 | Topics: Community The Phoenix Futures Forum
Creating Vision, Implanting Community In Phoenix, Arizona, the pressures of unprecedented population growth—and the catalytic effect of a highly critical outside assessment of the community's response to growing size and diversity—led to a multi-year, ongoing effort to shape neighborhood attitudes and aspirations into a comprehensive plan for the future. Case study plus. John Stuart Hall and Louis F. Weschler John Stuart Hall is Research Professor of Public Affairs and former Director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Civic League. Louis Weschler is Professor of Public Affairs and former Dean of the College of Public Programs at Arizona State University. He was the University's first Loaned Executive to the City of Phoenix. Both authors have been active participates in the Phoenix Futures Forum since its inception. Reprinted with permission from the National Civic Review, Spring 1991, pp. 135-157. Copyright © 1991 by the National Civic Review. All rights reserved. In Phoenix, Arizona, the pressures of unprecedented population growth—and the catalytic effect of a highly critical outside assessment of the community's response to growing size and diversity—led to a multi-year, ongoing effort to shape neighborhood attitudes and aspirations into a comprehensive plan for the future. "Valley of the Sun" is the most common descriptor of the Phoenix metropolitan area. When asked what they like most about living in the Phoenix area, most people say something like "the climate is terrific," or "love those dear blue skies." On the average, there are almost 250 days of sunshine for area boosters to brag about, and close to five months of 100 degree-plus temperatures for residents to commiserate over. "Valley of the Sun" is a truly appropriate metaphor. But the Phoenix area is not all sunshine. In fact, when it comes to some dimensions, such as civic affairs and collaborative public policy, the Valley has been in a "deep blue funk" for some time. The Phoenix Futures Forum is one approach to reversing this civic malaise. Launched in the summer of 1988, the Futures Forum was designed to focus on the future; to forge a destiny-changing vision for Phoenix through diverse, wide-spread, early, informed, and facilitated citizen participation. The Forum's philosophy of proactive community collaboration in pursuit of a better long-term community future contrasts sharply with its civic past and many of the recent images and realities that lie behind Arizona's current political inferiority complex, such as: - The Martin Luther King Day controversy;
- The Evan Mecham (former Arizona Governor) impeachment;
- The Keating Five affair (Lincoln Savings Bank S&L/U.S. Senate scandal); and
- AZSCAM—the police sting operation that found six state legislators accepting illegal campaign contributions alleged to be bribes to obtain their vote for legalized gambling.
Nurturing Community Governance in a Private City Some of these current events may seem less surprising when viewed in context. Phoenix is what it is because of growth. "Growth to this area is like cars to Detroit," said one local official recently. [1] The importance of population and new construction growth combined with the relative small size of its manufacturing sector led one recent outside observer to describe Phoenix as "A city whose biggest business is itself." [2] The pattern leading to this conclusion extends to the entire metropolitan area and is rooted in post-World War II technological advances in air conditioning and water supply. People started moving in big numbers to Phoenix when it became possible to use sunshine as a selling point. In 1940, Phoenix was little more than a desert outpost of 9.6 square miles containing 65,000 residents. By 1990 the city's population had increased to 996,904 residents occupying 426.2 square miles. The Phoenix metropolitan area had one of the highest net migration rates in the nation during the 1980s, resulting in a current population of 2.1 million, projected by the Census Bureau to grow at double the national average in the 1990s. [3] Combined with a conservative political culture this phenomenal demographic, economic, and geographic expansion of post-air conditioned Phoenix, led to a limited and ad hoc public policy agenda often involving the smallest possible number of participants in important public decisions. Phoenix seemed to some observers the quintessential "private city," which Lester Salamon, in his classic typology of cities portrayed as having a tradition of 'privatism' that confines city government to a largely passive role as the facilitator of private economic activity. What distinguishes the private city is the ad hoc character of government actions and the extent to which government power is put at the disposal of business elements in their private pursuit of wealth. [4] Since its kick-off meeting in October 1988, the Phoenix Futures Forum has involved some 3,500 citizens and has been the focal point for a one-year visioning and strategic planning process intended to chart the community's course through the year 2015. That process was shepherded by a 95-member policy committee, and molded by the involvement of 250 people on nine task forces. In its second and current implementation phase, an Action Committee composed of 114 citizens is divided into six action groups. There are many products and accomplishments from this activity that will be enumerated below. For now, it is important to say only that the Futures Forum is alive, well, and successful in a place known for just the opposite approach to public policy. Why did the Phoenix Futures Forum emerge at this time? How and how well is the process working? What are the consequences of Futures Forum development for the community? What are the lessons from Phoenix that might apply to other communities and to ideas about democracy? These are the questions that concerned us as we thought about the Phoenix Futures Forum experience. Birth of the Forum Idea Often, originators of ideas do not give sufficient attention to the perils of implementation, just as those who act frequently fail to give due credit to the process and people who conceive it. It is difficult, but very desirable for public policy, for the same people to try to do both. [5] As indicated in the time line of Figure 1, planning for the Phoenix Futures Forum began in the Spring of 1988, and the first actual major Forum event was held in October of 1988. But in 1988, Phoenix had a civic "void" that needed to be filled. Terry Goddard, at that time the city's second term Mayor, saw that void, articulated the need to fill it, and initiated a process to do that. When asked where the idea came from, the Mayor jokingly said, "It seems like I always had it." And in a way, that rings true. Goddard's political career—which was only a few thousand votes short in the last gubernatorial election of being perfect—has always been based on the ability to bring "potential partisans" out of their neighborhoods and particular comfort zones and into the political process. Many of the principles that lie behind the Futures Forum follow Goddard's approach to politics and his view of the pragmatic as well as philosophical importance of broad-based collaborative, informed citizen participation. For a complete picture of the origins of the Phoenix Futures Forum, we must look beyond Goddard. The former mayor remembers parts of the idea coming from interactions with representatives of the National Civic League and the National League of Cities. Another part of the recipe was supplied by early discussions with Janice Perlman of the Ford Foundation. This was a case of learning from what had not worked well. A ten-year Ford Foundation sponsored project to stimulate citizen involvement in New York had, in Goddard's mind, failed because it was "top-down, and had no real constituency." Goddard was a successful mayor so political calculation was not absent. But he, and some of those around him, became convinced that if public policy in Phoenix were to cope with critical issues, it needed to be broad-based and fueled from the bottom up, but directed by enough framework and structure to be productive. There was a delicate balance between leadership and citizen input that needed to be bridged. Another major part in the birth of the Futures Forum was the recruitment of key people to provide needed leadership. These included Rod Engelen, a top assistant for the mayor who eventually was assigned full-time as staff director of the Forum; Christopher T. Gates, vice president for the National Civic League, who facilitated all major forum meetings and provided general guidance to the process; and Herb Ely, a prominent local attorney, long active in civic affairs as chair of the planning committee, and eventually as chair of the policy committee. The Forum's first-phase organizational chart containing the names of other key leaders from the community is presented in Figure 2 [not available online]. So the Phoenix Futures Forum was the idea of the city's mayor, reinforced and crafted by thoughtful community leaders and "expert" professionals. All had given substantial thought to the workings of community power-sharing, collaboration, and citizen participation. Although this is getting ahead of the story, the Phoenix Futures Forum is in some measure successful because, 36 months following its initiation, it has been the beneficiary of strong leadership from local politics and the community, and at the same time has been the focus of genuine citizen involvement. Timing and Setting Why did the idea emerge as it did at this time? Why did these experienced and well-connected community leaders pick 1988 to launch the Futures Forum experiment? First, there were several reasons to worry about the future of Phoenix by 1988. A most prominent one was growth and transiency. In one of the nation's most rapidly changing environments, it was becoming increasingly apparent that few were planning for the future in ways that would deal systematically with such nagging and increasingly serious public issues as the environment, education, behavioral health, government, etc. Reports expressing concerns had been written and conferences were held, but reports articulating an optimistic future were also written and cited. [6] Some amount of collective self-deception and selective denial played a part in receiving this information. Through the mid-1980s, many clung to a rosy picture of the economic future of the region based on 30-plus years of generally exceptional growth and economic development. This picture tended to overshadow those nagging concerns and questions that would not go away surrounding regional problems, such as air and water quality, transportation, hazardous waste, education, and human services for those left in the wake of the community's rapid expansion. Most importantly, even those concerned with such issues dared not raise the question of what would happen if someday the economy took a dip; what if someday land values did not continue to appreciate? What was the area's "Plan B"? [7] "The Peirce Report" These questions and similar ones concerned then publisher of the Phoenix newspapers, Pat Murphy. Because of that concern, in the fall of 1987, he commissioned a team led by national columnist Neal Peirce to write a series on the community that would: . . . bring to this area professionals experienced in the dynamics of urban America whose lack of political and economic biases would provide a fresh and untinted view of our problems and opportunities. Important in the context of the Phoenix Futures Forum, Murphy also wanted a document that would ". . . stir the community to write an agenda for action." [8] The Peirce Report appeared in the city's two major newspapers—the Ariizona Republic and The Phoenix Gazette—on Sunday, February 8, 1987. Although parts of this critique had been made before in other ways, The Peirce Report had a powerful impact on the community. Recommendations in such areas as county home rule; approval of a large river bottom development project called Rio Salado; improvements in public education; philanthropy; behavioral health and human services; a proactive activity to enhance and build a sense of community; had all been made before. But this time they were presented precisely in the Sunday morning newspaper that lay in the sunshine-covered driveways of over 500,000 homes. The debate was now out of the closet and on to the doorsteps of the community. The Peirce Report left no doubt these issues required immediate action to avoid a predictable mess in the future; public officials and the community had no choice but to respond. The Peirce Report was followed almost immediately by a series of leadership meetings and discussions. Mayors of the Valley's cities met and responded within a few weeks. Within three months, a "Valley United Town Hall" was held at a Tucson retreat. At that three-day meeting in June, 1987, over 100 civic leaders, including Mayor Goddard and other elected officials, deliberated over an expanded research report to try to plot a vision for the future. [9] The meeting generated good ideas including development of a Valley-wide citizen's organization, The Valley Citizens League, modeled after the wellknown Minneapolis-Saint Paul Citizens League. But the time and invitation list limited discussion and development of action plans. As local columnist John Kolbe put it, the meeting had the important effect of getting people to ". . . put aside their everyday concerns to think about the larger community. But we might get that done a lot more efficaciously with a keg in the Mayor's backyard on a May weekend . . ." [10] Mayor Goddard did not follow that precise blueprint, but in announcing the need for a Phoenix Futures Forum in his State of the City address that year, he initiated a process that was in keeping with this spirit of openness and celebration. Phase I: Many Forums and Miniforums What the Mayor did do was create a planning committee and leveraged $100,000 of public funding from the Phoenix City Council to begin the Forum for the fiscal year starting July 1, 1988. [11] An ingenious part of that early leverage was the Mayor's pledge of $28,450 from his personal pension fund, and an unsolicited grant of $50,000 from Honeywell Corporation. The planning committee made good progress in the summer of 1988. It prepared a work plan for the year; a budget for the Forum; recommended a series of objectives, expectations, and products for the Forum, all in keeping with their charge from thecity council. The planning committee established a budget of close to $400,000 for Forum activities including four major Forums starting October, 1988, through the summer of 1989. Perhaps most importantly, the committee hired Chris Gates, vice president of the National Civic League, as a consultant to help plan the Forum. Although the Mayor, some members of the council, and the planning committee had a good general idea of the scope of this activity, Gates provided the intellectual glue to make the project go forward and continued to advise project leaders and facilitate key meetings throughout the project. Essentially, early in the summer of 1988, Gates helped the group articulate a basic strategic planning framework to superimpose on and guide the deliberations of large numbers of stakeholders who would be diverse and at times conflictive. The basic framework included the familiar GAP analysis questions of Based on the National Civic League's previous community visioning work, Gates also recommended a subcommittee structure (see Figure 2—not available online) and pushed the committee to think carefully about an ultimate goal of developing alternative visions. [12] Major Forums. Four major community Forums were held during 1988-1989. These events had several functions, including: Forum I. Forum I was a smashing success, which did a lot for the overall success of the year's events. This Forum was carefully planned; it included general and break-out sessions led by national and local experts, including Neal Peirce as a principal keynote speaker. Over 700 persons registered for the event, which ran from Friday evening through the evening on Saturday. For the "where are we now" discussions, a comprehensive report merging baseline information from several local entities was developed. It would serve as a prototype for compiling community information. Experts from within and outside the community were used to lead workshops on topics such as the Environment, Human Impacts and Needs, Technology, Transportation and Urban Form,and Paying for the Future. [13] The event resulted in more specific planning for the remainder of the Forum, including the development of a series of "miniforums" dealing with topics identified in Forum I. Several other events were planned at the first Forum, and eventually carried out. It is difficult to adequately describe the high level of enthusiasm that resulted from this first-of-its-kind for Phoenix venture into genuine, facilitated, citizen participation. A lesson for other communities is that careful planning and maximum resources applied to the initial event of a process of this sort is likely to pay high dividends. Forum leaders had wisely "struck while the iron was hot." The Remaining Major Forums. Forums II, III and IV, which followed during the year (for dates, see the time line supplied in Figure 1) were modeled after the same format of large general sessions combined with well-facilitated small group break-out activities. Whereas the first Forum had attended to the strategic planning issue of "Where are we?" and "Where are we going?" subsequent forums beginning with Forum II, pushed ahead to examine the questions of "Where do we want to go?" and "What would you like to see in your ideal Phoenix in 25 years?" Forum II identified four values that seem to underlay participants' sense of division, which became a "preamble" to the ultimate vision statement. Major Forums III and IV involved responding to the draft vision statement that had been constructed by a drafting committee and approved by a policy committee in the summer and early fall of 1989. Although more mechanical, even these sessions were facilitated and handled creatively. At the final session, a local radio announcer and talk show host used his roving microphone to work among the break-out groups and help communicate their concerns and enthusiasms with regard to the final draft. The Hard Work of Visioning. As important as these major formal sessions and the smaller mini-sessions were in pushing the community toward its first-year goal of creating an implementable vision, they represent only a part of the story. A small, but extremely dedicated and competent staff was almost overwhelmed many times by the simple need to collate and disseminate information being generated by all this motion. In addition, the process was being pushed daily by enthusiastic and energetic policy committee members, particularly the committee's very able chair, Herb Ely, who virtually devoted 15 months to the project. It is impossible in this short space to chronicle the effort that was required to hammer out community goals and vision elements from this kind of collaborative process. Simply drafting the final vision statement, which is only one page long, required numerous and at times quite tedious meetings of the drafting and policy committee, and took most of the last six months of 1989. Here is another lesson for other communities. To successfully link genuine citizen participation with concrete and implementable strategic planning required nonstop work on parallel tracks. Without proper staffing and leadership superimposed by the committee structure, large groups from the community would probably still be working on the vision statement. On the other hand, if the identical vision had been created by the policy committee without the larger forum process, its successful implementation would be much less likely. Phase I Outcomes. After 15 months of effort, the Phoenix Futures Forum had answered all of its initial strategic planning questions. Written answers were contained in the Forum's formal Vision Statement (How do we get there?) and in two official reports. [14] In a successful effort to make its final report readable and maximize interest in it, Phoenix 2015 was written as science fiction. It moves the reader into the future. Perhaps the most important product of Futures Forum, Phase I, was the energy and interest in civic matters that had been created. Information had been absorbed, battles fought, and questions answered. It was now time to apply this new found civic muscle; to act. Phase II—Organization and Implementation Moving Toward Implementation. During their November 1989 Forum meeting, members agreed to continue the Futures Forum process and to enter a two-year implementation phase. Members were committed to nurturing adoption and implementation of as many of their hundreds of recommendations as possible. They had a strong sense of ownership and a desire to see the process through to final implementation of key recommendations. The Futures Forum Policy Committee, with the backing of the full membership, made three key recommendations to the Phoenix City Council on January 30, 1990: The Council unanimously accepted all three recommendations. Their action began the formal implementation of Futures Forum recommendations. Preliminary Action Plan. The Report of the Futures Forum (Phoenix 2015: The Report of the Phoenix Futures Forum and Technical Supplement to the Report) divided its many recommendations into three groups. "Easy As" are actions such as naming neighborhoods and expanding curbside recycling that could be taken with only minor adjustments or changes in policies, regulations or activities of the city and other jurisdictions. "Can Do Bs" are actions compatible with current activities of the city, other agencies or private groups, such as updating the city general plan to include an environmental dimension or reduction of visual pollution, but which would need Futures Forum effort and support to be readily accomplished. "Major Initiative Cs," summarized in the "21 Initiatives for the 21st Century" section of the Forum Report, are the major new initiatives, such as continuing the Futures Forum itself and coordination, integration and decentralization of community services. This last group of recommendations requires considerable change in policies and activities and may take many years to accomplish. The general Action Plan approved by the city council included the following steps: Action Committee. The Futures Forum Policy Committee, after receiving approval and support of the Mayor and Council, began organizing the Forum for a two-year implementation effort. In close consulta tion with the Mayor and members of the Council, the Futures Forum developed a strategy for implementation based upon a large Action Committee. Committee Size and Membership. The Action Committee has had between 90 and 124 members. To avoid being called the "Committee of 100," which some Forum participants took to have negative connotations, membership is kept below or above 100. Currently it has 112 members. Members of the Action Committee are appointed by the mayor with approval of the council for two-year terms. Appointment by the mayor was chosen as a mode of selection for several reasons. The members of nearly all of the city's boards and commissions are appointed by the mayor. Appointment by the mayor is honorific. Such appointment also expresses the continuing interest and support of the Forum by the mayor. All but 15 or the original 93 appointees to the Action Committee had some involvement in the planning efforts of the Forum. Members have found activities of the Action Committee demanding and some of the original members have been replaced either because they were never active or decided to drop out of the Action Committee. Mayor Johnson (Goddard's successor) appointed some 24 replacement and additional members in January 1991. Members are drawn from the past active participants in the Futures Forum as well as from a body of nominees by members of the council and the community at large. Table I presents the basic demographic characteristics and organizational ties of its members. The committee is a fair cross section of organizations and groups active in neighborhood , volunteer, private business, and service organizations. Action Groups and Work Plans. Members of the Futures Forum understand that they alone cannot hope to implement the hundreds of recommendations they have made. Instead, from the beginning of the implementation efforts, the Futures Forum has reached out to the major components of the Valley's governance system—governments, businesses, voluntary groups and associations, neighborhoods and citizens—to gain sponsorship and support for the many recommended changes. The Futures Forum tries to mobilize the entire community and to spin off ownership of its various recommendations. The heart of the implementation effort are the six Action Groups formed to carry out specific items of the 21 Initiatives and to work on implementation of other recommendations within their areas of interest. The six committees are: Arts, culture and recreation; Basic economic resources, Citizenship and governance; Environment and resources; Neighborhoods, services and community; Transportation and urban form. Mayor Paul Johnson wanted these action groups to remain in close communication with the City Council. To this end, an existing or newly created subcommittee of the Council was matched to each of these six action groups. Each group relates to a specific council subcommittee as well as to a member of the senior staff of the City Manager's office, usually one of the deputy city managers. In addition, members of the Action groups are charged to communicate regularly with appropriate City boards, commissions and advisory groups. A detailed work plan was developed by the members of the six Action groups. The plans laid out the top priorities and strategies for the Groups of the succeeding 18-month period. Table 2 lists the 51 major projects selected by the Action groups for implementation efforts during the period. Currently, the Action groups use several approaches to work toward implementation, including: Resources for Implementation The Futures Forum depends upon three sources of resources: - In-kind contributions, largely the labor of hundreds of volunteers. This includes individuals and organizations. Examples include the 114 people on the six Action Groups and hundreds more working on task forces, more than a dozen action partners, members of the city staff, and a "loaned executive" from Arizona State University who works full-time in the Strategic Issues Department of the city, largely on Futures Forum concerns.
- Contributions from individuals, groups, associations, and private firms to the Futures Forum trust fund. The current balance is more than $45,000. A major fund-raising effort is in progress.
- Funding, $115,000 for 1990-91, in the City of Phoenix's budget to provide full-time strategic planning staff support and consultant services for the Futures Forum.
In addition to these existing resources, Futures Forum staff, task forces, and action partners are preparing proposals for submission to foundation and governmental sponsors. These proposals are tailored to one or more specific Forum initiatives, goals or programs. For example, the "Learning Research Enterprise," a proposed major center for conducting and disseminating research about learning and teaching, has its own Futures Forum sponsored task force and its own resource development efforts. In-kind contributions, usually human labor, are the backbone of the resources. These people are living evidence of the potential for public-private volunteer-citizen collaboration. Coupled with the significant dollar contributions of the city these human resources provide an active base for continued action. Participation and Support of the City Government The funds provided from the municipa1 budget are important, but on1y indicate a small part of the total city contribution and participation. Not all city departments, boards and commissions, and employees are committed supporters of the Futures forum. In fact, some resist its efforts. By and large, however, support and participation of the council, staff and members of boards and commissions has been good. In a democracy of competing groups and interests, no one group or faction, including the Futures Forum, can have its way. Nonetheless, there have been significant successes. One example (work on an environmental ordinance) can illustrate both the opportunities for and limits of Futures Forum initiatives. Initiative Six of the 21 Initiatives for the 21st Century states: Design a comprehensive model municipal environmental ordinance. Target recycling, littering, hazardous waste disposal, landscape materials, allergenic plants, visual and noise pollution, and develop sensitive and practical regulations which can be used by Phoenix and other communities. This goal was slightly modified during the early weeks of the implementation phase to focus on the development and adoption of an environmental ordinance for the City of Phoenix. Participants choose this strategy for two reasons. First, the city's Environmental Quality Commission was in the preliminary stages of such consideration. Second, if Phoenix were to adopt a strong environmental ordinance, as the state's largest city, it would set a strong example for other cities in the Valley. Staff of the city's Environmental Program and members of the Environmental Quality Commission joined with a task force of the Futures Forum Environmental and Resources Action Group to work on this proposal. City staff were active in developing the work plan for this Action Group. The Commission expressed early support for the Group's efforts. The task force working on the draft ordinance came to include not only members of the Futures Forum Action Committee, but also individuals from the University, law firms and environmental groups. The task force stays in close communication with the Environmental Quality Commission, staff of the city Environmental Program, members of the council subcommittee, and the appropriate deputy city manager. Their interactions are a working model of how to integrate diverse and numerous participants. These efforts are also an excellent illustration of how municipal democracy really works. True to Initiative Six, the Futures Forum sponsored task force began work on a "hard" regulatory ordinance. Senior city staff and some members of the council subcommittee preferred a "soft" environmental policy. At first, it appeared there was an impasse. The mayor, however, made it clear that it was important for the groups to work together to produce useful legislation for the city. The task force, with support form the mayor's and manager's offices—but now with a better understanding of the need for a policy to set the foundation for regulations—is currently working on an environmental policy for the city as a step toward the ordinance. This ongoing experience demonstrates three important lessons: Major Benefits The Futures Forum is good governance. It has involved the energy, effort, and commitment of thousands of citizens and hundreds of organizations. It has systematically brought citizens closer to their governments and governments closer to citizens. It has melded private, public, volunteer, and neighborhood groups together in focused efforts. It comes close to realizing its current motto, "Creating a Community of Good Neighbors," in which all sectors are neighborly and work together to achieve share goals and objectives. Success in governance is always hard to measure in the short term. Many of the Forum proposals reach across traditional cleavage lines and far into the future. Nonetheless, early results are impressive. - Several Forum recommendations are being incorporated in the city's Genral and Corporate Strategic Plans. Additional emphasis on recycling is evidence of coordination of city efforts with Forum recommendations. Further, achievement of Futures Forum recommendations is now one of the criteria by which the performance of key administrators is measured.
- Action groups, task forces and action partners of the Futures Forum provide city departments, top administrators and council members with alternative information and knowledge. Collectively, they inform key decision makers about community needs, plans and actions. They are another layer of the local governance system. They complement the more traditional business dominated interest group structures and enrich political communication.
- The Futures Forum, through its development and training efforts as well as through its own practices, has made many people and organizations more proficient in planning, decision making, and the mobilization of community resources. There is an expanding cadre of persons skilled in facilitation, preparation of proposals, network development and action planning among the city staff, neighborhood associations and action partners.
- The Peirce Report of 1987 noted the need to develop, mobilize and capitalize on new leadership in Phoenix. The Futures Forum is providing a platform for emerging, community-oriented leaders. New people are being drawn into community and city leadership roles via the Futures Forum processes. These range from positions as the head of neighborhood associations and membership on boards and commissions to a seat on the city council.
Lessons from the Futures Forum Experience Political innovation seldom is fully successful. The Futures Forum has produced major benefits and considerable change. Governance in Phoenix is better because of the Forum. There are, however, limits and continuing challenges. Successes and failures abound. What are some practical lessons from this mixed blessing? - The Futures Forum is expensive. The total amount of time and resources devoted to planning and implementation of Futures Forum recommendations is staggering. So far, more than $265,000 in city funds and $250,000 in private contributions have been expended over the three years. Arizona State University has made in-kind contributions of more than $110,000 during 1990-91. Thousands of individual and organized volunteers have contributed in excess of a minimum (estimated) of 10,000 hours to the planning and 20,000 hours to the implementation phases of the Futures Forum. Further, as Futures Forum participants and recommendations became part of the activities of the city and other local and state governments, additional time and effort were added to the "Futures Forum bill".
- The vision and strategic planning processes worked well. The hundreds of persons and groups who participated in the planning process produced a long, but well-stated vision that stresses the sense of community so vital to Phoenix and the Futures Forum process. It was adopted by the City Council as the statement to guide the city into the next century.
- Managing volunteers is difficult. The Forum struggled with development of effective organization for implementation. The linkage with the City Council subcommittees is a good idea that worked modestly well. On the plus side, it provided regular access and communication. On the negative side, Action Group chairs did not fully cultivate and use the linkage.
Individual task forces proved effective. Mostly self-selected by interest, members were able to focus on specific programs and tasks. Some of the most impressive accomplishments—the Learning Research Enterprise, the Model Environmental Ordinance, and the Neighborhood/Community Festival—resulted from very focused, semi-independent task force groups. Supporting, coordinating, and monitoring the fifty task forces, work groups, and action partners is difficult. The Futures Forum Action Committee and its Management Group have worked hard to restructure their formal organization to accommodate the loose coalition of groups which do most of the implementation work. A continuing challenge is providing staff, outreach, marketing and training support for the various work groups. The formal staff of the Futures Forum is limited to one full-time director/planner, a full-time consultant, a loaned executive, and one-half a clerical person. Even with the assistance of city staff these resources are stretched thin. - Translating the enthusiasm of visioning into action is demanding. Preparation of the work plans by the six Action Groups was more difficult and took more time than imagined at the beginning of the implementation period. Some tactical errors contributed to the problem. The leadership had one sense of direction and the members had another. Leadership did not clarify the issues, but tried to "force" the members of the Action Groups through a top-down process. Members were not oriented to or trained well in the activities of preparing work plans. After some false starts, facilitators were hired to provide a structured environment for work plan activities. Productivity improved, but completing the plans became an end itself.
After the work plans were presented to the city council and adopted, it was difficult to re-mobilize members of the Action Group. The Groups decomposed to their most viable units, task force groups. Much of the actual implementation effort is being conducted by semi-detached task forces with minimal linkage to the Action Groups and the Action Committee A kind of decentralized, task-defined organization evolved. - The task orientation of implementation moved the Futures Forum away from an alternative futures/strategic mode toward a more instrumental, tactical action mode. Specific projects and programs, however visionary, became the focus of Futures Forum efforts. As might be expected, the pressure to produce—from the city council, city staff, constituent groups and task forces—moved participants into the conventional manner of incremental change. Success began to be measured by marginal adjustments made, rather than by chunks of the vision accomplished.
- Outside assistance can be helpful. Throughout the Phoenix Futures Forum process, the National Civic League provided general guidance and assistance. Because they had conducted similar projects in other communities, they were able to help Phoenix avoid some common pitfalls and mistakes. They also provided positive models of how other communities had successfully dealt with similar challenges. The neutrality of the organization permitted them to successfully facilitate meetings in which highly divergent interests and perspectives were represented.
Conclusion: Implications for Community Collaboration The Phoenix Futures Forum process is complex, multi-faceted and ongoing. It is a moving target and therefore impossible to evaluate finally. On the other hand, it should be clear from this discussion that the Futures Forum has forced many diverse individuals and groups in the community to think about their community and its future. It has responded to the early challenge of The Peirce Report which was to develop "a shared civic vision, . . . a vision of what this buoyant civilization at its finest might become." Simply working together to create that plan for the future seemed like an elusive goal when the challenge was issued. But the vision is now implanted, and the Futures Forum is hard at work making the vision a reality. The speed and power of this process speaks to the need to further investigate this and similar innovations in community collaboration and democratic process. But if these processes could work this well in Phoenix—particularly under the conditions of the mid-1980s described earlier—they can work anywhere. What is needed is skilled and tolerant leadership that understands the need and opportunity for well-facilitated, genuine citizen involvement in public affairs and a commitment of the required amount of energy and resources. Local democratic futures may be in better shape than we sometimes think. Figure 1:
Major Events in the Evolution of the Phoenix Futures Forum February 6 & 8, 1987: The Pierce Report published
June 4-7, 1987: Valley-wide Town Hall held.
May, 1988: Mayor Goddard proposes Futures Forum idea in his State of the City message.
July 8, 1988: Futures Forum Planning Committee appointed by Phoenix City Council.
October 7-8, 1988: Forum I
February 24-29, 1989: Forum II
June 10, 1989: Forum III
November 18, 1989: Forum IV
January 30, 1990:Policy Committee presents recommendations to city council; council unanimously adopts them.
Summer, 1990: Action Committee prepares work plan. Civic Summit held. Strategic Issues Department of city government is created and given responsibility for staffing Forum.
Spring, 1991: Implementation continues. Table 1:
Futures Forum Action Committee Analyses
by Ethnicity, Sex, District, and Out of the City Profession Abbreviated online. Gender: Male—55%, Female—45% Ethnicity:
Black—6% (50% Male, 50% Female)
Hispanic—10% (78% Male, 22% Female)
White—84% (58% Male, 42% Female) Profession:
Principal/Business Owner—17%
Schools/Colleges/Universities—12%
Government—13%
Business Employees—34%
Attorneys—2%
Architect—3%
Student—2%
Volunteer—10%
Church/Nonprofit—6%
Of the total 93 membership, 28% are CEO/Director/Manager/Vice President. Source: Phoenix Management and Budget Department, June 4, 1990. Table 2:
Forum Projects Underway, April 1,1991 Multi-Purpose Projects: Arts, Culture, Recreation, Sports and Historic Preservation: Basic Economic and Resource Development: Citizenship and Governance: Community, Neighborhoods, Education and Services: Environment and Natural Resources: Transportation and Urban Form: Notes 1. Wayne Balmer, Mesa Community Development Manager, as quoted in Rob Melnick, Ed., Urban Growth In Arizona: A Policy Analysis (Tempe, Ariz.: Arizona State University, Morrison Institute For Public Policy, 1988). 2. Economist, 311 (May 13, 1989). 3. Tom R. Rex, "Metropolitan Phoenix Dominates Arizona's Population Growth," Arizona Business, 35 (May 1988); and Jonathan Peterson, "Valley Image Shines," Los Angeles Times, May 16,1991. 4. Lester M. Salamon, "Urban Politics, Urban Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory," Public Administration Review, 37, (1977), p. 422. 5. There are many examples of this general point in U.S. intergovernmental affairs and public policy. The issue is best developed by Walter Williams. See, for example, his classic The Implementation Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980). 6. For example, see the following reports which raised many of these issues and were discussed in various community forums, normally Arizona Town Halls: Albert Karnig and John Stuart Hall, Eds., County Governmentin Arizona: Challenges of the 1980s (Tempe: Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs,1984); John Stuart Hall and Lawrence Mankin, Eds., Our Cultural Values: Past, Present, and Futures (Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs,1989); John Stuart Hall, et al., Government Spending and the Nonprofit Sector in Two Arizona Communities: Phoenix/Maricopa County and Pinal County (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1985); John Stuart Hall, Ed., Growth Management and Land Use Planning in Arizona (Tempe: Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs, 1985); and John Stuart Hall, Ed., Phoenix: Working Toward a Quality Future (Tempe: Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs, 1986). Although these reports were at times critical of the area's direction, and were frankly designed to stimulate debate, others maintained a consistent optimistic posture. Most notable was the Hudson Institute project on Phoenix (referred to as "Visions of the Future") during the early 1980s, under the direction of Herman Kahn. For an undestanding of this perspective, see Kahn's The Coming Boom (New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1983). 7. It became apparent after interviewing many community leaders for The Peirce Report that not a lot of thought had been given to the Plan B question. Curtis Johnson first raised the issue. Ironically, in the recession that reached Phoenix two years later, some of those interviewed lost pesonal fortunes because they lacked a "Plan B." 8. Quotes are from Pat Murphy's foreword to the reprint of The Peirce Report in Neal Peirce, et al., Urban Challenges: A Vision for the Future (Phoenix: Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 1987). The report was the result of interviews and research conducted in Phoenix during November and December, 1986. The research team was made up of Neal Peirce, Christopher T. Gates, John S. Hall, and Curtis W. Johnson. The report, with accompanying news articles, first appeared in The Arizona Republic and The Phoenix Gazette on Sunday, February 8, 1987. 9. John Stuart Hall, Ed., Valley Growth: United or Fragmented (Tempe: Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs, 1987). 10. John Kolbe, "The Town Hall: Splendid in Concept, Flawed in Execution," The Phoenix Gazette, June 8, 1987. 11. For a thorough discussion of the nuts and bolts of this process, see Rod Engelen, "Community Goal Setting: The Phoenix Experience" in Bruce McClenden, Ed., Practical Planning: New Theories For Effective Community Plans (Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association Press, 1991). Mr. Engelen's chapter was very useful in preparing this article, as were his insights in a lengthy interview, conducted May, 1991. 12. Engelen, page 4. 13. Engelen, pp. 5-6. 14. Phoenix 2015: Phoenix Futures Forum Report and Technical Supplement to the Report. Back to Community Index |
