ONE Omaha Report | June 2019

ONE OMAHA REPORT PREPARED BY UNO MASTER OF SCIENCE IN URBAN STUDIES STUDENTS AND THE UNO CENTER FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS RESEARCH | JUNE 2019

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha This report is a compilation of a comprehensive effort by Urban Studies graduate students at the University of Nebraska at Omaha Master of Science to assess neighborhood needs, resources, and activities to enable One Omaha to identify strategies for moving forward and utilizing existing community resources. Staff from the Center for Public Affairs Research (CPAR) also participated in the project. Dr. Robert Blair, UNO professor of public administration, and Director of the Urban Studies Program, provided oversight to the graduate students on this project as part of their academic coursework.

University researchers gathered information from neighborhood leaders, stakeholders, and community members to learn more about the circumstances facing residents of the city of Omaha. The needs assessment consisted of three activities: 1. Focus groups with neighborhood leaders and stakeholders 2. A survey of neighborhood leaders, stakeholders, and associations 3. Community forums with community members Through the needs assessment process, university researchers identified a number of critical issues that they recommend ONE Omaha should address as the organization moves forward.

Discussed in complete detail in the final report, often by separate research teams, the following summarizes key issues: •

•

•

• •

•

Neighborhood leadership transition. Leadership training for emerging neighborhood leaders needs to be expanded, especially including a succession process for new leaders to assume key roles.

Advocating neighborhood needs. Neighborhood groups need assistance in finding ways to more actively work with City officials in addressing their community needs.

Neighborhood associations, especially, need to engage more with Omaha City Planning Department.

Neighborhood inclusion. Neighborhood associations need to engage all residents, not just long-time homeowners, in their activities. Renters need to be included, for instance, and others not engaged. .

Omaha Comprehensive Plan. ONE Omaha needs to be involved when the next master plan is developed. It has been more than 20 years since the last one.

Partnerships with other community development organizations. These partnerships need to be enhanced and expanded to better leverage current resources. There are models of these in other cities.

Engagement with citizens. ONE Omaha is in a unique position to gather input from all segments of the Omaha community. This needs to be expanded, especially to underrepresented populations and non-English speaking groups.

•

•

Citizen Advisory Committee. A broad-based advisory board to help coordinate the activities of all community development organizations in Omaha is strongly recommended. There are a number of excellent models to consider.

Collaboration among neighborhood groups. Communication among neighborhood associations needs to be enhanced to serve as a strong voice for the residents.

Urban Studies faculty in the School of Public Administration greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with ONE Omaha on this project. Providing assistance to community-based organizations is a priority for the School, not only as a way for faculty to engage, but also to give students an opportunity to learn and fine-tune critical community development skills in the field.

One Omaha Report contributors: Urban Studies students: Alexis Bromley, Marianna Foral, Jessica Foreman, Graham Herbst, Stacia Hoover, Clayton Keller, Julia Parker, Jonathan Schering, and Megan Walker.

Center for Public Affairs: David Drozd, and Dr. Christian Janousek (consultant) Advisor: Professor Robert Blair, Director of Urban Studies

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREPARED BY UNO MASTER OF SCIENCE IN URBAN STUDIES STUDENTS AND THE UNO CENTER FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS RESEARCH | JUNE 2019

Table of Contents 1. Reports and presentations from research teams, Urban Studies 8200: Community Development, Fall semester, 2018 • McJagger Team: Jessica Foreman, Megan Walker, and Clayton Keller, “Review of 2013 Neighborhood Needs Assessment, 2018 Stakeholder Analysis, 2018 Strategic Plan, and 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment.”

• Operation JAMS Team: Marianna Foral, Jonathan Scherling, Stacia Hoover, “Guide Star Analysis.”

• Still Standing Team: Alexis Bromley, Graham Herbst, Alexandra Moran, Julia Parker, “One Omaha Neighborhood Leadership Analysis.”

2. Capstone research project, Spring Semester, 2019 • Julia Parker, “Examining the Need for an Additional Citizen Advisory Committee in Omaha”

3. Focus group meetings and analysis, August 2018 • Dr. Christian Janousek, “Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha: Focus Groups Analysis and Report

4. Appendix • Project Proposal • Leadership Survey Instrument • Survey Summary

REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS PREPARED BY UNO URBAN STUDIES 8200: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT | FALL 2018 SEMESTER

REVIEW OF 2013 NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ASSESSMENT, 2018 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS, 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN, AND 2018 NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ASSESSMENT PREPARED BY UNO URBAN STUDIES STUDENTS: JESSICA FOREMAN, MEGAN WALKER, AND CLAYTON KELLER

Running head: ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

ONE Omaha Report: Review of 2013 Neighborhood Needs Assessment, 2018 Stakeholder Analysis, 2018 Strategic Plan, and 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment Jessica Foreman, Megan Walker, and Clayton Keller University of Nebraska Omaha

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

2

Project Overview In the fall of 2018 ONE Omaha worked with the UNO School of Public Affairs and the Masters of Urban Studies Program to create and utilize a needs survey for the neighborhood associations within Omaha. This survey will be used to inform ONE Omaha staff of successful programming that should be continued, programs that need to be changed, and what gaps the community feels need to be addressed. The survey was done in conjunction with stakeholder interviews and a needs assessment to identify issues that the neighborhood leadership and City departments felt could be addressed by ONE Omaha programming. This report will serve as a comprehensive overview of the previous assessments and reports, including a review of the 2013 Neighborhood Needs Assessment, the 2018 Stakeholder Analysis, the Spring 2018 Strategic Plan, and the 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessments’ focus groups.

This report will begin with a reflection on the 2013 Needs Assessment, followed by a summary of the 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment focus groups. This will be followed by a review of the stakeholder analysis and a summary of the 2018 Strategic Plan. An attempt will be made to identify themes that are consistent within documents, and key differences worth addressing. Additionally, a review of the strategic plan will help to identify steps ONE Omaha is taking to address needs of residents and stakeholders. Further comparison will occur in order to note the gaps in resources and needs. Finally, analysis will be conducted of the 2018 ONE Omaha Survey to determine if findings are consistent with the themes in the reviewed reports, and to bring light to additional themes worth considering in future planning.

2013 Needs Assessment

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

3

When the Neighborhood Center closed in February 2013, the United Neighborhood Alliance of Omaha (UNAO) knew they needed to continue to provide services to the neighborhoods of Omaha. A needs assessment was determined to be the best method for finding what needs still existed and what could be done to meet those needs. They hosted focus groups, a survey, community forums and neighborhood programs whose participants included neighborhood association leaders, neighborhood alliance members, and other community members. These participants represented residents from various parts of Omaha.

The following table demonstrates the main findings from the 2013 Needs Assessment: Organization/Program

How did

Did

Long-term needs for

participants were asked

participants

participants

organization/program

about

feel about it?

understand its purpose?

Neighborhood

Positive

Associations (NAS’s)

For the most

Viability and sustainability of

part, yes

NAS’s; Member recruitment; Grant writing assistance

Neighborhood Alliances

Confused

No

Increase involvement in NAL’s

Unfamiliar

Yes – only

Become source of information

those who

for and provide assistance to

knew about it

NAS’s; develop partnerships to

(NAL’s) Neighborhood Center (NC)

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT meet needs of NAS’s and NAL’s

Neighborhood Scan (NS)

Polarized

No

Better communication about

opinions; Very

purpose of program; Better

positive and

funding as code enforcement

very negative

tool; Focus on small areas rather than whole neighborhoods at a time

Source: Center for Public Affairs Research. (2013). Needs Assessment for the United Neighborhood Alliances of Omaha. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska at Omaha.

In summary, in 2013 the general feeling about the Neighborhood Associations (NAS’s) was positive and the participants understood the purpose behind them. Long-term needs included focusing on the viability and sustainability of NAS’s, member recruitment and providing grant writing assistance. The general feeling about the Neighborhood Alliances (NAL’s) was confusion since most participants did not understand the purpose behind them. Long-term needs included increasing involvement, and therefore awareness, of NAL’s. The Neighborhood Center was largely unknown to participants, though those who knew about it understood its purpose.

Long-term needs included becoming a source of information for and providing assistance to NAS’s and developing partnerships to meet the needs of NAS’s and NAL’s. The Neighborhood Scan was not well-known either, but those who knew about it either loved it or loved to hate it.

Long-term needs included better communication about purpose of program (to improve image), better funding as code enforcement tool and to work on small areas rather than whole neighborhoods.

4

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

5

The following were recommendations submitted to the UNAO from the 2013 Needs Assessments: 1. Fill void left by Neighborhood Center 2. Offer support to Neighborhood Associations for administrative needs, funding, and organizational development 3. Guide neighborhood alliances in offering advocacy, development, mentoring, and operational assistance to neighborhood associations 4. Work towards a formal relationship with the City of Omaha and secure steady funding 5. Identify additional stakeholders with interests in neighborhoods 6. Address issues with public perception of Neighborhood Scan and neighborhood associations In conclusion, the 2013 Needs Assessment for the UNAO determined that the neighborhoods of Omaha had needs that needed to be met. Many of those needs included administrative support, increased communication, and programs that enabled sustainability.

Consequently, the recommendations to the UNAO were to provide administrative support, increase communication channels, and offer programs that stimulated sustainability.

2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Group Two focus groups were held for the 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha. The first focus group, held on July 30, 2018, consisted of ten participants. The second group, held on August 1, 2018, consisted of five participants. Both groups were made up of neighborhood leaders and stakeholders. The focus groups were asked a series of questions, some collectively and some individually.

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

6

The group-answered questions asked about participants’ perceptions of the purpose of a neighborhood association, the critical issues facing these associations in Omaha, their major long-term needs, the resources available to address those needs, and how these associations in Omaha could improve. The individual-answered questions asked what participants felt was most important to neighborhood associations in Omaha as well as if there was anything the participants would like to mention that was not already discussed.

The focus groups felt the purposes of a neighborhood association were to be a voice for its neighborhood, provide a common connecting point for neighbors to learn, communicate and share ideas; and act as a community engagement tool. Second, focus group participants felt that the biggest issues neighborhood associations face include communication failure between the associations and the City of Omaha, poor public image of association meetings, and leadership gaps and lack of succession planning. Third, participants identified major long-term needs as creating a combined neighborhood association task force that advocates residents’ desires on city issues, simplifying access to funding and providing assistance for grant writing, provide resources for leadership succession planning, and increase partnerships between organizations that share long-term objectives with neighborhood associations. Fourth, resources already available to address the problems articulated above include neighborhood alliances, City of Omaha resources such as the planning department, Citizen Patrol, grants, and the mayor’s hotline, Citizen’s Academy, and community events. Fifth, improvements in Omaha’s neighborhood associations could be realized through addressing issues stated previously, namely improving horizontal and vertical communication lines with associations, creating a task force to act as liaison to city, augmenting grant writing assistance and access to funding, and improving leadership succession planning.

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

7

Responses to the individually-answered questions included comments on the need to leverage the collective voice of neighborhood associations to be heard by the City of Omaha, perhaps through a neighborhood association committee that has voting power at City Hall, the need for safe spaces for community members, the need for training on administrative leadership, the need for increased spending in low-income areas, the need for affordable neighborhood board insurance, the need for community calendars that alert residents of city and county meetings, and the need for more diverse focus groups to supplement these two focus groups.

The findings from neighborhood needs assessment focus groups were used to create questions for the subsequent neighborhood needs assessment survey.

2018 Stakeholder Analysis As a part of ONE Omaha’s strategic planning, stakeholder interviews were conducted with city departments and neighborhood alliance leaders. The city outreach included the Mayor’s office, the public works department, the planning department, and the parks and recreation department. Neighborhood level outreach focused on the alliance leaders to represent the neighborhood associations within their networks. Feedback from these group interviews focuses on what the City felt it needed from neighborhood groups and what neighborhood groups felt the City needed to be doing. Gaps in the current methods and ways to address this were also identified as future programming goals for ONE Omaha.

Through this process ONE Omaha collected data from the city departments and the neighborhoods to better understand what each factor wanted from the other. It was found that the city felt that the neighborhoods were a strong network to use for disseminating information, getting feedback from the public, and are a good tool for the city to use to increase public outreach. City officials stated that their goals for the process were to improve communication

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

8

strategy with the neighborhood alliances and to provide better information and services. The neighborhood alliance members wanted to strengthen their ties to the associations, deal with issues on a neighborhood scale, and be more involved in local government decision making processes. Their overall goals were to provide better services to the residents of their neighborhoods, to have better relationships within the alliances, and to be stronger advocates.

Both groups focused on grant writing when discussing the tools that they found available to neighborhoods. The many education and training services that ONE Omaha provides were also a major topic of discussion for available resources to neighborhoods. The city felt that services around education of local government structure and improving communication strategies were most important. Neighborhood alliance needs were more varied and included strategic planning for improving relationships between and within alliances, leadership and mentoring opportunities for upcoming neighborhood officials, resources to make meetings more effective, ways to interact and understand local government structures and elected officials and help in communications between neighborhoods city departments and developers.

Several common themes between the city departments and neighborhood alliances appeared in both documents. The most prominent need cited by both groups was increased access to information on local government structure and decision making as well as access to the decision-making process. This was followed by the call for better communication both between government and neighborhood alliances, as well as between and in the alliances.

2018 Strategic Plan and Findings In August 2018, ONE Omaha developed a strategic plan to guide their development over the coming years. The 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment Focus Groups, the Stakeholder Analysis, and the ONE Omaha Programming Overview were used to guide and inform the

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

9

internal planning process. Through this process, ONE Omaha identified the key strategic goals for the year, including specific accomplishments and indicators of success. This summary will be a review of the ONE Omaha 2018 Spring Strategic Plan. It will consider the key goals outlined

by ONE Omaha, will explore how effective the plan is at addressing neighborhood and stakeholder needs, and will identify missing pieces in the ONE Omaha Strategic Plan.

ONE Omaha’s Strategic Plan outlines five key goals as a focus for the organization.

These goals include: Naming their purpose and approach, Building a strong and sustainable organizational foundation, Enhancing external relationships, Clarifying program objectives, and Expanding and diversifying revenue streams. Each of these goals has been outlined to support the organizational goals of ONE Omaha, so they can continue being advocates and providing resources for neighborhood associations. The first goal, Naming their purpose and approach, will help ONE Omaha more clearly define their reason for existence, the impact they provide, and their specific purpose. They are committed to providing an advocacy role with the city, and are interested in prioritizing or dropping certain tasks, recruiting a contractor to guide a theory of change, and redevelop a logic model for ONE Omaha and their programs. The next goal, Building a strong and sustainable organizational foundation, will consist of applying a 501c3 status, re-evaluating their current organizational structure, creating an Educational Development position and inviting candidates for Board of Directors. Additionally, they are interested in creating a transition plan, identifying 2-3 guidestar organizations and funding models for reference, and establishing a clear and focused purpose for the Advisory Board and organizational staff structure. Their goal of increasing external relationships consists of improving their current fiscal position, by leaving their current fiscal agent, stopping their reliance on Community Services Funding, setting clear expectations with partners, and

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

10

developing client relationship management. As can be seen, these first three goals are specifically geared towards improving the organizational structure, not towards meeting specific gaps or needs in programming. These goals will not directly meet specific neighborhood needs however, they will improve the organizational structure of the organization which will result in increased capacity and thus, improved programming. More relevant to the needs outlined in the Neighborhood Needs Assessments and Stakeholder Analysis is their goal of clarifying program objectives. Components of this goal include creating a plan with set expectations for neighborhood leadership succession, and building maintenance and creation plans for program initiatives. Both of these resources were identified by residents as neighborhood needs. The final goal outlined in the strategic plan is to expand and diversify revenue streams, which like previous goals, is geared towards improving the organizational structure.

As mentioned previously, the Strategic Plan will improve ONE Omaha’s organizational structure and will allow them to increase capacity in order to better meet the needs of neighborhood associations. With this increased capacity, ONE Omaha can continue addressing specific needs that were identified in the Neighborhood Needs Assessments’ focus groups and survey, and in the Stakeholder Analysis. The following needs could be integrated into the ONE Omaha Strategic Plan in order to most fully address the gaps in resources and programming being offered to neighborhood associations. First, the top issues facing neighborhood associations were the need to be inclusive to residents and to be accommodating to all residents such as working families and renters. ONE Omaha could implement programming that will assist neighborhoods in being more inclusive and being better able to accommodate all residents.

Additionally, the two most important long-term goals for neighborhood associations going forward were to increase involvement with the city planning process and to build relationships

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

11

with nonprofits and businesses working in their area. ONE Omaha programs, resources, and communications could help to address this need for increased involvement in the planning process. Additionally, ONE Omaha could develop programming and coordination between residents and nonprofits and the City of Omaha Planning Department, given these were among the lowest ranked resources in the 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment survey. Finally, residents felt they were least effective at building community within their neighborhood, which ONE Omaha can help to address by educating and assisting neighborhoods in community building, such as helping to host events, offering advice on best practices for community building, etc.

2018 Needs Assessment: Survey

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

12

In order to identify needs and gaps, ONE Omaha developed a survey requesting responses from Omaha residents about the needs of their neighborhood associations. Questions for the survey were created using findings from the neighborhood needs assessment focus groups. Surveys sought to identify important characteristics of neighborhood associations, issues facing Omaha neighborhood associations, the long-term needs of Omaha neighborhood associations, and the importance of opportunities and resources for addressing these needs. Each of the survey responses reflects participation in the neighborhood needs assessment. Surveys were shared with residents via emails and online postings, as well as at public events. A total of 246 surveys were collected, and 194 were usable for this research question.

Methods ONE Omaha developed a survey requesting responses from Omaha residents about the needs of their neighborhood associations. Surveys sought to identify important characteristics of neighborhood associations, issues facing Omaha neighborhood associations, the long-term needs of Omaha neighborhood associations, and the importance of opportunities and resources for addressing these needs. A total of 246 surveys were collected, and 194 were usable for this research question. Each of the survey responses reflects participation in the neighborhood needs assessment. Surveys were shared with residents via emails and online postings, as well as at public events.

Study Strengths Surveys encourage public participation in research through broad feedback from the community and are a good way to measure how effective users of ONE Omaha’s programming

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

13

feel it is. Since questions are developed by the ONE Omaha team, results are directly applicable to their programming and will have implications for ONE Omaha strategic planning and the City of Omaha Planning Department. Results with thus influence the effectiveness of Omaha neighborhood associations. The survey data was the most up to date information available on neighborhood needs, and the survey response rate was more than double what it had been in previous years.

Study Limitations Surveys have an inherent responder bias, only those already aware of ONE Omaha are likely to encounter and take the time to fill at a survey on neighborhoods. Surveys cannot reach all residents or participants within neighborhoods and thus may not be the most comprehensive.

Survey Results The first five questions of the survey focus on demographics information and getting feedback on where respondents lived. The map below shows the concentration of respondents with the majority being in east and southeast Omaha.

Other trends exist within zip codes, though it is difficult to make assumptions about these neighborhoods given the low response rates in each. Regardless, respondents placed less importance on all neighborhood characteristics than what was seen on average from respondents.

These include 68123 (n=2) and 68135 (n=1) (average response of 3), and 68102 (average response of 3.14, n=1). Follow-up questions include: Are these scores low because they place higher importance on a different set of values for neighborhood associations? Or are they

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

14

unengaged or apathetic as to whether or not these characteristics exist within neighborhood associations? Etc. Question 5: Characteristics of Neighborhood Associations Question five of the 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment asked residents to rate the importance of characteristics often associated with neighborhood associations. They were asked to select a value from Not at all Important (1) to Extremely Important (5). The average response was highest for the following characteristics: “Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city” (4.07), and “Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood” (4.04).

Next highest was “Providing a basis for community engagement” with an average response of 3.97. This was followed by “Providing a basis for community engagement (3.9), and “Being a unified voice and leveraging strength in numbers” and “Being a representative of neighbors and residents” both had a value of 3.85. The average value was the lowest for the following characteristic: “Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents” (3.82).

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

15

Questions 6: Issues facing Omaha neighborhood associations Question six of the 2018 Neighborhood Needs Assessment asked residents to rate the importance of addressing issues facing Omaha neighborhood associations. They were asked to select a value from Not at all Important (1) to Extremely Important (5). The average response was highest for the following issues: “Being inclusive to residents” (4.24) and “Being accommodating to all residents such as working families and renters” (4.23). This is of great interest, as it implies that Omaha neighborhoods want to be viewed as welcoming and accepting of everyone regardless of demographic. They want others to feel comfortable moving into their neighborhoods. If one does not already exist, there is an opportunity here for ONE Omaha to create a new program that will help neighborhoods become inclusive, market their inclusiveness, and share success stories with other neighborhoods to encourage more inclusivity.

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

16

Next highest was “Improving communication with the city” (3.99), “Being open to change and new ideas” (3.97), “Enhancing continuity in knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association” (3.94), and “Increasing power in the city development processes (3.92). Two of the themes listed previously, improving communication with the city and increasing power in the city development process, were key themes in the 2013 Needs Assessment. The recurrence of these two themes shows that there were insufficient efforts to address these issues after the 2013 Needs Assessment. These issues should be addressed, or they will surface again signaling a breakdown in the translation process from program evaluation to program adjustment. Furthermore, recurring problems are dangerous to public morale, as the public may become accustomed to being ignored and cease to participate in public forums.

Those issues were followed by “Changing the negative image that meetings are just about complaints” (3.86). The lowest average for ranking the level of importance was for the following issues: “Adjusting the formality of structure to reduce staleness and inactivity (3.74) and providing more leadership training or mentoring (3.65).

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

17

Question 7: Potential Long-Term Needs of Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations Based on question seven about the long-term needs of the neighborhood associations and what they feel they need help to remain viable in coming years. These needs do not necessarily reflect what residents feel is most urgent in their communities but instead the programming that they feel will keep them relevant. Residents felt that increasing involvement with city planning processes and building relationships with nonprofits and businesses working in their area were the two most important long-term goals for neighborhood associations going forward. This reflects the stakeholder input around increasing relationships between the City Planning Department and neighborhood associations and resident involvement in the development that happens in neighborhoods as key areas for ONE Omaha to work on.

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

18

Question 8: Opportunities and resources for addressing the needs and issues of Neighborhood Associations In question eight respondents ranked what outreach tools were most effective at addressing the needs of neighborhoods. ONE Omaha and the One Thing email were the two most highly ranked methods and should be continued, ONE Omaha may wish to look into expanding the email platform and other social media. The NextDoor app was listed as the least helpful, with nonprofit coordination and the City of Omaha Planning Department being the next lowest ranked resources. Nonprofit and Planning Department coordination are cited in a previous question as being the most important areas of growth for long-term needs. These findings offer

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

19

opportunities for ONE Omaha to develop programming and coordination around nonprofit and the City Planning office. The Omaha Planning Department’s creation of an Office of Neighborhood Engagement in mid 2017 will likely provide increased options for ONE Omaha to work between the neighborhoods and City Planning.

Question 9: How effective do you feel your neighborhood is at‌?

Residents responding to question nine found that their neighborhoods were most effective at organizing events and projects and least effective at aiding in building community within their neighborhood. Many neighborhood associations regularly hold block parties, take back the night events, and family movie nights in addition to their regular neighborhood meetings. Events are seen as important ways to engage the community and provide a sense of organizing. This finding echoes stakeholder input regarding the need for more work to be done in developing relationships within neighborhoods and providing resources for rising leadership in neighborhood associations and alliances. The capacity for hosting meetings is well established

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

20

but many associations and alliances lack the capacity for mentorship and fostering new leaders within their districts. ONE Omaha has the opportunity to expand and modify its existing leadership and citizens academy programing to better fit the needs highlighted in the survey and stakeholder interviews.

Question 10: Suggestions for improvement for neighborhood associations in Omaha

Question ten asked residents to rank what programs or actions they felt are most important to improve neighborhood associations. It was found that providing a central place for finding information on public events, projects, and venues was the single most important resource for improving neighborhood effectiveness. This recommendation scales well for both neighborhood associations, alliances, and ONE Omaha to implement resources on their respective scales. Many neighborhoods already produce informal calendars for their events which ONE Omaha can provide resources for expanding and aggregate events to create alliance and city-wide lists of events on a monthly or weekly schedule.

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

21

Summary of Survey The ONE Omaha survey helped to identify the needs of Omaha neighborhood associations. Surveys addressed important characteristics of neighborhood associations, issues facing Omaha neighborhood associations, the long-term needs of Omaha neighborhood associations, the opportunities and resources for addressing these needs, and the areas that were most and least important to neighborhood associations. The survey findings suggest that being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city and taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood were among the most important characteristics of neighborhood associations for residents. Additionally, it was found that the most important issues facing neighborhood associations was the need to be inclusive to residents and to be accommodating to all residents such as working families and renters. Additionally, improving communication with the city, being open to change and new ideas, enhancing continuity in knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association, and increasing power in the city development processes were found to be of high importance to respondents of the survey. These findings echo the responses in the previous focus groups and stakeholder analysis. Least important was providing more leadership training or mentorship, which may reflect that ONE Omaha has already successfully implemented leadership training strategies. The two most important long-term goals for neighborhood associations going forward were to increase involvement with the city planning process and to build relationships with nonprofits and businesses working in their area.

Additionally, it was found that the lowest ranked resources for residents were nonprofits and the City of Omaha Planning Department, which may reflect an unmet need of having support coordinating between neighborhood associations and these entities. Finally, residents felt they

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

22

were least effective at building community within their neighborhood. These conclusions can help to inform future programming and resources being offered by ONE Omaha.

Comparison of Reports 2018 Stakeholder Analysis,

2018 Neighborhood Needs

2018 Strategic Plan,

What the City Wants:

Assessment,

What ONE Omaha is

What the Neighborhoods

Doing:

Wants: Leadership development for

Leadership development for

Neighborhood Leadership

neighborhood associations

N.A.’s (e.g. succession

Academy

(N.A.’s) (e.g. succession

planning, facilitation skills,

Citizens’ Academy for

planning, facilitation skills,

etc.)

Omaha’s Future

etc.)

Block Talk Training

1st quarter of 2018: 241 people played a supporting role in 15 neighborhood projects Communication network with

Increased contact with City,

Quarterly Neighbor

N.A.’s, greater exchange of

greater exchange of

meetups

information

information

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Understand appropriate timing

Create opportunities for more

for public input, esp. on

public input, esp. on

development/construction

development/construction

projects and determining

projects and determining

neighborhoods ready for

neighborhoods ready for

revitalization

revitalization

N.A.’s to understand grant

Understand grant programs

23

programs and requirements Realistic expectations for City services Unified consensus on

Neighborhood Needs

wants/needs by N.A.’s

Assessment

Update City of Omaha Neighborhood Directory Be seen by City as viable voice

Neighborhood Statement

for communities

of Priorities (developing a comprehensive strategy with the City of Omaha Planning Department Neighborhood Planning division to develop a

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

24

model for neighborhood advocacy (is this completed and available?))

More than just a way to vent or complain; community and action More inclusion (e.g. young people, renters) Comprehensive community

ONE Thing

calendar Greater sense of community

Omaha NeighborFest 2018 Naming purpose and approach Building a strong and sustainable organizational foundation Enhancing external relationships

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

25

How to manuals and succession Clarifying program training

objectives Expanding and diversifying revenue streams

The above comparison table shows some discrepancies in what the 2018 Stakeholder Analysis and the 2018 Needs Assessment state the needs are and what ONE Omaha has done to fill those needs. To better serve the stakeholders and the neighborhood associations, ONE Omaha should consider realigning their programs to meet their needs as designated through these assessments.

Recommendations Based on the provided data from the Neighborhood Needs Assessment focus group analysis and report, the Stakeholder Interview analysis, and the ONE Omaha Programming overview, ONE Omaha developed a strategic plan that focused on increasing the capacity of the organization to better meet the needs of Omaha neighborhood associations. Based on the 2018 Needs Assessment and outreach done, it is recommended that ONE Omaha continue its education efforts and expand it leadership and mentoring programs for developing new leaders within neighborhoods. It is also recommended that ONE Omaha continue to work closely with the new Omaha Planning Department Office on neighborhood engagement. Communication between the City of Omaha and the neighborhood associations of Omaha has been unsuccessful in the past and is likely to remain so in the future without third party facilitation. ONE Omaha is uniquely placed to be that third party. Both parties, the City of Omaha and the neighborhood associations, desire improved communication channels between them. It is in everyone’s best

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

26

interest for ONE Omaha to setup and maintain those channels, which may be accomplished by working closely with the Omaha Planning Department Office. Additionally, it is recommended that ONE Omaha adapt programming to specifically assist residents and associations in implementing inclusion strategies that can accommodate various types of residents, including working class residents and renters. With ONE Omaha’s plans to increase the number of employees, it is recommended that a staff person be designated to assist in connecting residents to grant opportunities and in writing grants, as both the stakeholder analysis and neighborhood needs assessment show a need for this service. The public input process in city development was also a topic of concern in both the stakeholder analysis and needs assessment. It is recommended that ONE Omaha offer programming designed to educate residents on the public input process, and that they include information in their communications about meetings and other ways of participating and effectively engaging in the community development process.

Team Presentation Evaluation The presentation should be more than a speech or lecture, it should be an interactive and engaging experience with fellow students that includes (time permitting) audio-visual materials, structured class discussion, role-playing, videos, scenarios, guest speakers, etc. At the end of this syllabus is a form that was used to evaluate your presentation by the instructor and fellow student 24-25 points: Surpassed criteria in several areas.

22-23 points: Exceeded criteria in a few areas 20-21 points: Met criteria 18-19 points: Generally met criteria, but needed additional work in a few areas Under 17 points: Did not meet criteria in a number of areas Team McJagger: We enjoyed your presentation. Your presentation was well organized and the team members worked well together in the presentation. You were clear on what the goal of the team research was and how it connected to the other teams’ work. You went through the slides in an effective manner and clearly presented the material. Synthesizing the material and putting it in a matrix was an effective presentation device. The activity was effective in getting some addition input to OneOmaha and as a way to supplement your recommendation. You provided good input to OneOmaha and engaged in a solid question-answer format. However, it was noted too that

ONE OMAHA REPORT: REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

27

most of the narrative was directly off the slides. The slides were fine but contained lots of information and was sometimes difficult to read. More graphics would have livened the presentation was also suggested. In summary this presentation was done in a very efficient manner.

22 out of 25 points Please see the peer evaluations of your presentation for more detail. They are in my office. Have a team member pick them up and distribute to team.

Team Field Research Study I used some but not all of the following criteria in evaluating your Field Research Study for One Omaha: does the study focus on the work of this community-based organization? Did you focus on your team’s assignment for the field work? Did the report include a limited number of scholarly journal articles and policy research reported in books or on-line? Did you incorporate such tools of field research (virtual or actual) and analysis as personal interviews, field observations, examination of public documents, and case studies? Did you locate information or collect data by conducting neighborhood inventories, household surveys or interviews, focus group sessions, or data compilation (for example using Census data)? Did you focus on neighborhood planning and development of strategies, organization development, identification of resources and assistance, or research into organizational structures? How thorough is the analysis of the field data? How well does the writing style, including grammar and syntax, meet graduate level standards? Is it an interesting study? And, maybe most importantly, does the analysis connect to community development concepts covered in class?

165-175 points: Surpassed criteria in several areas.

150-164 points: Exceeded criteria in a few areas 140-149 points: Met criteria 135-139 points: Generally met criteria, but needed additional work in a few areas Under 134 points: Did not meet criteria in a number of areas Team McJagger: I enjoyed reading your part of the class research project that will be presented to OneOmaha.

ONE Omaha Report REVIEW OF 2013 NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ASSESSMENT, 2018 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS, 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN, AND 2018 NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS ASSESSMENT BY: JESSICA FOREMAN, MEGAN WALKER, AND CLAYTON KELLER

Project Overview u

Summary of 2013 Needs Assessment

u

Summary of 2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Groups

u

Summary of 2018 Stakeholder Analysis

u

Summary of 2018 Strategic Plan and Findings

u

Exploration of 2018 Needs Assessment: Survey

u

Comparison of Reports

u

Recommendations

Summary of 2013 Needs Assessment u

Upon closure of Neighborhood Center in 2013, the United Neighborhood Alliance of Omaha (UNAO) performed an assessment of existing neighborhood needs.

u

Assessment included:

u

u

Focus Groups

u

Survey

u

Community Forums

u

Neighborhood Programs

Participants included: u

Neighborhood association leaders

u

Neighborhood alliance members

u

Other community members

Findings of 2013 Needs Assessment Organization/Program participants were asked about

How did participants feel about it?

Did participants understand its purpose?

Long-term needs for organization/program

Neighborhood Associations (NAS’s)

Positive

For the most part, yes

Viability and sustainability of NAS’s; Member recruitment; Grant writing assistance

Neighborhood Alliances (NAL’s)

Confused

No

Increase involvement in NAL’s

Neighborhood Center (NC)

Unfamiliar

Yes – only those who knew about it

Become source of information for and provide assistance to NAS’s; develop partnerships to meet needs of NAS’s and NAL’s

Neighborhood Scan (NS)

Polarized opinions; Very positive and very negative

No

Better communication about purpose of program; Better funding as code enforcement tool; Focus on small areas rather than whole neighborhoods at a time

Recommendations from 2013 Needs Assessment u

Fill void left by Neighborhood Center

u

Offer support to Neighborhood Associations for administrative needs, funding, and organizational development

u

Guide neighborhood alliances in offering advocacy, development, mentoring, and operational assistance to neighborhood associations

u

Work towards a formal relationship with the City of Omaha and secure steady funding

u

Identify additional stakeholders with interests in neighborhoods

u

Address issues with public perception of Neighborhood Scan and neighborhood associations

2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Groups Background u

u

Two focus groups: u

July 30, 2018. 10 participants

u

August 1, 2018. 5 participants

u

Participants were neighborhood leaders and stakeholders

Participants answered questions both collectively and individually

2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Groups Findings (1/5) u

Felt the purposes of a neighborhood association were to: u

Be a voice for its neighborhood

u

Provide a common connecting point for neighbors to learn

u

Communicate and share ideas

u

Act as a community engagement tool

2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Groups Findings (2/5) u

Felt that the biggest issues neighborhood associations face include: u

Communication failure between associations and City of Omaha

u

Poor public image of association meetings

u

Leadership gaps and lack of succession planning

2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Groups Findings (3/5) u

Participants identified major long-term needs as: u

Create combined neighborhood association task for that advocates residents’ desires on city issues

u

Simplify access to funding and providing assistance for grant writing

u

Provide resources for leadership succession planning

u

Increase partnership between organizations that share long-term objectives with neighborhood associations

2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Groups Findings (4/5) u

Identified resources already available to address issues: u

City of Omaha resources (i.e. planning department)

u

Citizen Patrol

u

Grants

u

Mayor’s hotline

u

Citizen’s Academy

u

Community events

2018 Needs Assessment: Focus Groups Findings (5/5) u

Improvements in neighborhood associations of Omaha could be realized through: u

Improving horizontal and vertical communication lines with associations

u

Creating a task force to act as liaison to city

u

Augmenting grant writing assistance and access to funding

u

Improving leadership succession planning

2018 Stakeholder Analysis: Background u

Stakeholders included: u

u

u

The City of Omaha u

Mayor’s office

u

Public works department

u

Planning department

u

Parks and recreation department

Neighborhood alliance leaders

Interviews conducted to find out what each factor needed from the other

2018 Stakeholder Analysis: Findings (1/2) u

City of Omaha stated that: u

Neighborhoods are a strong network for disseminating information

u

Neighborhoods are a strong network for getting feedback from public

u

Neighborhoods are a resource for city to increase public outreach

u

Communication with neighborhood alliances needs to improve in order to provide better information and services

2018 Stakeholder Analysis: Findings (2/2) u

Neighborhood Alliance members stated that they want to: u

Strengthen their ties to the associations

u

Deal with issues on a neighborhood scale

u

Be more involved in local government decision making processes

u

Provide better services to residents of their neighborhoods

u

Have better relationships within the alliances

u

Be stronger advocates

2018 Stakeholder Analysis: Summary u

Common themes between City of Omaha and Neighborhood Alliances: u

Increased access to local government and decision making process

u

Better communication between the City and neighborhood alliances

u

Better communication between and within neighborhood alliances

2018 Strategic Plan and Findings u

Five key goals for ONE Omaha: u

Naming their purpose and approach u

u

Building a strong and sustainable organizational foundation u

u

Capacity-building

Clarifying program objectives u

u

Capacity-building

Enhancing external relationships u

u

Capacity-building

Program Improvement

Expanding and diversifying revenue streams u

Capacity-building

Gaps in Strategic Plan u

The Strategic Plan aims to improve ONE Omaha’s organizational structure and will allow them to increase capacity in order to better meet the needs of neighborhood associations

u

Additionally, they can implement programming to address specific needs: u

Inclusive to residents and to be accommodating to all residents

u

Increase involvement with the city planning process and build relationships with nonprofits and businesses working in their area

u

Coordination between residents and nonprofits and the City of Omaha Planning Department

u

Building community within their neighborhood

2018 Needs Assessment: Survey Background u

Survey questions created using responses from 2018 Needs Assessment Focus Groups

u

Survey shared with Omaha residents through email, online postings, and public events.

Limitations include heavy use of convenience sampling

u

246 surveys collected; 194 were usable for this research question

2018 Needs Assessment: Summary of Survey Results u

Top characteristic often associated with Omaha neighborhood associations: u

u

Tops issues facing associations: u

u

Being inclusive to residents

Top potential long-term need for associations: u

u

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

Having a larger role in city development processes

Top resource for addressing needs of associations: u

ONE Omaha

u

Residents feel their neighborhood association is most effective at organizing events and projects

u

Top suggestion for improvement of Omaha neighborhood associations: u

Provide community calendar with meeting notifications of dates, times, and places

Comparison of Reports u

https://unomaha.box.com/s/w8cokb9b0v4er5jbwmqmkjlqnl99dgm a

And now... an activity! u

Get out a pen or pencil

Recommendations to ONE Omaha u

Continue education efforts and expand programs to mentor new leaders in neighborhoods

u

Increase communication between City of Omaha and neighborhood associations u

Could be accomplished through partnership with Omaha Planning Department Office

u

Adopt program that educates neighborhood associations about local government decision making processes and how to engage in them

u

Adopt program to assist neighborhoods with inclusion strategies

u

Dedicate an employee to assist neighborhood associations with funding and grant writing

u

Anything else this class comes up with!

el fin THE END!

GUIDE STAR ANALYSIS PREPARED BY UNO URBAN STUDIES STUDENTS: MARIANNA FORAL, JONATHAN SCHERLING, AND STACIA HOOVER

UBNS 8200: Marianna Foral Jonathan Scherling Stacia Hoover Objectives: The objective of Operation JAMS was to determine GuideStar organizations based on the top three “very important” or “extremely important” long-term needs of Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations. Specifically, question seven in the 2018 Omaha Association Leadership Survey. Our hypothesis was: Survey participants within different age groups and zip-codes have differing long-term needs.

The identification of GuideStar organizations that excel in the top three long-term needs would serve as a framework for ONE Omaha in their next phase of development.

Methodology & Approach: The methods employed included three stages: 1. Identifying locations to administer the survey, 2. completed surveys were compiled and entered into a database by ONE Omaha, 3. and data was analyzed via SPSS and STATA. The goal in administering the survey was to identify an area not included in the previous results. Seventy-five surveys had previously been collected via an email link or directly from the ONE Omaha’s website, www.oneomaha.org. The overarching goal was to include survey participants from underrepresented areas and demographics in order to foster a representative sampling of the city of Omaha and its neighborhoods. South Omaha Neighborhood Alliance, a local art show, and the Omaha Association of the Deaf business meeting were chosen to gather additional survey responses.

2 The data was analyzed by David Drozd, Research Coordinator at the Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska at Omaha utilizing SPSS, a statistical software.

Additionally, the data was independently analyzed by Operation JAMS via STATA, a software for statistics and data science. The focus of the analysis was question seven: 7. Now here are some potential long-term needs of Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations. Please rate them on a scale where 1 is Not at all important; 2 is Slightly important; 3 is Moderately important; 4 Very important; and 5 is Extremely important.

Establish a committee or taskforce with the city Creating a mentorship program to get people involved Having assistance and education with funding and grant writing Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for neighborhood associations Promoting leadership succession training or coaching Building better partnership with nonprofits and businesses Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations Having a larger role in city development processes Top Three Priorities: There were 210 viable surveys included in the analysis. Several categories were recoded to aid in this analysis. The first variable categorized was the scale of responses. The scale was categorized into two groups; group 1 included very important and extremely important and group 2 encompassed not at all important, slightly important, and moderately important.

The scale frequency was run and the below top priorities across all age groups and zip-codes were determined. The data was further categorized in order to determine if age and/or zip-code would identify differing long-term needs. The frequencies on all variables and the crosstabs against zip-code and age group were run. The results identified that overall the long-term needs

3 previously reported were similar across all age groups and zip-code groups. The top three long -term needs remained the same but in different orders of priority. #1: Having a larger role in city development process #2: Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses #3: Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations

Results further identified: The 18-39 age group’s top priority was “fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations”. The second priority was “having a larger role in the city development process”. The 40+ age group mirrored the results for all age groups and zip-codes

4 with the top priority of “having a larger role in the city development” and “building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses”. One could posit the difference in the top priorities was due to homeownership. Respondents in the 40+ category were more likely to own their homes while the 18-39 age group tended to rent or move more frequently. According to FiveThirtyEight, the average American will move 11.4 times in their lifetime. Moving statistics are directly tied to age groups. Per their findings the average 30-year-old has moved six times.

Additionally, zip-code data was grouped into categories east of 72nd street, west of 72nd street and east of 45th street, west of 45th street. Overall the findings were the same.

Respondents east of 72nd street echoed the the results for all age groups and zip-codes with the top priority of “having a larger role in the city development” and “building better partnerships

5 with nonprofits and businesses”. The top priority for respondents west of 72nd street was both “having a larger role in the city development process” and “compiling a knowledge network of best practices or ‘how to’ manual for neighborhood associations”. The second priority had a three way tie between “building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses”, “fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations”, and “ having assistance and education with funding and grant writing”.

“Having a larger role in the city development processes” and “building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses” tied as the top priority for the east of 45th street respondents. The respondents west of 45th street’s top priority was “having a larger role in the city development processes”, the second priority was “compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for neighborhood associations” and the third priority was “building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses” and “ fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations”.

While the overall very important and extremely important long-term needs are similar across all age groups and zip-codes it is important to note both the similarity and the subtle differences in priorities. Two zip-code categories ranked “compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for neighborhood associations” as a top priority.

Recommendations: Based on the analysis outlined above, ONE Omaha can help address the long-term needs for neighborhood associations in a number of ways.

Due to the abstract nature of the three priorities - for instance, not having a parameter to measure or define “better communication” or “better partnerships” we sought further clarification from Julie Smith.

Operation JAMS identified cities and programs that address similar needs and objectives that ONE Omaha could pilot.

6 The “long-term needs of neighborhood associations” were translated into actionable goals that ONE Omaha could realistically work toward. Some of the programs, techniques or methods to pilot could serve to accomplish more than one of these goals: I.

ONE Omaha be a vocal advocate for the City of Omaha to create citizen-engaged development process, or be a conduit between city and citizen for development

II.

ONE Omaha become a connector at the Neighborhood Alliance-level

III.

ONE Omaha position itself as the establishment leading the charge for neighborhood resources, connections, advocacy and action

I. ONE Omaha be a vocal advocate for the City of Omaha to create citizen-engaged development process, or be a conduit between city and citizen for development The survey results identified “having a larger role in the city development process” as 77% of the results felt it was very important or extremely important. To explore this option further, with advice from Julie, we consulted with Derek Miller, the manager of the Long Range Planning department in the City of Omaha’s Department of Urban Planning. In Miller’s opinion the demand for the public to be involved in the development project was due to the higher volume of urban infill development projects happening in Omaha. Miller anticipates the tension of public input in city planning will only grow as the trend to live closer to the downtown core increases and Omaha’s available land for new subdivisions decreases. Today, there is no mandated public input on projects in Omaha. Miller noted the strongest tool to encourage public input is the planning board to “layover” a project for four to six weeks while a developer gets input from the public. a. Early Community Outreach Design Review. In 2018, this program was started in the City of Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods as an added step in the Design Review Process. It was created to ensure opportunities for citizens to give their input on new development projects. Developers are now required to begin conversations with community members before project designs are complete (Fig. 1).

7

Fig. 1 - Seattle’s Early Community Outreach for Design Review Flowchart

b. Resident’s Role in Development Review. The City of Fort Collins’ Neighborhood Services created a flowchart in 2012 to show a citizen’s role in development review with frequently asked questions on the reverse side. The complete guide is a multi-page of “how-to” resource. Both the flowchart and guide are good tools showing all residents’ opportunities to offer feedback and participate in making development review more predictable, timely, accountable and customer-focused. (Fig. 2).

8

Fig. 2 - Fort Collins’ Citizen Role in Development Review Flowchart

Developer applicants are required to submit a community outreach plan including printed, electronic/digital and in-person outreach methods and document compliance. At least one “high-impact” method or two “multi-pronged” methods from each of the three medium types must be used as part of individualized community engagement plans. The intent of the outreach is to be inclusive of all interested parties to allow for a diversity of neighborhood perspectives to be heard. Developers are required to work one-on-one with Community Liaisons in the Dept. of Neighborhood to customize outreach plans if the project occurs in an “Equity Area”. This ensures that outreach in historically underrepresented communities matches the unique attributes of the communities, such as communication in native languages and targeted means of reaching community groups (Fesler, 2018).

The City of Omaha’s options for implementing a similar community outreach process is limited due to budget constraints and a lack of will. Seattle’s adopted 2018 budget for the Dept. of Neighborhoods was over $12 million; in 2018 there were 4.75 full-time equivalent Community Liaisons, a total expenditure of over $492,000. A similar program has the potential for opposition from the developer community due to loss in project time and money.

9 For ONE Omaha, options include helping to craft a similar ordinance and lobby for it to pass in Omaha’s City Council. If ONE Omaha choses a nonpolitical role, they could act as a resource by offering sample Community Outreach Plans or “Outreach and Engagement Tips & Resources” to developers who want to engage the community before starting projects (Appendix A).

II. ONE Omaha become a connector at the neighborhood alliance-level The third priority yielded from the survey results indicates that 71% of participants would like to see more connection and communication among neighborhood associations. Omaha is unique in terms of neighborhood organizing because of Neighborhood Alliances: larger coalitions where neighborhood association leaders convene. Individual neighborhood associations, united by shared geography, come together for a macro-view of their area of the city. Neighborhood alliances serve as community forums similar to neighborhood associations, but also provide an opportunity to undertake collaborative projects between nearby neighborhoods. Neighborhood alliances serve as the bridge between neighborhood associations, but there is no connector for the city's neighborhood alliances. We think ONE Omaha could play a role in fostering a stronger network.

There is no known tracking method or data to measure current communication and coordination between neighborhood associations. Julie offered guidance that the spirit of the response referred to “relationship building between different associations for peer to peer learning”. We believe this survey response could mean folks don’t feel neighborhood alliances are effective in connecting associations with other adjacent associations. Or, the question could speak to there being no mechanism for neighborhood associations on opposite sides of the city to casually connect in an information sharing capacity.

Neighborhood Alliances in Omaha are particularly important because the boundaries mirror the lines of segregation in Omaha. Without inter-alliance communication and bonding,

10 neighborhood alliances might focus only on the issues happening within their boundaries. The data shows that the top three priorities across zip-code and age groups were the same (though in different order). Associations and alliances can work together to address shared city-wide issues. The danger is neighborhood groups will continue to reinvent the wheel if they don’t collaborate. a. Neighborhood Connections classes, Fort Collins. This program launched in 2017 when the City of Fort Collins, CO recognized the need for more empowered and wellconnected neighborhoods. The City of Fort Collins offers twelve hours of free core education classes for neighborhood leaders to attend at three different times annually.

Each core education class is held at a different location city-wide. The series focuses on communication, collaboration, and the basics of neighboring. This program also offers continuing education for anyone who is interested but not ready to commit to the core education classes. It is also free and open to the public. This program is funded by the city. i.

ONE Omaha currently has similar programming, but we like that Fort Collins offers sessions on narrower topics including: open house with city staff, design development and review process, grant funding process.

ii.

Creates opportunity for relationship building between different associations for peer to peer learning. Future network in place for city-wide advocacy.

b. Neighborhood Presidents Roundtable. ONE Omaha creates opportunities for networking and information sharing such as hosting Neighborhood Presidents Roundtable, modeled after Indianapolis Neighborhood Resource Center. This group invites current and past neighborhood association presidents to “share information, best practices, and new ideas to help improve the community”. c. Community Leadership Forum. Lots of examples exist for formal information sharing among neighborhoods and neighborhood associations. Most models are day-long

11 conferences with workshops and keynote speakers. Two such examples are the “Mayor’s Neighborhood Roundtable” from Crawford/Marlborough/Nakoma Neighborhood Associations of Madison, Wisconsin, Montgomery, Ohio’s “Community Leadership Forum” (Mann & Rosza, 2010). All people, not just neighborhood presidents were encouraged to attend the free event which also included city officials and staff, community organizations, speakers, workshops and sharing best practices in addressing challenges faced across the city.

Operation JAMS recognizes that ONE Omaha does annually host a neighborhood-focused event every year, like 2018’s Neighborfest. However, coming together informally and frequently could forge stronger cross-city relationships.

Connecting other neighborhood associations and alliances through social events and information sharing sets the framework for a network for eventual city-wide advocacy and action at the grassroots level.

III. ONE Omaha position itself as the establishment leading the charge for neighborhood resources, connections, advocacy and action

Even though every member of Operation JAMS is involved in neighborhood action, probably more than your average citizen, there was still confusion among the group about ONE Omaha’s mission, programming, and accomplishments. On their website, ONE Omaha has three bullet-points to “What We Do”.

●

Community leader training that provides skills, knowledge, and confidence in organizing, mobilizing, participating, and advocating

●

Resources that connect residents to programs, services, and opportunities

●

Comprehensive engagement and outreach for a variety of community-based initiatives

12 In its first four years, ONE Omaha has mastered the first bullet-point through in-person education for the individual who is already inclined toward citizen service such as leadership classes, Citizen’s Academy, Block Talks Training, and Neighborhood Visioning facilitation. We agree that these “individual acts of citizen empowerment” are important and appropriate, but not in all situations. Our final recommendation is for ONE Omaha to focus on enhancing the outputs of their last two bullet points, thus fulfilling ONE Omaha’s complete mission. Here we offer a few established strategies from other cities that can engage folks who may not be ready or able to attend a training. We suggest a number of simple resources and publications to be an entrypoint for people who may be interested in engaging civically, but aren’t ready for a leadership class. This section focuses on platforms and resources that ONE Omaha can create and sustain resident engagement on a spectrum of levels involvement. a. Virtual Hub for Public Input. The City of Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods maintains a webpage called, “Add Your Voice” as a central hub for projects seeking public input. Having the projects in one centralized place helps residents understand and track opportunities for engagement, whether they click a link to a digital survey or it is the listing of time, date location of an in-person meeting. The City of Fort Collins has the similar webpage called, “City Plans” as a central hub for neighborhood leaders to get involved in creating a vision for Fort Collins in the next 20 years. There was a panel discussion last month for Future of Transit and this webpage offers surveys for these residents who missed the panel discussion to share their opinions about Fort Collins’ transit system. It also offers city forum for residents to participate to discuss anything related to Fort Collins’ development news. Recent Omaha examples that would have been appropriate for the virtual hub were Riverfront revitalization surveys, ORBT’s Transit-Oriented Development preferences surveys, Omaha Public library Master Facilities Plan feedback, and the Omaha solid waste management contract. It will also

13 help ONE Omaha establish itself as a reliable source of information for public input opportunities that a resident might have otherwise missed.

b. Community Events Calendar. ONE Omaha can establish itself as a community connector by maintaining a reliable, easily accessible, and timely online calendar listing neighborhood association and alliance meetings, neighborhood events, opportunities for citizen engagement and events of a similar nature. The City of Omaha website does have a City Council Calendar with just the one event occurring each week. It’s unclear if a calendar featuring other public meetings exists. A similar calendar function in Omaha is kept by Visit Omaha, the intended audience is tourists and those seeking entertainment. The cities of Austin, TX, Seattle, WA and Riverside, CA all have a resident-submitted community events calendar. Seattle's Event Calendar uses a program called Trumba. Seattle also implements a calendar specifically for regarding times and places for Public Outreach and Engagement from the city. Minneapolis

14 Community Events Calendar utilizes a GoogleForm to populate its calendar. Important here would be a set of rules for submitting an event. c. Community Resource Guidebook. Creating a comprehensive community resource guide can be an introduction to civic engagement and resources without having to attend a training. The Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Community Resource Guidebook is called “Get Informed, Get Engaged, Get Organized� intended for audiences ranging of new-to-town and longtime citizens.

15

The guidebook provides clear guidance and direction on how to share ideas, find information, and connect with the community. Topics include: “When To Call 911”, “5 Ways To Use the Library”, where to find citizenship services, and organizing a block party. We especially like that the tone and aesthetic are similar to a children’s book, making it both fun and accessible. Might we suggest the title: “Whose Job Is That?: A Guide to Connecting to City Resources and Being the Best Citizen You Can Be”.

Conclusions/Future Action/Final Thoughts: Omaha’s last Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1997 and we anticipate the next comprehensive plan should be in the near future, perhaps after the next mayoral election in 2021. At that point, we see ONE Omaha playing a crucial role as a trusted neighborhood connector and ally in attaining public input from all corners of Omaha and diverse populations.

The majority of these programs are funded by city governments. We don’t believe the onus should be on ONE Omaha to fully fund and operate these programs. Instead we are

16 observing that Omaha has a gap of services and ONE Omaha has the opportunity to address them in their strategic plan. By making ONE Omaha’s programming, communication, coordination and resources more comprehensive we believe this is an opportunity to address the survey’s second priority, create and strengthen partnerships with nonprofits and businesses.

Ultimately, we believe the City of Omaha needs to invest in neighborhoods and be an active partner with ONE Omaha, essentially utilizing the resource that ONE Omaha is.

References Chalabi, M. (2015, January 29). How many times does the average person move?

FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features /how-many-times -theaverage-person -moves/

17 City of Fort Collins (2018). Neighborhood Connections. Creating connected neighborhoods. https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/neighborhoodconnections.php Durkin, J. & Mantilla, A. (2018). Seattle department of neighborhoods, outreach and engagement. Retrieved from http://www.seattle .gov/neighborhoods /outreach-andengagement/add-your-voice Fesler, S. (2018, July 3) Seattle hopes early community engagement will help shape design. The Urbanist. Retrieved from https://www. theurbanist.org/2018/07 /03/seattlehopes- early-community -engagement-will-help-shape-design/ Indianapolis Research Center (2018). Neighborhood presidents roundtable. Retrieved from http://www.inrc.org/presidents-roundtable Mantilla, A (2018). City of Seattle - 2019-2020 proposed budget, Department of neighborhoods.

Retrieved from http://www.seattle .gov/financedepartment/19proposedbudget documents /don.pdf Mann, B. & Rosza, S.(2010) Local practices in public engagement, City practice brief. National League of Cities. Retrieved from https://www.nlc. org/sites/default/ files/local- practices-in-public-engagement-cpb-nov10.pdf

18 Appendix A.

19 Append A, cont.

(Source: http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/outreach-and-engagement/design-review-for-earlyoutreach)

20

Team Presentation Evaluation The presentation should be more than a speech or lecture, it should be an interactive and engaging experience with fellow students that includes (time permitting) audio-visual materials, structured class discussion, role-playing, videos, scenarios, guest speakers, etc. At the end of this syllabus is a form that was used to evaluate your presentation by the instructor and fellow student 24-25 points: Surpassed criteria in several areas.

22-23 points: Exceeded criteria in a few areas 20-21 points: Met criteria 18-19 points: Generally met criteria, but needed additional work in a few areas Under 17 points: Did not meet criteria in a number of areas Operation JAMS: We enjoyed your presentation. All of the team members were enthusiastic and presented their information in a professional manner. It did a great job tying the work together of the work other two groups and the task that was given to the class in terms of providing input to OneOmaha. The group activity was effective in setting the stage. That really got the audience engaged in your presentation. It was a good way to get the group into the right frame of mind in terms of thinking about the importance of communication in neighborhoods and other community based organizations. Of course that is one of the key recommendations. While some of the slides were very busy, with pictures, charts, etc. others were very plain. Consistency in slides is something that should be strived for. You effectively tied together the work of all three groups by focusing not so much on organizational structure, but more on specific programs. The case studies were effectively presented.

22 out of 25 points Please see the peer evaluations of your presentation for more detail. They are in my office. Have a team member pick them up and distribute to team.

Team Field Research Study I used some but not all of the following criteria in evaluating your Field Research Study for One Omaha: does the study focus on the work of this community-based organization? Did you focus on your team’s assignment for the field work? Did the report include a limited number of scholarly journal articles and policy research reported in books or on-line? Did you incorporate such tools of field research (virtual or actual) and analysis as personal interviews, field observations, examination of public documents, and case studies? Did you locate information or collect data by conducting neighborhood inventories, household surveys or interviews, focus group sessions, or data compilation (for example using Census data)? Did you focus on neighborhood planning and development of strategies, organization development, identification of resources and assistance, or research into organizational structures? How thorough is the analysis of the field data? How well does the writing style, including grammar and syntax, meet graduate level standards? Is it an interesting study? And, maybe most importantly, does the analysis connect to community development concepts covered in class?

21

165-175 points: Surpassed criteria in several areas.

150-164 points: Exceeded criteria in a few areas 140-149 points: Met criteria 135-139 points: Generally met criteria, but needed additional work in a few areas Under 134 points: Did not meet criteria in a number of areas Operation JAMS, I enjoyed reading your part of the class research project that will be presented to OneOmaha.

OPERATION JAMS UBNS 8200: Community Organizing and Development Marianna Foral, Stacia Hoover and Jonathan Scherling

ACTIVITY

DATA & METHODOLOGY

TOP THREE PRIORITIES

• #1 Having a larger role in city development process • #2: Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses • #3: Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations

RECOMMENDATIONS • ONE Omaha be a vocal advocate for the City of Omaha to create citizen-engaged development process, or be a conduit between city and citizen for development • ONE Omaha become a connector at the Neighborhood Alliancelevel • ONE Omaha position itself as the establishment leading the charge for neighborhood resources, connections, advocacy and action

VOCAL ADVOCATE CREATE CITIZENENGAGED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, OR CONDUIT • Omaha’s current mandate for “public engagement” • More infill to come, demand for citizen consulting will probably rise

NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE-LEVEL CONNECTOR WHO CONNECTS NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCES?

North Omaha Alliance

Neighborhood Associations

Citizens

?

North 24th Street Corridor Alliance

?

NW Omaha Alliance

?

SW Omaha Alliance

Neighborhood Associations

Neighborhood Associations

Neighborhood Associations

Citizens

Citizens

Citizens

?

Midtown Alliance

?

South Omaha Alliance

Neighborhood Associations

Neighborhood Associations

Citizens

Citizens

Neighborhood Connections Classes, Fort Collins, CO

• What is Neighborhood Connections?

• Two parts • Core Education Classes • Free education • Topics: The Basics of Neighboring, healthy, productive dialogues across cultural differences, grants • Continuing Education classes • Monthly educational classes • Variety of topics

• Presidents Roundtable • Community Leadership Forum • Socials

LEAD THE CHARGE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD • Resources • Connections • Advocacy • Action

ADD YOUR VOICE

C ALENDAR

HANDBOOK

FINAL THOUGHTS/FUTURE ACTIONS

• Last Comprehensive Plan, 1997 • Gap in services, ONE Omaha’s opportunity • De facto partnership strengthening

QUESTIONS?

ONE OMAHA NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS PREPARED BY UNO URBAN STUDIES STUDENTS: ALEXIS BROMLEY, GRAHAM HERBST, ALEXANDRA MORAN, AND JULIA PARKER

ONE OMAHA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS Team Still Standing ADVISOR: DR. ROBERT BLAIR

UBNS 8200 Alexis Bromley Graham Herbst Alexandra Moran Julia Parker

I.

Purpose Team Still Standing’s primary objective was to analyze the entirety of the ONE Omaha

survey and identify various trends according to each question and section. As per our conversation with ONE Omaha director Julie Smith, we performed additional analyses of these questions according to predetermined age categories and zip code clusters. By making these differentiations our group could observe the engagement levels of various geographic areas and age groups.

Through this analysis, Still Standing intends to identify areas of opportunity and make recommendations for future ONE Omaha research and programming.

II.

Methodology Surveys were administered through a variety of means including the ONE Omaha email

list, a one-on-one basis, and a Spanish language copy distributed to GED classes through the Latino Center of the Midlands. Of the 210 completed surveys available for analysis, 204 contained viable observations with varying response rates per question. Each question required either a “fill-in-theblank,” select a number value, or a check “yes,” “no,” or “not sure” response. Questions requiring respondents to write in an answer were collectively the least responded to questions of the survey.

For the purposes of this analysis Spanish language surveys were not analyzed separately and because of their common zip code location may have added extra statistical weight to the South Omaha zip code cluster, which is further described below.

For questions requiring respondents to rate importance on a scale of (1) Not important, (2) Slightly Important, (3) Moderately Important, (4) Very Important, and (5) Extremely Important, we chose to combine frequency percentage responses for option four and five. By doing this we were better able to discern, which selections were a clear priority and from this grouping selected the top three responses. This is not to say responses outside of the three selected were not also 1

ranked highly within the survey itself. We also chose not to reflect lower priorities in a similar manner. This comparative analysis could be done at a later date to further examine neighborhood priorities according to each question.

Zip codes were grouped into clusters to provide a sufficient number of observations (N) for analysis, yet still represent the needs of an area as close to the neighborhood level as possible.

Any zip code falling outside Douglas County lines were filtered into the zip code cluster with like demographic attributes and shared boundary lines. While questions of race and socioeconomic standing were not included in the survey, historical Omaha demographic trends of this nature were considered when organizing zip code clusters.

Still Standing divided responses into six (6) clusters: 1) South Omaha, 2) Aksarben Extending South, 3) Dodge Street Corridor (Midtown), 4) North Omaha, 5) Northwest Omaha, and 6) Southwest Omaha. Please see below for additional details of each grouping.

Zip Code Clusters 1) South Omaha o Zip Codes – 68105, 68108, 68107 (Bellevue: 68005, 68123, 68147) South Omaha consists of three (3) zip codes bordering the Missouri river and extending from I-80 to the Douglas/Sarpy County line at Harrison Street. Responses from the city of Bellevue were also included in the observations for this category. Zip code arrangements for this area were selected due to the historically large settling of immigrant families and growing Latinx community, topographic features, such as the river and interstate, isolate the area as well. Additional key characteristics of the area include a 50.7% homeownership rate, 58.9% minority population, and 28.7% poverty rate. Individuals age 18-49 account for 33.8% of the population, with 40-59 at 22%, and 60 and over at 12.8%.

2

2) Aksarben Extending South o Zip Codes– 68106, 68117 (Papillion: 68133, 68157) Aksarben Extending South includes two (2) neighboring zip codes along with responses from Papillion, which share a border with 68117. The coverage area for Aksarben Extending South stretches East of 72nd Street to about 42nd Street and South of Howard Street to the Douglas/Sarpy County line at Harrison Street. This area contains University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) housing, new developments in Aksraben Village, and neighborhoods extending South of I-80. Zip code arrangements for this area were selected primarily due to rapid changes occurring in the area.

Additional key characteristics of the area include a 64.3% homeownership rate, 23% minority population, and 13% poverty rate. Individuals age 18-49 account for 35.2% of the population, with 40-59 at 25.5%, and 60 and over at 18.4%.

3) Dodge Street Corridor o Zip Codes– 68102, 68131, 68132 (Council Bluffs: 51501) The Dodge Street Corridor, often referred to as “Midtown,” includes three (3) zip codes along with responses from nearby Council Bluffs, IA. The coverage area for the Dodge Street Corridor extends East of 72 nd Street until the Missouri River border and South of Blondo Street to the boundaries of South Omaha, and Aksarben Extending South. Zip code arrangements for this area were selected due to the high population density and mixed-use developments along the corridor. Additional key characteristics of the area include a 33.9% homeownership rate, 36% minority population, and 22.1% poverty rate. Individuals age 18-49 account for 47.3% of the population, with 40-59 at 22.5%, and 60 and over at 12.2%.

3

4) North Omaha o Zip Codes – 68104, 68110, 68111, 68112, 68152 (Carter Lake: 51510) North Omaha includes five (5) zip codes and responses from Carter Lake, IA. Some zip code coverage extends beyond the Douglas County line to the North, but for the purposes of this analysis the responses are assumed to be from the metro area. The coverage area for North Omaha begins East of 72nd Street to the Missouri River and North of Blondo to the Douglas County line.

Zip code arrangements for this area were selected due to groupings of predominantly Black communities. Additional key characteristics of the area include a 54.9% homeownership rate, 54.9% minority population, and 25.7% poverty rate. Individuals age 18-49 account for 29.1% of the population, with 40-59 at 26.1%, and 60 and over at 17.2%.

5) Northwest Omaha o Zip Codes – 68007, 68022. 68116, 68122, 68134, 68142, 68164 (Blair: 68008) Northwest was the second largest grouping containing seven zip codes, along with responses from the city of Blair. The coverage area for Northwest extends West of 72 nd Street to the Elkhorn River and North of Blondo Street to the Douglas County line. Zip code arrangements for this area were selected due to the similar demographic make-up of the area and the consistent decrease in dense urban infrastructure. Additional key characteristics of the area include a 70.1% homeownership rate, 19.1% minority population, and 7.8% poverty rate. Individuals age 18-49 account for 31.9% of the population, with 40-59 at 25.3%, and 60 and over at 15.3%.

4

6) Southwest Omaha o Zip Codes – 68010, 68114, 68118, 68124, 68127, 68130, 68135, 68137, 68144, 68154 (Papillion: 68046, La Vista: 68128) Southwest is the largest grouping consisting of ten (10) zip codes, along with responses from Papillion and La Vista. The Southwest coverage area extends West of 72 nd Street to the Elkhorn River and South of Blondo to the Douglas/Sarpy County line at Harrison Street. Zip code arrangements were selected primarily due to the relatively homogenous demographic make-up of the area. Additional key characteristics of the area include a 66.6% homeownership rate, 14% minority population, and 6.8% poverty rate. Individuals age 18-49 account for 29.8% of the population, with 40-59 at 25.7%, and 60 and over at 20.3%.

Figure 1. Omaha zip code cluster map.

5

Age Categories While the survey asked respondents to select an age bracket, Still Standing combined these responses into collective groupings to increase the number of observations (N) and draw stronger conclusions. The five (5) age categories from the survey were reduced to three (3) categories: 1) Under 40; a combination of responses from the 18-29 and 30-39 options, 2) 40-59; a combination of responses from the 40-49 and 50-59 options, and 3) 60 and over; these responses remained the same as the survey. Figure 2 illustrates the age percentage rates across zip code clusters.

â–Ş Under 40 Under 40 consists of the 18-29 and 30-39 age options being grouped together due to a higher potential for life stage and priority crossover. Respondents from this category could be considered Millennials and a potential target for future ONE Omaha mentorship and leadership development programming.

â–Ş Ages 40-59 The 40-59 category consists of 40-49 and 50-59 age options being grouped together. These options were combined due to increased potential for similar life stage experiences and priorities.

Respondents from this category could be considered Generation X as they fall outside the Millennial definition, but are pre-Baby Boomer.

â–Ş Ages 60 and Over The ages 60 and over category remains consistent with the survey given. Respondents from this category could be considered Baby Boomers.

Still Standing recognizes these terms used above are relative to general generational lines and may not be fully representative of all individuals within the age categories. However, we have found these terms to be useful descriptors when referencing applicable programming through ONE 6

Omaha. Future surveys emphasizing income, professional, and educational background may help to create better definitions for these groups in the future.

Figure 2. Percent age category by zip code clusters

III.

Findings In the following section, we have compiled our most notable observations from the

questions provided by the survey. Our findings begin with question two, which was the first answerable portion of the survey. We have also highlighted key results from the crossanalyses with zip code clusters and age categories.

Question 2) Zip Code Of the 210 surveys, we received 204 valid zip code responses with 36 unique observations scattered throughout the Metro area. We then chose to organize these responses into smaller groupings to better understand the general needs of these areas. Of these responses 66 respondents

7

indicated they were from South Omaha, 26 from Aksarben Extending south, 31 from the Dodge Street Corridor, 29 from North Omaha, 25 from Northwest Omaha, and 27 from Southwest Omaha.

Question 3) Age The survey allowed respondents to choose from 5 separate age groups: 1) 18-29, 2) 30-39, 3) 40-49, 4) 50-59, 5) 60 or over. Respondents ranging in age from 18-29 were 25%, followed closely by aged 30-39 with 24.5%, and aged 60 and over with 20.60%. A little over 15% of respondents are aged 50-59 while only 14.7% of respondents are aged 40-49. This data indicates that almost half, 49.5%, of surveys were answered by those less than 40 years old. The 101 Gen X and millennials that responded to the survey came predominantly from North Omaha, the Dodge Street Corridor, and South Omaha. This survey data could assist in dispelling or confirming the assertion what younger demographics are not involved in neighborhood associations.

Question 4) Neighborhood Name When asked for neighborhood name, many respondents chose to remain anonymous.

However, listed below are the top five neighborhoods listed with the highest frequency.

1) Aksarben (8 respondents) 2) Benson (7 respondents) 3) Blackstone/Goldcoast (6 respondents) 4) Joslyn Castle (6 respondents) 5) Dundee (5 respondents)

Question 5) Important Neighborhood Association Characteristics Each of the seven options relating to neighborhood association characteristics was consistently rated as “very” or “extremely” important. Overall, “being an advocate for the 8

neighborhood to the city” and “building networks and getting to know neighbors” were the rated “extremely” important with the highest frequency. ONE Omaha may find programming neighborhood associations to be more responsive towards initiatives aimed at developing these strengths.

A list of the top three highest rated neighborhood association characteristics for both zip code clusters and age categories are highlighted below. Of these responses, we observed the top characteristic for every age group and zip code cluster, except North Omaha, was “taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood. Additionally, North Omaha did not include this characteristic within the top three, but instead prioritized relationship building and communication. Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city was the only other characteristic to appear in all top three lists from each age group and zip code cluster, excluding North Omaha.

Highest Rated Neighborhood Association Characteristics by Zip Code Clusters South Omaha 1) 2) 3)

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood Providing a basis for community engagement Tie - Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city and building networks and getting to know

1) 2) 3)

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city Tie – Being a representative of neighbors and residents and being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents

Aksarben Extending South

Dodge Street Corridor 1) 2) 3)

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city Being a unified voice a leveraging strength in numbers

9

North Omaha 1) 2) 3)

Providing a basis for community engagement Building networks and getting to know neighbors Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents

Northwest Omaha Three-way tie 1) Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood 2) Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city 3) Building networks and getting to know neighbors

Southwest Omaha Tie - taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood and being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city, 4) Tie - Building networks and getting to know neighbors, Providing a basis for community engagement, and being a representative of neighbors and residents 1)

Highest Rated Neighborhood Association Characteristics by Age 18-39 1)

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

2)

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

3)

Providing a basis for community engagement

40-59 1)

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

2)

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

3)

Being a unified voice and leveraging strength in numbers

60 and Over 1)

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

2)

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

3)

Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents

10

Question 6) Issues Facing Neighborhood Associations in Omaha Survey respondents were presented with nine issues commonly faced by neighborhood associations. Of these issues, they were asked to rate them on a scale of importance from “not important” to “extremely important.” Inclusivity and making accommodations to all residents rated highly on a scale of importance with 74% and 76% responding “very” or “extremely” important respectively. Additionally, 73% believe it’s “very” or “extremely” important to improve neighborhood association communication with the city, while 70% want neighborhood associations to have a larger role in the city development process.

Figure 3. Key observations from survey question six.

Both zip code cluster and age categories maintained the trend of inclusivity as a priority in their responses. Uniquely, Aksarben Extending South and age 60 and over were the only groups to indicate a desire for more power in the city development process. According to the results, ONE Omaha may find an education and outreach opportunity in Northwest and South Omaha, where respondents expressed interest in enhancing community knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association. Below are the top three issues facing neighborhood associations identified by each zip code cluster and age category.

11

Issues Facing Neighborhood Associations by Zip Code Clusters South Omaha 1) Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters 2) Enhancing continuity in the knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association 3) Being inclusive to residents

Aksarben Extending South 1) Improving communication with the city 2) Being inclusive to residents 3) Increasing power in the city development process

Dodge Street Corridor 1) Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters 2) Being inclusive to residents 3) Improving communication with the city

North Omaha 1) Being open to change and new ideas 2) Being inclusive to residents 3) Tie - Improving communication with the city, changing the negative image that meetings are just about complaints, and being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters* *Priority 3 was a tie between three options with an 82.1% frequency rating

Northwest Omaha 1) Being inclusive to residents 2) Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters 3) Tie - Enhancing continuity in the knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association and improving communication with the city

Southwest Omaha 1) Being inclusive to residents 2) Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters 3) Being open to change and new ideas

Issues Facing Neighborhood Associations by Age 18-39 Years 1) Being accommodating to all residents 2) Being inclusive of all residents 3) Being open to change and new ideas 12

40-59 Years 1) Being accommodating to all residents 2) Being inclusive of all residents 3) Improving communication with the City

60 and over 1) Improving communication with the City 2) Being inclusive of all residents 3) Increasing power in City development projects Question 7) Potential Long-term Needs for Omaha Neighborhood Associations Common themes expressed as important throughout section seven involved communication and partnerships. 64% of respondents felt building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses was “very” or “extremely” important. Interestingly, 64% of respondents also felt fostering communication among neighborhood associations was important despite 19% responding “don’t know” when asked about the importance of neighborhood alliances.

While mentorship appeared to be a priority for the focus groups, 28% of respondents believed the Citizens Academy is important and 28% responded with “I don’t know” (see Figure 4). This split could be attributed to the age and location of those primarily taking the survey and could use further investigation. ONE Omaha may also consider reviewing the promotion and awareness raising strategies for the Citizen’s Academy.

13 Figure 4. Key observations from survey question seven.

When reviewing responses according to zip code, we found all clusters except for North Omaha felt strongly about having a larger role in the city development process. North Omaha deviated from the other zip code clusters again by prioritizing mentorship and leadership training.

South Omaha was the only zip code cluster to identify the establishment of a committee or task force with the city as a priority. Responses according to age closely resembled the general observations with slight variances in how each age group’s priorities were organized. Below are the potential long-term need responses organized by zip code cluster and age group.

Highest Rated Potential Long-term Needs by Zip Code Clusters South Omaha 1) Having a larger role in the city development process 2) Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations 3) Establishing a committee or task force with the city

Aksarben Extending South 1) Having a larger role in the city development process 2) Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a how to manual for neighborhood associations 3) Tie - Having assistance with funding and grant writing and fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations

Dodge Street Corridor 1) Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations 2) Having a larger role in the city development process 3) Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

North Omaha 1) Tie - Promoting leadership succession training or coaching and building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses 2) Tie - Creating a mentorship program to get people involved and having assistance and education with funding and grant writing

14

Northwest Omaha 1) Having a larger role in the city development processes 2) Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a how to manual for neighborhood associations 3) Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

Southwest Omaha 1) Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a how to manual for neighborhood associations 2) Tie - having assistance and education with funding and grant writing and having a larger role in the city development process

Highest Rated Potential Long-term Needs by Age 18-39 years 1) Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations 2) Having a larger role in the city development process 3) Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

40-59 years 1) Having a larger role in the city development process 2) Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses 3) Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations

60 and Over 1) Having a larger role in city development process 2) Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations 3) Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses Section 8) Awareness and Importance of Opportunities and Resources for Neighborhood Associations Respondents were provided 17 events and community resources to rate on a scale of importance with the option to express a neutral “I don’t know� opinion. A particular area of interest for ONE Omaha is the lack of general knowledge about the organization and its programs. Overall, 27% of respondents were either unfamiliar with or did not know the importance of ONE Omaha

15

as a resource; only 42% rated the organization as important. When asked about ONE Omaha specific resources, 25% did not know if the neighborhood leadership academy is important and 34% did not know if the One thing email was important.

Generally, neighborhood events were considered more important than city events, receiving 70% “very” or “extremely” important responses, compared to 56% for Omaha events.

Spring Clean Up was also rated high on the community events list with 61% rating the activity as important. Based on the results from zip code clusters and age categories, we identified three events/resources, which received the highest rating of importance. These Priorities are outlined below.

Highest Rated Events and Resources by Zip Code Clusters South Omaha 1) Neighborhood Events 2) Coordination with area nonprofits 3) Spring Clean Up

Aksarben Extending South 1) Neighborhood events 2) Spring Clean Up 3) Neighborhood Alliance

Dodge Street Corridor 1) Neighborhood Events 2) City of Omaha Planning Department 3) Other Neighborhood Associations

North Omaha 1) City of Omaha Planning Department 2) Neighborhood Association Meetings 3) Neighborhood Events

16

Northwest Omaha 1) Spring Clean Up 2) Neighborhood Events 3) Mayor’s Hotline and Grants

Southwest Omaha 1) Spring Clean Up 2) ONE Omaha 3) Community Events

Highest Rated Events and Resources by Age 18-39 Years 1) Neighborhood Events 2) Omaha Community Events 3) City of Omaha Planning Department

40-59 years 1) Neighborhood Events 2) Spring Clean Up 3) Mayor’s Hotline and Grants

60 and over 1) Neighborhood Events 2) Spring Clean Up 3) Neighborhood Alliance

Section 9) How effective is your Neighborhood Association?

Section nine emphasized the effectiveness of neighborhood associations at community building, advocacy and working with the city administration, and organizing events and projects.

Responses within this section primarily fell between the “slightly” and “moderately” effective.

Overall, only 24% of respondents felt their neighborhood alliance is “very” of extremely effective in advocating with city administration, while 35% think their neighborhood alliance is effective at organizing events and projects.

17

To better visualize perceptions of effectiveness, we chose to merge “very” and “extremely” effective into one group and “slightly” and “moderately” effective in another. We then compared these combined response percentage with each other and the results for the “not effective” category. Please see the tables below for this comparison by zip code cluster and age categories.

Effectiveness of Neighborhood Association by Zip Code Cluster

Community Building

South Omaha

Aksarben Extending South

Dodge Street Corridor

North Omaha

Northwest Omaha

Southwest Omaha

Not Effective

17.5%

4.5%

17.9%

7.70%

17.4%

36.4%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

61.5%

72.7%

60.7%

50%

65.2%

45.4%

Very to Extremely Effective

21.1%

22.7%

21.4%

42.3%

17.4%

18.2%

Figure 5. Neighborhood effectiveness at “Community Building” by zip code cluster.

Advocacy and Working with the city Administration

South Omaha

Aksarben Extending South

Dodge Street Corridor

North Omaha

Northwest Omaha

Southwest Omaha

Not Effective

12.3%

4.3%

17.9%

7.7%

26.1%

31.8%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

29.8%

17.3%

35.8%

34.6%

43.5%

50%

Very to Extremely Effective

28.1%

13%

35.7%

34.6%

34.8%

18.2%

Figure 6. Neighborhood effectiveness at “Advocacy and Working with the city Administration” by zip code cluster.

18

Organizing Events and Projects

South Omaha

Aksarben Extending South

Dodge Street Corridor

North Omaha

Northwest Omaha

Southwest Omaha

Not Effective

14%

4.3%

14.3%

7.7%

17.4%

12.8%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

24.5%

8.6%

28.6%

34.6%

21.7%

45.5%

Very to Extremely Effective

35.1%

60.9%

46.4%

42.3%

43.4%

18.1%

Figure 7. Neighborhood effectiveness at “Organizing Events and Projects” by zip code cluster.

Effectiveness of Neighborhood Association by Age

Community Building

Under 40

40-59

60 and Over

Not Effective

26.5%

7.5%

7.7%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

48.2%

58.5%

84.6%

Very to Extremely Effective

25.3%

33.9%

7.7%

Under 40

40-59

60 and Over

Not Effective

25%

7.5%

5.1%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

53.6%

49%

74.4%

Very to Extremely Effective

21.5%

43.4%

20.5%

Figure 8. Neighborhood effectiveness at “Community Building” by age category..

Advocacy and Working with the city Administration

Figure 9. Neighborhood effectiveness at “Advocacy and Working with the City Administration” by age category.

19

Organizing Events and Projects

Under 40

40-59

60 and Over

Not Effective

21.4%

5.7%

2.6%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

45.3%

35.8%

66.6%

Very to Extremely Effective

33.3%

58.5%

30.7%

Figure 10. Neighborhood effectiveness at “Organizing Events and Projects” by age category.

Section 10) Suggestions for Neighborhood Association Improvement Of the eight options relating to improvement listed in the survey, two were consistently measured as top priorities across all metrics. These options were question two, “increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources” and question eight, “providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meeting, notifications, and public venues.” Responses to each option within this section were heavily weighted on the “very” to “extremely” important side of the scale. We chose to combine these response categories to see if clearer priorities emerged. Through this process we could identify at least three top priorities and one low priority for each zip code cluster and age category.

Improvement Priorities by Zip Code Cluster South Omaha 1) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues 2) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources 3) Forming an advisory committee to the city Lowest priority: Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders

20

Aksarben Extending South 1) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources 2 ) Tie - Forming an advisory committee to the city, Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices, and Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues Lowest priority: Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation

Dodge Street Corridor 1) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues 2) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources 3) Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices Lowest Priority: Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders

North Omaha 1) Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders 2) Tie - Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources and Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues Lowest Priority: Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation

Northwest Omaha 1) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources 2) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues 3) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues Lowest Priority: Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders

Southwest Omaha 1) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues 2) Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices 3) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources Lowest Priority: Having an external facilitator available to offer guidance and direction

21

Improvement Priorities by Age Under 40 1) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues 2) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources 3) Forming an advisory committee to the city Lowest Priority: Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation

40-49 1) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues 2) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources 3) Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices Lowest Priority: Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation

60 and over 1) Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources 2) Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices 3) Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues Lowest Priority: Tie - Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation and having an external facilitator available to offer guidance and direction These results suggest ONE Omaha may be best positioned to facilitating outreach regarding funding and acting as a hub for NAs to collaborate and share neighborhood events. As a hub ONE Omaha could further support NAs by sharing best practices and providing spaces for organizers to meet and collaborate.

Question 11) Neighborhood Association Name Similarly to the question asking for neighborhood name, many respondents chose to leave this section blank. Important to note however, is the top response for this category being “I don’t know� with 12 responses. This could be a strong indicator of a knowledge gap between residents

22

and their neighborhood resources. We have chosen to highlight the other top three responses for neighborhood association name below.

1.

Aksarben/Elmwood Park (7 respondents)

2.

Joslyn Castle (6 respondents)

3.

Benson Neighborhood (5 respondents)

Question 12) Households in Neighborhood Boundary Question 12 amassed a wide variety of responses, with the highest frequencies of observations being split between 50, 500, and 2500 households. 48.2% of respondents answered households within the neighborhood boundary being 200 units or less. Of these responses the lowest number of households reported was eight and the highest 5400.

With limited observations covering a large territory, it is unsurprising responses organized by zip code clusters were highly variable. No clear trends were apparent from the current data available. When examining responses by age category similar results can be observed. Further study is suggested to draw conclusions between the number of households within neighborhood boundaries and spatial and age characteristics.

Question 13) Number of Times a Year the Neighborhood Association Meets As expected the most popular responses suggest most neighborhood associations meet monthly, bi-monthly, or quarterly. Over one-third of respondents say their neighborhood associations meet 10 to 12 times a year, while 18.5% meet at least six times a year and 9.3% meet four times annually. These trends hold true across zip code clusters, showing active neighborhood associations generally meet six times a year or 12 times a year. Similar findings were observed when reviewing meeting times a year according to age categories. While under 40 and 40-59 reported meeting 12 times a year with the highest frequency, 60 and over rated six times a year 23

with the highest frequency. Unfortunately, there is insufficient data to make reasonable assumptions as to why this deviation has occurred.

Question 14) Typical Member Attendance at Neighborhood Association Meetings With only 44 responses, question 14 asking about the number of members attending neighborhood association meetings, was the third least responded to question of the entire survey.

Of these responses, the most common answer according to zip code cluster is an average of about 17-20 members per meeting. Overall, the Dodge Street Corridor (Midtown) had the lowest common response rate of 5 people per meeting, while North Omaha reported the highest at 20 members per meeting. Southwest provided an even split between multiple responses ranging from 5 members to 50 members per meeting. These findings suggest a wide variety of participation and may need to be broken down into smaller clusters for future research.

As one of the lowest response rate questions, too few answers were available according to the predetermined age categories for relevance. However, the 40-59 bracket provided the highest response rate with 20 accounts, while both under 40 and 60 and over had the same number of accounts each, 12. These rates remain consistent within the higher age categories, which seem to be participating more often in neighborhood association meetings and would have this knowledge readily available.

Question 15) How Long Have You Been Active in Your Neighborhood Association?

Perhaps one of the most telling findings of the survey did not come from the responses themselves, but the response rate. Question 15, relating to participation length in a neighborhood association received the least number of responses with only a 66% completion rate. Due to the low number of responses inferring statistical significance is difficult, yet there were some observable trends worth noting according to age categories.

24

Participation length was fairly evenly distributed with 35% of respondents reporting never participating in their neighborhood association and 19% reporting participating for 15 years or more. Some possible reasons for this distribution is the relative age of those who participate in neighborhood associations being higher allowing for extended years of participation. Conversely, those in younger age groups either have not been around long enough to participate in a neighborhood association or have yet to start.

Question 16) Neighborhood Association Outreach to Renters and in Different Languages When asked about renter and non-English language outreach, the majority of respondents, 40.5%, were unsure or did not know. 27.1% of respondents said “no” while only 6.7%, 14 respondents, said their neighborhood associations reached out to renters and in other languages.

North Omaha received the highest percentage of “yes” responses at 20%, followed by South Omaha with 12.8%. Aksarben Extending South and Northwest Omaha were about the same at a little over 4%. Southwest Omaha had zero “yes” responses.

Across all age categories, “no” and “not sure” answers dominated with younger responses skewing towards “not sure” and 60 and over responding “no” with the highest frequency.

Reasoning for a 73.5% “not sure” response rate from the under 40 bracket could be attributed to lower neighborhood association participation from this group in general, yet for 60 and over with high levels of participation, a 54% “no” response rate indicated an area of opportunity for neighborhood associations and ONE Omaha. These observations resonate with the general trend of low renter participation in neighborhood associations and highlight the increasing importance of non-English speaking outreach as these populations continue to grow.

25

Question 17) Neighborhood Association Website As access to the internet and social media applications gain traction, we can reasonably assume more neighborhood associations will take advantage of these tools. Distribution of responses across zip code clusters was fairly even, with “yes” and “not sure” leading response rates with 29% and 28.1% respectively. According to the zip code cluster analysis, Southwest and North Omaha had the fewest “yes” responses and may require further investigation to understand the cause. These neighborhood associations may also potentially benefit from technology tools related programming from ONE Omaha.

By age category, under 40 reported “not sure” most frequently, which strongly correlates with little or no history of involvement with neighborhood associations. Categories from 40-59 and 60 and over, both strongly report knowing whether a website for their neighborhood association is available. These observations suggest active neighborhood associations are likely to have at least some form of web presence already.

Question 18) Neighborhood Association Presence on Social Media Similarly to question 17, most respondents say their neighborhood association either has a social media presence or they are unsure. These trends hold true across zip code clusters, with the least “yes” responses coming from Southwest Omaha and the most from Northwest Omaha and Aksarben Extending South. When examining responses according to age category, under 40 respondents reported “not sure” of a social media presence at 50.7%, while 60 and over reported “yes” at 54.3%; a sizable disconnect between typical social media users and those reporting knowledge of neighborhood associations’ social media accounts. Again, this may be representative of participation by age group as a whole versus social media presence in general.

26

Question 19) Number of Followers on Social Media Unsurprisingly, question 19 had some of the lowest response rates at only 11%. Unless a respondent is highly active within their neighborhood associations or an account manager for their social media presence, this knowledge may not be readily available. The accuracy of responses for this question could be interpreted similarly with a mixture of approximations or exact responses from account administrators. Statistical significance could not be determined from these responses to identify trends in either zip code clusters or age categories. A more targeted investigation may be required to gain better insight into this in the future.

IV.

Recommendations by Author

Alexis Bromley From looking at the recorded responses, a stronger connection needs to be established between the City of Omaha and local neighborhood associations. Over 70% of respondents believe it’s very or extremely important to improve their neighborhood association communication with the city and play a stronger role in the development process. With only 24% of respondents believing their neighborhood association is effective in advocating with city administration, tools and resources need to be provided.

Every zip code felt strongly that being inclusive to residents is important. ONE Omaha can look at facilitating inclusivity training to various neighborhood organizations or conducting a central training for the leaders to take back to their respective neighborhoods.

Graham Herbst #15 – How long have you been involved…

•

For clarity, this question would be better with multiple choices and would help to make 27

data sorting easier also. Choose meaningful categories for respondents to choose from. 44% of respondents did not answer this question, but they may have with choices to pick from. We might assume that no answer means they are uninvolved but it is difficult to be sure of this. We found that distribution was pretty even when involvement was divided into 4 categories; never active, up to one year, 2-9 years, and 10+ years (29.9%, 21.4%, 22.2%, and 26.5% respectively).

•

Involvement is lowest in areas that are more racially diverse, so it may be good for ONE

Omaha to focus on multicultural outreach. Higher diversity may bring challenges to NA cohesiveness that ONE Omaha can address. #16 – Does you NA do outreach to renters and in different languages?

•

This question could be worded better. These seem like two different questions. Are you

asking about outreach to renters that speak different languages specifically? Some NA’s might do one but not the other.

•

South O. had the lowest “Not Sure” response rate and the highest “No” response

rate. This indicates that many South O. respondents are ESL and/or renters who need these resources and are well aware that their NA lacks them. Language translation can be challenging and costs money. ONE Omaha might be a good organization to provide this kind of information because they are able to collect the resources needed to develop translated literature and leverage those resources to the greatest outreach potential, compared to a single NA. These survey results provide guidance on what materials would be most useful to respondents. Develop any of those materials that don’t exist yet, and work towards translating and distributing them, starting with non-English languages that are most prevalent. #17 Does your NA have a website?

•

Is the purpose of this question to see whether NA’s have websites or whether respondents

28

are aware of an NA website? It would be easy to go through the list of all NA’s and find their website, if it exists. If you want to know if people know of and use an NA site, ask that instead. #18 – Does your NA have a social media presence?

•

This also seems like an easy investigation that doesn’t require a survey. Search for social

media for NA’s rather than relying on respondents to provide that information when they may not know for sure.

•

This may have been done already, but it would be good to establish a ONE Omaha

liaison from each NA that could be part of a more specific group that could be surveyed on these matters and relay important information to and from ONE Omaha and the NA membership.

Alexandra Moran While the survey provides an excellent baseline for understanding neighborhood association needs across the metro area, further information gathering could prove useful. As a team, we found partnering with the Latino Center of the Midlands to be an excellent resource for gathering large amounts of survey data. Perhaps ONE Omaha could partner and data swap with other community organizations throughout Omaha to gain more insight about the neighborhoods and residents they serve.

Additionally, the results found throughout the survey indicate opportunity for ONE Omaha to further promote its mission and programs. Many respondents were unaware of the organization, but indicated interest in the types of programs ONE Omaha offers. A final area for potential is for ONE Omaha to become a collecting point for the city’s neighborhood associations. The survey indicated a strong need for an entity to fill this role and help coordinate events and meetings.

29

Julia Parker

While One Omaha did a fantastic job at distributing the survey along with students in our class, there are several areas that lacks statistical significance due to low responses. I would love to see more surveys distributed in North Omaha as well as the area we named Aksarben Extending South. I think this would allow for increased diversity of thought. It would also be useful for One Omaha to target the aged demographic of 60+ as the majority of respondents skewed to the under age 59 set.

Additionally, I feel that some of the questions on the survey should be either re-worded for added clarity or removed, such as numbers 17 – 19, which would be better investigated directly by OneOmaha. While this may not be possible if One Omaha continues to distribute the survey, this would be good to keep in mind for the future.

Finally, while I know that One Omaha voiced opposition to including demographic information, I feel strongly that this would greatly enhance future surveys and this option should be further investigated.

Team Presentation Evaluation The presentation should be more than a speech or lecture, it should be an interactive and engaging experience with fellow students that includes (time permitting) audio-visual materials, structured class discussion, role-playing, videos, scenarios, guest speakers, etc. At the end of this syllabus is a form that was used to evaluate your presentation by the instructor and fellow student 24-25 points: Surpassed criteria in several areas.

22-23 points: Exceeded criteria in a few areas 20-21 points: Met criteria 18-19 points: Generally met criteria, but needed additional work in a few areas Under 17 points: Did not meet criteria in a number of areas Team Still Standing: We all enjoyed your presentation. It was organized and the individual team member presentations seemed to be well orchestrated and flowed in a logical manner. The visuals of the slides were very creative and presented in an informative manner. Your presentation brought to life the statistics of the surveys. Your team brought up some surprising information. The class discussion was well managed and collaborative. It was apparent that the team worked well together. It was suggested that a class activity, in addition to a questionanswer session, would have been nice.

30

23 out of 25 points Please see the peer evaluations of your presentation for more detail. They are in my office. Have a team member pick them up and distribute to team.

Team Field Research Study I used some but not all of the following criteria in evaluating your Field Research Study for One Omaha: does the study focus on the work of this community-based organization? Did you focus on your team’s assignment for the field work? Did the report include a limited number of scholarly journal articles and policy research reported in books or on-line? Did you incorporate such tools of field research (virtual or actual) and analysis as personal interviews, field observations, examination of public documents, and case studies? Did you locate information or collect data by conducting neighborhood inventories, household surveys or interviews, focus group sessions, or data compilation (for example using Census data)? Did you focus on neighborhood planning and development of strategies, organization development, identification of resources and assistance, or research into organizational structures? How thorough is the analysis of the field data? How well does the writing style, including grammar and syntax, meet graduate level standards? Is it an interesting study? And, maybe most importantly, does the analysis connect to community development concepts covered in class?

165-175 points: Surpassed criteria in several areas.

150-164 points: Exceeded criteria in a few areas 140-149 points: Met criteria 135-139 points: Generally met criteria, but needed additional work in a few areas Under 134 points: Did not meet criteria in a number of areas Team Still Standing: I enjoyed reading your part of the class research project that will be presented to OneOmaha.

31

Still Standing Omaha Neighborhood Association Leadership Survey Analysis UBNS 8200: Community Organizing and Development Fall 2018

Dr. William Blair

The Still Standing Team Alexandra Moran Alexis Bromley Graham Herbst Julia Parker

Team Still Standing’s primary objective was to analyze the entirety of the ONE Omaha survey and identify various trends according to each question and section.

We performed additional analyses of these questions according to predetermined age categories and zip code clusters.

Our Primary Objectives

By making these differentiations our group could observe the engagement levels of various geographic areas and age brackets.

Through this analysis, Still Standing intends to identify areas of opportunity and make recommendations for future ONE Omaha research and programming.

Our Survey Area

100.0

Population Demographics

90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 Percent White

50.0

Percent Minority 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Arksarben

Midtown

North O

Northwest

South O

Southwest

All analyses were examined by zip code and age.

Zip codes were grouped into clusters to provide a sufficient number of observations (N) for analysis, yet still represent the needs of an area as close to the neighborhood level as possible. Any zip code falling outside Douglas County lines were filtered into the zip code cluster with like demographic attributes and shared boundary lines.

Still Standing divided responses into 6 survey areas: 1. South Omaha 2. Aksarben Extending South 3. Dodge Street Corridor 4. North Omaha 5. Northwest Omaha 6. Southwest Omaha

Methodology

While the survey asked respondents to select an age bracket, Still Standing combined these responses into collective groupings to increase the number of observations (N) and draw stronger conclusions. The five age categories from the survey were reduced to three (3) categories:

Breaking it all down

1. Under 40; responses from the 18-29 and 30-39 2. 40-59; responses from the 40-49 and 50-59 3. 60 and over; these responses remained the same as the survey.

Q2

1. South Omaha: Zip Code – 68105, 68108, 68107

What is Your Zip Code?

(Bellevue: 68005, 68123, 68147) 2. Aksarben: Zip Code – 68106, 68117 (Papillion: 68133, 68157) 3. Dodge Street Corridor: Zip Code – 68102, 68131, 68132 (Council Bluffs: 51501) 4.

North Omaha: Zip Codes – 68104, 68110, 68111, 68112, 68152 (Carter Lake: 51510)

5. Northwest Omaha: Zip Codes – 68007, 68022.

68116, 68122, 68134, 68142, 68164 (Blair: 68008) 6. Southwest Omaha: Zip Codes – 68010, 68114, 68118, 68124, 68127, 68130, 68135, 68137, 68144, 68154 (Papillion: 68046, La Vista: 68128)

Percent Age Category by Survey Area

Age 18-39 Series1 Age 40-59 Series2 Age 60 and Over Series3

50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Arksarben

Q3

Midtown

North O

Northwest

Please select an age category: Age 18 – 39 Age 40 – 59 Age 60 and Over

South O

Southwest

Characteristics of a Neighborhood Association:

Q5

How Important Is:

5.1 Being a unified voice and leveraging strength in numbers 5.2 Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city 5.3 Building networks and getting to know neighbors 5.4 Providing a basis for community engagement 5.5 Being a representative of neighbors and residents 5.6 Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents 5.7 Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

Quick Stats •

•

•

Survey Respondents 18-39 years old top 3 responses: •

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

•

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

•

Providing a basis for community engagement

Survey Respondents 40-59 years old top 3 responses: •

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

•

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

•

Being a unified voice and leveraging strength in numbers

Survey Respondents 60+ years old top 3 responses: •

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

•

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

•

Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents

By Age 5.7 “Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood” was the #1 response for all age groups and the #1 for every zip code area except North Omaha, which didn’t have it in the top #3 at all.

Quick Stats •

South Omaha •

•

Aksarben Extending South •

•

•

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

North Omaha •

•

Q5

Dodge Street Corridor •

•

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

Providing a basis for community engagement

Northwest Omaha •

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

•

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

•

Building networks and getting to know neighbors

Southwest Omaha •

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

•

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

By Zip Code Survey Area

How Important are the‌

Q6 Issues facing Neighborhood Associations

6.1 Improving communication with the city 6.2 Being open to change and new ideas 6.3 Being inclusive to residents 6.4 Increasing power in city development processes

Q6

6.5 Changing the negative image that meetings are just about complaints 6.6 Adjusting the formality of structure to reduce staleness and inactivity 6.7 Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters 6.8 Enhancing continuity in knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association 6.9 Providing more leadership training or mentoring

Quick Stats •

•

•

Survey Respondents 18-39 years old top 3 responses: •

Being accommodating to all residents

•

Being inclusive of all residents

•

Being open to change and new ideas

Survey Respondents 40-59 years old top 3 responses :

By Age Survey respondents ages 18-39 &

•

Being accommodating to all residents

•

Being inclusive of all residents

•

Improving communication with the City

accommodating to all residents,

Survey Respondents 60+ years old top 3 responses :

such as working families and renters

•

Improving communication with the City

•

Being inclusive of all residents

•

Increasing power in City development project

40-59 both ranked 6.3 Being inclusive to residents and 6.7 Being

as the highest priority

Quick Stats

Q6 30%

76%

Q7 Long-term Needs Neighborhood Associations: How Important Is:

7.1 Establishing a committee or taskforce with the city 7.2 Creating a mentorship program to get people involved 7.3 Having assistance and education with funding and grant writing 7.4 Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for

Q7

neighborhood associations 7.5 Promoting leadership succession training or coaching 7.6 Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses 7.7 Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations 7.8 Having a larger role in city development processes

Quick Stats •

•

•

Survey Respondents 18-39 years old top 3 responses: •

Fostering more coordination and communication among NA’s

•

Having a larger role in city development process

•

Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

By Age

Survey Respondents 40-59 years old top 3 responses: •

Having a larger role in city development process

•

Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

•

Fostering more coordination and communication among NA’s

Survey Respondents 60+ years old top 3 responses: •

Having a larger role in city development process

•

Fostering more coordination and communication among NA’s

•

Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

Each of the three age groups had the same three long-term needs as top priorities, however, they were in varying orders.

Q8 Opportunities & Resources For Neighborhood Associations

Opportunities & Resources 8.1 Neighborhood Alliance

8.9 Neighborhood events

8.2 Neighborhood association meetings

8.10 Coordination with area nonprofits

8.3 City of Omaha Planning Department

8.11 Other neighborhood associations

8.4 Citizens’ Academy

8.12 Neighborhood Leadership Academy

8.5 Mayor’s Hotline and Grants

8.13 One thing email

8.6 Citizen Patrol

8.14 Spring Clean Up

8.7 ONE Omaha

8.15 Visioning sessions

8.8 Nextdoor

8.16 National Night Out

8.9 Omaha community events

Q8

Q8 38%

70%

Believe Nextdoor is important

Believe neighborhood events are very or extremely important

56% Believe Omaha community events are important

61% Believe spring clean-up is important

Quick Stats •

•

•

Survey Respondents 18-39 years old top 3 responses: •

Neighborhood events

•

Omaha city events

•

City of Omaha Planning Dept.

Survey Respondents 40-59 years old top 3 responses : •

Neighborhood events

•

Spring Cleanup

•

Mayor’s Hotline and Grants

Survey Respondents 60+ years old top 3 responses : •

Neighborhood events

•

Spring Cleanup

•

Neighborhood Alliance

By Age All three age groups listed “Neighborhood Events” as their top priority

Quick Stats •

• •

Omaha Planning Department

Northwest Omaha •

•

Neighborhood events

North Omaha •

•

Neighborhood events

Dodge Street Corridor •

•

Neighborhood events

Aksarben Extending South •

•

Q8

South Omaha

Spring Cleanup

Southwest Omaha •

Spring Cleanup

By Zip Code Survey Area

Quick Stats

Q8

Q9 9.1 Community-building 9.2 Advocacy and working with city administration 9.3 Organizing events and projects

How Effective is YOUR Neighborhood Association

Quick Stats

Q9

Q10 Suggestions for Improvements of Neighborhood Associations

10.1 Enhancing communication and networks between neighborhood associations 10.2 Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

Q10

10.3 Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders 10.4 Forming an advisory committee to the city 10.5 Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices 10.6 Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation 10.7 Having an external facilitator available to offer guidance and direction 10.8 Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

Quick Stats 64% ranked 10.1 Enhancing communication and networks between neighborhood associations as very or extremely important

64%

60%

60% ranked 10.2 Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources as very or extremely important

10.1

10.2

Quick Stats •

Survey Respondents 18-39 years old top 3 responses: •

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

•

Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

•

Forming an advisory committee to the city

All three age groups listed

Survey Respondents 40-59 years old top 3 responses :

“Neighborhood Events”

•

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

•

By Age

•

•

Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

•

Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices

Survey Respondents 60+ years old top 3 responses : •

Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

•

Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices

•

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

as their top priority

Quick Stats •

South Omaha •

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

•

Aksarben Extending South •

•

Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

Dodge Street Corridor •

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

•

North Omaha •

Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders

•

Northwest Omaha •

•

Q10

Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

Southwest Omaha •

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

By Zip Code Survey Area

What is the name of YOUR Neighborhood Association?

Q11

Top 5 1. Aksarben/Elmwood Park 2. Joslyn Castle 3. Benson Neighborhood Association 4. Black Stone 5. I don’t know

Q12

How many households are in Your Neighborhood Association?

Question 12 amassed a wide variety of responses, with the highest frequencies of observations being split between 50, 500, and 2500 households. 48.2% of respondents answered households within the neighborhood boundary being 200 units or less.

Q13

How many times a year does your Neighborhood Association meet?

As expected the most popular responses suggest most NAs meet monthly, bi monthly, or quarterly. Over one-third of respondents say their NAs meet 10 to 12 times a year, while 18.5% meet at least six times a year and 9.3% meet four times annually. These trends hold true across zip code clusters, showing active NAs generally meet six times a year or 12 times a year.

Neighborhood Association Facts & Figures

Q14

How many members typically come To Neighborhood Association mtgs?

With only 44 responses, question 14 asking about the number of members attending NA meetings, was the third least responded to question of the entire survey. Of these responses, the most common answer according to zip code cluster is an average of about 17-20 members per meeting.

Q15

Neighborhood Association Facts & Figures

How many times a year does your Neighborhood Association meet?

Question 15, relating to participation length in a NA received the least number of responses with only a 66% completion rate. Due to the low number of responses inferring statistical significance is difficult, yet there were some observable trends worth noting according to age categories. Participation length was fairly evenly distributed with 35% of respondents reporting never participating in their NA and 19% reporting participating for 15 years or more.

16

Does your Neighborhood Association do outreach to renters and in difference languages?

When asked about renter and non-English language outreach, the majority of respondents, 40.5%, were unsure or did not know. 27.1% of respondents said “no” while only 6.7%, 14 respondents, said their neighborhood associations reached out to renters and in other languages. North Omaha received the highest percentage of “yes” responses at 20%, followed by South Omaha with 12.8%. Aksarben and Northwest were about the same at a little over 4%. Southwest had zero “yes” responses. Across all age categories, “no” and “not sure” answers dominated with younger responses skewing towards “not sure” and 60 and over responding “no” with the highest frequency.

Does your Neighborhood Association have a website?

Distribution of responses across zip code clusters was fairly even, with “yes” and “not sure” leading response rates with 29% and 28.1% respectively. According to the zip code cluster analysis, Southwest and North Omaha had the fewest “yes” responses and may require further investigation to understand the cause. These NAs may also potentially benefit from technology tool related programming from ONE Omaha.

Q17

_YES _NO _NOT SURE

Q18

Does your Neighborhood Association have a social media presence?

Like question 17, most respondents say their NA either has a social media presence or they are unsure. These trends hold true across zip code clusters, with the least “yes” responses coming from Southwest, Northwest and Aksarben. Under 40 respondents reported “not sure” of a social media presence at 50.7%, while 60 and over reported “yes” at 54.3%; a sizable disconnect between typical social media users and those reporting knowledge of NA social media accounts.

Q19

If yes, approximately how many followers?

Unsurprisingly, question 19 had some of the lowest response rates at only 11%. Unless a respondent is highly active within their NA or an account manager for their social media presence, this knowledge may not be readily available.

Follow Me Back?

Recommendations From looking at the recorded responses, a stronger connection needs to be established between the City of Omaha and local neighborhood associations. Over 70% of respondents believe it’s very or extremely important to improve their neighborhood association communication with the city and play a stronger role in the development process. With only 24% of respondents believing their neighborhood association is effective in advocating with city administration, tools and resources need to be provided.

Every zip code felt strongly that being inclusive to residents is important. One Omaha can look at facilitating inclusivity trainings to various neighborhood organizations or conducting a central training for the leaders to take back to their respective neighborhoods.

Recommendations Involvement is lowest in areas that are more racially diverse, so it may be good for One Omaha to focus on multicultural outreach. Higher diversity may bring challenges to NA cohesiveness that One Omaha can address.

This may have been done already, but it would be good to establish a OneOmaha liaison from each NA that could be part of a more specific group that could be surveyed on these matters and relay important information to and from OneOmaha and the NA membership.

We feel that some of the questions on the survey should be either re-worded for added clarity or removed, such as numbers 17 – 19, which would be better investigated directly by OneOmaha.

Thank You!

Questions Anyone?

CAPSTONE RESEARCH PROJECT PREPARED BY UNO URBAN STUDIES STUDENT, JULIA PARKER | SPRING 2019

Examining the need for an additional Citizen Advisory Committee in Omaha

Julia Parker Urban Studies Capstone 2019

The mission of One Omaha is to support the development of strong, connected communities through training, engagement, and place-based initiatives. The organization strives to provide resources that connect residents to programs, services, and opportunities. In 2018, One Omaha launched a community survey to gauge local residents on a variety of issues including support for local One Omaha programming, neighborhood association strengths and weaknesses and creating additional opportunities for engagement with the City of Omaha and the City Planning Department.

After analyzing the survey results, I found it to be clear that Omahans most want additional opportunities for engagement. When asked about the long term needs for Omaha neighborhood associations 64% of respondents felt building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses was “very” or “extremely” important. Additionally, 73% believe it’s “very” or “extremely” important to improve neighborhood association communication with the city, while 70% want neighborhood associations to have a larger role in the city development process.

Once One Omaha reviewed this analysis their leadership team set about to solve this need for the community. In collaboration with Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA) a quasi-governmental agency, One Omaha would like to gauge the feasibility of establishing a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). This research will focus on reaffirming the survey results and supporting the community need for an additional committee, the feasibility of establishing the CAC as well as determining what agency, if any would support the newly formed committee. Moreover, I will examine best practices nationally on committees that are public-private partnerships focusing on neighborhoods, community development and transportation initiatives.

This type of committee is on trend with local initiatives supplementing and assisting in the work of governmental agencies once siloed behind city hall gates. Urbanists Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak assert that “the most forward-thinking initiatives in the nation, including those that deal with pressing social, economic and environmental concerns, are emerging from local communities far more than from national policies or platforms” in a trend they call new localism (Katz & Nowak, 2018).” Katz maintains that “if New Localism is to succeed, it demands a fundamental change in how we organize power and in how city and county governments operate” which means more citizen participation is needed to adequately tackle the ills of rapidly urbanizing cities.

To further this new localism in Omaha, I will engage with a variety of community stakeholders, concentrating on the MAPA Equity Committee, about the possibility of the CAC in hopes of creating impactful community based participation. The Equity Committee was born out community engagement with the MAPA sponsored Heartland 2050 initiative which calls for a growth model that is driven by equity defined as full inclusion for all residents in the region’s economic, social and political life. This committee is a model of citizen participation and replete with local elected officials, nonprofit organizations, local foundations, public institutions, faith-based groups, Omaha residents, and anyone else working to address the root causes of persistent poverty and inequities.

My research framework centers on citizen participation in its many forms and empowerment through participation. Since the ultimate goal is to develop a participatory CAC, I will evaluate the formation of a CAC through this lens.

2

Literature Review Participation and Why It Matters Participation for the purposes of this research is defined as citizen involvement in making service delivery and management decisions (Wang, 2001). Wang asserts that “participation occurs when citizens and public officials have participation needs and when participation mechanisms exist” (Wang, 2001). These mechanisms can vary from city to city and include neighborhood associations, community advisory committees as well as community forums and focus groups. However, this type of citizen participation has varying levels of engagement. Wang argues that there are two levels of participation: pseudo and genuine. This research maintains that there are inevitably more than two layers of participation and will draw on the classic idea of a ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969).

Arnstein equates citizen participation to eating spinach in that “no one is against it in principle because it is good for you” but warns that participation in practice is much more nuanced (Arnstein, 1969).

“Participation of the governed in their government is, in theory, the cornerstone of democracy a revered idea that is vigorously applauded by virtually everyone. The applause is reduced to polite handclaps, however, when this principle is advocated by the have-not…”

While Arnstein did not have Katz’s theory of new localism in mind when outlining her eight rungs on the ladder of participation, her levels of participation hold up. Arnstein’s lowest rungs on the ladder are manipulation and therapy while the highest rungs are partnership, delegated power and citizen control.

Partnership is the ideal rung on the ladder as it is here that “power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and powerholders…they agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, planning committees and mechanisms for resolving impasses” (Arnstein, 1969). While more citizen control is featured in both the delegated power and citizen control rungs, Arnstein notes that this type of power is often taken and not given.

Wang argues that this sort of public participation produces three impacts 1) satisfies the need of the public and enhances the communication between the public and government 2) allows the public to voice its needs and concerns providing legitimacy for government to develop publicly supported goals, missions, and service priorities 3) improves public trust of governmental decision making (Wang, 2001).

These impacts can only be fully realized with proper form of direct participation. Participation theorists argue that citizen participation leads to “better decision making but also facilitates social stability by developing a sense of community, increasing collective decision making and promoting a sense of acceptance and respect of the government process” (Callahan, 2007, p. 283).

New Localism Urbanists Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak outline a roadmap for community and economic development called new localism (Katz & Nowak, 2018). The authors assert that due to long-term governmental inaction and community angst for the outdated hierarchical models of city government citizens are demanding change. This change, in the form of new localism, moves towards a more malleable, networked, collaborative model of economic development and governance. The pair contends that local “power is shifting as a result of profound demographic, economic, and social forces…power is drifting downward from the nation-state to cities and metropolitan communities, horizontally from government to networks of public, private, and civic actors” (Katz & Nowak, 2018, p. 1). This trend of new localism serves to further explain Wang’s theorized impetus for participation arguing that it satisfies the need for enhanced communication between local actors and government officials. This 3

need for enhanced collaboration has led to a clear trend in a multi-stakeholder approach to problem solving in urban cores across the country. New localism has been proven to work in cities such as Indianapolis and Pittsburgh as well as St. Louis and Kansas City. This shift towards more local and decentralized power bodes well for a proposed citizen advisory committee. Localities can often create and deliver solutions to local challenges in a more integrated, all-inclusive and culturally appropriate manner.

This is not to say that new localism is designed to replace or replicate local government. New localism refers to “multi-sectoral networks that work together to solve problems, as well as the institutional vehicles they invent to get things done” (Katz & Nowak, 2018, p. 10). Once community renewal efforts started to focus on neighborhood associations and community development, working with multiple stakeholders became a requirement. New localism is a conscious effort to embrace a new method of problem solving and policymaking. This is trend that is “multidisciplinary in focus and collaborative in practice, enabling cities to leverage the expertise and experience of disparate sectors and diverse sets of people” (Katz & Nowak, 2018, p. 35).

Why Citizen Advisory Committees While most citizens and public administrators agree that there should be a mechanism through which people can voice their concerns and pose questions in the planning and implementation processes, few agree on exactly how this should be done. Wang outlined why participation, but it is left to us to determine which method is best to reach the top rung of Arstein’s ladder.

Admittedly, there are a variety of models for direct citizen participation, however, citizen advisory committees (CAC) are the most widely used model in community and government interactions. CACs, in some form, exist in more than two-thirds of American cities (Houghton, 1988). Research has found that CACs can be quite effective under the right conditions. Houghton concludes that CACs “can have an impact on policy if their members engage in activities designed to enhance their independence from the administrators” (Houghton, 1988, p. 293). This research further suggested that some CACs where more effective than others based on the degree of independence they maintained (Houghton, 1988).

Callahan goes a step further and advises specific about the inner workings of CACs. She maintains that this citizen participation works best when the citizen acts as a citizen and the administrator behaves as a public servant as this reflects the new so called public service with administrators empowering citizens (Callahan, 2007).

Examining Citizen Participation in Cities: Minneapolis + Portland Minneapolis, Minnesota The Metropolitan Council’s Central Corridor Light Rail Project Citizen Advisory Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota is an example of a high functioning CAC (Transportation Research Board, 2010).

The Light Rail project was slated to connect downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. The Metropolitan Council is a regional quasi-governmental agency focusing on planning and transportation.

The formation of the CAC involved “robust” community input and formed with 30 – 42 members (Transportation Research Board, 2010, p. 15). The planned light rail line would serve several ethnically diverse neighborhoods. In an effort to reach out to these groups the project hired multilingual community outreach coordinators. This added step all but ensured hard to reach immigrant and minority residents would be included in the process. The structure of the CAC allowed for members to 4

provide input and feedback to project staff and the Metropolitan Council through the CAC chair, a Metropolitan Council member (Transportation Research Board, 2010, p. 16).

The CAC called for an open application process for membership. While this strategy can be tricky and lead to exclusivity, the project kept this in mind and noted that 40% of CAC members represent minority stakeholder groups (Transportation Research Board, 2010). A limitation of this CAC is that it does not make decisions or group recommendations to Metropolitan Council. The CAC serves in an advisory capacity in an effort to include community groups and facilitate awareness. An innovative step this CAC took was to devote the first six months of committee meetings to training around the project, staff and the areas impacted by the project.

Portland, Oregon TriMet, Portland’s regional transit agency created CACs to provide continuous involvement from initial planning through design. In the past TriMet, and its partner transportation agency Metro, have used the typical approach of engaging staff, select community members and elected officials when making decisions on a large and complex project (Transportation Research Board, 2010, p. 18). With a newly established CAC for each individual project, community members can take part in the process for planning and construction. To work with the groups, TriMet assigns a community affairs manager and outreach team. Managing multiple CACs on multiple projects is just not feasible for most organizations.

However, TriMet managed to maintain a healthy relationship amongst the groups. CACs range in size from 21 to 25 members and members are invited and approved by a policy level committee.

The CACs can make recommendations on the project but their role is advisory only. Another drawback of this particular type of committee is that elected officials and paid staff are mixed in at a higher ratio than community members which may skew the balance of power in the CACs (Transportation Research Board, 2010, p. 18). An innovative practice that TriMet employs is maintaining the CAC throughout the lifespan of the project, which can take years. There is also a single staff person assigned to each CAC that will also remain with the group though project completion which allows for maximum continuity and relationship building.

5

Methodology 2018 One Omaha Community Survey Surveys were administered through a variety of methods including the ONE Omaha email list, a one-onone basis, and a Spanish language copy. Of the 210 completed surveys available for analysis, 204 contained viable observations with varying response rates per question. Each question required either a “fill-in-the-blank,” select a number value, or a check “yes,” “no,” or “not sure” response. Questions requiring respondents to write in an answer were collectively the least responded to questions of the survey. For the purposes of this analysis Spanish language surveys were not analyzed separately and because of their common zip code location may have added extra statistical weight to the South Omaha zip code cluster, which is further described below.

For questions requiring respondents to rate importance on a scale of (1) Not important, (2) Slightly Important, (3) Moderately Important, (4) Very Important, and (5) Extremely Important, my research team chose to combine frequency percentage responses for option four and five. By doing this we were better able to discern, which selections were a clear priority and from this grouping selected the top three responses.

Zip codes were grouped into clusters to provide a sufficient number of observations (N) for analysis, yet still represent the needs of an area as close to the neighborhood level as possible. Any zip code falling outside Douglas County lines were filtered into the zip code cluster with like demographic attributes and shared boundary lines. While questions of race and socioeconomic standing were not included in the survey, historical Omaha demographic trends of this nature were considered when organizing zip code clusters.

My research team divided responses into six (6) clusters: 1) South Omaha, 2) Aksarben Extending South, 3) Dodge Street Corridor (Midtown), 4) North Omaha, 5) Northwest Omaha, and 6) Southwest Omaha.

Figure 1 One Omaha survey cluster areas divided by zip code

6

While the survey asked respondents to select an age bracket, my research team combined these responses into collective groupings to increase the number of observations (N) and draw stronger conclusions. The five (5) age categories from the survey were reduced to three (3) categories: 1) Under 40; a combination of responses from the 18-29 and 30-39 options, 2) 40-59; a combination of responses from the 40-49 and 50-59 options, and 3) 60 and over; these responses remained the same as the survey. Figure 2 illustrates the age percentage rates across zip code clusters.

Figure 2 One Omaha survey age percentage rates across zip code clusters

Survey respondents were presented with nine issues commonly faced by neighborhood associations. Of these issues, they were asked to rate them on a scale of importance from “not important” to “extremely important.” An overwhelming 73% believe it’s “very” or “extremely” important to improve neighborhood association communication with the city, while 70% want neighborhood associations to have a larger role in the city development process. Both zip code cluster and age categories maintained the trend.

Common themes expressed as important throughout the survey involved communication and partnerships. A majority of 64% of respondents felt building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses was “very” or “extremely” important. Additionally, 64% of respondents also felt fostering communication among neighborhood associations was important.

When reviewing responses according to zip code, we found all clusters except for North Omaha felt strongly about having a larger role in the city development process. North Omaha deviated from the other zip code clusters again by prioritizing mentorship and leadership training. South Omaha identified the establishment of a committee or task force with the city as a priority for Omaha Neighborhood Associations. This sentiment sparked the initial research question addressed in this paper as to the need for another citizen advisory board.

Section nine of the survey emphasized the effectiveness of neighborhood associations at community building, advocacy and working with the city administration, and organizing events and projects.

Responses within this section primarily fell between the “slightly” and “moderately” effective. This perceived lack of effectiveness of existing neighborhood associations also led me to question to need for another CAC.

7

Effectiveness of Neighborhood Association by Zip Code Cluster

Figure 3 One Omaha survey effectiveness of Neighborhood Associations across zip code clusters

Community Building

Advocacy and Working with the city Administration

Aksarben South Extending Omaha South

Dodge Street Corridor

North Northwest Southwest Omaha Omaha Omaha

Not Effective

17.5%

4.5%

17.9%

7.70%

17.4%

36.4%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

61.5%

72.7%

60.7%

50%

65.2%

45.4%

Very to Extremely Effective

21.1%

22.7%

21.4%

42.3%

17.4%

18.2%

Not Effective

12.3%

4.3%

17.9%

7.7%

26.1%

31.8%

Slightly to Moderately Effective

29.8%

17.3%

35.8%

34.6%

43.5%

50%

Very to Extremely Effective

28.1%

13%

35.7%

34.6%

34.8%

18.2%

Section nine survey responses to effectiveness of neighborhood associations at community building, advocacy and working with the city administration make a compelling case for the need for increased collaboration with community building as well as working with the city administration.

2018 One Omaha Strategic Plan During the summer of 2018 One Omaha embarked on a strategic planning process. Timothy Kloppennborg and Laurence Laning note that strategic planning is imperative for high functioning nonprofit organizations (Laning, 2014). The authors assert that the structure of nonprofit organizations is complex and requires a clear mission, vision, core values and goals to make an impact in the community. After a strategic planning process a nonprofit should be able to assert whether or not the organization’s mission is relevant to the world in which it operates, assess whether or not the current mission statement is a good reflection of what the organization actually does and think more critically about organizational initiatives that seem contradictory to the mission (Laning, 2014).

8

The relatively new organization listed accomplishments and challenges for the organization. Key challenges included perceived lack of power within neighborhood associations/alliances as well as nonprofit and neighborhoods confusion of roles, community engagement ... lack of clarity in the sphere and macro level view of community engagement. Such challenges could easily be overcome with the creation of a high functioning CAC. Additionally, the planning process fleshed out the group’s further desire to determine the right mix of neighborhood stakeholders to inform purpose and approach (beyond associations/alliances). Seemingly, this process would be fraught with difficulties for existing neighborhood associations and neighborhood alliances.

Additional challenges documented in the strategic planning process included time and scheduling constraints of staff, the need for more diversity of skill set amongst staff and prioritizing staff time application. Like any other new organization, One Omaha appears to be suffering from proverbial growing pains. While the organization has a clear mandate, it appears to be too broad and allencompassing for a program with a limited staff.

Practical Vision Strong Organizational Structure • •

•

• •

•

• •

501c3 Stand-alone 501c3 org w/ diverse Board Board Development – build membership Staff w/ diverse skill set Pursue own facility/building beyond CEC – A place for neighborhoods to use Clearly defined program-based staff roles Strong board with operational expertise Increase staff (at least x2)

Resource Rich Organization • • • • •

•

•

More money for staff Fully-funded full-time staff Not depending on 2-3 funders Sustainable nongrant income for ONE Omaha Annual Conference or event/gala to generate revenue Membership model/ revenue stream Link, partner, connection w/ foundations and ONE Omaha

Increased Communication Presence •

•

•

Media campaign (what are we known for) Increase direct communication to residents Website – ONE Omaha & Alliances – central place for all

Viable Neighborhood Organizations •

•

•

Alliance/ Association succession 50% of associations are effective & stable More alliances smaller boundaries (Elkhorn, Millard, near North, downtown)

Formalized Operations & a Defined Scope of Work •

•

•

•

•

• •

Formalized approach to lifting grassroots voices to city level Full collaboration w/ City, ONE Omaha & Neighborhoods Best practices for city govt./ residents especially communication/ technology Empowered residents/ neighborhoods who carry forth projects effectively w/ ease Act as grassroots connection & partnership Streamlined process, include other nonprofits Involvement in relevant issues & projects to benefit neighborhoods and community at large

Figure 4 Practical Vision section of the 2018 One Omaha Strategic Plan

9

An interview with one Omaha Program Director Julie Smith revealed some additional challenges for the organization. According to Smith: “lack of capacity is a challenge for One Omaha. With our resources we need humans.

Everything we do is about face to face communication and relationship building. We need more staff and it’s difficult to get foundations to commit to more than one year of funding. I think new partnerships will assist in securing funding for more staff.”

Further analysis of the One Omaha strategic plan reveals that the organization is in the “Infrastructure Phase” of the nonprofit lifecycle as outlined by John Brothers and Anne Sherman (Brothers & Sherman, 2011). According to the authors: “this phase is full of change and often stressful. It is both exciting and awkward. For the organization leaving the start-up phase, infrastructure can be thought of as a turning point, a crossroads where the organization’s leaders consider long-term sustainability and what kinds of systems and leadership need to be in place.”

Indeed, One Omaha clearly recognizes this phase and is preparing to face it head first. First year program accomplishments listed include defining program purpose to match participants needs, establish program inputs/outputs, defined and clarified fundable programs and developed a marketing strategy with revised touch points.

Current Reality ▪ Nature of increasing neighborhood involvement and leadership training super long-term ▪ People who need training, but don’t want it ▪ Neighborhood association leaders are main points of contact ▪ Poorly managed/ineffective neighborhood associations reflect negatively on One Omaha ▪ Tracking long-term participation is difficult/often impractical ▪ Strong, varied curriculum, building soft skills

Clarifying Program Objectives 1st-year Accomplishments Indicators of Success ▪ Defined program purpose ▪ Clear goals and to match participants needs objectives ▪ Established program ▪ Program participant inputs/outputs number and evaluation ▪ Re-evaluated and changed results who works on each program ▪ Established and branded and how programs with ▪ Established pre-requisite for measurable and program manageable goals ▪ Defined and clarified ▪ Easy to explain what and fundable programs why ▪ Marketing strategy with revised “touch points”

Figure 5 Clarifying Program Objectives section of the 2018 One Omaha Strategic Plan

10

Smith also shared that this is to be the first of two strategic planning processes. In keeping with the infrastructure lifecycle milestones, One Omaha is looking to establish a 501c3 designation to become an independent nonprofit organization. One Omaha currently uses Civic Nebraska as a fiscal agent and the One Omaha Director position reports to the Civic Nebraska Deputy Executive Director. Civic Nebraska is governed by an Executive Board of Directors while One Omaha functions with as community advisory board. As the organization grows in independence, a dedicated board of directors will be required.

Smith hopes that in the next one to two years the organization can grow to four or five people instead if trying to transform the community with two full time staff.

Community Stakeholder Interviews The Heartland 2050 initiative championed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA) calls for inclusion for all residents in the region’s economic, social and political life. To this end, Heartland 2050 established the Equity and Engagement Committee (EEC) in 2013. This committee is focused on discussing equity issues that will affect the residents of the Omaha-Council Bluffs area. According to the committee priorities the committee has created a unique working definition of equity which notes that “all individuals and communities have full and equal access to opportunities that enable them to attain their full potential.” The committee focuses on a broad array of topics including health and food systems, economic development and employment, education, community and neighborhood development, housing, transportation as well as civic engagement and immigrant integration. In light of this broad-based coalition working on key topics that any new CAC would discuss, I determined that this committee would be the perfect base of research for in-depth community stakeholder interviews.

All interviews were conducted with both active and inactive committee members. Interviewees were targeted after reviewing the committee list of 157 based on community contributions. I sought a diverse array of interviewees from across an array of nonprofits, foundations and government entities.

See the Interview Methods Table for additional details.

Interview Highlight: Jeff Spiehs Community Relations Manager Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA) MAPA EEC Committee Liaison Spiehs is a MAPA employee and serves as the primary staff support for the EEC committee. While he is not a formal member of the committee his input is vital to the EEC committee and thus to this process.

When asked, “Do you think that there is a citizen advisory committee that focuses on community development, transportation, urban planning and neighborhood association needs?” Spiehs answered with a resounding no. He concluded that such a committee is needed.

Yes, there is a growing disconnect with how decisions are made [surrounding community development in Omaha]. From the neighborhood side to the developer side - everyone feels that there is a lack of communication. There is a reason for most decisions and they are defensible, but due to lack of communication there is an inherent mistrust as to why something happened or someone was left out.

When asked if he would you actively participate on such a committee, Spiehs said yes.

11

I would want to feel in the loop about what’s happening in Omaha. Part of my job is to know what’s happening in the community. I could also bring potential ideas to the group for a different set of viewpoints. It would also help with my overall reach because it would expose me to partners that I would not normally have. Nobody is interested in another meeting for meetings sake but I would want to be a part of a larger coalition. Depending on the decision making process, if there is a way of taking a vote or something, this could create a stronger voice to make larger decisions.

When asked what entity do you think should lead such a committee, Spiehs was unsure.

I think it depends. If it was regional, most of the conversation would be about Omaha. While I think it should be a regional committee and stakeholder group I don’t think that would make sense. The Chamber or some other group that is a neutral third party could support it. Maybe the University [of Nebraska at Omaha could support this committee]. It would take a core group made up of volunteers to make this work. A committee is formed to develop a agenda and ensure that committees follow through. I think it should be an entity involved in grassroots organizing.

Spiehs was also asked if he thinks One Omaha could lead this committee and his answer was mixed on the idea.

I think One Omaha could be the nonprofit supporting this committee. If the university was the backbone One Omaha could be the convener, but those are two separate roles. I see the Equity and Engagement committee being one of the core members of this CAC, but they are not in a position to lead it. There is a hesitancy of the Equity committee to turn in to a network. There is a fear that the transition would lead to a lack of authority with MAPA. Spiehs additionally commented on the initial response this committee might receive.

I think that there will be initial skepticism when this committee first starts. Neighborhoods may see this as a consolidation of power and there would need to be a considerable amount of lead time to bring in neighborhood association leaders and stakeholders. Each group will need to come in and help design the facilitative process to ensure that this is something that brings a larger voice and a seat at the table. There will be push back because there is currently some tokenism for grassroots agencies. Developers often give the excuse of “oh, I went to the Empowerment Network or SONA so I have spoken to the entire community.”

Interview Highlight: Nancy Williams Executive Director No More Empty Potts Active EEC Committee Member Williams is founder and Executive Director at local food based incubator and entrepreneurship nonprofit No more Empty Pots. She has been an active member of the EEC since its inception. When asked, “Do you think that there is a citizen advisory committee that focuses on community development, transportation, urban planning and neighborhood association needs?” Williams thought not.

12

I know there are different committees that tend to give feedback on a specific thing, but none of them cover urban planning. I think it would be helpful in the context of how property values increase and citizens who find themselves in the pathway of progress. People who have no options if they find new economic and community development is not on the path of how they want to live.

When asked are there opportunities in Omaha for neighborhood associations, public officials and community development stakeholders to converge and discuss common issues Williams answered yes and no.

I think that there should be more intentional engagement of people who are not normally involved in the community development process. Factors including economic situation, time of meetings and childcare opportunities affect this group. If you have to choose between making money and championing a community cause, you will most likely choose money. Finding a way to make it easy for people to know what’s going on would be a good start. It doesn’t have to be someone talking for them but just ensuring there is space made for their unique voice to be presented.

When asked what agency if any do you think should lead the charge on such a project, Williams left that up to the conveners.

Anything that’s going to be effective has to be collaborative. If there is already an organization leading collaboratively in a way that is impactful then that would be the call to action to find an existing organization to leverage the talent already in the community so more people can be engaged.

Additionally, Williams warned that the creation of any new CAC should be a collaborative effort.

The only thing is to make sure that the people who are most effected by a thing are supported in a way that they can show up and have a voice and be given guidance, support and mentorship. We must develop everyday citizens to become advocates for themselves and their community. It seems like those who are privileged, have transportation or are retired have this opportunity to participate. We must ensure that neighborhood champions have the resources to do this type of work as well.

Interview Highlight: Teresa Hunter Executive Director Family Housing Advisory Services Inactive EEC Committee Member Hunter was previously involved in the EEC however her increasingly packed schedule made it impossible for her to continue attending meetings. When asked, “Do you think that there is a citizen advisory committee that focuses on community development, transportation, urban planning and neighborhood association needs?” Hunter decided that no group currently meeting in Omaha met that description adding, “No, there are different community groups that focus on different aspects of these, but I wouldn’t say there is a CAC.” 13

When asked if such a committee was needed in Omaha, Hunter was on the fence.

If a new community advisory board were to be formed I think it would probably have to happen not for the sake of just forming another board but for a targeted purpose. It would have to genuinely be developed. Something that comes about out of need and not just a want.

When asked what agency if any do you think should lead the charge on such a project, Hunter was unsure.

I would almost think it can’t be a traditional entity. Maybe it comes from a Business Improvement District (BID) or some other quasi-governmental organization. It should just be people from the committee that are working in support of the committee. Plain old regular people that are looking to do good. People are tired of listening to outsiders coming in to tell them what’s good for their committee. This would be a good grassroots initiative.

Findings The formation of a CAC Citizen Advisory Committees can have a strategic impact on public opinion and policy when members engage in activities designed to make clear, independent recommendations to city administrators (Houghton, 1988). Houghton’s research indicates that CACs are advised to build up their own resources of information separate from that which is obtained by their administrators and decide for themselves which items are of most importance. It is the independence of CACs that make them most effective.

After a thorough review of the One Omaha survey and strategic plan as well as my interviews with community stakeholders it seems clear that a new Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is warranted.

However the case for forming this particular CAC is not linear. While several interviewees indicated that Omaha needed an additional CAC to address urban planning, community development, transportation and neighborhood association’s issues with a broad base of stakeholders, many of them cautioned against just forming for committee without measured community input.

A valid concern is that a new committee would be viewed with uncertainty. MAPA Community Manager Jeff Spiehs noted that “I think that there will be initial skepticism when this committee first starts.

Neighborhoods may see this as a consolidation of power and there would need to be a considerable amount of lead time to bring in neighborhood association leaders and stakeholders.” This skeptisism would undoubtedly lead to the newly formed CAC falling to the third rung of Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, informing.

Arnstein notes that informing citizens of their rights, responsibilities and options is an important first step in participation building, however this can lead to a one-way follow of information from officials to citizens with no options for debate or true inclusion (Arnstein, 1969).

This low level of participation must be avoided at all costs. However, the onus is not only on the forming entity, but on participants. In order for this CAC to be successful you will need active citizens. Active citizens are defined as “people engaged in deliberation to influence public sector decision making, animated, at least in part, by concern for the public interest” (Schachter & Yang, 2012, p. 9). Research 14

suggests that active citizens behave as if they are the owners rather than the customers of government.

These citizens tend to care about the enterprise as a whole rather than only about the transactions that involve them personally and feel a deep sense of civic responsibility (Schachter & Yang, 2012).

Types of Citizen Participation Models The next step in this process would be determining a participation model to emulate in the creation of the new CAC. Hindy Lauer Schachter contends that there are three prevalent types citizen participation or deliberation: statute-mandated, administrator-conceived and voluntary organization projects (Schachter & Yang, 2012).

Oftentimes federal statutes allow for deliberation by requiring that citizen boards make at least some decisions for specific social programs (Schachter & Yang, 2012). As an example in the 1960’s War on Poverty, neighborhood participation in Community Action Agencies (CAA), model cities programs, and community health center boards was required. All early models of CACs, these groups thrived and withered at different lifecycles. However, many were ultimately successful as they were federally mandated and could not be dismantled without major intervention.

Administrator-conceived deliberations could arise if administrators take the lead in fostering dynamic opportunities for citizen dialogue. These types of groups can encounter pressure to restrict admission which should be avoided at all costs. Case studies indicate that these groups can be successful in process and effect when open to all active citizens (Schachter & Yang, 2012).

Volunteer organizations with an interest in citizen deliberation have also initiated participation forums (Schachter & Yang, 2012). Oftentimes volunteer organizations or nonprofits will take the lead to study a particular issue or policy. In these cases, project leaders have much more discretion than statuemandated or administrator-conceived CACs. It is this model that I would recommend to One Omaha.

An example of this type of CAC in action would be another example from Minnesota. The group’s Agriculture/Water Quality Project in Minnesota was the first to use randomly selected groups of citizens to study a political issue and make recommendations to public administrators and elected officials (Schachter & Yang, 2012).

Project leaders chose panel members on a stratified random basis from people who either had attended informational meetings on conflicts between agricultural practices and water quality or had taken part in a statewide telephone survey. Panel members heard testimony from expert witnesses on ways to deal with agriculture’s impact on water. The panel then deliberated and developed recommendations. An analysis of the project concluded that the panel was successful as a start, although it did not actually influence legislation.

The final steps for making of this CAC must evolve from community input. Active citizens, neighborhood leaders and association members, city administrators, elected officials and community stakeholders must also voice their opinions and concerns in establishing a truly organic CAC that will have the wherewithal to stand the test of time and Omaha politics.

15

Works Cited Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 216-224.

Brothers, J., & Sherman, A. (2011). Building Nonprofit Capacity: Guide to Managing Change Through Organizational Lifecycles. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen Participation: Models and Methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 1179-1196.

Houghton, D. G. (1988). Citizen Advisory Boards: Autonomy and Effectiveness. American Review of Public Administration, 283-296.

Katz, B., & Nowak, J. (2018). The New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism .

Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute Press.

Laning, L. J. (2014). Achieving Success in Nonprofit Organizations. EBook: Business Expert Press.

Schachter, H. L., & Yang, K. (2012). The State of Citizen Participation in America (Research on International Civic Engagement). Information Age Publishing.

Transportation Research Board. (2010). Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 85: Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning and Operations. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

Wang, X. (2001). Assessing Public Participation in U.S. Cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 322-336.

16

FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS AND ANALYSIS PREPARED BY UNO URBAN STUDIES ALUM, CHRISTIAN JANOUSEK | FALL 2018

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha: Focus Groups Analysis and Report August 2018 Contents Focus Groups of Neighborhood Leaders and Stakeholders ........................ 1 Focus Groups Itinerary ............................................................................. 3 Top Responses to Questions Discussed at Focus Groups ........................... 4 Detailed Responses from Focus Groups .................................................... 6 Open-Ended Questions from Focus Groups ............................................. 16 Detailed Responses to Open-Ended Questions from Focus Groups .......... 17

Report prepared by Christian L. Janousek, Ph.D. School of Public Administration Center for Public Affairs Research University of Nebraska at Omaha

The University of Nebraska at Omaha shall not discriminate based upon age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender-identity, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran's status, marital status, religion, or political affiliation.

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha Focus Groups of Neighborhood Leaders and Stakeholders Introduction The first activities of the neighborhood needs assessment for ONE Omaha was to conduct focus groups of neighborhood leaders and stakeholders. The purposes of the focus groups were to identify issues that should be addressed, long-term needs, and the availability of resources among neighborhood associations in Omaha.

Neighborhood leaders and stakeholders were invited to the first focus group held July 30, 2018, 6:00-8:00 p.m., at the Weitz Community Engagement Center on the UNO Dodge campus at 6001 Dodge Street. There were 10 active participants of this focus group.

Neighborhood leaders and stakeholders were invited to the second focus group held August 1, 2018, 6:00-8:00 p.m., at the Weitz Community Engagement Center on the UNO Dodge campus at 6001 Dodge Street. There were 5 active participants of this focus group.

Dr. Christian Janousek, of the UNO School of Public Administration, organized and conducted the two focus groups. Dr. Robert Blair assisted. Participants were identified and invited to attend

by ONE Omaha. ONE Omaha provided locations and other logistics. Dr. Janousek worked with ONE Omaha to develop the questions that guided the discussions.

The focus groups began with introductions and a description of the process. The group was divided into small groups for discussion and recording of responses, and five questions were discussed with 8-10 minutes allowed for each question. Following, the group reconvened and addressed each question for collective discussion and interaction. Finally, participants were asked to answer two individual questions on note cards prior to leaving.

Focus Group Discussion Questions 1. What is the purpose of a neighborhood association?

2. What are the major issues facing neighborhood associations in Omaha?

3. What are the major long-term needs of Omaha’s neighborhood associations?

4. What opportunities/resources are available to address the needs of neighborhood associations?

5. How can neighborhood associations in Omaha be improved?

Open-Ended Questions Two additional open-ended questions were presented to the participants on a note card.

Participants were asked to write their responses and return the cards to the facilitator at the end of the meeting.

1. What one thing do you feel is most important to neighborhood associations in Omaha?

2. Is there anything that was not covered in the focus group that you would like to mention pertaining to the needs of neighborhoods in Omaha?

1

Participants Focus Group 1: July 30 Tom Everson, Westwood Heights Kimara Snipe, Highland South-Indian Hills Shane Strong, Bemis Park Martin Janousek, Gifford Park Chris Foster, Gifford Park Ryan Morissey, Benson Marla Fletcher, Fair Meadows Apostle Vanessa Ward, Central Park Ella Willis, Neighborhood Action and Fact Rondae Hill, Prospect Hill

Focus Group 2: August 1 Marianna Foral, Dahlman Alex Liekhus, Dahlman Katrina Adams, Minne Lusa Paul Dyke, Columbus Park Dasha Sudar, Deer Park

Outcomes After both focus groups were held, the materials were analyzed to develop a list of top responses to the questions discussed at the focus groups. This list was used to develop the questions for the neighborhood needs assessment survey.

Contents Focus Groups of Neighborhood Leaders and Stakeholders ................................................... 1 Focus Groups Itinerary ......................................................................................................... 3 Top Responses to Questions Discussed at Focus Groups ...................................................... 4 Detailed Responses from Focus Groups ............................................................................... 6 Open-Ended Questions from Focus Groups ........................................................................ 16 Detailed Responses to Open-Ended Questions from Focus Groups ..................................... 17

2

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha Focus Groups Itinerary •

Welcome and Introduction (5 minutes).

•

Brief PowerPoint Presentation of purpose and objective of focus group (5 minutes).

•

Five questions presented to participants (one at a time in 8-10-minute intervals).

Participants divided into small groups (depending on overall group size) to discuss and record responses (40-50 minutes).

•

Reconvene as a large group and discuss each question for collective discussion and interaction (30-45 minutes).

•

Participants given note cards and asked to respond individually to two final questions (10 minutes).

Focus Group Questions 1. What is the purpose of a neighborhood association?

2. What are the major issues facing neighborhood associations in Omaha?

3. What are the major long-term needs of Omaha’s neighborhood associations?

4. What opportunities/resources are available to address the needs of neighborhood associations?

5. How can neighborhood associations in Omaha be improved?

Individual Questions 1. What one thing do you feel is most important to neighborhood associations in Omaha?

2. Is there anything that was not covered in the focus group that you would like to mention pertaining to the needs of neighborhoods in Omaha?

3

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha Top Responses to Questions Discussed at Focus Groups What is the purpose of a neighborhood association?

• • • •

To be a voice for the neighborhood, advocacy to the city and to work in the interest of neighborhoods.

To harness collective power, leveraging strength in numbers to connect with city officials.

To be a uniting force and a common connecting point for learning, education, communication, and sharing.

To provide a basis for community engagement, taking ownership, building networks, and getting to know neighbors.

What are the major issues facing neighborhood associations in Omaha?

• • • •

There is a lack of communication between neighborhood associations and the city, limiting neighborhood input and power in city processes.

Neighborhood associations and meetings have gained a negative connotation, as not being welcoming and only as a place for complaints.

The formal structure of neighborhood associations has created a staleness in perspective that appears averse to change and new ideas.

Leadership gaps exist, primarily in the continuity of knowledge and finding ways to promote engagement with working people, families, and renters.

What are the major long-term needs of Omaha’s neighborhood associations?

• • • •

Establishing a committee or taskforce for neighborhood associations to have a role in city processes, such as crime prevention, housing, development, transportation, and preservation.

Simplifying the access to funding, with special emphasis on assistance and education with grant writing.

Promoting leadership succession training and coaching through a mentorship program, including a bank of resources, manual, or knowledge network of best practices.

Forming stronger partnerships and collaborations among neighborhood associations and those entities that share long-term objectives, particularly nonprofits, businesses, and the city.

4

What opportunities/resources are available to address the needs of neighborhood associations?

• • • •

Neighborhood Alliances offer an important resource, and it would be beneficial to continue enhancing coordination with other neighborhood associations.

The City of Omaha planning department, the mayor’s hotline and grants, and Citizen Patrol are commonly used resources from the city.

The Citizens’ Academy offers education and information that contributes to better understanding and leadership, but there could be more direction for funding and for better communication with the city.

Community events are an opportunity to inspire and engage the public outside of regular neighborhood association meetings, such as ONE Omaha meetups, block talks and parties, and other public venues with nonprofits and community groups.

How can neighborhood associations in Omaha be improved?

• • • •

Creating an advisory committee or taskforce that can act as a liaison to the city for neighborhood associations to have more power and voice in the processes that affect them.

Expanding the channels of communication between neighborhood associations for sharing knowledge, best practices, calendar of events, funding, and resources.

Increasing and simplifying the access to funding, with emphasis on assistance with grant writing and explanation of funding sources and procedures.

Encouraging mentorship programs in leadership succession, including having external facilitators, such as ONE Omaha, to offer guidance, best practices, and tools for selfassessment and accountability.

5

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha Detailed Responses from Focus Groups What is the purpose of a neighborhood association?

Focus Group 1: July 30 Take pride and improving neighborhood, taking ownership.

Networking, getting to know your neighbors.

Connecting with city government to understand and leverage department and association assets.

Also, forming an association to force the city to interact with neighborhood associations and neighborhoods. Addressing neighborhood concerns from potholes to chronic absentee landlord issues.

Leveraging numbers to force government action. Constant neighborhood pressure needed to get the smallest accomplishment achieved.

Opportunity to get to know neighbors, a vehicle.

Address neighborhood concerns.

Create collective power.

To provide a voice for the people.

Communication and education tool, learning opportunities.

Provides a platform to springboard from.

Provides an opportunity to think about others, other than yourself.

Opportunity to learn that government can be your friend.

Gives elected officials a starting point to connect with citizens. Opportunity to hold elected officials accountable.

Share information from planning department and city.

Advance community engagement.

To preserve and protect the neighborhood (especially older neighborhoods).

Collective plan to guide each area of town.

6

Advocate for policy that benefits the neighborhood. Provides leadership and trouble shoots for neighborhood. Provides a voice for neighborhood.

Provide fun, family-friendly community events.

Unifies neighborhood and advocates/communicates with city departments.

Focus Group 2: August 1 Give a voice to the wants and needs of residents. Get things done, action items.

A set time and place to interact.

Fellowship.

To work in the interest of the neighborhood.

Education.

As a resource to the people.

Connecting neighborhood associations to the city. Communication, network, intermediary.

A uniting force between people, places, businesses of similar objectives. Shared ownership, showing people that they are not alone. Building connections across boundaries.

Giving a voice to residents on direction, desires, concerns, common problems.

A connection to each other, neighborhoods, associations, alliances, and to the city.

Building healthy, strong, flourishing neighborhoods.

Connect and organize around shared spaces (homes, businesses, jobs). Creating a vision for spaces. Building social networks and capacity.

Accommodating the needs of people, a place to be heard and advocate for individual and community needs. A collective voice to affect change, plan action, unity, strength in numbers.

Having a shared vision across neighborhoods, where people live.

7

What are the major issues facing neighborhood associations in Omaha?

Focus Group 1: July 30 Communication between government and neighborhoods. City dictates what will occur in neighborhoods; neighborhood input is an afterthought. City only informs neighborhoods of plans after the plan is finalized.

It is very difficult for neighborhoods to set the agenda. Telling the city which streets need fixing, which homes need demolition, which projects need funding.

Very little continuity of knowledge. Young neighborhood associations don’t know which departments to contact for what issues (ONE Omaha helps fill this void).

Capacity: Neighborhoods could ALWAYS need more volunteers, building business connections.

Lack of power of neighborhood associations: scheduling public hearings during work hours; need to provide neighborhood associations veto powers for city action; business leaders have the ear of the city, not neighborhood associations.

Size can be too large with some; diversity of languages.

Lack of involvement from citizens. Lack of trust of government.

Board insurance with expensive premiums (policy for neighborhood associations).

Lack of support from the city.

Housing: worry of gentrification, flippers, code enforcement (tear downs), absentee landlords.

Traffic and trash.

Neighborhood continuity – building continued connections.

Lack of participation, people are busy working, family, etc.

Developers have a step up on neighborhood associations. Need more communication and ability to engage the public.

Lack of power as neighborhood; city will do what they want to do.

Raising money for major projects. City budget is lacking especially infrastructure and parks.

Slower moving entities. Must have patience. Burnout, finding a leadership pipeline.

Facing negatives, which can take over a group.

8

Focus Group 2: August 1 Limiting the use of neighborhood associations only as a vehicle to complain or vent.

Some leaders of neighborhood associations are “boxing out” new leaders. Current leaders not open to changes and new ideas, slow to change.

Internal “staleness” of some neighborhood associations. Focus on mechanics of meetings and not on actions. Issues are internal in nature.

Lack of neighborliness, which results in lack of involvement.

Promoting other forms of collective action, not just neighborhood associations.

“Old Guard” has an entrenched perspective, stale and inactive leadership.

Leadership development is needed, some succession in taking a leadership role. Some qualifications needed for leadership.

Differences and lack of neighborliness to renters as opposed to homeowners.

Neighborhood associations not being welcoming, not providing accessibility for all residents.

Need to promote inclusivity and acknowledge differences in socioeconomics, families, shortterm vs. long-term residents, finding common ground. Finding a way to allow more access for working families.

Finding a way to build positive relationships and give neighborhood associations a positive image. We must bring people together without meetings just being about complaints.

Not focusing on negativity (the neighborhood app is only complaints).

9

What are the major long-term needs of Omaha’s neighborhood associations?

Focus Group 1: July 30 Uprooting criminal elements. How neighborhood associations can contact OPD to combat consistent crime. The city is unwilling to police vacant properties. Need to place ‘no trespassing’ signs. OPD responds to calls but will not patrol. More city support to be proactive against crime.

Provide a mechanism by which neighborhood associations can place issues on city agendas and budget items.

Vacant lots need to be properly manicured (cut grass, trim trees). Vacant lots are a symptom of urban blight. City needs to address urban blight and convert vacancy to used plats.

Block grants need to go to neighbors, not the city. Transparency in how city uses money.

Keep long-term businesses in East Omaha (Kiewit, Mutual of Omaha, etc.).

More neighborhood input in development. Provide neighborhood associations with veto power over projects. More neighborhood input on liquor licenses.

Leadership succession: creating a pipeline in neighborhoods that lack participation, such as those with elderly populations.

Creating a neighborhood organization within the city (a department).

Community policing and youth alternatives, more control and choice to neighborhoods.

Sustainable funding and collaborations through relationship building among neighborhoods.

Simplify grant writing process, making the process more accessible.

Finding intergenerational opportunities for cooperation, especially in neighborhoods with generational gaps (long-term residents and starter-home families).

More partnerships with faith-based organizations, PTAs, banks/businesses.

Housing: affordable, absentee landlords, allowing neighborhood choice and enforcement.

More transportation options. East to west and north to south biking trails.

Preservation: architectural and cultural (all communities have stories).

More Julie Smiths. ONE Omaha provides great leadership.

Implemented neighborhood plans that developers/builders will have to abide by.

10

Having a better connection with parks, planning, mayor, city council, public works, MUD, OPPD. Just better communication with the city.

Using technology in an appropriate way to communicate (with city and other neighborhood associations).

Building long-term collaboration between neighborhoods citywide.

Focus Group 2: August 1 Need a bank of resources for neighborhood associations, including how to connect better with nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity. Need stronger partnerships between neighborhood associations and nonprofits.

Need to “get the word out” about the purposes of neighborhood associations. It is currently hard to reach people because of so many demands on time (i.e. working families).

Better branding and identification of neighborhood associations. We need to demonstrate the relevance of neighborhood associations.

How to get more people involved: consider expanding mentorship programs by people already involved.

Succession planning through recording and providing institutional knowledge, documenting how the neighborhood works, how things have happened, history of the neighborhood, existing relationships.

Training leaders to have well-run meetings, structure in the association approach, more knowledge dispersion of how the association works.

Can learn from other communities (best practices).

Lack of support from the city.

Sharing resources or creating some way to share resources and knowledge. Maybe a knowledge network between neighborhood associations.

Information audit, best practices, a “how to” manual for associations and leaders, interneighborhood learning.

Is there a future view? Too many associations are tied down with immediate needs and complaints. Need some type of future planning.

Better and easier access to funding, some explanation of the process (funding, grants, projects).

Leadership coaching. Some type of mentorship program.

11

What opportunities/resources are available to address the needs of neighborhood associations?

Focus Group 1: July 30 ONE Omaha has a vast institutional understanding and experience. Making this resource more known to all neighborhood associations.

Neighborhood alliances: finding common issues and experiences. Coordination with other neighborhood associations.

Empowerment Network, 360.

Omaha Community Citizen Patrol (Neighborhood Watch).

City Planning Department.

Restorative Exchange Omaha (REO).

Mayor’s Hotline.

City Planning Department: notification of code enforcement.

ONE Omaha: leadership resources, access to funding.

Other neighborhood associations: more cooperation and coordination.

Land Bank: access to absentee landlords and other resources.

Keep Kids Alive Drive 25 for traffic safety concerns and education.

Precinct Advisory Councils – provide access to crime/safety information and crime prevention.

City Council representatives: opportunity to address issues, have a seat at the table. Also, state representatives.

Citizens Patrol for crime prevention.

Keep Omaha Beautiful.

Neighbor works for affordable housing.

Local Businesses for sponsorship and power in relationships.

Each other: more information sharing between neighborhoods and associations.

12

Next Door.

ONE Omaha provides support to apply and accept grants. Neighborhood grants collaboration between ONE Omaha, OCF, PKF. ONE Omaha helps with leadership training. ONE Omaha Meetups to meet and collaborate, but we need more advanced notice for meetups.

Mayor’s Hotline. Mayor’s grants.

Citizens’ Academy, collaboration with police department.

NUSA conferences, visioning sessions, Farmers markets.

Focus Group 2: August 1 Citizens’ Academy is a great resource.

ONE Omaha Block Talks.

Neighborhood Alliance, SONA, small grants. Neighborhood Meetups.

Neighborhood Leadership Academy (planning, grants, volunteers, projects).

Citizens’ Academy.

Neighborhood Alliance, SONA, easier access to funding.

Leveraging and coordinating ONE Omaha with other groups.

Mayor’s grants.

Omaha Community Foundation.

Keep Omaha Beautiful – an opportunity to make people aware of issues and get people involved.

An opportunity: identify priorities of neighborhood associations and have a group (maybe ONE Omaha or others) that can push the association in the right direction or provide advocacy in communications with the city.

More community events. Events inspire and inform people to get organized and involved. Events are good in between neighborhood association meetings.

Create a community calendar (app or website) that has all happenings and information in one place.

13

How can neighborhood associations in Omaha be improved?

Focus Group 1: July 30 Promoting more resident involvement to increase capacity, leadership classes.

More business support: the ability for neighborhood associations to specify what and how development can proceed.

More power to neighborhood associations. Create a committee of neighborhood associations (not just one part of Omaha, but all of Omaha) to oversee and pass city budget. Giving neighborhood associations a seat at the table, a committee/department with the city. This committee may be advisory but should have the power to veto the budget.

Giving neighborhood associations the power to enforce developer promises during application processes. Power to veto development if the promises are broken. Make current neighborhood programs work.

Housing: lead abatement needs to focus on good work, home improvement loan personnel are rude/abrasive, rentals should be made part of neighborhood associations, slum lords need to be addressed. Empower tenants by working with neighborhood associations, let neighborhood associations advocate for tenants.

Twinning with other neighborhood associations.

Learning to work with Millennials. Revamping and redefining values. Reexamine boundaries.

A.B.C.D. Looking at best practices. Communication and support between neighborhoods.

Finding opportunities for people to passively engage (i.e. walking).

Creating welcome committees for neighborhoods and associations.

Communication within neighborhood groups (Next Door). Connecting different neighborhood groups for dialogue.

Sharing of resources or create a clearinghouse of resources (insurance, police bike patrols, food).

Finding more ways for participation with citizens.

More resources to help people facing higher costs of living.

More flexibility with grants to provide resources to neighborhood residents. For example, free pool passes, scholarships, etc.

14

Better communication and connection from city departments. More public engagement from the City of Omaha. More transparency from City of Omaha.

Moving the City Council meetings to evenings to encourage more public engagement.

More explanation and public engagement on TIF, eminent domain, and other city/county functions and fundraising.

Housing: more affordable housing.

Tax relief.

Focus Group 2: August 1 More available access to grants, especially on how to write grants.

Association assessments – need to have some outside perspective.

Better communication to residents, recruitment, branding and identification of neighborhood associations. Even just basic civic information – need to get the word out.

Mentoring or mentorship programs that help with leadership transition.

Some form of accountability for leadership in neighborhood associations and training for leadership (how do we hold leadership accountable?).

Changing the structure and model of the formal approach, making more of a neighborhood club or taskforce. This means improving the social aspect of neighborhood associations, less formality, more community events, different ways to organize, reducing the negativity.

An organization, such as ONE Omaha, to provide mentorship programs by reaching out to all associations in Omaha, saying “we will come to you,” connecting with leaders and disseminating best practices.

Having some type of self-checklist for associations on how to operate, best practices, having some standard for self-regulation and improvement.

Identifying a pool of future leaders and volunteers and getting them involved now in training for leadership roles.

Outside facilitators to help with organizational development, offer guidance, best practices, accountability, overall self-assessments.

15

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha Open-Ended Questions from Focus Groups Now that we have finished our focus group, we have two additional questions.

1.

What one thing do you feel is most important to neighborhood associations in Omaha? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2.

Is there anything that was not covered in the focus group that you would like to mention pertaining to the needs of neighborhoods in Omaha? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

16

Neighborhood Needs Assessment for ONE Omaha Detailed Responses to Open-Ended Questions from Focus Groups What one thing do you feel is most important to neighborhood associations in Omaha?

Focus Group 1: July 30 Neighborhood associations in Omaha need to be redefined as to making sure that they understand their collective power. Nobody wants to be involved with anything that’s not meaningful.

Can’t think of “one” theme, are many things with different degrees of importance. Actions not words that neighborhood associations “are important” to the city and elected officials.

Focus group/committee with the city that has a vote on block grant dollars and decisions on how to spend it.

Communication of information (through newsletters, email, social media, etc.).

Focus group/committee with the city. Have a vote before the grant money is spent.

ONE Omaha is the most important resource to neighborhood associations in Omaha. If we are able to provide ONE Omaha with more resources and power, it would be even better for neighborhoods in Omaha.

Leveraging power. Neighborhood associations need the ability to see city resources pulled back into our neighborhoods. Without a voice at the table (budget, planning, development, traffic), people are apathetic. More power leads to better neighborhoods, better communities, safer communities, better neighborhood voices.

Leadership identification, formation, and succession.

Focus Group 2: August 1 Leadership transitions and emerging leadership development (mentoring).

Creating positive safe spaces for community members.

Extensive leadership training and assessments about how to run meetings, succession planning, and embracing young leaders and new ideas.

Avenues for potential leaders to create action and get things done.

17

Is there anything that was not covered in the focus group that you would like to mention pertaining to the needs of neighborhoods in Omaha?

Focus Group 1: July 30 Active Living.

Creating a neighborhood advocacy department.

I believe funding is a major need going forward. City budgets keep getting smaller, so neighborhoods need long-term funding to complete projects and events!

Need more money for low-income areas and money spent in those areas.

Neighborhood associations need to take responsibility for creative reasons for people to come together and participate (activities, issues, events, etc.). Look for ways to use technology to be more efficient. However, physically being present and engaged with people is very important.

Create a “how to” manual or resource book on how to start and maintain a neighborhood association.

Neighborhood Board insurance. We looked into insurance and the cost was prohibitive. We have a lot of activities, and some Board members have declined involvement if we don’t have insurance.

I feel that neighborhoods in Omaha need to feel value and connected. The neighborhood associations need to be challenged to rediscover their worth so to help the neighborhoods.

Focus Group 2: August 1 The future leaders of Omaha are promising, and they will create change in neighborhood associations.

Nothing prominent comes to mind.

I’m not sure about the representation of the first focus group. It would be great to include perspectives of and from communities of color, refugees, native Omaha residents, and transplants from other areas.

I would just love a Civics 101 resource for the people at neighborhood association meetings who just “belly ache” asking questions about what their taxes go to, what city positions are appointed vs. elected, and even what departments are in charge of what. People really get into the weeds of Civics 101. Also, would LOVE a calendar or notification system for when city and county meetings are happening.

18

APPENDIX PREPARED BY UNO MASTER OF SCIENCE IN URBAN STUDIES STUDENTS AND THE UNO CENTER FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS RESEARCH | JUNE 2019

Proposal to provide a neighborhood needs assessment for ONE Omaha As part of a comprehensive effort to determine existing conditions and to identify strategies and next steps for moving forward, ONE Omaha seeks to conduct a neighborhood needs assessment for the Omaha area. The needs assessment will involve neighborhood leaders, stakeholders, and community members from throughout the city of Omaha, with a focus on engagement and discussion, to assist in making the best use of community resources and to offer the best response to current needs.

ONE Omaha will partner with researchers from the University of Nebraska Omaha (UNO) College of Public Affairs and Community Service to conduct the needs assessment. This will involve faculty and staff from the Center for Public Affairs Research (CPAR), the School of Public Administration, and the Urban Studies Program. In addition, Dr. Robert Blair, UNO professor and Director of the Urban Studies Program, will oversee graduate students from his Community Organizing and Development (UBNS8200) course to participate in the assessment.

The needs assessment will focus on identifying local assets, resources, and activities as well as gaps, barriers, and emerging needs. A complete and wide-ranging picture of existing conditions combined with a good understanding of underlying causes and concerns will be indispensible in helping ONE Omaha and neighborhood leaders and stakeholders to move forward with future goals. The process of identifying and appraising the information will help to: • • • • • • •

Understand the issues that neighborhoods want to address by generating input from stakeholders Recognize neighborhood resources that could be developed and other potential foundations for funding Design strategies that will assist neighborhoods in addressing current and changing conditions Create opportunities for community inclusion and cohesion by ensuring services meet the needs of neighborhoods Guide ONE Omaha and neighborhood leaders and stakeholders in decision making by enhancing their capacity to respond to change Determine how to formulate a comprehensive response to the issues facing Omaha’s neighborhoods Build credibility, unity, and cooperation among Omaha’s neighborhoods

The proposed needs assessment will look across neighborhood leaders, stakeholders, and community members to learn more about the circumstances facing residents of the city of Omaha. The proposed needs assessment will consist of three steps: 1. Focus groups with neighborhood leaders and stakeholders 2. A survey of neighborhood leaders, stakeholders, and associations 3. Community forums with community members

1

Focus Groups Dr. Christian Janousek, of the UNO School of Public Administration, will organize, conduct, and summarize two focus groups with neighborhood leaders and stakeholders. Ten to twelve persons will be invited to participate in each focus group. These individuals will be identified and invited to attend by ONE Omaha. The purpose of the focus groups will be to identify issues that should be addressed within neighborhoods. Each focus group will take 1 ½ to 2 hours. CPAR and Dr. Janousek will work with ONE Omaha to provide locations and other logistics. Dr. Janousek will work with ONE Omaha to develop the questions that will help guide the discussions, and he will provide an analysis and report of the results.

Survey A survey will help ONE Omaha and neighborhood leaders and stakeholders in understanding the variety of perspectives from neighborhoods throughout the city of Omaha. This survey can reveal what neighborhoods want, how they view resources and programs, what issues are involved in gaining access to resources or programs, and how to address these issues. Dr. Janousek will work with ONE Omaha to develop the questionnaire and will use information gathered from the previous focus groups to formulate the questions. He will create and administer the survey using an online platform. ONE Omaha will identify and invite participants to take the survey. Following, Dr. Blair will oversee graduate students from his Community Organizing and Development course to analyze and report the survey results.

Community Forums There will be four community forums, each intended to provide a platform for discussion from different parts of the Omaha area. The community forums will seek information directly from community members through the use of public meetings. These forums will offer excellent opportunities for community members to raise concerns and become involved in developing strategies. Each community forum will be 1 ½ to 2 hours. ONE Omaha will identify and invite participants. CPAR will work with ONE Omaha to provide locations and other logistics. Dr. Blair and graduate students from his Community Organizing and Development course will provide the facilitators and recorders necessary to conduct the forums and summarize the results, working with ONE Omaha to develop topics from the previous focus groups and surveys to guide the discussions.

Timeframe The project will begin immediately after the contract is signed. The focus groups will be conducted in July and the survey in August-September. The community forums will take place in October-November. Specific dates of these activities will be determined after consultation with ONE Omaha. The project and final report and presentation will be completed in December.

Cost The entire project will cost $9,500.

2

Budget The total value of the project, including donated time, is $20,500. The total cost is $9,500.* Costs Dr. Christian Janousek, Co-Principal Investigator Organize, conduct, analysis, and report of focus groups Develop, create, administer, and activate online survey

Center for Public Affairs Research (CPAR) Statistical research, analysis, and report of online survey Preparing and compiling final project report

Administrative Support and Related Costs Logistics and refreshments for community forums, etc.

$4,000 $2,000 Subtotal

$6,000

$2,000 $1,000 Subtotal

$3,000

$500 Subtotal $500 __________________ TOTAL $9,500

Donated Time Dr. Robert Blair, Principal Investigator Consultation and oversight of project and student work

($4,000)

Jerry Deichert, Senior Advisor Consultation and advisement

($1,000)

Urban Studies Graduate Students Analysis of survey results, conducting community forums 400 hours x $15 per hour

($6,000) __________________ TOTAL ($11,000)

TOTAL PROJECT VALUE

$20,500

*Assumes that indirect Facilities & Administrative costs will be waived

3

Activities and Responsibilities Focus Groups (July 2018) -

Conduct and facilitate, provide and record materials, summarize results

Dr. Christian Janousek

-

Provide locations and logistics

CPAR and ONE Omaha

-

Identify and invite participants

ONE Omaha

Survey (August - September 2018) -

Develop and create online survey

Dr. Christian Janousek

-

Identify and invite participants

ONE Omaha

-

Analysis and summarize results

Dr. Robert Blair and Urban Studies graduate students

Community Forums (October – November 2018) -

Conduct and facilitate, provide and record materials, summarize results

Dr. Robert Blair and Urban Studies graduate students

-

Provide locations and logistics

CPAR and ONE Omaha

-

Identify and invite participants

ONE Omaha

Final Report and Presentation (December 2018)

CPAR

Deliverables The deliverables of the project to ONE Omaha include: 1) a detailed analysis and report of findings from the focus groups; 2) an online survey questionnaire; 3) a comprehensive final report incorporating analysis and findings from the focus groups, online survey questionnaire, and community forums; and 4) a presentation of findings from the final report.

Date: July 16, 2018

4

Dear Neighborhood Association Leader, To determine next steps for Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations, the Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, in coordination with ONE Omaha, seeks to conduct a neighborhood needs assessment. This needs assessment will help to identify strategies that make best use of existing resources and offer the best response to neighborhood conditions.

As part of this needs assessment, we would like you to answer a few questions. We want to hear from persons, like yourself, who are active in their Neighborhood Associations and who represent neighborhoods throughout the city of Omaha.

By completing this online survey, you will contribute to research that will help us learn about the needs of Neighborhood Associations in Omaha.

The online survey can be accessed at: https://unomaha.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5haTK57IQWZbzwN

This survey should take only 10 to 15 minutes to complete. All responses will be kept strictly confidential.

Thank you for contributing your time to this worthwhile research.

1

Omaha Neighborhood Association Leadership Survey

Thank you for being active in your neighborhood association. The following survey is part of a needs assessment to identify strategies and resources that can assist neighborhood associations to better address the conditions they are facing. This survey should only take 10 to 15 minutes of your time. All responses will be kept confidential.

1. First of all, in what region of the city of Omaha would you say your Neighborhood is located?

1 North Omaha 2 Midtown 3 South Omaha 4 Benson-Ames 5 Northwest Omaha 6 Southwest Omaha 7 Unknown or Other __________

2. Below are some characteristics of a Neighborhood Association. Please rate them on a scale where 1 is Not at all important; 2 is Slightly important; 3 is Moderately important; 4 is Very important; and 5 is Extremely important.

How important is: (Please indicate the appropriate number)

Being a unified voice in presenting neighborhood issues Being a source of collective power Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city Building networks and getting to know neighbors Leveraging strength in numbers Providing a basis for community engagement Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Please list other characteristics you think are important _________________________________

2

3. Below are some issues facing Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations. Using the same scale as before, please rate them on a scale where 1 is Not at all important; 2 is Slightly important; 3 is Moderately important; 4 is Very important; and 5 is Extremely important.

How important is: (Please indicate the appropriate number) Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Lack of communication with the city Not being open to change and new ideas Lack of power in city processes Having a negative image, meetings are just about complaints Too formal of a structure resulting in staleness and inactivity Not being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters No continuity in knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association Lack of leadership training or mentoring

Please list other issues you think are important ____________________________________

4. Now here are some potential long-term needs of Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations. Please rate them on a scale where 1 is Not at all important; 2 is Slightly important; 3 is Moderately important; 4 is Very important; and 5 is Extremely important.

How important is: (Please indicate the appropriate number)

Establishing a committee or taskforce with the city Creating a mentorship program to get people involved Having assistance and education with funding and grant writing Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for neighborhood associations Promoting leadership succession training or coaching Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations Having a larger role in city processes

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Please list other long-term needs you think are important ________________________________

3

5. Below are some potential opportunities and resources to address the needs and issues of Neighborhood Associations. Please rate them on a scale where 1 is Not at all important; 2 is Slightly important; 3 is Moderately important; 4 is Very important; and 5 is Extremely important.

How important is: (Please indicate the appropriate number)

Neighborhood Alliance City of Omaha Planning Department Citizens’ Academy Mayor’s Hotline and Grants Citizen Patrol ONE Omaha Community events outside of regular association meetings Coordination with area nonprofits Other neighborhood associations

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Please list other opportunities and resources you think are important _______________________

6. Does your Neighborhood Association use ONE Omaha as a resource?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Not Sure

7. If you answered Yes to Question 6, please list which ONE Omaha resources, events and/or programs your Neighborhood Association uses most. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

4

8. Following is a list of suggestions for improvement of Neighborhood Associations in Omaha.

Please rate them on a scale where 1 is Not at all important; 2 is Slightly important; 3 is Moderately important; 4 is Very important; and 5 is Extremely important.

How important is: (Please indicate the appropriate number)

Enhancing communication and networks between neighborhood associations Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders Forming an advisory committee to the city Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation Having an external facilitator available to offer guidance and direction Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Please list other suggestions you think are important____________________________________

9. What is the name of your Neighborhood Association? _______________________________ 10. How long has your Neighborhood Association been in existence? ______________ years 11. Approximately, how many households are in your Neighborhood Association boundaries? __ 12. How many times a year does your Neighborhood Association meet? ___________________ 13. How many members typically come to regular Neighborhood Association meetings? ______ 14. How long have you been active in the Neighborhood Association? _____________________ 15. Does your Neighborhood Association have a web site?

1 Yes ___

2 No ___

16. Does your Neighborhood Association have a social media presence (Facebook, Twitter, etc)?

1 Yes ___ If yes, approximately how many followers? _____ 2 No ___ Thank you for your responses.

Default Report Omaha Neighborhood Association Leadership Survey October 17, 2018 6:29 PM MDT

Q2 - First of all, what is your zip code?

First of all, what is your zip code?

68137

68106

68108

68106

68106

68105

68105

68131

68164

68107

68130

68132

68123

68106

68118

68124

68116-4237

68105

68106

68134

68106

68105

68111

68122

68130

68116

68022

68104

68116

68104

68132

68131

68144

68104

68108

68107

68117

68107

68106

68116

68111

68144

68132

68114

68111

68134-2916

68157

68106

68131

68111

68132

68111

68131

68164

68130

68116

68022

68134

68108

68108

68118

68122

68131

68131 Showing records 1 - 64 of 64

Q3 - Please select your age category:

18-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60 or over 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Please select your age category:

1.00

5.00

3.49

1.39

1.94

65

#

Field

Choice Count

1

18-29

9.23% 6

2

30-39

23.08% 15

3

40-49

10.77% 7

4

50-59

23.08% 15

5

60 or over

33.85% 22 65

Showing rows 1 - 6 of 6

Q4 - What is the name of your Neighborhood?(This question is optional if you prefer to remain anonymous) What is the name of your Neighborhood?(This question is optional if you pre...

Pheasant Run / Linden Place N.A.

Elmwood Park Neighborhood Association.

Park Avenue

Field Club Homeowner’s League

Bemis Park

Eagle Run

Pulaski Park

Pacific Heights/Shaker Heights

Dundee-Memorial Park

Rising View

Mayberry neighbors

Pacific Springs

Westside Neighborhood

Torrey Pines Home Owners Association

Leavenworth

Aksarben/Elmwood Park

Keystone

Aksarben

Blackstone

Cherry Hills

pacific heights

Diamond Head

Benson

Torrey Pines Homeowners Association

Country Club

Dundee

JCNA

Brook Hollow Homeowners Association

Benson

Dahlman

Highland Park

Aksarben Elmwood

Torrey Pines

Prospect Village

MTPG

Dundee

Peony Park

Belvedere point

Sunny Slope

Aksarben-Elmwood Park

JCNA

Saddle Creek Corridor

Minne-Lusa

Walnut hill

Willow Wood

Leawood Southwest

Hillsborough

Skyline Woods

Maple Village Neighborhood Association

Dahlman

Lynch park

Woodbridge

joslyn castle

Bemis Park Showing records 1 - 54 of 54

Q5 - Below are some characteristics of a Neighborhood Association. Please rate them on a scale as Not at all important; Slightly important; Moderately important; Very important; or Extremely important.How important is: (Please indicate)

Not at all important

Slightly important

Being a unified voice and leveraging strength in numbers Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city Building networks and getting to know neighbors

Moderately important

Providing a basis for community engagement Being a representative of neighbors and residents Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

Very important

Extremely important

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Being a unified voice and leveraging strength in numbers

1.00

5.00

3.90

0.95

0.89

62

2

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

1.00

5.00

4.18

0.85

0.73

62

3

Building networks and getting to know neighbors

2.00

5.00

4.10

0.89

0.80

62

4

Providing a basis for community engagement

1.00

5.00

3.90

0.82

0.67

62

5

Being a representative of neighbors and residents

1.00

5.00

4.11

0.92

0.84

62

6

Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents

1.00

5.00

3.90

0.87

0.76

62

7

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

1.00

5.00

4.18

0.83

0.69

62

#

Field

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Total

1

Being a unified voice and leveraging strength in numbers

1.61% 1

8.06% 5

16.13% 10

46.77% 29

27.42% 17

62

2

Being an advocate for the neighborhood to the city

1.61% 1

0.00% 0

19.35% 12

37.10% 23

41.94% 26

62

3

Building networks and getting to know neighbors

0.00% 0

6.45% 4

16.13% 10

38.71% 24

38.71% 24

62

4

Providing a basis for community engagement

1.61% 1

3.23% 2

19.35% 12

54.84% 34

20.97% 13

62

5

Being a representative of neighbors and residents

1.61% 1

4.84% 3

12.90% 8

41.94% 26

38.71% 24

62

6

Being a connecting point for communication and learning among residents

1.61% 1

4.84% 3

19.35% 12

50.00% 31

24.19% 15

62

7

Taking ownership and working in the interest of the neighborhood

1.61% 1

3.23% 2

8.06% 5

50.00% 31

37.10% 23

62

Showing rows 1 - 7 of 7

Q6 - Below are some issues facing Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations. Using the same scale as before, please rate them as Not at all important; Slightly important; Moderately important; Very important; or Extremely important.How important is: (Please indicate)

Not at all important

Slightly important

Improving communication with the city Being open to change and new ideas Being inclusive to residents Moderately important

Increasing power in city development processes Changing the negative image that meetings are just about complaints Adjusting the formality of structure to reduce staleness and inactivity Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters Enhancing continuity in knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood a...

Providing more leadership training or mentoring

Very important

Extremely important

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Improving communication with the city

1.00

5.00

3.93

0.91

0.83

60

2

Being open to change and new ideas

1.00

5.00

3.90

0.91

0.82

60

3

Being inclusive to residents

1.00

5.00

4.38

0.82

0.67

60

4

Increasing power in city development processes

1.00

5.00

3.95

0.99

0.98

58

5

Changing the negative image that meetings are just about complaints

2.00

5.00

3.85

0.89

0.79

60

6

Adjusting the formality of structure to reduce staleness and inactivity

1.00

5.00

3.72

1.00

1.00

60

7

Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters

1.00

5.00

4.12

0.97

0.94

60

8

Enhancing continuity in knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association

1.00

5.00

3.88

0.90

0.80

60

9

Providing more leadership training or mentoring

1.00

5.00

3.53

1.06

1.12

60

#

Field

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Total

1

Improving communication with the city

1.67% 1

6.67% 4

15.00% 9

50.00% 30

26.67% 16

60

2

Being open to change and new ideas

1.67% 1

3.33% 2

26.67% 16

40.00% 24

28.33% 17

60

3

Being inclusive to residents

1.67% 1

1.67% 1

6.67% 4

36.67% 22

53.33% 32

60

4

Increasing power in city development processes

1.72% 1

6.90% 4

20.69% 12

36.21% 21

34.48% 20

58

5

Changing the negative image that meetings are just about complaints

0.00% 0

5.00% 3

33.33% 20

33.33% 20

28.33% 17

60

6

Adjusting the formality of structure to reduce staleness and inactivity

3.33% 2

5.00% 3

33.33% 20

33.33% 20

25.00% 15

60

7

Being accommodating to all residents, such as working families and renters

1.67% 1

5.00% 3

16.67% 10

33.33% 20

43.33% 26

60

8

Enhancing continuity in knowledge of how to run a successful neighborhood association

1.67% 1

3.33% 2

26.67% 16

41.67% 25

26.67% 16

60

9

Providing more leadership training or mentoring

5.00% 3

8.33% 5

35.00% 21

31.67% 19

20.00% 12

60

Showing rows 1 - 9 of 9

Q7 - Now here are some potential long-term needs of Omaha’s Neighborhood Associations. Please rate them on a scale as Not at all important; Slightly important; Moderately important; Very important; or Extremely important.How important is: (Please indicate)

Not at all important

Slightly important

Establishing a committee or taskforce with the city Creating a mentorship program to get people involved Having assistance and education with funding and grant writing Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for ne...

Moderately important

Promoting leadership succession training or coaching Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associatio...

Having a larger role in city development processes

Very important

Extremely important

0

#

5

10

Field

15

20

25

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Establishing a committee or taskforce with the city

1.00

5.00

3.52

0.98

0.96

56

2

Creating a mentorship program to get people involved

1.00

5.00

3.48

1.03

1.07

56

3

Having assistance and education with funding and grant writing

1.00

5.00

3.73

1.04

1.09

56

4

Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for neighborhood associations

1.00

5.00

3.73

1.01

1.02

56

5

Promoting leadership succession training or coaching

1.00

5.00

3.64

1.01

1.02

56

6

Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

1.00

5.00

3.86

0.97

0.94

56

7

Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations

1.00

5.00

3.73

1.09

1.20

56

8

Having a larger role in city development processes

1.00

5.00

3.88

1.12

1.25

56

Field

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Total

1

Establishing a committee or taskforce with the city

3.57% 2

12.50% 7

25.00% 14

46.43% 26

12.50% 7

56

2

Creating a mentorship program to get people involved

5.36% 3

8.93% 5

33.93% 19

35.71% 20

16.07% 9

56

3

Having assistance and education with funding and grant writing

3.57% 2

8.93% 5

23.21% 13

39.29% 22

25.00% 14

56

4

Compiling a knowledge network of best practices or a ‘how to’ manual for neighborhood associations

5.36% 3

3.57% 2

25.00% 14

44.64% 25

21.43% 12

56

5

Promoting leadership succession training or coaching

5.36% 3

3.57% 2

32.14% 18

39.29% 22

19.64% 11

56

6

Building better partnerships with nonprofits and businesses

1.79% 1

5.36% 3

28.57% 16

33.93% 19

30.36% 17

56

7

Fostering more coordination and communication among neighborhood associations

5.36% 3

8.93% 5

17.86% 10

42.86% 24

25.00% 14

56

8

Having a larger role in city development processes

7.14% 4

3.57% 2

16.07% 9

41.07% 23

32.14% 18

56

#

Showing rows 1 - 8 of 8

Q8 - Below are some potential opportunities and resources to address the needs and issues of Neighborhood Associations. Please rate them on a scale as Not at all important; Slightly important; Moderately important; Very important; or Extremely important.Please select 'Don't know' if you are not familiar with or if you have not heard of the opportunity/resource.How important is: (Please indicate)

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Neighborhood Alliance Neighborhood association meetings City of Omaha Planning Department Citizens’ Academy Mayor’s Hotline and Grants Citizen Patrol ONE Omaha Nextdoor Omaha community events Neighborhood events Coordination with area nonprofits Other neighborhood associations Neighborhood Leadership Academy One thing email Spring Clean Up Visioning sessions National Night Out

Very important

Extremely important

Don't know

0

5

10

15

20

25

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Neighborhood Alliance

1.00

6.00

4.13

1.29

1.67

55

2

Neighborhood association meetings

1.00

5.00

3.96

0.93

0.86

56

3

City of Omaha Planning Department

2.00

6.00

3.91

0.97

0.94

56

4

Citizens’ Academy

1.00

6.00

3.96

1.34

1.78

56

5

Mayor’s Hotline and Grants

2.00

6.00

4.04

0.96

0.93

56

6

Citizen Patrol

1.00

6.00

3.61

1.41

1.99

56

7

ONE Omaha

1.00

6.00

4.43

1.25

1.57

56

8

Nextdoor

1.00

6.00

3.48

1.18

1.39

56

9

Omaha community events

1.00

6.00

3.84

1.13

1.28

56

10

Neighborhood events

3.00

6.00

4.34

0.83

0.69

56

11

Coordination with area nonprofits

1.00

6.00

3.88

1.09

1.18

56

12

Other neighborhood associations

1.00

6.00

3.95

1.14

1.30

56

13

Neighborhood Leadership Academy

1.00

6.00

4.39

1.29

1.67

56

14

One thing email

1.00

6.00

4.23

1.40

1.96

56

15

Spring Clean Up

1.00

6.00

4.29

1.13

1.28

56

16

Visioning sessions

1.00

6.00

4.25

1.31

1.72

56

17

National Night Out

1.00

6.00

3.71

1.22

1.49

56

Field

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Don't know

Total

1

Neighborhood Alliance

3.64% 2

7.27% 4

18.18% 10

30.91% 17

23.64% 13

16.36% 9

55

2

Neighborhood association meetings

1.79% 1

5.36% 3

17.86% 10

44.64% 25

30.36% 17

0.00% 0

56

3

City of Omaha Planning Department

0.00% 0

8.93% 5

19.64% 11

48.21% 27

17.86% 10

5.36% 3

56

4

Citizens’ Academy

1.79% 1

7.14% 4

35.71% 20

26.79% 15

5.36% 3

23.21% 13

56

5

Mayor’s Hotline and Grants

0.00% 0

5.36% 3

25.00% 14

33.93% 19

32.14% 18

3.57% 2

56

6

Citizen Patrol

7.14% 4

16.07% 9

23.21% 13

28.57% 16

12.50% 7

12.50% 7

56

7

ONE Omaha

3.57% 2

3.57% 2

12.50% 7

28.57% 16

30.36% 17

21.43% 12

56

8

Nextdoor

3.57% 2

19.64% 11

26.79% 15

26.79% 15

21.43% 12

1.79% 1

56

9

Omaha community events

1.79% 1

5.36% 3

35.71% 20

32.14% 18

14.29% 8

10.71% 6

56

#

10

Neighborhood events

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

17.86% 10

35.71% 20

41.07% 23

5.36% 3

56

11

Coordination with area nonprofits

1.79% 1

5.36% 3

30.36% 17

37.50% 21

16.07% 9

8.93% 5

56

12

Other neighborhood associations

1.79% 1

8.93% 5

23.21% 13

32.14% 18

26.79% 15

7.14% 4

56

13

Neighborhood Leadership Academy

1.79% 1

5.36% 3

17.86% 10

28.57% 16

19.64% 11

26.79% 15

56

14

One thing email

1.79% 1

8.93% 5

21.43% 12

30.36% 17

7.14% 4

30.36% 17

56

15

Spring Clean Up

3.57% 2

3.57% 2

10.71% 6

35.71% 20

10.71% 6

56

35.71% 20

16

Visioning sessions

1.79% 1

7.14% 4

19.64% 11

32.14% 18

14.29% 8

25.00% 14

56

17

National Night Out

3.57% 2

7.14% 4

41.07% 23

19.64% 11

19.64% 11

8.93% 5

56

Showing rows 1 - 17 of 17

Q9 - How effective do you feel your Neighborhood Association is at: (Please indicate)

Not effective at all

Slightly effective

Community-building

Moderately effective

Advocacy and working with city administration Organizing events and projects

Very effective

Extremely effective

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Community-building

1.00

5.00

2.67

0.94

0.87

55

2

Advocacy and working with city administration

1.00

5.00

2.85

1.05

1.11

55

3

Organizing events and projects

1.00

5.00

3.11

1.00

1.01

55

#

Field

Not effective at all

Slightly effective

Moderately effective

Very effective

Extremely effective

Total

1

Community-building

14.55% 8

18.18% 10

56.36% 31

7.27% 4

3.64% 2

55

2

Advocacy and working with city administration

14.55% 8

14.55% 8

47.27% 26

18.18% 10

5.45% 3

55

3

Organizing events and projects

10.91% 6

7.27% 4

47.27% 26

29.09% 16

5.45% 3

55

Showing rows 1 - 3 of 3

Q10 - Following is a list of suggestions for improvement of Neighborhood Associations in Omaha. Please rate them on a scale as Not at all important; Slightly important; Moderately important; Very important; or Extremely important. How important is: (Please indicate)

Not at all important

Slightly important

Enhancing communication and networks between neighborhood associations Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders Forming an advisory committee to the city

Moderately important

Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation Having an external facilitator available to offer guidance and direction Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meeting...

Very important

Extremely important

0

#

5

10

15

Field

20

25

30

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Enhancing communication and networks between neighborhood associations

1.00

5.00

3.33

1.04

1.07

54

2

Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

1.00

5.00

3.85

0.91

0.83

54

3

Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders

1.00

5.00

3.41

0.87

0.76

54

4

Forming an advisory committee to the city

1.00

5.00

3.57

1.01

1.02

54

5

Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices

1.00

5.00

3.70

0.78

0.62

54

6

Producing a manual or checklist for self-assessment and evaluation

1.00

5.00

3.26

0.95

0.90

54

7

Having an external facilitator available to offer guidance and direction

1.00

5.00

3.44

0.99

0.99

54

8

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

1.00

5.00

3.78

0.94

0.88

54

#

Field

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Total

1

Enhancing communication and networks between neighborhood associations

7.41% 4

11.11% 6

31.48% 17

40.74% 22

9.26% 5

54

2

Increasing assistance with, understanding of, and access to funding sources

3.70% 2

3.70% 2

16.67% 9

55.56% 30

20.37% 11

54

3

Creating a mentorship program for community members and aspiring leaders

3.70% 2

9.26% 5

35.19% 19

46.30% 25

5.56% 3

54

4

Forming an advisory committee to the city

3.70% 2

11.11% 6

25.93% 14

42.59% 23

16.67% 9

54

5

Improving the sharing of knowledge and best practices

1.85% 1

3.70% 2

27.78% 15

55.56% 30

11.11% 6

54

6

Producing a manual or checklist for selfassessment and evaluation

5.56% 3

9.26% 5

48.15% 26

27.78% 15

9.26% 5

54

7

Having an external facilitator available to offer guidance and direction

3.70% 2

11.11% 6

37.04% 20

33.33% 18

14.81% 8

54

8

Providing an overall calendar of events or communication hub of all meetings, notifications, and public venues

1.85% 1

7.41% 4

24.07% 13

44.44% 24

22.22% 12

54

Showing rows 1 - 8 of 8

Q11 - What is the name of your Neighborhood Association?(This question is optional if you prefer to remain anonymous) What is the name of your Neighborhood Association?(This question is optiona...

Pheasant Run / Linden Place N.A.

Elmwood Park Neighborhood Aaociation

Field Club Homeowner’s League

Bemis Park Neighborhood Association

Eagle Run Homeowner's Association

Pulaski Park Neighborhood Association

Pacific Heights/Shaker Heights

Dundee-Memorial Park

Mayberry neighbors

Pacific Springs Homeowners Association

Torrey Pines

Leavenworth

Aksarben/Elmwood Park

Keystone Community Task Force

Blackstone

Diamond Head

Torrey Pines Homeowners Association

Country Club Community Council

Dundee Memorial Park Neighborhood Association

Jcna

Benson

Dahlman NA

Highland Park

Aksarben Elmwood

Torrey Pines HOA

Prospect Village

Dundee

Peony Park

Sunny Slope - Sunny View

Aksarben-Elmwood Park

JCNA

Saddle Creek Corridor Neighborhood Association

Miller Park-Minne Lusa

Walnut hill

Willow Wood Neighborhood Association

Maple Village Neighborhood Association

Dahlman

joslyn castle

Bemis Park NA Showing records 1 - 39 of 39

Q12 - Approximately, how many households are in your Neighborhood Association boundaries?

Approximately, how many households are in your Neighborhood Association bou...

390

500

?

???

350

320

149

500+ ?

565

1,000 household members

75

300

153

2500

I’m not for sure

Several hundred

300

I do not know

157

150

32

do not know

Unsure

375+

1500

?

156

1200

1500

?

Not sure. The association spans 72nd-90th Streets, Dodge-Blondo

300

500

50

2500

1,700

200?

2,000

?

800

65

4050

5400

165

1200

270 Showing records 1 - 46 of 46

Q13 - How many times a year does your Neighborhood Association meet?

How many times a year does your Neighborhood Association meet?

Not sure at this time w recently had a change of board members

6

9-10

NA

12

12

6

twice

The board meets at least 9 times a year

9

0

as needed

once

10

Think it’s 9

4

I do not know

10

2

1-2

1x per month for most months

10

2

monthly

12

12 or more

1

6

5-6

it doesn't anymore, the president decided to stop

12

monthly

Quarterly

Monthly

4

rarely

6

10 gatherings (i.e. 'board meetings') and recently have started quarterly potlucks with speakers.

6-10

12

11

12

2

6

11

10

3

11

12 Showing records 1 - 49 of 49

Q14 - How many members typically come to regular Neighborhood Association meetings?

How many members typically come to regular Neighborhood Association meeting...

4-5

25

15

NA

13

10-25

6

varies 3 to 30

5

20

0

50

10

15 - 20

It varies 10-40

30

N/A

12

10

I've never been able to find the meetings to attend them.

25

16-20

15-20

6

3-4

50

10

we didn't have members, due to living in high poverty area, we had 30 regular attenders

12

20

Depends on the topic

4-6

12 - 15

12

30

On average, around 12.

5

15-20

5

4-6

35-40

25

25

6-10

12-15

15-20 Showing records 1 - 46 of 46

Q15 - How long have you been active in the Neighborhood Association?

How long have you been active in the Neighborhood Association?

14 years

15 years

3 years

20 years in several NA

12 years

1 year

2 years

3 years

4 years

20 years

4 years

1

33 years

3.5 yrs

30 yrs

11 years

1 year

10 years

1ish years

1 year

1

8 months

1 year

3 years

12 years

6 years

3 months

5 yrs

15 yrs

1 year

1 year

1977

13 years

20 +

19 yrs

four years

6 months

1 year

Inactive

3 years

4 years

14 years

5 yrs

20 years

10+ years

20 years Showing records 1 - 46 of 46

Q16 - Does your Neighborhood Association do outreach to renters and in different languages?

Yes

No

Not Sure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Does your Neighborhood Association do outreach to renters and in different languages?

1.00

3.00

2.12

0.62

0.38

51

#

Field

Choice Count

1

Yes

13.73% 7

2

No

60.78% 31

3

Not Sure

25.49% 13 51

Showing rows 1 - 4 of 4

Q17 - Does your Neighborhood Association have a web site?

Yes

No

Not Sure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Does your Neighborhood Association have a web site?

1.00

3.00

1.54

0.70

0.49

50

#

Field

Choice Count

1

Yes

58.00% 29

2

No

30.00% 15

3

Not Sure

12.00% 6 50

Showing rows 1 - 4 of 4

Q18 - Does your Neighborhood Association have a social media presence (Facebook, Twitter, etc)?

Yes

No

Not Sure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

#

Field

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std Deviation

Variance

Count

1

Does your Neighborhood Association have a social media presence (Facebook, Twitter, etc)?

1.00

3.00

1.43

0.66

0.44

51

#

Field

Choice Count

1

Yes

66.67% 34

2

No

23.53% 12

3

Not Sure

9.80% 5 51

Showing rows 1 - 4 of 4

Q19 - If yes, approximately how many followers?

If yes, approximately how many followers?

Not sure

200

??

100

37

20

Facebook - about 50. Don't use Twitter

No idea

don't know

Unknown

Think it’s 1.1

150

N/A

100

?

50-60

We recently started our page

?

Don't know

200

unsure

Facebook 240

About 1500 members of FB group

583 followers on Facebook

57

500

Not sure

Unknown -- we rely more on Nextdoor -- 1750 people on it

120

100

not sure Showing records 1 - 31 of 31

End of Report

School of Public Administration University of Nebraska at Omaha 6001 Dodge Street | Omaha, NE 68182 402.554.2625 | spa.unomaha.edu

The University of Nebraska does not discriminate based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, age, genetic information, veteran status, marital status, and/or political affiliation in its programs, activities, or employment. UNO is an AA/ EEO/ADA institution. For questions, accommodations, or assistance please call/contact the Title IX/ADA/504 Coordinator (phone: 402.554.3490 or TTY 402.554.2978 or the Accessibility Services Center (phone: 402.554.2872). UCTEMP0718