Bush Foundation: Engagement audit findings

1. Prepared by Bush Foundation: Engagement audit findings

2. Audit Report: Overview • Introduction (Slide 3) • Audit Methodology (Slides 4 - 8) • Overview • Questions • Timeline • Interviewees • Audit Findings (Slides 9 - 61) • Meaning of community engagement to solve problems • Supporting community engagement online and offline • Connecting to InCommons tools and spaces • Key Questions (Slides 62 - 63) • Appendices (Slides 64 – 70)

3. Introduction • Grassroots Solutions was hired by the Bush Foundation to undertake an engagement audit in Minnesota and more limited scans in North Dakota and South Dakota. • The purpose of the audit and scans was to explore lessons from applicable community engagement and problem solving efforts, to identify available engagement resources, and to examine barriers. • The audit process was designed to help answer three fundamental questions: • What does it mean to engage communities to solve problems online and offline? • How do you support community engagement efforts online and offline? • How do you connect and engage individuals and civic institutions with the tools and spaces that the Bush Foundation is creating to ensure that they are accessed to maximum effect? • This report contains the findings from the engagement audit interviews. It preceded the development of an engagement plan. The plan was informed by the these findings, as well as other relevant research and information collected by Wilder Research and graduate students from the Humphrey Institute.

4. This section describes the specific steps that were taken to gather information and conduct the engagement audit. Engagement audit methodology

5. Methodology: Overview • The audit and scans were qualitative in nature. • 59 phone and in-person interviews were conducted with 62 individuals; 43 from Minnesota, 8 from North Dakota, and 11 from South Dakota. • Grassroots Solutions used the software NVivo 8.0 to help analyze the qualitative data collected through the interviews, which allowed for deep, yet flexible, analysis. • The audit findings reflect consistent feedback, key themes, and lessons learned from across the interviews.

6. Methodology: Interview Questions • How would you describe you or your organization’s community engagement/organizing efforts? What does community engagement/organizing mean to your organization? • What do you see as you or your organization’s biggest community engagement/organizing achievements? Why were they successful and what were the characteristics of these successful efforts? • In your experience, what have been the most significant challenges or barriers to you or your organization in doing community engagement/organizing and/or working with local leaders to engage communities to solve problems? • What kind of support do you think that organizations, communities, and leaders need to be more successful in identifying and solving community problems? • What other effective community engagement/organizing efforts are you aware of that are currently taking place to help solve problems? • Why do you think existing civic institutions have not already engaged their stakeholders and constituents in identifying and solving community and state problems on a broad scale? • The Bush Foundation is working on a project that will provide physical and virtual spaces where leaders and citizens can access and share the information, skills, networks, training, data, access to expertise, and support they need to engage their communities and major institutions around local and state problems and solutions. What is your initial impression of this? What do you think it would take to help ensure that online and offline resources are utilized to maximum effect and impact? Note: For a complete list of interview questions (including additional probing questions), see Appendix I.

7. Methodology: Timeline

8. Methodology: Interview List Note: For the complete list of interviewees, see Appendix II. • Interviewees represented civic institutions, networking organizations, community organizing and advocacy groups, leadership programs, members of the media, and individual thought leaders. • Individuals interviewed were identified and selected in collaboration with Bush Foundation staff. Input from interviewees and others about the interview list was also solicited throughout the process.

9. Audit Findings

10. Organization of the Audit Findings • There are 18 qualitative findings that reflect consistent feedback and key themes from across the interviews. In some instances, findings are supplemented by direct quotations that express commonly held views in the respondents’ own words. • The findings are organized around the three main questions that the audit sought to answer: • What does it mean to engage communities to solve problems? • How do you support community engagement efforts? • How do you connect and engage individuals and civic institutions with the tools and spaces that the Bush Foundation is creating? • Finally, there is a visual representation of the most frequently used words across the interviews.

11. Audit Summary Approaches to community engagement vary considerably. However, there is near universal agreement that community engagement involves bringing a variety of stakeholders into conversation, and that leaders need an engaged community to be successful. Resources, tools, and human support that help leaders engage community members online AND offline (on a long-term basis) are most directly needed. The success of InCommons hinges on a clear articulation of the project and mutually aligned self-interest, as well as the establishment of physical and virtual presences that reflect a shared sense of community ownership in an ongoing way.

12. The findings in this section relate to defining community engagement, exploring the role of leadership, and identifying community engagement success factors and barriers. I. What does it mean to engage communities to solve problems online and offline?

13. Finding #1: There was broad agreement that, at a minimum, community engagement involves bringing people into a conversation to advance a shared purpose. However, engagement frameworks and specific approaches varied significantly. There was consensus that, at the most basic level, community engagement brings multiple stakeholders into conversation to forward a common value or goal. Community engagement meant various things to different organizations and individuals across Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This was reflected in the range of terminology used to describe community engagement, which included “engagement,” “community organizing,” “building community power,” “advocacy,” “outreach,” and “community listening.”

14. Finding #1 (cont’d): There was broad agreement that, at a minimum, community engagement involves bringing people into a conversation to advance a shared purpose. However, engagement frameworks and specific approaches varied significantly. Approaches to community engagement also varied in terms of the emphasis placed on three things: having an engaged process, outcomes, and the role of power. In some cases, community engagement approaches concentrated more on process than outcome; bringing a diversity of voices into conversation could be an end goal in and of itself. For others, community engagement was ultimately more focused on outcomes. Finally, the weight that community organizing groups, in particular, placed on the importance of understanding the role of “power” in a community (who has it, how to increase it, etc.) differed from that of other respondents, which raises questions about the role and frame of power within “Shirley.” The diversity of approaches to, and definitions of, community engagement espoused by various leaders, organizations, and institutions highlighted the challenge of scale and ambition of the Bush Foundation’s InCommons project. It also highlights the potential need for targeting over time, versus attempting to appeal to a broad audience all at once.

15. In their words… “Engagement is getting people to the table…You socialize first, and then you get to the issue or topic or problem.” “Community engagement is a process of bringing a diversity of voices into a dialogue process for what is appropriate for circumstances to address an issue of interest.” “To me, it is really truly figuring out and bringing all stakeholders into the conversation.” “What it doesn’t mean is that we have to have consensus: community engagement means bringing representatives from the community into the conversation…It means different segments of the community and not just aggregate numbers.” “Community engagement serves two purposes: 1) It helps define the problem as accurately as possible, and then 2) build a constituency around the solutions.” “To us…it [community engagement/organizing] is based on building leadership and shifting power in communities.  Not completely defined by issues and issue mobilization or even problem solving.” “What the heck do we mean by community engagement? We've been calling it community power.”

16. Finding #2: The importance of leadership was widely acknowledged as central to problem solving, though not in the absence of an engaged community. Change was widely perceived to require leadership and an engaged community (or “organized base”) to move an idea or solution forward. There was a broad sense that leadership, in combination with “bottom up” approaches to engaging other community members in articulating a problem (or opportunity) and the path forward, are the most important ingredients for change. There were mixed reactions to the notion of engaging a community to solve a problem, versus engaging community to embrace an opportunity. Some suggested that trying to engage people around a problem can be harder than engaging them around an innovate idea or solution, which raises questions about language that resonates best, as well as the kind of support leaders, communities, and organizations need to help frame their efforts.

17. In their words… “…I don’t want to discredit the followers. They are often as critical as the leaders because those are the folks who support and get things done for the leaders.  Would ask not to forget the followers—equally important.” “Our belief is that change occurs not because you [the leader] have the right answer, but you have been able to build sufficient power and bring sufficient people together. It comes from people coming together and being able to express what they want...” “People are encouraged to make improvement because of innate creativity of the [leaders], but only way to make substantive policy changes or institutional changes are through change makers in organizations applying creativity…and who are interested in bringing a mass of other people around an issue.” “Try to stay away from problem-solving; it should be more about opportunity creation.”

18. Finding #3: Effective leaders were most commonly identified as those who listen well, bring a variety of perspectives to the table, and transfer or share leadership (and power) with others. It was widely acknowledged that leadership can take a lot of forms, and the paths to get there can be formal or informal. That said, the most effective leaders were widely perceived to be those who can spark and help harness the collective wisdom of the community in identifying and solving problems or seizing opportunities. There was a general sense that there are a lot of people who demonstrate leadership (and have the most influence inside of a community) who are not recognized as such by established organizations or groups outside of that community (particularly in Native American communities and other communities of color). It was also widely observed that many current and potential leaders would not self-identify as leaders. Visibility and recognition often play significant roles in identifying and cultivating leadership. “Passionate, ” “interested,” “committed to bettering their community,” “catalysts,” and “innovators” were terms regularly used to describe leaders, though having a great idea alone was generally not viewed as enough to guarantee success. The ability to build relationships, inspire, and develop a shared interest with others in advancing an idea was broadly considered critical to success.

19. In their words… “Not about putting people into boxes and only a leader when in one role. Leader regardless of role, leader at home, everywhere.” “Important to get people out of the mindset that leader is solely positional, transactional. Different circumstances require different kinds of leadership.” “Got to the reservation and asked around for this woman. The community people sent her to another woman with the same name who had no formal education, but by the community, considered to be community leader. Culturally, recognized as such.” “Part of being courageous leader is about bringing other people in. Leadership needs to be shared and moved out, whether paid or unpaid…When that is happening you have something that is exponential to move something.” “Leadership consists of being able to articulate something worth doing and being able to mobilize people to help you do it.” “I kind of feel like a really big part of it is bringing together a core group to guide the change…If you are not mindful of the relationship part and working on that, the relationship among people, you are less likely to be successful.” “I would say that the majority of the best leaders don't initially identify as leaders. They have something they are really concerned about and look for someone to do something about it, they can't find anybody, and start to figure things out.” “Courageous leaders need someone to identify them and develop them (at least much of the time).”

20. Finding #4: There was consensus that community engagement involves hard work, face-to-face interaction, and a vehicle for leaders to engage communities. There was a widespread sense that engaging community is not for the “faint of heart.” It is both labor and time intensive. Making in-person connections was still widely viewed as the most fundamental aspect of community engagement, and online tools and resources were generally viewed as currently playing a supporting role. Even among technology enthusiasts, there was consistent agreement about the importance of convening people face-to-face to complement online or virtual community engagement activities. At the same time, there was sizeable interest in broadening the scale and reach of community engagement activities, with some connecting that to the potential of online tools. While not a universally held view, there was a significant sense that leaders often need some connection to an organization or organized vehicle (e.g., nonprofits, advocacy groups, affinity networks, institutions, etc.) in order to engage communities effectively.

21. In their words… “Democracy takes time and is messy.” “[You need] a willingness to actually go to the community or population that you are trying to affect and engage people in the process who are often overlooked. We tend, in many cases, tend to say, well, you have to do this.” “Starting to do some things more effectively with technology…investing in online organizing infrastructure…to link to social networking sites to create a series of actions people can take to help them grow leadership in the online leadership they are taking. Online to offline: Take action at home and then get involved in-person. Some dreams I have is when we can do video conferencing around a table. Virtual meeting spaces.” “One of the big challenges today is that people are so buried in their technology and in their homes, laptops. You can’t solve problems online. You have to get people together physically: face-to-face.” “Nothing happens without organizations. They are often vehicles for engagement.” “Institutions will outlive players at the table.”

22. Finding #5: Community engagement achievements shared characteristics that cut across organizations, individuals, and geographies: ownership, trust, mutually aligned self-interest, good process, and incremental success. There was near universal agreement that communities know best what their problems are, the way to solve them, and the definition of success. Community ownership of the problem (or idea) and the path forward was deemed a critical success factor. However, that did not necessarily mean that a community could not benefit from outside resources, ideas, or expertise. It was widely noted that a community’s articulation of problem or definition of success could sometimes be at odds with those of funders, organizations, or others with an interest in the matter. Trust was a common feature of community engagement achievements, and efforts that dedicated space to laying the groundwork so that stakeholders felt that they could be heard and respected were viewed as more successful than those that skipped this important step.

23. Finding #5 (cont’d): Community engagement achievements shared characteristics that cut across organizations, individuals, and geographies: ownership, trust, mutually aligned self-interest, good process, and incremental success. Having mutually aligned self-interest was also a common attribute of successful community engagement efforts. There was a widespread sense that community engagement activities that do not take self-interest into account or rely too heavily on either altruism or top-down mandates are less effective. Good process, which was typically defined as transparent, open, and inclusive, was a trait that was regularly used to distinguish community engagement achievements from their less successful counterparts. Particularly among community organizing groups and organizations working with communities of color, it was suggested that good process also involves developing an understanding of the stakeholders who are not at the decision-making table and should be part of the conversation.

24. Finding #5 (cont’d): Community engagement achievements shared characteristics that cut across organizations, individuals, and geographies: ownership, trust, mutually aligned self-interest, good process, and incremental success. Finally, it was broadly observed that community engagement achievements were often characterized by incremental success. Rather than beginning by trying to tackle a complex or large-scale problem from the get-go, a community would often set its sights on smaller goals and build momentum around the success of those endeavors first.

25. In their words… “Got to have the local ownership and face…If you already know all the answers, then don’t go ask.” “Key is to have a need that is not a need identified by outsiders but by insiders. Then have a support system for insiders.” “The so called people in charge, they had to take a leap of faith that…these folks know best… Person running the program thought, oh, we are going to spend money on that? But that was hugely successful among the kids.  But wouldn’t have been funded if it had been up to programmatic people at the top.” “For one, you really need, right from the get-go, to build trusting relationships…You have to build the relationships with people where they trust you.  A lot of this work is about basic trust.” “Instead of asking a problem-based question, suggested what was an example of when you were really proud of the school and town? Shared stories.  Community-wide dialogue…and then worked to create another approach.  Few things that emerged from that: began to recognize common purpose, find where there is shared experience and common agreement. Then could begin to build a level of trust.”

26. In their words… “Process is everything. If that process doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t lead anywhere, the result is just a big unreliable discussion.” “People in community know best what they want to do. We bring tools, but there has to be buy-in.” “One of the other dimensions that we have found to motivate folks is to have a real close alignment between what you are doing and self-interest.” “Biggest thing we tried to do was help identify what brings people who care about a problem into trying to solve the problem.” “Communities often pick simple, non threatening activity first. Through success of limited projects will take on the more complex.” “Trying too much or too big—need to start small, demonstrate completely and go from there. Barrier is that people’s efforts crumble under own expectations.” “Need intermittent success.”

27. Finding #6: Because of the time consuming and risky nature of doing community engagement work, patience and a willingness to make a long-term commitment were widely considered key determinants of success or failure. Building relationships with an engaged base of community members to advance an idea or solution does not happen overnight. Yet there was a widespread sense that impatience to see outcomes often results in skipping the important step of base building and going straight to “campaigning” or “mobilizing,” which was perceived to diminish the effectiveness of community engagement efforts to solve problems and prevent potential increases in scale. In addition, arriving at the definition of a problem and a solution that is shared by the community can be a slow process. In many instances, problems and solutions that were identified by the community differ from what was initially put forward by leaders and organizations. That engaged process was widely perceived to yield better results, but required more time and a longer-term commitment of human and financial resources. Community engagement aimed at solving problems involves risk; some activities will work and others will not. However, rather than learning from negative or unexpected results, community engagement efforts were often abandoned. These failures were commonly believed to stem from risk aversion and funders’ and organizational leaders’ adopting a short-term lens versus making long-term commitment.

28. In their words… • “Stuff doesn’t happen overnight, especially with leaders and engaging communities.” • “You can’t underestimate need for commitment long-term. People have short span of attention and focus. Even teaching patience is a huge thing.” • “Hard sell to say you have to take some time to build trust Have to take some time to identify values. All action oriented…If you would have asked the typical leader in the community, they would mostly have all said the core is the jobs. But for the community, the number one thing was the green space in town. Completely different. To them, if they lost their green space it would be changed forever. It takes time to surface that.” • “Hard work. Risky. Challenging. Putting out point of view. Can succeed or fail!” • “How do you bring to scale? Definitely a challenge. Funders don’t appreciate what it takes…To be effective has to be sustained over the long haul.” • “Long slog. Need to develop public relationships with people who are willing to come together. Building those relationships and inviting others to the table, feels like that is kind of the heart and soul of stuff that really works.” • “People want to see the stuff sticking out of the water. It’s the visible stuff, ‘outcome oriented.’ If it is a really effective campaign, there is a lot of infrastructure and time. Base building needs protected space. Need time for face-to-face visits.” • “Our greatest inability is to let things play out knowing that many will fail. We have to invest in enough good things and know when we find the ones that work.”

29. Finding #7: Inadequate funding, the status quo, racism, isolation, and challenges of scale were commonly viewed as major barriers to success in community engagement and problem solving efforts. There was consensus that insufficient funding for community engagement (versus programmatic or service-related efforts) was a primary barrier to success, particularly as it related to staffing and human resources. There was significant interest in funding specifically to hire more organizers, to recruit and manage more volunteers, and to develop and support leaders who engage community to solve problems. Within rural areas and among smaller organizations, there was considerable interest in hiring staff or contractors with more technical expertise to help them leverage online and digital tools more effectively to complement their offline engagement activities. The “status quo” was broadly perceived as a significant barrier to successful community engagement and problem solving. There was widespread skepticism about civic institutions’ and influential organizations’ interest in change, or their willingness to give up the power they have.

30. Finding #7 (cont’d): Inadequate funding, the status quo, racism, isolation, and challenges of scale were commonly viewed as major barriers to success in community engagement and problem solving efforts. Racism was almost universally observed (though particularly among respondents in South Dakota and those working with or representing communities of color) to be a major barrier to success in engaging community to solve problems and the most likely to be ignored. It was also commonly held that racism was often ignored in the context of community engagement. Furthermore, many organizations and groups with good intentions were often guilty of trying to fix a problem affecting communities of color without actually engaging those constituencies directly, thereby reducing the chances of success. A sense of isolation was regularly cited as a barrier to success. This was particularly common among respondents in rural communities but also used to describe the experience of leaders in more populated areas as well.

31. Finding #7 (cont’d): Inadequate funding, the status quo, racism, isolation, and challenges of scale were commonly viewed as major barriers to success in community engagement and problem solving efforts. The challenge of expanding the reach of community engagement efforts emerged as a barrier across the interviews. To most this meant having the ability to move beyond their current core leaders and volunteers to include lots more people. Some observed that this is where the role of online tools could be pivotal in broadening the scope of community engagement work by providing leaders and community members different entry points to engage others and help identify and solve problems. However, for others, particularly in communities with significant Native American populations, some rural communities, and among smaller organizations, there was a strong sense that fundamental technology infrastructure challenges and barriers to acceptance of new tools must first be addressed before online resources can be adopted and used effectively.

32. In their words… “[A barrier] is the financial capacity to purchase people’s time to do this work, also volunteer capacity.” “Would have a staff person if we had the funding, but now have a trimmed down version for staffing. Funding plays a role in terms of community change work and community building.” “It’s tied to resources and the staff capacity to do this. We don’t have someone who is a dedicated person—it is part of everyone’s job. Would like a community organizer on staff.” “Another barrier is technical expertise that can be part of our staff, coalition, or group. Until this spring, trying to get website things done on the cheap…wasn’t professional and didn’t work….having the ability to access it, pay for it, and integrate into what we do. Website stuff, other organizations often aren’t making good use of it, either.” “Big barrier or challenge is the status quo. There is a power dynamic. The new kids on the block are always struggling to gain respect and access to resources.” “Small communities feel isolated.” “Can’t go at this in a color blind way—have to address structural issues underneath the problem or you replicate it.”

33. In their words… “We have some of the worst racial disparities anywhere in the country…it’s amazing (not in a good way). Five years ago, when we started to look at this, saw an organizing world that tends to be further out and taking more risks than what I often see described as civic engagement. They weren’t anywhere near this…Had a color blind view of what was happening in Minnesota, defined on economics, defined on what was politically palatable. What that meant was that it quietly isolated people’s voices.” “Stereotypes, particularly when dealing with Native American populations (a. local leaders say that’s just the way they are and b. historical perceptions of the population). Becomes very difficult to address the largest issues in a state where they affect a population that does not have a real advocacy group supporting them.” “Rural communities and tribal communities don’t have access to technology. I don’t have complete access to cell phones let alone the Internet.” “Do all people have equal access or understanding of how technology can help them to effect change and harness input virtually? But all communities don’t have knowledge and access. Digital divide in different parts of the state.” “Right now, I think for us it [online tools] could be an incredible resource, but takes a whole other set of skills to figure out how to use it in ways to be accessible to a range of community members interested in making change.”

34. Finding #8: Interestingly, neither a lack of information nor online resources were widely perceived to be principal barriers to success in engaging community to solve problems. Though data, in particular, was regularly mentioned as useful to informing community engagement work, a lack of information was not commonly perceived to be a principal barrier to problem solving. Rather, there was a significant sense that there is plenty of information out there. The issue is finding exactly what you are looking for, and people are craving a credible person or entity to connect with to direct them to relevant information. While there was cautious optimism about the role that online tools can play to support and enhance community engagement work, there was not a widespread sense that a lack of online resources was a principal barrier to success. This may in part be attributed to the audience and generational perspective of the majority of respondents. It is worth noting the difference between urban and rural perspectives on the subject of information and online resources. Some respondents in rural areas did observe that a lack of data and studies to inform their community engagement work inhibited their success. Many in rural areas also noted that the lack of availability of high-speed Internet and a more robust technological infrastructure did prevent them from taking full advantage of online resources, though like other individuals interviewed, this was still not perceived to be a primary barrier to success.

35. The findings that follow relate to the resources and support needed to support community engagement activities to identify and solve problems. II. How do you support community engagement efforts online and offline?

36. Finding #9: There was consistent agreement that leaders and communities would benefit from connections to training and tools that develop community engagement and base building skills, in particular. It was widely acknowledged that access to training that develops leadership skills to engage communities to identify and solve problems or embrace opportunities, particularly when combined with some form of ongoing mentorship, would be useful. Being able to frame an idea, solution, or issue that is inspiring and attractive to other community members was consistently held up as an area where additional skills and access to training resources would be beneficial, as well as suggestions for working with traditional and new media media to disseminate messages. It was widely observed that leaders and communities often convene and run ineffective in-person meetings and online gatherings (e.g., webinars). Training and tools for running an engaged meeting and/or facilitating a successful group discussion online or offline was desirable. Access to training and tools for consensus building and conflict resolution also came up frequently.

37. Finding #9 (cont’d): There was consistent agreement that leaders and communities would benefit from connections to training and tools that develop community engagement and base building skills, in particular. Finally, there was widespread interest in training to educate leaders, communities, and organizations about relevant online tools and technological resources and the ways to utilize them effectively in community engagement and problem solving activities. It was broadly observed that that assistance is likely needed to connect leaders and communities to existing training and tools that speak to the subjects of greatest interest. In many instances, it will not be necessary to create something new, though there may be some gaps in training and tools available on the aforementioned topics.

38. In their words… “Training would be useful, building on that with mentorship and connection/ways to build on relationships and maintain them.” “For a society that spends so much time meeting, we are really bad at it.” “People need some basic training in how community organizing works…In some ways seems simple, but truth is that it is not as simple as it may seem. Building sound leadership is tough.” “Need to know how to use and understand resources online and offline.” “Message training would be helpful. Helping people deliver that message.” “A large need is communication, especially how to work with media and new media. We often find that the most passionate leaders, who feel extremely strongly, aren’t prepared as the best messengers for the public. Train folks to communicate in a way that general public can hear them.” “Could rattle off a bunch of stuff: Human relationship skills, data definition and refinement skills, there are speaking skills, facilitation skills, there are technical skills...”

39. Finding #10: Leaders and communities generally welcomed access to stories, expertise, and relevant information filtered or provided by credible entities. Coming up with an innovative idea or a solution to a community problem is “no small feat.” Success stories, best practices, and lessons learned from credible entities were perceived favorably largely because of their potential to inspire innovative ideas and generate solutions to community problems. There was also a strong sense that, in addition to learning about successes, knowledge about what has not worked in other communities would also be beneficial to avoid repeating the same mistakes. While there was broad agreement about the importance of community ownership in identifying problems and solutions, there was also a significant sense that the expertise required to create the desired change does not always exist in a given community. Getting directed by a trusted source to the right kind of expertise, not just pointed to a directory, was widely welcomed. Assistance with locating or interpreting the most relevant data or information would be useful. This was particularly true for smaller communities and in rural areas.

40. In their words… “Sharing those best practices, case studies helpful. Don’t want to reinvent the wheel about what has worked in other communities, but not aware of what worked in other communities.” “I think it is useful to bring colleagues together…Value in comparing best practices.” “If resources were online that could connect to other communities—that information is very exciting!” “We are low in certain expertise, and having pool from Twin Cities area, we pull on that pool. We have a lot, but we don’t have everything.” “One of the positives of the electronic meeting is that you can bring higher levels of expertise than you could face-to-face….and introduce people to expertise that may never come to their community/location.” “Part of the struggle is that there is so much information.” “There are translation issues (not just in language), but in our work, for example, we tried to translate data into accessible forms that would be usable to the lay person.” “Need analysis of data…I wanted was to say here is what the population looks like, here are the percentages…Lacked analysis and slicing and dicing.”

41. Finding #11: There was broad observation about the need for recognition and providing meaningful ways for leaders to connect with each other. In-person gatherings continue to be regarded as essential elements of community engagement to identify and solve problems. There was widespread enthusiasm about in-person gatherings that go where people already are, respect participants’ time and yet also allow for meaningful opportunities to talk to one another and build relationships. However, the type of conference described (e.g., that creates ample space for conversation, smaller group discussion, more relationship building time, etc.) may not be the most efficient or cost effective. When done properly, conferences, meetings, and other convenings can have significant value in reducing isolation among leaders (particularly in smaller communities), providing an opportunity to recognize each other’s good work and ideas, and offering spaces to share stories of success and failure. Attention to basic logistical details and the removal of obvious barriers to participation (such as a lack of food and/or childcare, uncomfortable meeting space, poor timing, etc.) were widely observed as critical to holding successful in-person gatherings, and yet they often continue to be overlooked.

42. Finding #11 (cont’d): There was broad observation about the need for recognition and providing meaningful ways for leaders to connect with each other. Recognition came up over and over in relation to the support and resources that leaders, organizations, and communities need to be more successful. Finding ways give notice to, celebrate, or recognize hard work and achievements would benefit and help sustain community engagement efforts to solve problems over time. There was a strong desire expressed for supporting meaningful connections and relationships among leaders, as well as spaces to recharge and reenergize both online and offline. Many described this need as the conference space that takes place outside the “official conference,” though thinking on the subject was not strictly limited to in-person gatherings.

43. In their words… “People are hungering for recognition for work they are doing with little money. Just want a pat on the back. You have done good. Institutions that have the gravitas to do that should do it more. Grants are one thing, but recognition feeds the soul.” “Sometimes what they need is recognition from outside—don’t get it from inside…Recognition that you are doing a good job. “There are not enough rewards for these leaders to not burn out….built into the conference of highly intellectual development was a lot of space for psychological component of what it takes to be a leader. Lots of people burn out.” “To sustain, need to celebrate as you go along. Otherwise, you burn out or get burned…people just want to go home and do laundry.” “Conferences can be good, but often too big…and unless you learn something that you can put into practice quickly, that is not good. They help create networks and relationships. It also depends on how relevant the people are to your work. However, many do not facilitate networking and relationships.”

44. In their words… “Factors of convenience and self-interest that make it [community engagement] more attractive.  We lament how few are engaged. Not true—same willingness to be engaged, but tolerance for things that aren’t interesting or easy is lower.” “Have to give good food.” “People like good food. Gathering space, physical creature comforts, warm, comfortable, hot coffee are important.  I always really appreciate having technology available at a meeting. Want people to use technology to help convey their message.” “Another thing is to find out where the action is. Where do people gather in a physical space? Couple main conferences that happen in the summer. I had never gone, and the light bulb went off. Very people-to-people, networking, sharing ideas. We had developed a CD-Rom, nobody noticed it. I had to go out and evangelize about the CD-Rom. Even in this day and age of technology, it is about personal connection. How can you make being a leader easy for them?”

45. Finding #12: Money was universally recognized as a resource that would help organizations, communities, and leaders be more successful in engaging community and building a base. There was consensus that financial resources are a key factor for success, but not the only factor. Leaders often lack the time and human capital to be more successful. Furthermore, there was widespread agreement that support in the form of money should reflect more than a handout, and its potential to have the greatest impact is in its direction toward building community engagement skills and long-term capacity to increase scale and get more people involved. Particularly among community organizing groups, though not exclusively, there was a shared sense that money for additional or better trained organizers/staff is really the most important resource needed to support current base building and problem solving activities that have demonstrated success to broaden their scale. No one discounted the need for accountability or results. With money comes the need for accountability; however, there was a hunger for long-term financial commitments that create the space for ongoing base building and innovation, not just short-term outcomes. The frequency with which money came up across the interviews raised significant questions about the role of money in the InCommons project.

46. The findings that follow reflect reactions to the InCommons project and perceived success factors. III. How do you connect and engage individuals and civic institutions with the tools and spaces that the Bush Foundation is creating?

47. Finding #13: There was cautious optimism about the Bush Foundation’s goal and general agreement that InCommons is needed; however, enthusiasm was tempered by considerable confusion and concern about the project, the Bush Foundation’s role, and implementation. While the majority of respondents generally viewed the InCommons concept as laudable and worthwhile, it was also widely observed that the project sounded “abstract,” “intangible,” and “academic.” That confusion may have engendered some of the anxiety expressed in reaction to the Foundation's undertaking. For example, there was some fear that the Foundation is trying to create the “uber” platform, or that the Foundation's involvement in InCommons will signal an end to other funding support for community engagement. Many wondered specifically how InCommons would make what they do now better; its potential for success largely being perceived as a matter of implementation. Community organizing groups were notably the most skeptical about the project’s value as a whole. Some wondered whether resources dedicated to InCommons would be better spent supporting the groups that are already engaging the most people now by increasing their organizational capacity. There was considerable confusion about how the online tool would integrate with offline engagement resources. Across the board, there was a strong desire to understand the role that humans will play in executing the InCommons project, not just the tools involved. Questions about the connection of online and offline resources, as well as the physical presence of InCommons in a given community came up frequently. The notion of Facebook, meets Craig’s List, meets Meet-up drew some favorable reactions.

48. Finding #13 (cont’d): There was cautious optimism about the Bush Foundation’s goal and general agreement that InCommons is needed; however, enthusiasm was tempered by considerable confusion and concern about the project, the Bush Foundation’s role, and implementation. Particularly among groups and organizations that work in or with communities of color (though not exclusively), there was skepticism that the Bush Foundation’s initiative would reflect input from their communities in an ongoing way. It appeared from the outside that the Foundation is already in the process of developing something to which people will simply be forced to react or asked to adopt because a powerful funder tells them to. There was considerable concern that the InCommons project’s lofty aspirations may be out of sync with people’s personal experiences, which are grounded in immediate concerns about the economy, jobs, and poverty.

49. In their words… “I think it is absolutely something that is needed, but my flags go up. My flags go up about conscripting things for communities of color and not fully supporting them.” “I am skeptical. However, think really, really needed, but skeptical in that I don’t know exactly how they will go about it.” “My initial impression was: What does that mean? Sounds like in the Twin Cities. Or is it that NING thing? It sounds like consultant speak. Would like to be part of it. Intrigued. We would sure use the expertise and assistance, if some of the assistance or space could be where we are.” “Good thing to have, but hope the online component is not the only thing.” “I think the language hangs me up a bit. I don’t quite know what that means. Don’t know if it is same kind of stuff already out there, but if it means really connecting to people outside the region who are thinkers and motivators…what I need is interactive process. Then, yes, just don’t want to be told.”

50. In their words… “I would put money elsewhere—not to say that if there weren’t an interesting retreat I wouldn’t go.” “Anything a foundation can do to move conversation forward, but not interested in seeing foundations lose sight of primary mission: give money. Give money, give it for prolonged period, then get out of the way.” “My first impression is like manna from heaven. It’s absolutely needed. Essential.” “Absolutely needed. So many times when I have questions that I know could be answered if I knew who to ask…Why figure it out yourself when someone else has already done it?” “Huge potential. To bring geographic scale and scale of resources and touch of communities and nonprofits and connect all of that. Only two fears: 1) that it not become too ponderous and take too long and 2) I do think there needs to be a recognition that connecting people and resources is a critical step but also requires ongoing support. Need help after the connection. Needs to have the capacity to be there for people doing that work.” “ They [foundations] automatically by their power and amount of resources pervert the field of play. Felt top down—think (the Foundation) has already solved the problem, and needs the community to affirm it’s on the right track.”