Deliberative Polls: Italy: Regione Lazio
Italy's First Deliberative Poll offers the Informed Views of Citizens on Health Care and on Investment Priorities
Stanford University
January 8, 2007
On December 3, the Regione Lazio held the first Deliberative Poll® ever conducted in Italy to get the views of a scientific sample of citizens about difficult budget choices facing the region. Deliberative Polling begins with a survey of the conventional sort and then convenes the scientific sample to meet together in small groups and in larger sessions with competing experts. At the end of the process the participants take the same questionnaire as when first contacted. By the end of the process, the respondents were much more informed about the issues and they had changed their views in some significant ways. They considered two issues, health care and how to invest the proceeds from Ethical Bonds.
On health care, the most notable result was that the percentage believing the Regione should "convert some of its beds into other resources that make the structures more efficient" went from 45% before deliberation to 62%. Apparently, the participants did not object to the high idea of a high number of beds, but they did support changes that might allow the resources to be used more efficiently. When asked whether "a high number of beds is a sign that public health care is not working very well." Majorities disagreed, both before and after (62% before and 65% after). Support for converting some of the hospital beds specifically into" poly-ambulatory facilities where you can go for some checks that now you can receive only through hospitalization" changed only slightly, but was very high both before and after-87% before and 85% after deliberation.
On Ethical Bonds, the participants were asked to offer their priorities, among four possibilities, for how the money from ethical bonds should be spent. The options were:Restoring the schools in the territory, Reclamation of water resources, Strengthening differentiated waste collection and waste management, improving the network of those transports which respect the environment and are less pollution. Before deliberation the relative priorities were transportation, waste schools and water. After deliberation, the relative priorities were transportation, schools, waste and water.
The participants became dramatically more informed over the course of the deliberations. They were asked specific information questions both before and after. Correct answers for the six information questions increased by an average of 44 points. The questions concerned issues such as the highest item of expense in the Lazio budget (health care--correct answers increasing from 75% to 90%), the financial requirements for Ethical Bonds (correct answers increasing from 14 to 47%), and whether Ethical Bonds offer the same rate of return as state bonds (correct answers increasing from 29 to 59%). The pattern in Deliberative Polls has been for those who increase in knowledge to change their views. The sample offers a public voice worth listening to because it is a scientific microcosm of the population offering its views after it has had a chance to become more informed.
The participants offered a very high evaluation of the process. 97.5% of the participants agreed that "My small group moderator provided the opportunity for everyone to participate in the discussion." 92.4% agreed that "The important aspects of the issues were covered in the group discussions." 76.5% agreed that "opposing aspects were considered" and 90% disagreed that "My small group moderator sometimes tried to influence the group with his or her own views." In addition, 63% said that they had " read all or nearly all of the briefing materials" and 77% said that they had read "half or more."
The participants for the day came from a scientific sample interviewed by ISPO. There were 1,990 initial interviews. If one compares the 119 who participated on the day with the other 1,881 in the initial sample, there were only a few statistically significant differences on the specific policy issues that were the subject of deliberation. However, the participants did show some demographic differences: they were somewhat older, somewhat more educated, somewhat more well off. In addition, they were somewhat more left-leaning in their general political orientation. However, when the sample was weighted by ideology, the main results remained unchanged.
The project was conducted by ISPO and Reset in conjunction with academic advisors from the US. The team included Renato Mannheimer (ISPO), Giancarlo Bosetti (Reset), Mauro Buonocore (Reset), and James Fishkin (Stanford University) and Robert C. Luskin (Stanford and the University of Texas at Austin).