Immigration In America

The new guide is available to purchase for download or as a hardcopy at the National Issues Forums Institute website.

The following is from the introduction to 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.

This 12-page issue guide presents an overview of the problem and three options for deliberation.

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.

The new guide is available to purchase for download or as a hardcopy at the National Issues Forums Institute website.

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.

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

For more about the report, visit United Way.

Mannakee President Brad Rourke was lead author of the report.

The report is available from NCoC here.

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. CIRCLE did the core data analysis and we are 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.

From the press release:

The first-ever look at Maryland’s civic health – how state residents work together for the common good -- shows a Free State that fared above average in each of nine major indicators evaluated, but that fared lower than researchers anticipated due to the state’s higher-than-average median income, strong education systems and location.

The Maryland Civic Health Index looked at volunteerism, social connections, voting habits and political engagement, among other indicators. Perhaps not surprisingly given its proximity to the nation’s capital, the civic health indicator Maryland scored highest on was talking politics. Nearly 46 percent reported talking about politics with family and friends, higher than the national average of about 39 percent, and 5th highest among all states. The state’s weakest indicator of civic health was the frequency with which Marylanders dine at night with family. About 87 percent of Marylanders said they eat dinner at least a few times a week with family or other household members, lower than the national average of 89 percent, and 47th overall.

Other results show:

Nearly 30 percent of Marylanders are involved in volunteerism, a participation rate of about 3 percent higher than the national average of 26.8 percent and 23rd overall.

About 9 percent work with neighbors, slightly higher than the national average and 26th overall.

More than 68 percent of Marylanders voted in the 2008 presidential election, compared to the national average of nearly 64 percent, 11th overall among states. The voting registration rate in Maryland was even higher for that same election, with about 74 percent of residents registered to vote, compared to 71 percent of the national average and 18th overall.

About 16.6 percent exchanged favors with a neighbor, slightly higher than the national average and 27th among all states.

Some 28 percent engaged in one or more non-electoral political acts, higher than the national average of 26.3 percent and 24th overall.

About 40 percent of Marylanders belong to a group, compared to the national average of 35 percent and 15th overall.

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.

Case Foundation CEO Jean Case wrote a blog post introducing the report, in which she says:

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.

The White House has posted a piece on the report, too, on the blog of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That blog bost calls the meeting “groundbreaking” (it was) and points out the section of the report that contains five dos and don’ts of using prizes and challenges for leveraging resources and driving change.

We could not be more pleased about this report, and we are grateful to the Case Foundation and to the White House for making it possible.

Titled An Evolving Relationship – Executive Branch Approaches to Civic Engagement and Philanthropy, it is based on a briefing paper Mannakee president Brad Rourke wrote for a White House meeting earlier this year between leaders of the philanthropic community and Executive Branch officials. We  thank PACE for the opportunity to work on this report, and for choosing to publish it.

From the PACE press release:

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:

-Chris Gates, Executive Director of PACE at cgates@pacefunders.org

-Brad Rourke, Mannakee Circle Group at rourke@mannakeecircle.com

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. Brad Rourke is the author.

Underage drinking: How can we prevent and reduce the number of children drinking alcohol?

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.

The guide contains 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:

The Mannakee Circle group enjoyed working on this project and we thank the National Issues Forums and the Leadership Foundation for the opportunity!

To learn more about how to host your own community conversation on this issue, contact the Leadership Foundation.

Rourke presented with Joe Peters, president of Ascentum, and David Campt, president of WDC, Inc.

Rourke's presentation laid out key aspect of what it means for public-facing institutions to engage using new technologies, including an overview of what the new, citizen-centric world looks like (based on work with John Creighton) and went through a few very basic examples to get people’s ideas flowing. The presentation is available here.

The audience of more than a hundred mayors, city council members, and other local officials had a number of questions and Rourke authored this article in the Washington Times Communities to address some of them.