Barriers:

1. Barriers: Community & Nonprofit Leaders’ Views of Barriers SURVEY ANALYS I S • We asked community leaders - from your perspective, what are the barriers to preventing county-wide • improvements to the quality of life? The areas mentioned by the most respondents included lack of coordination • and collaboration, insufficient economic resources, lack of a regional approach, vision, and attitudes. Presented • here are a few verbatim comments for each area. These quotes are examples but do not fully capture the • breadth or richness of all of the comments. A full list of verbatim comments is available at http://ccwc.ewashtenaw.org. • Lack of coordination and collaboration • Governmental units not working closely with each other. • Lack of coordination between various NFP organizations & government agencies. Too much spent on overhead. • Too many governmental jurisdictions to work through to get anything done and partisan elections at the township, city, and county level. • Fragmented governance (a. Cities vs. County, b. Unrealistic perspectives of community leaders; failure to appreciate importance of planning, c. Inadequate/inappropriate public funding mechanisms (e.g., no AA income tax). • Money, time, integration of services from the many agencies addressing social needs. • Silo mentality between cities and townships. Instead of working together as a County, we continue to maintain distinct cities and townships with duplicate administrative overhead, etc. • Lack of knowledge or coordination of existing services. • Using resources effectively and where they are most needed. Making expertise of academic institutions and businesses available at a local community level.

2. Barriers: Community & Nonprofit Leaders’ Views of Barriers (continued) SURVEY ANALYS I S • Economic Resources • Lack of financial resources are a barrier to implementing all the needed services in the community. • Cost of infrastructure for each community to recreate things like recreation centers when there could be several to share within the county, with adequate transportation to allow for citizen use. • Finding funding for needed improvements, from a resident base already paying high taxes. • A large number of not-for-profit organizations competing for the donor dollar and duplication of services between organizations. • Funding, funding, funding – Although I don’t believe one should simply throw money at issues and assume they will go away. There are many wonderful programs that are available in Washtenaw County, and, instead of providing programs/services, people spend their time trying to raise enough money to continue. Those organizations with some money have to choose between so many worthwhile programs. It is very frustrating. • I think we’re at risk of forcing nonprofits to “chaw” money by creating programs to match funders’ interest du jour, rather than to create (or operate successful existing) programs and collaborations based on need, expertise, and ability. Lack of a Strong Regional Focus • Lack of regional planning and cooperation between cities, villages, townships, counties, and other Southeast Michigan governments. • The lack of active communication at the county level regarding the job loss rate. . . A county-wide proactive plan needs to be established to actively recruit mass job production throughout the entire county. Loss of manufacturing jobs, in particular, needs to be addressed and a plan of action put in place as a reactive measure. Cooperation between local municipalities to build consensus.

3. Barriers: Community & Nonprofit Leaders’ Views of Barriers (continued) SURVEY ANALYS I S • Lack of a Strong Regional Focus (continued) • Lack of a comprehensive plan that has support from the population throughout the county (too disjointed between townships and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti). • Lack of coordinated planning; thoughtless growth and development. • Lack of ability to perceive outlying communities as equal partners in improving quality of life and lack of vision in identifying areas in which their needs differ from those of the larger cities. Vision • Lack of direction and cohesiveness of funding programs to address the major issues. Not enough funding for programs that keep problems from happening, like supportive housing, so that we aren’t dealing with the expensive process of waiting until a situation is “on fire” before community resources kick in. • Priorities too geared to short-term solutions, funding for fix-its, rather than foundational programs, voter apathy. • Too many people looking at the big picture and not at the individual problems of the underprivileged. • Attitudes • It is a challenge for all aspects of the community, including government, to learn to respect the viewpoints of diverse organizations and come together to work for the common good. • Public ignorance of the impact of the problems (thinking that the quality of life of all residents is not a community’s responsibility). • Not in my backyard attitude. • Too much prejudice of “new” residents vs. “old” residents. Also too much racial prejudice in an area that like to pretend to be liberal.