Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Multi-City Comparison of Poverty Reduction Strategies What Can Tucson Learn from Other Cities?
MakingActionPossibleinSouthernArizonaWhitePaper#1January21,2016PreparedbyBrianMayer,Ph.D.AssociateProfessor,SchoolofSociologyUniversityofArizonaCollegeofSocialandBehaviorSciencesJuliaGraceSmith,M.S.DoctoralCandidate,SchoolofSociologyUniversityofArizonaCollegeofSocialandBehaviorSciences
2MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Executive Summary Increasingly, city and county leaders are developing regionally specific strategies and programs for alleviating poverty. As federal and state funding for antipoverty efforts continue to diminish, local stakeholders representing a broad set of municipal sectors are looking for ways to work together to identify alternative sources of funding and innovative approaches to address persistent and disproportionately high urban rates of poverty. Many cities across the United States are taking these bold and inspiring steps to develop collaborative models for priority setting, policymaking, and interventions. The Making Action Possible Dashboard project was created to measurably improve Southern Arizona through data driven collective civic action and education. This white paper, “A Multi-city Comparison of Poverty Reduction Strategies,” provides potential models for collaborative action based on the activities of five cities across the United States: Norfolk, VA, Nashville, TN, Springfield, MO, Kalamazoo, MI, and Rochester, NY. This white paper builds on the research collected for Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild’s Poverty Commission (2012-2014) which profiled city and households trends in poverty in combination with a review of several other cities. Together, these reports provide a comprehensive review of the most prominent and potentially successful cases of city-specific initiatives to alleviate poverty and provide economic security to low income households within the past decade. Our multi-city comparison found remarkable similarities across the five cities included here. In particular, we found that the cities adopted a collaborative model that included both municipal representatives, the local nonprofit community, and to a slightly lesser degree the for-profit private sector. This diversity in representation of interests, resources, and strategies was universally seen as essential for determining what regionally-specific antipoverty strategies should be developed and prioritized. The inclusion of the private sector, both for its potential in financially supporting key programs as well as influencing the development of strategies – particularly workforce development strategies – was also seen as essential to the long-term success of these antipoverty initiatives. The legitimacy of the proposed actions was also largely dependent on the representativeness of the programs, with backing and participation from both elected city officials and municipal agency directors.
Reducing poverty and providing economic security for low income families is an essential function for any city and its public and private sectors. Collaborative partnerships appear to be the ideal strategy for bringing key stakeholders to the table to determine priority areas that reflect regional concerns and potential resources for addressing them. In each of the five cities reviewed here, collaborative coalitions of city, nonprofit, and private sector stakeholders committed substantial time, energy, and resources to developing regionally specific antipoverty strategies. Each city’s coalition reported significant benefits gained through the collaborative process, from building trust to developing innovative partnerships and engaging solutions to the persistent problem of poverty.
3MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
IntroductionAsfederalfundingfordiscretionarydomesticprogramsthatprovideaidtothepoorcontinuestodecline,manycityandcountyleadersareworkingtodevelopregionally‐specificantipovertyprogramsontheirown.Althoughnationalpovertyratesarestartingtoshowsignsofstabilizationandperhapsevenslightdecline,regionalpovertyrates–especiallyinmetropolitanareas–continuetoremaindisproportionatelyhigh.Thesepersistentpovertyrateshaveledmanypolicyprofessionalstoconcludethatregionalcontributingfactorsandantipovertystrategiesarefundamentalforaddressinglocalneeds.Competingdemandsandlimitedresourcesatthemunicipallevelhavedrivencitiestobeinnovativeintheseapproaches,creatinganopportunetimetocompareandreflectonthesuccessfulstrategiescitiesacrossthecountryarepursuing.InJune2012theUniversityofArizonaandtheSchoolofSocialandBehavioralSciencespartneredwithMayorRothschild'sPovertyCommissiontoanswerfivequestionsaboutlocalpovertyinTucson:howdoesTucson'spovertyratecomparetothatofotherlargecities?1WhoarethepoorinTucson,andwherearetheylocated?Whataretheirlivesreallylike?WhatservicesarecurrentlyprovidedinTucson?Whatpromisingantipovertystrategieshaveothercitiespursued?Thereportfrom2014thatprovidedtheseanswersdescribedtheantipovertystrategiesSavannah,GA,Portland,OR,NewYorkCity,Providence,RI,Richmond,VA,andPhiladelphia,PA.Thecommonthemetoemergefromthecomparisonofthisfirstsetofcitieswascollaborationandcoordinationofservicedeliveryledtoeitherimprovedservicedeliverythroughsomeformofpublic‐privatepartnershipsorcreatedthesettingforpartnerstoworktogetherfurther.In2015,theMakingActionPossibleforSouthernArizonaDashboardprojectinvitedwhitepapersinvestigatingsocialandeconomicfactorsaffectingtheoverallwellbeingoftheregion.ThiswhitepaperseekstoaddressregionalconcernswithTucsonandPimaCounty’scomparativelyhighpovertyratesbybuildingonthefindingsofthepreviousmulti‐citycomparisonwiththeprofilesoffiveantipovertyprogramsinNorfolk,VA,Kalamazoo,MI,Rochester,NY,Nashville,TN,andSpringfield,MO.Tothecasualobserver,thesecitieswouldappeartohavelittleincommon.Yet,facingcommonchallengesduetosomeofthehighestlevelsofpovertyintheUnitedStates,thesecitieshaveremarkablesimilaritiesinhowtheyareapproachingtheirfightagainstpoverty.ThesecitieswereselectedtoprovidesuitablecomparisonstothecityofTucsonbasedonkeycharacteristicsdescribedinthenextsection.
Selecting Cities for Comparison Asmoreandmorecitiestodayturntowardsmunicipalorregionalpoliciestodeveloppovertyalleviationstrategies,thediversityofapproachesisalsoincreasing–providinganopportunitytocompareTucson’santipovertystrategiestoothers.Inthedevelopmentofthisreport,weidentifiedroughlyfortypotentialcaseswherenewsmediaandinternetsearchesidentifiedsometypeofcityorcountyantipovertyinitiative.Thatlistwasthennarroweddowntosixteenpotentialcandidatesbasedontheavailabilityofsufficientreporting,newscoverage,orothermaterialsthatwouldallowustodevelopmentafullcaseprofile.Fromthosesixteencases,weidentifiedfivecities/countiesthatweresimilartoTucsonintermsofpopulation,officialpovertyrate,racial/ethnicdiversity,governmentstructure,andeconomicmakeup(unemploymentrateandprimaryindustrialsectors).Table1presentseachofthesecharacteristicsincomparisontothecityofTucson.
1Smith,JuliaandLaneKenworthy.2014.“PovertyinTucson:WhatDoWeKnow?HowCanWeDoBetter?”ReporttoMembersoftheCityofTucsonMayor’sCommissiononPoverty.
4MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Table1.ComparisonofCaseStudyCitiesCase Population
(City)PovertyRate(City)
PovertyRate(MSA)
%Non‐White
%HispanicorLatino
GovernmentStructure
UnemploymentRate(CivilianLaborForce)
Top2Industries
Tucson,AZ 526,141 25.3% 19.5% 27.8% 42.3% Council‐Manager
12.2% Service,Tourism
Norfolk,VA 246,139 22.4% 13.0% 51.5% 7.3% Council‐Manager
9.8% Service,Retail
Kalamazoo,MI 75,542 33.6% 17.8% 35.7% 9.8% Commission‐Manager
13.2% Service,Tourism
Rochester,NY 210,345 35.4% 14.7% 54.6% 18.0% Mayor‐Council 13.9% Service,Administrative
Nashville,TN 634,465 18.2% 13.7% 38.2% 10.2% Mayor‐Council 7.1% Service,Administrative
Springfield,MO 164,133 29.7% 18.7% 12.3% 4.6% Council‐Manager
8.6% Service,Retail
Basedon2014datafromtheU.S.CensusBureau,theofficialpovertyratefortheUnitedStateswas14.8percent.2Eachofthecitiesabovehasalevelabovethenationalaverage,rangingfromslightlyover(Nashville)andsignificantlyhigher(KalamazooandRochester).MSAratestendtobelowerduetotheinclusionofsuburbanandoutlyingareas.The2014datafromtheCurrentPopulationSurveyshownosignificantchangesfrom2013.TheAmericanCommunitySurvey,whichprovidesmunicipalandMSAleveldatafollowthesamepattern,withthe25largestMSAsshowingvirtuallynochangesoverthelastyear.ThefivecitycomparisonsalsohaveothersimilaritiestoTucson,suchasafairlylargenon‐whitepopulation,governmentalstructureinvolvingamayorormanagerandcitycouncil,andasignificantdependenceontheservicesectoreconomy.
CityComparisonsInthissectionwedescribetheeffortsthatthefivecomparisoncitieshavetakentoaddresspovertyintheirmunicipality.Eachcasestudypresentsatimelineofevents,theprecipitatingeventsleadinguptotheformationofthenewantipovertyinitiative,whoparticipated,andwhatstrategiestheypursued.Asseveraloftheseeffortsarefairlyrecentintime,wedonotpresentdataonobjectivepovertyreductions.Giventhenormalonetothreeyeardatadelayofpublicallyavailabledata,measuringoutcomesfromtherecenteffortsisnotpossible.
2DeHavas‐Walt,CarmenandBernadetteD.Proctor.2015.“IncomeandPovertyintheUnitedStates:2014.”CurrentPopulationReports.U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,EconomicsandStatisticsAdministration.P60‐252.
5MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Norfolk, VA3
Timeline February2013:Resolutiontoappoint31individualstotheMayor’s
CommissiononPovertyReductionapproved.4 July2013:MayorPaulFraimandCityCouncilformallyestablishestheMayor’s
CommissiononPovertyReduction June2014:Commissionpublishesfindingsandrecommendations5 July2014:CityCouncilapproves$500,000seedmoneyinfiscalyear2015tohelpwithplan
implementation.
TheNorfolkPovertyCommissionInearly2013,asthelocaleconomycontinuedtorecoverandimprovefollowingtherecentnationalrecession,statisticsseemedtosuggestthattherecoverywasnotnecessarilytricklingdowntothoseatthelowerendoftheincomedistributionaspoverty,out‐of‐wedlockbirths,andsingle‐parenthouseholdsremainedhigh.Thesestatistics“helpedtopersuadetheCityCounciltoappointahigh‐leveltaskforcetoexaminethenatureofpoverty.”6Severalmonthslater,theMayorconvenedtheMayor’sCommissiononPovertyReduction.TheCommissionwasco‐chairedbytworepresentativesofthepublicsectorfromtheCityofNorfolkViceMayor,AngeliaWilliams,andCouncilmanAndyProtogyrou.Themayor’sgoalwastobringtogether“privatesectoremployers,jobtrainingfacilities,educationalinstitutions,serviceorganizations,andfaithbasedcommunities”toworktogethertoidentifythecausesofpovertyinNorfolkanddeveloprecommendationstoaddresssaidcauses.7Althoughbothco‐chairsrepresentedthepublicsector,theCommissionersasawholerepresentedallsectorsincludingthefor‐profit,not‐for‐profit,andpublicsectors.Furthermore,withineachsectortherewasalsoarelativelydiversesetofrepresentatives.Forexample,withinthepublicsectorthemayor’soffice,thecitymanager’soffice,thecitycouncil,thesheriff’soffice,thechiefofpolice,thestate,andtheschoolsystem,boththeK‐12andhighereducationsystems,wereallrepresented.Withinthenot‐for‐profitsector,serviceorganizations,includingfaith‐basedorganizations,advocacygroups,andfoundationswereallrepresented.However,notablyabsentfromtheCommissionwererepresentativesofmajoremployersintheareaeitherdirectlyorviatheChamberofCommerce.TosupplementthevolunteerhoursoftheCommissionmembers,thecityalsohiredaconsultingfirm,CommunitasConsulting,tofacilitatetheCommission’sworkandcreationofthefinalreport
3TheMayor’sCommissiononPovertyReduction.RetrievedJuly25,2015.(http://www.norfolk.gov/index.aspx?NID=3280).4AResolutionAppointing31PersonstotheMayor’sCommissiononPovertyReduction.February26,2013.RetrievedJuly25,2015.(http://www.norfolk.gov/documentcenter/view/3926)5CommunitasConsulting.June2014.NorfolkPlantoReducePoverty.TheMayor’sCommissiononPovertyReduction.RetrievedJuly25,2015(http://www.norfolk.gov/documentcenter/view/16632).6AltDaily.2014.“MayorFraim’sStateoftheCity2014.”February24.www.altdaily.com.RetrievedSeptember29,2015.(http://www.altdaily.com/features/news/119‐politics34/6564‐full‐text‐video‐mayor‐fraim‐s‐state‐of‐the‐city‐2014).7MayorFraim’sWebsite.RetrievedAugust23,2015.(http://mayorfraim.com/community‐service/)
6MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
submittedtothemayorandcitycouncil.8TheCommissionmetmonthlybeginninginJuly2014throughitscompletionnearlyoneyearlaterinJune2015whenthefinalreportwaspresentedtothemayorandNorfolkcitycouncil.
CommissionRecommendationsTheCommissionidentifiedfourkeyareastotargettohelpreducepovertyinNorfolk:1)earlychildhooddevelopment,2)educationandcareerpathways,3)workforcedevelopment,4)andneighborhoodrevitalization.Thefinalreportincludesabroadgoalforeachtargetareaandthenincludesseveralspecificstrategiestopursueinordertoachievesaidgoal.9 Inadditiontothespecificgoalforeachofthekeytargetareas,theCommissionalsoidentifiedtwoothergoalsthatwererelevanttoallfourofthetargetareas:“increaseawarenessanduseofavailableresources…andcoordinatetheimplementationoftheplantoreducepoverty.”10Thereportsummarizesitsowncontributioninthefollowingway:“thisplanisintendedtoreducepovertyinNorfolk.Likeitsinception,itsfuturewilldependonbringingpeopletogetherfromacrosssectorsandneighborhoods,withablendofpublic,nonprofit,private,andcharitableresourcestoimplement.”11 Thegoalsofincreasingawarenessofservicesandresourcesandbettercoordinatetheirdeliveryalsofeaturedmorespecificstrategiesforimplementation.Forexample,toimproveawarenessthereportrecommendstwostrategies:first,to“developandimplementapublicawarenesscampaigntopromoteknowledgeanduseofeffectiveprograms”andsecond,to“improveconsumeraccesstoavailableresources.”Toachievethesecondgoalofimprovingcoordination,thereportalsorecommendstwospecificstrategies:1)to“establishacoordinatingstructuretofacilitate,advocatefor,2)andidentifyongoingsupportforplanrecommendation”andto“collectandsharedataonprogress.”12 SimilartoPovertyCommissionsinothercitiesthatwerechargedwithmakingrecommendationsregardingthefutureorganizationalstructure,choosingbetweenhousinginthecitygovernment,potentiallydirectlywithinthemayor’soffice,oraseparateentityconsistingofrepresentativesfromallsectorsbutindependentlyoperatedandstaffed.TheCommissionconcludedthatthecoalitionmodelwouldbepreferentialintermsofpotentialscopeofactions,continuingproductivemomentum,andlikelyminimizecost.TheCommissionitselfwasdeemedasuccessfulcross‐sectorcollaboration.TheNorfolkCityManagerwaslaterquotedassaying“thecollaborationof
88CommunitasConsulting.June2014.NorfolkPlantoReducePoverty.TheMayor’sCommissiononPovertyReduction.RetrievedJuly25,2015(http://www.norfolk.gov/documentcenter/view/16632).9Ibid,p.3‐4.10Ibid,p.4.Italicsadded.11Ibid,p.5.12ibid,p.43.
NorfolkMayor’sPovertyCommissionRecommendations
1) EarlyChildhood Development2) EducationandCareers3) WorkforceDevelopment4) Neighborhood Revitalization
7MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
public/privatepartnersledtothecreationofabrandnewimage.Wearecommittedtocontinueourwork.”13 TheCommission’sreportemphasizestheneedfor“commitmenttolong‐terminvolvement,involvementofkeystakeholdersacrosssectors,useofshareddatatosettheagendaandimproveovertime,andengagementofcommunitymembersassubstantivepartners.”14Thereportconcludeswithanactionplanthatincludesspecificsteps,outcomesandtimeline,whichorganization/sectorshouldtakethelead,whichorganizations/sectorsshouldbeincludedinthediscussion,andaproposedbudgetforfuturefiscalyears.Withregardstoorganizationalstructure,thereportrecommendsestablishinganintermediaryofficethatissupportedfinanciallybyallthreesectorsthatjointlyparticipatedintheCommission;theintermediaryofficecaneithertransitionintoapermanententityorinsteadserveonlyasafacilitatortoensurethattheimplementationphasemovesforwardcontinuingthecollaborativeeffortsoftheCommission;thereportdoesnotspecificallyrecommendonestructureovertheother.15
Post‐CommissionNorfolk’smayorpresentedthefollowingtimelineforthepovertyreductionplan:Identification(2014),Initial(2015),Continued(2016),andVisionary(2016andbeyond).Themayorrequested,andreceivedfromcitycouncil,$500,000ofinitialfundingtoaddressthefourpriorityareasidentifiedbytheCommissionduringfiscalyear2015.AccordingtotheCityofNorfolk’swebsite,specificstrategiesandprogramshavebeenimplementedineachofthefourcriticalneedsareas.16AccordingtotheFiscalYear2016FinancialPlan"ofthe36actionstepsoutlinedinthereport,27arecompleted,inprogress,orintheplanningstageforimplementation.”17ThefollowinginformationispostedontheNorfolkCityCouncilwebsite:
1) EarlyChildhoodDevelopment NewbornScreeningandReferral—Provideshospitalscreeningandmedical
referralstonewbornsandtheirfamilies QualityTrainingandDevelopment—Enhancethequalityofchildcareprograms
throughtraining,mentoringandparticipationinalicensingprogram VirginiaStarQualityRatingSystem—Providesmentoringandtechnicalsupport,
ratingandqualityimprovementitemsforNorfolk’scenter‐basedchildcareprograms
Faith‐basedchildcaregrantprogram—Grantsawardedtofaith‐basedorganizationstosupportchildcareprogramdevelopment
2) YouthEducationandPathways UnitedforChildrenSummerEnrichmentProgram—SupportsNorfolkchildren
livinginpovertyoverthesummerwithenrichmentopportunitiesandwraparoundservices.
13(http://altdaily.com/features/news/8150‐city‐of‐norfolk‐to‐spend‐surplus‐funds‐on‐poverty‐mitigation‐police‐body‐cameras‐and‐more14Jolin,Michele,PaulSchmitz,andWillaSeldon.February2012.“Needle‐MovingCollaborative:APromisingApproachtoAddressingAmerica’sBiggestChallenges,”TheBridgespanGroup.RetrievedAugust28,2015.(http://www.bridgespan.org/getattachment/efdc40ca‐aa41‐4fb5‐8960‐34eb504eaf9a/Needle‐Moving‐Community‐Collaborative‐s‐A‐Promisin.aspx)15CommunitasConsulting.June2014.NorfolkPlantoReducePoverty.TheMayor’sCommissiononPovertyReduction.RetrievedJuly25,2015(http://www.norfolk.gov/documentcenter/view/16632).P.44‐46.16CityofNorfolk,Virginia.OfficeoftheCityCouncil.CommissiononPovertyReduction.RetrievedAugust28,2015.(http://www.norfolk.gov/index.aspx?NID=3280).17RetrievedSeptember25,2015.(https://va‐norfolk.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/20983)
8MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
OpenCampusHighSchool—Aprogramthatprovidesavirtualand/orpersonalizedcurriculumtore‐engagestudentswhohavedroppedoutorareatriskofdroppingout
3) AdultWorkforceDevelopment EducationalandEmploymentresourceguide—Aresourcetoconnectresidentswith
educationalandemploymentopportunities LibrariesasWorkforcepreparationaccesspoints—Providesworkforceresources
andworkshopsinNorfolk’spubliclibraries4) NeighborhoodRevitalizationandSupport
Strengthencommunitycorridorsconnectedtodistressedneighborhood—grantstobusinessesforrenovations/purchasesinordertoleasevacantproperty(whilecreatingorretainingjobs).”18
EstablishaHousingTrustFund–the2016fiscalyearbudgetincludes$1millionfromtheGeneralFundtoestablishthefund,afundthatwillsupportthenewconstructionorpreservationofaffordableunitsforlow‐incomeresidentsofNorfolkinmixed‐incomedevelopments.19
Absentfromthecity’swebsiteisanyupdateonthestatusofimplementationforthetwo“cross‐cutting”strategiesofincreasingawarenessof,knowledgeabout,andutilizationofexistingservicesandestablishingacoalition‐modeltofacilitatethecoordinationofplanimplementation.AccordingtoanarticleinthelocalnewspaperdatedNovember5,2014,partofthe$500,000seedmoneyallocatedtothepovertyreductionplanwassupposedto“gotowardsdevelopingacomprehensiveguidetoemploymentandeducationalopportunities.”20Todatenosuchguidecanbefound.Itisunclearatthistimewhetheranystepshavebeentakentowardsimplementationofthesecond“cross‐cutting”strategyofestablishinganeworganizationalstructuretooverseetheimplementationphaseofthelargerprocess.Themayor’srepeatedrequestsforfundsandthecitycouncil’srepeatedapprovalofrequesteddisbursementscoupledwiththecouncil’strackingofactionspursuedtodate,suggestthatthecityhastakentheleadintheimplementationphase.Norfolk’ssustainedcommitmenttopovertyreductionthroughthecreationofaCommission,thepublicationofanofficialpovertyreductionplan,andthemaintainedfinancialsupportthroughtheannualbudgetallocationprocess,appearstoalsohavesecondarypositiveimpactsonthecommunity.InDecember2014Norfolkwasnamedtothe100ResilientCitiesNetworkoftheRockefellerFoundation.21ThedesignationgrantsNorfolkaccesstoafundthatisusedbymembercitiestocoordinatedisasterplanningefforts.Thedesignationalsoprovidedgrantmoneytosupportthehiringofachiefresilienceofficer.WhilethisdesignationdidnotitselfseemtobedirectlyrelatedtotheworkoftheCommissiononPovertyReduction,thedesignationtogetherwiththeworkoftheCommission,ledtoNorfolk’sselectionbytheWhiteHouseinAugust2015asoneof10citieschosentoreceivearesiliencegrant.Theresiliencegrantprovidesasmallgrantintheamountof$25,000andhumancapitalintheformofadditionalAmericorpsvolunteers.TheAmericorpsvolunteerswillworkwiththeNorfolkChiefResilienceOfficerChristineMorristoimplement18CityofNorfolk,Virginia.OfficeoftheCityCouncil.CommissiononPovertyReduction.RetrievedAugust28,2015.(http://www.norfolk.gov/index.aspx?NID=3280).19Ibid.20Livas,Nicole.2014.“Norfolkapproves$500ktoreducepoverty.”www.wavy.com,November5.RetrievedJuly25,2015.(http://wavy.com/2014/11/05/norfolk‐approves‐500k‐to‐reduce‐poverty/)21TheRockefellerFoundationNewsandMedia.December2013.“TheRockefellerFoundationAnnouncesInauguralMembersof100ResilientCitiesNetwork”,December13.RetrievedJuly25,2015.(https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/about‐us/news‐media/rockefeller‐foundation‐announces/).
9MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
recommendationsfromtheMayor’sPovertyCommissionandwillexpandasset‐mappinginvulnerablepopulationswithinthecity.22NorfolkMayorPaulFraimsaidinanofficialstatementthat“ThegrantfromtheWhiteHouseandtheCitiesofServiceisanaffirmationoftheworkNorfolkisdoingtobuildresilienceinthecommunity.”23
SummaryTheMayor’sCommissiononPovertyReductioninNorfolk,Virginiaisacaseofcity‐initiated,cross‐sectorcollaborationtoidentifythecausesofandrecommendstrategiestoalleviatepovertyinthecity.TheCommissionwasco‐chairedbytwogovernmentofficialsbutrepresentativesofallsectorssatontheCommission,particularlygovernment(politicians,policymakers,educationalservices)andnon‐profits(serviceproviders,advocacygroups,andfoundations).ThemostnotableabsencefromtheCommissionwasarepresentativefromthelocalChamberofCommerceorrepresentativesofmajorlocalemployersinthefor‐profitsector.Thesestakeholderswerehoweverlistedintheacknowledgementssectionofthefinalreportindicatingthattheywereatleastconsultedinsomecapacity,evenifnotaspartnersinthecollaborationitself.Onlyoneactor,CommunitasConsulting,whoservedasthefacilitatorandauthorofthefinalreport,waspaidfortheircontributiontothecollaboration.TheCommission’splanidentifiedfourcriticalareasthatifaddressedwillimprovethequalityoflifeforasignificantnumberofNorfolk’sresidents.Thereportexplicitlystatesthattheplanisnotacomprehensiveplantoeliminatepoverty,butratheronethatistargetedtowardsspecificgoalsthatwillhavethegreatestimpactonreducingpovertyspecificallyforNorfolk.Todate,atleastonestrategyfromeachgoalareahasbeenfundedbythecity.ThetwoprimaryprogramsfundedtodaterepresentexpansionsofexistingprogramsinNorfolkratherthannewevidence‐basedprogramsimportedfromothercommunities.Unlikeinthefourcriticalareas,littletonoactionappearstohavebeentakenonthetwo“cross‐cutting”strategies,thetwostrategiesthatifpursuedwouldreportedlyimpactallfourofthefourcriticalareas.Inparticularthereisnoevidencetosuggestanyforwardmovementontheorganizationalstructure“cross‐cutting”strategyrecommendedintheplan–thecoalitionmodelfortheimplementationphase.Instead,itappearsasthoughthecity,throughthemayorandcitycouncil,havecontinuedtotaketheleadintermsofplanimplementation.Oneimportanttake‐awayfromtheNorfolkcaseisthattheestablishmentofalocalCommissionandaPovertyReductionPlansendsasignaltoawidersetofstakeholdersthatthecommunityanditsleadershaschosentoprioritizequalityoflifeissues.SincetheestablishmentoftheCommissionanditspublishedplan,thecityhasbeenawardedgrantsinothertangentiallyrelatedfields,andintheareaofcommunityresilienceinparticular.WhileNorfolk’soriginaldesignationandrecognitionasaresilientcommunitywassparkedbyitsgeographicallocation,thelatestgrantbytheWhiteHouseexplicitlyrecognizestheworkoftheCommission.Insum,acommitmentbylocalleaderstoreducepovertycanhavesecondarybenefitsintheformofmakingthecitymorecompetitiveforadditionalexternalgrantsfromboththepublicandprivatesectors.
22Vascara,Virginia.2015.“Norfolkoneof10citieschosenforresiliencegrantsandvolunteers.”InsideBusiness:TheHamptonRoadsBusinessJournal.August28.RetrievedSeptember2,2015.(http://insidebiz.com/news/norfolk‐one‐10‐cities‐chosen‐resilience‐grants‐and‐volunteers).23Ibid.
10MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Kalamazoo, MI24 25
Timeline 2001:Livingwageballotinitiativedefeated. 2001–2003:Workgroupsformedandcommunitymeetingsheldabout
poverty 2003:CommunityFoundationgivesmoneytoestablishtheKalamazooCountyPoverty
ReductionInitiativeasa501c3. 2013:ExecutiveDirectorofKalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiativeleavesorganization. 2013:KalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiativedoesnotreceivefundingfromcityfor
2014fiscalyear. Early2014:KalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiativeBoardvotestodissolvethe
organization. April2014:KalamazooCityCommissioncreatesacommunitycollaborativetoaddressquality
oflifeconcernsinthecity,collaborativeistitledSharedProsperityKalamazoo.
BackgroundIn2001,afterpassageofalivingwageinitiativeinDetroit,MichigantheKalamazooCityCouncilorganizedagrouptostudyalivingwageballotinitiativethussparkingdebateaboutthedegreetowhichthecity,asawhole,bearsresponsibilityforthequalityoflifeoflower‐incomeresidentsinthecity.26Althoughtheballotinitiativeultimatelyfailed,thedefeatsparkedinterestfromawiderangeofcommunitystakeholderswhoformedworkinggroupsandheldcommunitymeetingsthatultimately,in2003,ledtothecreationofanew501c3organizationin2003,theKalamazooCountyPovertyInitiative.Overthenexttenorsoyears,theKalamazooCountyPovertyInitiativeoperatedasacommunitycollaborativeworkingtokeeppovertyonthepublicagenda.TheKalamazooCountyPovertyInitiativewasknownfortwoprimaryfunctions:first,ProjectConnect,anannualcommunityserviceseventfreetothepublicwhichconnectsindividualsandfamiliestofreeon‐sitecommunityservices,andsecond,itspovertysimulationswheremembersofthepublicaregivenrolesandmustbudgetplaymoneytolastamonthin3‐hourworkshops.27TheorganizationhadastaffofonefundedbyseedmoneyfromtheKalamazooCommunityFoundationandanannualoperatingbudgetrangingfrom$50to$75,000peryearfromavarietyofsourcesincludinglocalKalamazooorganizations,foundations,andthecityofKalamazoo.In2013theexecutivedirectoroftheorganizationleftandthecityelectednottoprovidethe$25,000itnormallyprovidedtotheorganizationforfiscalyear2014.Asaresult,inearly2014withfundsdryinguptheboardvotedtodisbandtheorganization.28AroundthesametimeasthefundingfortheKalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiativebegandryingout,theWesternMichiganUniversity(WNU)BoardofTrusteesvotedtoapprovethe
24PovertyReductionInitiative.RetrievedJuly15,2015.(http://www.haltpoverty.org/).25SharedProsperityKalamazoo.RetrievedJuly15,2015.(http://www.kalamazoocity.org/sharedprosperity).26“TheCaseforaTargetedLivingWageSubsidy.”June2001.TheEmploymentPoliciesInstitute.RetrievedSeptember25,2015.(https://www.epionline.org/wp‐content/studies/epi_livingwage_07‐2001.pdf).27Monacelli,Emily.2014.“KalamazoopovertytaskforcecomesaftercountyPovertyReductionInitiativedisbands”.www.mlive.com.April21.RetrievedJuly20.(http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/04/kalamazoo_poverty_reduction_in.html).28Ibid.
11MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
University‐CommunityEmpowermentCenter(U‐CEC)asaresearchandpolicytrainingcentertobehousedintheCollegeofHealthandHumanServices.29Accordingtothecenter’swebsite,theU‐CEC“collaborateswithindividuals,groups,andorganizationstoempowercommunitiestoreducepoverty.”30Inthespringof2014U‐CECpartneredwiththeOsherLifelongInstituteatWesternMichiganUniversity(LLIatWMU)31,avolunteerorganizationthatprovidesnon‐creditcoursesandprogramstoadultsinthegreaterKalamazooarea,topromotea“CalltoAction”onpovertyinKalamazoo.OverthecourseofJanuarythroughMarch2014,thetwoorganizationshosteda“CalltoAction”seriesofeventsincludingfiveseminarclassesaboutpoverty(education,incomesecurity,affordablehousing,mentalandphysicalhealth,andlegalissuesandcriminaljustice)inKalamazooopenandfreeforthegeneralpublic,afreepubliclecturetitled“BuildingBridges,”andaCalltoActionPlanningMeeting(alsoknownasthe“BuildingBridgesBreakfast”)whichbroughttogetherattendeesofeachofthepreviouseventsaswellasothercommunity‐universitystakeholders.InApril2014,shortlyaftertheU‐CECandLLIatWMUCalltoActioneventseriesconcluded,theKalamazooCityCommissionannouncedthecreationoftheKalamazooPovertyTaskForce.TheKalamazooPovertyTaskForcewouldbeledbyMayorBobbyJ.Hopewell.TheTaskForceultimatelyledtothecreationoftheOfficeforSharedProsperity(alsoknownasSharedProsperityKalamazoo),housedinthecitygovernmentwithasteeringcommitteecomprisedofgovernmentofficials,academics,andprivatecitizens.AccordingtotheSharedProsperityKalamazoowebsite,thegoalis“topromoteincreasedaccesstowell‐payingjobs,strongandeconomicallysecurefamilies,andhealthygrowth,developmentandlearningforallourkids.”32Overthepastyearandahalftheofficehasoperatedwiththefollowingtimeline:firstlistentoresearchoncausesandbestpractices(complete)33,secondhoststrategicplanningworkshoptodiscussideas(complete,May2015)34,third,hostsecondstrategicplanningworkshoptodevelopspecificactionsteps(complete,August28,2015)35,andfinally,develop,advocatefor,andactonaformalfive‐strategyplantoreducepovertyinKalamazoo(tobecompleted,estimateddateunknown).
29“CalltoActionReport:AddressingpovertyanditscorrelatesinKalamazooCounty”.Spring2014.PublishedbytheUniversity‐CommunityEmpowermentCenter(U‐CEC)andOsherLifelongLearningInstituteatWesternMichiganUniversity.RetrievedJuly19,2015.(http://wmich.edu/offcampus/documents/June2014‐CallToActionReport.pdf).30University‐CommunityEmpowermentCenteratWesternMichiganUniversity.RetrievedJuly20,2015.(http://wmich.edu/empowerment).31TheOsherLifelongLearningInstituteatWesternMichiganUniversity.RetrievedJuly20,2015.(http://wmich.edu/olli).32SharedProsperityKalamazoo.RetrievedJuly15,2015.(http://www.kalamazoocity.org/sharedprosperity).33KalamazooSharedProsperityInitiativePlan.RetrievedJuly15,2015.(http://www.kalamazoocity.org/docucmentlibrary/city‐commission/shared‐prosperity/4652‐shared‐prosperity‐plan/file).34“PresentationslidesforMay15,2015StrategicWorkshop.”SharedProsperityKalamazoo.RetrievedAugust13,2015.(http://www.kalamazoocity.org/sharedprosperity).35“PresentationslidesforAugust28,2015StrategicWorkshop.”SharedProsperityKalamazoo.RetrievedSeptember4,2015.(http://www.kalamazoocity.org/docman/city‐commission/shared‐prosperity/5011‐2015‐08‐28‐spk‐presentation/file).
12MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
TheSharedProsperityInitiativeidentifiesthreeprogrammaticobjectives:1)jobs,2)families,and3)youth.Thefirstobjectiveconcernscreatinganincreaseinemploymentopportunitiesandaccesstowell‐payingjobsinparticular.Thelastisalsostraightforward–workwithout‐of‐schoolyouthtoconnectthemtopathwaystoopportunities,eitherviaconnectionstothelabormarketoralternativeformsofschooling.Thesecondislessobvious.Theprogrammaticobjectiveistitledfamilies,butthespecificdescriptionisaboutthechallengesfacinglow‐incomefamiliesinKalamazooandimprovingcoordinationofservices.
MembershipTogetherthethreeaforementionedinitiatives(KalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiative,CalltoActionSeries:AddressingPovertyanditscorrelatesinKalamazooCounty,andSharedProsperityKalamazoo)takencollectivelyrepresenttherangeofmulti‐sectoralinterestsinpovertyreductionasasubstantiveissueofimportanceinthecommunity.Thefirststartedasacommunityadvocacygroupandmorphedintoa501c3,anonprofitorganization,thesecondwasspearheadedbyresearchinstituteshousedattheuniversity,andthethirdwasspearheadedbythecitygovernment.Eachofthethreeinitiativesdiscussedabovehavesomeformofboardorsteering/planningcommittee.TheboardfortheKalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiativewasbyfarthemostdiverseintermsofitsrepresentation.Accordingtoorganizationrecords36,theboardin2011‐2012,hadrepresentativesfromcityandcountygovernment,highereducation,thefor‐profitsector,non‐profitserviceproviders,andprivatecitizens.Bycontrast,theplanningcommitteefortheCalltoActionserieshadonlyrepresentativesfromthehighereducationsystemandthesteeringcommitteeforSharedProsperityKalamazoohasrepresentativesfromgovernment,onefromtheacademy,andthreeprivatecitizens.
Goal/StrategiesThepurposesofthethreeinitiatives(Table2)doappeartobeslightlydifferentfromthosethatprecededthem.Thefirstwasbothacalltocoordinatedactionandanattempttofacilitatethatcoordination.Thesecondwasarenewedcalltoaction,onethatappearedtobemoreevent‐driventhanprojectspecific.Thethirdisanattempttodevelopastrategicactionplanthatisdevelopedthroughinputfromrepresentativesfromallsectorsoftheeconomy.Table2.EvolutionofAntipovertyInitiativesinKalamazooInitiative Sector/Industry Purpose37
KalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiative
Non‐profit "focusestheeffortsofneighborhoodorganizations,stakeholders,andprivateenterprisesintoprogramsthatbuildtowardslong‐termreductionsinthepovertyrate"
36PRIBoardofDirectors.RetrievedJuly10,2015.(http://www.haltpoverty.org/board.html)37Thepurposeofeachinitiativewasobtainedfromtherespectivewebsites.RetrievedAugust14,2015.(http://www.haltpoverty.org/mission.html).(http://wmich.edu/offcampus/documents/June2014‐CallToActionReport.pdf).(http://www.kalamazoocity.org/sharedprosperity).
SharedProsperityKalamazooObjectives
1) Jobs2) Families3) Youth
13MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
CalltoAction HigherEducation "thecriticalstepofcallingthecommunitytoactionandtheactofurgingindividualsandstakeholderstoworktogetherto'buildbridges'withinthecommunity"
SharedProsperityKalamazoo
PublicAdministration “topromoteincreasedaccesstowell‐payingjobs,strongandeconomicallysecurefamilies,andhealthygrowth,developmentandlearningforallourkids”
SummaryTwoindividualsinparticularhavebeenpresentatthetablethroughoutthevariousinitiatives:DonCooneyaCityCommissionerforKalamazooandAssociateProfessorintheSchoolofSocialWorkatWMUandTimothyReadyanAssociateProfessorofSociologyatWMUandDirectoroftheLewisWalkerInstitute.CooneywasparticularlycriticalinthemostrecentdevelopmentinKalamazoo’sfightagainstpovertyashewasoneoftheCommissionerswhospecificallyrequestedthatdecreasingpovertybecountedasoneoftheCommissionstopprioritiesstartingin2014.AccordingtoMr.Cooney[quotedinthelocalpaper],"whenthePovertyReductionInitiativestarted,awholebunchofpeoplestartedfromthedifferentinstitutionsinthecityandsaid,'Wethinkthisisgreat.'Thentheywenthome.Nowtheinitiativeisgoingtobelodgedinthecityandthere'sgoingtobefollow‐upandaccountability.Thelegitimacyandprestigeinthecitywillallowthingstobedonethatcouldn'tbedonewithasatelliteoperation."38
Cooneywasagainquotedinthelocalpaperassaying,“they've[theKalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiative]donereallyexcellentworkwiththeresourcestheyhave.Buttheydon'thavetheresourcesthattheyneedandtheydon'thavethelegitimacy.Iftheycallameeting,peoplemightshowup,butifthecitycallsameetingpeoplewillshowup."DonaldRoberts,aformerchairmanoftheBoardofDirectorsfortheKalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiative,seemedtosuggestthatthedisbandingoftheorganizationwasnotsomuchafailureasasuccessstating,"oneofthegoalsofthePovertyReductionInitiativehadalwaysbeentogetgovernmentinvolvement.Thepoint,orthefocusoftheinitiativewasnonprofits,governmentandbusinessworkingtogethertoaddresstheissuesofpoverty,includingemployment,training,education."39ThegoalherewastokeeptheissueofpovertyinpublicviewandonthelistofprioritiesamonggovernmentleadersandthecreationoftheOfficeofSharedProsperityKalamazoowithinthecitygovernmentwasseenasastepintherightdirection.TheseslightlydifferenttakesonthedisbandingoftheKalamazooCountyPovertyReductionInitiative,oneattributingittoalackoflegitimacyandoneacknowledgingthatitcouldbeseenasasignofprogress,doesnottakeawayfromtheultimatelessonlearnedbyKalamazoo:thecoalition‐modelofcollaborationasanorganizationalstructuremaynotsurviveasanon‐service‐providingpovertyreductioncollaborativewithouttheinstitutionalizedsupportoflocalgovernment.
38Monacelli,Emily.2014.“KalamazoopovertytaskforcecomesaftercountyPovertyReductionInitiativedisbands”.www.mlive.com.April21.RetrievedJuly20.(http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/04/kalamazoo_poverty_reduction_in.html).39Ibid.
14MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Rochester, NY40
Timeline September2014:OfficeofInnovationandStrategicInitiativesis
formed. November2014:Cross‐sectorcollaborationtoaddresspovertyinitiatedbyMayorWarren,
StateAssemblyrepresentativeandMajorityLeaderJosephD.Morelle,andtheUnitedWayofGreaterRochester.
December2014:Rochesterisawardedthree‐year$1.9milliongrantbyBloombergPhilanthropiesaspartoftheBloombergInnovationTeamsprogram.
January2015:GovernorCuomoannouncesgrantof$500,000tolocalRochester‐MonroeAntiPovertyInitiative.HealsoannounceshisownRochesterAnti‐PovertyTaskForcethatwillworkalongsidethelocalInitiative.
March2015:GovernorCuomo’sRochesterAnti‐PovertyTaskForceholdsfirstmeeting. March2015:MayorWarrenhiresfirstdirectorofOfficeofInnovationandStrategic
Initiatives. May2015:LeonardBrockannouncedasthedirectoroftheRochester‐MonroeAnti‐Poverty
Initiative;103individualsassignedtoworkgroups.41 ComingSeptember2015:PreliminaryreportfromRochester‐MonroeAnti‐Poverty.
BackgroundInresponsetoa2013reporttitled“PovertyandtheConcentrationofPovertyintheNine‐CountyGreaterRochesterArea”42andinhopesofsecuringaBloombergPhilanthropiesgrant43,inSeptember2014MayorWarrenestablishedtheOfficeofInnovationandStrategicInitiativesinsidethecitygovernment.Thestatedpurposeoftheofficeisto“researchanddevelopboldnewsolutionstoRochester’smostpressingsocialandeconomicchallenges.”44MayorWarrenindicatedthatthefirstchallengetobeaddressedbytheofficewouldbepoverty.Severalmonthslater,MayorWarrentogetherwithStateAssemblyrepresentativeandMajorityLeaderJosephD.Morelle,MonroeCountyExecutiveMaggieBrooks,andPeterCarpinooftheUnitedWayofGreaterRochester,jointlyconvenedapublic‐privatepartnership,theRochester‐MonroeAnti‐PovertyInitiative,tobegindiscussionsonhowtoaddresspovertyinthecommunity;theseindividualsbecamethesteeringcommitteefortheInitiative.Aninitialpovertymeetingwasconvenedandtheeventwaswellattendedwith24individualsrepresenting15differentorganizationsandallmajorsectorsrepresentedincludingthepublic,privateandnot‐for‐profit.InMay2015,thesteeringcommitteeof
40RochesterAnti‐PovertyInitiative.RetrievedJuly10,2015.(https://www.uwrochester.org/RochesterAnti‐PovertyInitiative.aspx)41Riley,David.May2015.“Anti‐povertyinitiativeleadernamed.”Democrat&Chronicle,May28.RetrievedSeptember28,2015.(http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/05/26/leonard‐brock‐anti‐poverty‐initiative‐rochester‐members‐leadership/27957545/).42Doherty,Edward.December2013.“SpecialReport:PovertyandtheConcentrationofPovertyintheNine‐CountyGreaterRochesterArea.”RochesterAreaCommunityFoundation.RetrievedSeptember25,2015.(http://roc.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A22162251210.PDF).43Sharp,Brian.September2014.“Cityseeksradialapproaches.”Democrat&Chronicle.September28,2014.RetrievedSeptember28,2015.(http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/28/zhi‐tang‐delmonize‐smith‐henry‐fitts‐rochester‐innovation/16294201/).44CityofRochester,OfficeofInnovationandStrategicInitiatives.RetrievedAugust25,2015.(http://www.cityofrochester.gov/innovation/).
15MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
theRochester‐MonroeAnti‐PovertyInitiative,hiredadirector,LeonardBrook,fortheInitiative,aswellasnamingover150individualstothesixworkgroups.45Thelocalcollaborationwaswellalignedwithactivityoccurringatthestatelevel,wherebyNewYorkGovernorCuomoidentifiedfightingpovertyandbettertargetingstateaidtolocalneedsastwoofhisadministration’spriorities.46ByDecember,theactionstakenbythecitybegantoreceiverecognitionbothinthefoundationworldandinstategovernment.InDecember2014,Rochesterwasawardeda$1.9milliongrantfromBloombergPhilanthropiesaspartoftheBloombergInnovationTeamsprogram.ThegrantwillbeusedtohireuptosevenadditionalemployeesandadirectorfortheOfficeofInnovationandStrategicInitiatives.47InJanuary2015,aspartGovernorAndrewCuomo’sOpportunityAgendatocombatpovertyandinequality,itwasannouncedthata$500,000grantwouldbegiventothelocalinitiative.InadditiontheGovernorcreatedananti‐povertytaskforceforRochestertobecalledtheRochesterAnti‐PovertyTaskForcetoactasapartnertotheRochester‐MonroeAnti‐PovertyInitiative.48However,unlikethelocalAnti‐Povertyinitiative,whichfeaturedrepresentationfromallthreemajorsectors,GovernorCuomo’sRochesterAnti‐PovertyTaskForceiscomprisedprimarilyofvariousrepresentativesofthestateandcabinetmembers.49Theintentionofthestate‐leveltaskforceistoreportedlyworkalongsidethelocalanti‐povertyinitiativeandincreaseaccesstocriticalservicesincludingchildcare,healthcare,jobtraining,andyouthmentoringaswellaspromotingqualityeducation,anti‐hunger,andanti‐homelessnessefforts.50Thecollaborationstartedwiththeintentiontohavefiveworkgroups,oneforeachoftheidentifiedfivecriticalareas(jobs,healthandnutrition,educationandworkforcetraining,housing,andsafeneighborhoods).AsofAugust2015theSteeringCommitteehadbeenformedandworkgroupsestablished.ByMarch2015twoadditionalworkgroupsweresuggested(policyandsystemsredesign).BythetimetheSteeringCommitteeandworkgroupswereformallyestablished,theRochester‐MonroeAnti‐PovertyInitiativehadsevenworkinggroups,oneforeachcriticalarea(thefiveoriginalkeyareasplustransportation)andoneforsystemsdesign.51Boththesteeringcommitteeandtheworkgroupsarediverseintheircross‐sectorrepresentationwithrepresentativesfromthepublicsector(city,county,state,K‐12andhighereducationsystems),theprivatenot‐for‐profitsector(serviceproviders,faith‐basedorganizations,andfoundations),andtheprivatefor‐profitsector(localbusinessesandemployers).Privatecitizensarealsoincludedintheworkgroups.
45Riley,David.May2015.“Anti‐povertyinitiativeleadernamed.”Democrat&Chronicle,May28.RetrievedSeptember28,2015.(http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/05/26/leonard‐brock‐anti‐poverty‐initiative‐rochester‐members‐leadership/27957545/).46Rochester‐MonroeCountyAnti‐PovertyInitiativeProposal.November26,2014.RetrievedJuly18,2015.(http://www.uwrochester.org/pdf/NYSPOVERTYPROPOSAL.pdf).47Riley,David.2014.“$1.9millioninnovationgranttohelpcitytacklepoverty.”Democrat&Chronicle.September14.RetrievedJuly18.(http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/12/15/rochester‐grant‐bloomberg‐philanthropies‐poverty‐innovation‐lovely‐warren/20435127/)48Singer,Patti.January2015.“TaskforcetoaddressRochesterpoverty.”Democrat&Chronicle.January18.RetrievedSeptember28.(http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/18/task‐force‐address‐rochester‐poverty/21981175/).49“GovernorCuomoAnnouncesRochesterAnti‐PovertyTaskForceHoldsFirstMeeting50Ibid.51ListofSteeringCommitteeandWorkGroupMembersforRochester‐MonroeAnti‐PovertyInitiative.RetrievedAugust20,2015.(http://www.uwrochester.org/RochesterAnti‐PovertyInitiative.aspx).
16MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
SummaryRochester’santi‐povertystrategyisuniqueintwoways.First,Rochesterhashadmultipletaskforcesatvariouslevelsofgeographyoccurringsimultaneously.Further,thesedifferentgroupsarereportedlyworkingalongsideoneanotherasjustmoreexampleofthemagnitudeoftheattemptatcross‐sectorandcross‐geographycollaboration.Second,thecitydemonstratedacommitmenttoreplicatingandimplementingbestpracticesfromothercommunitiesinRochesteronascaleunlikeothercases.First,themayorestablishedthecity‐ledofficetopursuepovertyalleviationpriortoanystrategicactionplanthatcalledforit.Inotherwords,thecityadoptedasystemthathadbeenproveneffectiveinothercitiespriortoadoptingtheactionplanthatthatagencywouldlaterbechargedwithhelpingtoimplement.Thestrengthofthisapproachappearstobethatthecitysoonthereafterreceivedagranttoexpandtheone‐personofficeintoanofficeofsevenincludingadirectorthatreportsdirectlytothemayor.Thecity’sinvestmentinthisinstanceappearstohavepaidoffoverfive‐fold,albeitonlyfortheperiodofthegrant.TheapproachthenthatthecityhastakenisoneoflookingtoothercitiestoidentifybestpracticestoaddressRochester’sregionalpoverty.
Nashville, TN52
Timeline 2002:NashvilleChamberofCommerceconductsastudyonthecohesion
ofthesupportnetworkforyouthinNashville. 2003:AlignmentNashvilleisformedasa501c3nonprofitorganizationtoworkas
intermediary,collectiveimpactorganizationwiththegoalofworkingtowardssystemicchange.
September2009:MayorKarlDeanestablishesNashvilleasoneoftheoriginaltenCitiesofService,acommitmentbythemayorstofindnewwaystopromotevolunteerismintheirrespectivecities.
2008‐2009:MetropolitanActionCommissionandtheNashvilleChamberPublicBenefitFoundationoverseecollaborativeefforttodevelopaPovertyReductionInitiativePlan.
February2010:ThePovertyReductionInitiativeisreleasedandMayorKarlDeanaskstheMetropolitanActionCommissiontocoordinatetheimplementationoftheplan.
2010:MetropolitanSocialServicescreatestheNashvillePovertyCouncil,apublic‐privatepartnershipresponsibleforimplementationoftherecommendations.
2011:MayorappointsKristineLaLondetoChairtheNashvillePovertyCouncil. January2013:NashvilleisselectedbyBloombergPhilanthropiesandtheCitiesFinancial
EmpowermentFundasareplicationsiteforoneofNewYorkCity’ssuccessfulanti‐povertyprograms,theFinancialEmpowermentCenter.
March2013:Nashville’sFinancialEmpowermentCenteropens.
52AlignmentNashville(http://portal.alignmentnashville.org/about‐an),NashvillePovertyReductionInitiative(http://www.nashville.gov/Social‐Services/Planning‐And‐Coordination/Poverty‐Reduction.aspx),andNashvillePovertyCouncil(http://www.nashville.gov/Social‐Services/Planning‐And‐Coordination/Poverty‐Reduction.aspx).
17MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
April2013:MayorestablishestheMayor’sOfficeofInnovationandhirestwoco‐directors:KristineLaLonde(ChairoftheNashvillePovertyCouncil)andYiawayYeh,formermayorofPaloAlto,California.53
May2013:MayorcreatesHousingTrustFund
AlignmentNashvilleUnlikeothercases,inNashvillethefirstcontemporaryinitiativetoaddresspovertyinNashvilleoriginatedintheprivatesector.AstudycompletedbytheNashvilleChamberofCommercein2002highlightedthefragmentednatureofthesupportnetworkforyouthinNashville.Thestudyreportedthatwhilethecommunityhasresourcesavailable,thereislittlecommunicationbetweenorganizationsthatprovidesaidresources/services.Thisfindingsparkedconversationsamongcommunityorganizationsacrosssectorsaswellasresidentsofthecity.AlignmentNashvillewasbornoutoftheseconversations.In2003,AlignmentNashvillewasformedasa501c3nonprofitorganizationtoworkasintermediary,collectiveimpactorganization.Theorganizationhasaformalizedstructureincludingaprofessionalstaffof11andadiverseboardofdirectorswithrepresentativesfromthepublic,non‐profit,andfor‐profitprivatesectorsallwellrepresented,andthefor‐profitbusinesssectorinparticular.ThewidespreadparticipationofthebusinesssectorinNashville’scollectiveimpactcoalition‐modelcollaborativedistinguishesNashvillefromothercaseswhererepresentationofthissectortendstobeminimal,ifatall.Tobesure,theorganization’sfocusisonimprovingoutcomesforyouthandassuchisnotacomprehensiveanti‐povertyinitiative.Accordingtothe2014AnnualReport,boththeNashvilleAlignmentAdvisoryBoardandtheNashvilleAlignmentOperatingBoardcontinuetofeaturerepresentativesofallthreesectors:public,privatefor‐profit,andprivatenotforprofit.54AnexternalevaluationofsuccessfulcollaborativespublishedbyTheBridgespanGroupattributedAlignmentNashville’ssuccesstoits’formalizedstructure.Theinclusionofprofessionalstaff,meaningfulworkcommitteeswithrotatingpositions,anoperatingboardseparatefromtheboardofdirectors,andcontinuedcommunityalignmentwasfosteredthroughregularrequestsforparticipationissuedtothepublic.55
NashvillePovertyReductionInitiative&TheNashvillePovertyCouncilInSeptember2008,NashvilleMayorKarlDeancreatedtheNashvillePovertyReductionInitiative.TheInitiativekickedoffwithacalltoactionevent.Theeventdrewacrowdofapproximately500people.Followingthepublickickoffevent,thecityhostedaone‐dayactiongroupkickoffeventconvenedbytheNationalLeagueofCities;thiseventwasalsowellattendedwithapproximately200individualsbeingassignedtooneofsevensubstantiveworkgroups:childcare,economicopportunity,food,healthcare,housing,neighborhooddevelopment,andworkforcedevelopment.Therewerealsotwosupervisorycommittees:theplanningcommitteeandtheactioncommittee.AccordingtothefinalNashvillePovertyReductionPlan,the200individualsthatparticipatedinthe53McGee,Jaime.2013.“DeancreatesOfficeofInnovation,hiresformerPaloAltomayor.”NashvilleBusinessJournal.April26.RetrievedJuly26,2015.(http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2013/04/26/dean‐creates‐office‐of‐innovation‐to.html).54“AlignmentNashvilleAnnualReport.”2014.AlignmentNashvilleforsuccessful,healthychildren.RetrievedJuly20,2015.(http://portal.alignmentnashville.org/documents/10179/311608/2014+Alignment+Nashville+Annual+Report/657a4aa9‐6d49‐4723‐bf96‐ad9ec51356e3).55Seldon,WillaMicheleJolinandPaulSchmitz.2012.“Needle‐MovingCollaboratives:APromisingApproachtoAssessingAmerica’sBiggestChallenges.”TheBridgespanGroup.February6.RetrievedJuly20,2015.(http://www.bridgespan.org/Publications‐and‐Tools/Revitalizing‐Communities/Community‐Collaboratives/Needle‐Moving‐Community‐Collaborative‐s‐A‐Promisin.aspx#.Ve50_mRVikq).
18MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
plan’sdevelopmentincludedrepresentativesofbusinesses,foundations,andgovernmentagenciesaswellasprivatecitizens.56Thereportmakesthreetofiveactionrecommendations(referredtoasstrategies)ineachoftheseventargetareasandforeachactionrecommendationthereportincludesthefollowinginformation:anexplanationastohowtheactionitemwillreducepoverty;thetimeframefortheaction;theorganizationalstructurethattheactionitemwillrequireaswellasspecificorganizationstofillthoseroles;andhowtheactionisrelatedtoexistinglocalefforts.In2010,themayoraskedtheMetropolitanSocialServicesOfficetocoordinatetheInitiative’simplementation.Inresponsetothatrequest,theMetropolitanSocialServicesOfficecreatedtheNashvillePovertyCouncil,apublic‐privatepartnership,toserveinthatcoordinatorandfacilitatorrole.ThisshiftsuggeststhattheCouncil’srolewasultimatelysubsumedbyacity‐ledeffort.
TheMayor’sOfficeofInnovationTheNashvilleOfficeofInnovationwascreatedinApril2013byMayorKarlDean.Atthetime,thepurposeoftheofficewasto“createjobsandadvanceeconomicdevelopmentaswellasexaminethecity’ssocialservices.”57Unlikeothercity‐ledcollaborativeeffortsliketheNewYorkCityCEOmodel,theNashvillecity‐ledmodelisjustatwo‐personteamandthestaffareresponsibleforawiderangeofinitiativesofwhichthePovertyReductionInitiativeisjustonecomponent.YiawayYeh,theformermayorofPaloAlto,will“beresponsibleforIT,dataandentrepreneurship”andKristineLaLonde,theChairoftheNashvillePovertyCouncil,willberesponsiblefor“socialservices,povertyandvulnerablepopulations.”58Accordingtoaninterviewwiththetwoco‐chairs,theco‐chairs“sharethemayor’ssensethat‘governmentshouldbeacollaborativepartnerwiththenonprofitsector,withbusiness,withcitizens.It’saplatformforengagementandchange.It’snotjustaservicedeliverysystem.”59TheMayor’sOfficeofInnovationthenisanexampleofacity‐ledcollaborationmodelonamuchsmallerscalethansomeoftheothersthatareevidentinothercasessuchasRochesterorthecommonlyreferencedandreplicatedNewYorkCityCenterforEconomicOpportunity(CEO)model.
SummaryAlthoughtherearethreedistinctinitiativesinplaceinNashville,eachhasitsownspecificfocusareaandassuchtheeffortsoftheinitiativesdonotappeartoberedundant.Infact,thereappearstobesomeoverlapinthecollaborativepartnersofeachinitiative.Nashvilleisauniquecaseforthreereasons:first,Nashvillewastheonlycasewhereaninitiateoriginatedinthefor‐profitprivate56NashvillePovertyReductionInitiativePlan.February2010.CityofNashville.RetrievedJuly22,2015.(http://www.healthynashville.org/javascript/htmleditor/uploads/NashvillesPovertyReductionPlan.pdf).57“Mayor’sStateofMetroCallsonNashvilletobeKnownasCityWith‘OpportunityforEveryone’.”2013.www.Nashville.gov.May20.RetrievedJuly26,2015.(http://www.nashville.gov/News‐Media/News‐Article/ID/1595/Mayors‐State‐of‐Metro‐Calls‐on‐Nashville‐to‐be‐Known‐as‐a‐City‐With‐Opportunity‐for‐Everyone)58Haruch,Steve.2014.“AtalkwithKristineLaLondeandYiawayYeh,co‐chiefsofthemayor’snewOfficeofInnovation:DaringDuo”.NashvilleScene.January13.RetrievedJuly20,2015.(http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/a‐talk‐with‐kristine‐lalonde‐and‐yiaway‐yeh‐co‐chiefs‐of‐the‐mayors‐new‐office‐of‐innovation/Content?oid=3502944)59Ibid.
NashvillePovertyReductionInitiativePlan
1) ChildCare2) EconomicOpportunity3) Food4) HealthCare5) Housing6) Neighborhood
Development7) WorkforceDevelopment
19MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
sector.Infact,AlignmentNashville’ssuccesshasbeenhasbeenrecognizednationallyandatleastsevenothercities/regionsacrosstheU.S.havesincereplicatedtheAlignmentcollectiveimpactmodel.60Second,Nashvillehasadoptedbothtypesofcollaborativemodelsidentifiedintheliterature:thecoalition‐model(viaAlignmentNashville)andthecity‐ledcollaborativemodel(viatheOfficeofInnovation).Finally,thecity‐ledmodelimplementedbyNashvillediffersfromothercity‐ledmodelsthattendtohavelargerstaffsandmoreformalizedstructuresforcollaborativepartners.
Springfield, MO61
Timeline March2014:SpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommissionisformedby
theCommunityPartnershipoftheOzarks March2014–May2015:monthlymeetingsoftheCommission May2015:Cityofficialshostseriesofcommunitymeetingscalled“CommunityListen”62 September2015:MayorannouncespreliminaryrecommendationsfromtheCommunity
ListenZoneBlitzActionPlan;willbepresentedonSeptember29,2015toCityCouncilforapproval.63
October2015(planned):ifapproved,theCommunityListenZoneBlitzActionPlanwillbepresentedattheJuniorLeagueofSpringfield’sCommunitySummit:FocusonPovertyeventalongwiththeImpactingPovertyCommissionReport.64
TheCommissionRepresentativesfrommultipledivisionsandlevelsofgovernmentsitontheSpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommissionalongsidebusinessowners,representativesoffaith‐basedorganizationsandserviceprovidingorganizationsaswellasrepresentativesofhighereducation,foundations,andfinallyprivatecitizensincludingahighschoolstudent.65TheCommissionalsoreceivesstaffsupportfromtheCommunityPartnershipoftheOzarksandUnitedWayoftheOzarks;inotherwords,thereisnodevotedstaffbutthesetwoorganizationsactasfacilitatorsoftheCommission’swork.TheCommissionisco‐chairedbyGregBurris,Springfield’sCityManagerandGailSmartofCenterCityChristianOutreach.
60“AlignmentNashvilleAnnualReport.”2014.AlignmentNashvilleforsuccessful,healthychildren.RetrievedJuly20,2015.(http://portal.alignmentnashville.org/documents/10179/311608/2014+Alignment+Nashville+Annual+Report/657a4aa9‐6d49‐4723‐bf96‐ad9ec51356e3).p.56.61SpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommission.RetrievedJune28,2015.(http://www.impactingpoverty.org/).62Herzog,Stephen.2015.“CitytolistentonorthwestSpringfieldresidents.”SpringfieldNews‐Leader.April23.RetrievedSeptember28,2015.(http://www.news‐leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2015/04/23/city‐listen‐northwest‐springfield‐residents/26261729/)63Herzog,Stephen.2015.“GroupsoutlineplanstodealwithpovertyinnorthwestSGF.”SpringfieldNews‐Leader.SpringfieldNews‐Leader.September23.RetrievedSeptember28,2015.(http://www.news‐leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2015/09/23/groups‐outline‐plans‐deal‐poverty‐northwest‐sgf/72710002/).64Herzog,Stephen.2015.“‘Zoneblitz’plantoaddressconcernssharedinMay’slisteningmeetings.”SpringfieldNews‐Leader.September24.RetrievedSeptember29,2015.(http://www.news‐leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2015/09/24/zone‐blitz‐plan‐address‐concerns‐shared‐mays‐listening‐meetings/72765636/).65SpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommission,CommissionMembers.RetrievedJune28,2015.(http://www.impactingpoverty.org/commission‐members/)).
20MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
AccordingtotheCommission’swebsite,theCommissionwaschargedwithtakinganinventoryofwhatwascurrentlyavailableinthecommunity,learningaboutthelocalrootcausesofpovertyaswellasthesymptomsofpovertylocally,identifyingbestpracticesfromothercommunitiestoaddresspoverty,developingastrategicactionplanwithmeasurablegoals.TheCommissionwasaskedtodevelopaplanthathadspecificactionitemsforeachbroadgoalincludingrecommendingtheroleandorganizationthatwouldplaytheroleforeachactionitemaswellastheprojectedbudget.TheCommissionwasalsoaskedtoidentifylegislativepriorities,increasepublicawarenessofpovertyinthecommunity,andrecommendanorganizationalstructure,ifneeded,inordertomonitortheimplementationphaseaswellasfutureefforts.66Accordingtoanonlineinterview,oneCommissionmember“describedSpringfieldasa‘program‐rich,butsystem‐poor‘city”.67TheCommissionisjustoneoftwokeyorganizationsinthelocalfighttoalleviatepoverty.Thesecondorganization,theImpactingPovertyCollaborative,istheorganizationthatisresponsibleforalignmentofservices,empowerment,andcommunityeconomicdevelopment.BothorganizationsareworkingtogethertodevelopthePovertyReductionPlan.Aroundthistime,communityleadersdiscoveredthroughaspatialanalysisofpovertytrends,anditscorrelates,thatpovertywasparticularlyconcentratedinthenorthwestzoneofthecity68,thusthedecisiontofocuseffortsonthisparticulargeographicregionwithregardstopovertymitigationefforts.Cityofficials,togetherwithleadersof40variousorganizationsfromacrossthecommunity,thenlaunchedaseriesofmeetingsthroughoutMay2015withresidentsinordertogetfeedbackfromthecommunityaboutthecausesandconsequencesofpovertyaswellasbarrierstosocialmobility;thesemeetingsweretitled“CommunityListens.”AftertheconclusionoftheCommunityListensevents,Mr.Burris,citymanager,solicitedpartnershipswithrepresentativesfromallthreesectorstoform11workgroups,oneforeachproblemareaidentifiedthroughtheCommunityListensevents:1)chronicnuisanceproperties,2)civicengagement,3)communication,4)digitaldivide,5)foodaccess,6)healthcare,7)housing,8)infrastructureandtransportation,9)jobsandeconomicdevelopment,10)publicsafety,and11)wellness.69BytheconclusioninSeptember2015,167individualsrepresenting95organizationswererepresentedintheworkgroups;representativesincludedawiderangeofindividualsfromCEOstorepresentativesoffaith‐basedorganizationstorepresentativesofthehealthcaresector.Ofthese,residentsofthecommunityvotedtoprioritize1)chronicnuisanceproperties,2)sidewalkandotherroadwayissues,and3)crimeandsafetyconcerns.70PreliminaryrecommendationsforeachtargetareawereannouncedSeptember23,2015buttheformalplanwillnotbereleaseduntilOctober8,2015.
66SpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommission,AboutUs.RetrievedJune28,2015.(http://www.impactingpoverty.org/commission‐members/)).67“TheImpactingPovertyCommission:UnderstandingPovertyinSpringfield,MO”.TheIntersectorProject.RetrievedJuly22,2015.(http://intersector.com/impacting‐poverty‐commission‐understanding‐poverty‐springfield‐mo/).68CityofSpringfieldCommunityListenEvents.RetrievedSeptember29,2015.(springfieldmo.gov/2794/Community‐Listen‐Events).69Herzog,Stephen.2015.“‘Zoneblitz’plantoaddressconcernssharedinMay’slisteningmeetings.”SpringfieldNews‐Leader.September24.RetrievedSeptember29,2015.(http://www.news‐leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2015/09/24/zone‐blitz‐plan‐address‐concerns‐shared‐mays‐listening‐meetings/72765636/).70CityofSpringfieldCommunityListenEvents.RetrievedSeptember29,2015.(springfieldmo.gov/2794/Community‐Listen‐Events).
21MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Themajorityofthepreliminaryrecommendationsrevolvearoundincreasingaccesstoinformation/resourcesandcoordinationofservices;forexample,thecommunicationsworkgrouprecommended“thedevelopmentof‘hubs’forinformationsharing”;thedigitaldivideworkgrouprecommended“educationalprogramstopromotelow‐costinternetaccessoptions”;thefoodaccessworkgrouprecommended“developingacommunityfoodresourcecenter”;thehealthcareworkgrouprecommended“aplantoensurecoordinationofhealthcareservices”;thehousingworkgrouprecommended“thepossibilityofcreatingan‘arearesourcemanager’;and,thepublicsafetyworkgrouprecommended“enhancingcoordinationamongsafetyagencies.”71AccordingtotheCityofSpringfield’swebsite,thefinalActionPlanwillbedevelopedbasedonresultsfromavarietyofongoingeffortsincludingtheaforementioned11CommunityListenZoneBlitzTeamsandtheImpactingPovertyCommissionReport&CalltoAction.72
SummarySpringfieldisauniquecaseamongitscounterpartsinthattheSpringfieldCommissionmembersrepresentoneofthemorediversegroupsintermsofsectoralinterestrepresentation.RepresentativesfrommultipledivisionsandlevelsofgovernmentsitontheCommissionalongsidebusinessowners,representativesoffaith‐basedorganizationsandserviceprovidingorganizationsaswellasrepresentativesofhighereducation,foundations,andfinallyprivatecitizensincludingahighschoolstudent.73Thenotableabsencehoweveristhemayororanotherpolitician.Whileoneoftheco‐chairsisapolicymaker(thecitymanager),thisisdistinctfromtheroleofthepoliticianswhoregularlyshapepolicyagendas.Thisnotableabsenceis,accordingtoonememberoftheCommission,problematicbecausefortheCommissiontohaveanyrealpowertoeffectchangeitwillrequireresourcesandbuy‐infromthegovernmentandthatincludeslocalpoliticians.74TheargumentforNorfolktopursueacoalition‐modelapplieshereaswell:thesooneryoubringfunderstothetable,thebetter.Inotherwords,ifyoucanturnfundersintoco‐plannersaswell,thentheoverallcollaborativeismorelikelytobesuccessful.Unlikeothercases,theSpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommissiondistinguishesbetweensymptomsandcausesofpoverty.TheCommissionarguesthatmostoftheeffortslocallyaretargetedtowardsaddressingthesymptomsratherthanthecausesandasaresulttheeffortsappearfruitlessatthemoremacrolevel.Tobesure,othercasesdomakethedistinctionbetweenshortandlongtermrecommendationsandonecouldequatethesewithsymptomandcauserecommendations,respectively.
71Herzog,Stephen.2015.“GroupsoutlineplanstodealwithpovertyinnorthwestSGF.”SpringfieldNews‐Leader.SpringfieldNews‐Leader.September23.RetrievedSeptember28,2015.(http://www.news‐leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2015/09/23/groups‐outline‐plans‐deal‐poverty‐northwest‐sgf/72710002/).72“CommunityListenZoneBlitz.”2015.CityofSpringfield.RetrievedSeptember29,2015.(www.springeifledmo.gov/documentcenter/view/19952.)73SpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommission,CommissionMembers.RetrievedJune28,2015.(http://www.impactingpoverty.org/commission‐members/)).74“Don’tTurnAway:Takingalong,hardlookatSpringfield’sPoverty.”January2015.417Magazine.RetrievedJuly19,2015.(http://www.417mag.com/417‐Magazine/January‐2015/Dont‐Turn‐Away‐Taking‐a‐long‐hard‐look‐at‐Springfields‐Poverty‐Problem/).
SpringfieldImpactingPovertyCommissionVotedPriorities
1. ChronicNuisance
Properties2. Sidewalkand
RoadwayIssues3. CrimeandSafety
Concerns
22MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
ComparisonofCasesTheprevioussectionpresentedthefivecasesindetail.Thissectioncomparesthecasesbasedonthreekeycategories:membershipandorganizationalstructure,areasoffocusforantipovertystrategies,andlessonslearned(Table3).Eachofthesecitiessearchedforinnovativesolutiontothesharedproblemofpoverty,eithergeneratedfromregionalstrategiesormodeledaroundothersuccessfulinitiatives,aswasthecaseparticularlyinRochester.Whatiscommonacrossallthecasesisacommitmenttocollaborationinthepursuitofinnovation.Withtherecognitionthatregionalcausesofpovertyrequireregionalsolutionsleadingtotheformationofthesecity‐drivenapproaches,theircommonalitiesinproposedstrategiesissuggestivethatothercitiescanlearnfromtheexperiencesofthecitiesleadingthewaytoday.
MembershipandOrganizationalStructureThefullspectrumofcollaboration‐initiatingsectorsisrepresentedacrossthefivecases.NorfolkandRochester’sprojectswereinitiatedbycitygovernments,Kalamazoo’sprojectswerelargelycommunity‐driven,andNashville’sinitialantipovertyprogramwasstartedwithintheprivatesector.Interestingly,Kalamazoo’sinitialprojectfromwithinthenonprofitsectoreventuallycametoahalt,butwastheninvigoratedbyinterestincollaborativeresearchandactionfromalocaluniversity.Althoughthereisadiversityoforiginatingorganizationalsectors,eachcityemphasizedcollaborationandtheinclusionofrepresentationsfromeachofthethreepossiblesectors(city,nonprofit,andprivate).However,severalcitiesreflectedontheimportanceofanactiveroleofthecitygovernment.Forexample,inKalamazoo’suniversity‐drivenCalltoActionprogram,severalparticipantscommentedthatlackingactiverepresentationfromtheCityofKalamazoogovernment,othersectorspotentiallyfeltlessinclinedtoparticipant.Thusthequestionoflegitimacyseemsespeciallyimportanthere.Themoreapparentlysuccessfulcases,forexampleNorfolkandRochester,drewonbackingfromoutsidestakeholders–suchasthestategovernmentinthecaseofRochesterandfederalsupportinthecaseofNorfolk–forlegitimacyinbuildingnewcollaboratives.OthercitieslikeNashvilleandSpringfieldfollowedamoretraditionalmodelofthecitygovernmentsinitiatingandconveningacollaborationcommissionorcoalitionofpublicandprivateactors.Whilenooneinitiatingactorwascommonacrossallthecases,thecommonthemetoemergefromthesefivecities,aswellasthepreviousfivereviewedfortheTucsonMayor’sCommissiononPoverty,istheimportanceofcollaborationwithinandrepresentationfromthecity,nonprofit,andprivatesectors.Thoughthecityandnonprofitsectorsarerepresentedineachcase,theinclusionandactiveinvolvementfromtheprivatesectoralsoseemsparticularlyimportant.Beyondinclusionforfinancialreasons,theprivatesectorbringsmuchtothetableintermsofdevelopingstrategiesrelatedtoworkforcedevelopment,themostcommonlyidentifiedstrategiesacrossthefivecities.Lastly,leadershipemergesasanimportantcharacteristicofsuccessfulcommunitycollaboration.Forexample,participantsintheSpringfieldprojectobservedthatalthoughthecitywasrepresentedbypolicymakers,noelectedpoliticianswererepresentedwhichcouldleadtoproblemswithfindingsupportforfundingforboththeantipovertyprojectitselfanditsproposedpolicies.Also,lackingauthoritytobringanyCommission’srecommendationstoactionwasacommonsourceoffrustrationfromprojectslackingparticipationfromaMayororotherelectedofficial.SupportfortheCommissionswasalsoimportant,withaprivateconsultingfirm(Norfolk)orstaffingfromthecity(Kalamazoo)providingmuchneededadministrativehelp.
23MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
TargetAreasThemostcommonlyidentifiedareatobeaddressedthroughantipovertystrategieswasjobsorworkforcedevelopment.Everycityputforwardastrategicplan,orproposaltodevelopaplan,toincreaseemploymentamonglowincomeadults.Thisisnotsurprisinggiventhecentralimportanceofemploymentopportunitiesandjobtrainingtoalleviatepoverty.Severalcitiesalsochosetoemphasizetheimportanceofneighborhooddevelopmentandsafety.Springfieldinparticularidentified“chronicnuisanceproblems,”whichincludesphysicalneighborhoodblightandcriminalbehaviors,housing,publicsafety,andinfrastructureandtransportationascentral–alongwiththemoretraditionalworkforcedevelopment,healthcare,andeducation.RochesterandNashvillealsoincludedneighborhooddevelopmentasareastobeaddressed.Otherareas,suchasearlychildhoodeducationandhousingappearinsome,butnotallofthecases.AndonlyinNorfolkisthereastrategicaimofcontinuingtodevelopacoordinatingstructureasacross‐cuttingstrategythataddressesmultipleotherspecificantipovertyinitiatives.
LessonsLearnedCollaborationandlegitimacyemergeasthetwomostimportantlessonslearnedacrossthefivecities.Althoughaccuratedataon‘movingtheneedle’forpovertyisnotyetavailableinmostofthecases,thepositiveexperiencesexpressedbythevariousprojectparticipantsisquiteevident.Thecoalition‐modelofcollaborationwithrepresentationfromthecity,nonprofit,andprivatesectorsledtoimportantdiscussionsofprioritiesandresourcedistributionthatappeartohaveledtobetter‐informedstrategiesofregionally‐specificactions.Theimportanceofthelegitimacyoftheprojects’activitiesandbuy‐infromthesediversesectorsisalsoemphasizedacrossallthecases.Forexample,thehigh‐profileCommissioninNorfolkwasseenasimportantnotonlyfortheactionsandreportsitprepared,butalsofortheattentionitbroughttotheissueofregionalpoverty.Likewise,participantsintheNashvilleprojectscommentedthatthemultipleMayoral‐driveninitiativessignaledtothenonprofitandprivatesectorsalong‐termcommitmenttopovertyalleviation–seedingthefuturewithpossibilitiesforfuturecollaboration.Rochesteralsoreflectedthissentiment,withmultiplelevelsofgovernmentsignalingtothecommunityofRochesteralong‐termcommitmenttoreducingregionalpoverty.Somechallengeswerealsoobservedwiththecollaborationcoalitionmodelregardinglegitimacyhowever.LackingpoliticalsupportforanantipovertyCommissionbeyondtheinitiationfromaMayor’sofficeappearstobeproblematic.ParticularlyinSpringfield,thesoleCityCommissionparticipantinthecity’santipovertyprogramobservedthatanyrecommendationdevelopedoveryearsofactivitywouldnotbebeneficialtothecityunlessitcouldbepolitically‐driven.Commitmentthenfromelectedcityofficialsandcouncilmembersseemstobeaparticularlyimportantcomponentforthesuccessoftheseantipovertycommissionsifthegoalistodeveloprecommendationsandproposalsintorealaction.
24MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Conclusions WhatlessonscanTucsonlearnfromtheantipovertystrategiesofNorfolk,Kalamazoo,Rochester,Nashville,andSpringfield?In2012,TucsonMayorJonathanRothschildestablishedacommissiontopovertytoidentifyregionallyspecificstrategies.Thecommissionwaschairedbyrepresentativesfromtwononprofitorganizationsandincludedparticipantsfromthecityandcountygovernments,publicnonprofitsector,andprivatesector.ThecommissionpartneredwiththeUniversityofArizonatobetterunderstandlocalpatternsofpovertyandpotentialstrategiesforalleviatingpoverty.ThecommissionprovidedseveralrecommendationstotheMayor’sofficeanddisbandedin2014.Tucson’stimeline,then,isnotdissimilarfromthoseofantipovertyprojectsobservedinothercities.Amayoralinitiativetoaddresswhatwasin2011the8thhighestmetropolitanlevelofpovertyintheUnitedStatesledtotheformationofapublic‐privatecollaborationintheformaMayor’sCommission.Norfolk,Rochester,andSpringfieldformedsimilarantipovertycommissions.OnlyNashville’sfirstinitiativebeganinthenonprofitsector.InTucson,thePovertyCommissionwasthenchargedtocollaborativelydeveloppriorityareasandprovidestrategicrecommendationtotheMayor’soffice.Similarly,eachofthefivecitiesprovidedstrategicrecommendationswitheachincludingsomefocusonjobsandworkforcedevelopment–asdidtheTucsonCommission,whichprioritizedworkforcedevelopmentasitshighestpriority.Informationandinitialdirectionthen,Tucson’scity,nonprofit,andprivatesectorsworkedtogetherinasimilarfashionasmanyothercities.Whilenotallthecities’antipovertyinitiativesreviewedherepersistedbeyondapriority‐settingexercise,thecitiesexhibitinghigherdegreesofsatisfactionwiththecollaborativeprocessreceivedlonger‐termcommitmentstothecoalitionmodel.Inmostcases,thiscommitmenttolong‐termcollaborationrequiredamoreformalizedoperatingstructure,oftenintheformofacity‐supportedcoalitionwithsometypeofstaffing(cityorconsultant).Themostproductivecityintermsofreports,grants,andactivities,Norfolk,greatlybenefitedfromthesupportofaprivateconsultingfirmthatranmeetings,preparedreports,andhelpedproviderecommendationsspecificallyonorganizationaldevelopment.Kalamazoo,ontheotherhand,repeatedlyshiftedthroughorganizationalforms(non‐profitdriven,university‐driven,andcity‐driven).ParticipantsineachofthethreeantipovertyinitiativestodevelopinKalamazooreflectedonthechallengesofnothavingeveryoneatthetableatoneuniquetimewithasharedmaterialandtimeinvestmentinthefutureofthecollaborativemodel.Tucsonlikelyfallssomewhereinthemiddleofthesetwocities,withsomesupportforthePovertyCommissionbutnotthesupportofafulltimeconsultingfirm.Reducingpovertyandprovidingeconomicsecurityforlowincomefamiliesisanessentialfunctionforanycityanditspublicandprivatesectors.Inatimeofdecreasedsupportfromthefederalandstatesystems,citiesareincreasinglydependentontheirownresourcesandinnovationforfindingefficientmeansofsocialservicedelivery.Collaborativepartnershipsappeartobetheidealstrategyforbringingkeystakeholderstothetabletodeterminepriorityareasthatreflectregionalconcernsandpotentialresourcesforaddressingthem.Ineachofthefivecitiesreviewedhere,collaborativecoalitionsofcity,nonprofit,andprivatesectorstakeholderscommittedsubstantialtime,energy,andresourcestodevelopingregionallyspecificantipovertystrategies.Thoughwemustwaitforofficialcensusdatatodeterminehowfartheneedlehasbeenmovedintermsofpovertyindicators,eachcity’scoalitionreportedsignificantbenefitsgainedthroughthecollaborativeprocess,withmanygoingontoapplyforandwinfederalandstategrantsupportfortheirantipovertyefforts.Long‐termsuccessofthiscollaborativemodel,however,requiressubstantialcommitmentfromits
25MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
participantsaswellasstrongleadershipfromelectedofficialstoseethecollaborativedevelopmentprocessresultinpolicyimplementationandaction.
26MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Table3.Multi‐CityComparisonofAntipovertyPrograms,Structures,andLessonsLearnedCase OrganizationalStructure TargetAreas LessonsLearnedNorfolk,VA MayoralCommissionwith
primarilypublicandnon‐profitrepresentation+facilitatedbyconsultingfirm
(1)EarlychildhoodDevelopment(2)YouthEducationandPathways(3)AdultWorkforceDevelopment(4)NeighborhoodRevitalizationandSupport(5)PublicAwarenessofServices(cross‐cuttingstrategy)(6)CoordinatingStructure(cross‐cuttingstrategy)
‐ Coalition‐modelofcollaborationisrecommendedbyconsultantbutnoapparentmovementonthisrecommendationdespiteprogressonrecommendationsinallothertargetareas.Coalition‐modelofcollaborationmayonlyworkifthereisastrongleaderadvocatingfortheapproach.‐HighprofileCommissionmayhavepositiveindirecteffectsonthecommunityintermsofcompetitivenessforothergrants/awards.
Kalamazoo,MI
Threemostlydistinct(temporally,membership,andgoal)initiatives:(1)Non‐profitdriven(BoardofDirectorsrepresentativeofallthreesectors:public,for‐profit,non‐profit)(2)Highereducationdriven(steeringcommitteeisexclusivelyrepresentativesofhighereducation)(3)CityCommissiondriven(primarilygovernmentbutminimalrepresentationfromnon‐profitandhighereducation)
(1)Jobs(2)Families(3)Youth
‐Coalition‐modelofcollaborationmaynotbesustainableinthelong‐termforanissuelikepovertyreductionwhichrequireslong‐terminvestmentandcommitmenttothegoal.
27MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
Rochester,NY Two,mostlysimultaneous
andcomplementaryinitiatives:(1)CityGovernment+facilitatedbyUnitedWay(diverserepresentation(2)StateGovernment(primarilyrepresentativesofstategovernment)
(1)Jobs(2)HealthandNutrition(3)EducationandWorkforceTraining(4)Housing(5)SafeNeighborhoods(6)Transportation(7)SystemDesign
‐ Replicationofbestpracticesfromothercitieshaspotentialtomakecitycompetitiveforoutsidegrants‐Establishingorganizationalstructure/systemredesignpriortoformationofstrategicactionplancanhavepayoffs.
Nashville,TN Threemostlydistinctinitiatives:(1)For‐profitdriven(diverserepresentationfromallthreesectors)(2)Mayoralinitiative(diverserepresentationfromallthreesectors;coalition‐modelleadbygovernment)(3)Mayoraldrivenorganizationalstructurechange‐creationofMayor'sOfficeofInnovation
(1)Youtheducation(2)ChildCare(3)EconomicOpportunity(4)Food(5)Healthcare(6)Housing(7)NeighborhoodDevelopment(8)WorkforceDevelopment
‐ Strongfor‐profitsectorparticipationandcommitment(beyondfinancing)toacoalition‐modelofcollaborationcanleadtoasuccessfulmodel.‐Formalizedstructureforcoalition‐modelofcollaborationcanbesuccessful.‐Long‐termcommitmentoflocalofficialstogoalratherthanorganizationalstructure/systemdesigncanallowforrelativelyfastchangesinapproachestointractableproblems.
Springfield,MO CityCommissionwithdiverserepresentationfromallthreesectorsandprivatecitizensincludingahighschoolstudent;politicians(asopposedtopolicymakers)arenotablyabsent
(1)Chronicnuisanceproblems(2)CivicEngagement(3)Communication(4)DigitalDivide(5)FoodAccess(6)HealthCare(7)Housing(8)InfrastructureandTransportation(9)JobsandEconomicDevelopment
‐ Thereisdiversitywithineachsector(public,for‐profit,non‐profit)thatmustalsobetakenintoconsiderationwhenselectingcoalitioncollaborationrepresentatives.Herethepolicymakerswereatthetablebutthepoliticianswerenot;atleastoneCommissionerhasidentifiedthataspotentiallyproblematic.
28MAPDashboardWhitePaper
www.mapazdashboard.arizona.edu
(10)PublicSafety(11)Wellness