Connecting Individuals

Moderator: Charles Firestone, Aspen Institute

Scribe: Susan Knudten, Rose Community Foundation

Information is as important to a community’s health as safe streets, clean air, etc. How do you evaluate it? How do you improve it? Information serves many purposes:

• Coordination
• Solving problems (Example: a Louisiana newspaper ran a story pre-Katrina about the possibility of levees breaking; info only good if someone acts on it)
• Accountability (stories on Calif. council members’ outrageously high pay)
• Sense of connectedness, sense of identity

How do we go from the information sphere to the engagement sphere? How can we engage individuals?

• Young people – civic engagement corps idea
• Use universities as locales for civic engagement
• Invest in face-to-face public deliberation/communications
• Understanding relational knowledge – how do networks work?

What are some examples of projects that others might like to know about?

EXAMPLE: University of Wisconsin – Superior Days – involves eight counties; grassroots lobbying effort to engage about 250 citizens in public policy; all walks of life. They discuss significant issues impacting northern Wisconsin then they head to Madison to talk to the governor. Issues must be unique to northern WI; there must be group consensus; group must have exhausted local resources.

EXAMPLE: Miami – annual program to develop community projects out of particular issues, i.e. supporting teachers; developed parent newsletter, curriculum to help parents teach their kids, etc. Recruited participants through schools.

QUESTION: Advocate vs. convener – do you need a neutral convener? Will people participate if an advocate brings them together?

EXAMPLE: Dubuque, Iowa – current issue is sustainability; cost is $0.5 million. Project has web presence, lots of marketing, events, community cafes…people are more involved in the community and planning its future. We’ve learned how to listen, how to be responsive.

EXAMPLE: Northeast Ohio – created Efficient Gov Now to get local governments to collaborate. Citizens comment and vote on projects; we engage individuals by giving them ways to invest.

• Reinforces the idea that something is at stake. What people do will matter.

—————————————————————————————————————-

NEW TOPIC: How is technology affecting the ability of communities to connect?

EXAMPLE: Hollister, CA – did a community-wide youth survey and published results in local paper – many youth had never been asked how they thought they could make their communities better. Plan to hold meetings to identify specific projects.

EXAMPLE: Texas Christian University runs local news site: The 109 – covers local zip code. Building the group is the hardest part. Posting to Facebook doesn’t seem to be as effective. Try to find things that aren’t covered at all in the local media.

EXAMPLE: El Paso, TX – Newspaper Tree – community foundation taking over a for-profit news site; it’s in process of becoming nonprofit; will put out a reader survey to see how to best serve the community. Trying to fill in the reporting gap – working with a journalism group in Juarez.

THOUGHT: Technology is most effective when it’s used as a tool to get to a particular end. Tech for tech’s sake…not so much.

—————————————————————————————————————-

QUESTION: How do we connect problem-solvers with each other to avoid reinventing the wheel?

EXAMPLE: Central Wisconsin – stepped back from original Community Information Challenge project of building online news site; instead working on integrating information into grant making across programs.  Doing focus group/survey work to find out how people are empowered; asked clients at homeless shelters how they get workforce services. Created a platform for the individual client to “own” their own information instead of agencies holding the info about that person.

EXAMPLE: Publishing “Hero Reports”: Idea created post-9/11, celebrates good in a community – courageous acts, civic leadership.

—————————————————————————————————————-

QUESTION: The Internet can create a place-less identity to some extent. Have people’s interest levels in their own communities shifted?

• The Hollister, Calif.: youth survey showed that many felt warmly about their community and planned to stay there.
• Western South Dakota: people are coming back because of place; new technology makes it possible for them to live in a rural area but still remain connected to the broader world.
• Island community: Many are second homeowners; people feel connected through online sites even though they aren’t there physically much of the year.
• People invest when they realize they have a shared fate.
• Civic engagement seems to be a personal value; those who value it will take that value wherever they live.

MORE THOUGHTS:

• When a community has constant change happening, it’s hard to welcome and engage new voices. It’s hard to learn from the past and celebrate progress.
• There is lots of information but how much is accurate or fact-checked? There needs to be more literacy education about media.
• We’re in a more competitive era in journalism again. This has lowered standards.
• Journalists don’t have to be licensed; some are asking for them to be certified as having learned ethics of good reporting…this is starting to happen.
• Once you connect to people as human beings, you can bridge gaps. Face-to-face is important.