bQNs7mR

Recommendations

Info

Communities are also being empowered through a greater say in local land-use planning decisions, more opportunities to vote, support for community organizing, a suite of community rights (for example, the right to have 6 months breathing space to find funds to buy any communally valued local building, such as a pub or post office, that comes up for sale), and through reduction of the red tape facing voluntarism and charitable work. There are also central government efforts to stimulate voluntarism and charitable giving. Voluntarism in general is encouraged but there is also growing interest in volunteering in public service delivery (so-called “coproduction”) as a way to improve the cost and quality of the service. Government has also supported the “giving infrastructure,” for example, around online giving mechanisms, encouraging civic engagement among the young and championing corporate social responsibility. Assets are in the front-line of ideological and public spending developments Community and civic assets such as parks, libraries, and museums are in the front line of both ideological and economic developments. Ideologically, communities are being asked to take on greater responsibilities as an inherently good thing and, economically, community and civic assets are facing cuts to the public spending that sustains many of them. In the United Kingdom, cuts to assets have recently dominated the media: accounts of library and youth club closures, limited opening hours at museums, galleries and theaters, and slashing of budgets for parks and recreation centers. This stream of bad news is only occasionally brightened by tales of local non-profit groups that have managed to keep such civic and community assets running. What seems clear is that the cuts and austerity are likely to be here for some time to come and that, even if the Conservative-dominated Coalition Government is replaced by a left/center-left New Labour administration or coalition, some form of demand will be in place for an increased role for “civil society” in delivering these types of assets. Research in three U.S. metro areas I selected the United States owing to its impressive record on giving time and money to charitable causes and its high degree of decentralization (this latter being something the U.K. central government aspires to move toward), which should augur well for innovation in terms of policies and projects. Admittedly, the United States does have some key contextual differences — nearly a third of U.S. giving is to religious organizations and the average American pays just under 30 percent of their income in tax, whereas their British counterpart pays about 40 percent. Box 1.1 outlines some of the key giving comparisons. Box 1.1: Giving — the United States and U.K. compared • In the United States, charitable donations are some 1.67 percent of GDP — against 0.73 percent for the U.K. (CAF 2006). • In the United States, each person gives, on average, £414 ($694) – against £148 ($247) for the U.K. (CAF 2014). • Those earning over £200,000 per annum in the U.K. give £2 to charity for every £1,000 that they earn, compared with an equivalent £90 for every £1,000 among their peer group in the United States (Philanthropy Review 2011). • In the United States, 42 percent volunteered in the previous month (7 th globally) against 26 percent in the U.K. (CAF 2012). • Of the world’s largest 25 charitable foundations, 17 are from the United States (the U.K. has 3). 1 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_foundations. 21 | The New Barn-Raising
In late 2011 and early 2012, people from over 70 U.S. national and local organizations (see National Acknowledgements section in the Appendix) responded to my request for examples of interesting policies and projects that supported community assets or that could be employed to do so. Examples came back from across the contiguous United States. Once I had assembled all of the cases, I narrowed the focus down to asset types that have typically had high levels of public funding. Three metro areas emerged as particularly strong prospective case studies because they display innovation on several of the key themes under consideration: • Detroit and southeast Michigan; • Baltimore, Maryland; and • the “Twin Cities” of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. It should be stressed that the selection of areas was much more art than science. This is not the “definitive list of the best asset-supporting metro areas in the United States.” The cities themselves vary in socio-economic terms (see Table 1.1). Crucially, all are wrestling, to various degrees, with the issue of how to sustain public assets. Table 1.1: The case study metro areas compared Baltimore Detroit Population (2010) Economy Politics 621,0003 3 64% black, 30% white Metro area is 2.7 million 713,777 4 83 percent black, 11 percent white Metro area is 4.3 million No Fortune 500 company HQ following takeover of Constellation in 2013. Strong central business district. Much-vaunted inner harbor development — mixed-use but with strong tourism and leisure focus. 13 Fortune 500 headquarters in metro area, including two of the top ten — Ford and General Motors. Strong Central Business District and resurgent Midtown. Strong mayor system Strong mayor system Volunteering 2 in 2011 (against national average of 26.8 percent) 26.5 25 Minneapolis- St. Paul Minneapolis: 393,000 (64% white, 19% black, 11% Hispanic/Latino) St. Paul: 285,000 60% white, 16% black 15% Asian Metro area is 3.4 million 18 Fortune 500 headquarters Both cities have central business districts Minneapolis: weak mayor system St. Paul: strong mayor system 37 (highest in United States) Source: http://www.census. gov/2010census http://money.cnn.com/magazines/ fortune/fortune500/2012 Interviews http:// volunteeringinamerica. gov/rankings/States/ Volunteer-Rates/2011 2 Volunteering includes work at schools, community groups, religious organizations, and other non-profits. National (Current Population Survey) data shows that overall hours and numbers participating, similar to national averages, have both decreased in the case study cities between 2008 and 2011, inclusively. 3 Small increase on 2000; the first increase in population for 6 decades. 4 Fell by quarter of 2000 level due to outmigration. Introduction | 22
Page 1 and 2: THE NEW BARN-RAISING A toolkit for
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Summaries ................
Page 5 and 6: STRATEGY #1 — Raising Awareness I
Page 7 and 8: STRATEGY #3 — Raising Help In the
Page 9 and 10: • non-profit bodies (from civic-s
Page 11 and 12: The “New Barn-Raising” refers t
Page 13 and 14: Theme 2 — Market your assets Mark
Page 15 and 16: The advantage of these different ta
Page 17 and 18: Theme 6 — Public fundraising can
Page 19 and 20: Theme 10 — Business can best supp
Page 21 and 22: Theme 12 — Volunteering with asse
Page 23: INTRODUCTION This toolkit is direct
Page 27 and 28: RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT YOUR ASSETS
Page 29 and 30: continued Table 2.1: A check-list o
Page 31 and 32: Who could support your assets? This
Page 33 and 34: Partnership With a partnership mode
Page 35 and 36: Table 2.2: Benefits for users - a c
Page 37 and 38: Table 2.4: Examples of the types of
Page 39 and 40: #1 — The “Killer Stat” Peavey
Page 41 and 42: Figure 2.7: Baltimore compared to o
Page 43 and 44: Figure 2.9: One of several punchy t
Page 45 and 46: Box 2.2: Recognize the skills that
Page 47 and 48: Delivering your message — messeng
Page 49 and 50: Figure 2.11: East Phillips delegate
Page 51 and 52: Figure 2.13: Barn-raising spirit -
Page 53 and 54: Draw attention to your “asset off
Page 55 and 56: Of particular use for local residen
Page 57 and 58: Figure 2.17: Example of the DIA’s
Page 59 and 60: #3 — You can take people on tours
Page 61 and 62: This is an ongoing map that can be
Page 63 and 64: Figure 2.24: Baltimore’s Fluid Mo
Page 65 and 66: As part of Hockey Weekend Across Am
Page 67 and 68: Figure 2.29: Poster for the 6th Ann
Page 69 and 70: Figure 2.30: Frogtown Gardens raise
Page 71 and 72: Table 3.1: Taxes used to raise fund
Page 73 and 74: Box 3.1: Check-list of questions to
Page 75 and 76:
Your asset managers need to use mon
Page 77 and 78:
Table 3.4: Efficiency measures used
Page 79 and 80:
Reductions in staff, asset numbers
Page 81 and 82:
Table 3.5: Examples of charges comm
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 3.4: Free entry for some gro
Page 85 and 86:
Incentivize and support charging Wh
Page 87 and 88:
You can rent space in assets to gen
Page 89 and 90:
Your local government can secure re
Page 91 and 92:
Box 3.4: Public-Private Partnership
Page 93 and 94:
• Hand over a building that is an
Page 95 and 96:
Community non-profits could be allo
Page 97 and 98:
You can raise money and awareness b
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 3.12: A memorial bench sold
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 3.14: The annual and very po
Page 103 and 104:
Elderly constant givers are a good
Page 105 and 106:
Wealthier neighborhoods still have
Page 107 and 108:
Young professional asset-supporter
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 3.18: a potential fundee add
Page 111 and 112:
Box 3.6: Getting high-net-worth ind
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 3.20: A Detroit4Detroit webp
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 3.21: Mowtown - example of a
Page 117 and 118:
The barn-raising spirit is also see
Page 119 and 120:
Charitable Foundations can add to y
Page 121 and 122:
Table 3.15: Asset-related roles tha
Page 123 and 124:
Encourage foundations to make their
Page 125 and 126:
Help non-profit asset support organ
Page 127 and 128:
Certainly, businesses have been an
Page 129 and 130:
Table 3.20: Examples of mutually be
Page 131 and 132:
Several factors can help you in dev
Page 133 and 134:
Having co-operatives in your busine
Page 135 and 136:
Box 3.12: Secrets of their success
Page 137 and 138:
Table 3.24: Encouraging customer gi
Page 139 and 140:
Table 3.25: Comparing the fee and a
Page 141 and 142:
RAISING HELP FOR YOUR ASSET The men
Page 143 and 144:
Figure 4.1: User input — resident
Page 145 and 146:
When resources for paid staff, whet
Page 147 and 148:
There are physical/logistical reaso
Page 149 and 150:
There is a range of mechanisms for
Page 151 and 152:
The measures have been largely succ
Page 153 and 154:
Figure 4.5: Inside the Baltimore Co
Page 155 and 156:
Table 4.5: Understanding the busine
Page 157 and 158:
Volunteer managers and non-profits
Page 159 and 160:
There are some key practical tips t
Page 161 and 162:
There are a range of measures you c
Page 163 and 164:
As with donors of money and other r
Page 165 and 166:
Table 4.9 outlines a range of natio
Page 167 and 168:
Where does the New Barn Raising con
Page 169 and 170:
APPENDIX The following section was
Page 171 and 172:
If you decide that you do want to s
Page 173 and 174:
City of Saint Paul (2010), Transfor
Page 175 and 176:
Morrish, R. and Brown, C. (2000), P
Page 177 and 178:
CGAP (2012), “Comparing U.S. and
Page 179 and 180:
Sargeant, A. and Shang, J. (2010),
Page 181 and 182:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS German Marshall Fu
Page 183 and 184:
Rademacher, Jolyn * Rey, Vernon * R
Page 185 and 186:
Roberson, Jr., Dalton * Russ, Cathl
Page 187 and 188:
Reierson, Gary * Rhodes, Carleen *
Page 189 and 190:
Iyer, Seema Jacob France Institute
Page 191 and 192:
Referees for, and support with, the
show all

bQNs7mR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?