Omaha Neighborhood Report
2015
This report was produced by ONE Omaha (Office of Neighborhood Engagement), a community-­‐led initiative, which arose out of the need for a neighborhood development organization after the closing of the Omaha Neighborhood Center in 2013. O NE Omaha, founded in 2015, is a public-­‐private initiative dedicated to actively facilitating the development of neighborhoods in the City of Omaha through communication, education and advocacy. Nebraskans for Civic Reform (NCR) is the fiscal agent for ONE Omaha. Founded in 2008 NCR's mission is to create a modern and robust democracy for all Nebraskans. Representatives for the city's six neighborhood alliances are members of the ONE Omaha Advisory Committee along with representatives from the City of Omaha Planning Department and the Mayor's Office. The Advisory Committee creates goals and helps drive the mission of ONE Omaha in partnership with NCR. Neighborhood groups are a gateway to build and maintain vibrant and thriving communities. The following research report aims to give the reader a better understanding on the state of neighborhood organizing in Omaha. Another purpose for this research is to set a baseline on neighborhood organizations capacity and needs. This report assessed neighborhood volunteer contributions and the organizational capacity of 81 neighborhood groups. As neighborhood groups play a vital role in Omaha democracy and governance it is vital for service providers and local institutions to recognize what type of assistance neighborhood organizations need. Areas of growth and opportunity highlight the need for increased inclusivity between residents and the need for ongoing collaboration between residents and city administrators. 1. Omaha’s civic education opportunities must be cross-­‐promoted by stakeholders invested in public participation processes. 2. Resident groups must address inclusivity to be truly representative of their neighborhood residents and ensure decisions are being made equitably. 3. Relationships between city administrators and residents can be strengthened to the benefit of each. 4. ONE seeks to develop a proactive neighborhood planning mechanism to provide neighborhood groups an outlet to co-­‐create strategies to address community concerns and build on strengths. Incremental changes can be made to ensure processes and procedures provide meaningful engagement
opportunities and create a civic landscape where residents feel heard in the public decision-making
processes while the city’s technical experts maintain a cohesive vision for the city.
1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS: 1. Neighborhood Context……………………………………………………………….…..……..3 (i) Neighborhood Life Cycle …………………………………………………………….….….…3 (ii) Functions of Neighborhood Organizations ………………………………………….….….…4 (iii) Characteristics of Neighborhood Organizations……………………………….…..……..…..5 2. Annual Volunteer hours contributed by Omaha neighborhoods …………………..…….….…6 (i). Activities and calculated averages……………………………………………….…….….…..7 (ii) Total volunteer hours…………………………………………………………….……...…….7 (iii) Distribution of volunteer hours ………………………………………………….….….….....7 3. Omaha Neighborhood Organizations……………………………………………….………….8 (i) Sample data………………………………………………………………………….…............8 (ii) Collection methods ………………………………………………………………….,…....….8 (iii)Capacity distribution in categories …………………………………………………..……....10 (iv)Category breakdown ………………………………………………………………………...11 (v) Attendance rates……………………………………………………………………………...12 (v)(i) Neighborhood Associations ……………………………………………………………....12 (v)(ii) Neighborhood Alliances ………………………………………………………………….13 4. Directory Updates …………………………………………………………………………….13 (i). Inactive and defunct groups ……………………………………………………………........13 (ii). Emerging groups ……………………………………………………………………………14 (iii) Unreachable groups ………………………………………………………………………...14 5. Areas of growth and opportunity ………………………………………………………….…14 (i) Challenges to address ………………………………………………………………….…......14 (ii) Collaboration and dialogue..…………………………………….…………………………...15
(iii) (i) City-led initiative ………………………………………………………………………..15
(iv) (ii) Resident-led initiative ………………………………………………………………..…16
6. Civic education and engagement……………………………………………….....……….….16
7. Solutions and Recommendations…………………………………………………………..….18
8. Inclusivity …………………………………………………………………………………….18
9. Proactive Planning…………………………………………………………………………….19 10. References………………………………………………………………………..................21 2 Neighborhood Context
Members of Omaha neighborhood groups are dedicated to maintaining and improving the quality
of life in their community. They are an essential component of city governance and community
development. Analyzing neighborhood organization characteristics, along with functions and
phases of development are necessary to review to set the context for this report’s findings and
recommendations.
Neighborhood Life Cycle
Neighborhood organizations are place-based volunteer associations, and their characteristics are
interrelated with the condition of the neighborhood and its phase of development. A summary on
how the condition of a neighborhood fluctuates is outlined in the Neighborhood Life Cycle. It
describes the inevitable phases of growth, decline and renewal for urban communities.
Population density, economic function, commercial development, social class composition, type
and condition of housing and ethnic composition are indicators for the neighborhood’s phase
(Johnson, 1983, Metzger, 2000, & Grisby, 1987).
PHASES Phase 1 ACTIVITIES The land is available for occupancy, and the area is low density. Phase 2 The beginning of residential development, often single-family houses, with
calls for investment in infrastructure. One particular ethnic or racial group
typically occupies the neighborhood.
Full occupancy of neighborhood and continued building of new residential
structures, increased density, a rise in rents and property values, and reach
capacity for development and population. Phase 3 Phase 4 Aging of the housing stock, falling rents, decreased density, and little or no
new construction. Phase 5 Buildings deteriorate or are abandoned, younger people move out, older
people remain behind, stores and shops close down, vacancies increase, and
no new residential construction takes place. Phase 6 The neighborhood becomes unstable or it goes through renewal. Grassroots
efforts, gentrification and government initiatives influence the renewal
process, but it not possible without the effort of residents.
3 Functions of Neighborhood Organizations
Neighborhood organizations have many functions, and the activities and programming vary according to the needs, demands and organizational capacity. Individuals, neighborhoods and cities benefit from the different functions of neighborhood organizations. Joining a neighborhood association is a great way to meet neighbors, provide benefits to the security of the neighborhood, foster community connections and trust in public institutions, and create a sense of belonging and shared identity. Neighborhood groups can help keep residents informed about issues, activities and events in a
neighborhood. The resident meetings and social networks provide a platform for two-way
communication with elected officials and city administrators. A well-­‐organized neighborhood association can effectively spur citizen led civic engagement by addressing particular concerns as they emerge and empower residents to act toward achieving a common goal. These goals may include the following issues: ● Neighborhood improvements such as the addition of street signs, streetlights or the repair of decaying sidewalks. ● Urban design issues such as the preservation of historic districts and the development of architectural themes. ● Starting a neighborhood watch to deal with crime and other disturbances. ● Identifying and assisting with effective strategies for a city to take on broader socioeconomic or other issues. Neighborhood organizations require a strong group structure before groups can address issues
within their neighborhood. A high degree of social capital amongst neighbors is crucial to
support a neighborhood group. The Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government explains
the central premise of social capital is that relationships are valuable. A succinct definition from
Harvard.edu, “Social capital refers to the collective value of all ‘social networks; [who people
know] and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other [‘norms of
reciprocity’].”
A plethora of academic research has sought out what impact social capital increases have on
social, physical and emotional barriers to well being. People with high levels of social capital are
typically more politically active, more likely to volunteer and tend to be more trusting of others.
Social capital has been empirically tied to healthy democracy, crime prevention, economic
growth, better disaster responsiveness and positive health consequences. Neighborhoods reap
benefits from strong social ties as well, as neighborhood association meetings and resident-led
activities set the stage for people to build relationships, and therefore increase social capital in
the community.
4 Social capital can be separated into three groups: bonding, bridging and linking (Aldrich &
Meyer, 2015). Bonding social capital is formed between close friends and family. This is the
type of social capital groups need to create and maintain a strong membership base of support.
Bridging social capital occurs when connections between individuals and social organizations
are made. As neighborhood associations connect more people to their volunteer group, they are
building bridging social capital. Linking social capital derives from connections between
individuals and people with power. Neighborhood associations are a platform to foster all these
types of social capital in a community. Characteristics of Neighborhood Organizations
The stages of neighborhood organizing are interrelated with the neighborhood’s condition.
Before neighborhood groups can take action to address neighborhood issues, they must build a
base of support and increase social capital. Kenneth Tempkin's article - “Social Capital and
Neighborhood Stability...” - explores community through the strength of its internal social
environment (1998). In short, Tempkin defines social capital as the relationships that build trust
and create a greater sense of community, which serves as leverage for organizations lobbying on
their behalf. This capital is measured by two interrelated characteristics: social milieu and
institutional infrastructure. Social milieu accounts for the interpersonal characteristics of a community. This involves the
manner in which a community identifies itself and how a community feels others perceive it. The
uniqueness of the physical space and cultural components of its people contribute to this. These
are all sewn together and quantified by the extent to which the inhabitants communicate and
involve themselves in their neighbors’ lives. The ability to create relationships outside of a given
neighborhood factors into the sturdiness of its social milieu. Additionally, the sum of
recreational, social or professional opportunities present in an area are included here. Institutional infrastructure refers to the presence and quality of formal organizations. Where a
high index of social milieu may predict a neighborhood's instinct and wherewithal to anticipate
perceived threats or burgeoning opportunities, informal infrastructure, as a measurement, is
predictive of their ability to successfully follow through. Here the authors include the importance
of neighborhood alliances as well as creating bonds with other community organizations to
increase the availability of competent agents. The value of neighborhood groups participating in
networks is enhanced with a clear sense of community identity derived from a strong base of
participation. 5 Annual volunteer hours contributed by Omaha neighborhoods
This section quantifies the volunteer contribution of neighborhood organizations based on 81
survey responses that indicated what outreach, fundraising, safety and organizational tactics their
groups used in the past 12 months. Details about how the data was collected are discussed in the
following section.
Activities and calculated averages
The neighborhood organization activities used to compile the amount of volunteer hours
performed by neighborhood groups are:
•
Citizens Patrol •
Creating and distributing a newsletter •
Door-to-door outreach •
Monthly, quarterly and annual neighborhood meetings •
Planning and hosting a spring cleanup event in conjunction with Keep Omaha Beautiful •
Planning and hosting social events/block parties •
Website and Facebook hosting and management •
Neighborhood Watch •
Mayor’s grant workshop, applicants and grant awardees •
Neighborhood alliance meetings. Each activity was assigned a minimum of hours required to accomplish the task on a weekly
basis and multiplied by 52 to establish an estimate for how many hours were invested by
neighborhood groups to complete the activity on an annual basis.
The number of hours assigned to each activity is based on very conservative estimates with the
exception of approximately calculated Citizens Patrol volunteer hours. As these figures represent
the minimum amount of time neighborhood groups invest in each volunteer activity on an annual
basis, it is justified to say the total amount of volunteer hours and the economic value of their
work is drastically underestimated. The amount of time on an annual basis used for the volunteer
hour calculations are as follows:
6 Activity Calculated Average Alliance meetings 1 hour per meeting per association rep Citizens Patrol Based on approximate hours for first half of 2015 Creating & distributing neighborhood newsletter 4 hours annually Door-­‐to-­‐door outreach 4 hours annually Mayor's Grant applicant 1 hour per attendee annually Mayor's Grant Awardees 5 hours per grantee annually Mayor's Grant workshop 1 hour per attendee annually Monthly, quarterly, annual neighborhood meetings 1.5 hours per meeting Neighborhood Watch 208 hours annually ONE Advisory Committee 1 hour per meeting per 5 volunteers Planning & hosting Spring Cleanup 30 hours annually Planning and hosting social events/block parties 10 hours annually Website and Facebook hosting and management 26 hours annually Total volunteer hours
Omaha neighborhood organizations contributed a minimum of 28,139 volunteer hours in 2015.
This amount of volunteer work is valued at $649,166. This is a conservative estimate for the
cumulative amount of volunteer hours derived from neighborhood organizers and the service
contribution of volunteers.
The 2015 value of volunteer work is $23.07*
*http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/volunteer-value-hits-23-07-an-hour/
Distribution of volunteer hours
The graphs below show how the volunteer hours are distributed between each volunteer activity
and how many neighborhood associations use each tactic. Figure 1 shows how the volunteer
hour breakdown per activity. Figure 2 shows which activities are used the most and least by
neighborhood groups. Figure 1: Distribution of Total Volunteer Hours by Neighborhood Activity Based off of 81 surveys Figures account for 7 OCCP neighborhood groups that did not complete survey Distribution of Hours per Neighborhood Activity 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 9730.5 8682 6032 1650 1092 560 Figure 2: Frequency of Neighborhood Organizing Tactics based on survey 7 288 104 Number of Associations using tactic Frequency of Neighborhood Organizing Tactics 60 40 20 0 Based off of 81 surveys Figures account for
7 OCCP
neighborhood
groups that did not
complete survey
Outreach, Safety, Organizational, Fundraising Tactics Omaha Neighborhood Organizations
Sample Data •
•
•
•
•
Participation rate for the survey compared to listed organizations in neighborhood
directory: 81/190 Participation rate for the interview compared to listed organizations in neighborhood
directory: 100/190 45 organizations completed both a survey and an interview Unable to interview or survey 60 organizations, but this figure does not account for the 8
groups that did not identify themselves in written survey. The 60 neighborhood organizations that did not participate in the interview or survey
process are assumed to be inactive organizations or their contact information is
inaccurate. Data collection methods
How ONE reached out to each neighborhood group: • Called for an interview a minimum of two times. • Emailed if no phone number available. • Mailed requests for response. The information used for this capacity analysis was collected from a written survey. The survey
was distributed to neighborhood leaders at neighborhood alliance meetings, given to
neighborhood leaders at association meetings, emailed to each neighborhood leader listed in the
May 2015 Omaha Neighborhood Directory and mailed to each neighborhood leader listed in the
October 2015 directory. The response rate in different geographic areas of Omaha can be seen in
Figures 3 and 4. Associations in North and Southwest Omaha had the greatest amount of
participation. Figure 5 shows the geographic distribution of neighborhood associations
throughout Omaha and the Neighborhood Alliance areas. The Northwest and Southwest
8 Alliances are bound by 72nd Street on the Eastside. Dodge Street is a divider between North and
South. Midtown’s boundaries are 24th Street to 72nd Street, I-80 to Cuming Street. Figure 3: Interview Participants
Geographic Area.
Area Count Midtown 9 North 27 Northwest 16 South 21 Southwest 27 by
Figure 4: Survey Participants by Geographic
Area.
Area Count Midtown 11 North 15 Northwest 16 South 12 Southwest 19 Unknown 8 9 Capacity score distribution in categories
The degrees of capacity in neighborhood organizations vary just as much as the different phases
of the neighborhood life cycle. Figure 5 shows the capacity score of surveyed neighborhood
organizations distributed across the four life cycle categories.
Figure 5: Total number of groups within each capacity category. Capacity Score Distribution 60 Based off of 81 surveys 41 40 20 19 15 6 0 Category A Category B Category A Category B Category C Category D Category C Range: 0-3 Range: 4-7 Range: 8 -11 Range: 12-14 Category D Emerging/Fading Novice/In decline Intermediate Expert 26% of groups fall in Category C and D.
The data was delineated by assigning a “0” value for no and a value of “1” for yes to the
following organizational tactics: neighborhood newsletters, door-to-door outreach, social
event/block party, website, Facebook, Nextdoor.com, welcome committee, grant writing, request
donations, membership dues, Neighborhood Watch group, Citizen Patrol, spring clean up, goal
setting, mission statement, identify problems/issues. Other considerations for the capacity score:
Have you surveyed neighbors’ concerns/interests? Do you have committees?
The comprehensive score quantifies the amount of activity within each neighborhood association
and correlates with the stability of the internal organization. The individual neighborhood scores
were distributed into four categories to provide a framework for comparison. A descriptor is
assigned to each category to give a qualitative assessment. The scores and categories can be used
to classify the rate of activity within each meetings or activities.
Category Breakdown
Category breakdown is based on participation of associations in different activities. Each
association is awarded a score of 1 on undertaking an activity and ‘0’ otherwise. Based on these
criteria, the final score is computed, and each association is re-grouped under a specific category.
Each category is assigned a qualitative descriptor to symbolize the capacity of the group and
10 correlating condition of the neighborhood. Common activities employed by the groups and a
visual breakdown of how time is distributed amongst activities within associations that represent
categories are displayed in each category. Category A: Emerging/Fading
This category includes associations that have scores between zero and three. Some of the
predominant activities performed by these groups include: ● Survey of neighbor’s interests and concerns ● Social/block parties ● Committees Survey neighbor's interests/concerns Social events/Block parties Committees Category B: Novice/In Decline This category includes associations that have scores between four and seven. Some of the
predominant activities performed by these groups include: ● Goal setting ● Social/block parties Goal setting ● Newsletter Social/block parties ● Identify
problems/issues Newsletter Identify problems/
issues Category C: Intermediate This category includes associations that have scores between eight and 11. Some of the
predominant activities performed by these groups include: ● Newsletter ● Door to Door outreach Newsletter ● Social
events/block
Door to door outreach parties Social event/block ● Spring clean up parties Spring Clean Up 11 Nextdoor.com 11 Category D: Expert This category includes associations that have scores between 12 and 15. Some of the
predominant activities performed
by these groups include: Newsletter ● Newsletter Spring clean up ● Spring clean up Social event/block parties ● Social event/block parties ● Facebook Facebook ● Grant writing Grant writing ● Request donations Request donations Attendance and Participation Rates
The number of people attending neighborhood association meetings is a good indicator of the
community buy-in and social connectedness of the neighbors. The number of participants
attending meetings will be valuable data to measure group viability over time. Average meeting
attendance selected by survey participants was multiplied by the number of times their meetings
convened on an annual basis. Figure 6 shows the total rates of meeting attendees amongst 81
neighborhood associations. Associations were asked to indicate how many people attended their
meetings by selecting one of the following ranges: 1-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, or 25+. Groups that
did not select a range were assigned a value of 2 and groups that wrote in “0” were assigned a
value of 0. Figure 6: Range of meeting attendees Count of Associations Rates of Attendance at Association Meetings Based of 78* surveys
3 invalid answers
were omitted
30 20 10 0 0 1-­‐5 5-­‐10 10-­‐15 15-­‐20 20+ Number of neighborhood meeting attendees 12 Neighborhood Alliance Attendance and Participation Rates
Neighborhood alliances are coalitions of neighborhood associations. Omaha is currently divided
in to 6 neighborhood alliance areas. The Midtown Neighborhood Alliance (MNA), South Omaha
Neighborhood Alliance (SONA), Benson-Ames Alliance (B-AA), North Omaha Neighborhood
Alliance (NONA), Northwest Omaha Neighborhood Alliance (NWONA) and Southwest Omaha
Neighborhood Alliance (SWONA) provide a space for neighborhood leaders to meet and discuss
happenings in their area. Five of the six neighborhood alliance leaders see a strong need for more
participation in neighborhood associations and neighborhood alliances. Neighborhood alliances
meet periodically during the year. Neighborhood alliance rates of the participation: ● 93% of MNA membership organizations attend monthly MNA meetings. (15 of 16 organizations) ● 47% of SONA membership organizations attend monthly SONA meetings. (10 of 21 organizations) ● 22% of B-AA membership organizations attend monthly B-AA meetings.(2 of 9
organizations) ● 18% of NONA membership organizations attend monthly NONA meetings. (7 of 38 organizations) ● 10% of neighborhood organizations within NWONA attend quarterly meetings. (4 of 38 organizations) ● SWONA does not have scheduled meetings. Twenty neighborhood groups that completed the survey responded they did not know what a
neighborhood alliance was. Directory Updates
The Neighborhood Association Directory is currently the sole source of neighborhood
organization information in Omaha. The City of Omaha Planning Department maintains the
directory, and neighborhood leaders are responsible for updating their information as necessary.
The City of Omaha and neighborhood alliances use this directory to:
•
Notify residents of pending zoning changes and planning board actions affecting
neighborhoods and commercial areas, and •
Notify residents about events, programs and grant opportunities. Residents, realtors,
developers and city administrators use the directory. The directory currently 190 neighborhood organizations and six neighborhood alliance
organizations. ONE reached 101 neighborhood representatives using contact information
provided in the neighborhood directory. Information gathered during the data collection process
revealed that the directory contains inaccurate information in some cases. Our findings:
Inactive and defunct groups • Eight former neighborhood representatives defined their organization as inactive/defunct. 13 •
Five additional neighborhood organizations could be considered inactive when using the
following definition of a neighborhood association: “An organized body of people who
have an interest, activity or purpose in common.” The five additional neighborhood
organizations do not fit the definition of a neighborhood association because the
representative said they are the sole person involved in their neighborhood association. Emerging groups • Seven residents consulted with ONE to establish or renew neighborhood organizations in
their community. Unreachable groups
• Invalid phone number: 9 • No contact information listed: 9 • Invalid mailing address: 7 Areas of Growth and Opportunity
Interviews with neighborhood leaders brought attention to a wide variety of challenges facing
Omaha residents. 87% of neighborhood leaders who were interviewed said they were facing
challenges and require support. Their responses mirror where their group fell on the
neighborhood life cycle scale, the interpersonal characteristics of the neighborhood group, and
how their group scored in comparison with other Omaha neighborhood groups on the capacity
scale. Solutions to a majority of challenges should be addressed at the neighborhood level and
driven by volunteers. Currently, many neighborhood groups need to address problems with
recruiting and maintaining more resident involvement before they have the critical mass to
address neighborhood problems.
Six areas of concern were found to be common challenges. Neighborhood association leaders
expressed they need assistance from ONE in the following areas. A percent denotes how many
association leaders cited the concern.
•
Recruiting and maintaining involvement from all generations - specifically younger age
groups - in their neighborhood organization. 43%
•
Inclusion in the city’s physical development process. 14%
•
Administrative costs to keep neighborhood organization viable. 18%
•
Park maintenance is a complaint of neighborhoods annexed and covenants/bylaws that
expire after SIDs dissolve. 12% •
Code enforcement complaints about neighbors with poorly kept property happen
uniformly across the city. 10 % •
Bridging barriers between multiple ethnic groups. 9%
14 Collaboration and Dialogue
Resident feedback and an ongoing dialogue between neighborhood leaders and city
administrators can facilitate initiatives that serve the whole community. Residents and city
administrators are (and must be) partners in building a vibrant community, in helping to ensure
that initiatives reach their full potential. The following examples illustrate the need for a clear
and trusted process for neighborhood planning. The names of neighborhood associations have
been omitted.
Case Study #1: City-led initiative
The first example showing a need for revisions in the participation process is a city-led initiative
concerning an ongoing plan for renovating a street. The process was initiated by the City of
Omaha Public Works Department to reduce the speed of cars on a residential street.
The neighborhood group laid the groundwork for a comprehensive resident review and input by
consulting with neighbors and technical experts to ensure the proposal would be an appropriate
solution for their residential area. The neighborhood leaders distributed materials to solicit input
from neighbors about the public works proposal and consulted with technical experts to gain a
better understanding of the design plans and the perceived impact.
Ongoing resident feedback has left public works administrators frustrated because residents
requested that the design plan incorporate more amenities to increase walkability. The residents
also requested justification for the proposed design, which city administrators had responded to
several times before. The neighborhood group has been highly engaged and active in this project,
yet they do not feel their concerns are being addressed.
Meanwhile, although public works administrators have taken time to answer questions, address
concerns and justify their design principles, they also feel they are unheard. The neighborhood
group has concerns the project proposal will be halted and that they will receive no modification
if they continue to give feedback. It is apparent from this scenario there is room to improve the
public planning process to create plans that suit the needs of residents while adhering to City of
Omaha guidelines.
Case Study #2: Resident-led initiative Omaha communities are missing opportunities for resident-led development because there is no
mechanism in place to create new protocol for innovative project ideas that have no local
precedence. Detrimental effects on resident-initiated projects are eminent without institutional
infrastructure and trusted public participation processes that value resident-led community
development.
An example that illustrates this point involves a neighborhood group that designed a project to
address traffic concerns. The neighborhood group was denied permission to implement a new
strategy aimed at slowing traffic (the same strategy has been viewed as an effective solution in
other communities). The residents innovated to address concerns for speeding on the
neighborhood street, which can be a problem in Omaha neighborhoods. 15 Both city administrators and citizens acknowledge neighborhood groups are a key asset when it
comes to public decision-making. Input from neighborhood associations, for example, is vital to
ensuring that neighborhood and community initiatives are successful. The City of Omaha
Department of Parks, Recreation and Public Property routinely uses neighborhood groups as a
resource to positively impact their park planning. Collaboration between the parks department and neighborhood associations is a terrific example
of how residents can help city initiatives make a more positive impact. The planning for park
renovation is guided by input from residents. The way resources are allocated for park
renovations are guided by people who use the park. An additional perk is resident groups can use
the budgeted city funds to leverage more funds from private philanthropists. Civic education and engagement Many organizations and government agencies feel passionately that engaging citizens in public
decision-making is invaluable. Efforts to increase the effectiveness of an engaged citizenry are
being undertaken by increasing educational opportunities and chances for dialogue between
administrators and residents. A few examples are:
• The Citizens Academy for Omaha’s Future • Douglas County’s Build with Health initiative • Omaha By Design’s “10-Speed” program • Mayor’s Hotline • Omaha Mobile App Citizens Academy for Omaha’s Future A consortium of nonprofit organizations, including Mode Shift Omaha, the Metropolitan Area
Planning Agency, the Douglas County Health Department and Live Well Omaha hosted the
inaugural Citizens Academy for Omaha’s Future in the fall of 2014. The academy seeks to
provide knowledge, skills and connections that graduates can leverage to advocate for their
community vision. The academy is six three-hour workshops held on Thursdays and moderated
by the host organizations. Participants learn how different values and decisions shape Omaha’s
built environment. The workshops include topics on planning, transportation, the development
process, land use and community health. Guest speakers emphasize when and how the public can
impact the development process.
The outcomes for residents are improved community health, more transportation options and
greater equity. The outcome for city administrators and elected officials is a more active,
engaged and informed public. Build With Health Another effort to strengthen the way residents and city departments’ work together is the
Douglas County Health Department’s “Build with Health” Initiative. A series of forums has been
conducted to identify the nexus for challenges that arise from commercial development. As of
November 2014, the Douglas County Health Department began conducting Health Impact
Assessments (HIA) and has assessed opportunities for meaningful engagement in Omaha. The
16 purpose of an HIA is to provide decision-makers with better information about how choices they
are considering will likely affect health outcomes. HIAs bring together scientific evidence, health
expertise and stakeholder input so they can all be factored into the decision-making process.
An October 2015 forum focused on the frequently contested issue of street connectors. Street
connectors refer to adding an additional road into the neighborhood to give an alternative route
to new commercial developments. The purpose of this effort was to learn from past experiences
in order to improve the neighborhood engagement process and ensure well-grounded decisions
are being made when street connections are proposed in the future. As a result of the forum,
there are three key next steps:
• Determine feasible actions for addressing the concerns raised around the neighborhood
involvement and notification process with Councilmembers Melton, Pahls, and
Thompson plus city planning leadership;
• Develop an issue guide that provides clarity on the benefits and tradeoffs involved in
neighborhood connection decisions (from the perspective of both neighborhood residents
and city staff);
• Collect relevant data noted during the forum with the help of city staff, and incorporate it
into the issue guide or a separate fact sheet.
10-Speed
Another initiative to increase civic education opportunities is Omaha by Design’s “10-speed”
initiative. The program, introduced in the fall of 2015, creates a common platform for architects,
planners, landscape architects, policy-makers, activists, developers, investors and designers to
present perspectives and projects across disciplines to educate and to encourage debate on how to
make Omaha a better city.
Educating and engaging Omaha residents about technical concepts will equip them with
pertinent information to make well-informed decisions and address urban initiatives and
concepts. The aim of “10- Speed” is to increase the impact of urban planning, design and policy
on the creation of a livable, competitive, economically successful and sustainable city and to
provide a forum for conversation that informs action.
Mayor’s Hotline
The Omaha City Charter requires the City to operate a “complaint line,” which is aptly named
“The Mayor’s Hotline.” The hotline staff fields reports on abandoned vehicles, potholes, graffiti,
code violations, neighborhood speeding complaints, and many other citizen concerns. They are
great problem solvers and can also answer questions and make referrals to other agencies if a
given problem needs to be redirected. For example, the Hotline has established contacts with
OPPD, MUD, The Nebraska Humane Society, and Douglas County in an effort to provide
holistic service to Omaha residents. The hotline staff files reports, submits work orders, and can
check the status of a given report. One number,402-444-5555 gives access to the department that
can address the concern. The hotline staff strives to make dealing with City government a
positive experience for everyone and is open Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
17 Omaha Mobile App
Download the Omaha Mobile App to make instant reports to the Hotline. Report graffiti,
potholes, abandoned vehicles, weeds & litter so the city can respond quickly.
The Omaha Mobile App is a real time mobile civic engagement tool for Omaha, Nebraska.
Omaha Mobile App provides a free, simple, and intuitive tool empowering people to identify
civic issues (public safety, quality of life, & environmental issues) and report them for quick
resolution. The Omaha Mobile App brings an opportunity for government to use technology to
save time and money, to improve services, and to increase accountability. It offers a positive,
collaborative platform for action.
Solutions
Based on the current situation in Omaha, it is apparent there is potential to increase the impact
and effectiveness of neighborhood organizations. Inclusiveness and collaboration are seen as the
most vital areas to expand the potential impact of neighborhood groups’ community
development efforts. These findings came to light after observing 25 association meetings, 19
alliance meetings and the extensive survey/interview process of neighborhood leaders. Inclusivity The most cited need is assistance with increasing involvement. Re-establishing a neighborhood
network, social events and relationship-building opportunities for neighbors will strengthen a
base of support and camaraderie. Leaders who foster an environment for social connectedness
are important to increasing engagement.
Many people are not aware of their neighborhood’s name or the existence of their neighborhood
organization. There is a lot of misinterpretation on what the primary function and role of
neighborhood associations are in community and governance. Increasing outreach efforts and the
promotion of neighborhood associations’ purpose can have long-term impact on sustainable
neighborhood organizing if neighborhood leaders are intentional with relationship-building
opportunities amongst residents not involved in their neighborhood group. Omaha needs to foster neighborhood organizations to more accurately represent their residents
by developing programming to increase diversity in a neighborhood group’s collective age, race
and income levels. There is an overwhelming need to train existing leaders to incorporate youth
and minority neighborhood leaders in decision-making while identifying, recruiting and training
disenfranchised community members. Increasing diversity and building leadership capacity in
people not typically engaged will bring new energy and ideas to neighborhood groups. Omaha’s
neighborhood leaders are in a good position to influence their member organizations to diversify
their membership and create a more inclusive atmosphere within their neighborhood groups.
Accurate representation of the neighborhood residents is crucial for the neighborhood association
to function and be a voice for its neighbors. Increasingly, there has been a growing struggle for the emerging generations to integrate and
become fully engaged in ongoing community initiatives. The Pew Research Center, in a 2010
18 journal, asserts "29% of Americans know only a few of their neighbors and 28% know none of
their neighbors by name."
The tension between the older existing leadership structure and incoming community members
has been evidenced in a general lack of engagement or even direct struggle between members.
While this is a problem that exists even beyond neighborhood associations, it is becoming
increasingly common within today’s social and civic groups. Richard Florida points to the center
of this generational shift: "Instead of communities defined by close associations and deep
commitments to family, friends, and organizations, we seek places where we can make friends
and acquaintances easily and live quasi-anonymous lives," (Florida, 2002).
As society shifts from the traditional mentality that a place/neighborhood is a central component
to the unification of residents, Florida asserts that creativity and connecting around creative
centers will unite and change how generational boundaries can be breached. Proactive Neighborhood Planning Omaha needs to create a process for citizens and city administrators to collaborate and co-plan.
Existing resources can be used to create a framework for neighborhood planning. This process
should be framed to help neighborhood groups plan to address their issues and concerns while
developing a unified vision for their community. Careful consideration needs to be made on how
to structure a neighborhood visioning and planning process so it assists neighborhoods in
different phases of development or decline.
Ongoing discussions with the city administrators, academics and nonprofit organizations bring to
light working directly with neighborhoods is at the forefront of community development work. A
resident-driven visioning process and neighborhood planning workshops will assist all sectors as
they work with neighborhood associations. Representatives from several nonprofit
organizations, public works and planning want to work collaboratively to find a solution. The
wide array of stakeholders that will benefit from this process all bring expertise on how the
process should be shaped. The format and framework needs to be created collaboratively so each
stakeholder feels confident with the process and will play an active role in its successful
implementation.
There is a plethora of nonprofit and government neighborhood planning programs in other cities
to use as models for a tiered process adapted to Omaha’s needs and capacity. Ongoing programs
like the Omaha Public Library’s Neighborhood Visioning workshop and Omaha by Design’s
Place Game workshop can be used as steps in the process for neighborhood planning. Other parts
of the process can be developed in conjunction with a specific nonprofit’s targeted areas of
focus, such as health and wellness, environmental stewardship, economic development and
preservation.
Going forward, it is necessary for anyone involved in the city’s community relations to promote
educational opportunities to gain a better understanding about civic issues, such as the Citizens
Academy for Omaha’s Future and “10 Speed.” The City of Omaha’s master plan is a very large
and complex document that outlines a lot of requirements. Contested issues such as
19 neighborhood connector streets and increasing population density are concepts that residents
need a broader understanding of and how they fit into the other pieces of the city’s master plan.
Groups with strong social bonds and a strong internal organization will benefit from expertise of
city administrators, advocacy groups and/or nonprofit organizations. The two solutions discussed
are complementary. As programming addresses one area, the other will benefit. More diverse
representation within neighborhood groups will build more social capital, therefore making
neighborhood groups more stable and ready to work with the external partners to address
challenges and develop growth and conservation strategies. In closing, evidence shows citizens make a significant contribution on the neighborhood level,
and there are many opportunities to increase their impact. The needs of neighborhood groups
vary, but 87% of resident leaders interviewed said they have a need for support, whether it’s
guidance with building a strong neighborhood group or assistance identifying and collaborating
with other entities.
In the short term, creating more inclusive neighborhood groups will create a healthier and more
representative democracy and foster stronger feelings of trust in public institutions. Current
association leaders need to look at existing practices and revise how they can foster a sense of
belonging to create inclusiveness in their neighborhood meetings and activities.
Neighborhood leaders need to identify what is needed to be perceived as more welcoming and
inclusive to new association participants. ONE is developing a team of neighborhood mentors
that can share best practices with neighborhood leaders who are struggling in different areas of
organizing, including inclusiveness. Creating a pipeline of diverse neighborhood volunteers
through leadership development programming and outreach will also make a positive impact. In the long term, incremental changes can be made to ensure processes and procedures provide
meaningful engagement opportunities and create a civic landscape where residents feel heard in
the public decision-making processes while the city’s technical experts maintain a cohesive
vision for the city. Collaboration and ongoing dialogue are the keys, along with an openness to input on the part of all players (city, county, nonprofits, neighborhood associations, etc.). Those are the ingredients indispensable to the kind of civic discourse that furthers innovation and leads not only to a shared understanding of respective views but, as well, to what might be best for the community, overall. 20 References: Aldrich, D., & Meyer, M. (n.d.). The Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/faqs.htm Grigsby, W. (1987). The Dynamics of neighborhood change and decline. Oxford: Pergamon Journals. Hrywna, M. (n.d.). Volunteer Value Hits $23.07 An Hour The NonProfit Times. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-­‐
articles/volunteer-­‐value-­‐hits-­‐23-­‐07-­‐an-­‐hour/ Johnson, J. (200, March 31). THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY ACTION IN NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2747/0272-­‐3638.4.1.16 Metzger, James. (2000). Planned abandonment: The neighborhood life-­‐cycle theory and national urban policy. Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), 7-­‐40. Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. (1998). Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical investigation. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 61-­‐88. 21