate, serving as executive editor of the issue book library. (I’ll still be working on all my other projects too, with other clients and collaborators.)
I’ll be doing this work closely with my friend Ilse Tebbetts, a longtime Kettering colleague, who will be serving as managing editor.
The announcement Kettering issued is below:
Two familiar names have recently taken on new duties in producing the deliberative issue guides that have long been key parts of the Kettering Foundation’s work.
Brad Rourke has taken the role of executive editor of the issue guide library. As executive editor, Rourke will have overall responsibility for the issue guide series, overseeing the writing of new books and the updating of earlier guides. He will work with David Holwerk, Kettering’s director of communications, to oversee the work of writing and updating issue guides.
Rourke has been associated with the work of the Kettering Foundation and the National Issues Forums since 1997. His first learning agreement with the foundation was in 1999, when he worked on framing the issue of election ethics and campaign conduct for public deliberation. Since then, he has been closely involved with Kettering’s work and has written a number of issue guides and reports for the foundation, including The Energy Problem: Choices for an Uncertain Future and Coping with the Cost of Health Care: How Do We Pay for What We Need?
Ilse Tebbetts will work with Rourke as the managing editor of the issue book series. In that role, she will have primary responsibility for editing the text of new and revised books and will work with Holwerk to oversee the design and production of the books in both print and digital formats.
Tebbetts, a freelance editor and writer, has worked on a variety of projects with the Kettering Foundation for more than 30 years. She has edited and written portions of many of the issue guides published by the foundation and has written and edited abridged versions for new readers. Tebbetts has also edited a number of the books published by Kettering Foundation Press, as well as a variety of occasional papers and KF reports. She was one of the principal editors of Selected Writings of Li Shenzhi, published this month by Kettering Foundation Press.
Thank you to Kettering for this unique opportunity.
I’m excited to announce the release of a new report I wrote for Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE), an important group of funders who do grantmaking in the civic participation and dialogue field.
Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) is pleased to announce the release of its latest publication, “An Evolving Relationship: Executive Branch Approaches to Civic Engagement and Philanthropy.” This white paper is based on a briefing memo prepared for a White House meeting earlier this year between leaders of the philanthropic community and Executive Branch officials. The meeting focused on the topics of service, civic engagement, social innovation and public participation and where there might be shared interests between the two groups. . . .
“We are at a moment that many in the civic engagement field see as a threshold. Fundamental changes are taking place in the way that citizens interact with institutions, demanding new and more creative approaches to civic engagement,” said PACE executive director Chris Gates. “The new Administration and the field of philanthropy have both made it clear that they want to be a part of the conversation about how our nation can craft a new kind of relationship between citizens, civil society and government.”
An Evolving Relationship was prepared for PACE by Brad Rourke of The Mannakee Circle Group. The paper provides a broad overview of Executive Branch approaches to civic engagement, participation, and service over the past two decades. It also describes how philanthropy has worked with the federal government on these issues over the same time frame.
The paper argues that a number of key trends in White House approaches to civic engagement are now intersecting and suggest a great deal of possibility for moving forward in the near future. Civic engagement is a clear priority for this administration and has becoming increasingly embedded in the policies and practices of a number of Federal agencies. At the same time, key philanthropic institutions are making increasing commitments to the fields of deliberative dialogue, civic engagement and democratic practice.
For more information about PACE or this paper contact:
I recently shared a report with a colleague that I had not looked at for some time. I thought it might be interesting to my readers and friends.
Click image to open report (pdf)
It’s called Mr. Boyd Connects, and it is a report on one legislator’s experience with seeking to engage his constituents in a different way than usual. The legislator is Congressman Allen Boyd (FL-2), and I wrote the report in 2005. Boyd had embarked on a series of town hall meetings across his district to hear what his constituents had to say about health care. This was long, long before the fiascos we saw more recently, and Boyd’s approach was much different: he listened.
My client, the Kettering Foundation, had asked me to explore the question: What was Boyd hoping to learn? In what ways is a listening approach useful?
The report, I think, still holds resonance (perhaps more) today.
From the introduction:
Being a participant in Public Television’s A Public Voice gave Representative Allen Boyd of Florida a view of the public he usually doesn’t get. “[These citizens] weren’t talking to elected officials,” Rep. Boyd says. “They were just sitting around in a room talk- ing . . . with each other.” The subject was health care. “And then we [policymakers] got a chance to see what they said, and reflect on it. . . . [T]hat is an unusual sort of setting.” Singular enough, in fact, that Rep. Boyd went on to repeat it on his own, hitting the road throughout his Panhandle district to hear what his own constituents had to say about health care. What he heard by using this approach proved useful to him both as a leader—and as a fellow citizen. In a recent interview in his Washington office, Rep. Boyd spoke in detail about what this experience meant to him.
This is a little overdue, as this was released a little over a month ago, but better late than never! I am delighted to announce a new issue guide that I wrote has been released and will be used in deliberative forums across the nation.
Here is the post I wrote for the “news” section of my firm The Mannakee Circle Group that describes the whole thing:
The Mannakee Circle Group is pleased to announce a new issue book authored by Brad Rourke for the National Issues Forums Institute and the Kettering Foundation, working closely with colleague John Doble. The guide is titled America’s Role In The World: What does national security mean in the 21st century? and is available from NIFI.
The issue guide will be the basis for deliberative forums held across the nation, the results of which will be reported to a US-Russian group of policy experts and citizens in October this year.
From the issue overview:
The world bears little resemblance to the way it was in 1991, when the Soviet Union fell and the cold war ended. Where the world used to have two “superpowers,”—the Soviet Union and the United States— the end of the cold war created what many observers called a “unipolar” world in which the United States was the clear leader, able to bend most events to its will. But that moment has passed.
The U.S. Director of National Intelligence issued a report in late 2008 that assessed where things stand and where things are likely to go over the next two decades. One conclusion of this comprehensive study is that the United States “will remain the single most powerful country but will be less dominant.”
Examples of less dominance are everywhere. China has gone from being a very large nation to being an economic powerhouse. India’s economy, as well as its influence on the world stage, has grown rapidly. Pakistan is now strategically vital.
Threats are becoming more global in nature, too. Climate change (global warming), pandemics, and resource depletion face countries without regard to superpower status or military strength. Many of these threats require response, but no one nation can act alone.
This issue framing presents three possible options to consider:
Option One: National Security Means Safeguarding the United States
Our global objective must always be to maintain the safety of the United States and its citizens. We must guard against threats to national security above all.
Option Two: National Security Depends on Putting Our Economic House in Order
With such significant economic issues facing us, we need to focus on eliminating our staggering public indebtedness and improving the balance of trade. That means spending less on the military and reducing the amount of money that flows overseas.
Option Three: National Security Means Recognizing that Global Threats are our Greatest Challenge
Today’s challenges face everyone on the planet, not just one nation. We must take a leadership role in working with other nations in a collaborative way to address long-term threats to humanity and increase foreign aid so other nations can also address such threats.
The Mannakee Circle Group would like to thank NIFI and the Kettering Foundation for the opportunity to work on this important project.
The discussion guide is called: Childhood Drinking: How Can We Prevent And Reduce The Number Of Children Drinking Alcohol? (Available here as free PDF.) It is meant to help communities deliberate over this issue and develop common ground for action. I am the author.
Underage drinking: How can we prevent and reduce the number of children drinking alcohol?
Here’s an introductory overview, from an abbreviated version:
Alcohol is the drug of choice for America’s youth. By age 15, half of the nation’s children and adolescents will have had a whole drink. Among 15 year olds who do drink, one study shows that on average they binge drink (five drinks or more per session) twice a month.
How many children are drinking that way? According to a federally funded survey conducted by the University of Michigan, 8 percent of eighth graders (13 years old) have binged in the past two weeks, and 18 percent of tenth graders (15 years old) have done so.
Underage drinking is not just a problem for parents to worry about. It can have ripple effects that spread throughout the community. Recent studies indicate that drinking at a young age can derail a person’s later development, which can harm communities.
Childhood drinking is a problem for the entire community. It does not have a single solution. It can increase crime, lower productivity, and raise health care costs.
It must be addressed by many different kinds of people, because solutions will depend on actions by everyday people, community organizations, and government.
Here are three options for addressing childhood drinking, along with the major trade off or drawback to each:
Option One: Reach Children With Problems Early — Some children have problems when it comes to alcohol and other issues. We need to find them as early as possible and help them. But: Professionals will intrude in families’ lives; the issue may get pushed underground.
Option Two: Remove Access and Incentives — If we are going to make it so our children don’t drink, we will need to change the community. This includes not only making it harder to get access to alcohol, but also stronger enforcement of the laws. But: We will need more control over children’s day-to-day activities as well as more restrictions on adults’ behavior
Option Three: Help Children Through A Difficult Time In Development — We need to help children through the difficult elementary and middle school years so they do not get derailed. But: Responsibility for parenting children will shift from the family to professionals.
Here is an introductory video made using Xtranormal that gives an overview of the options and trade offs:
I enjoyed working on this project and I thank the National Issues Forums and the Leadership Foundation for the opportunity!
Recent Comments