The Ellen Wilson Demonstration Project: 1995-1996
by Dixon Slingerland, YPI Lead Facilitator for the Project
The Ellen Wilson community on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. received a rare opportunity in 1995 when a $25 million HUD grant was awarded to redevelop an abandoned public housing project. Because the housing project itself had no residents, $3 million in social services funding was made available to the larger community. More importantly, the community was given the power to determine how those funds would be spent.
The Youth Policy Institute facilitated the neighborhood planning process which ensued with myself as lead facilitator while the rest of the YPI team developed the “planning tree” information that would be used the community for decision-making. This approach exemplified the two-step process change that YPI had been working on for years: the first step being the collection of the best thinking in the form of planning trees; the second step being the facilitation of planning sessions where that information was put into concrete use.
Eighteen months after it all began, the Ellen Wilson community created a plan that was far more than just an innovative strategy for addressing social problems. This plan represented the hard work of an entire neighborhood. It also represented the community's understanding of its own problems, strengths, and opportunities. The details of the plan were not developed by the D.C. government or an outside consultant. Every component of the strategy came from the residents.
To start, a new deliberative body was established to serve as the forum for resident-led decision-making. Residents from both sides of the freeway that splits the community physically, racially, and socioeconomically were alerted to the formation of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC). From the first session, the value and potential of the CAC was clear. Sitting at the table were black public housing residents from the Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg housing projects, predominantly white homeowners and church members from north of the Eisenhower Freeway, professionals in social work and the arts, and the leadership of local civic associations, including ANC commissioners from D.C.’s neighborhood council system. These were people and even organizations who had not met publicly before. In fact, many residents were meeting each other for the first time.
The CAC became a neighborhood-level political process. Less than ten blocks from the U.S. Capitol, twenty-four representatives had come together to shape the future of the Ellen Wilson community. Except these representatives were the residents of the community itself, rather than professional policymakers, and the future they were shaping was their own.
The CAC was not a typical advisory committee. Most importantly, the committee's members had full authority over the direction and outcome of the planning process. Residents were not just providing their input, or approving the approach, or discussing common issues. They were creating a vision as well as a comprehensive plan from scratch.
The Community Advisory Committee spent much of the first three months laying the groundwork for a productive dialogue between its members. On average, the CAC met every other week. Co-Chairpersons were elected: one from north of the freeway and one from the Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg communities south of the freeway. It is important to note that prior to the planning process the Ellen Wilson neighborhood was fragmented to the point of non-existence. The freeway effectively served as the boundary between an inner-city and a suburban population. More than 80% of the population north of the freeway was white, while 97% of the population south of the freeway was African-American. Similarly, the median income north was $45,000, and south it was $6,000. North of the freeway, the poverty rate was 6%. In the Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg area, 54% lived below the poverty line.
The first months were a difficult period. It took time for the CAC members from both of these populations to find common ground. And it took time to realize that their goals for the community were in many respects the same. The CAC recognized from the first meeting forward, however, that the planning had to be inclusive of both sides of the freeway or the result would have little sustainability.
Significantly, the early sessions of the CAC also exposed a deep-seated skepticism on the part of all the participants. Neighborhood residents simply did not believe that they had the power to shape the social services planning. People had heard the same lines about community input too many times. It became clear that the first challenge to citizen participation was reversing thirty years of neglect and distrust. Despite all the truisms, there were very few people, black or white, rich or poor, who were accustomed to having a real decision-making stake in their own community.
When the CAC finally reached the point of organizing itself into working groups, things began to improve. The working groups were created around the priority areas identified by the CAC members. The health and public safety working groups were straightforward. The quality of life group was set up to address all the issues that affect healthy families, from childcare to recreation to tutoring and mentoring. The economic development working group concentrated on job training, business development, and homeownership. The formation of the working groups marked the beginning of the camaraderie that would prevail over the rest of the planning process.
The collection of information for the planning trees by YPI was tailored to the issues that residents had identified. The product of the research was then facilitated in planning workshops where I presented the information and helped residents to develop an understanding of what they were reading. On topics as diverse as community policing, apprenticeship, and child care, the planning trees pulled together information on solutions nationwide. Residents were able to access the best thinking of practitioners and policymakers around the country, and look at models that had worked in similar communities. In addition, a number of the working groups had the opportunity to meet with national experts in the areas they were examining.
For example, the economic development working group recognized early on that there were critical ties between education, job training, and eventual employment, and that the transition from school to work was a paramount issue for family self-sufficiency. By looking at the school-to-work planning tree, residents came to see that there was a basic lack of communication between these sectors. Educators train students in fixed curricula regardless of the state of the labor market, job training programs often provide skills with no direct link to employment, and employers demand trained employees without meaningful participation in apprenticeship or training programs.
With this understanding, the members of the economic development group examined the options for a successful transition from education to employment. These options included the model of career education, which had been implemented successfully by the federal government in the 1970s; the components of the school-to-work opportunities system, which was being debated in Congress at the very same time; and the integrated approach of the Industry-Educator Council. The residents of the Ellen Wilson community were considering solutions beyond even the scope of Congressional hearings.
The last six weeks of the planning process saw the working groups engaging in this kind of decision-making while costing out their individual plans. The full CAC then reviewed and commented on these plans. In an incredible investment of time and energy, the working groups and the full CAC all met weekly during this period. For some members, this meant up to six hours of evening meetings each week.
In addition to the individual working group decisions, the overall CAC reached two important conclusions. First, they decided that the existing services in the neighborhood were substantial and did not need to be duplicated or marginalized by creating new providers. Second, they decided that the CAC, the neighborhood planning process, and the funding itself should be maintained in perpetuity. The institutionalization of the Community Advisory Committee and the establishment of a trust fund were meant to ensure that there would always be a forum for democratic decision-making, and that residents would have the opportunity to adjust their plan as services were evaluated and new needs arose.
Unfortunately, the community did lose a great measure of control over the funding after the planning process finished in 1996. Although many of the CAC recommended initiatives were funded, the CAC eventually disbanded in frustration over bureaucratic delays, political interventions, and other power plays. This result only proved how difficult it is to sustain engaged democracy at the community level and highlighted the many obstacles to true empowerment. However, the Ellen Wilson project also showcased how rewarding and productive planning can be when citizens are provided with the information they need to make informed decisions and unite around common goals.