Assessment of Community Engagement in Design Advisory Processes at - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

¡

Assessment ¡of ¡Community ¡Engagement ¡in ¡Design ¡ Advisory ¡Processes ¡at ¡Faubion ¡K-­‑8, ¡Franklin ¡and ¡ Roosevelt ¡High ¡Schools ¡

Presented ¡by ¡ ¡ Marcia ¡La0a, ¡Consultant ¡ Salem, ¡Oregon ¡ November ¡ ¡2015

Purpose and Scope of Assessment

• The purpose was to conduct an independent assessment

to evaluate the quality and breadth of stakeholder engagement.

• The scope included individual interviews, group interviews

at schools with upcoming master planning, a focus group, an e-survey, a publications assessment, review of processes at districts with comparable enrollment.

Individual Interviews: Total Respondents

• This assessment included input from 51 individual

interviews, 3-5 community members from each of four upcoming master planning processes, 102 e-survey responses and five focus group participants.

5 10 15 20 25 Faubion K-8 Frankin HS Roosevelt HS

Faubion ¡K-­‑8 ¡

Faubion Interviews

• Only seven participants were reached out of 22 contacts.
• Respondents said it was difficult to get a representative

group to participate. To increase attendance, school staff varied the meeting times to accommodate work scheduled and provided food.

• Participants felt generally positive. Concern was

expressed about a perceived lack of transparency in the partnership with Concordia.

Franklin ¡High ¡School ¡

Franklin Interviews

• Participants generally felt that the experience was

positive.

• Comments were that it was a consensus-based process

where participants felt ideas were heard or rationale for decisions was discussed.

• Input from the student representative was substantial and

valued by members of the group.

• Participants felt the value engineering process was not

clear and caused frustration.

Roosevelt ¡High ¡School ¡

Roosevelt ¡High ¡School ¡

Roosevelt Interviews

• Comments indicated that Roosevelt participants had

widely diverse but strongly held beliefs.

• Interviews included 12 official DAG members, including

staff and design team members, and 10 non-DAG active community members.

• Concerns included: lack of diversity, no district

instructional expertise at meetings, inconsistency in messages, exclusion of individuals, inequitable treatment compared to Franklin, lack of expertise among design staff, lack of authority or power in decision making, concerns about the final design.

Participant Comments

• “Some things were not open for discussion, but there was

no explanation why.”

• “I believe everybody was heard. I support the final
• product. In my opinion, I believe that a lot of people that

don’t like it have agendas not based on what’s best for kids at Roosevelt. The building will be great. The process was great.”

• “Overall, it was deeply flawed from start to finish. The

process to recruit was lame. Roosevelt community has long-held grievances…The problems were recruitment, input, final design.”

• “When the DAG process started, alumni asked when

recruitment would start. They weren’t invited until the day before the deadline. Email was the only form of

• recruitment. The deadline was too tight.”
• “We were advisory. Strictly advisory. That was made so
• clear. We weren’t a decision making board. We were

advising the design.”

• “For the role of the DAG, it was advisory, but you have to

wonder if people understood that it was just advisory or that was just a bad idea. It needed to have more power than it was set up to do.”

Lessons ¡for ¡upcoming ¡design ¡processes ¡

Benson, Grant, Lincoln, Madison

• Community and parent leaders from each of these

schools provided feedback to prepare for master planning.

• Comments included:

Start early Make extra effort to reach minorities Define school goals and program space first Define role of the DAG clearly and often Designate a DAG leader Reinforce DAG role as a conduit for information to and from the community Involve students Build and strengthen business partnerships Clarify program and building trade-offs in any decision Involve teachers Set clear agenda, define input opportunities Schedule district-wide meetings to share information among schools Focus on transparency

OBSERVATIONS

Considerations

• There is a tremendous sense of ownership of community schools and

a desire for shared decision making.

• Community processes require additional time for outreach, input and
• feedback. Construction projects of this scope may not allow flexibility

in the schedule for extended decision making.

• Some participants in the Roosevelt process referenced long-held

distrust of the district. Negative beliefs in this community affected perceptions in the DAG process.

District Strengths

• Citizen-based committees
• Adjustments during the process based on community feedback
• Extensive community outreach systems in place
• Generally positive perceptions from the community in general

FINDINGS

Key themes emerged among all design processes

Key Findings

1.

The expectation of the design process differed among participants. There was a wide diversity of opinion about the process and the

• utcome.

2.

PPS does not have the trust of all stakeholders. Some participants expressed long-standing trust issues toward the district.

3.

Many participants expressed a need for more communication and expanded community engagement efforts, especially as a means of engaging audiences that are typically not represented.

4.

District educational experts should participate in all DAG meetings to respond to questions and clarify district-level programs and instructional needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• 1. The expectation of the design process

differed among participants.

• Open each meeting with a reminder of the charter.
• Be clear about the goals for the DAG.
• Define and enforce rules for non-DAG participation.
• Include a discussion of the district’s stakeholder

engagement framework.

• Designate a community member as DAG chair.
• Set the meeting schedule and agendas at the beginning.
• Close the loop to end the process.

• 2. There is a lack of trust of the district by

some participants.

• Build in time for relationship building.
• Plan for impact of other processes (Ed Specs, value

engineering)

• Post meeting documents in a timely manner.
• Ensure consistency among process.
• Designate an official meeting recorder who is outside of

the design process.

• Consider a broader look at trust issues in general

• 3. Participants want more communication

and greater community engagement.

• Include principals in communication plan and as essential

sources of information about the process.

• Include school neighbors and feeder schools.
• Schedule regular districtwide meetings.
• Ask DAG members to help with community engagement.
• If possible, add resources to increase community
• utreach.
• Consider developing a community involvement tracking

sheet to record engagement efforts.

• 4. Include district instructional staff at all

DAG meetings.

• Have regular participation from curriculum experts. Be

sure DAG members are aware of their presence.

• Increase participation from and communication to

business representatives.

• Inform DAG and community participants where they can

provide input about curriculum decisions.