How do you know it's grassroots?

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" rowspan="2" width=200 BGCOLOR="#99CC99" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="1278dfc3.jpg"> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=82 BGCOLOR="#CCCC99" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="1288dfe1esnpes.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>New Directions CBRI</B></FONT><B>     </B><B>|</B><B>     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Directions CBRI"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id41.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Documents"><U><B>Back to Documents</B></U></A></div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=398 colspan=2 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I><B>How do you know it's grassroots?</B></I></div> <div> Workshop led by Robert J. Mulvey and O. Andrew Collver, New Directions Institute, Long Island, NY. at the annual Community Research Network Conference, Austin, Texas, July 6-8, 2001 </div> <bR> <div> Too often, those with the best intentions of doing research with the people of a neighborhood end up working instead with formally organized agencies that are located in the community.  There are two very good reasons for this kind of compromise. First, it takes a lot of time and effort to reach the residents and other stakeholders directly, and, second, there is resistance from local gatekeepers who resent outsiders approaching "their" people.  In this workshop, the presenters discussed the effectiveness of the community self-study as a way get past these natural barriers, penetrate to the grassroots, give everyone a chance to be heard, and activate a truly representative group of locals who will take the initiative in setting the agenda for further research and action. </div> <div> The process is exemplified by the case of a neighborhood in Central Islip, Long Island, NY.  Before the process could get under way, the community-based researchers needed to establish an understanding and good working relationship with the local non-profit development organization (LDO) and the neighborhood civic association (a voluntary association in which all residents of the neighborhood are eligible for membership and voting upon payment of the small annual dues).  While the three parties in this arrangement would work together as appropriate, and keep one another informed of their activities and progress, each remained formally autonomous.  The most essential role of the LDO as the neighborhood gatekeeper was to endorse and legitimize the partnership between the researchers and the civic association.  </div> <div> Phase one, “Developing community insight,” produced a neighborhood profile report.  The chapter on population and housing, based primarily on the decennial censuses and prepared by an academic researcher, did not require new input from residents.  For the second chapter, a physical survey of land, housing and infrastructure, architectural faculty and students first met with residents to hear their comments about the physical condition of the neighborhood, and then went up and down each street with clipboards and cameras to gather data for a more objective professional assessment.   Chapter three, the opinion survey, was what most involved the residents and began to engage them in their own self-study of the neighborhood.  </div> <div> The opinion survey started with a series of focus group meetings to which residents from different parts of the neighborhood were invited, with an effort to attain diversity of representation in terms of home ownership, length of time in the neighborhood, age, sex, occupation and ethnicity.  Once they had participated in design of the questionnaire and could see that it was really getting at the questions of vital importance to themselves and their neighbors, the focus group acquired a sense of ownership of the study.  Members of the civic association who helped by distributing the questionnaires and collecting the sealed responses also understood that it was their own study to be used for their own purposes.</div> <div> To protect respondents' anonymity and confidentiality, coding and analysis were done outside of the neighborhood.   The results in the form of selected tables, a listing of all write-in responses, and coefficients of association of every variable with every other one were presented to the civic association.  The first table was simply the questionnaire with the percentage distribution of responses for each question.  The second was a list of problems identified in the survey, with a suggestion of who might be responsible for each-obviously an oversimplification but a good conversation starter.  The third table grouped questions into five associated clusters:  “homeowner interests,” “family life cycle,”  “nervous about diversity,” “civic skepticism,” and “seeing problems ahead.”  Table four compared geographic sections of the neighborhood, north center and south, in terms of population characteristics as shown in the survey, and finally there was a crosstabulation of theme clusters by geographic location.</div> <div> When they were shown the results in a printed report and with a slide show at a civic meeting, local citizens exclaimed that the survey really captured the thinking of the neighborhood, and they were amazed that such a detailed and accurate description could be obtained from a small sample survey.  “This is really us!” one person was heard to say.  A pamphlet distributed throughout the neighborhood summarized the findings of the three profile chapters and explained how they would be used in a continuing process of  envisioning a better future for the neighborhood, participatory planning and design in cooperation with local government, non-profits and business, and eventually in grassroots implementation of those parts of the plan that the neighborhood could do for itself.</div> <div> At an all-day meeting in June, 1999 about 20 residents met to review the history of the hamlet and the neighborhood, reach a shared understanding of the neighborhood and its future and recommend what steps should be taken first to address the needs that had been expressed in the survey.  At the next civic association meeting, these priorities were accepted by the membership.  </div> <div> Throughout the following months of meetings, committee work and consultations with government and agency officials and professional experts, the findings of the community insight document were always kept in mind.  Anyone claiming to speak for the neighborhood was obliged to speak to the same facts and grassroots opinions as were available to all.  Even though only a small number of people participated in the meetings, they continually heard the voices of their absent neighbors.  The few who participate may be accused of being only the “grass tops,” but their thinking is rooted in the will of the entire neighborhood.     </div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>