Consensus Workshop and Focused Conversation methods are adapted from The Institute of Cultural Affairs, Technology of Participation Group Facilitation Methods Workbook, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2000.

CONSENSUS WORKSHOP METHOD/MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE

This method is used when there is a need to generate group creativity in a short amount of time, to catalyze integrated and strategic thinking, and/or to build team consensus. In an organizational assessment process, it can be very effective in not only identifying program strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats, but it also generates consensus on priorities and how to make decisions.

The process is centered on a workshop question/topic for which the workshop content and product are a response. Once the question is defined, the full group engages in the following steps, utilizing a “sticky wall” which displays all participant responses:

1. Set the Stage: The group begins by discussing the topic for a few minutes by engaging in a short Focused Conversation (see below)

2. Brainstorm: Participants individually list answers to the workshop question, one idea at a time, on separate cards with large markers. Everyone is asked to select their top idea and pass it up.

3. Cluster: Post the first round of ideas on the sticky wall and engage the group in clustering ideas that clearly go together. Then ask people to pass up remaining cards in their possession that are different from the clusters already created and repeat the process.

4. Naming: In this step, talk through the clusters and gain consensus on a 3-5 word name or title which answers the workshop question, and repeat for the remaining clusters.

5. Resolve: Finally, review all the title cards and confirm that the group has answered the workshop question, followed by a discussion of next steps.

FOCUSED CONVERSATION METHOD/ORID

The Focused Conversation provides structure and direction to group discussions when there is a need to collect or analyze data; generate ideas; reflect on important issues, accomplishments, or failures; discuss tough issues; explore levels of consensus that may already exist in a group; or move a discussion to a productive end.

The structure of a Focused Conversation is extremely powerful in facilitating group reflection. This method is used to engage participants in reviewing findings from data collection following a short discussion of the strengths and limitations of the data. Its structure is referred to as “ORID” and generally pursues this flow of questioning:

Objective: What do you see here? What is happening? (Getting the Facts, Sensory Impressions)

Reflective: Does anything in this data surprise you? What information is most clear to you? What seems pretty “same old, same old”? What comes to you as new or fresh? (Personal Reactions, Associations, Emotions, Images)

Interpretive: What themes seem to be emerging from these findings? What is most relevant to the program/to the funder/to the community? What challenges will have to be overcome? What are some of the important decisions we will have to make? (Meaning, Values, Significance, Purpose, Implications)

Decisional: What will this mean for the organization? What are our next steps? (Resolution, Action, Future Direction, Next Steps)

NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS

The Nominal Group Process is a technique for setting goals, identifying problems or issues, obtaining suggestions for solving problems, or planning programs for an organization. The basic steps include:

1. Form groups of five to eight participants. (In a focus group setting, we would have people with similar backgrounds/roles/interests in the same group.) Have the people introduce themselves to everyone in their group. Each group selects a group leader and a recorder. The group leader gives the participants a written statement of the issue. The issue statement should be open-ended such as:

“The most important concerns in facing the XXXX Program are . . .” or “The most critical strengths of the XXXX Program are . . .”

2. Individual ideas. Participants silently write down their ideas on index cards without discussion with others.

3. Round robin sharing. Each group proceeds around the table with each person in turn sharing one idea from his/her list. No discussion other than clarification is permitted. The recorder writes the idea on a flipchart for everyone in the group to see. Continue reading ideas around the table until all ideas have been recorded on the flipchart.

4. Discussion and Clarification. After all the ideas have been recorded, encourage each group to discuss the ideas they have recorded, comparing, clarifying, and defending their statements.

5. Prioritizing. Each group needs to choose three to five top priority ideas. Groups are free to devise their own means for coming to a consensus on the top priorities. Members may want to “vote” using small round self-adhesive labels or by assigning points for votes, i.e., five points for a first place vote, three points for second, and one point for third.

If there is more than one group, each group leader reports to the entire group what their priorities are. Some clarification and discussion may be necessary.

The entire group needs to select its top five priorities. We may want to use the following voting system:

Write each group’s top priorities on a flipchart. Tape the flipchart to a wall where everyone can get to it. Give everyone five round self-adhesive dots. The dots are votes to indicate their priorities. Participants put the dots next to the statements they want to vote for. One to five dots can be used on a statement.

6. Tally the votes. This should bring a sense of closure to the Nominal Group process.

PARTICIPATORY DATA ANALYSIS METHOD

Also called “Discovery Zones,” this method also utilizes Focused Conversation/ORID in its application and is a way to foster high level input on how to interpret the data when there are more than 2-3 data sources and a lot to cover. The steps are as follows:

1. Data Packets. Data is organized into separate packets on separate tables, either by data source, domain, community sector etc. For example, there might be separate packets for school data, law enforcement data, hospital data, etc. The data is not interpreted or analyzed at this point. It is simply organized in a way that is accessible to participants.

2. Overview of Data. Begin with a short review of the data that has been collected and some clarification on how it was collected and its strengths and limitations.

3. Small Group Work/ORID. Break into small groups, one data packet per group. Each group goes to a table and reviews what is in the packet there. On flip charts, they then record their responses to ORID questions (see examples above).

4. Full Group Review of Responses. Depending on the time available and the size of the full group, small groups will rotate to the remaining tables for a few minutes at a time to review what prior groups have done and add their input to the ORID questions. If time is limited, the full group simply roams the room to review all the flip charts. In either case, people are encouraged to ask questions for clarification and engage in a general discussion to attain consensus on how the data is to be interpreted in a Findings Report.

1. Be clear about what you hope to achieve by engaging diverse stakeholders.
Some of the reasons for including diverse communities may be to:

· Gain support and increase the impact and reach of the coalition

· Learn from diverse perspectives on the issues the coalition is set up to address

· Strengthen the voices of diverse communities in the community or policy change

· Build mutually beneficial relationships that can be sustained over time

· Strengthen leadership within the coalition so that it is more reflective of/responsive to diverse communities

It is useful to distinguish between the short-term goals of the coalition and long-term movement building goals. Long-term, the coalition may be interested in building a sustainable base of community power so that policies and decisions are community-responsive. Short-term, there may be a focus on a particular campaign or issue that requires involvement of as many communities as possible in order to achieve a “win”.

2. Invest in building relationships and trust. Recognize that long-term relationship building may be ultimately more important than the short-term goals of the coalition. Without building trust and shared ownership, community groups may feel used by the coalition to gain legitimacy or connections. Invest the time to talk with the groups you want to engage, understand them and learn about what they are committed to. Understand their strengths and what they bring to the community with their work. Explore how the coalition priorities intersect with their interests. Find out the best ways to engage them. For those who are already working together in coalition, there may be opportunities to strengthen relationships based on common interests, authentic communication and mutual support. Be intentional about this relationship building rather than focusing solely on the immediate task at hand.

3. Recognize and work with different agendas and interests. Part of authenticity in partnerships is being transparent about interests. Usually, the organizations involved at a core level of a coalition have chosen to be involved because it helps them further their own goals. They may already be working on the issue and find added value in coming together with others. It is important for the core groups in the organization to be honest about their interests and how much they are willing to share power, resources and control.

The coalition agenda may or may not be a priority for the organizations you seek to engage. In other words, they may or may not have a stake in what the coalition is doing. Smaller organizations may be supportive of the coalition, but have other priorities, such as building their basic infrastructure and constituency. Recognize where the interests coalesce and where there is a common agenda. Recognize also the different agendas that drive participation/non-participation in the coalition.

4. Explore different strategies for engaging communities. There are different ways to engage people and membership in the coalition may not be the best approach. Explore ways to involve people, depending upon your goals. Some coalitions have different levels of membership or ways to participate without becoming a full member. If your goal is to be more informed by different perspectives, consider engaging people who don’t have time to come to regular meetings as advisors. Key informant interviews could be a way to elicit their input. If your goal is to build community leadership, consider a community organizing approach. You may also want to consider a hybrid between coalition building and community organizing.

5. Build an inclusive coalition culture. As you’re working towards bringing new leadership into the coalition, recognize that capacity building may be in order for the existing leadership. The coalition may have developed a culture or way of doing things that is not welcoming or inclusive to people from different backgrounds or with different languages. Get past the habitual ways that the dominant culture runs meetings and normalize diversity in how meetings are run. The best way to determine what would work is by learning from the communities you wish to engage. Consider the way the agenda is structured, as well as the timing and location of meetings. Training in cultural humility and/or multicultural communication may help participants understand their own cultural lens for viewing the work and be able to listen and engage with people with different perspectives and experiences.

5. Acknowledge and address differences in power and resources. Effective work across difference requires acknowledging and addressing power dynamics and differences in resources. The more “mainstream” organizations with more resources may dominate the process by default because they are the ones with staff time and resources to contribute. There may also be an insider/outsider dynamic if there are groups that have a long history of working together and new groups that don’t share that history. Sometimes the actual substantive discussions happen informally, outside of meetings and the result is disenfranchisement of the newcomers. Groups who are used to calling the shots and doing most of the work may be reluctant to share power or resources with others.

Smaller, less resourced groups are not without power. For example, organizations based in particular communities may have the power to legitimize the coalition or leverage relationships to a particular base of people. They may also hold the power to hold up the process, by being absent when key decisions are made.

Building trust, and being explicit about how decisions will be made and how resources will be used can be one way to address these dynamics. There may also be an option of allocating some resources to “level the playing field” such as supporting smaller organizations to build their infrastructures or providing them with funding and technical assistance to support their participation. Local and national coalitions and initiatives have used this strategy successfully, particularly when there are grant funds available to support coalition work.

In conclusion, effective coalition building is strongly rooted in an understanding of and sensitivity to the dynamics of power, as well as the practice of cultural humility. We offer these insights and tips with the full recognition that building collaborative partnerships that truly honor diversity can be both challenging and rewarding. It calls organizations and individual staff to reflect honestly and communicate authentically about interests and commitments, culture and difference. These discussions are essential to building effective coalitions, powerful partnerships and responsive and inclusive policies and systems.

Here are a few resources on coalition building that you might find helpful:

Prevention Institute’s Eight Steps

Community Toolbox

Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources

These days, I am working for a number of organizations providing evaluation support, program management, and strategic planning. I have the pleasure of working in fields I am very familiar with: alcohol and drug prevention, domestic violence prevention, and public health; and with agencies that are opening up new worlds for me: Aging & Disability Resource Connections and evaluation of services for the blind.

At the County, and in my personal life, I’ve been involved with some work around bullying prevention, and in particular, community building to address the frightening trend in suicides among queer youth. If you haven’t heard about the “It Gets Better” movement on YouTube, check out this one that I thought was very powerful.

A great site to check out is http://eevaluation.blogspot.com/ for news and information about empowerment evaluation.