| |
-
The Caring Communities model
-
The Caring Communities (CC) program, which Khatib Waheed
originated in St. Louis, was taken as the model for Carnahan's
Community Partnerships. In the CC model, several St. Louis
public schools provided office space for various health,
educational, welfare, and housing services. The CC in each
school had a "culturally competent" board made up of teachers,
school staff, residents (particularly parents of students),
representatives of neighborhood institutions and
organizations, and service providers. Those boards had
representatives on the CC Advisory Board. Originally,
foundations funded CC.
-
General structure and problems
-
ARCHS is the local contractor (partner) for spending the
pool of state money allocated to St. Louis. Thus, FACT
annually (more or less) enters into a contract with ARCHS to
focus the "how" and "what" of the delivery of some state
services in St. Louis. The FACT-ARCHS relationship keeps
changing. FACT has gone through three or four executive
directors and even more policy changes. The current Executive
Director is Dee Joyce Hayes, the former Circuit Attorney;
Sandra Moore, a former 2004 vice-president, was executive
director just before Hayes.
-
Much like FACT contracting with ARCHS, ARCHS contracts with
local partners, notably Caring Communities and the Sustainable
Neighborhoods Initiative (SNI). The local relationships have
changed frequently, too.
-
Lynn Broeder reported to the ARCHS Board on November 27,
2001 on the status of the Welfare-to-Work effort, another
ARCHS initiative. She noted several "disconnects" between the
expectation of how Community Partnerships would work and how
they are actually working.
-
In the 2001 legislative session, legislators were unhappy
with FACT, and especially unhappy with its St. Louis
operations, saying there was no accountability, no showing of
results. So FACT and ARCHS suffered a doubly reduced budget:
one reduction for all state-wide programs on account of
declining state revenue and a second reduction because of the
particular dissatisfaction with FACT and ARCHS. Additionally,
a recent state audit of FACT criticizes the lack of
accountability.
-
State revenue continues to shrink. ARCHS has been asked to
prepare an alternative budget to cope with an as yet
unspecified percentage reduction in anticipation of the tax
revenue shortfalls through June 30, 2002.
-
How 'bout those Compacts?
-
The effort to establish compacts, also called "memorandums
of understandings," seems to be an effort to spell out how the
several parts of the Community Partnerships will work
together. Thus, the compacts ought to answer such questions
as:
-
To what extent will the higher ups let local people make
decisions?
-
What local group should be making the decisions?
-
Who makes up a local group qualified to make the decisions?
-
Who evaluates whether the various parts are doing what they
said they would do?
-
How do the state and private funders know they are getting
their money's worth?
-
Which group or sub-group does what?
-
How do the parties prove they are achieving the core
results?
-
Alphabet of compact parties
-
The parties that have to work together in the Compact,
according to the SNI staff's thinking, are: ARCHS; RHCDA;
Neighborhood Leadership Team (in FPSE, apparently the
Community Council was designed to be the NLT); Consulting
Resource Team (in FPSE, Urban Design Associates, hired to
draft the physical plan, was the CRT); Service Coordination
Team (Robin Gierer said more than once that FPSE did not have
a SCT; Serena Muhammed says that the SNI coordinators Lucille
Walton and Lisa Potts have told her that the Human Services
Committee is the SCT); Community-Based Development
Organizations (in FPSE, the CBDO apparently is the FPSE
Housing Corporation). SNI staff also lists the ARCHS Board as
a participant in the process.
-
For a diagram of the SNI thinking see the
chart and
a revised chart that moves some things around,
adds a column for the SCT, and leaves the neighborhood part
blank.
-
Roles and Expectations
-
There are two sources for understanding the compacts: the
DRAFT that has been circulated (to some extent) and other SNI
documentation about the role of the NLT. A copy of the draft
is enclosed for your information. SNI staff says that each
compact can be adapted to local conditions.
-
The SNI materials about NLTs include two different matters:
SNI's view of the role of the NLT and SNI's expectations of
NLT members. Combining three different lists, the NLT role is:
- assist in developing and implementing neighborhood plans;
-
talk with CRT, Operations Committee (no definition or
description given), and the SCT;
-
oversee implementation of plans;
-
hold town meetings to report progress and solicit additional
input;
-
select chairs, secretary, and personnel committee;
-
tell the neighborhood facilitator about new issues, ideas or
community changes;
-
"make recommendations on issues or decisions";
-
work with SCT on details and strategies of the plan;
-
assure the plan is citizen-driven;
-
assure consideration of the entire community when developing
strategies;
-
review the facilitator's work; and
-
select two representatives for the Neighborhood Cabinet (a
city-wide advisory group for the ARCHS Board).
-
SNI's expectations of NLT members are:
- attend monthly team meetings;
-
agree to and accept SNI principles and goals;
-
select and maintain the NLT;
-
serve on at least one neighborhood sub-committee; and
-
attend capacity building and leadership training workshops.
-
What is citizen driven?
Or is it resident driven? -
This as a crucial question. The answer is different for
different people, especially because some people are "more
equal than others" when determining the direction in which
residents will be driven.
-
The draft compact defines "citizen driven" as "[a]n option
for community empowerment where decision-making authority and
accountability are vested at the community-based level, such
that power and control over these efforts are in the hands of
those whose destinies are to be affected."
-
John Pachak has suggested this definition:
Resident driven means that decisions are made by a
representative group of people from a given neighborhood or
other residency. This group should represent with equal
distribution the make up of the area being driven.
-
Adapting that and other sources and bearing in mind the
state-wide need for accountability and emphasis on measurable
results, I suggested:
Resident-driven means that decisions for a neighborhood (or
larger residency constituency) are made after a democratic
process that included:-
reaching out to all residents without exception;
-
neighborly discussion, even when disagreements exist;
-
respect for and recording of the views of all;
-
consideration of the interests of other neighborhood stakeholders;
-
providing full information about pending decisions to all;
and
-
deliberation and decision by a body (steering committee,
council, board, or whatever) that is a fair cross-section
of the neighborhood, even when economic status is
considered. (Upon reflection, "fairly reflects all
neighborhood interests" would be better than the "cross-
section" language.)
-
The Neighborhood Cabinet, after its October and November
discussion of the definition offered this (draft) proposal:
Resident Driven-
At the neighborhood level, primary decision making rests in
the hands of neighborhood residents
-
Ongoing efforts to achieve diverse representation of all
community sectors
-
Ongoing resident involvement in creation, budgeting and
implementation of all comprehensive plans at the
neighborhood level
Shared Power-
Shared information
-
Decision making processes explained before decisions are
made
-
Resident involvement in a variety of committees
| |