Return to flip book view

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Evaluation Report on the Community Connections Grants Program within the Skillman Foundation’s Detroit Community Change Strategy 2006-2010 Produced for Prevention Network and the Skillman Foundation May 18, 2011 By David Scheie, Nan Kari and Mysti Strege Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................3 I. Introduction: Skillman’s vision for change ............................................................................9 Good Neighborhoods .................................................................................................................. 9 Community Connections within Good Neighborhoods ............................................................ 10 Evaluation overview .................................................................................................................. 10 II. Description of the Community Connections grants program .............................................. 11 Program goals ............................................................................................................................ 11 Resident review panel ............................................................................................................... 12 Staffing the program ................................................................................................................. 13 Grantmaking patterns ............................................................................................................... 14 Types of groups being funded ................................................................................................... 17 Types of project activities .......................................................................................................... 19 Projects’ purposes ..................................................................................................................... 21 III. Results ............................................................................................................................ 25 Results for youth ....................................................................................................................... 25 Results for adults ....................................................................................................................... 32 Results for participating organizations ...................................................................................... 35 Results for policy-institutional systems ..................................................................................... 37 Visible changes in the neighborhoods....................................................................................... 40 IV. Emerging lessons and recommendations ......................................................................... 41 Strengths and success factors ................................................................................................... 41 Key challenges ........................................................................................................................... 42 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 45 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix A: Evaluation data sources for this report ............................................................... 48 Appendix B: Small grants neighborhood data displays ............................................................ 65

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 3 Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Evaluation Report on the Community Connections Grants Program within the Skillman Foundation’s Detroit Community Change Strategy, 2006-2010 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry Executive Summary The Community Connections Grants Program is a strategy of the Skillman Foundation to leverage residents and other “natural leaders” and “natural helpers” as resources for change in its six target neighborhoods, so that children can grow up safe, healthy, educated and prepared for adulthood. Participating neighborhoods include Brightmoor and Cody Rouge on the far west side of Detroit, Chadsey/Condon and Vernor in southwest Detroit, the NorthEnd/ Central neighborhood, and Osborn on the far northeast side. Also known as the small grants program, Community Connections awards grants of up to $5,000 to local groups, both incorporated and unincorporated, to “provide support for innovative grassroots efforts to impact community change in neighborhoods.” The program is intended to “respond quickly to community needs, build resident leadership and empower residents and small nonprofits to help implement programs that will support their community goal.”1 From July 2006 through December 2010, Community Connections has provided 412 grants, totaling nearly $1.5 million, to 291 mostly small and local organizations in the six neighborhoods. Program operations The program is administered by Prevention Network (PN) in partnership with Skillman Foundation staff. In keeping with the program’s goal of building resident leadership and Skillman’s interest in fostering local ownership of neighborhood change efforts, a grant review panel made up of residents plays a major role in operating Community Connections. This panel is currently comprised of 21 residents of the six neighborhoods. Panelists are selected by PN with input from the Foundation, the neighborhood governance councils and executive directors, and current panelists. They are diverse in age, gender, neighborhood of residence, ethnicity, and length of service. The panel meets monthly to review all grant applications and make funding recommendations. Panelists contribute about eight hours per month in this role. They also serve as ambassadors and connectors among the small grants program and other residents, institutions and change efforts in their neighborhoods. A Prevention Network consultant coordinates the Community Connections program. She plays a key role: she circulates in the neighborhoods scouting for natural leaders and helpers that might want to tap small grant resources; provides coaching and mentoring to grantseekers, grantees and panelists; and staffs panel meetings. She helps connect grantee leaders and 1 From Skillman website, “Small grants,” http://www.skillman.org/grants/small-grants, 2/28/11.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 4 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 panelists to other opportunities to apply and further develop their leadership skills, to access resources and build organizational capacity. She organizes networking events, participates in meetings of the Good Neighborhoods core partners, and circulates among neighborhood stakeholders. Other PN staff, volunteers, Foundation staff, and the six neighborhood executive directors also play supportive, connecting roles. Grants awarded average $50,000 to $75,000 per year in each of the six neighborhoods. The average grant size was $3,251 in 2009-10. Groups can receive up to two grants per year, but of the 291 grantees to date, only about one fourth had been funded more than once (and fewer than one in 10 had received more than two grants). About a third of small grant projects were led by residents in partnership with agencies, schools or faith-based institutions; another third were led by nonprofit organizations (mostly small local ones that included resident leadership); and about one sixth were led by residents alone, with the remainder led primarily by schools or faith-based organizations. Almost three fourths of projects fell into five categories of activity: sports and fitness, neighborhood events, academic-focused programs, arts and summer camps. Over two thirds of projects said they pursued multiple purposes. For their primary purpose, about half focused either on “mentoring/tutoring/youth programs” or “youth development/leadership.” Another third focused on “arts and culture,” “community interaction” or “skills for career development.” Projects located their activities in various settings within their neighborhoods: most commonly, over a third of the projects analyzed held some activities outdoors while over one fourth held activities at schools and at churches and about one in five held activities at community centers. Variations among neighborhoods Neighborhoods vary somewhat in the types of projects that are happening, the age groups of children and youth being engaged, the kinds of local assets being leveraged in these grassroots projects, and the level of small grants activity. For example: • In 2009 and 2010 in NorthEnd/ Central there were 10 academic focused projects while there were none with this focus in Vernor. Vernor grantees initiated 11 projects in the sports and fitness category, while Chadsey/Condon had only three in that category. • Cody Rouge had fewer projects involving elementary school children while Chadsey/Condon, Northend/Central and Vernor had the most. Vernor also had the most projects involving pre-school age children. • Over half the projects analyzed in Vernor held activities outdoors, while only one fifth of those in Osborn did. In contrast, nearly half of Osborn’s projects held activities at neighborhood centers while less than one in seven of Vernor’s projects did. Schools were used as project sites by two fifths of the projects in Brightmoor and Chadsey/Condon, but by only one of 13 Cody Rouge projects analyzed. Over a third of Chadsey/Condon’s projects located some activities at churches, while only one in 15 Vernor projects analyzed did. • The total dollar amount of small grants awarded in Vernor declined each year from 2006-07 through 2009-10, while the amount awarded to projects in NorthEnd/Central

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 5 increased each year from 2007-08 through 2009-10. The other four neighborhoods had a mixture of year-to-year increases and decreases in total grant awards. Results Children and youth in these six neighborhoods have more access to enrichment activities thanks to the Community Connections program, with about 15 projects per neighborhood funded each year. Grantees reported a median number of 19 youth involved per project, meaning about 1,800 youth are participating annually in these projects across the six neighborhoods. In gender, ethnicity and age, these participants roughly mirror the demographics of these neighborhoods. Through these projects, participating youth are gaining expanded learning opportunities, new contexts for skill development and identity formation, and expanded relationships both between youth and adults and between children and youth of different ages. Some projects engaged young people in designing the project and writing the proposal, thereby cultivating creative leadership, planning, communications skills, and ownership. Participating adults – those leading funded projects, and those serving on the residents review panel – appear to be growing in skills, knowledge, vision and networks as well. Grantees reported a median number of nine adults involved in each project. Adults across the age spectrum are engaging in these projects, with reported participants including roughly equal numbers of college aged, young parents, middle aged and older adults. Contributing factors to adults’ development through Community Connections include the learning experience that comes with project leadership, review panel service, coaching and mentoring by the Community Connections coordinator and the six neighborhood executive directors, participation in the Good Neighborhoods Leadership Academy, and engagement in other leadership venues. Community Connections grassroots leaders are prominent in other leadership venues within the Skillman change strategy, especially the six neighborhoods’ governance boards. Each governance board includes three to seven small grantees, and five of six boards include a resident review panelist or a panelist’s family member. About 10% of all small grantees (28 in total) and more than a third of resident review panelists serve on or are closely involved in neighborhood governance boards. Five of the six boards had officers that were small grantees or panelists, including the president or chairperson in four neighborhoods. About one third of the people completing the Good Neighborhoods Leadership Academy in its first four rounds were Community Connections grantees or panelists. About 10% of all Community Connections grantees have sent people to the Leadership Academy. Most of the 291 Community Connections grantees through 2010 have had limited engagement, receiving only one grant. However, about a dozen per neighborhood (75 in all) have received two or more grants, including about four per neighborhood that have been funded three times or more. The small grants and affiliated opportunities appear to be facilitating new and stronger partnerships, both among these small local organizations, and between small groups and larger agencies and schools. Most projects are collaborative, involving a median number of three organizations. In several cases, small grants helped grassroots groups build capacity and lay

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 6 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 groundwork for larger grants and projects. Several small grantees have taken advantage of other developmental resources linked to the Skillman change effort. For example, over half of the organizations to go through the Youth Development Commission’s Targeted Area Partnership Program have been Community Connections grantees. The Community Connections program appears to be influencing dynamics among larger agencies (and to a lesser extent schools) and residents and small local organizations in these six neighborhoods: mutual respect, trust and collaboration appear to be increasing. Several interviewees noted a shift in attitudes among both residents and agency staff. As one said, Small grants provided the opportunity for [institutional] stakeholders to say, ‘Yes, I do not live here but I care about the neighborhood and I’ll work with you on the small grant.’ Little groups learned that the large organizations were not going to take all the money or take credit for the work. Relationships were built…Skillman was influencing organizations to work with residents. It had to be resident driven. The small grants clarified those roles. The small grants were the equalizer…Organizations have begun to rethink how they do business, to honor resident voice and that to get money they have to have partnerships. These shifts appear to be the result of several factors: the empowering experience for residents of receiving and implementing a small grant; the mentorship of residents by the Community Connections coordinator and the neighborhood executive directors who encouraged them to value their own expertise and authority and to view agency and school professionals as peers; the learning that institutional staff and residents experienced as they formed relationships and began working together; and Skillman’s insistence to agencies and schools that they engage residents as partners. Small grant project events and activities are expanding the number of spaces where people can meet neighbors and begin to engage in collective efforts that improve the neighborhood. These spaces for interaction and shared work help connect people to the place where they live, help them see themselves and their neighbors as a vital neighborhood, and help strengthen the habits, skills and networks by which they can work for community improvements rather than retreating or leaving. Lessons Three basic design factors appear to contribute to the successes of the Community Connections program: • It is woven into Good Neighborhoods and the larger Skillman community change effort, rather than a stand-alone strategy; • Its emphasis on “resident-driven” processes strengthens the sense of local decision-making and ownership; • The organizing role played by the program coordinator and the neighborhood executive directors has been vital for nurturing resident leaders and connecting them into broader institutional and policy networks.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 7 Challenges making progress difficult include: • Seeing the whole and working for change: Even though some networking and integration occurs, few people have an overview of the patterns of activity, concern and leadership that Community Connections is weaving through these neighborhoods – nor of how Community Connections can dovetail with other Skillman change components for greatest impact. Neither the small grants application form, nor the review panel process, has given much attention to the bigger-picture goals of resident leadership, empowerment and collaborating for change. Attention disproportionately has focused on individual grants and project implementation concerns. • Questions regarding organizational capacity growth: Sustaining and strengthening these small organizations is a long-term and difficult process. Most remain fragile. There has also been ambiguity about what kinds of organizational capacity growth are important. To date, much developmental assistance has focused on increasing program and management capacities – even though Skillman is clear that it’s not trying to create 50 large service agencies in each neighborhood. There has been less attention to building capacity for innovation and collaboration, for civic engagement and systemic change – and perhaps less clarity about how to do this. • Expanding youth leadership and public engagement: Most funded projects to date have given primary attention to helping children be safe, healthy, and educated (in an academic sense). Less attention has gone to preparing children for an adulthood in which they can be active citizens, proactive community leaders and skillful change agents. The challenge is to help children and youth connect their talents, ideas and knowledge to their community, so that they can form the skills, relationships and the mindset that will enable them to contribute to community improvement today and into the future. Recommendations In light of these challenges, and strengths, the following recommendations for improving the Community Connections grants program are offered: • Refine program guidelines and materials to improve the focus on underlying change goals and to increase synergy and momentum. This might include: o Increase emphasis on projects that include collaboration among organizations. o Encourage grantees and panelists to become more intentional about developing leadership and empowering residents, including engaging youth as active contributors to community improvement. o Refine brochures, website, application forms and other communications materials to increase attention to youth organizing and engagement and to community organizing and systems change. Expand coaching and capacity building assistance in these key areas. o Clarify guidelines for previously-funded groups to encourage continuity in programs while also expecting experienced grantees to learn and improve.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 8 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 o Be more flexible in allowing local grantees to work with children who live outside of these six neighborhoods. Particularly since schools mix children across neighborhood lines, Community Connections should leverage relationship networks without excessively-rigid geographical restrictions. • Leverage more fully the review panel’s leadership potential: expanding the vision to reach beyond applications review to become a strategic learning, linking and leadership vehicle for Community Connections. This might include: o Share grantees’ final reports with panelists so that they can learn about grantees’ activities, results and lessons. o Periodically compile and analyze patterns of activity, participation, results and lessons from grantees, and create spaces where the panel (and other stakeholders) can reflect on these findings and develop ideas for increasing impact. o Improve linkages between the panel and the neighborhood governance boards. Make sure panelists and board members have opportunities to be In dialogue and to learn together. o Make more explicit panelists’ roles as community connectors, ambassadors and strategists for the program and its larger change goals. Recruit, orient and mentor panelists with this strategic purpose in mind. o Invite the panel to revise its current processes as necessary to open space for these larger strategic roles. Perhaps panel “alumni” can be engaged to help perform some of these functions. • Improve use of the program’s growing knowledge base: enhancing its systems for ongoing learning and utilization of emerging lessons. Steps might include: o Systematically review grantees’ reports, declined applications and other data on program activities, engagement, and contextual factors, to generate clues for greater effectiveness. o Involve staff, panelists, grantees and other stakeholders in periodic reflection on results and other patterns to stimulate learning and shared understanding. o Expand spaces where grantees and others can form relationships for peer learning, mutual assistance and joint action. • Expand visibility of small grants activities and results both among neighborhood residents and among other stakeholders and policy makers. o Encourage more photography, video documentation and storytelling regarding Community Connections work – and display these publicly in diverse venues. o Encourage more events where youth can perform, demonstrate their gifts and make visible contributions to neighborhood quality of life. o Increase communications about Community Connections groups, leaders, projects and lessons to other stakeholders and institutional participants in Skillman’s community change efforts.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 9 I. Introduction: Skillman’s vision for change In 2006, the Skillman Foundation began a 10-year commitment to making change so that children in Detroit, starting with those living in six neighborhoods, can be safe, healthy, well-educated and prepared for adulthood. The foundation’s theory of change posits that this is most likely to happen when: • Children live in neighborhoods that have the capacities and resources to support youth and families, • They attend high quality schools, • They are embedded in a strong system of supports and opportunities, and • Broader systems and policies create conditions under which youth can thrive. Skillman has focused its work within the three program areas of Good Neighborhoods, Good Schools and Good Opportunities. The Good Schools and Good Opportunities programs pursue citywide change to improve schools and the systems of opportunities and supports that affect quality of life for children and their families in these six neighborhoods and beyond. Good Neighborhoods Good Neighborhoods makes investments within these six neighborhoods, seeking to mobilize and strengthen the assets already located there. The six neighborhoods were chosen for their high concentrations of children; about 65,000 (30%) of Detroit’s children live there. They include Brightmoor and Cody Rouge on the far west side, Chadsey/Condon and the Southwest Detroit (Vernor) neighborhood in southwest Detroit, North End/ Central just north of downtown, and Osborn on the far northeast side. The Foundation has pledged to invest at least $100 million in these six neighborhoods through Good Neighborhoods from 2006 through 2016, and it works to attract investment from other sources as well. Skillman is strongly committed to working in partnership with the people who live in these neighborhoods. As disinvestment from Detroit has increased over the past 60 years, the talents and vision of residents who remain have become ever more important ingredients for crafting viable strategies for revitalization. Skillman is convinced that for change to be lasting, of maximum impact, and truly beneficial for Detroit’s families, residents themselves must play central roles in guiding and implementing community enhancement efforts. Through Good Neighborhoods the Foundation has invested in extensive resident and stakeholder engagement processes in the six neighborhoods. Youth, adults, faith institutions, small local nonprofit organizations, larger city-wide agencies, school leaders and others have been brought together to develop a shared vision and to build relationships that can lead to creative, collaborative action on behalf of children and families. By 2008, each neighborhood had articulated an overarching goal for its Good Neighborhoods work. By the end of 2009, each neighborhood had elected a governance council to provide ongoing oversight and coordination of Skillman-supported youth enrichment and systemic change efforts.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 10 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Community Connections within Good Neighborhoods A key component in Skillman’s strategy to engage residents and other “natural leaders” and “natural helpers” in these six neighborhoods is the Community Connections Grant Program, also known as the small grants program. This program awards grants of $500 to $5,000 to local groups and leaders, both incorporated nonprofit organizations and informal groups. According to Skillman’s website, these small grants are to “provide support for innovative grassroots efforts to impact community change in neighborhoods.” The program is envisioned as a vehicle that can “respond quickly to community needs, build resident leadership and empower residents and small nonprofits to help implement programs that will support their community goal.”2 Through December 2010, the Community Connections program has provided 412 grants, totaling nearly $1.5 million from the Skillman and Berman Foundations, to 291 mostly small and local organizations in the six neighborhoods. Evaluation overview Now, at the midpoint of its 10-year commitment, the Foundation has commissioned a comprehensive evaluation of its work so far. Learning and evaluation are important elements in Skillman’s approach. The Brandeis University Center for Youth and Communities has provided ongoing evaluation support, and the Foundation has a knowledge management officer to facilitate learning within the Foundation. At this point, the Foundation wishes to begin sharing results and lessons with other funders, practitioners and policy makers nationally. The Brandeis Center is coordinating development of a comprehensive public report, aided by several evaluation consultants enlisted to delve more deeply into key aspects of this change initiative. Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, which has a background in evaluation of small grants programs and grassroots community change efforts, was engaged to explore the Community Connections small grants program. This report presents findings and recommendations from this exploration, conducted from December 2010 into March 2011. It is based on review and analysis of: • Lists of all grants and grantees since Community Connections’ inception • Summaries of all 201 small grants awarded in 2009-2010 • 100 final reports most recently submitted by small grantees • Interviews and focus groups with 21 key informants: 10 grantee leaders, four resident review panel members, and seven partners and observers of small grants activity • Multiple conversations with Foundation and small grants program staff 2From Skillman website, “Small grants,” http://www.skillman.org/grants/small-grants/ , 2/28/11.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 11 II. Description of the Community Connections grants program Program goals As mentioned earlier, Skillman’s goals for the Community Connections grants program are to: • Respond quickly to community needs • Build resident leadership • Empower residents and small nonprofits to help implement programs that will support their community goal. The Foundation selected a partner organization to administer the Community Connections program. Prevention Network (PN) is a statewide organization experienced in administering resident-led small grants programs for community substance abuse prevention projects. Prevention Network articulates the vision for Community Connections, and its own role in the program, in this way on its website: Prevention Network provides small grants as part of the Skillman Foundation’s Good Neighborhoods Initiative. This is a ten-year initiative to help re-build Detroit through planning and support for targeted neighborhoods. Community Connections grants are awarded in amounts up to $5000 for projects, which are designed for and by target neighborhood residents and will have an impact on the specific goal for that neighborhood. Assistance is provided for community groups at any stage from brainstorming ideas, project planning, applying for a grant, to project completion. When appropriate, assistance is provided for unsuccessful applicants to re-apply. Applicants are expected to name their Good Neighborhoods neighborhood, the GN goal for their neighborhood, and how their proposed project will help to reach their neighborhood’s goal. The six neighborhoods’ goals are as follows: Brightmoor: All Brightmoor youth will have access to, and participate in, a range of year-round programming during non-school hours that encourages academic growth and positive social development. Chadsey/Condon: To develop positive attitudes, build relationships to foster stronger school attendance, be deterrent to the drug/gang activities, improve relationships between families and schools, and keep the children safe and supervised in a fun learning environment. Cody Rouge: That all children will live in a village where they are healthy, safe, well educated and have access to unlimited resources. North End/ Central: North End is a productive community organized to provide a high quality education and resources to meet the needs of our children and their families.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 12 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Osborn: To improve the overall physical and mental well-being of community residents. Provide structured physical/ recreational activities; promote cultural interactions and socialization among community residents while enhancing life skills. SW Detroit (Vernor) : That all youth have positive development in their home, school and neighborhood. Resident review panel The Community Connections goals of empowering residents and building resident leadership are pursued partially through using a Grant Review Panel comprised of active residents from the six target neighborhoods. Panelists review grant applications and meet monthly to make funding recommendations (about eight per month) which are forwarded to the PN board for final approval. This requires about eight hours per month on a volunteer basis for panelists, in addition to whatever other involvement they might have in community and Skillman initiative affairs. Currently 21 residents serve on the panel, with about 12 attending the typical meeting. Two have been on the panel since it was formed in mid-2006, and others have joined more recently, including seven that started in January 2011. Panelists are selected by the PN program coordinator based on her knowledge of neighborhood leaders plus nominations from neighborhood governance councils, executive directors and Skillman staff. The panel is composed to include diversity of gender, age, ethnicity, and neighborhood of residence, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Composition of resident review panel Gender: Men 11 Neighborhood: Brightmoor: 3 Women 10 Chadsey/Condon: 3 Cody Rouge: 3 Age distribution: Under 20: 2 Northend: 4 20-29 2 Osborn: 3 30-39 7 Southwest (Vernor) : 5 40-49 5 50-59 1 Year joined panel: 2006 2 60+ 4 2007 6 2009 6 Ethnicity: African American: 15 2011 7 Latina/o: 3 White: 3

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 13 Staffing the program Prevention Network staffs the program with a Detroit-based consultant who serves as full-time program coordinator, a quarter-time program assistant, and a retired staff person who volunteers a large number of hours per week. In addition, a Skillman Foundation senior program officer provides active oversight and a Skillman program associate provides logistical and clerical support, staying closely informed about program activities. The coordinator plays a key role in the small grants program: connecting and facilitating, coaching and advising on many levels. She circulates in the neighborhoods, looking for leaders and groups that might be interested in or benefit from a small grant, and touching base with institutional stakeholders. With prospective grantees she presents public workshops and provides individualized coaching on project design and proposal development. (These functions are also performed by the six neighborhood executive directors to a lesser extent.) With the panel, Prevention Network staff prepare monthly packets of application materials for panelists’ review, and coordinate the panel’s monthly meetings which often last for three hours or more. The coordinator also spends time mentoring resident panelists, both on an individual basis and by bringing them to national learning experiences such as Grassroots Grantmakers “On the Ground” workshops and webinars. With grantees, the coordinator keeps an eye on project progress, providing trouble-shooting, brokering and cheerleading where relevant. With both grantees and panelists, she alerts and encourages them to take part in the Good Neighborhoods Leadership Academy, the governance boards, and other venues where they can develop and exercise their leadership capacities. Since 2008, in response to an early evaluation recommendation from the Brandeis team, the coordinator has organized three to six networking events per year. Each grantee is invited to at least one of these annually. Institutional stakeholders are invited as well. Sometimes these are within a single neighborhood; other times they convene people across multiple neighborhoods. These events are intended to help people build relationships with peers and prospective allies, and to increase shared awareness of the breadth of small grant activities, groups, and leaders. Often these events include youth performances and demonstrations by selected grantee groups. Parents and family members are encouraged to attend, and sometimes outnumber grantees at the events. Institutional representatives may share information about their facilities and resources that resident groups can access. The goal is to see and to increase connections, and to better understand the whole community change vision of which Community Connections is part. Networking also occurs through quarterly “Lunch and Learn” events that the Skillman Foundation organizes. These are held within geographic pairs of neighborhoods: Brightmoor and Cody Rouge, Chadsey/Condon and Southwest (Vernor), NorthEnd/ Central and Osborn. All grantees within those neighborhoods are invited to these. The Community Connections coordinator also participates in monthly conference calls and quarterly meetings of the Good Neighborhoods core partners, along with University of Michigan, National Community Development Institute, the Brandeis evaluators, and Skillman

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 14 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 staff. One participant in those meetings observed that when the coordinator makes a report at those meetings, “It’s like E.F. Hutton: everybody listens, because she always brings something that everybody else didn’t know. She also plays a key bridge role back into the community.” Grantmaking patterns Organizations can receive up to two small grants per year. To date, however, about three fourths of all grantees have only been funded once. Fifty groups had been funded twice, and 25 had received three or more grants during the first four and a half years, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Percentage of groups receiving multiple grants The average grant size declined slightly year by year, from about $4,300 in 2006-07 down to $3,300 in 2009-2010. The biggest declined occurred from Year One to Year Two as applicants and the review panel grew more skilled at estimating project costs and as limits on certain kinds of allowable expenditures (such as project t-shirts) were put in place. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show average grant size and totals per program year. Figure 3: Grant totals by program year Year Total # grants Total $ awarded Average grant $ size 2006-07 71 $306,678 $4,319 2007-08 104 $375,736 $3,613 2008-09 109 $379,075 $3,478 2009-10 94 $305,589 $3,251 74%17%5%4%1 grant2 grants3 grants4 + grants

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 15 Figure 4: Grant dollars awarded by program year Figure 5: Number of grants awarded by program year While the average grant size was declining annually, the total number of grants and dollars awarded increased during the first three years before declining somewhat in the fourth year of the program’s operation. The biggest increase occurred in Year Two, 2007-08, when the program expanded from four neighborhoods to six, adding Cody Rouge and North End/ Central. That expansion occurred in January 2008, midway through Year Two. Reasons for the 14% decline in grants awarded in Year Four were not clear, though the decline was confined to four of the six neighborhoods: Brightmoor, Cody Rouge, Osborn and Southwest (Vernor]. $200,000$220,000$240,000$260,000$280,000$300,000$320,000$340,000$360,000$380,000$400,0002006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010Total $ Awarded Program Year0204060801001202006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10Total # of grantsProgram Year

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 16 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 The six neighborhoods had roughly similar levels of small grant activities. On average, each neighborhood received about $59,000 per year, with a range from about $50,000 in North End/ Central and Southwest (Vernor) up to $74,000 in Osborn. There were some variations, however (all numbers rounded to nearest thousand): • Southwest (Vernor) declined from $76,000 in Year One to $29,000 in Year Four • Brightmoor declined from $80,000 in Year One to $44,000 in Year Four • Osborn peaked at $96,000 in Year Three, then dropped to $57,000 in Year Four • Cody Rouge dropped from $77,000 in Year Three to $40,000 in Year Four • Chadsey/Condon and North End/ Central, in contrast to the other four neighborhoods, saw increases in grant activity in Year Four: Chadsey/Condon increased from $39,000 to $58,000, while North End/ Central increased from $54,000 to $64,000 Again, no obvious explanation for these variations among neighborhoods surfaced during the evaluation. Figure 6: Total grant dollars awarded in each neighborhood by program year $0$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000$100,000$120,0002006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010BrightmoorChadsey/CondonCody-RougeNorthend/CentralOsbornSouthwest (Vernor)

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 17 Small grants awarded per year, per neighborhood, July 2006 – June 2010 Year Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge North End/ Central Osborn SW (Vernor) 2006-07 $82,745 $72,925 $0 $0 $78,706 $76,202 2007-08 $93,189 $73,879 $45,099 $31,430 $78,952 $49,287 2008-09 $57,239 $38,743 $86,384 $54,063 $96,462 $47,814 2009-10 $43,608 $62,500 $39,863 $63,541 $56,577 $23,920 Total: $276,781 $248,047 $171,346 $149,034 $310,697 $197,223 Avg. $/yr $69,195 $62,012 $42,837 $37,259 $77,674 $49,306 *Grants were awarded in Cody Rouge and NorthEnd/ Central starting in January 2008. Types of groups being funded To understand more clearly the kinds of organizations and partnerships being engaged through Community Connections, the evaluation team analyzed applications and final reports from 100 different grantees. When possible, we used the most recent reports from different grantees received by Prevention Network. The 100 project files reviewed for this analysis ranged from 2006 to 2010 and came from a variety of organization types, project types, and neighborhoods. Figure 7 shows the dates of the 100 grants, the spread over the 6 neighborhoods and the number of grants each organization received. 3 Figure 7: Characteristics of 100 files/organizations reviewed for analysis Number of grants per year (of our 100) Neighborhood % of our files (100) % of all grantees (279) Number of grants received per grantee 2006 5 Brightmoor 23 20 1 grant 50 2007 18 Chadsey/Condon 17 15 2 grants 30 2008 20 Cody Rouge 13 12 3 grants 11 2009 36 Northend/Central 16 13 4 grants 5 2010 21 Osborn 14 23 5 grants 3 Southwest (Vernor) 15 15 6 grants 0 SW (Vernor) & C.C. 1 < 1 8 grants 1 4 Neighborhoods 1 < 1 3 The name, grant date, grant amount and neighborhood of the 100 grantees used for this analysis is shown in table A-2 in Appendix A.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 18 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Five main categories of groups emerged as we analyzed the 100 files/reports. Those categories were: • Agency/Non-profit led projects • Resident-led projects • School-led projects • Faith-based projects • Collaborative projects involving multiple partners These categories were combined if there was evidence that two different kinds of leaders or organizations worked together on a project. A somewhat difficult distinction was between resident-led projects and agency-led projects. If this distinction could not be made easily by reading the materials in the file, as a general rule, if the grantee used a larger organization as their fiduciary (they did not have 501c3 status) they were classified as resident-led and if they had 501c3 status and therefore the grant check was written directly to the organization they were classified as an agency. We found that about half (49) of the 100 grantees were projects led by residents or by residents in partnership with local institutions. Another 30 grantees were nonprofit agencies – mostly small local ones that often had resident leadership. One in 10 was clearly faith-based, and about one in 12 was school-led. Figure 8 shows the range of grantee groups in the 100 files examined. Figure 8: Group/organization type of the 100 files in the analysis * Table B-1 in Appendix B shows the total number and dollar amount of each group type by neighborhood. Resident-led WITH another*32%Resident-ledonly17%Agency only30%School-led only8%Agency AND school-led3%Faith-based only10%* Resident-led AND (school-led/Agency-led/ Faith-based)

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 19 Types of project activities To identify the types of project activities supported by Community Connections grants, the evaluation team reviewed project summary descriptions for all 201 projects funded in the two most recent calendar years, 2009 and 2010. We found that projects fell into nine different categories of youth development and enrichment activity. Some projects involved a range of activities; in those cases the project was coded according to the activity most emphasized in the description. Activity categories included: • Academic focused projects include a range of learning activities directly related to improvement of academic skills and/or to support post secondary planning and preparation. Examples include such projects as robotics, journalism, reading enhancement, creative writing, and college tours. These projects often took place in schools during after school hours. • Arts and culture include arts programs throughout the year such as dance, painting, sewing, music lessons, cultural arts, theater productions, jewelry making, and culinary arts. • Field trips include those projects with this as the primary activity. Sometimes summer programs included field trips among a variety of other activities, in which case, they are counted in the arts and summer camp category. • Gardening and environmental projects are those that occur in multiple meetings over a period of months. Many of these projects note a curriculum or describe a strong learning emphasis. Most projects in this category involve community gardening and landscaping, some of them intergenerational. In one instance participants constructed a park. • Leadership development /engagement projects were those explicitly designated as focusing on youth leadership development and/or civic engagement. Examples include training/participation in census work, youth empowerment, conflict resolution workshops, outdoor adventure-based personal and team development, and youth summits. (Note: many other projects aimed toward leadership development through other activities, particularly sports.) • Neighborhood events most often include one, and in some cases, two or three-day events, usually involving an intergenerational mix of participants. Many of these events created opportunity for large public gatherings. Neighborhood examples include health fairs, community safety events, block club celebrations, neighborhood clean ups, back to school events and town meetings. • Social skills development projects include projects specifically identified as such, with descriptions of such activities as personal care, etiquette training, and appropriate dress. (Many projects coded for other categories also anticipated secondary outcomes to improve social skills.)

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 20 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 • Sports and fitness activities, the largest funded project category, include a broad range of physical activities for boys and girls. Some projects focused on skill development while others supported sports leagues. The following examples show the range of sports supported by small grants: martial arts, bowling, swimming, tee ball, flag football, basketball, boxing, and fencing, among others. • Summer camps includeday-long programs for children and youth of varying ages that convene about two months during the summer. (In one instance youth had an extended overnight camping experience.) Each camp included a range of activities --arts projects, field trips, gardening, computer use, physical activities, to name a few. Often camps focused learning around a theme such as, youth safety, fine arts exploration, community activities, and girls’ empowerment. • Miscellaneous category includes projects that don’t fit any of the above. Examples include training and hiring of crossing guards, a parent club, and workshops focused on safety strategies, parenting and family relationships. Almost three fourths of projects across all neighborhoods fell into five categories: sports and fitness, neighborhood events, academic focused programs, arts, and summer camps (see Figure 9). Figure 9: Types of activities funded, all neighborhoods, Jan 2009 – Dec 2010 The types of activities funded varied somewhat among neighborhoods. For instance, while there were 6 academic focused projects in Osborn in 2009 and 2010, there were none in this Sports/fitness21%Arts & Culture16%Neighborhood events16%Academicfocused15%Leadership development/civic engagement9%Gardening/environment6%Summer Camps6%Miscellaneous4%Field trips4%Social skills development3%

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 21 category in the Southwest (Vernor) neighborhood. Southwest (Vernor) grantees initiated 11 projects in the sports/fitness category, while the Chadsey/ Condon neighborhood had only three in the sports category. Figure 10 compares small grant project activities across neighborhoods. More detailed analysis of each neighborhood’s activities can be found in Appendix B. Figure 10: Types of activities in each neighborhood, Jan 2009 – Dec 2010 * Tables B-2 through B-7 in appendix B show a detailed breakdown of project activities for each neighborhood Projects’ purposes 024681012Brightmoor Chadsey/CondonCodyRougeNorthend/CentralOsborn Southwest(Vernor)Arts and CultureSports/FitnessNeighborhood eventsAcademic focusedLeadership development/CivicengagementGardening/EnvironmentOthers

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 22 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 The Community Connections grant application form asked applicants to indicate their “purpose of proposed project.” Those options on the form included: • Arts and culture • Beautification • Building community alliances • Building organization leadership/capacity • Community interaction • Intergenerational • Mentoring/tutoring/youth program • Skills for career development • Service learning and civic engagement • Youth development/leadership In addition to our own coding of project activities, we thought it important to examine these purposes that applicants had identified for themselves, working from the options listed on the application form. Most applicants checked multiple boxes, indicating that their project included more than one of these purposes. Figure 11 shows the number of project purposes that applicants listed on the grant application. Figure 11: Number of project purposes listed on grant application For the applicants that marked more than one project purpose, the evaluation team determined which seemed to be the primary project purpose based on the description and narrative reporting in the application and final report for the project. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Percentage of ProjectsNumber of Project Purposes Listed

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 23 Figure 12 shows the percentage of primary project purposes across the 100 grants that were part of our analysis. The most common (about one fourth each) were declared to be mentoring/tutoring youth programs, and youth development/ leadership programs. About one in six focused either on community interactions or building community alliances, with another sixth focused on arts and culture. Figure 12: Primary project purpose (out of 100 projects) The only option for project purpose that none of the organizations indicated was “building organization leadership/capacity.” The most likely explanation for this is that these are relatively small grants that support specific programming and that organizations did not use the money for more long-term, internal organizational capacity building. There were some differences in project purposes by neighborhood. Figure 13 shows the five most common project purposes (and a combination of the others) and the number of each in the six neighborhoods. Mentoring/Tutoring/Youth program28%Youth development/Leadership25%Arts & Culture15%Community Interaction9%Skills for career development9%Building community alliances7%Beautification4%Service learning/Civic engagement2%Intergenerational1%

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 24 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Figure 13: Primary project purpose by neighborhood * Table B-8 in appendix B shows the primary project purposes by neighborhood The Osborn neighborhood had a slightly larger number of mentoring/tutoring/youth programs as their primary purpose, while the Brightmoor neighborhood had a slightly higher number of youth development/leadership projects. The Southwest (Vernor) neighborhood had more projects with a primary purpose of arts and culture, and was also was the only neighborhood that did not have any projects with community interaction or skills for career development as a primary project purpose. 01234567Brightmoor Chadsey/CondonCody Rouge Northend/CentralOsborn Southwest(Vernor)Mentoring/Tutoring/Youth programYouth development/LeadershipArts & CultureCommunity InteractionSkills for career developmentOthers** Building community alliances, Beautification, Service learning/Civic engagement, Intergenerational, Organizational capactiy/leadership

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 25 III. Results Results for youth Children and youth in these six neighborhoods have more access to enrichment activities thanks to the Community Connections grants program. Small grants have supported about 92 enrichment projects per year. Grantees report involving a median number of 19 youth per project, meaning about 1,800 youth are participating annually in these projects. Which youth are participating? In gender, ethnicity and age, these youth participants roughly mirror the demographic composition of these neighborhoods, according to analysis of final reports that included specific demographic information. The vast majority of the projects analyzed reported working with both girls and boys, while only a couple of projects reported working just with girls or just with boys. 84 projects (out of the 100) reported the ethnicity of the participants involved. See Figure 14 for the percentage of all projects that worked with participants of specific ethnic backgrounds and Figure 15 for the breakdown of participant ethnicities by neighborhood. Figure 14: Ethnicity of youth participants 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percentage of Projects

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 26 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Figure 15: Ethnicity by neighborhood – number of projects Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Northend/ Central Osborn SW (Vernor) African American 16 14 9 13 14 10 White 5 10 5 5 5 10 Latino/Hispanic 3 11 2 0 2 12 All races 2 0 1 0 0 0 Arab 1 2 2 0 1 3 Asian 2 1 0 0 3 0 Native American 0 2 0 0 0 1 Mixed Race/Bi-racial 0 2 0 0 0 1 African 0 0 1 0 0 0 93 of the 100 projects in the analysis reported the age groups of their participants. The age group categories on the final grant report were: • 0 – 5 • Elementary • Middle School • High School Most projects worked with more than one age group. Though there were slightly more projects that worked with high school students, overall the numbers of projects working with elementary, middle school and high school participants were very close. Figure 16 shows the total number of projects that reported working with each age group and Figure 17 shows the breakdown by neighborhood. Figure 16: Participant age groups 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%High School Middle School Elementary 0 - 5Percentage of ProjectsAge Group

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 27 Figure 17: Participant age group by neighborhood Cody Rouge had fewer projects involving elementary school participants than the other neighborhoods and Northend/Central and Southwest (Vernor) had the most. Southwest (Vernor) also had the most projects with 0 – 5 year old participants and the most projects that targeted middle school age participants. Overall, however, the neighborhoods were relatively similar in spread of projects that engaged different age groups. Due to several projects being large, one or two day events, the range of participating youth numbers across the 100 projects was quite large. The median number of youth participants per neighborhood also varied somewhat. Figure 18 shows the median and range of participant numbers by neighborhood. Figure 18: Youth participant numbers (per project) by neighborhood Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Northend/ Central Osborn Southwest (Vernor) All Neighborhoods Median # 10 28 45 29 35 25 19 Range 8 - 450 10 - 400 14 - 444 11 - 110 14 - 200 10 - 63 8 - 450 02468101214Brightmoor Chadsey/CondonCody Rouge Northend/CentralOsborn Southwest(Vernor)Number of Projects 0 - 5ElementaryMiddle SchoolHigh SchoolYouth Age Group

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 28 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Locations of project activities These enrichment activities are occurring at many different locations in these neighborhoods. Data on project activity sites were included in 99 of the 100 grant reports analyzed. More than a third of the projects held some activities outside. More than one fourth held activities at schools, and at churches. About one in five reported conducting activities at community centers. Figure 19 shows the frequency of each type of location for all neighborhoods and Figure 20 shows the five most common project locations by neighborhood. Figure 19: Project locations 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%Percentage of Projects

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 29 Figure 20: Most common project locations – by neighborhood * Table B-9 in Appendix B shows the number of activity locations reported in each neighborhood Neighborhoods varied in the locational assets they tapped for youth activities. Over half the projects analyzed in Southwest (Vernor) held activities outdoors, while only one fifth of those in Osborn did. In contrast, nearly half of Osborn’s projects held activities at neighborhood centers while less than one in seven of Southwest (Vernor)’s projects did. Schools were used as project sites by two fifths of the projects in Brightmoor and Chadsey/Condon, but by only one of 13 Cody Rouge projects analyzed. Over a third of Chadsey/Condon’s projects located some activities at churches, while only one in 15 Southwest (Vernor) projects analyzed did. 012345678910Brightmoor Chadsey/CondonCody Rouge Northend/CentralOsborn Southwest(Vernor)Number of projectsOutdoorsSchoolChurchNeighborhood CenterAll others** Community business, College campus, Work site, Home, Agency, Other location

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 30 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Benefits to youth Neighborhood leaders, including grantee leaders, resident review panelists, and staff of partner organizations, identified several positive youth outcomes through small grants activities. • Expanded learning opportunities: Many small grants projects are designed to enhance students’ academic performance in math, science, and writing. Other activities aimed to build communication skills, self-confidence, and overall physical fitness. Said one grantee leader, “Kids need more than academics…they need opportunities to develop communication, team building and social skills…Enrichment activities come in here.” Several grantee leaders expressed concern for what they perceived as a trend toward narrower school curricula (due to government budget constraints and emphasis on basic skills). Projects that supported “extras” such as college field trips, sports and art activities helped to fill the gap, they felt. Others believed that small grants projects helped children and youth explore options beyond their neighborhood, where many had not ventured before. In a poignant example, a grantee leader organized several college tours for high school students. Most of the youth had not planned to apply for college, explained the leader, but “after the tour several students made application to colleges visited and were accepted.” She felt this first-hand experience helped high school students imagine college as an option for them. In yet other examples of grant-supported activities, leaders felt that cross-cultural opportunities for youth contributed to growth in knowledge and understanding of differences. Examples included Hmong cultural festivals and neighborhood celebrations that encouraged all to participate. • New contexts for skill development and identity formation: Some projects, such as martial arts, offer a structured progression that helps children and youth mark their progress as they advance to more challenging levels. “Setting and working toward goals are important for kids,” said one leader. “They can use these same skill sets to apply for and go to college.” In another project where children created a school mural, leaders built in a daily 15-minute journaling practice so that young children could learn to reflect on their experiences and to express their impressions in writing. They also learned technical skills such as photography and how to mix paints and use a variety of brush techniques. The project leader noted that in the beginning, journaling was challenging for the elementary school children. Even when they were offered the option of drawing their ideas, the process of reflecting on what they had done was difficult for some. However, “by December their writing was good. Some of the teachers noted the change and came to observe.” It’s important for our kids to experience art…it helps build continuity and character. It also challenges their creativity…It’s another way of learning. We found out there were kids in our group who drew well. Their parents had not known this. - Grantee leader

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 31 Intentionality about the design of the activity seems key to development of new skills: What skills can be learned? How will they be practiced? How will children and youth see their own progress? How can new skills be linked with academic achievement? Engaging young people in designing the project and writing the proposal is another important skills building opportunity that some small grants projects tap. This gives youth a real world experience and requires that they develop and clearly articulate their ideas. “It’s empowered our kids to dream and decide,” said one adult leader. Youth involvement with proposal writing generates a sense of ownership and reinforces a project’s youth-driven quality. Winning funds for a proposal they helped write powerfully validates youths’ sense of themselves as people with good ideas and clear, persuasive communications skills. Even having their proposal declined can be a good learning experience, said one leader. “It gives them the reality that they could be turned down.” In these cases, the small grant program’s commitment to advise unsuccessful applicants on how to re-apply and to review revised applications every month allows this learning cycle to happen quickly. • New and stronger relationships: Small grants projects help relationships grow between youth and adults, and among children and youth of different ages. Because it takes time to form meaningful relationships, those projects that involved sustained contact over a period of time were most effective in achieving this result. Many leaders emphasized the importance of relationship continuity with young people. The following description poignantly illustrates this point. We take a 10-year plan with kids now. Continuity is important…We have current and former gang members whose kids are involved, and their parents are very supportive of what we’re doing. We focus on kids building their developmental and cultural competencies. Other leaders pointed to the successes of older youth working with younger children. In one example, members of the high school student council organized a mentoring program through which high school students taught martial arts and bowling to elementary aged students. “The idea is that kids develop bonds across ages. It helps the younger one imagine what happens in high school and why doing well is important…It also helps develop youth leadership.” Others reflected on the importance of parents’ involvement in their children’s activities. In projects that involved sports competitions on weekends, for example, many parents were present. In some cases, parents volunteered to assist project leaders. In other examples, parents were the project leaders. These experiences help children and adults see each other new ways.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 32 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Results for adults The small grants program has generated growth in skills, knowledge, vision and networks for many adult participants. As one example, Community Connections panelists pointed to an improvement in the quality of written proposals as a measure of improved skills among grassroots neighborhood leaders. A program partner engaged in community building within one of the neighborhoods observed, “Grantees are the go-to people. Others seek them out to get help with grants.” 88 of the 100 files in our analysis reported the number of adults who were involved in the project being funded. Because several of the projects funded were large events, the adult participation numbers (as with the youth numbers) has a large range. For the 88 project who reported adult numbers, across all neighborhoods, ranged from 1 to 1200. The median number per project was 9 adults. See Figure 21 for the median and range of number of adult participants for each neighborhood. Figure 21: Adult participant numbers Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Northend/ Central Osborn Southwest (Vernor) All Neighborhoods Median # 10 13 9 8 17 7 9 Range 2 - 1200 3 - 300 3 - 278 3 - 63 3 - 100 1 - 60 1 - 1200 Forty-seven of the 100 files in our analysis reported the age range of the adults involved in the funded project. The four age group options listed on the final report included college, young parent, middle age, or older adult. The number of adults reported in each of these age groups was pretty evenly spread, with middle age being just slightly higher than the others. See Figure 22 for participant age groups for all neighborhoods and Figure 23 for age groups by neighborhood.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 33 Figure 22: Percent of projects working with each age group (of the 47 projects who reported) Figure 23: Number of projects working with each age group – by neighborhood (out of 47 projects who reported) Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Northend/ Central Osborn Southwest (Vernor) College 3 11 3 6 2 7 Young Parent 3 10 4 9 4 5 Middle Age 6 11 4 9 4 8 Older Adult 5 11 5 8 3 8 Growth through resident review panel service Panelists noted how much they themselves have learned through their role. They have developed and refined review processes, award parameters and panel norms. Several panelists and observers told us that the panel has learned to negotiate decisions, navigate differences, understand realistic budgets, and work together effectively – all valuable leadership skills. The panelists have also learned about youth development concerns, assets, priorities, strategies and leadership networks across the six neighborhoods. Indeed, the Community Connections review panel is one of the primary integrative vehicles in the whole Skillman change process, 31%70%74%76%0 - 5ElementaryMiddle SchoolHigh School

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 34 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 where resident leaders can develop networks and a comprehensive view of possibilities and challenges across the six neighborhoods. However, this potential has been largely uncultivated to date, as the panel has focused primarily on its proposal review responsibility with little attention to larger strategic learning. Good Neighborhoods Leadership Academy Our evaluation found numerous reports of skill development among grantee leaders and panelists who have participated in the Good Neighborhoods Leadership Academy. The Academy was launched in 2008 by the University of Michigan School of Social Work technical assistance center in partnership with the National Community Development Institute. About one third of the people completing the Leadership Academy in its first four rounds were Community Connections grantees or panelists. These included eight current or former panelists, and leaders of 30 different grantee groups (about 10% of all Community Connections grantees). Leadership Academy participants who were interviewed described it as a valuable learning experience -- “…a wonderful training for participants in all the neighborhoods,” said one grantee leader. “I learned how to communicate…how to advocate.” Another said, “I learned how to write good proposals.” Coaching and mentorship by key staff persons Perhaps even more important to participants’ leadership growth has been the mentoring and coaching provided by the Community Connections program coordinator and the neighborhood executive directors (who until late 2010 served as stakeholder engagement liaisons within the six neighborhoods, while receiving mentoring and oversight themselves from National Community Development Institute senior staff). These people have provided encouragement to residents that “you don’t have to have a PhD to make change in your community,” as one observer put it. Said another person of the program coordinator’s style, “She has a way of teaching you without you feeling like she’s telling you what to do.” One grantee leader who had gone through the Leadership Academy suggested that her most valuable leadership development resource was simply watching her neighborhood’s executive director work with people and run meetings. Both the Community Connections coordinator and the neighborhood executive directors facilitate connections among neighborhood leaders and encourage collaboration among organizations to strengthen neighborhood infrastructures. Residents’ engagement in other leadership venues Community Connections grassroots leaders are prominent in other leadership venues within the Skillman change strategy, particularly the six neighborhoods’ governance boards. Twenty eight grantee leaders (representing about 10% of all grantee groups) served on governance boards as

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 35 of February 2011. Each neighborhood’s governance board included between three and seven small grantees. In addition, five resident review panelists (including two who were also grantees) served on neighborhood governance boards, and three other panelists were closely related to a governance board member. Close to half of the panelists, in other words, were involved or closely connected with a governance board. Five of the six governance boards included a panelist or a panelist’s family member. Five of the six boards had officers that were small grantees or panelists, including the president or chairperson in four neighborhoods. Altogether, nearly one third of all governance board members in early 2011 were also small grantee leaders or panelists. Clearly, the small grants program appears to be playing a role in drawing and keeping resident leaders at the community change tables that Skillman has launched in these neighborhoods – as Skillman had hoped. Interweaving multiple leadership experiences Embedding Community Connections within the larger Good Neighborhoods effort opens multiple new leadership roles and skill building opportunities where people can learn to think about neighborhoods (and the city and region) through a broader, more strategic lens. Leadership of a small grants project, service on the small grants review panel, engagement in neighborhood governance, involvement in local block clubs, participation in the Leadership Academy offer interwoven opportunities to exercise and increase leadership capacities. A neighborhood executive director helped to paint the picture of how these multiple elements can knit together: People who get small grants get connected to the larger ideas…People participate in the Leadership Academy and workshops which help to shape leaders across the six neighborhoods…Organizations have to align their missions with the community goals to get a grant…It’s a combination of everything, but the small grants program is the glue…It works to leverage engagement in other activities, too…Small grants show people they can help make change. People sharpen skills, and they make initiatives grow. They can see it, and not just on paper. Results for participating organizations Community Connections has supported a tremendous number of groups and organizations in these six neighborhoods: 291 to date, or about 50 per neighborhood. Consistent with its desire to surface and strengthen “natural leaders” and “natural helpers,” most of these organizations are resident-led or are small, locally rooted nonprofit or faith-based organizations with a mix of resident and non-resident leadership. The great majority of these grantee organizations have had only limited engagement with the Community Connections program: nearly three fourths have received only one grant over the four and a half years to date. However, 75 organizations, or about 12 or 13 per neighborhood,

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 36 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 have received two or more grants. Of these, 25 (about four per neighborhood) have been funded three times or more. Grantees were asked, on the final report form, the number of organizations that were involved in the funded project. Sixty-three of the 100 files in the analysis reported the number of organizations involved. These numbers indicate that the majority of funded organizations worked with other organizations to implement their projects, forming larger networks of partners in the community. Figure 24 shows the median, range and mean of number of organizations involved in projects across neighborhoods. Figure 24: Number of organizations involved in funded projects (out of 63 who reported) Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Northend/ Central Osborn Southwest (Vernor) All Neighborhoods Median 2 3 2 4 5 1 3 Range 1 - 30 1 - 10 1 - 17 1 – 10 2 - 12 1 – 7 1 - 30 Mean 4 4 5 4 5 2 4 There is evidence that the small grants program and affiliated opportunities have facilitated new and stronger partnerships. Several interviewees noted an increase in groups working together in new ways because of collaboration around small grant opportunities. In one example, when a faith-based alliance of 11 North End/Central church leaders participated in the Leadership Academy, their alliance strengthened, reported one leader. “We came together to plan projects [that were funded through small grants]….We are now working with other CDCs in the community to bring more resources here.” She explained how the alliance is now connecting with city-wide groups and growing relationships in a strategic way. She said that while small grants were not the driving force for her organization, “It was a good starting point. The grant allowed us to get back in the school to provide a quality art program with committed leadership.” Grantees were also asked to indicate whether they had achieved the goals of their project, defined in their project description as part of the grant application. The options were “Below Target,” “Nearly Achieved,” “Achieved,” or “Exceeded.” 93 out of the 100 projects in the analysis reported the extent to which they met their stated goals. Only one of the 93 fell below target and 84% reported to have achieved or exceeded their goals. Figure 25 shows the percentage of organizations who reported in these four categories. Even many of the organizations that had received only one small grant through 2010 have taken advantage of capacity-building opportunities facilitated through Community Connections and Good Neighborhoods. As mentioned in the “Results for Adults” section, both the Community Connections coordinator and the neighborhood executive directors encourage grassroots leaders to participate in leadership and organizational development workshops and trainings.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 37 Figure 25: Project goal achievement These include resources of the Youth Development Commission, which builds capacity and creates connections for organizations working with youth during after-school hours. YDC’s Targeted Area Partnership (TAP) Program, for example, is a two-year program that includes organizational assessment, training, technical assistance, grant support and an organizational mentor. Over half of the organizations (15 of 27) to go through the TAP program between 2006 and 2010 were Community Connections grantees. These included six organizations that had received one Community Connections grant and nine that had received multiple small grants. In several examples, leaders told us that small grants helped their organizations lay the groundwork for larger grants and projects. For example, after getting a $3,500 grant for Grafik Jam in 2008, Young Nation in the Southwest (Vernor) neighborhood went on to win a $40,000 grant from a Skillman/Kresge/Chase program for a public art project with wide community involvement. This organization had developed as a loose network of young community artist-activists working with neighborhood kids for about ten years before winning the small grant. Since receiving this grant, two other foundations have contacted Young Nation about possible multi-year, larger-scale support for a second phase of their alley art project. According to one of the neighborhood executive directors, another small grantee is now receiving federal grants in support of its work. Results for policy-institutional systems We found a fair amount of evidence that the small grants program in conjunction with other Skillman-related efforts has helped change attitudes and practices among several larger organizations. Dynamics have shifted between larger agencies (and to a lesser extent schools) Exceeded Goals, 41%Achieved Goals, 49%Nearly Achieved Goals, 9%Below Target, 1%

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 38 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 and residents and small local organizations: cooperation and collaboration have increased, as have mutual respect and trust. Several interviewees pointed to increased collaboration in the Osborn neighborhood in particular. The Matrix Center there had been substantially underutilized, such that Matrix considered closing the building. The small grants program generated new tenants and many more programs offered at a low cost or free to community residents. The numbers of people using the center increased, and it is now a busy hub of activities. An Osborn resident leader observed, “We had a lot of community organizations but they didn’t know what each other was doing. The small grants have given us a chance to work together. Now the organizations try to work together across boundaries…The small grants provides opportunities for small pockets of young people, where larger organizations provide programs for large groups.” Osborn is also a neighborhood where the small grants program has been used by one agency to strengthen the civic infrastructure of block clubs. The agency’s director explained, “This is how we get the community engaged. People are involved in local problem solving…I use the program as a carrot for people to form block clubs. I tell them once they have the block club started, they can apply for grants to support the community activities…The small grants program helps to address some of the needs of the community, so it has helped to bridge some gaps which otherwise would not have been met.” A change in agency-resident dynamics Several observers noted a shift in attitudes among both residents and agency staff. “Residents could see that their work was valued – they didn’t get big grants but they also could see that it was their first one. And they came to see that the big organizations were not the enemy, either. Relationships formed. Small grants made organizations and people connect. They reinforced ‘resident-driven.’ This is across the board now, the norm,” said an Osborn observer. “Matrix and Black Family Development have really adapted well and that has helped.” One executive director noted that in the beginning, many residents felt that agencies and schools “knew better” than they did. Over time, however, that perspective has shifted somewhat so that residents can now see the institutional leaders as “resources.” Another observer said, “Small grants provided the opportunity for [institutional] stakeholders to say, ‘yes, I do not live here but I care about the neighborhood and I’ll work with you on the small grant.’ Little groups learned that the large organizations were not going to take all the money or take credit for the work. Relationships were built…Skillman was influencing organizations to work with residents. It had to be resident driven. The small grants clarified those roles. The small grants were the We talked about the small grants all the time, and we knew we needed to help make things happen and we couldn’t write it ourselves. This helped clarify that there are multiple kinds of knowledge and legitimacy. We can be partners even though we are not quite the same. Part of what’s new is there had not been prior examples where residents had been recognized in this way. -- Agency staff

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 39 equalizer...Organizations have begun to rethink how they do business, to honor resident voice and that to get money they have to have partnerships.” These shifts appear to be the combined result of several factors: the empowering experience for residents of receiving and implementing a small grant; the empowering mentorship of residents by neighborhood executive directors and the Community Connections coordinator who encouraged them to value their own expertise and authority and to view agency and school professionals as peers; the learning that institutional staff and residents both experienced as they formed relationships and began working together; and Skillman’s insistence to agencies and schools that they engage residents as partners. Skillman’s stance -- toward both agencies and residents -- has been an important factor contributing to this change. As one agency representative said, “Skillman has not been reserved in stating the expectation that if you’re going to be a part, you’ve got to buy in. Nonprofits know that if they want Skillman dollars this is what you have to do.” On the other hand, she noted, the small grants program was a powerful sign of Skillman’s trust in residents. “Having control over money is key. That’s putting your money where your mouth is. If you don’t trust residents with money, you don’t trust them much! It helped to define resident-driven…If you can access money and use it to complete a project, then you’re respected, you’re taken seriously.” For agencies with an interest in resident engagement, the small grants program has been a valuable resource. Serving as fiduciary, offering space for program activities, and giving guidance on project and program design are all roles they can play with smaller, informal groups, leading to impact for both agency and neighborhood. Small grants have facilitated collaboration between some agencies and schools, as well between agencies and residents. At least one community center reported using small grants to launch small projects – a teen program where they had only worked with younger kids before, or a collaborative venture with a nearby high school, for example. Pilots that worked well were then incorporated into their core budget and programming for future years. While changes such as these are becoming evident in several nonprofit institutional systems impacting these neighborhoods, the evaluation did not learn of changes in public policies yet from small grants groups or leaders. The prominence of small grants leaders in the new neighborhood governance boards and associated networks for policy influence suggests that the small grants program may be contributing to policy reforms indirectly, however. As an organization, we have really gotten to know people differently. Small grants are great for relationship building. “[The small grants program allowed us to] infuse more money into the neighborhood to support what kids and residents really want to do. Sometimes organizations don’t really know this. We call it community marketing…[We] use the resources, and expertise that exists, and make the connections with the community. In the past, we have not been able to broker what residents have wanted…This is a different paradigm. - Agency staff

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 40 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Visible changes in the neighborhoods More occasion and public spaces for community gatherings: At the mid-way point, it appears that grantees and other community leaders have begun to perceive some changes in their neighborhoods. Small grants have supported more activities in a variety of locations. People noted, for instance, increased activity at neighborhood community centers and more opportunity for community gatherings for a variety of purposes -- to recover vacant lots for playgrounds or gardens, to raise awareness of safety issues, or to celebrate back to school in the fall, to name a few. These events, most of which are intergenerational, give residents a chance to meet neighbors and to engage in collective efforts that improve the neighborhood. It is through these kinds of activities that people come to “see” each other and themselves as a vital neighborhood. Shared work helps connect people to the place where they live. While these kinds of perceptions take time to strengthen, comments like the following express the beginnings of changing perceptions. Governance boards engage residents as co-creators: As neighborhood governance boards have developed and as residents and stakeholders view them as credible, it helps leverage efforts and grows momentum for community change. Said one neighborhood executive director, “[Stakeholders] are beginning to see that being part of the board helps them interact with people they serve. This is a benefit to nonprofits. Now we are seeing corporations and other big players starting to come to the [neighborhood governing] board for our support.” It is through governance boards that residents and stakeholders wrestle with challenges and co-create solutions. The executive director went on to say, “The Empowerment Zone model did not really give control to the residents…This initiative is in contrast to that approach.” He feels that the small grants program has been a key element in launching a new neighborhood infrastructure. Neighborhood identities: Some interviewees pointed to the initiative’s designation of neighborhood boundaries and names, especially the signage, as useful in helping community members identify themselves as members of a specific neighborhood. These neighborhood designations, however, are not without tensions. Some neighborhood leaders found what they perceived as a “Skillman imposed designation” problematic when it conflicted with how people had previously named their residential location. Nonetheless, even when people contest boundaries, it surfaces public conversation that can help build collective identity and cohesion. Visible community change takes time to achieve and to be recognized by the collective. As small grants activities and their results are explicitly linked to neighborhood goals, and as visibility of the collective work comes into clearer focus for more people, it likely will contribute to a stronger sense that change is underway. [Grant funded activities] bring the whole community together. Before we didn’t know what was going on across the street, let along from one end of Osborn to the other. We participate with other [grant recipients] by attending each other’s events. Before…people didn’t come much to the schools, didn’t participate in community activities…there wasn’t much to participate in. There are so many different activities for families now….It’s amazing how we can use these little bits of money [to] do things for the community.”

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 41 IV. Emerging lessons and recommendations Strengths and success factors Three basic design factors contribute to the successes of the Community Connections Small Grants program. First, the program is woven into Good Neighborhoods and the larger Skillman community change effort, rather than a stand-alone strategy. This integrative element provides opportunity to focus and leverage community engagement, organizational relationships, and dollars that support and further the neighborhoods’ goals. Because the small grants program links with several leadership opportunities, grantees and panelists are substantially knitted into the larger initiative. As mentioned earlier, a high percentage (about a third) of Leadership Academy graduates and neighborhood governance council members are small grant recipients or panelists. Around 10% of all grantee groups have leaders serving on governance boards, and about 10% of all grantee groups have had a leader go through the Leadership Academy. Of the 31 Small Grants grantees and panelists serving on the governance boards, half (16) have also gone through the Leadership Academy. The Leadership Academy and other technical assistance provide participants with knowledge and encouragement for expanding leadership roles. Second, the program’s emphasis on “resident-driven” processes strengthens the sense of local decision-making and ownership. It puts money directly in hands of residents rather than awarding small grants to mid-sized or large organizations used to grant funding. Although these organizations often serve as fiduciary agents for small informal groups, residents most often plan and implement the funded project. The application process for small grants is uncomplicated and accessible to people who have not previously written grant proposals. For those who need assistance or encouragement, the Prevention Network coordinator provides multiple information workshops and individual assistance on request. Having a panel of residents make the grant award decisions further strengthens this resident-driven ethos. This design has begun to shift the power dynamic between residents and organizations located in their neighborhoods. More typically, providers are the “experts” who serve the clients. The small grants program changes the conversation with community people, including youth in some cases. Several grantee leaders pointed to the fact that young people have written and received grants as an important aspect of the “resident-driven” component. Third, the organizing role played by the program coordinator and the neighborhood executive directors is a key to the program’s success. The workshops and coaching they provide increase the program’s visibility and help spread the word about opportunities. Their mentoring of grassroots leaders – validating their ideas and expertise, encouraging them to step up into larger roles, helping them process and learn from their experiences, connecting them into broader networks – appears to have made vital contributions to the engagement and development of these residents whose energies and capabilities are crucial to the overall success of the Skillman change vision.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 42 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Key challenges Seeing the whole and working for change In a large, multi-layered initiative such as this Skillman community change endeavor, “seeing the whole” is a fundamental challenge. Constructing a new narrative about place is a core conceptual task in community change work. It requires a “map” that connects the dots among the elements and players and ties this to the strategic goals and vision. It takes many conversations to co-construct a new story about people and their place. The small grants program offers a starting place for the neighborhood to begin to see its local leadership, the activities they initiate and the collective impact of their work. In general, interviewees, with the exception of review panelists and neighborhood executive directors, did not have a clear picture of all the grant-funded activities taking place in their neighborhoods or recognition of those leaders involved. While panelists knew what had been funded, they had far less awareness of the collective impact or the patterns of small grant activity and leadership. Panelists’ service to date has focused on assessing individual grant applications – a responsibility they carry out with conscientious devotion and integrity. Up to this point, they have not been invited to review final grant reports. There has been no systematic compilation, analysis or reflection on the kinds of activities funded, who and how many participate, the range of organizations and partnerships involved, or the results of small grants, such that panelists (and others) could learn from the experience of grantees and gain insights into how to increase the program’s effectiveness. Similarly, while the Community Connections application form requires attention to a neighborhood’s youth development change goal, the program materials do not focus attention on the underlying premises in the theory of change shared by all neighborhoods in the Skillman effort: that resident leadership should be strengthened, and that residents and small nonprofits be empowered to help make the changes that will support their community goal. These values are implicit to some extent in how Prevention Network and the neighborhood executive directors coordinate and assist the small grants process. However, at present the program is not structured so that applicants, grantees, panelists and other stakeholders are explicitly and consistently encouraged to work on these leadership and empowerment goals. This may contribute to a climate that is rich with program activity but much thinner on strategic vision and change-making. A related challenge is to increase communication, coordination and collaboration among neighborhood-located organizations, and between organizations and schools since many out of school time programs happen at schools. Organizational collaboration is understandably a big step when competition for funding is historically the norm. Likewise, bridging school and nonprofit cultures is fraught with challenge, especially as schools face transitions and everyone feels a scarcity of resources. But collaboration can increase resources, and nonprofit organizations and schools are essential partners if the neighborhood is to build an infrastructure that supports high quality, accessible opportunities for youth learning and positive development.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 43 Despite the high level of integration of small grants leaders and panelists into governance boards, the Leadership Academy and other networking forums, several interviewees perceived that the small grants program operates largely in a world of its own, imperfectly seen or understood by leaders in other parts of the Skillman community change effort. This is true even though the Skillman effort is notorious in some circles for “meetingitis,” with many leaders and stakeholders asked to attend a great many meetings. We heard that the quality of many convenings is heavy on formal presentations of information and structured training experiences, and light on the free space and guided strategic introductions that foster genuine relationship-building. Questions regarding organizational capacity growth While we discovered many examples of grassroots organizations growing stronger through Community Connections, interviewees stressed that sustaining and strengthening these small organizations is a long-term and difficult process. While the small grants opportunity has been a catalyst for small organizations to create new partnerships, expand existing programs, pilot new ones, and in some cases, secure funding beyond Skillman resources, most felt that there is not strong evidence of significant organizational capacity growth for small and informal organizations, at least mid-way through the initiative. Partly this challenge reflects the long learning curve involved in building the management and governance skills and systems necessary to operate on a larger scale and to qualify for larger-scale support from other funding sources. As one observer noted, “There is so much that goes into building an organization...This is such a small amount of money that it might not be a realistic goal.” It may also be, as some interviewees speculated, that most “mom and pop” projects may not be interested in organizational capacity building. Rather, their focus is to work with children and youth in particular activities, on a comfortably small scale with minimal overhead. Many interviewees felt that building capacity in small organizations requires a focused, strategic effort and additional infrastructure, all of which take time and investment. Two ideas were frequently suggested. One was for Community Connections to become more nuanced in its expectations for repeat grantees, to allow more continuity and gradual improvement of good program ideas over a longer time period. The other was to create a mid-sized funding pool of grants up to $15,000 or so, or perhaps multiple tiers, to help some organizations gradually scale up to larger programs and larger governmental and other funding streams. Adding to the complexity is the question of what kinds of organizational capacity growth will most benefit a community – a question that resident-centered grantmakers and change agents wrestle with all across the country. Few would argue that having 50 small grantees in each Skillman neighborhood evolve into large service agencies would be an optimal outcome for livability and youth prospects in these places. Rather, the vision is somehow to nurture a community culture of flexible grassroots initiatives, of fellowship and mutual aid among neighbors, of relationships and networks between adults and young people in the community.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 44 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 This entails organizations and leaders at least as skilled in collaboration and innovation as in management and fundraising. Organizations must be skilled at surfacing, welcoming and supporting residents’ ideas and projects (and not obstructing or marginalizing residents’ willingness to act). Pathways for personal, civic and professional development for both residents and organizational staff must be more imaginatively defined. People must be able to see themselves growing into larger roles as co-creative champions for youth and as proactive community leaders rooted in strong listening networks. The civic and organizational ecosystem that includes smaller and larger organizations, community organizing as well as service delivery, citizen initiative as well as agency programs, must be more sharply imagined. Expanding youth leadership and public engagement Related to the organizational development and adult leadership development challenges outlined above is the question of how Community Connections can become more intentional about expanding youth leadership development and public engagement. How can small grants groups create experiences where children and youth can grow into identities as capable, creative contributors to community well-being? While about one fourth of the funded projects have included youth leadership development as one of their purposes, most small grants projects to date have given primary attention to helping children be safe, healthy and educated (in an academic sense). They have been less attentive to preparing children for an adulthood in which they can be active citizens, proactive community leaders and skilful change agents. These youth enrichment programs aim to keep children safe: out of trouble and out of trouble-making. Even many of the groups that have given explicit attention to youth leadership have focused relatively little on helping children and youth connect their talents, ideas and knowledge to their community. Few projects have addressed how youth can contribute their gifts to the care and improvement of the place where they live, and strengthen their identification with and commitment to the community of which they are members. How can they develop the skills, the relationships, and perhaps most importantly the mindset that will enable them to contribute today and into the future? Given the ambitious, long-term nature of the Skillman Foundation’s overall community change goals, expanding public engagement and the civic skills of children and youth will pay dividends as today’s teens become the young adult leaders of tomorrow. This could better balance the “providing quality programs for” approach with seeing young people as contributors to building a better neighborhood. Youth employment, work readiness and career exploration opportunities could also be tweaked to include attention to the public aspects of these roles. Simply helping teens reflect on how their summer jobs or volunteer roles make a contribution to neighborhood well-being would be a step in building consciousness of themselves as community members and of the pathways by which community well-being is nurtured.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 45 Recommendations In light of these challenges, and strengths, we offer for consideration the following recommendations for improving the Community Connections grants program and increasing its contribution to the larger Good Neighborhoods effort: Refine program guidelines and materials Refining funding guidelines, the application form and other program materials can improve the focus on underlying change goals and increase synergy and momentum. Specific changes might include: • Increase emphasis on projects that include collaboration among organizations or at least coordination of programs and schedules. If a longer term goal is to build neighborhood infrastructure to support children and youth, more coordination and collaboration among resident groups and other stakeholders is important. • Encourage grantees and panelists to become more intentional about developing leadership and empowering residents, including engaging youth as active contributors to community life. • Refine brochures, website, application forms and other communications materials to strengthen attention to youth organizing and engagement, and to community organizing and systems change. Expand coaching and capacity building assistance in these key areas, while continuing to encourage residents to access the currently strong resources for youth program development and nonprofit management. • Clarify guidelines for previously-funded groups, or communicate expectations more clearly, to allow continuity of effective programs while also expecting experienced grantees to learn and improve. • Be more flexible in allowing grantees to work partially with children who live outside of the Skillman neighborhoods. Schools, faith based organizations and other small grantees in these neighborhoods often include children who live elsewhere yet who are eager to participate in these enrichment activities. Working with these relationship networks is likely to be more effective than ruling them out of bounds, at least so long as most participants live in these target neighborhoods.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 46 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Leverage more fully the review panel’s leadership potential This panel is already one of the strengths of the Community Connections programs. With some adjustments it could be a more valuable resource. We recommend expanding the vision to reach beyond applications review to become a strategic learning, linking and leadership vehicle for Community Connections. Specific changes might include: • Explicitly reframe the identity and purpose of the panel to focus on strategic leadership of the program, not just on the application review function. Panelists could be recruited, oriented, and mentored with this larger strategic purpose in mind. • Share grantees’ final reports (at least a sample from time to time) with panelists, so they can learn about grantees’ activities, results and lessons. With potentially 90 reports received per year, the program might want to devise guidelines for who would review which reports, and on what timeline. • Periodically compile and analyze patterns of activity, participation, results and lessons from grantees, and create spaces where the panel can reflect on these findings and develop ideas for improving the program at various levels. (These findings could be shared with other stakeholders in the Skillman change effort, too. This would likely improve understanding and strategic leveraging of the small grants program’s assets by other stakeholders.) • Improve linkages between this panel and the neighborhood governance boards, to better leverage resources for strategic goals and to give ample opportunity to build a new collective narrative about these neighborhoods. This could include ensuring regular occasions where panelists and governance board members can be in dialogue and learn together, especially if a governance board does not has a member on the small grants panel; and adjusting agendas in both the panel and the governance boards to include discussion of small grants impact and opportunity as it relates to strategic goals. • Make more explicit panelists’ roles as “community connectors” and “ambassadors” for the program in the various community networks where they circulate. They can augment the coordinator’s efforts to solicit projects, give guidance on project design and the program’s strategic priorities, and build connections and shared awareness among grantees and other leaders and stakeholders. • To allow more attention to these strategic priorities, invite the panel to revise its current processes as necessary to keep the overall workload manageable. Perhaps each panelist would review only half or a third of all proposals received. Perhaps panelists could receive stipends to compensate them for investing another five or 10 hours per month. Perhaps panel “alumni” could carry some of these functions.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 47 Improve use of the program’s growing knowledge base Now that Community Connections has several years of experience, the time is ripe to enhance its systems for ongoing learning and utilization of emerging lessons. Specific steps could include: • Systematically review and analyze grantees’ reports, as well as data on applications declined and other program activities, for clues regarding reach, impact, key challenges, and opportunities for greater effectiveness. • Involve staff, panelists, grantees and other stakeholders in periodic reflection on results and other patterns to stimulate learning, shared understanding and an increase in joint action toward common goals. • Expand and become more intentional about convening grantees and others to form relationships for peer learning, mutual assistance and joint action. Expand visibility of small grants activities and results • Encourage more photography, video documentation and storytelling regarding Community Connections work. Displaying these creations in neighborhood businesses, organizations and schools could help neighbors “see” progress and contribution. • Encourage more events -- annual or semi-annual all-neighborhood gatherings, block club parties, school festivals, etc. -- to include youth performances, demonstrations and other highlighting of youth contributions to neighborhood quality of life. • Increase communications about Community Connections groups, leaders, projects and lessons to other stakeholders and institutional participants in Skillman’s community change efforts.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 48 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Appendices Appendix A: Evaluation data sources for this report A-1: Persons interviewed for this report Bryan Hardaway Panelist - Osborn Mary Luevanos Panelist – Southwest (Vernor) Sabrina Young Panelist – Osborn Father Ed Zaorski Panelist - Southwest (Vernor) Chalena Beasley Grantee Leader: Dixon Adventurers for Excellence Marshall Dixon Bey Grantee Leader: Master Bey Tae Kwon Do & Kung Fu Institute Kevin Bolden Grantee Leader: Osborn Martial Arts Program Keith Gamble Grantee Leader: Greenbriar Communtiy Council Jerry Ann Hebron Grantee Leader: North End Christian Development, Inc. Erik Howard Grantee Leader: Young Nation Theresa Hunter Grantee Leader: Cody Rouge Action Alliance Peter Lisiecki Grantee Leader: Brightmoor Community Center Lisa Luevanos Grantee Leader: CLAVE Bertha Marsh Grantee Leader: Obsorn Highschool Christine Bell Partner/Observer: Southwest (Vernor) SW hub coordinator Kenyetta Campbell Partner/Observer: Cody Rouge executive director Scott Gifford Partner/Observer: Matrix Human Services Kelley Gulley Partner/Observer: National Community Development Institute Quincy Jones Partner/Observer: Osborn executive director Pat Miller Partner/Observer: University of Michigan David Mitchell Partner/Observer: Black Family Development Tonya Allen Skillman Foundation Program Vice-President Ed Egnatios Skillman Foundation Senior Program Officer for Good Neighborhoods Carol Goss Skillman Foundation President Sharnita Johnson Skillman Foundation Senior Program Officer for Change-Making Lan Pham Skillman Foundation Program Associate

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 49 Table A-2: 100 Grantees whose reports were analyzed Grantee/Organization Date of Grant Grant amount Neighborhood 28th Street Family Life Center July 2010 $2,200 Chadsey/Condon Abundant Changes Community Outreach July 2009 $2,790 North End/Central Abundant Life July 08 $3,010 Cody-Rouge Act Three Ensemble of Esthetic Value June 2009 $3,900 North End\Central Alternatives for Girls Aug 2006 $2,500 Chadsey/Condon & Southwest (Vernor) Ballet Folklorico Mexicano “Asi Es Mi Tierra” May 2009 $1,900 Southwest (Vernor) Black Mother’s Breastfeeding Association (BMBFA) May 2009 $5,000 Osborn Botech Corporation Apr 2008 $3,989 Brightmoor Brightmoor Community Center Oct 2010 $5,000 Brightmoor Brightmoor Youth Garden 2010 $1,700 Brightmoor Buffalo Soldier Youth Chess Club April 08 $2,825 Brightmoor Building Better Adults 2010 $2,200 Chadsey/Condon Carter Metro CME Church 2006 $5,000 Chadsey/Condon Centro TABCAT July 2008 $3,000 Osborn Cesar Chavez Academy Elementary Dec 2008 $1,301 Southwest (Vernor) Cesar Chavez Academy Upper Elementary Drama Club Dec-09 $1,550 Chadsey/Condon Chamber of Resources – (COR) July 2007 $4,980 Southwest (Vernor) Citadel of Praise 2006 $2,500 Brightmoor City Mission Aug 2009 $2,000 Brightmoor Clark Park Coalition July 2007 $5,000 Southwest (Vernor) Cody High School c/o DIVA Bootcamp Apr 2009 $2,000 Cody-Rouge Cody-Rouge Action Alliance Sept 2010 $4,950 Cody-Rouge College Club Nov 2006 $5,000 Chadsey/Condon Community for Latino Artists, Visionaries & Educators (CLAVE) Aug 2009 $1,660 Vernor SW Compassionate Services 2007 $1,500 Brightmoor Cops Caring for Kids June 2009 $2,385 North End

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 50 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Detroit Hurricanes Youth Athletics & Enrichment Program, Inc. (DHYAEP) July 2010 $1,885 Osborn Detroit Mural Factory Gardens Feb 2010 $2,500 North End/Central Developing Kingdoms in Different Stages May 2010 $5,000 Cody-Rouge Disabled for Christ Jan 2009 $3,200 North End Dixon Adventurers of Excellence June 2009 $5,000 Cody-Rouge Education One Jan 2010 $3,568 Brightmoor Education Resources Services Sept 2009 $1,600 Osborn En Garde! Detroit July 2009 $3,657 Osborn Equity in Partnership Educational Services July 08 $3,200 Cody-Rouge Essence of Egypt Mar 2007 $5,000 Southwest (Vernor) Falcon Block Club June 2009 $3,400 Southwest (Vernor) Fifth Grade Committee Nov 2008 $4,400 Chadsey/Condon Friends of Dingeman Apr 2009 $2,900 Chadsey/Condon Grace Community Church of Detroit June 2009 $4,800 Cody-Rouge Greenlands Project Planning Committee June 2009 $3,450 Southwest (Vernor) Harding Elementary Sept 2007 $4,400 Brightmoor Holbrook/King Block Club May 2010 $3,490 North End/Central Hubbard Farms Community Gardenersard Farms Community Gardeners April 2009 $3,975 Vernor Intense Mentoring, Inc. 2010 $991 North End/Central Joint Cities Development Corp June 2008 $3,065 North End Kingdom Global Communities, Inc. Aug 2008 $4,000 Osborn Kuddles the Clown & Friends Aug 2009 $2,554 Brightmoor Learning Institute of Family Education (LIFE) Oct 2007 $4,050 Brightmoor Leland Community Affairs, Inc. Feb 2008 $5,000 Brightmoor Loving Elementary L.S.C.O. Apr 2009 $2,305 North End Madison Community Center Sept 2007 $5,000 Chadsey/Condon Manhood, Inc. 2007 $5,000 Chadsey/Condon Master Bey’s Tae Kwon Do & Kung Fu Institute Feb 2010 $5,000 Cody-Rouge Maybury ParentCommunity Association Jan 2007 $5,000 Southwest (Vernor)

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 51 Mohican-Regent Homeowners Assoc. 2008 $1,000 Osborn Motor City Missionary Baptist Church Sept 2007 $3,140 Chadsey/Condon Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church June 2009 $3,500 North End/Central Mt. Vernon Missionary Baptist Church June 2007 $5,000 Brightmoor Mujeres del Arte Dec 2007 $3,060 Southwest (Vernor) New Shiloh Baptist Church Dec 2009 $3,975 North End New Westside Central Baptist Church May 2008 $1,130 Cody-Rouge North End Action Committee Apr 2008 $2,000 North End North End Christian Community Development Sept 2009 $4,000 North End/Central North End/Central Woodward Faith Base Alliance May 2009 $1,550 North End/Central Orioles Organization Jan 2010 $4,919 Osborn Osborn Education Action Team Jan 2010 $3,200 Osborn Osborn H.S. Martial Arts Club Dec 2006 $5,000 Osborn Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church-Outreach May 2009 $3,545 North End People Enriching Empowering People Services (P.E.E.P.S.) June 2008 $3,790 Cody-Rouge Project Greater Needs-Through A Child’s Eye Feb 2007 $5,000 Brightmoor Public Art Workz Sept 2007 $5,000 Brightmoor Purity Mentoring Group July 2009 $2,044 Brightmoor Robotic Team #903 Nov 2007 $3,500 Chadsey/Condon Rolyat Street Community Alliance June 2009 $5,000 Osborn Roosevelt St. Block Club Feb 2009 $3,495 Chadsey/Condon Rowe Block Clubs Apr 2010 $1,000 Osborn Sabrina Young and Associates Mar 2007 $3,668 Osborn Southwest Detroit Community Recreation League Feb 2010 $5,000 Vernor & Chadsey/Condon St. Luke Tabernacle Community Church – Detroit Apr 2009 $4,975 Cody-Rouge St. Suzanne.Our Lady Gate of Heaven Apr 2009 $5,000 Cody-Rouge Stafford House Oct 2009 $3,500 North End/Central Stepping Up Mentoring Group Apr 2009 $2,740 Brightmoor Strategic Builders Incorporated Nov 2008 $5,000 Brightmoor

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 52 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 The Detroit Project Feb 2008 $2,500 Brightmoor The Drummer Boys July 2007 $5,000 Southwest (Vernor) The Youth Initiative July 2008 $4,211 Cody-Rouge Thomas Burt Elementary School Jan 2010 $775 Brightmoor Tutor in Time Oct 2008 $3,920 Brightmoor U.N.I.T.Y. (Uniting Neighborhoods and Inspiring Today’s Youth Feb 2009 $1,475 Brightmoor Urban Techno Nov 2009 $3,801 Brightmoor Warriors Fort Wayne Aug 2010 $5,000 Southwest (Vernor) Westside Cultural & Athletic Club Jan 2010 $4,910 Chadsey/Condon Wilma Angel of Mercy – New Creation May 2009 $2,200 North End WOW Center July 2008 $4,930 Osborn Yellow Tigers, Inc.Martial Arts Club June 2010 $4,000 Southwest (Vernor) Young Nation July 2008 $3,400 Southwest (Vernor) Youth With A Vision May 2009 $4,750 Osborn Youth, Adult Neighborhood Coalition (Y.A.N.C.) May 2007 $4,250 Chadsey/Condon Zion Chapel Church of Christ Holiness, USA July 2010 $2,220 Chadsey/Condon Table A-3: All Grantees 2006 - 2010 Group Name GNI Neighborhood Total Amount Awarded Number of grants received Dates of grants Westside Cultural & Athletic Club Chadsey/Condon $33,755 7 10/06, 7/07, 11/07, 5/08, 2/09, 7/09, 1/10 Building Better Adults Chadsey/Condon $21,950 5 6/07, 3/08, 4/10, 10/08, ? Master Bey’s Tae Kwon Do & Kung Fu Institute Cody-Rouge $24,378 5 6/08, 1/09, 8/09, 2/10, 8/10 Rowe Block Clubs Osborn $7,850 5 9/07, 11/07, 4/09, 5/09, 5/10 Act Three Ensemble of Esthetic Value 4 neighborhoods $18,100 4 11/06, 10/08, 6/09 City Mission Brightmoor $16,200 4 2/07, 5/07, 6/08, 8/09 Developing Kingdoms in Different Stages Cody-Rouge $15,000 4 3/08, 7/09, 1/10, 4/10

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 53 Roosevelt St. Block Club Chadsey/Condon $15,420 4 11/07, 4/08, 2/09, 5/10 Vernor Community Yellow Tigers Martial Arts Club Vernor $17,500 4 7/08, 2/09, 7/09, 7/10 Youth With A Vision Osborn $22,857 4 11/06, 11/07, 5/08, 10/08, 5/09 Ballet Folklorico Mexicano “Asi Es Mi Tierra” Vernor $8,138 3 7/07, 3/08, 5/09 Brightmoor Community Center Brightmoor $13,775 3 10/06, 1/07, 9/10 Community for Latino Artists, Visionaries & Educators (CLAVE) Vernor $9,628 3 11/07, 8/08, 8/09 Holbrook/King Block Club North End/ Central $9,710 3 5/08, 7/09, 5/10 Joint Cities Development Corp North End $10,270 3 2/08, 7/08, 6/09 Kingdom Global Communities, Inc. Osborn $10,345 3 3/08, 4/09, 8/09 Kuddles the Clown & Friends Brightmoor $7,482 3 5/08, 8/09, 9/10 Leland Community Affairs, Inc. Brightmoor $13,570 3 9/09, 2/08, 2/09 Mohican Regent Residients Association Osborn $8,250 3 5/07, 3/08, 3/10 New Shiloh Baptist Church North End $8,775 3 1/08, 11/08, 11/09 Our Lady of Guadalupe Vernor $7,872 3 5/07, 9/07, 2/09 Prevailing Community Development Corporation Chadsey/Condon $10,250 3 3/08, 10/08, 1/10 St. Christine Christian Services Brightmoor $14,600 3 6/07, 5/08, 4/09 Strategic Builders Incorporated Brightmoor $13,000 3 11/07, 11/08, 9/10 WOW Center Osborn $4,930 3 8/07, 8/08, 6/09 Abundant Changes Community Outreach North End $7,205 2 5/08, 7/09 Alternatives for Girls Chadsey/Condon $7,500 2 08/06, 4/10 Black Mother’s Breastfeeding Association (BMBFA) Osborn $7,900 2 3/08, 5/09 Botech Corporation Brightmoor $7,992 2 4/08, 2/09 Brightmoor Community Garden Brightmoor $3,000 2 5/08, 3/09 Carter Metro CME Church Chadsey/Condon $9,300 2 11/06, 6/10 Centro TABCAT Osborn $3,500 2 12/08, 1/10

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 54 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Chris & Company Chadsey/Condon $7,525 2 6/07, 10/09 Cody High School c/o DIVA Bootcamp Cody-Rouge $5,985 2 4/09, 4/10 Cody-Rouge Action Alliance Cody-Rouge $7,880 2 7/10, 9/10 Cops Caring for Kids North End $5,370 2 6/09, 4/10 Detroit Hurricanes Youth Athletics & Enrichment Program, Inc. (DHYAEP) Osborn $3,770 2 6/08, 6/10 Detroit Police Department Central District Community Relations North End $3,450 2 2/09, 4/10 Dixon Adventurers of Excellence Cody-Rouge $8,100 2 6/09, 10/09 Elite Brothers, Inc. Brightmoor $7,235 2 both 9/09 En Garde! Detroit Osborn $6,957 2 7/09, 4/10 Equity in Partnership Educational Services Cody-Rouge $7,325 2 7/08, 9/09 Faith Community Center C.O.G.I.C. Chadsey/Condon $4,500 2 8/07, 9/09 Grace Community Church of Detroit Cody-Rouge $9,800 2 6/08, 6/09 Greenbrier Community Council Osborn $5,827 2 4/08, 6/08 John Ribbing Flag Football Brightmoor $3,250 2 8/08, 9/10 Madison Community Center Condon/Chadsey $8,000 2 8/06, 10/07 Manhood, Inc. Chadsey/Condon $6,100 2 7/07, 8/08 Mohican-Regent Homeowners Assoc. Osborn $3,650 2 5/07, 3/08 Mujeres del Arte Vernor $6,460 2 10/07, 6/09 Orioles Organization Chadsey/Condon $7,159 2 10/09, 1/10 Osborn Education Action Team Osborn $6,400 2 02/09, 1/10 Osborn H.S. Martial Arts Club Osborn $10,000 2 11/06, 2/09 Osborn High SchoolStudent Council Osborn $10,000 2 2/07, 2/09 People Enriching Empowering People Services (P.E.E.P.S.) Cody-Rouge $8,790 2 12/06, 6/08 Peter Vetal K-8 Detroit Public School Brightmoor $9,980 2 2/07, 2/09 Public Art Workz Brightmoor $7,300 2 3/07, 7/08

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 55 Purity Mentoring Group Brightmoor $4,784 2 4/08, 7/09 Rolyat Street Community Alliance Osborn $8,000 2 6/09, 5/10 St. John Evangelistic Temple of Truth and Wisdom North End $7,965 2 6/09, 1/10 St. Luke Tabernacle Community Church – Detroit Cody-Rouge $9,175 2 7/08, 6/09 Stafford House North End/Central $5,000 2 10/09, 1/10 Team Legion Brightmoor $6,170 2 8/07, 4/09 Thelma Clarke Organization for Youth Advancement Osborn $8,175 2 9/06, 5/08 Top Flight Magazine Brightmoor $7,150 2 9/09 (2) Trinity Community Development Center Brightmoor $3,800 2 5/07, 5/08 United Generation Council theatrical Troupe Brightmoor $6,665 2 7/07, 3/08 UNITY Brightmoor $1,990 2 2/09, 2/10 Warriors Fort Wayne Vernor $10,000 2 11/09, 8/10 Westside Multicultural Academy Chadsey/Condon $7,525 2 3/07, 2/10 Women Preserving the History of Idlewild – Girl Power Rules Osborn $5,361 2 7/07, 1/10 Youth, Adult Neighborhood Coalition (Y.A.N.C.) Chadsey/Condon $9,200 2 6/09, 11/09 28th Street Family Life Center Chadsey/Condon $2,200 1 5/10 A Stitch in Time Chadsey Condon (Southwest) $3,600 1 4/08 Abundant Life Cody-Rouge $3,010 1 7/08 African Dance Works Osborn $3,750 1 8/07 Anointing New Beginnings Community Outreach and Development Center Cody-Rouge $3,800 1 4/09 anSpire Ministries Cody-Rouge $3,500 1 3/08 Back Alley Bikes Chadsey/Condon $5,000 1 10/06 Bailey Temple Church Chadsey/Condon $4,000 1 7/07 Bambara Club Osborn $980 1 6/08 Bangor Block Council Chadsey-Condon $3,300 1 6/08

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 56 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Barney McCosky Baseball/Basketball League Cody-Rouge $3,029 1 5/08 Beverly Glenn School of Music and Media North End/Central $1,500 1 5/10 Blight Busters, Inc. Brightmoor $2,700 1 5/08 Brenda Scott Middle School Osborn $2,600 1 3/09 Bridging Communities for Dingeman Park Vernor $5,000 1 8/06 Brightmoor Alliance Brightmoor $4,200 1 7/07 Brightmoor Community Residents’ “Clean It Together” Group Brightmoor $3,330 1 4/07 Brightmoor Youth Garden Brightmoor $1,700 1 2/10 Buffalo Soldier Youth Chess Club Brightmoor Up to $2,825 1 4/08 Buffalo Soldiers Organization, Calio Troops Cody-Rouge $4,700 1 5/08 Building Effective Community Advocates (BECA) Chadsey/Condon $4,200 1 10/06 Central Detroit Christian community Development Corp. North End $5,000 1 2/08 Cesar Chavez Academy Elementary Vernor $1,301 1 10/08 Cesar Chavez Academy Upper Elementary Drama Club Chadsey/Condon $1,550 1 10/09 Chadsey High School Junior Reserve Officer Training Chadsey/Condon $2,250 1 3/09 Chamber of Resources – (COR) Vernor $4,980 1 7/07 Chapel Child Day Care Learning Center Osborn $3,500 1 9/08 Charles Heath/Bailey Temple Chadsey/Condon $4,190 1 10/07 Charlotte Mason Association of Detroit Vernor $3,255 1 4/07 CHASS Vernor $5,000 1 11/06 Citadel of Praise Brightmoor $2,500 1 9/07 Citizens With Challenges Vernor $3,500 1 11/06 City Teammates Osborn $3,425 1 7/10 Clark Park Coalition Vernor $5,000 1 7/07 Claytown Collaborative Chadsey/Condon $2,220 1 7/10

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 57 Clockwise Education LLC Osborn $4,500 1 7/10 Cody Rouge Faith Alliance Cody-Rouge $3,150 1 7/09 Cody- Rouge Parent Club Cody-Rouge $4,365 1 11/10 Cody-Rouge Winter Festival Youth Committee Cody-Rouge $2,428 1 1/09 College Club Chadsey/Condon $5,000 1 11/06 College Prep International Brightmoor $5,000 1 9/07 Community Garden at New Westside Central B.C. Cody-Rouge $3,500 1 5/09 Community Health and Social Services Center, Inc. Chadsey/Condon $4,700 1 6/07 Compassionate Services Brightmoor $1,500 1 6/07 Considine Boxing North/EndCentral $3,323 1 3/10 Daryl’s Hoops & Cheers 2010 Osborn $2,500 1 2/10 Destiny Investment Initiatives Vernor $5,000 1 10/06 Detroit Asian Youth Project Osborn $4,400 1 6/07 Detroit Community Schools, A Public School Academy Brightmoor $2,640 1 2/07 Detroit CommunityHealth Connection Chadsey/Condon $4,000 1 10/06 Detroit Impact, Inc./Cody-Rouge Safety Ambassador Cody-Rouge $1,325 1 9/09 Detroit International Academy Robotics, Detroit Public School North End/Central $5,000 1 7/10 Detroit Mural Factory Gardens North End/Central $2,500 1 2/10 Detroit Public Library Osborn $5,000 1 3/07 Detroit Young Citizens & Brightmoor Community Center Brightmoor $4,300 1 6/09 Development Centers Brightmoor $1,000 1 5/07 Disabled for Christ North End $3,200 1 1/09 Dorra Budo-Ka Fatherhood to Support children North End/Central $3,800 1 9/08 Dynamic Dance North End $1,400 1 2/09 Eastside Unity Association Osborn $1,876 1 4/09

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 58 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 ECHO – Emmanuel Community House Outreach North End/Central $2,250 1 6/09 Education One Brightmoor $3,568 1 1/10 Education Resources Services Osborn $1,600 1 9/09 Education Work Group Osborn $1,340 1 8/08 Essence of Egypt Vernor $5,000 1 3/07 Falcon Block Club Vernor $3,400 1 6/09 Father Time’s Educational Happy Hour Chadsey/Condon $2,418 1 4/09 FAYZ Brightmoor $5,000 1 6/09 Fifth Grade Committee Chadsey/Condon $4,400 1 10/08 Fleming Academy Osborn $4,990 1 5/10 Frank Cody High School (Robotics Team) Cody-Rouge $4,500 1 1/08 Friends of Dingeman Chadsey $2,900 1 4/09 Friends of Josefiak Play Lot Osborn $2,340 1 10/08 Future Scientists and Engineers (F.U.S.E.) Osborn $4,400 1 2/10 Gabriel Richard LSCO Osborn $5,000 1 4/09 Galatian Community Development Corp. Chadsey/Condon $5,000 1 2/07 Genesis New Beginnings Christian Center Brightmoor $5,000 1 9/07 Gifted Minds and Hands Chadsey/Condon $3,030 1 10/09 God’s Oasis (Community church Ministries International) Osborn $4,072 1 2/07 Grace Community Center Osborn $5,000 1 11/06 Greater Mt. Huron Ministries Chadsey/Condon $5,000 1 4/07 Greenlands Project Planning Committee Vernor $3,450 1 6/09 Harding Elementary Brightmoor $4,400 1 9/07 Hatikvah Ministries International Cody-Rouge $4,200 1 6/08 Hmong Town Community Organization Osborn $2,125 1 6/09

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 59 HOLD from September:Motown Writers’ Network Cody-Rouge $4,000 1 10/08 Hubbard Farms Community Gardenersard Farms Community Gardeners Vernor $3,975 1 4/09 Inside Out, Inc. SW/Osborn $5,000 1 10/06 Intense Mentoring, Inc. North End/Central $991 1 4/10 Jewish Community Relations Council – “Detroit Jewish Initiative” (DJI) Vernor $5,000 1 3/07 JIRAN-(Join In to Revitalize Arab American Neighborhoods Chadsey/Condon $3,875 1 3/10 Joshua Temple Church of God in Christ Osborn $4,200 1 7/07 Joy Community Association for Cody Rouge Community Block Club Task Force Cody-Rouge $5,000 1 4/09 Keep It Moving, Inc. Osborn $2,710 [$3,400] 1 4/07 Key Way to Kids Osborn $4,220 1 8/10 Lady’s Voices Exchange Vernor $3,075 1 8/07 Last Days Ministries Outpouring Center Chadsey-Condon Up to $4,500 1 6/08 Latino Family Services Vernor $5,000 1 10/06 Leaps and Bounds Family Services Osborn $5,000 1 10/06 Learning Institute of Family Education (LIFE) Brightmoor $4,050 1 10/07 Legal Education and Advocacy Center Osborn $5,000 1 1/07 Life Directions Vernor $5,000 1 10/06 Loaves and Fishes Southwest Detroit Vernor $4,000 1 7/07 Loving Elementary L.S.C.O. North End $2,305 1 4/09 M.R.R.C.. Osborn $4,000 1 3/09 Martin Street Clean-Up Committee Condon/Chadsey $1,589 1 10/07 Matrix Human Services Vernor $5,000 1 4/07 Maybury ParentCommunity Association Vernor $5,000 1 1/07 Mexican Patriotic Committee Vernor $4,700 1 4/07 More Excellent Way Cathedral Brightmoor $4,400 1 8/07

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 60 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Motor City Chargers Youth Organization North End/Central $3,162 1 11/09 Motor City Missionary Baptist Church Condon/Chadsey $3,140 1 9/07 Motor City Model UN Club (for its Ecotek Science Program) North End $2,500 1 6/09 Motor City Rockers Chadsey/Condon $4,390 1 9/09 Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church North End/Central $3,500 1 6/09 MRRC Youth Program Osborn $4,200 1 8/09 Mt. Vernon & Marston Block Club North End/ Central $2,015 1 08/09 Mt. Vernon Missionary Baptist Church Brightmoor $5,000 1 5/08 Mt. Vernon Missionary Baptist Church / Trinity Comm. Dev. Group Brightmoor $5,000 1 4/07 National Black Operations Business Association North End/Central $2,020 1 7/09 New Westside Central Baptist Church Cody-Rouge $1,130 1 5/08 North End Action Committee North End $2,000 1 4/08 North End Aquatic Club North End $3,810 1 6/10 North End Central Faith Based Alliance North End / Central $3,038 1 5/09 North End Christian Community Development North End/Central $4,000 1 9/09 North End Ministerial Alliance North End $2,180 1 8/08 North End Youth Improvement Council (NEYIC) North End/ Central $5,000 1 8/09 North End/Central Woodward Faith Base Alliance North End/Central $1,550 1 10/09 Northwest Detroit Neighborhood Development Brightmoor $4,100 1 4/10 Northwest Seventh Day Adventist Church Brightmoor $2,310 1 4/10 Oba News Research Center North End $4,500 1 9/08 One Life Juvenile Diversion Program Osborn $5,000 1 10/06 Osborn Good Neighborhood Initiative – Family Support Group Osborn $5,000 1 9/08 Osborn High School—Wellness Council Osborn $2,693 1 5/08 Our L.A.W. Chadsey/Condon $4,550 1 10/09

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 61 Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish Osborn $5,000 1 3/09 Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Church-Outreach North End $3,545 1 4/09 Outside the Box Arts and Culture/Crafts Osborn $5,000 1 6/09 Paloma Community Development Corporation Vernor $5,000 1 7/08 PBPC Forever Osborn $5,000 1 2/08 Project Greater Needs-Through A Child’s Eye Brightmoor $5,000 1 1/07 Pulazki Community Council Osborn $2,744 1 6/08 Quetzalli Block Club Vernor $2,500 1 6/09 Re Shawn Wilder, Christopher Michaux, and Associates Osborn $4,650 1 10/07 Real Media Southwest (Vernor) $2,160 1 5/08 Rehoboth Summer Youth Program—Emmanuel Faith Outreach Ministry Brightmoor $1,250 1 8/08 Robotic Team #903 Chadsey/Condon $3,500 1 10/07 Robotics Team, 515 Osborn $5,000 1 1/10 S.A.E. Yes to Progress, We Care About Detroit Osborn $2,500 1 4/07 S.T.U.D.S., Inc. North End (Central) $1,400 1 6/08 Sabrina Young and Associates Osborn $3,668 1 4/07 Samaritan Initiative Osborn $2,315 1 7/10 Save Us Cody-Rouge $3,468 1 1/09 Serendipity, Collage and Potpourri Brightmoor $5,000 1 1/07 Serenity Park Deacon St. Block Club Vernor $2,959 1 8/07 Southwest Custom Bicycle Club Vernor $3,760 1 4/10 Southwest Detroit Community Recreation League Vernor & Chadsey/Condon $5,000 1 2/10 Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision (SDEV) Vernor $4,300 1 10/06 Southwest Detroit Improvement Association Vernor $500 1 5/07 Southwest Detroit Little League Baseball Vernor $5,000 1 5/07

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 62 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Southwest Detroit Piranhas Vernor $5,000 1 4/10 Southwest Detroit Policy Agenda Group Chadsey/Condon $3,500 1 9/07 Southwest Detroit Youth Vision Vernor $4,600 1 5/09 Southwestern Robotic Team 903 Chadsey/Condon $5,000 1 1/10 St. Stephen-MaryMother of the Church Vernor $5,000 1 6/10 St. Suzanne Faith & Friendship Center Partnership Cody-Rouge $3,800 1 5/08 St. Suzanne.Our Lady Gate of Heaven Cody-Rouge $5,000 1 4/09 Stepping Up Mentoring Group Brightmoor $2,740 1 4/09 Strong Families Action Team Cody-Rouge $4,332 1 3/09 Student Conservation Association (SCA) Cody-Rouge and Brightmoor $915 1 6/10 TechAmigos Volunteer Partnership of IT and Media Professionals Vernor $3,900 1 5/07 Technology for Cities Cody-Rouge $2,450 1 2/08 The Best Chess Club Osborn $3,900 1 7/08 The Detroit Partnership Brightmoor $2,000 1 9/08 The Detroit Project Brightmoor $2,500 1 2/08 The Drummer Boys Vernor $5,000 1 7/07 The Employment Institute Osborn $3,726 1 4/08 The Gift of Dance Brightmoor $3,550 1 2/10 The Girls Development Club Cody-Rouge $4,460 1 6/09 The Good Helpers Vernor $1,000 1 4/10 The Heights Creative Arts Studio Brightmoor $2,550 1 4/08 The International Circuit of Hip Hop and the Arts Osborn $3,000 1 10/08 The Jewelry Ladies Osborn $5,000 1 9/10 The YANC (Youth, Adult Neighborhood commitment) Chadsey/Condon $4,500 1 5/07 The Youth Initiative Cody-Rouge $4,211 1 7/08

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 63 Thomas Burt Elementary School Brightmoor $775 1 1/10 Three Amigos Vernor $1,650 1 8/07 Transition 1.2.3. DIC Cody-Rouge Up to $5,000 1 7/08 Tutor in Time Brightmoor $3,920 1 10/08 Twenty-first Century Sisterhood, Inc. Vernor $5,000 1 3/07 U.N.I.T.Y. (Uniting Neighborhoods and Inspiring Today’s Youth Brightmoor $1,475 1 2/09 Unity One Block Club Osborn $3,435 1 6/08 Unity Service Excellence (USE) Osborn $3,666 1 4/08 University of Central (Servicing Learning EEJ) North End $5,000 1 5/10 UPWARD at the Dale Brightmoor Up to $5,000 1 2/08 Urban Techno Brightmoor $3,801 1 9/08 Vanguard CDC North End $5,000 1 6/08 Village Builders of Northwest Detroit Brightmoor $5,000 1 9/06 Village of Shiny Stars Child Care Center Brightmoor $5,000 1 4/07 Von Steuben Community Council Osborn $2,600 1 5/08 Wellspring Brightmoor $5,000 1 9/06 West Outer Drive United Methodist Church Brightmoor $1,600 1 8/10 Westphalia Block 1 Osborn $1,500 1 8/09 Wilma Angel of Mercy – New Creation North End $2,200 1 5/09 With a Smile Cody-Rouge & Brightmoor $4,000 1 9/10 Women in Touch Cody-Rouge $5,000 1 1/09 Yellow Tigers, Inc.Martial Arts Club Vernor $4,000 1 2/10 Young Ladies of Distinction Vernor $3,200 1 7/07 Young Nation Vernor $3,400 1 7/08 Young Writers’ Workshop Brightmoor $1,872 1 7/09

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 64 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Youth Becoming Successful Adults Osborn $4,900 1 9/10 Youth Growing Brightmoor Brightmoor $800 1 9/09 Youth Oneighty Osborn $4,300 1 10/09 Youth Voice (of Southwest Detroit Youth Development Council Chadsey/Condon $5,000 1 4/09 Zion Chapel Church of Christ Holiness, USA Chadsey/Condon $2,220 1 7/10

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 65 Appendix B: Small grants neighborhood data displays Table B-1: Number and dollar amount of grants of each organization type – by neighborhood Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Organization Type # grants $ amount # grants $ amount # grants $ amount Resident-led only 3 $10,546 3 $7,150 1 $4,211 Resident led AND Agency/Non-prof led 3 $11,700 3 $10,695 1 $4,950 Resident-led AND Faith-based 1 $5,000 3 $10,360 1 $4,800 Resident-led AND School-led 3 $7,375 0 $0 0 $0 Agency AND School-led 1 $2,710 0 $0 0 $0 Agency only 10 $35,705 5 $17,110 4 $16,990 School-led ONLY 1 $775 3 $9,450 2 $7,000 Faith-based ONLY 1 $2,500 0 $0 4 $14,115 Northend/Central Osborn Vernor Multiple Organization Type # grants $ amount # grants $ amount # grants $ amount # grants $ amount Resident-led only 2 $4,385 3 $15,176 5 $18,885 0 0 Resident led AND Agency/Non-prof led 4 $11,330 6 $19,635 2 $6,880 0 0 Resident-led AND Faith-based 1 $2,200 1 $4,930 0 $0 0 0 Resident-led AND School-led 0 $0 2 $8,200 1 $5,000 0 0 Agency AND School-led 2 $5,565 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 Agency only 2 $8,091 2 $4,668 5 $19,060 2 $7,500 School-led ONLY 1 $2,305 0 $0 1 $1,301 0 0 Faith-based ONLY 4 $15,020 0 $0 1 $5,000 0 0 Tables B-2 through B-7 show project totals for kinds of activities by neighborhood for all grants awarded from 2009 – 2010.

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 66 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Table B-2: Brightmoor Neighborhood Number grants awarded: 35 Total amount: $98,564 Projects Number Percent* Academic focused Robotics (1) Writing (4) Math (1) 6 17 Arts and culture (photography, clown camp, painting, dance, digital photo shop, 6 17 Gardening/environment (rain catchment wall, community gardens, job club, Green Corps) 5 14 Neighborhood events (block club event, community safety, health fair) 3 9 Sports/fitness (Basketball, Tee ball, flag football) 6 17 Social Skills development 2 6 Leadership development/civic (outward bound, Detroit Young Citizens) 2 6 Field trips 2 6 Summer camps 2 6 Misc (Series intergenerational community act) 1 3 *Rounded to nearest whole percent

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 67 Table B-3: Chadsey/Condon Neighborhood Number grants awarded: 28 Total amount: $99,827 Projects Number Percent* Academic focused Robotics (1) Reading enhancement (1) Tutoring (1) Math (1) 4 14 Arts and culture (puppetry, outdoor camping, photography, musical production, talent show and concert) 4 14 Gardening/environment (park construction) 1 4 Neighborhood events (community day, health fair, clean up, holiday gatherings, town meeting, back to school day, community fair) 8 29 Sports/fitness (basketball, soft ball) 3 11 Social Skills development 1 4 Leadership development/civic (youth summit, census work) 2 7 Field trips (Military Ball) 1 4 Summer camps 3 11 Misc (training/hiring crossing guards) 1 4 *Rounded to nearest whole percent

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 68 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Table B-4: Cody/Rouge Neighborhood Number grants awarded: 34 Total amount: $136, 914 Projects Number Percent* Academic focused Computer training/journalism (1) Detroit history (1) Creative writing/video production (1) Multi-faceted academic enrichment (1) 4 12 Arts and culture (performing arts, dance, culinary arts, cultural outings) 6 18 Gardening/environment 1 3 Neighborhood events (clean up, community celebrations, peace day, fall harvest) 4 12 Sports/fitness (martial arts, fencing) 6 18 Social Skills development - 0 Leadership development/civic (event planning, conflict mediation, census outreach) 6 18 Field trips 2 6 Summer camps 4 12 Misc (parent club) 1 3 * Rounded to nearest whole percent

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 69 Table B-5: North End Central Neighborhood Number grants awarded: 37 Total amount: $113,759 Projects Number Percent* Academic oriented Robotics (1) Literacy (1) Basic academics: reading, writing, math (5) Science (1) Post secondary prep (2) 10 26 Arts and culture (dance, crafts, performing arts, mural production) 7 18 Gardening/environment 2 5 Neighborhood events (family read night, community fun day, block club party, beautification project) 6 16 Sports/fitness/health (karate, swimming, basketball, boxing) 4 11 Social Skills development 1 3 Leadership development/civic (census outreach, conflict resolution, youth empowerment) 5 13 Field trips (Historically Black College tour) 1 3 Summer camps - 0 Misc Safety camp 2 5 *Rounded to nearest whole percent

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 70 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Table B-6: Osborn Neighborhood Number grants awarded: 42 Total amount: $152,503 Projects Number Percent* Academic oriented Robotics (1) Science (1) Post secondary prep 2 Debate team (1) Video production (1) 6 14 Arts and culture (dance, drama, arts/crafts, sewing, jewelry making 5 12 Gardening/environment (summer long landscaping/gardening 2 5 Neighborhood events (health/physical fitness fair, clean up 8 19 Sports/fitness (bowling & mentoring, martial arts, basketball, cheer leading, flag football, fencing, soft ball 11 26 Social skills development 2 5 Leadership development/civic - 0 Field trips (college tour) 2 5 Summer camps 2 5 Misc Parenting/child safety (1) Family relationships (3) 4 10 *Rounded to nearest whole percent

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry: 5/18/11 71 Table B-7: Southwest (Vernor) Neighborhood Number grants awarded: 20 Total amount: $71,095 Projects Number Percent Academic oriented - 0 Arts and culture (pinata making, Aztec culture, arts & crafts) 3 15 Gardening/environment (summer long landscaping/gardening) 2 10 Neighborhood events (clean ups) 4 20 Sports/fitness (martial arts, tennis, flag football, boxing, swimming, biking, soccer, basketball) 11 55 Social Skills development - 0 Leadership development/civic - 0 Field trips - 0 Summer camps - 0 *Rounded to nearest whole percent Combination Awards – Grants Awarded in Jan 2009 – Sept 2010 Chadsey/Condon & Southwest $2,500 (1 grant – Leadership Dev.) Vernor & Chadsey Condon $5,000 (1 grant – Leadership Dev.) Cody Rouge & Brightmoor $4,915 (2 grants – Social skills, Academic)

Engaging “Natural Leaders” to Improve Neighborhoods for Youth 72 Touchstone Center for Collaborative Inquiry, 5/18/11 Table B-8: Project purpose (as listed in the grant application) by neighborhood Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Northend/ Central Osborn Southwest (Vernor) Mentoring/Tutoring/Youth program 5 5 4 4 6 4 Youth development/Leadership 6 3 4 4 2 3 Arts & Culture 3 1 2 3 1 5 Community Interaction 2 2 1 1 3 0 Skills for career development 4 1 2 1 1 0 Building community alliances 2 3 0 1 1 1 Beautification 0 2 0 1 0 1 Service learning/Civic engagement 1 0 0 1 0 0 Intergenerational 0 0 0 0 0 1 Building organizational capacity/leadership 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table B-9: Reported locations of project activities, by neighborhood (as reported by 84 recent grantees) Brightmoor Chadsey/ Condon Cody Rouge Northend/ Central Osborn Vernor Total Outdoors 8 7 5 6 3 8 37 School 9 7 1 4 5 3 29 Church 7 6 5 5 4 1 28 Neighborhood Center 4 4 5 0 6 2 21 Other 2 0 2 1 1 4 10 Community Business 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 College Campus 1 1 0 1 2 0 5 Work Site 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 Community Home 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Agency 0 0 0 1 0 0 1