11-03-97 agendalc9
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1997
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/RICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
5:00 P.M.
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
AGENDA
•
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 5:00-5:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY CIRCLE SUMMARY
II. 5:30-5:40 P.M. DISCUSSION OF WEST METRO EDUCATION
PROGRAM
III. 5:40-5:50 P.M. DISCUSSION OF SEEKING EDUCATIONAL EQUITY
AND DIVERSITY
IV. 5:50-6:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RICHFIELD ATHLETIC FACILITY
RELOCATION
V. 6:15-6:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
VI. 6:30-6:45 P.M. GENERAL DISCUSSION
6:45 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
0
RICHFIELD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 280
"RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE"
PUBLIC RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1997
• J CI 1 ®OLJ 612/798-6000
7007 HARRIET BARBARA S. DEVLIN, Ph.D., Superintendent
AVENUE SOUTH
RICHFIELD
MINNESOTA
55423
October 27, 1997
To: Jim Prosser, City Manager
From: Barbara Devlin
Re: Materials for Joint Meeting
Enclosed is the summary report of the Community Circle Discussion Group,
for duplication and dissemination to the City Council.
Ann Dougherty, Joan Helmberger, and Mary Supple will give a formal
presentation of about 20 minutes, leaving ample time for questions and
discussion. I also invited the rest of the discussion group to be present to
help respond to questions and participate in the follow-up discussion. I
have asked them to RSVP to my office so that we can include them in our
count for the supper. (I don't anticipate there will be many who will
come, but I thought we should invite them.)
In addition to the Community Circle Discussion Group report, Nancy
Rowley suggested that I also prepare some written information to share
with the City Council regarding the West Metro Education Program (a nine-
district consortium promoting integration/desegregation initiatives) and
Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED) (a district professional
development initiative). If there is time, we could also comment briefly
on the initiatives.
Please call me if you have any questions or concerns relating to the joint
meeting. I look forward to seeing you on November 3, if not before.
0
lCr='FIEL D
®IJBLIC
SCHOOLS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 280
"RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE"
612/798-6000
W7007 HARRIET
AVENUE SOUTH
RICHFIELD
MINNESOTA
55423
To:
From:
Re:
October 27, 1997
BARBARA S. DEVLIN, Ph.D., Superintendent
Community Circle Discussion Group Participants
Dr. Barbara S. Devlin, Superintendent
Presentation to Board of Education and City Council
On Monday,. November 3, 5 - 6:30 P.M., the Board of Education and the
Richfield City Council will hold a joint meeting for the purpose of hearing
a report on the Community Circle Discussion Process. The meeting will be
held in the City Council meeting room at Richfield City Hall, 6700
Portland Ave.
Mary Supple, Joan Helmberger, and Ann Dougherty have agreed to make the
formal presentation, but all Community Circle Discussion Group
participants are invited to attend to help answer questions and
participate in the discussion that follows. A written summary report is
enclosed for your review prior to the meeting.
Please call my secretary, Judy Miller (798-6012) if you plan to attend so
we can reserve a box supper for you.
Thank you again for your participation in the Richfield Community Circle
Discussion Group.
•
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EAIPLO4ER
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CIRCLE DISCUSSION GROUP
SUMMARY REPORT
September, 1997
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Education and Housing Equity Project, with funding from the Bush and
Otto Bremer Foundations, organized a metro-wide dialogue during the
spring of 1997 which brought together people from all walks of life in 5-15
member study circles to discuss two key questions:
What are the impacts of existing patterns of residential,
economic and racial segregation on the educational achievement
and life opportunities of Twin Cities area children and families?
What can or should we do, as individuals and as a community, to
enhance the educational, housing and economic opportunities for
ALL children in the Twin Cities area?
The purpose of holding this metro-wide dialogue was twofold: (1) to give
participants an opportunity to get to know a cross-section of fellow
community members and become more aware of their ideas and
perspectives on important issues that impact all of us; and (2) to provide
valuable ideas for future action on a local and regional basis.
Discussion groups were formed by a variety of sponsors including school
districts, governmental agencies and other community-based organizations.
One discussion group was formed in the Richfield area, co-sponsored by the
Richfield Public Schools and the City of Richfield, with assistance from the
Richfield Community Council and the Richfield League of Women Voters.
PARTICIPANTS IN THE RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY CIRCLE DISCUSSION GROUP
Participants in the Richfield Community Circle Discussion Group included
the following:
Co facilitators and Recorders
Emily Day
Joan Helmberger
Margaret Severe
Mary Supple
Discussion Group Members
Sharon Banks
Brenda Bjorkland
46 Deb Carlson
Camillo DeSantis
Ann Dougherty
Eiman Eisa
Heidi Gaibor
Janet Fennert
Deb Herby
Pat Jallen
Connie McDonald
Carol Porter
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO COMMUNITY CIRCLE DISCUSSIONS
Following is a summary of key meetings and activities associated with the
Community Circle Discussion process. Complete meeting minutes and flyers
describing metropolitan wide events are attached to this report as
Appendix A.
December 10, 1996 - The Education and Housing Equity Project conducted
an informational meeting for potential sponsors of the Community Circle
Discussion Process. Representatives of metropolitan area communities,
school districts, and various human service organizations were present at
the meeting. Dr. Barbara Devlin and Camillo DeSantis attended from
Richfield.
December 16, 1996 The Board of Education voted to sponsor a Community
Circle Discussion Group and to invite the City of Richfield to become a co-
sponsor.
January 13, 1997 - The Richfield City Council voted to co-sponsor the
Community Circle Discussion Group along with the Richfield Public Schools.
February, 1997 - The Education and Housing Equity Project provided two
training sessions for discussion group facilitators. All four of Richfield's co-
facilitators attended one of the training sessions.
March 4, 1997 Kick-off meeting of the Richfield Community Circle
Discussion Group. Members were welcomed and received background
information about the discussion group purpose, activities, and timetable
from Board of Education Vice Chair Vicki Rorie, Richfield Mayor Martin
Kirsch, Superintendent of Schools Barbara Devlin, Richfield Community
Council Co-Chair Camillo DeSantis, and Richfield Community Development
Director Bruce Palmborg. Discussion group members then developed
ground rules and began the discussion process.
March 18, 1997 - The Richfield discussion group focused on the questions,
'"What does residential segregation mean in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area today?" and "What is the state of educational opportunity and
achievement in the Twin Cities today?" Committee members reviewed
various informational materials as background for the discussion. During the
course of the discussion, additional information needs, concerns, and
questions for future consideration were generated.
April 1, 1997 - The Richfield discussion group reviewed additional articles
and a discussion guide prepared by the Education and Housing Equity
Project. The committee then began to brainstorm ways of promoting equity
in housing and education.
April 22, 1997 - The Richfield discussion group continued to discuss what
can be done, as individuals and as a community, to enhance educational,
housing, and economic opportunities in the Twin Cities area. Specific ideas
for action, who should work on them, and related concerns were identified
in areas of housing, jobs, health care, and education.
• May 13, 1997 - This was the last meeting of the Richfield discussion group.
Discussion continued regarding ideas for action in areas of education, day
care, and personal support. The group recognized that there were still
multiple perspectives. Some members wanted to focus on support for
morale and the human spirit; some wanted to focus on support for basic
physical needs such as housing and jobs; some wanted to focus on both. The
session ended with a discussion of possible short and long term actions that
could be taken to decrease segregation and promote equity in housing and
education.
May 29, 1997 - A metropolitan forum was held for Community Circle
discussion participants, facilitators and sponsors to share the results of their
deliberations and explore future actions. The forum was co-sponsored by
the Education and Housing Equity Project and the Department of Urban
Studies at Macalester College.
August 1, 1997 - Each Community Circle Discussion Group submitted an
informational report to be used to evaluate the project, plan for future
efforts, and report results to funders and other stakeholders. A summary of
Richfield Community Circle Discussion Group's report appears below. The
metro-wide informational report, entitled, "Community Choices", is included
with this report as Appendix B.
RICHFIELD COMMIMTY CIRCLE INFORMATION REPORT
Sponsoring Organizations: Richfield Board of Education and City of
Richfield, with assistance from the Richfield League of Women Voters
Contact Person: Dr. Barbara S. Devlin, Superintendent, Richfield Public
Schools
Facilitator(s): Emily Day, Joan Helmberger, Margaret Severe, Mary Supple
Recorder: Mary Supple
Metro-wide Meetings attended:
December, 1996 Kick Off Event
February, 1997 Facilitator Training
May, 1997 Macalester Forum
Local Discussion Group Meeting Location: Board of Education Meeting Room
Meeting Times: Tuesday, 7-9 P.M.
Number of Meetings: five
• Length of Meetings: two hours
Attendance of Participants: Good to Excellent
Number of participants: 16 •
Cultural groups represented:
African American - 1
Liberian /Egyptian Moslem - 1
White/European - 14
Rating of the Discussion Group Members' Diversity in the Following
Categories:
Income Levels Somewhat Diverse
Political Affiliations Somewhat Diverse
Political Ideology Somewhat Diverse
Housing Situation Somewhat Diverse
Religious Diversity of the Group: Catholic, Moslem, Protestant
Neighborhoods/ Cities Represented: Richfield
Expressions of Member Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: Group members liked
the Community Circle Discussion, but wanted more guidance. The
discussion guide would have helped. It wasn't finished until after the group
had met several times. 0
Important Comments Shared During Discussions: The meeting minutes
contain a summary of key comments. Several members also submitted
individual comments regarding needed changes in housing and day care.
Perspectives Represented in the Group: Basically, the group represented
middle class, suburban people of good will who want to see justice, balance,
and opportunity for everyone. See minutes for a detailed summary of
perspectives expressed.
Perspectives Missing: Our group did not have much diversity. Most were
working or middle class. There was only one man and only two people of
color.
Did the discussions focus on the two central questions? Yes
Observations about the dialog and group process: Open and honest dialogue
Group member comments regarding the discussions: Engaged, but
wondered where it would lead, who would listen?
Topic of the group's liveliest discussion: Available low cost housing and day
care.
Areas of general agreement and consensus: Need for day care; segregation •
still exists; begin with small steps so we are not overwhelmed.
Other impressions, concerns, comments: It was a great group to work with,
although it would have been beneficial to have had more men and a more
diverse membership.
NEXT STEPS
1. This report will be shared locally with the Board of Education and City
Council and forwarded to the Education and Housing Equity Project,
with the hope that the perspectives and ideas contained within will be
considered by decision-makers both locally and beyond.
2. The Education and Housing Equity Project will be presenting summary
information from the metro-wide Community Circle Discussions to the
Minnesota State Board of Education, for consideration by the State
Board as it finalizes the Desegregation Rule.
3. The Education and Housing Equity Project will provide input to the
Minnesota Milestones report and to a consultant hired by the NAACP
and the State Attorney General's Office to explore possible mediation of
the NAACP lawsuit.
4. The Education and Housing Equity Project will be seeking one volunteer
from each local discussion group to assist in planning for a second
round of discussions that will have a more in-depth focus on solutions.
The group may also develop questions for consideration by a Minnesota
Citizens Summit which may be formed later this year.
CONCLUSION
The metro-wide and local Community Circle Discussion Groups described in
this report were convened by the Education and Housing Equity Project to
foster understanding and solutions to sometimes divisive issues through the
sharing of ideas, thoughts, and perspectives. It is hoped that the ideas,
thoughts, and perspectives generated by the Richfield Community Circle
Discussion Group will serve as a stimulus for further constructive dialogue
and action, both within Richfield and beyond.
0
r?
U
0
y M d C
0 -0 Pp > -a
a?gq>a, 0 cc
?c Q? '3>eo Divo.?? 3 J.
a p ?
i
o !2
to ^? V 7 °r+ 7 u .O yL1. N v
to v .0
ro, cc:
.9 1 0" 0 co
V O 3 °5 a.z °? 'E __ a deb •v
o is 6"o,g _ - d
0"4 u 0 as C6
CL Z -0 A-5 CC
17.0
.? _
LO u 54 Q.
OZ v
CL. 0
y 53 d ? 3 O 2! 3 °°'" ?j _
OW be -; - o e? c? 'V y a oc.ti S _ .1 0 S 0 ? t vcO "
s ? - d ? Y
y O ? 3.° 0 g;Q c mom ?? 'ALA E
kv FA
0 p Z 'a 3 -L, v 81 y[ 3 0 m ? ate.
0 to
° c _ vca?a 8
p O V p O G == . ...., o eo O O y ..+ e?i e+i ai ui a
O • '4r p ". O i -Ci O 4.Q $ vi 'C S .G m G "? i
ii
d G" fi O Cl. a) 0 N B C Q A 'd
Ow Q 8-011 V.
a.
0
u U
O
C7
L
v
2
04
?m
O Q
o
a m
xo
d
0
U
U ?
a
bo ,? u %w
V u r
v It
Ct
U
A
c
a
Q. c
can c"n
'? t4
c ?
d
o.ac
w
ONO
c
O a0i
c° a
0
o
z?z
d
? d
x a
d
cc
aq,
0
a.
.Q7c
0 0
? 'rJ
u
20 d U
? is as
oar;
„a
.? a
v
U
V
Q
v
0
w
04
. 9 0 0
? S
a O N
b b
0
c
cn
S
g d 0 ?
d
. .
a ?
?
z o
'T G
ti?t<
?? Q o ? 00
o
O
T
S
(DD
S
A GG
? O
C
?p n `? tD
O O rp
?j S C
r. ID
fD
to
?
?
m ? ?. .b eo
R
7 C S
>FA X
a s
m
C
24. e,
w fD
? n w
00 ? O ?
w e?
?o
a_
° f0
n cv?v, r
n O
m ° fD 3; 91
m C. J' gb p, .r
b n r n
0o eo $ ..
X' ° c S
.ti 4 ° o•
dap ? ?- ? ?
9
.? r
?S. n e N.00- ?•?
?1 O
b
COO z
A
•
Community Circle, First Meeting - March 4
Facilitator Mary Supple
Recorder Joan Helmberger
I. Meeting opened with introductory remarks by:
Board of Education Vice Chair Vicki Rorie
Richfield Mayor Martin Kirsch
Superintendent of Richfield Public Schools Dr. Barbara Devlin
Richfield Community Council Co-Chair Camillo DeSantis
Richfield Community Development Director Bruce Patmborg
II. The basic question to be discussed is: How does racial and ecomonic segregation of housing affect
education achievement and life opportunities of Twin Cities families and children?
III. Discussion ground rules agreed upon by the group after members introduced themselves were:
1. Observe common courtesy.
2. Be respectful of other's opinions.
3. Need to be honest with ideas and answers.
4. Respect security and confidentiality regarding personal sharing.
5. Maintain a written record of discussion.
6. HAVE FUN!
7. Start on time - stop on time.
8. Have full participation.
9. Be tolerant of other's opinions - ask for clarification.
10. Keep an open mind - not judgemental.
IV. Observations and comments of members of group:
1. The experience of attending college in Bemidji witnessing the great disparity in income
between poverty among some, especially Indians, and other people who were rich.
2. Experiencing problems of race in Minneapolis schools, saw much diversity when working as
a property manager, experienced much prejudice, economic as well as racial.
3. Has a hard time about poverty being the reason for not succeeding.
4. A single parent sees many unsupervised children as a problem. Lack of sufficient day care is
an issue and has seen Section 8 abused.
5. A problem with unknowledgeable parents letting children be unsupervised too much.
6. A perception of prejudicial feelings in Richfield. Questions relationship of poverty to
teaching.
7. Grew up in Richfield and sees children in school in Richfield are growing into diversity.
8. A missing factor can be family involvement; also, many families with little or no English
language ability.
9. Decries lack of day care in Richfield Sees children in welfare get advanced placement in
programs such as Latchkey.
10. Camillo spoke of his 41 years in social work and of the benefits of the GI bill for returning
servicemen from World War II and later.
L J
E
0
Community Circle, Second Meeting - March 18
Facilitator: Margaret Severe
Recorder: Mary Supple
A letter from Heidi Gaibor was shared with the group.
Her ideas will be included in the following summary. Articles
she shared were passed around and will be available again at
the next meeting.
The main discussion questions were:
What does residential segregation mean in the Twin
Cities metropolitan area today?
What is the state of educational opportunity and
achievement in the Twin Cities today?
The topics discussed are listed here by subjects instead
of discussion order. There are more detailed minutes available
if you would like them. Here is a summary:
Reactions to Mailing Received for the March 18 Meeting
-viewed The Face of the Twin Cities: Another Look as
editorialized and thought Hennepin County Indicators was a much
better source of information, more straightforward, pertinent,
and understandable
-some disagreement with the United Way conclusions was
mentioned
-thought page three of the Hennepin County Indicators was
very useful; thought it showed some obvious examples of racial
segregation in Hennepin County
-statistics on page ten of Hennepin County Indicators were
discussed; note was made that these are medians not averages
so extremes in highs and lows are not reflected
-commented that much of this data was from the 1990 census;
wished for more recent figures since there has been a lot of
change in the 90's
-West Metro diagram of school district demographics and
Richfield statistics on transfers were helpful
Additional Questions and Ideas to Consider as Mentioned in the
Discussion
-Is the "segregated housing" concept a crucial factor in
education and life goals?
-Do current assistance systems discourage personal
responsibility and initiative?
-Are children left unsupervised because the adults in their
lives don't care or because the adults are overloaded and
struggling to survive?
-It is disturbing that we are all women at this meeting. .
Where are the men?
-What do you do if a person doesn't want to change?
-How can internal motivation, personal integrity, or respect
for others be instilled? Can it or does it have to come from
inside?
-Do people stay near their support systems? Is that why
there are pockets of segregation?
-What is the definition of poverty?
-As a society, what have we done for children in the recent
past?
-How do we deal with students who are acting out?
-Not everyone thinks the same or understands other's
perspectives - sometimes we honestly don't have a clue.
Segregation leads to isolation. How do we solve this?
-How can you racially balance a school if you segregate
a neighborhood?
-How can we as individuals make a difference?
-We are in very deep denial. We believe we aren't like
Detroit, but we are; it's just happening more slowly here.
We need to do something. These meetings are a sign of hope.
What can we do about it?
Concerns Expressed
-lack of transportation options .
-lack of choices in where one lives (location and
affordability)
-being forced to racially categorize oneself on forms
-unsupervised children
-more monitoring needed of the use of government assistance
programs to avoid misuse
-continued economic and racial segregation is affecting
kids
-segregation leading to isolation
-loss of personal integrity and respect as society-wide
values
-cost of health care and lack of insurance
-denial that we have a segregation problem
-people who don't know how to access community resources
or how to help themselves
-growing disparity between rich and poor, loss of middle
class
-schools being asked to meet more and more needs beyond
academics
-underfunding of schools
-students need to feel safe at school and at bus stops
-need for a diversity of housing in Richfield
-need for day care support
0
Notes from the April 1 Community Circle Meeting
• Many articles and program/workshop opportunities were
shared. Two of the articles are enclosed with this mailing.
Our next meeting will be April 22 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.
We began by looking over the discussion guide. It generated
a great deal of conversation both in agreement and in
disagreement with the ideas on the guide.
Here is a list of some of the brainstormed solutions and/or
strategies:
- Affordable housing that has community support
- Help with down payments for houses
- Affordable health care options
- Affordable day care options
- We need to couple support with choices so people can
move to the next rung of the ladder
- Support little communities within the larger community
- Opportunities for small businesses and enterprises like
the community kitchen example in Wisconsin
- Job training like Total Solutions Group in Bloomington
- Programs to help people become more self-sufficient,
both those who are motivated and those with tougher problems
that are more difficult to help
- Set up buddy systems or mentorships to provide moral
support
- Programs that are faith based are more successful so
work through the churches, examples like the churches in the
Phillips and Powderhorn neighborhoods
- Fixing up and repairing properties
Replacing older homes like Richfield does
- Pay livable wages that can support a family
- Have rent limits like in the early 1970's
- Require community service hours in schools - even before
high school
- Have school uniforms
- Schools should ask for more community, volunteers so
children have role models for volunteering
- Set up groups to visit new families and have them check
in from time to time to maintain personal contact and moral
support
- Use the state surplus for education and to educate young
mothers who don't know what to do
- Use the state surplus to demonstrate some of the proposed
solutions in communities
- Provide many opportunities to learn about child care
by making it part of the curriculum and having students babysit
for adults taking classes
- Continue and add to programs like Playgrounds in the
Parks - perhaps providing day care over lunchtime
- Share successes because maybe something that will work
in Richfield will help elsewhere
- Be creative in how we welcome low income families since
community supports are necessary
- Provide choices in how the money is used
- Go step-by-step in programs by breaking down the goals
to make them more attainable
- Create more housing choices in the city
- Provide schooling for adults, but if they don't take
advantage of it then they would not receive more assistance
Communities should have clear expectations for people
moving in based on community pride and responsibility
- Ask people to give of their time for community projects
- Provide chances for teenagers to earn money to instill.
hope for the future
- Provide transportation help so that people can get to
classes
Please write down some of your ideas for strategies and
solutions and bring them to the next meeting to help facilitate
the discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Supple, Recorder
0
COMMUNITY CIRCLE MINUTES
APRIL 22, 1997
The Community Circle meeting was called to order at 7:00 by facilitator Joan
Helmberger. Joan began with information on our focus:
What are the impacts of existing patterns of residential, economic and
racial segregation on the educational achievement and life opportunities of
Twin Cities area children and families?
What can or should we do, as individuals and as a community, to enhance the
educational, housing and economic opportunities for all children in the Twin
Cities area?
Several articles were shared as well as information about the South Hennepin
Family Services Collaborative.
The discussion will be summarized after the following announcements:
1. The group decided to have another meeting on Tuesday, May 13, 7-9 p.m.
in the district boardroom.
2. Group members are asked to write up their ideas to share with the group.
Three members' comments are enclosed. If you are bringing your comments to
the next meeting, please bring enough for everyone to have a copy. Thanks.
3. The head of the project metrowide called and invited us to a
Communitywide Forum to share the results of all of the Local Community
Circles. It will be May 29, 6:30 - 9:00 p.m.
4. On June 16, there will also be a Minnesota Meeting to share results. One or
two groups members will be needed to represent us.
Discussion Notes:
HOUSING:
What:
1. Creative ways to welcome people (both low income and minority groups)
2. Affordable housing throughout the metro area that is close to jobs
a. Subsidies when and if needed
b. Rebuild or replace old houses (Similar to Richfield program)
c. Rental and owner properties must be affordable
d. Set criteria - screen for enforcement
e. Put teeth in the Livable Communities Act (tax sharing penalties)
f. Build affordable homes
Who:
1. Outreach by a group to meet new residents (city, public health rep., citizens)
2. Welcome Wagon type group (city, Chamber of Commerce)
3. New Resident Open House (city, apartment managers, real estate, schools)
4. Target real estate industry as a method of working on non-discrimination
5. Build on current programs (Welcome cards, neighborhood watch groups)
6. Affordability - Housing authorities, city, state, county, federal
Concerns:
1. Discrimination - places to go for help when it occurs
2. Confidentiality
3. Oversight of programs
4. Expanding successful programs outward to others
5. How do you define affordable?
JOBS:
What:
1. Pay livable wages
2. Put businesses/factories/jobs where people are offer incentives to companies
3. Public transportation
a. Smaller bus lines to connect to larger ones
b. Focus groups to improve transportation system
c. Company bus passes
d. Company vans
e.- Finance the current system more fully
Who:
1. Chamber of Commeress
2. Business community
3. Governmental bodies
4. Transportation services
5. State legislature - funding for transportation
Concerns:
1. Livability - buses flying through residential neighborhoods
2. Improving the current system
HEALTH CARE:
What:
1. Make people aware of resources (sliding fees, programs)
2. Public service time donated in exchange for tuition (set up clinics)
3. Stress preventative care
a. Canadian example - monthly payment if current on check-ups
b. Well Child Programs
c. Women, Infants, and Children
d. Prenatal care
e. MinnCare
4. Coverage for the working poor
a. Educate people about what is available
b. Resource center packets (put together with community service time)
c. Make sure people are not falling through the cracks)
5. Health care reform is needed (lobbying)
6. Volunteers to educate people (through churches and community groups)
7. Add health care and education to school curriculum/programs.
Who:
1. Social workers
2. Public Health Department
3. Resource Center
4. School nurses
5. Citizens lobbying
EDUCATION:
What:
1. Smaller class sizes (help self-esteem, compassion, and learning)
2. Children STAYING in the same schools - less moving around
3. Programs to prevent drop-outs
4. Dealing with truancy
5. School uniforms
i 6. Head Start
7. Parent Education
8. Support for families in poverty, crisis, or stress like a job loss
9. Build up non-education support system so schools are not overwhelmed
a. Parent education
b. Mentoring
c. Child care
d. More money to community supports
e. Head Start
10. Volunteers
ICJ
•
•
0
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 22, 1997
TO: Mary Suppel
FROM: Brenda Bjorklund
I am disappointed that I can't attend tonight's meeting. However, here are my thoughts
regarding the questions outlined for sessions 4 and 5. As test scores and statistics
evidence, the effects of centralized poverty on schools are real and devastating. Both
educators and students are placed in untenable circumstances without adequate
resources to positively effect change. The problems are simply an extension of those
experienced with segregated housing. Busing is not a practical alternative. However,
affordable housing dispersed throughout the metro area (rather than concentrated in
pockets) is a viable solution and would also provide for interaction among races in
classes. A centralized system of collection and dispersement of tax resources and
accelerated salaries for educators (to retain good teachers and attact qualified
candidates) also provide meaningful solutions.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.
0 Brenda Bjorklund (866-7530)
•
TOTAL P.02
•
0
• ?==U%
' y C-11k f
April 22, 1997
My ideas for improving "educational achievement and life opportunities" have little or nothing to
do with racial or economic segregation of housing, because I don't see that as a factor in these
particular issues. As is evidenced in the literature we've read, money and ethnicity have little to do
with achievement in life; the major stumbling block to successful education and availing oneself of
positive opportunities is the diseased human spirit that is prevalent in our society today. Poverty
of spirit, rather than poverty of monetary wealth, is our problem.
We know that some affluent white students drop out of school, while some humble immigrant
students of color graduate with honors. What is the difference between these two types of
students? The amount of money they have or their skin colors aren't determining factors in the
outcome. Personal integrity and determination lead one person to having a fulfilling life, while
another person, lacking those attributes, struggles and falters.
So the question is, "flow do we instill and encourage integrity in individuals, and thereby,
society?" That will be the germ of our solution. Throwing money at unsuccessful individuals or
providing them with housing in the suburbs serves only as a finger in the leaking dike. We need
to do some heavy-duty repair work to our society so that it can regain some strength and dignity.
We need to begin with families, so that the generation coming up will have some firm footing.
I believe that personal commitment and outreach are necessary to turn things around. Children
can become literate, productive members of society in a one-room hut, as well as in a
technologically state-of-the-art school complex. The common threads are the inspiration to learn
(which grows in the home) and the dedication of teachers. One way that I propose a difference
could be made is to have school and community outreach committees, similar to the Welcome
Wagon. Yes, of course it would require time and additional effort on the part of those involved;
but unlike money alone, it would produce long-term effects (the "Give a man a fish..... Teach a
man to fish....." idea).
I envision such a concept occurring something like this: a person or family moves into the
community. The landlord or city office receives permission from the new resident(s) to give
his/her/their name(s) to the community committee, which could be comprised of a current resident
(bilingual, if pertinent to the situation), a city representative, and a public-health representative.
This committee would then arrange to visit with the newcomer(s) to welcome him/her/them to the
community, offer practical information about the neighborhood (where the nearest
grocery/discount stores are located, how many minutes away fire and police help are, nearby
parks, access to freeways/major thoroughfares, where to find medical/dental clinics and hospitals,
banks, post office, city hall, winter parking rules, etc.), answer questions, and provide additional
information for special resources, if needed (English classes, food shelves, thrift shops, bus routes,
childcare, job training sites, etc.). This personal contact and communication demonstrates to new
residents that they are welcome additions to the community, and they also have the reassurance of
knowing some of their new neighbors. They will know where to turn in the event of need, or of
wishing to contribute.
During this initial visit, the community delegation would determine if a visit by the school
committee would be of benefit to the household. Were there pre-school or school-age children, a
team consisting of a parent with similar-age children (and perhaps even the children themselves), a
teacher from the appropriate school, and a principal/vice principal/superintendenVSchool Board
member could visit with the family. Visits such as these would aid the school community in
staying abreast of what types of support the student population has and needs, and would also
indicate to the family that there is genuine care and concern for the children. Topics to be talked
about between family and school delegation could include school hours, bussing, school
philosophy/program, unique curriculum offerings, opportunities to receive or offer tutoring,
locations of libraries within the residential community, etc. Meetings of this sort would be held not
only with new members of the civic community, but with the families of new open-enrollment
students, as well.
Outreach is a way to build a cohesive community for the well-being of all. It also breaks down
barriers of non-communication and non-involvement that separate us these days. With outreach,
expectations of the community can be imparted to the residents, and at the same time, they can be
made aware of the tools within the community that are available for helping to build a stable life
for their families.
W&= the human spirit is v1&=4 anything is possible!
AV\ r
•
Here are some of my thoughts on children and poverty and the future.
I truly believe no one wants to be on welfare/section 8 or anything like that. Everyone would like to be
self sufficent and able to take care of their family nicely.
I beIeive it is a hard hill to climb out of poverty into a middle class lifestyle and it is a very quick roll
down that hill into poverty. The aid that is given is to simply slow down or stop the descent so people can
begin that climb up to middle class again. Most people who loose a job and miss 6 - 12 paychecks will be
rolling down this hill into poverty. We need to be able to give aid when and where it will make the
greatest difference in getting people back up the hill.
I feel families need to stay together if possible - they need housing money - in an amount that will give
them choice in housing and location. I would hope that they could find good housing to keep their
children in their current schools. We must think of the children and try to not change the dynamics of
their world (change school, friends, locations). I have been reading that 20% of foster children become
unwed mothers and are about 40% of the poverty level. Maybe foster care is only for the children in
unsafe households. We should try to keep families together. To do this society needs to provide the
following:
1. Housing money (an amount that will give people choice in housing and location)
2. Crisis Nursery (for the times when the pressure is too great and parents need to organize their
thoughts without being disturbed).
3. Daycare help (daycare is so expensive - yet to be a provider you do not make much money)
4. A good transportation system (bus service that can transport you to work and back, enable you to pick
up your children at daycare, get to the bank, grocery store, doctor, and enable you to see friends). This
will help people live without cars which are a very high expense. I do think we need to subsidize the bus
rates for poor people - it now costs about $90 a month to go from Richfield to Downtown and back.
5. Emergency food shelves to help people that need food - especially families with children.
I also think it would help the community - poverty and middle class to give some classes on how to
prepare economic foods and how to save time cooking by turning leftovers into other meals later in the
week Also ideas on good, healthy snacks for children.
6. Clothing, household goods, bedding, and furniture are needed sometimes to help people. In Minnesota
we need to make sure all children have snowsuits, boots, hats, and gloves for winter. We need to get
warm blankets to people who need them. We have hot, hot summers also we need to get people fans.
These can all be second hand but in good condition.
I have heard of a program north of San Diego which has an apartment building for single mothers and
their children. To get into this apartment the mothers have to agree to get schooling or skills and then get
a job. There is a daycare in the building for them to use. They are given a furnished apartment - second
hand - but when they reach the point when they are making it they can take their furnishings with them to
help them get started at a new apartment. This is funded by a great number of churches and other
organizations but they feel it is helping to change lives for the better. Most families are there only 3
years.
7. Park programs for children are greatly needed for the middle school on up ages. These park programs
could even provide family entertainment - such as outside movies (like at the national parks) in the
summer on weekends. Cheap Sat or Sun family trips to a lake or nature preserve on a school bus, where
families could bring a picnic and have an afternoon in the country. Programs are needed all year round.
When families are stressed out about finances tempers are easily lost - we need to get our children out of
the home and doing things at parks or other organized places. Things like card playing, basketball,
checkers, chess, monopoly and other things kids could enjoy while socializing.
8. Health insurance is such a huge expense that is totally needed We need to make sure all children are
covered We need to help families be covered when they are in poverty and help them on their climb back
ASV)
to middle - class. 0
9. We need to have skill building classes for adults to get their GED and then more sellable skills to help
them get a job that will have some growth potential. We need to offer these in different ways - traditional
evening classes, tapes or video tapes, teachers that come to the students home - what ever it takes to fit
their life as it is.
10. We need to pressure for a more livable wage for people over 22. We need to give some tax incentives
maybe to businesses to start this.
11. As a nation we need to look what other nations are doing for their children - Canada gives $60. a
month to familes for each child, they also have national healthcare which will notify the government to
hold back the $60. payment if a child misses a yearly check up. They do not have the problems of lack of
health care we have.
12. We need to pressure businesses to view part-time workers and full time workers as both giving and
equal hours $ worth. This would enable mothers to work maybe 35 hours a week and make decent
money and be able to be a better parent by being in the home more. If a comparison is done between a
$10. / hour full time worker and a $10./ hour part-time worker it comes out like this - The fulltime gets
sick days (6 - 8 days per year), 2 week vacation, holiday pay, 17 hours for going to school for children,
the part-time worker only receives $10. per hour the difference is hour for hour the full time is really
making $15. per hour plus geeing health coverage. Once again we need to look at another country that
has this all figured out - U.K Everything is pro-rated, vacations, sick time are carried to a new job - you
get according to your how many hours you work
13. We need to keep life as livable as possible for children because they are the future and they do scarr
easily. Enable children to talk to their teachers, or school social worker about problems and fears. If the
classroom size was kept down to 15 students children would get the attention needed and would do better
in the future. We need to put our money in for lowcr class sizes or no will be paying for prisons, and lost
economy for people not being able to reach their full potential.
COMMUNITY CIRCLE MINUTES
May 13, 1997
Future events were announced. This was our last discussion
group meeting, but there will be a metrowide follow-up forum
on May 29th. Dr. Devlin mailed information to all participants.
There will be an all day session on June 16th also. Volunteers
are needed. Please contact Dr. Devlin at 798-6012 if you are
interested in attending.
Several articles were shared. The events of the last
meeting were reviewed.
Discussion continued on the following points:
DAY CARE :
Pairing people up with others with similar needs
-day care at work places
- co-op day care (sharing responsibility; trust is
needed; neighborhood based, work-based, or school
based; short-term for doctors appointments or long
term)
Child care centers near transit hubs
- quality providers who are paid livable wages
Adjust bus routes to serve needs for day care
Provide day care at non-traditional times
Pair day care with schools
Expand current services
- long waiting lists for both space and help with sliding
fee scales
- allow services to continue if they begin working but
wages are still low
Add service to provide day care for those being sent to
work through welfare reform
more facilities
- more providers
- home day care
Affordable day care at businesses for employees
Start schools at earlier ages - 3 year olds (similar to
the European system)
Build in tutoring to supplement schooling
Utilize churches and buildings
Train parents (this could lead to jobs in day care later)
Expand use of volunteers (senior citizens - good resource)
Senior citizens and young parents could help each other
out through a barter system or jobs co-op (short-term day
care for lawn work, etc.)
Concerns:
- too expensive
- unsupervised children result from being day care being
too expensive
EDUCATION:
These are additional comments to add to the ones from last
meeting:
•
0
- make it more challenging
- change schedules and structures to meet the needs
working parents
- school buildings are resources for day care, etc.
PERSONAL SUPPORT:
Welcoming people to the community
Helping neighbors in crisis
Expand Neighborhood Watches to focus beyond just crime
and also include apartments in neighborhood groups
Provide listings of community services and resources for
new residents (in languages beyond English, too)
Set up a buddy system or mentors to help people learn the
system (schools, community, and jobs systems)
Make local papers available to apartment dwellers
Phone helplines should be in multiple languages
SUMMARY:
As we began drawing the meeting to a close, we realized
we still had multiple perspectives. Some members wanted to
focus on support for morale and the human spirit; some wanted
to focus on support for basic physical needs such as housing
and jobs; and some wanted to focus on both.
Another difference was whether we should focus on short-
term or long-term goals. It was decided to mention some of
each.
Finally, we discussed whether the best way to help children
was to help their parents or to focus on the children.
It was pointed out that discrimination is still very real
and comes in a variety of forms. Since it is still entrenched
in our society, it is important to work at changing our little
corner of the world and take small steps toward long-term goals
that will help the entire metro area and society as a whole.
LONG-TERM SYSTEMS CHANGES
- work for stability so children are not changing schools
frequently
- work for livable wages
- provide affordable single and multiple family housing
- improve our public transportation system
- create livable communities
- increase funding for areas with high needs
- provide personal support that goes beyond material
things and instills self-esteem, hope, a sense of
community, etc.
- focus on children and their needs
- provide affordable day care
- provide access to affordable health care
41 - support and enhance family and parent education
programs
•
•
0
SHORT-TERM STEPS:
expand Neighborhood Watch programs to include community
building
set up co-ops for day care and other services
facilitate volunteerism
set up team for community welcome visits and support
services
work through structures already in place in churches
and schools and support them more fully
- focus on providing personal support and building
community within neighborhoods
provide emergency support through programs like crisis
nurseries and food shelves
z hope this accurately summarizes the discussion. if you
have any corrections or suggestions, please call me at 798-6769.
Mary
•
41
•
•
9
•
•
•
E
O
U
N
N.:
O IM
,L
O (1) a ._ • a ?,
Gf . -0 N
?..
CL
0.0 cc (D
SQ :c
Cl) A co
c cz :..
a Ca
:
O:.rZI.
N.
.?
"cis
_w
y21 - N p _ ; L a
th -0
e7 L y V y O T O C v O .G ? '? !n . .. J ..
e N 8 o T °? ? a d u u ? a •N N e `'3 '2 ees ?.
- yQ h y > C.. C ?' e3 .. y? 'C Hyfi C C U q =o
p ea. L. J> 0 L N y O O e0 a G O QI --. O .? >+ O Q V ') - N CL O= q C O y O .?.. J
mss. v? N > e r. v
o U .? u C? e. x U o
v U o_ V U L U 3 2.. Gn u f1] o e'3 j '
?.-z. oL t
> o e_ . T v G eY ir... DD a o e N Z. DD C q
7 a N s H O e
a ",$ S p s C L O e' ° p v• n? C 1L ?L V !A p@ ?
= s C. C C O L t... O C C V q p e3 y t 7 U..- _ e y w O y ,` •? O. ` O. a eo Z .E 7 L C
.NV. s a u °o d y T s c E A y c= v a d '^? Z •°-A pi r = c$ a"i Z e
U y o e d o" o v? y¢ o 2 8 Z z a= o o u U •`?- C t e c U 'o u e y w y a U tL ti •v ?,
gV.? c eU?q h ^?q V•y.? _ y ?Y y ? .y c a Batt .. ?'p_o_p_ p_p ? y c?_ a o b yZ _ Q
? ?• T _. ? '? 7 ? O ? CS N y N _ ?. a y ? ? y p; ayi ^. 6.o •C O O O r, 2 'V O O . esO 0
3 p; a. C v 3 c y
E- T v y v v v S v o L N 3 U 12 °. q u c qS e? a e a N N N c a N N y N y V U
'O"[?•'J??J j?CCCCCG?O
(, C GC 6??-C?y
a y•-y?CL.LLOV ?..l 7ti0 LC_>•?: ::-O j
OG y O V J V g L L O O C e3 q s O 3 `w t" y O y C C C C C C V C. C. C p 7 7 •e U
?Zg.02. v`v?v??nrnW vn&nw :D DE E t? u?MA mil mm m ronrnE3?3
J
LL EI
D N e ?_ C o a y e +-
•C?C .s c ._ o t W c U o a c o>> U
(? . Q-U Y e= U 2 2.E= 0> v C o
O Z O. N t C Y C r 5. yy rr y Q V W ..7 3=
L w T 1l L U T ." Z G
^j y ?" .O F. O v C p d L•C U L Or
O O _pp
3 Y C T Y ?d Q V y L C '? C C N DD [9 T m V 7 7 n O- C_ Z
>.= a z a' V s o._noin p es•? L'?' °' ?UU m C O .LLF
.... -= c v e a o a q .G e_ v 'z m Z w: a e e a"i e? "e v? o 'o o g
V >_ o a y Z o e 3 e. >>' L
x O ->'> a q e a V a° y > ?' 'y u. o r o x q' o e c c E c'c •= r '? c V V u ?'? N N
7 T 0 0 `? W 91 C t_ c-3 .C .C Y Z d in 0 Lr J L L c N j C ._. C U= 7 O rt C 3 T a y rn C C G. •_
O ?. e7 L Q 3 L •O 0 0 e3 .? y O CO N eY Q 1l a L O O O V V .y .? 0 0 3 3 p
t?.ammmmVr?wwvx???oa:?H33f?.amVV VV@3xxuoo Ox= xxx?A-S222
=r U)
CD
m col °-
CO)
?o
(D Cl)
o ?.
o - Q-
o CD
CAD 0)
O. O O
CD } 3
o
C M? W
;n CD
o 3
Q. TI
gpc
7 . Q_
ID
7
w n ?zs .
A O
CrQ
y CD .
p;
A CD
o' '•"- o
CD
CD
O O .y
CD Q 0,
"(DD A
cD ? ?
Co
M,o
y CD . y .•.
CD
CD O <
.:r aQ
In. '0
A C
C "A O
CO
y co
rN? O
? ` tOn O
h
O- ¦
c y
CD
im.. -.A•-
C.
"s co ?. -
E" :y "y
aro„
5r o
?o _ 3
fD
y Q
I
CD
..r ID
?-. OL
CD
H
rA
?o ¦
?n •-• G - CD
O
CD
OQ OQ ,...
VQ ?- ?
OQ olz
`n
CD
o
. W. CO
O
CD ?: ?..
CD CD
A
n"
n
O
y A
n•
CD ,
. O
p
•"
C
s
C..
(A
Cl)
K
o
O 0)
O
-O
:
co
G
Q ?' ?• 70, C..
rr C'- A • a O
A
. `' y cG -? ?. ( =y .;
C .
?.
te Q ? boo CIA Al ? o ' (
D a
O- n Ct C
Q Q O
:O Q ..
CD ?
011-
0 (D fmp. CL-.
-
Q
n ? 0 Q.
CD rr
? `
0 o
,
n
a
z-- c (A y .. .
m "' n (D .
0 = 0
C p.
n
a gl0 o CD O
A -w
$0 m O CL
a
d (7 '.
C.
\Y
o a
(t m N Cp
0 CD ¢; --
?
N
e s o y Q Q. ?
Q rt:
O
' . CD
-+ O O
'".
.
?
p
c
A A 5
n
`e O y Q M
QI
; t
)
C
O C= rF
a-
?
rF
?.
o
? CD SI)
., ee A O
?o 3z ? A a CD
Cl)
?s
T3- A' ?
?
0 CD
?
_p n
n
,3
0--3 3
CD-
co -
O
CD CA .? Q
a.. '
co
(D 0
ro O o ,_ N n
co , -r
cD
m
n,.
a
o a c =
?.. -t n
tp ?- (p
n
-I co =
s
/
om
?
. O . G Q << CfQ .,. ? ?
(D
CA
k •,
CD rA
O w rjQ"
W
h
.t3
A
M . 4 Co
Co
Co
^
?.
OZ.
0
I" \V
om"
co Q
. CD:
. ° . rol.:
C -L
^ r ^
y[/ Q ?a?
o ;t
?
' I .
0 . ?..
O CD ' . .
3 ,
3 co
Q." TI' AZ
- a-?
o LL
< 0
o pop _
Q Q
a mow;
...
S31 %
`'w1
?
f
. t
CL
,,?,
r.?
"COMMUNITY CHOICES"
COMMUNITY CIRCLE INFORMATION REPORT
SUMMARY ANALYSIS (Updated as of 9/9/97)
To Community Circle Sponsor and Facilitator:
pose: To learn more about the Beyond Busing Community Circles, we are asking community circle sponsors and facilitators to
®rk together to complete the following information report. This report will be used in the on-going evaluation of the project, in
planning for future efforts, and to report results to funders and other stakeholders. Your input is critical. Thank you in advance for
your assistance in these efforts !!! Please return the completed form by August 1, 1997.
• BASIC INFORMATION
Number of respondents: 26 (80 surveys mailed to Facilitators & Sponsors) 33% responded.
21 (84%) of 25 active Community Circles have returned survey.
List of Community Circles Responding Sponsor Organization(s) Contact Person(s) Facilitator(s) Recorder(s)
Hennepin County Hennepin Co. Children&Family Svcs.
Sabathani Community Center Sabathani Community Center
Holy Trinity Holy Trinity Lutheran/ Longfellow
United for Youth&Families
Richfield Community Circle Richfield Board of Education
Richfield League of Women Voters
City of Richfield
St. Paul
Hopkins Community Study
uth Central Minneapolis
ite Park
Seward Mathews Center
Group
Southwest Area Roundtable
Jewish Community Center of St. Paul
Ree Ali Bloedow* Ree Ali Bloedow grp. Mems.
Brenda Louise* Brenda Louise
Art Serotoff* Kristin Lund* A. Serotoff(
K. Lund
Rev. Ron Johnson Joy Nelson* L. Meeks
Supt. Barbara Devlin Emily Day* M Supple
Joan Helmberger
Margaret Severe
Mary Supple*
Shelly Rottenberg* Shelly Rottenberg
Sunny Floum*
Hopkins School District 270/ Hopkins Diane Cowdery* Nadine Knibb
Human Rights Commission Wanda Phillips
St. Joan of Arc Parish / Southside Neighbor- Rich Nymoen* Mary Ann McCoy
hood Services Howard Kroll
Waite Park Community Council& Ray Lewis* Jerry Anderson
Community School Ray Lewis
Minneapolis Schools Scott Bol* Scott Bol
Minnesota's Talking Project
Edina Community Circle
Minnesota Fair Housing
Center Study Circle
Bayport Community Circle
Oakdale-Oak Terrace-St. Paul
Community Circle
Golden Valley Study Circle
Edina Community B
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis-North-Brooklyn
Park-Brooklyn Center
Study Circle (2 groups)
Oinneapolis-Greater Area-D
Edina Public Schools
Minnesota Fair Housing Center
Minneapolis Public Schools
CommonBond Communities
Black History Committee of
Golden Valley
Golden Valley Human Rights Dept.
First Universalist Church
Metro Stability Task Force
The Newman Center, U. of M.
Ascension Catholic Church
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Assoc.
Karima Bushnell* Karima Bushnell
Syd Devin* 35 monthly
moderators
Laura Tueting Nelson* Laura Tueting
Nelson
Charmaine Sprengelmeyer* C. Sprengelmeye
E. Moriatis
Scott Bol* Scott Bol
D. Cowdery
* H. Clap
R. Nymoen
K. Bushnell
C. Hall
J. Deitte
r C. Spren-
gelmeyer
Maire McMahon* M. McMahon M. McMahon
Kay Reis Howard Homa
Theresa Davis Kay Reis
Walter Gray* Walter Gray M. Anderson
Mary Anderson G. Sylvester
Nancy Atchison* Linda Alton varied
Nancy Atchison
Rosemary Ruffenach* R. Ruffenach P. Ruddy
Sylvia* & John J. Winkelman J. Braun
Winkelman S. Winkelman I. Slator
Charles Nicho ls
Jan Swanson
Jan Herseth Barbara Blackstone*
St. Louis Park City of St. Louis Park, School District Bridget Gothberg* Carol Johnson B. Gothberg
Gail Dorfman
Jerry Timian
** NOTE: (Additional surveys to be obtained from Community Circles in Maple Grove / Minnetonka / Twin Cites Tenants Union / Minneapolis-Ramsey Fine Arts)
Number attended: Number who used the discussion guide,
42% (10) Sponsor Kick-off event (Dec. '96) "Choices for Community"?
75% (18) Facilitator Training (Feb. '97) 71% (17) yes
75% (18) Macalester Forum (May '97) 29% (7) no
Location(s) of community circle:
Rotating place School Board Room
Hopkins School District Offices
St. Joan's Church Seward Mathews Center Pershing Park Neighborhood Center
Minnesota Fair Housing Center Bayport People's Congregational Church Oak Terrace Apts. - Oakdale
District Boardroom of Richfield Schools Golden Valley City Hall The Newman Center (U. of M.)
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Assoc. Lenox Community Center
Meeting times of Community Circles: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
13% (3) 21% (5) 21%(5) 17%(4) 4%(1)
Daytime (7AM - 4PM) 25% (6) Rotating times: 13% (3) Over Meals: 4% (1)
Evening (5PM - 1OPM) 50% (12)
How many times did your community circle meet? How long was each meeting?,
Range: 1 - 7meetings Range: 1- 3 hours
Median: 4.3 meetings Median: 1.93 hours
How would you describe the attendance of participants? _ excellent _ good _ only fair _ poor
(4) (3) (2) (1)
# of respondents: 2 1 8 3 5 2
Range: "poor to excellent" •
Median: "fair to good" (2.6)
• THE PARTICIPANTS
How many people participated in your community circle?
Total: 2267 participants Range: 3 - 25 participants Median: 1_1.5 participants
How many participants were: men? 27% (74) women? 64% (176) youth? 1% (3)
singles without children? 11% (29) families? 25% (65) single parent(s)? 11% (30) seniors? 12% (31)
How many in your community circle represented each of the following cultural groups?
16% (45) African American
1.5% (4) American Indian/Native
American
2.5% (7) Asian American
8% (21) Don't Know
2%(5) Hispanic/Latino
61% (167) White/European
1.5%(4) Mixed Racial Background
.8%(2) Liberian / Egyptian Moslem
0
Using your best judgment, please rate how diverse your group was according to the following categories?
Very Diverse Somewhat Diverse Not Diverse Have no idea
Income Levels 1 2 3 4 Total: 45.5/22 Median: 2.1
4 low, moderate, high) (3) (1) (16) (2) "Somewhat (more) Diverse"
litical Affiliations 1 2 3 4 Total: 25/14 Median: 1.
(ex. DFL, Republican) (1) (9) (4) (8) "Somewhat (less) Diverse"
Political Ideology 1 2 3 4 Total: 28/17 Median: 6
(ex. Conservative, Liberal) (1) (9) (7) (5) "Somewhat (less) Diverse"
Housing Situation 1 2 3 4 Total: 43/22 Median: 2.0
(ex. home owner, renter) (3) (15) (4) "Somewhat Diverse"
What, if anything, do you know about the religious diversity of your group?
"None" "Nothing"
Protestant, Catholic, & unknown
Catholic, Protestant, Moslem
Diverse
No information
Nothing
No information; Did not come up.
Christian, Muslim, eclectic
Reflects the religious diversity of the population of SW Minneapolis. Probably includes a few agnost ics, atheists, or what have you.
Jewish, Christian, and agnostic.
Some Congregationalists, some Bahai, eclectic ? others didn't say.
Christian; Jewish; possible other.
One of our members spoke of being Islamic. Others mentioned Christian churches.
None.
ere Unitarian Universalist, others unknown.
Catholic.
A number of St. Joan's Catholics, a number of other
Majority Catholic
Nothing
Do not know
0
Which neighborhoods/cities were represented in your community circle and how many people were
from each neighborhood/city?
City Neighborhood Number of participants
Afton 1 .
Arden Hills 1
Bayport 3
Bloomington 2
Brooklyn Center 5
Brooklyn Park 6
Burnsville 1
Edina 24
Golden Valley 10
Hopkins 9
Lakeland 2
Lakeville 1
Maple Grove 1
Maplewood 1
Minneapolis Central 27
Minneapolis Hyland 4
Minneapolis Kingfield 3
Minneapolis Longfellow 10
Minneapolis LynLake 2
Minneapolis North 7
Minneapolis Northeast 1
Minneapolis Powderhorn 2
Minneapolis Prospect Park I
Minneapolis Seward 1
Minneapolis Seward, Field-Regina-Northrup 7
Minneapolis South 9
Minneapolis Southwest 12
Minneapolis
Waite Park •
3
Minneapolis Willard 3
New Brighton 1
New Hope 1
North St. Paul 1
North Suburb 1
Oak Park Heights 2
Oakdale 8
Other Suburbs 8
Plymouth 1
Richfield 18
Roseville 1
St. Louis Park 16
St. Paul 11
St. Paul Highland 16
Stillwater 4
Unknown 4
Did participants seem to be satisfied with the dialogue process, or did they express dissatisfaction?
Total: 83% (20) of respondents indicated participants seemed satisfied; please explain:
"Discussion" - process without need to answer all the questions
We used the written guide as a starting place - facilitator rephrased information & presented it orally to get discussion going.
"The study circle was a perfect place for members of the motivation group to practice their leadership development skills. It
gave the participants a chance to advocate for their own situation and possibly influence public policy that directly affect s
their lives. Members of the group were enthusiastic about their participation."
When we listened to each other, and worked our way to agreements.
Wanted to come again.
Generally satisfied, but some frustration with circular process - just kept going over same material. Didn't use discussion
guide as effectively as needed to bring focus and closure to conversations.
Participants said they enjoyed the process / discussions.
Comments favorable; said "Enjoyed opportunity to discuss with others."
The group was generally pleased to meet others of different ethnicities in a deep-level dialogue. There was strong group
bonding.
Those that continue to seem satisfied with the process; a goodly percentage even enthusiastic about it.
Enjoyed the opportunity to talk and meet others.
Participation was enthusiastic and open:
Liked it, but wanted more guidance. The discussion guide would have helped. It wasn't finished until after we met several
• times.
Seemed satisfied that they were given a forum from which to be heard - Also felt they were discussing & having input on
important subjects.
Bu did not show up regularly.
I was frustrated, as were others. The topic was too big, too vague & we did not have a roadmap through it.
Most said it was good way to meet others & figure out how they think on these issues.
Many were energized and enjoyed the process.
Really liked having an opportunity to talk about the issue.
The(y) felt it was important to discuss. Also felt like the Vision St. Louis Park Process has involved so many community
members & moved us forward in a positive & open direction.
Total: 25% o of respondents indicated that participants expressed dissatisfaction; please explain:
When the member who tended to dominate with negativity, did so.
Poor attendance said due to other commitments, but may have been due to other issues??
1. Some wanted to "get down to business sooner" - (we did not have the study guide), while others wanted to process issues
related to racism / prejudice (process vs. product conflict). Delay in Study Guide caused problems.
Relatively few; most dropouts are because of other commitments, lack of time, too far to come regularly, physical limitations,
move out of area, gave birth to youngsters (several have returned as children get older), etc.
Some early in dialogue, most later, wanted to move to action yet were unclear how. Study materials came late.
Lack of study guide was difficult to build on at first.
They found the policy options too broad - difficult to get down to specifics.
Not enough time.
4) at important comments did participants share with you about their discussions?
Thought that integration of neighborhoods and schools was not the answer.
They chose to continue the group and discuss other matters of importance to them.
"This is a hard issue to have discussion on."
"I shouldn't have talked as much as I did."
Several wrote out comments expressing needed changes in housing & day care.
* We have not met for this Format; Group is divided & new group will (would) have to be formed. We came out of a Community
Conversation Format, but this isn't what they want to do.
The group resisted moving the conversation to more regional, metro-wide level. They wanted to stay focused on the Hopkins area &
find solutions to local issues.
Never really talked about the discussion per se, but all agreed that such discussions, and prioritizing the needs of the community were
important.
Amazement - to learn from others about their "take" on issues - safe environment, encouraged openness.
Did not meet - only 1 other person besides facilitator and I expressed interest in attending another meeting.
One person was amazed to see how she was being perceived - that her comments frightened some.
As regards racism, very, very few have indicated by their remarks or behavior that they are bigoted, that they condone intolerance or
segregation or discrimination.
Would like to talk more with those who do not see need for social change & justice - or urgency. Felt like "preaching to the choir".
Problems with educational system and racism.
Concern about lack of Racial Diversity in Schools & Community. Need more affordable housing in Washington County.
They said had concerns but needed more accurate reliable information about the current segregations and especially about the people
directly in poverty.
They wanted to make sure something came of it - not just discussion without action.
Topic seemed almost too big to discuss adequately.
e concerned about follow-up. Cynicism - "we've talked before and nothing much changes".
imattached
• SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS
Summary Report
a) What perspectives were well represented in your group?
Home owners, middle-age, middle-class
Inner-City, low-income, African-American
Pro neighborhood school in general. Low income was somewhat represented. Property - owner & renter. School staff. African-
American.
Most individuals come to the issues from a background of privilege. They were well able to articulate views about working harder to
get ahead. Good advocacy on behalf of strengthening families.
All 3 perspectives presented in the discussion guide were part of our discussion, but larger system factors were addressed in less detail.
Very diverse.
Libertarians, middle class America, wholistic community perspective, progressive liberal.
Generally a desire to participate in the democratic process, to be good citizens, to accept responsibility and to be open minded and fair
in relations with others.
See report - middle class suburban people of good will who want to see justice, balance & opportunity for everyone.
The homeless and affordable housing advocates.
Social Justice liberal, Democrats / one Libertarian.
Middle class neighborhood concern for values and education.
See minutes (attached).
Our only agreement was that the issues were not mutually exclusive.
Group was mostly liberal, middle class, activist.
Liberal, social justice advocates.
Inner city, liberal
Inner city was very articulate. It was clear most lived where they lived by choice. Also strong "racial" views expressed.
Committed white folks wanting to create change.
Community leaders, cross-representation from neighborhood.
b) Which perspectives were missing?
Youth, elderly, suburbs, low-income
Middle class, affluent neighborhoods, Euro-Amercians.
Racially, Asian & Hispanic.
The perspective of real poverty - especially generational poverty - was absent. We need to have more of the people affected be part of
finding solutions.
In my opinion, people seemed hesitant to really confront the impact of residential segregation on our community, and the tension
between suburban and urban areas re: housing issues, poverty issues.
None, really.
No seniors, no juveniles, few people of color, no mainstream conservatives
The younger participants tended to have short run perspectives; the older "senior" citizens took a longer view and not be as susceptible
to being unduly swayed by today's media event.
Low income people.
Representation from African American community was limited and representation from the Chicano/Latino, Southeast Asian, and
Native American communities was not heard. English only study circles excluded entire groups of people from participating - groups
conducted in Vietnamese, Hmong, Spanish, Somali, etc. would give an opportunity to non-English speaking people to participate.
People within these groups have diverse opinions as well.
Older Adults, youth, more people of color, Republicans.
No first hand information or experience of people in segregated poverty in majority of participants.
See minutes (attached).
No people of color. No low income.
Anyone who said "We achieved Edina, so can they."
Conservative, enough minority input (only 1 or 2 meetings had minorities attending).
We didn't spend a lot of time on Transportation other than to acknowledge its importance.
Those of people most affected.
Persons of color
c) Did the discussions focus on the two central questions? Yes: 58° 0 14 No: 21% 0 5 is
As facilitator I kept trying to refocus to that. 1 member repeatedly talked about the renters' disrespect for property & lack of
gratitude from those in poverty.
Yes - housing & schools.
To some extent, but not enough. Our facilitators did not make full use of the Discussion Guide, which would have helped to maintain
focus.
Td some degree but not completely.
We focused on those topics. However it was generally realized that all social problems and issues are intertwined, so there was much
overlapping - for example, income disparity, is affected by racism, lack of education, etc.
In general.
Some, as Facilitator, I directed the conversationlo the Two questions, on a regular basis but group wasn't drawn to it.
Most on the first.
minutes (attached).
- Focused on first central question & decided to continue in the Fall to discuss Golden Valley.
No - they went everywhere but always participants spoke of their personal experiences & then generalized from it.
Pretty much - Education /.Housing / Transportation - most on Education.
No
d) What were your own observations about the dialogue and group process?
Diverse group, some problems with domination of group.
The 113 perspectives" format was difficult for this group to get into. They did not read the material before hand and simply weren't too
interested into exploring theissues in this way.
That I had trouble keeping I or 2 from dominating.
Group members were very tolerant and respectful of differing viewpoints. Facilitator did a good job laying out ground rules of
discussions.
Remarkably free.
It (Discussion) often seemed redundant and not focused on central issues. Greater direction from facilitators would have helped keep
it focused & more productive.
Would have benefited from more diversity and a greater commitment to attending each meeting, so that the "flow" was not so
disrupted.
Worked well; exhilarating -Time flew!!
Dialogue was very lively and participants were engaged emotionally and intellectually. There was wide variety of viewpoints.
The process is sound. We especially like our group's emphasis on rotating the role of moderator and not having outside speakers as
such. Our veteran members are pretty good at helping the moderator keep the discussion within bounds.
Difficult to get people engaged who are not already interested in social justice.
It was a productive night. By the end of the session, participants were talking more, addressing each other directly and relying on
facilitators less.
4 s was not a very committed group; lack of Diversity; limited group momentum, enthusiasm.
ologue is a good process. There was some confusion due to multiple means of terms provided in materials.
Process was smooth, however, the dialogue was tempered sometimes, as if trying not to offend others.
As above the questions were too broad - no info on real ramifications - quotes were all opinions not facts.
I came away feeling rather helpless.
Once the concept & "rules" and dialogue were set out, people abided by them and had productive sessions.
It was exciting & meaningful - a fair amount of bonding occurred.
We had an articulate group who were well versed in issues.
Open & honest dialogue
e) What did members of the group say about their discussions?
Enjoyed, but frustrating.
By the Yd session they were becoming more vocal & excited.
One member said he was grateful the facilitator didn't come across as having all the answers. One member expressed dissatisfaction
that the same issues were discussed over & over again.
Enjoyed free expressions.
Engaged, but wondered where it would lead, who would listen ?
Not much in particular that I can remember.
Appreciated ground rules; begin & end times set & respected ... by ALL!!
There was consensus that we had very good discussions.
It isn't so much what they say; it's that they keep coming back.
They liked the opportunity to discuss. Some were nervous about political action, some were very anxious to take action.
Everyone committed to coming back to continue the conversation.
What will ...
They apparently wanted to participate but appeared frustrated at inability to reach solutions.
,2ey seemed satisfied.
V e rall, very positive. Some found confusing what we were trying to accomplish.
y were surprised at the degree of energy displayed once they got into it.
They liked having an opportunity to talk about these topics and wished others would too.
f) What was the topic of the group's liveliest discussion?
How corporations rule policies in America.
Probably any perspective brought forth that discounted the strength of their community.
Either the adequacy of schools to adequately educate all children, or a living wage, & affordable housing.
Available low cost housing and day care.
The notion that things are the way they are because of a careful plan to keep them that way - i.e. white privilege entitlement.
The newspaper report on the failure of Minneapolis/St. Paul's school system, and the problems with the area's educational system.
Housing & relation to neighborhood schools -.
Racism, responsibility for ancestors' behavior, individual responsibility.
Their were few topics that weren't "lively" - although that factor varied.
How to engage the broader community.
Schools would be required to implement year long life skills classes ... Our group felt that the Wilder School being constructed in St.
Paul's Frogtown area is an innovative idea.
Low income housing particularly Trailer Parks. Why LandFall Trailer Park is more community oriented than Cimmeron Trailer Pk.
The first session especially the vision of the future.
The effects of racism - some bristled at the use of the word "racism" and wanted to soften it by calling racism "prejudice" or
something else.
"Why are you here?" "Why are you concerned about this?" The role of education - has it failed Kids of Color?
Realities & perceptions of urban vs. suburban schools.
Race and the effects of racism.
Limitations on what has been happening to improve things - lack of general knowledge.
If we needed to continue the community circles dialogue in the prescribed format or if we should adapt it.
g) What were the areas of general agreement and consensus?
Segregation and poverty impact families.
* Community Schools * Residents / parents need to organize & demand change. * Schools are not preparing students for real life.
* More jobs at livable wage needed in core city.
Housing - Personal accountability Education - Community responsibility transport to suburbs.
Jobs must pay a living wage. More emphasis on community-building - getting to know one another - sharing resources. We haven't
yet reached point in process where we've checked for consensus. Work still to be done. •
Consensus in most broad areas; we really needed more diversity, especially across class/political lines, I felt.
Housing and neighborhood schools - needs were agreed as gEW.
The bulk of the people who attend more than one of our sessions would overwhelmingly be comfortable with the 4 points stated in your
July 16`h cover letter.
Need for region wide response. Need to move breast-beating about the past - issue into the future.
Age appropriate life skills classes and emphasis on education - to foster academic competition among schools. The school would
become a source of community pride.
Need Affordable Housing in Washington County. Need Pilot Projects. Need TAX (incentive) for landlord breaks.
See attached (report).
(1) Areas of concern were not mutually exclusive. (2) Solving problems would take a lot of work & a long time. (3)
Resolution would come with public/private cooperation only. (See Summary Reports)
Belief in equal opportunity - need for improvements in education in Mpls., fear of Welfare "reforms".
People must be educated to be concerned. If the powers that be wanted something done, it would be.
Housing desegregation is necessary but should not necessarily be imposed from above.
They wanted good schools but didn't like busing. They preferred improving inner city schools.
Need to start with the kids and hang in there.
Agreed Vision SLP has moved us farther along than most communities. Also, we still had to work on involving the underrepresented.
h) What were areas with little agreement or consensus?
How to solve the problem? What the problem is.
- Very little disagreement - Slight split in whether affordable housing needs to be in central neighborhood or metro wide.
That the poor should be grateful for Welfare.
Specific ideas (details), such as whether or not the current emphasis on volunteerism is valid ...
Actual step by step solutions.
Little about individual liberties, regulations, role of government - all agreed that empowerment was key.
Precise next steps.
See attached (report) - solutions difficult to identify.
Specific actions to achieve policy goals.
What should be done.
Whether change will be effected best by enlightening people instead of by political action.
Busing.
None.
i) What suggestions and recommendations came from the group about how individuals might better
address the issue?
Become active in the school system, your child, and classroom.
* Be aware & get organized ! *Get involved with schools. * Neighborhood Watch / confront gangs.
ke responsibilities in all areas.
w active concern for their neighbors i.e. mentoring, tutoring.
e involved in Children's education, neighborhoods and in keeping government programs (e.g. schools) accountable.
Take as your own ways to take action - not wait for "others" to do it all.
See Attached Report.
Our group, especially those who now or have served on our Steering Committee, believe that the best approach to improve race
relations is, on an individual one on one basis, with the white person first inviting minority persons to visit them and break bread on
matters other than "race".
Engage friends, neighbors, social contacts & organizations (like churches) in actions and service.
The community, parents, and educators would all play a role in insuring the success of the school and the students that attend.
Get involved. Get informed.
Sense of individual responsibility and sense of community.
See Summary Report.
Keep working on anti-racism. Learn more about necessary action to reverse the entrenched culture of separation & discrimination.
Individuals have a moral obligation to improve these conditions whether by direct service, increased personal responsibility, or
political action.
Mentors & tutors for children needing help.
Waiting to schedule last meeting until convenor returns.
See Attached minutes. We went in a different direction.
j) What suggestions and recommendations came from the group about how organizations or
institutions might better address the issue?
Accountability - more family and community friendly.
* Offer more support / mentoring for parents of kids in school. * Community Schools. * Improved transit to jobs in suburbs.
1) Education resources be equitable, "relative to population need". 2) Schools make parental involvement easier. 3) Institute peer
renting & support - unified families.
a higher standards, be accountable, monitor government,... * Like the Community Forum, our group never quite got to
ommendations.
Continue to meet & confer, in sessions like these - & ele r positive events!
See Attached Report.
No short answer available.
Dependent on the institution - dialogue between city council & school board planned.
The Wilder School will not only be a school, but a community center, social service center, and health care center: in effect the center
of the community. Community members, parents, and educators will have a voice in the planning and a stake in the success of the
school.
Need more dialogues and Education.
Some confidence in neighborhood councils.
See Summary Report.
They were submitted (see report).
Churches need to provide more services to poor minorities an become more politically involved to change things structurally.
More involvement from businesses.
See attached minutes. We went in a different direction.
k) What suggestions and recommendations came from the group about how government might better
address the issue?
Accountability.
* Restructure school system to serve community better. * Create jobs with living wage. * Free, low-cost day care / pre-school.
1) Enforcement of renter & landlord accountability. 2) More flexible housing codes for large families. 3) More affordable housing
everywhere. 4) Encourage personal accountability. 5) Support NRP's. 6) More wide-spread transport. 7) Libraries open more
evenings.
Improve education, offer employment. * We agreed that the needs were so large, that it seemed much too difficult to make
10ommendations given our lack of time and depth/breath of needs.
ese were not really addressed, other than need to have neighborhood schools established Now!!
See Attached Report.
No short answer available.
Begin the dialogue - make sure city council is aware of a social justice perspective and is supported by residents.
Issues identified - Exclusionary Zoning.
Tax breaks for low income Housing.
They had some confidence in local city action but almost none in metropolitan; little in State.
See Summary Report.
Want national basic income support. Welfare system that empowers people, provides training support for jobs that pay enough to live
on.
They were submitted (see report).
Each municipality must be less exclusionary in its policies.
Increased funding for neighborhood centers and programs. Longer school hours - more teacher training.
See Attached minutes. We went in a different direction.
• EXPERIENCES OF FACILITATOR AND/OR SPONSOR
Additional Comments (Please feel free to use additional sheets)
a) Did you have adequate support from your study circle's organizer, or not? Please explain:
Yes: 5° o No: 22° 0 5
Copying. Space & set up. Support costs.
I was the organizer --.
I was personally disappointed that I, as a s u nt intern, was the only one able/willing to represent Hennepin County at the Forum. I
and the other facilitator organized, coordinated and sought support for the Community Circle, with no more assistance / input or
recognition from the Department's Director, or anyone "up there" than approval to use office conference rooms.
We are the organizers - this can only be answered by participants.
We have no one "organizer".
Yes - schools are very interested in these issues and superintendent is committed to desegregation and equity.
A question for participants.
As this is a work in progress, it's hard to determine what kind of support should have been expected. Sometimes felt as though we
were all unorganized.
? Didn't really receive any - other than to make an announcement at Mass.
The material was slow getting to us.
Not enough commitment to get large enough group & then to commit to dates agreed on.
Don't know - wasn't involved in this part. Both Jerry Timian & Carol Johnson spoke highly of the coordination effort. is
b) Did you have adequate support from the project coordinator, or not? Please explain:
Yes: 54% (13) No: 25% (6)
Answered calls.
Study circle organized too near the deadline for wrap-up. Not enough time to draw in people with other perspectives.
Identification of a facilitator was delayed, resulting in a false start & some loss of momentum / participation.
Mr. Little promptly answered phone calls, offered ideas for additional information, and seemed committed and enthusiastic. Yes, I felt
adequately supported from him and appreciated as a facilitator. Info on how other groups went would help me better evaluate our
group.
Good support overall.
We became aware of the Collaborative project very late in the game, and because of the long lead time of our scheduling we were
unable to conform to the general collaborative format. But it was not for lack of support by the project coordinator.
Materials were very late, but assistance given when speaker needed was very helpful.
It was difficult organizing the study circle group with the date changes from the city wide forum/citizens summit and the editing of the
manual.
Adequate.
Yes - even with time frames very tight.
Fair.
Generally yes. A little frustration resulted from constantly shifting time tables.
Yes! I think because we were among the earliest groups to start, the staff was feeling its way along but they tried to be helpful.
Didn't ask for more support.
Both Jerry Timian & Carol Johnson spoke highly of the coordination effort.
C) What additional support would have been helpful?
None.
To have matched this group with another group from a different neighborhood for more dialogue.
Having the study guide ready when indicated it would be.
More timely pairing of facilitators with groups & of distribution of discussion guide.
• Recognition, a thank you, a representative at the Forum, donuts ... any one of these would have been nice from project sponsor.
Good support received!
Sponsoring organization could have helped supply treats, provide clerical support, copies, etc.
We view this the other way - what can we do to support the overall aims of the Collaborative?
The group session at Macalester should have moved to solutions. Focus on problems only was not very helpful.
" Recruiting participants was challenging. Low income persons had a difficult time with transportation expenses. It would have been
nice to be able to provide a snack during the meetings - we were unable to do this because of our own budget constraints. Allocating
money from the Study Circle Collaborative for such items as bus tokens, snacks, etc. would have been helpful.
More help recruiting participants & money for snacks and drinks.
0discussion guide sooner.
Some way through the issue. I didn't find the 3 perspectives helpful - far too narrow. The rewritten booklet (by Syl Jones) came after
we had finished our discussions.
Perhaps verbal presentations by experts on the various perspectives.
Initial timelines were somewhat unrealistic which caused some early confusion.
Adding additional participants.
d) If you were to lead another study circle, what would you change (for example: discussion
materials, overall organization of project, meeting site, your performance as discussion leader,
etc.)?
1) I'd try for better attendance (more members), & keep myself out of the discussion more. 2) I'd do child care a little differently.
1) Needed 4 meetings, only had time for 3. 2) Not so much background material but more group process material - questions, break-
out groups, etc.
I would have recommended that facilitator follow discussion guide more closely.
I've never lead a discussion group before, and so felt very unsure of my facilitation abilities, particularly among this group of
experienced professionals ... help with this. Also is there a way of randomly assigning interested group members to groups, for more
diversity? Other help in recruiting diversity from one employment site / organization.
There was mention of a stipend for facilitators when we had our training - I would appreciate further consideration of this aspect of
the overall organization of the project. Thank you
Would seek generational diversity, more support from sponsoring organization.
Not enough participation, yet, to provide a meaningful reply.
Expand participation.
There needs to be more diversity in the study circle groups.
More room for research assistance with Research on Group Questions that come up.
Ase study guides ready on time, for groups - Have amore diverse group. - More lead time for starting a group & doing group
rting.
Timely - factual background material; we would need better data re policy options - more focused (specific) options for action.
I felt the organization was chaotic - every thing was last minute.
I would get a more firm commitment from participants for regular attendance.
More follow-up to work on implementing recommendations.
Set dates ahead of time, asking for commitment at beginning.
e) Other impressions, concerns and comments ...
The meeting at Macalester ... meeting process was confusing to me. Overall I think the process was helpful and productive at the local
level. The big trick is to ensure that something comes of this work so that it does effect policy....after the Macalester meeting, I must
say that this last piece is in question in my mind. I look forward to participating in next steps that bring to a focus some of the policy
issues.
General comments: The whole concept of a deliberation & prosrcibed format for discussing issues of vital, daily importance seemed
new and, consequently, cumbersome to this group of mostly young, mostly poor, G.E.D. students. They were skeptical. The "3
perspectives" were dealt with in small groups. Only a few of the members could handle the discussions about the strengths and
weaknesses of each perspective. It felt like a forced process without any chance for dialogue as our group fell quite definitely into the
"strengthen the core" camp. Energetic discussions centered "naming the problem" and "finding solutions". Because there had been
very little disagreement, the assignment to identify areas of agreement & disagreement fell flat. Felt like re-hash. Group wanted to put
energy into thinking of ways to impact local schools before the next school year started. Probably not a bad choice. They are still
meeting around that issue!
1) When we "merge" with another group now, would we co-facilitate? I'd much prefer that.
2) I wouldn't want to meet more than 2x/mo.
Concerned that only women would come and return - no men (except one we coerced).
We've had a good beginning, but we need to broaden the discussion to a wider geographic area & to include a broader set of
stakeholders.
K nk you for giving me the opportunity to facilitate a Community Circles group - Hope to help out again in future.
1, interesting discussion; rich diversity of cultures & viewpoints made people want to come back. Excellent group bonding,
affection.
The other delegate and myself were impressed with the overall quality of most of those, both other delegates and the leaders of the
Macalester general forum.
Focus more on next steps. We have talked about inability to act for too many years with the same community leaders.
The participants at the city wide forum seemed to be predominately middle to upper middle class, middle aged, white people.
It would help to have more men and a more diverse group.
21 people signed up for discussion but could not find a common meeting time. Most were unwilling to commit to more than one
meeting time of short duration: 2 - 3 hrs. These attended one or two meetings - No one attended all 4.
Narrow the topic !
It was great !!!
Do more integrated groups if possible.
Participant Roster (Please include sponsor(s), facilitator(s),recorder(s) )
Hennepin County
Holy Trinity
Hopkins Community Study Circle
Seward Mathews Center Group
Edina Community Circle
Minnesota Fair Housing Center Study Circle
Bayport Community Circle
Oakdale-Oak Terrace-St. Paul Community Circle
Richfield Community Circle
Golden Valley Study Circle
Edina Community B (First Universalist) Circle
University of Minnesota (Newman Center) Study Circle
Minneapolis-North-Brooklyn Park-Brooklyn Center / Ascension Church
Minneapolis Greater Area-D / Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association
St. Louis Park / City / Schools
•