| Topics: Community Building Coalitions for the Future in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, continued Index I. Project Genesis
II. Project Progress
III. Project Outcomes
IV. Conclusion Contents III. Project Outcomes
IV. Conclusion III. Project Outcomes The most directly attributable outcomes of the process are the critical community issues identified and the recommendations for future action. Information on both the critical issues and the recommendations is taken directly from the final report. The critical issues identified are the following (the order of listing implies no prioritization): - A need for cooperation and re-sponsibility among existing information sources on important community issues.
- The need to determine equitable distribution of public and private resources and services throughout all geographic areas of the community.
- The need to stimulate more interest and participation in the local elective process.
- A need to improve understanding among both adults and students about local politics and how government works.
- The need to broader the base of volunteerism and philanthropy in the community.
- A need for regional cooperation in economic development, environmental issues and planning.
The Stakeholders Committee, by consensus, agreed to six primary recommendations which respond to the critical issues. The committee also identified community organizations that would be asked to assume responsibility for implementing the recommendations. The recommendations, rationales and responsible agencies/groups are discussed in the language of the final report, with the order having no meaning in terms of priority. 1. Establish a Public Policy Research Group (PPRG) in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Charlotte-Mecklenburg needs to organize a public policy research mechanism with the mission of providing a continuing, neutral forum for the research and analysis of emerging public policy issues. It was recommended that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Citizens Forum consider evolution into such an organization based along the lines of the very successful Citizens League in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area. Such a body would be citizen-based and would develop policy recommendations and implementation/funding plans for consideration by elected local and legislative officials. It is further recommended that the PPRG undertake as its first project a visioning process for the Charlotte region. Other subsequent issues might include local government consolidation, regional cooperation and any others determined to be of importance. Responsibility: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Citizens Forum. 2. Determine the Fairness and Equality of the Distribution of Public and Private Resources Within the Community. Charlotte-Mecklenburg must form a broadly-based citizens committee to conduct an in-depth study of how public and private resources and services are delivered to every section of the community, to evaluate the fairness and equity of their distribution. The committee would make recommendations for changes that, if adopted, would increase citizen satisfaction with the distribution of public and private resources. The success of such a citizens committee would depend upon how representative of all segments of the community its membership would be, the depth of their study, the cooperation of local government in gathering data, and the reporting by local news media of its progress and findings. Responsibility: The Civic Index Stakeholders. 3. Increase Citizen Interest, Participation, Understanding and Ownership of the Community's Elective Process for Local and Legislative Offices. This recommendation calls the community to form a broadly-based citizens committee to conduct an in-depth study of the local electoral process. The group would study possible changes in the length of terms for members of the county commission, city council and board of education; a possible limit to the number of terms served; the comparative arguments for partisan vs. non-partisan elections to local office; changes in the timing of local elections; and other matters pertaining to local elective offices. Additionally, the group would make recommendations to responsible elected bodies for changes that would rekindle citizen interest, understanding and participation, as well as instilling in the public a greater sense of ownership of the electoral process. Responsibility: The Civic Index Stakeholders. 4. Improve Education Opportunities for Student and Adults to Understand and Participate in the Civic Process. A citizens committee would be formed to work with community educators in public and private schools to improve students' understanding of civics, with emphasis on the local governmental process. Consideration by the commitee should be given to a one-year course on local government with emphasis on internships and voter registration drives. Consideration should also given to extending this process to adults through community colleges, adult education opportunities and other avenues. Responsibility: The League of Women Voters. 5. Broaden Our Existing Community Ethic of Sharing Financial and Volunteer Resources with the Nonprofit Sector by Individuals, Business and Government. Charlotte-Mecklenburg would form a broadly-based citizens committee to determine community standards for sharing financial and/or volunteer resources with nonprofit organizations that assist the less fortunate or improve the quality of life for all citizens. The encouragement for all to aspire to those standards should be assisted by an ongoing community information campaign emphasizing Charlotte-Mecklenburg's long-standing culture of caring and concern. The committee should offer their assistance to the Volunteer Center to reinforce its key role in establishing and maintaining a skills/needs referral service to match volunteers with nonprofit agencies. Responsibility: Foundation for the Carolinas. 6. Promote Cooperation Among Community News Media to Maximize Public Understanding of Critical Community Issues, Events and Concerns. This recommendation, if properly implemented, was calculated to determine the best possible solution to the complicated issue of how to improve the sharing of community information through the community's mass media. Stakeholders recognize the right of community news media to exercise freedom of the press as each sees fit. However, there is an accompanying responsibility to exercise those rights and freedoms for the public good. Cooperation among media to focus their resources to maximize public understanding of critical issues and events is paramount to reaching informed consensus about the future. One solution might involve agreement by all community mass media on a "community issue of the month" in order to focus public attention on under-standing what is at stake concerning that particular issue. This recommendation expresses the importance of free and open information exchange to forming the common ground and unity of purpose necessary for the community is to achieve its highest potential. Responsibility: WTVI and WFAE (local broadcasters). In addition to the specific critical issues and recommendations resulting from the process, more subjective and less tangible outcomes became obvious during and after the completion of the formal meetings. Leadership within the community had always been shared, although at times among relatively few. The community also had a long history of open participation in the discussion of issues but frequently this participatory behavior occurred within and not across sectors. Communication among sectors seemed to occur at only the highest levels. The Civic Index process expanded the leadership base and increased the pool of activists to serve on community boards, commissions, committees, and task forces. For example, a woman representing the blue collar neighborhoods in Charlotte, a person that almost no other Stakeholder knew prior to the Civic Index, has literally been inundated with offers to serve in various capacities. Not only did she represent a largely forgotten segment of the population, but she did it in an articulate and forceful, yet nonthreatening way. Another positive thing about Charlotte is that leadership is respected no matter where and for what reason it surfaces. In addition, representatives of black neighborhoods, of newly formed and usually conservative suburban neighborhoods, of the clergy, and others became identified as part of the new leadership pool. The Civic Index project also provided an open forum for the exchange of ideas across sectors and segments of the population. The nonprofits were talking to the for-profits and both groups were talking to the public sector about issues and topics that probably had not been discussed previously. The rich, the poor, middle class, white collar, and blue collar were successfully merged into the process. The acceptance of people from different backgrounds and perspectives was one of the most positive outcomes of the process. No one was disregarded. Everyone's opinion was valued, the forum was open, no one dominated the discussions, and most people bought into the process. In addition to the process outcomes mentioned above, there were more specific achievements that resulted from suggestions made during the sessions. For example, some members discussed the perception that the Westside, a predominantly black part of the city, did not receive its equal share of public and private resources. By the next meeting the city and county managers began a reporting process that continued through the sessions that produced some measurements of service delivery as well as efforts that were being made to improve service delivery. This effort has been expanded by the City of Charlotte as it has begun to define, study and seek solutions to problems in what is known as a "city within a city." Certain other initiatives have grown out of the discussions and suggestions that occurred, although it would be difficult for any one person to have a thorough knowledge of all the undertakings. The people who served as stakeholders became bonded to each other in a very special way in the belief that they were together tending to a high calling—building a better community. That bond will last for a period of time and will be important as the former stakeholders move into other arenas of community service. Implementation and Follow-Through Activities Of the six recommendations, three have inspired substantial relevant activity, and in some cases steps toward implementation have occurred; two others have generated much activity with little in the way of results; and one was not pursued. Limited action has been taken on the recommendation to "promote coop-eration among community news media to maximize public understanding of critical issues, events and concerns." The responsible parties, WTVI (local public television station) and WFAE (local public radio station), were willing to tackle the problem but found that they were virtually powerless to affect change among the highly competitive private media outlets. The League of Women Voters accepted the responsibility of seeking ways to "improve educational opportunities for students and adults to understand and participate in the civic process." Working in conjunction with the local school system and the Board of Education, tentative approval has been given for an eight-week mini-course as part of the Applied Economics curriculum. An ongoing program for student registration will also be part of this process. Final approval of these initiatives has been held up due to the appointment of a new superintendent, who will assume his duties on July 1, 1991. While no priority was attached to the recommendations, practically everyone involved in the process knew that the recommendation to "establish a public policy research group in Charlotte-Mecklenburg" elicited the most interest. The charge to proceed with this issue was given to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Citizens Forum which, according to the rationale for the recommendation, should consider transforming itself into a public policy research group patterned on the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Citizens League. The CMCF accepted the charge and immediately began planning for the transition. John Lewis, who was the champion of the National Civic League proposal throughout the process, accepted chairmanship of an initiating group. At its annual retreat in the fall of 1989, the CMCF endorsed the plan, and for all practical purposes closed up shop except for those involved in the initiating committee. About the same time, John Lewis accepted a promotion and moved to the Midwest. Betty Chafin Rash, outgoing chairperson of CMCF, and Rennie Cuthbertson, chairperson of the Civic Index project, agreed to co-chair the initiating committee. These two leaders and the committee have worked numerous hours in conducting discussions with the representatives of the Citizens League in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, a North Carolina public interest research group, and the Urban Institute at UNC-Charlotte; organizing and holding focus groups; debating whether to make the new group's emphasis regional or to focus on Charlotte-Mecklenburg; developing a business plan and an accompanying funding plan; drawing up a mission statement; and developing a public information campaign. The frustration quotient has also mounted. The focus groups provided evidence for generalized support of the concept, but the initiating committee has not been successful in procuring funding. Annual funding of approximately $150,000-$200,000 is being sought from a combination of sources such as the corporate community, individual memberships, and local and state foundations. Because of the recession and competing demands on these funding sources, the corporate community is unwilling and/or unable to pledge their support. In addition, the loss of the champion of this issue caused a setback, and the debate about the appropriateness of "going regional" (the choice selected), versus focusing on Mecklenburg county, consumed energy that might have been directed along other avenues. The initiating committee has received approximately $20,000 in start-up funding from foundations and is reorganizing itself and its committee structure. Community-based working groups were formed to look at two of the recommendations: "determine the fairness and equality of the distribution of public and private resources within the community," and "increase citizen interest, participation, understanding and ownership of the community's elective process for local and legislative offices." Both groups have completed their work and have proposed a number of recommendations which are before the appropriate governing bodies. The sixth recommendation to "broaden our existing community ethic of sharing financial and volunteer resources with the nonprofit sector by individuals, business and government" was handed off to the Foundation for the Carolinas, a local community foundation. The Foundation formed a regional committee, commissioned a needs assessment and, with the committee, successfully launched the "Carolina Gives" program. This program, patterned loosely on other communities' efforts to have all citizens, individual and corporate, give a certain percentage of volunteer time and/or money back to the community, is a rousing success. Significant partnerships were forged with other community organizations resulting in a very active public relations campaign that has generated a large increase in the number of people entering the volunteer pool. Conclusion The implementation phase of Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Civic Index project is a mixed bag—some success, some failure and some instances where the verdict is not in. Could there have been more success two years after completion of the process? The answer is probably yes. What, then, impeded greater success? The major factor is the recession. At the time the process was occurring, Charlotte-Mecklenburg's economy was booming and that economic health led to an attitude that anything was possible. While the regional recession is not as deep as in other places, its advent has focused attention on cutback management in the private, nonprofit and public sectors with the concomitant attitude change that "now is not the time for new initiatives." Loss of leadership was another factor. As mentioned previously, the primary champion of the public policy research group moved to a post in another community. The leaders of the two citizen-based working groups accepted new responsibilities. One was awarded a fellowship to participate in the Kellogg Foundation's Leadership Program, and the other one was tapped to head this year's United Way fund drive. Other business and public sector leaders had their attention diverted from this endeavor to more immediate concerns, mostly driven by the recession. Thirdly, the process was very different from anything attempted before. This community is accustomed to quick action and does not highly value in-depth discussion processes. Too few people currently subscribe to the "go slow to go fast" philosophy. The prevailing view here is often "go faster to go faster." Obvious mistakes have been made because of this philosophy, and we may see the need at some point to emphasize the input stage of the decision-making process. But at this time, the Civic Index process stands alone as the example of a publicly oriented input process in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The public sector to a greater extent and the private sector to a lesser extent were nervous about the process. Specifically, with the public sector there appeared to be a continuing concern that the CMCF Civic Index Stakeholders' group was either invading or had the potential to invade the turf of the public decision-making bodies. Obviously, because of the funding support given to the Civic Index by the city and county, this was not an overriding concern, but those close enough to the process to be sensitive were aware of continuous, low-level grousing from public sector leaders about the Civic Index group. In summary, while some problems occurred, the Civic Index process was, is and will be beneficial for Charlotte-Mecklenburg. A new leadership pool surfaced. Communication across sectors was enhanced. The community experienced the process of community-based working groups, and recommendations for the betterment of the community are being implemented. An evaluation of the impact of the Civic Index in five or ten years may provide a more accurate indication of its benefits to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg community. (William J. McCoy is director of the Urban Institute, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.) Index I. Project Genesis
II. Project Progress
III. Project Outcomes
IV. Conclusion Return to Community Index | 
