July 10, 2007

Some Surprises in Early NCRC Survey Data

By Sara Epstein

he NC Review Commission has released its first analysis of an on-going survey of past and current Neighborhood Council board members. The survey will continue through the summer but has received sufficient responses, says NCRC Executive Director Raphael Sonenshein, to “draw some preliminary conclusions.”

The following CityWatch report offers a summary of the survey’s findings to date by Sonenshein; a perspective on the early results by Greg Nelson and the survey itself.

Executive Director Raphael Sonenshein’s Summary

This is our first survey analysis, conducted by the Social Science Research Center at CSU Fullerton, under the direction of Dr. Gregory Robinson. I appreciate your patience in awaiting this material. The numbers are now large enough to draw some preliminary conclusions. We have received responses from 448 current and former Neighborhood Council board members.

This is an interim report. I have asked the SSRC to continue its survey through the summer, so that we can get more data as part of our final report. At the same time, the SSRC will be informing Neighborhood Council board members about the upcoming workshops.

There were two types of surveys: the long form and the short form. The SSRC reached many respondents by telephone, and for those calls only used the short form. Therefore, some of the questions were answered by the entire sample, and others only by those who used the long form.

I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the findings that I found most valuable for the Commission’s work. I think, however, that you will find the whole report to be illuminating.

• Of the responses received, roughly 60% came from current board members, and 40% from former board members. A number of former board members listed bickering and procedural problems as their reasons for not continuing board service.
• While most board members thought their Neighborhood Council was the right size, a quarter believed that it was too large in area. Overall, three-quarters were satisfied with their boundaries.Active Image
• Current board members were more optimistic and positive about the condition of the Neighborhood Council system on almost every measure than former Board members. This may mean that some of the problems that have marked the system have begun to show improvement.
• Board members report high levels of contact with their City Council member, and high degrees of satisfaction with that contact, as well as a sense of influence with their City Council member. Among all elected officials, the individual City Council members seem to have the closest relationship with the Neighborhood Councils. For example, there is less contact and satisfaction with the Council as a whole, or the city government as a whole. This is consistent with surveys that the Charter Reform Commissions conducted in 1997-98, which found that the “go to” office for people in neighborhoods was the City Council field office.
• Board members spend a significant number of hours each month on board work.
• Board members offered a variety of achievements for their Neighborhood Councils, largely involving public policy (especially land use), community projects, and advocacy.
• Board members identified structural problems with boards, a lack of training and other city resources, and the need for outreach as key problems with the system.
• While Board members report high levels of contact with DONE, there is considerable ambivalence about the quality of the relationship. Detailed comments reveal much that is positive but also significant complaints about DONE’s competence and effectiveness.
• Board members had relatively little contact with BONC, and mixed feelings about BONC’s role.
• There was little support for increasing the terms of board members.
• Board members reported high levels of contact with certain departments (DONE, of course, but also Planning), with varying levels of satisfaction. An interesting finding is that the Police Department had significant contact with Board members that among City departments was exceeded only by DONE, with a very high level of satisfaction.
• Of all contacts, board members reported the highest satisfaction with contacts with community-based organizations.
• While land use occupies the largest share of the Neighborhood Council effort, numerous other issues also command time and resources.
• The performance of the City’s Early Notification System receives lukewarm support, especially for issues other than land use.
• Board members report that meetings are much more likely to be “calm and civil” than contentious.
• In the area of bylaws, detailed responses revealed concern about the variation of bylaws and there was support for standardization. However, these were volunteered responses rather than answers to a specific question, and might therefore over-represent negatives. In any case, there is clearly some concern here.
• While board members felt that Neighborhood Council elections were generally fair, there was a high degree of support for standardized election procedures. Current board members were much more likely than former board members to consider elections to be fair.
• Volunteered responses mentioned the issue of “takeovers” and raised questions about the role of stakeholder definition and other means to prevent takeovers.
• Respondents to our survey are more likely to be white, compared to the population as a whole. African Americans are represented roughly in comparable shares to their population. The most underrepresented racial and ethnic groups are Latinos and Asian Americans. Other data, such as a survey by NALEO and an analysis by our own staff, suggest that there is actually a higher proportion of Latino board members than surveys are indicating. We will therefore wait until the completion of our study to make a final determination of the demographic composition. In this stage, the SSRC will be making a special effort to reach Latinos.
• A striking feature of board member demographics is that only one-third are employed full time. The remainder are employed part time, retired, homemakers, or unemployed. Three quarters of board members report having no children at home. This raises the question of how board involvement can be made consistent with the demands of full time jobs for workers with children, especially in a city with so many working class and middle class people working full time and even overtime. It is also possible that such people serve on boards, but were not available to fill out the surveys.
• Both voluntary and mandatory training are favored, but the voluntary approach is favored more than mandatory training. Reviews of the training are only moderately positive.

--Dr. Raphael Sonenshein, Executive Director, NC Review Commission

Greg Nelson Survey Perspective

After learning that a friend of mine had become a marriage counselor, I asked her which advice she felt was most important for a couple about to get married. She said, “I would tell them, or anyone else entering a relationship, to first sit down and discuss their expectations. Problems come from unmet expectations.”

I was thinking about her words as a read the results of the Cal State Fullerton survey of present and past neighborhood council board members.

Most of the answers ended up in the middle of the scoring range between “it’s a complete disaster” and “this is greatest thing since iPhone.”

I know that the cynics, and those who fear that neighborhood councils will become even more powerful, are certain to use some part of the survey to float a dark cloud over this grand experiment. I wish that we could have gotten them on record beforehand as to which results would make them happy.

Surveys are of greater value when they are relative to something meaningful. A few months ago, Loyola Marymount University released a survey of board members, and declared that the system was getting worse. The problem is that they compared the results to their last survey from 2002 …. before any neighborhood councils were in business. What they had measured in 2002 were the expectations of those who felt they might become involved later on.

I found the Fullerton survey to be filled with optimism.

It told me that neighborhood councils are making great strides across the board, especially in relationships with their City Council member, and that there is room for improvement. One would hope that this should lead to greater support for the system from City Hall, most notably in the training and education that the neighborhood council members tell us they want so desperately.

Remember that the survey did not include those people who don’t serve on a board, but who devote just as many hours to serving their neighborhood council as the board members do.

Good examples are councils like the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council which just began an experiment in promoting public participation by allowing non-board member stakeholders to serve as full voting members on its committees by just showing up to the meeting.

And it would have been revealing to ask how many people showed up to each neighborhood council’s largest meeting or event. That might have painted a more accurate picture of public participation and outreach. There are many people who don’t have the time to attend meetings just for the sake of being there, but who will show up when there is a good enough reason.

The survey showed that on average, 19 stakeholders attend each full board meeting, and seven to eight attend committee meetings. From what I’ve seen at the City Council’s meetings, and at city commission meetings, City Hall could take some lessons from the neighborhood councils about how to increase public participation.

Current board members, who were 60% of the respondents, were generally more positive about the system than the former board members. That might mean that the system is improving, and/or that the old timers had unrealistic expectations. (Greg Nelson participated in the birth and development of the LA Neighborhood Council system and most recently served as the General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Nelson now provides news and issues analysis to CityWatch.) You can reach Greg Nelson at; gregn213@cox.net