Assessing community information_needs

Richard C. Harwood

Assessing Community Information Needs: A Practical Guide
Assessing Community
Information needs
A Practical Guide

A white paper BY Richard C. Harwood

Communications and Society Program
11-018
A project of the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program
A project of the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Assessing Community
Information Needs
A Practical Guide

A White Paper on Implementing the Recommendations
of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs
of Communities in a Democracy

written by
Richard C. Harwood

2011

The Aspen Institute and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation invite you to join the
public dialogue around the Knight Commission’s recommendations at
www.knightcomm.org or by using Twitter hashtag #knightcomm.

Copyright 2011 by The Aspen Institute

The Aspen Institute
One Dupont Circle, NW
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036

Published in the United States of America in 2011 by The Aspen Institute
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 0-89843-556-0
11/018

Individuals are encouraged to cite this paper and its contents.
In doing so, please include the following attribution:

Richard C. Harwood, Assessing Community Information Needs: A Practical Guide,
Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, October 2011.

For more information, contact:

The Aspen Institute
One Dupont Circle, NW
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 736-5818
Fax: (202) 467-0790
www.aspeninstitute.org/c&s

To purchase additional copies of this paper, please contact:

The Aspen Institute
Publications Office
P.O. Box 222
109 Houghton Lab Lane
Queenstown, MD 21658
Phone: (410) 820-5326
Fax: (410) 827-9174

Cover background graphic was created in part at www.wordle.net.


A project of the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program
and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Contents

From Report to Action................................................................................ v

Executive Summary...................................................................................... vii

Assessing Community Information Needs:
A Practical Guide, Richard C. Harwood
The Knight Commission’s Call to Action................................................. 3
Creating the Right Information Environment......................................... 6
Moving Ahead in Santa Fe: Two Scenarios.............................................. 7
Key Guideposts........................................................................................ 11
Nine Strategies for Taking Effective Action............................................ 13
Strategy 1: Create an Authentic Steering Committee........................ 13
Strategy 2: Define “Community”....................................................... 14
Strategy 3: Engage the Community Early On.................................... 15
Strategy 4: Mobilize the Community as a Resource.......................... 17
Strategy 5: Create a Discipline of Making Sense of
What You Are Learning.................................................... 18
Strategy 6: Make Clear Choices about What Actions to Take........... 21
Strategy 7: Actively Cultivate Boundary-Spanning Organizations
and Groups....................................................................... 23
Strategy 8: Tell the Community’s Story of Change............................ 23
Strategy 9: Ensure Enough Entry Points for People to Engage........... 24
How Change Occurs................................................................................ 25
Tapping Into Community Resources: Who Can Do What................... 26
Getting Started......................................................................................... 27
Fulfilling the Promise.............................................................................. 28
Quick Reference Guide............................................................................ 30

Appendix
About the Author.................................................................................... 35
The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program............... 37

From Report to Action
Implementing the Recommendations of the
Knight Commission on the Information Needs of
Communities in a Democracy

In October 2009, the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of
Communities in a Democracy released its report, Informing Communities:
Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age, with 15 recommendations to better meet
community information needs.
Immediately following the release of Informing Communities, the Aspen
Institute Communications and Society Program and the John S. and James L.
Knight Foundation partnered to explore ways to implement the Commission’s
recommendations.
As a result, the Aspen Institute commissioned a series of white papers with the
purpose of moving the Knight Commission recommendations from report into
action. The topics of the commissioned papers include:

• Universal Broadband
• Digital and Media Literacy
• Public Media
• Government Transparency
• Online Hubs
• Civic Engagement
• Local Journalism
• Assessing Community Information Needs

The following paper is one of those white papers.

This paper is written from the perspective of the author individually. The ideas
and proposals herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the
views of the Aspen Institute, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the mem-
bers of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a
Democracy, or any other institution. Unless attributed to a particular person, none
of the comments or ideas contained in this report should be taken as embodying the
views or carrying the endorsement of any person other than the author.

v

A Practical Guide
Executive Summary
At the heart of this paper sits a simple guiding principle: The key to building
what the Knight Commission calls a community’s “healthy information environ-
ment” requires taking steps that are relevant and meaningful to the people who
make that community home—that enable people to become informed, engage
with one another, address the issues they care about and create the community
they want. But not just any information will do.
Meeting this challenge will require a fundamental shift in how people’s infor-
mation needs are approached. Simply replicating or aggregating existing ideas
and tools, or instituting new programs and initiatives alone, will not necessarily
produce new and useful knowledge for communities. Nor will merely adding to
the wide array of RSS feeds, blogs, recommendation filters, online rating tools and
social bookmarking sites.
In reality, most change in communities occurs through pockets of activity that
emerge and take root over time. These pockets result from individuals, small
groups, and various organizations seeing an opportunity for change and seizing
it, often through trial and error. Seldom are the collection of such pockets orches-
trated through a top-down, linear plan; instead, they happen when people and
groups start to engage and interact. In this way, different groups at different times
play a crucial catalytic and connecting role—helping to foster the conditions for
people to tap their own potential and join together to forge a way forward.
The point for those seeking to gauge and grow a community’s information
environment is not to see or create a single information destination, but to allow
for many and varied touch-points for people who are stepping into and making
their way through community and public life. It is important not to try and own
the space, control the flow of information, or dictate change, but to generate mul-
tiple information sources in the community.
This paper is a practical guide for individuals and groups to assess and build a
healthy community information environment. The paper lays out four important
guideposts in moving forward:
1. Those seeking to assess and build a strong information environment must
turn outward toward their community.
2. Progress in building a robust information environment will come best and
fastest by using a specific issue to focus a community’s efforts.

vii

viii Assessing Community Information Needs: A Practical Guide

3. Emphasis should be placed on how knowledge is generated in a commu-
nity and on its quality and flow, not solely on counting and increasing the
sources and volume of information.
4. Taking effective action requires innovation, not simply good planning.

Along with these guideposts are nine strategies for a community to assess and
build a healthy information environment:

Strategy 1: Create an authentic steering committee
Strategy 2: Define “community”
Strategy 3: Engage the community early on
Strategy 4: Mobilize the community as a resource
Strategy 5: Create a discipline of making sense of what you are learning
Strategy 6: Make clear choices about what actions to take
Strategy 7: Actively cultivate boundary-spanning organizations and groups
Strategy 8: Tell the community’s story of change
Strategy 9: Ensure enough entry points for people to engage

The ideas and strategies in this paper can be used with any specific set of tools
a community uses to assess and build its information environment, including the
Community Information Toolkit created by the Knight Foundation and Monitor
Group.
When reading this paper, it is important to remember that all across America
people yearn to re-engage and reconnect with one another, to be part of something
larger than themselves, and to make a difference in their own lives and the lives
of others. But they often lack the vital information and practical means by which
to come together to act on what matters most to them. The result is that many
people and communities find themselves stymied or not moving fast enough to
meet the pressing challenges before them—from public schools to public health
to safe streets.
It is within this context that we must meet the information needs of communities.

Assessing Community Information
Needs: A Practical Guide

Richard C. Harwood

A Practical Guide

Information is as vital to the healthy functioning of communities as
clean air, safe streets, good schools and public health.
— Knight Commission, Informing Communities:
Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age

The Knight Commission’s Call to Action
Imagine you are flying into Detroit. From above you see numerous school
buildings, miles of roads crisscrossing different neighborhoods, a landscape dotted
by television and radio station antennae, and houses—lots of them. Already, from
the air, you are planning for the kind of information environment this community
needs.
But once on the ground, as you make your way through the community, you
find that many of the schools have been shuttered, there are countless abandoned
homes, and the population is shrinking. From above, the community’s vastness
might suggest an information environment of a certain size and scope, but on-the-
ground reality suggests something else entirely. Exactly what kind of information
environment would be required for this new Detroit?
It is one thing to focus on the “built” elements of a community’s information
environment; it is another to focus on various programs or initiatives one might
want to start to better inform and engage people; and it is still another to place
people, their aspirations, and how they live their daily lives at the center of plan-
ning and action. The key is to build a community information environment that
enables people to act on the real, everyday challenges they face, to connect with
one another, and to reach for their individual and shared aspirations.
All across America, people yearn to re-engage and reconnect with one another,
to be part of something larger than themselves, and to make a difference in their
own lives and the lives of others. But often they lack the information and practical
means by which to come together to act on what matters most to them.
The result is that many people and communities find themselves stymied or
not moving fast enough to meet the pressing challenges before them—from public

3

4 Assessing Community Information Needs: A Practical Guide

schools to public health to safe streets. It is within this context that the information
needs of communities must be met.
In response to these realities, the Knight Commission spent more than a year
examining the information needs of communities and laid out a bold vision for the
future in its report, Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age:
With multiple tools of communication, dynamic institutions for promot-
ing knowledge and the exchange of ideas, and renewed commitment to
engage in public life, Americans could find themselves in a brilliant new
age. People would enjoy unprecedented capacity to fulfill their individual
aspirations and to collectively shape the future of their communities.
Community discussion, collaboration and accountable public decision
making could make life better in every neighborhood, town and city.

The Commission offered a series of recommendations to help communities
find their way forward, including the need for communities to assess and strength-
en their local information environment. In Appendix I—Taking Stock: Are You a
Healthy Information Community?—the Commission lays out eight elements of a
healthy information environment:
1. A majority of government information and services online, accessible
through a central and easy-to-use portal

2. A local government with a committed policy on transparency

3. Quality journalism through local newspapers, local television and radio
stations, and online sources

4. Citizens with effective opportunities to have their voices heard and to
affect public policy

5. A vibrant public library, or other public center for information that pro-
vides digital resources and professional assistance

6. Ready access to information that enhances quality of life, including infor-
mation provided by trusted intermediary organizations in the community
on a variety of subjects

7. Local schools with computer and high-speed Internet access, as well as
curricula that support digital and media literacy

8. High-speed Internet available to all citizens

The Report 5

Building from these eight elements, the Knight Foundation together with Monitor
Group produced the Community Information Toolkit (www.infotoolkit.org)
for communities to assess the health of their information environment. The tool-
kit consists of four main components:
• A process by which communities can identify a set of local issues and
brainstorm the ways information can be used to address these issues

• Methods for assessing a community’s information environment

• A scorecard for analyzing and making sense of the data collected about the
community’s information environment

• An action planning tool to enable communities to take action to strength-
en their information environment

This paper is a practical guide for individuals and groups to assess and build
a healthy community information environment. The paper focuses on a simple
guiding principle: The steps one takes to create a healthy information environ-
ment must be relevant to what matters most to people in the community, enable
people to engage in the public life of their community and create the conditions
for people to engage with one another.
Each community will need to move ahead in ways that reflect its local context.
Lew Friedland, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a leading
innovator on meeting the information needs of communities, writes in his Field
Notes:
The challenge of building a strong community information infrastructure
varies considerably with the kind of community. Some communities are
well resourced economically or civically. In others there are stark inequali-
ties of both economic and social capital. Some communities have the civic
infrastructure that allows people of different races, incomes and neighbor-
hoods to talk about civic issues and problems across multiple and often
complicated boundaries; others do not.

Friedland’s reminder raises another implication that this paper addresses: The
mere existence of certain structural or institutional components does not ensure
an informed and engaged community. Such components must have the right
qualities and conditions if they are to be relevant and meaningful to people.


Creating the Right Information Environment
As I write this paper, the Harwood Institute is partnering with the United Way
of Santa Fe County, where one of its signature efforts has focused on the aca-
demic achievement of vulnerable children at the former Kaune Elementary School.
There, the local United Way has sought not only to strengthen the elementary
school, but to develop new afterschool programs and mobilize neighborhood resi-
dents in the hope of supporting all kids so they can succeed. Driving this effort is
the underlying belief that it is the community itself that must play a central role in
educating and supporting all children.
For the first year of work, the Santa Fe team and their local partners put into
place new efforts that enabled school officials, parents, neighbors and kids at
Kaune to meet and work together, build new relationships and trust, and discover
that they hold much more in common than that which divides them.
But then the city of Santa Fe, like many other communities across the country,
faced deep budget shortfalls, which in turn led to a number of school closings,
including Kaune. The school was forced to merge with two other schools from
adjacent neighborhoods and, together, these three neighborhoods now feed into
the new Aspen Community Magnet School.
With the merger came a question: How informed and engaged were people who
lived in the new, combined areas, and what kind of information environment was
needed to create the necessary trust, connections, and the capability to improve
the academic achievement of Aspen’s students?
From one perspective, if you were to go to Santa Fe and visit these three neigh-
borhoods, you would find abundant information sources, good access to school-
related data, healthy journalism coverage of the area, and places for people to
come and have their voices heard—all essential elements identified by the Knight
Commission as part of a rich information environment.
In other words, at first look, the new Aspen area appears to have everything in
place to be informed and engaged.
And yet when the United Way of Santa Fe County team sat down with parents
and residents, they learned that the reality in people’s lives was quite different.
In listening to people, they discovered just how disconnected people in the three
surrounding neighborhoods felt from the school and from one another; how little
information actually flowed between and among people; and how this new, com-
bined school area lacked a sense of cohesion, interaction and trust.
The Santa Fe United Way came to realize that while the pieces of a strong infor-
mation environment were there, the right conditions were not. Their conclusion:
If the community was to have any chance to move the needle on academic achieve-
ment for children, then efforts would need to be undertaken to build up the local
information environment to help foster stronger ties among people and to provide
better information flows within and across the three neighborhoods.

The Report 7

Moving Ahead in Santa Fe: Two Scenarios
While the work in Santa Fe continues, it is too early to know how the story will
play out. But it is possible to imagine two different scenarios for what could occur
there. In reading these two scenarios, consider the extent to which these activities
are likely to create a more informed and engaged community that is able to help
strengthen the academic achievement of all children.

Scenario One. Here are the actions taken in this scenario:
• Publicize on community bulletin boards and e-mail lists the merger of the
three former schools to build awareness of the new Aspen school.

• Invite parents to tour the new school.

• Disseminate a new “fact sheet” about Aspen to parents and others in the
neighborhood that highlights the number of students who attend the
school, the number of school classrooms and computers, and the demo-
graphic make-up of students and their families.

• Create a new online platform for parents to track student homework,
grades and get in touch with teachers.

• Hold a school “town hall” for the principal to tell parents about the
school.

• Start a new Twitter account to keep parents informed throughout each
day about important school happenings, upcoming events and opportuni-
ties for them at the school.

• Launch a new parent association so parents can develop ways to support
the school, such as buying needed supplies for underfunded art classes and
athletic teams.

In Scenario One, a clear effort is being made to reach out and inform parents
about the new school and the three neighborhoods and to keep parents abreast of
school activities. But when one examines these activities, by-and-large, they (1) are
targeted primarily at increasing the volume and dissemination of information from
the school to parents, (2) envision parents as passive recipients of information and
(3) fail to inform and engage the larger community surrounding the school.


Scenario Two. Scenario Two begins from an entirely different perspective. In this
scenario, the Santa Fe team and its partners decide first to hold a series of commu-
nity conversations across the three neighborhoods with parents, students, and other
residents. The community conversations start by identifying people’s shared aspi-
rations for their community and Aspen as well as their concerns and other issues.
Through the conversations, the team learns that people want to create “a safe,
caring and connected community,” and they hold four specific concerns in rela-
tion to meeting this aspiration:
• “Safety” within the school—people are concerned with bullying and want
to make sure students feel comfortable and safe in expressing their views
in an increasingly culturally diverse school

• “Safety” outside of the school—people want to ensure that kids can make
their way safely between school and home

• Parental skills—many parents feel they lack the skills (language, math,
reading, computer, and other skills) to help kids do their homework and
achieve academically

• Community connectedness—people have little experience with each
other; in fact, there is widespread mistrust within and across some of the
neighborhoods, which prevents people from being able to work together
to support all kids, including their own

Based on this knowledge, the Santa Fe team, school officials and members of
the community decide together to launch the new endeavors listed below. Notice
how these actions expressly address people’s aspirations and concerns, and how
they serve to produce new flows of information between and among people (not
just from the school to parents) so that people can become more informed, more
engaged and more involved in creating the kind of community and school they
want.
Here are the actions taken in this scenario:
• Create anti-bullying program at Aspen that involves kids and parents
learning new mediation skills. Information is sent home to parents
through the kids, via e-mail lists and postings on community bulletin
boards, in neighborhood stores, and through local churches.

• Identify classroom parent representatives to build stronger relationships
between and among parents in each classroom, and to facilitate parents
being involved in class with children and in group activities outside the
school.

The Report 9

• Launch an afterschool program to give kids a safe place to go after school
and provide tutors to help them develop homework skills.

• Develop computer literacy and English as a Second Language programs
for parents so they can develop new skills to support their kids in school
and through which they can develop relationships and build trust with
other parents and local residents.

• Nurture community gardens to bring kids and adults together to build
new relationships within the neighborhoods and to knit together a net-
work of people watching out for kids.

• Create a new parent association for the school that focuses on building
relationships between and among parents, and connecting parents to the
activities listed here, thereby strengthening neighborhood networks, the
flows of information, and levels of trust.

• Engage teachers at Aspen to forge stronger relationships with parents and
the larger community and to identify how, together, they can meet the
learning styles and academic needs of each child.

• Start a new series of in-person discussions among residents in the neigh-
borhoods about their aspirations for the community, the role education
needs to play in achieving those aspirations and further actions the com-
munity can take to support their common vision.

In this second scenario, the information and its flows would enable people
to learn more and do more individually and with others in the community. The
activities facilitate people coming together in different places, for varied but con-
nected purposes, and in a host of different combinations of parents, teachers,
students and community members. What’s more, the flow of information is never
in one direction, but ripples out in a multitude of directions. No one source is the
source. In fact, the credibility of much of the information comes from the fact
that the community itself is generating it—people themselves are the sources of
knowledge.
In Scenario Two, the community is creating new kinds of information, new
structures to produce and spread information, and new flows between and among
different groups of people. The result is that people’s aspirations, concerns and
capacities are being tapped to learn about and act on what matters most to them.


The Importance of Public Knowledge
In thinking about creating informed and engaged communities, it is important to have both expert
and public knowledge. This is an important theme that runs throughout this paper. Expert knowl-
edge often comes in the form of data, statistics, and policy analysis, framed through a profes-
sional lens. Such knowledge is essential for making informed choices and decisions in public life.
Often when I talk with people about making “information” available within communities, they
start by reciting the expert knowledge they have—including exhaustive lists of data, trend analy-
sis, and issue-based reports they want to gather and post online. In other conversations, I’ll
hear about single-issue groups that want to serve up highly-specific, sometimes highly-selective
information on their particular issue. And then there are the countless advocacy groups that put
forth reams of information, with the sole purpose to advance their own causes and rally support-
ers and donors.
Public knowledge, in contrast, consists of people’s aspirations, what matters most to them in
their lives and the community in which they live, and the choices and trade-offs they are willing to
make to create the kind of community they want. Public knowledge is generated by the community
itself, it comes from people and their interactions with one another. Too often in communities,
expert knowledge is seen as a substitute for, or crowds out, public knowledge.
Based on more than 20 years of research, the Harwood Institute has developed a clear framework
around public knowledge. The 7 Public Knowledge Keys, when taken together, help people see a
broader and deeper picture of their communities and the people who live there. These knowledge
keys include:
• Issues of Concern—the issues, tensions and values people are wrestling with
• Aspirations—the aspirations people hold for their community and future
• Sense of Place—including its history and evolution
• Sources—the sources of knowledge and engagement people trust most
• People—the things people hold valuable to themselves and the community, and the
language and norms that shape their lives and interactions
• Civic Places—the places where people get together and engage (offline and online)
• Stereotypes—the stereotypes or preconceived notions people bring with them about the
community/topic they are exploring
One of the central tasks in creating informed and engaged communities is to ensure that there is
a healthy mix of expert and public knowledge generated and used by the community. Only then
can people see and hear themselves reflected in community life, and only then will they want to
step forward and engage.

The Report 11

Key Guideposts
In thinking about Santa Fe, Detroit and many other communities, there are
four guideposts that can help develop efforts to assess and build a community’s
healthy information environment.
Before laying out these guideposts, it is worth considering the context in which
this work unfolds. Embedded in many civic endeavors is an assumption that com-
munities are static entities to be managed, orchestrated and controlled. There can
be the belief that if only a community does the right research, adopts various best
practices and builds “things,” then the work is complete and it is time to move
onto the next challenge.
But, like all environments, a community’s information environment is organic,
shaped by constant interaction of various elements, people and conditions, and
forever changing.
My work with major newspapers over the years helps to illustrate this point.
As various newspapers sought to become better connected and more relevant to
their communities, a host of individual newspapers made impressive progress.
But, by now, we all know the story of newspapers and their diminished role in
society. They could not overcome the emerging forces of the marketplace, the
game-changing Internet, and the collapse of their business model. It was in part
the fall-out from this very story that prompted the Aspen Institute and the Knight
Foundation to wisely take on the cause of the information needs of communities.
Simply making new and more sophisticated plans, or building new structures,
clearly was not enough to reinvigorate these media outlets. It would not be enough
in Santa Fe or Detroit, either. Nor will it be the case for other organizations and
groups concerned with the civic health of communities, including public radio
and television stations, local United Ways, community foundations and public
libraries, among others.
My experience with these and other groups has led me to identify four guide-
posts for communities that seek to assess and build information environments
that enable people to learn about, engage in, and act on those things that matter
most to them:
1. Those seeking to assess and build a strong information environment must
turn outward toward their community. Taking actions that are relevant
to the community requires a certain orientation, a posture, a stance—
and it is one of being turned outward toward the people who live there.
Otherwise, one’s activities may be too narrowly focused on implementing
a specific process or program that may sound good but does not actually
meet the community where it is. This was part of the problem in Scenario
One regarding Santa Fe; while many of those activities may be helpful to


parents and their children, the activities did not go far enough or deep
enough to create the kind of information environment that would enable
people to become informed and engaged. To gauge and build the infor-
mation environment of a community requires that the starting point be
the community. Only then is it possible to think about the implications
for various actors, their roles and the necessary action steps that will truly
make a difference.

2. Progress in building an information environment will come best and fast-
est by using a specific issue to focus a community’s efforts. People engage
in public life and with one another because they want to improve their
own lives and those of others—in short, they want to work on things that
matter. Thus, in seeking to assess and create a strong information environ-
ment, it is wise to do so by organizing the effort around a specific issue of
concern to people—something that is salient and provides a concrete focal
point for the work. It is at this nexus between a specific issue and build-
ing the information environment that a community can fully leverage its
resources, talents, and time—that it can build its civic capacity and move
the needle on an important issue of concern.

3. Emphasis should be placed on how knowledge is generated in a community
and its quality and flow, not solely on counting and increasing the sources
and volume of information. Counting information sources, aggregating
community information and activities, and even providing information
listings to people all have their rightful place, but more is needed if a com-
munity is to have a healthy information environment. Consider again
the Santa Fe example: If the local United Way team had only counted the
information elements present around Aspen Community Magnet School,
they might have assumed that a rich information environment already
existed. Instead, they recognized that the very nature of the information
and its flows would need to be strengthened if people were to become
more informed and engaged and help all children achieve academically.

4. Taking effective action requires innovation, not simply good planning. The
mindset needed to assess and strengthen a community’s information
environment is fundamentally one of innovation, not one of planning.
Again, think about the information environment within the three Santa
Fe neighborhoods. What the team learned was that the information envi-
ronment needed to be expanded and enriched in order to help all children
achieve academically. But no one can say for sure exactly which elements
over time will prove to be most important or what exactly each element
will need to look like. This will be a process of discovery, and it will move
in fits and starts like any process that seeks to create a new way of doing
things. Moreover, such a process is seldom linear, nor can it be controlled

The Report 13

simply through making good plans. It will and can emerge only over time,
shaped and given life by people who live in the community. This process
of innovation goes hand in hand with the very organic nature of com-
munities. All this is not to say that good planning is not needed, only that
planning alone is insufficient. There must be an emphasis on innovation.

Nine Strategies for Taking Effective Action
As noted earlier, the Knight Foundation and Monitor Group have produced the
Community Information Toolkit for communities to assess and strengthen their
information environment. Whether you are using that toolkit or other tools, here
are nine practical strategies that can help people in a community take effective
action.

Strategy 1: Create an Authentic Steering Committee
One key to assessing a community’s information needs is to have a credible
group that guides and carries out the work. All too often community-based efforts
start off on the wrong foot in this regard, entrusting the work to a small group of
individuals made up of the usual suspects. As a result, when people in the commu-
nity look at such endeavors, they seldom hold credibility in their eyes. The efforts
fail to be of the community.
A key strategy for moving ahead effectively is to create an “authentic steer-
ing committee.” In past Harwood Institute efforts—such as the Reconnecting
Communities and Schools initiative, which was used in scores of communities
across South Carolina, Ohio, Alabama, and beyond—authentic steering commit-
tees have played a pivotal role in fostering people’s trust and in serving as wise
stewards in implementing the initiatives. These steering committees should be:
• Local—Members of the steering committee must come not just from a
sponsoring group or organization but from across the community itself.

• More than the “usual suspects”—Membership must go beyond the usual
players, traditional stakeholders and oft-heard institutional voices. It is
imperative to seek out nontraditional voices from various parts of the
community.

• Diverse—the steering committee must reflect the breadth of backgrounds,
experiences and perspectives in the community as a whole. It is important
to be aware of tokenism.

• A team—Build the steering committee as you would any high-performing
team. Look for complementary skills, knowledge and relationships within
the community.


• Without its own agenda—The steering committee must function in the
spirit of “turning outward” and “innovating,” without pushing its own
preconceived agenda or desired outcomes. Steering committee members
must be comfortable with the inherent ambiguity that such an effort
requires.
An ideal steering committee is made up of about 7–12 members, just large
enough to provide a good cross-section of the community, and small enough so
that the group can get work done.

Strategy 2: Define “Community”
This is another critical juncture where civic initiatives often get derailed. When
people start working in the community, they typically insist on having an air-tight
definition of “community.” As such, they can then descend into endless debates
over the boundaries of community—where one stops and another starts.
Ultimately, there are three key judgments that one needs to make in order to
move ahead with confidence:
• Pick a definition of community that is reasonable and manageable. It is
important to choose an area to assess that is reasonable and manageable
to engage. Do not over-reach. Know that it is far easier to expand the area
of the community in the future by building on successful efforts than to
manage an unwieldy, over-ambitious plan that becomes too difficult to
fulfill.

• Make a clear choice about your focus. Know that you can focus on a
single neighborhood, a particular part of town, an entire city, a region
of a state or other geographic area. In addition, you can choose to define
“community” in terms of affinity groups or an issue area (e.g., education),
among others.

• Be explicit about your underlying assumptions. Take the time to articu-
late why you made the choice of community you have—which parts of the
community will be included and which parts, at least for now, will be left
for another day.
Finally, there is an additional step in reaching a clearer understanding of the
best definition of community to use moving forward, and that is to ask the com-
munity itself. Strategy 3 below, Engage the Community Early On, enables this.

The Report 15

Strategy 3: Engage the Community Early On
When I work with different groups, it is not until they actually go into the com-
munity, and hear people talk about their community, that they are truly able to
turn outward, know what people care about, and gain a clearer understanding of
how to define “community” for their work.
For example, in Las Vegas, KNPR, the public radio station, only realized by
engaging the community the extent to which people sought to be re-connected
to one another. KNPR staff heard the local issues people in the community were
concerned about. This led the station to make fundamental changes in the focus of
its flagship public affairs program, shift its website from simply promoting the sta-
tion to a community portal where people can connect to each other and to various
groups in the community and grow a new network of unlikely partners to work
together, among other strategic moves.
Strategy 3 entails going into the area you have targeted and holding a series
of community conversations. The number of conversations to hold will vary by
the size and scope of the designated area, but one simple rule of thumb is to start
small, with no more than three conversations; then, pause to determine what you
are learning. Usually after three conversations it is possible to gauge how many
additional conversations will be helpful to hold, how to define better the commu-
nity you wish to focus on and where to hold the additional conversations.
Listening for the right insights from the community is critical to implement-
ing this strategy effectively. The key is to look for patterns in people’s responses,
especially in the following two areas, which will help in understanding what really
matters to people.

• Know people’s aspirations. This is important because people’s aspira-
tions will signal the kind of community people want to create. Use these
aspirations as the North Star for all your efforts moving forward—that is,
the actions you take to grow the community’s information environment
should be focused on enabling people and the community to move toward
these aspirations.

• Know people’s concerns. Pay special attention to how people define
and talk about their concerns. Typically, people talk in terms of “webs
of concerns,” connecting one issue to another, and it is when these webs
are understood that it is possible to discern what is significant to people.
Below is an example of webs of concern from community conversations
previously held in Tallahassee, Florida. A community’s information envi-
ronment must help people learn about, engage in, and address their webs
of concerns. Otherwise, it is possible to create a rich information environ-
ment, but one that is not connected to what matters to people.


Field Notes: A Web of Concerns in Tallahassee
On page 17 is one of the Harwood Institute’s “issue maps” that emerged from community conver-
sations in Tallahassee, Florida, held at a time when the community had become divided over the
issue of traffic, leading to gridlock over the community’s growth. In the community conversations,
Tallahasseeans told us they could hear an active debate on growth among local leaders and in
the media, but they felt excluded from it. To them, the debate had been framed in terms of a false
choice: a continued push for more development and growth, or limited or no growth at all.
But as Tallahasseeans talked in the community conversations, they revealed a “web of concerns”
that reflected the issues they struggled with and wanted to discuss as a community. When explor-
ing the issues of traffic and growth, people made connections among four key concerns: the com-
munity’s quality of life, natural beauty, economic health, and friendliness. The underlying tension
for people was neither traffic nor growth but, “What kind of place is Tallahassee going to be?”
For those seeking to assess and build their community’s information environment, it is vital to
understand the webs of concern that matter to people. If, in Tallahassee, the focus had been only
on traffic and growth, then efforts to inform and engage people would not have been relevant.
Instead, the efforts had to focus on what kind of community Tallahassee was going to be and
people’s related concerns.

Asking the right questions is essential to uncovering people’s aspirations and con-
cerns. Below are four basic questions to help start the process. These are questions
the Harwood Institute has tested and used in communities across the country:
1. What kind of community do you want to live in?

2. Why is that important to you?

3. How is that different from how you see things now?

4. What are some of the things that need to happen to create the kind of
community you want?
There are additional questions for use on the Harwood Institute’s website.
Groups such as Everyday Democracy, Public Agenda, National Issues Forum, and
AmericaSpeaks also have useful materials. In addition, all of these groups have
information about how to facilitate these conversations, different formats for the
conversations, the number of participants to involve and other useful tips.

The Report 17

Field Notes: Tallahassee Public Concern Map

Icon TRAFFIC

Public
GROWTH
Concern

ConnecJons QUALITY OF NATURAL ECONOMIC
FRIENDLINESS
People Make LIFE BEAUTY HEALTH

Core Tension What kind of place is
Tallahassee going to be?

Strategy 4: Mobilize the Community as a Resource
Whether using the Community Information Toolkit to assess your commu-
nity’s information environment or another set of tools, you will need people to
implement the effort.
Adequately addressing this need is an important facet of moving ahead effec-
tively. Too often, new civic efforts are launched and become quickly bogged down
due to the lack of capacity and resources to implement the work. But assessing and
strengthening a community’s information environment can be done by mobiliz-
ing local volunteers. Think of this strategy as creating a kind of “local information
corps,” whereby the very process of assessment becomes a community engagement
opportunity in and of itself.1
These volunteers can come from the neighborhood or area you are focusing on;
from local high schools, colleges and universities; from community service initia-
tives; and from community leadership programs, among others.
One good example of this approach is the Public Media Corps, which Jacquie
Jones, executive director of the National Black Programming Consortium, writes
about in her Field Notes below. As part of the consortium’s Washington, D.C. proj-
ect, Jones and her colleagues created the Public Media Corps, comprised of tech-
savvy people from throughout the community. The consortium has a step-by-step
guide to create such a corps.

1 Peter Levine discusses one approach to creating a local information corps in his white paper, Civic Engagement
and Community Information: Five Strategies to Revive Civic Communication (Washington, D.C.: The Aspen
Institute, 2011).


In each community, people are available to do the work and are honored by
being asked to become engaged. Engaging new people reaches further into the
community and builds capacity moving forward.

Field Notes: Public Media Corps Deeply Engages Community
Jacquie Jones
Executive Director, National Black Programming Consortium

In 2010, the National Black Programming Consortium embarked on an ambitious experiment to
develop a suite of new models for connecting public media to communities underrepresented in
the traditional public media landscape.
The experiment came together in the Public Media Corps, a service corps of tech-savvy fellows
working in community access points, including high schools with at-risk students, community or-
ganizations, libraries, museums, and public media institutions. The idea was to find ways to best
use digital technologies to drive relevant public media content and platforms to under-served
communities.
As we incubated the Public Media Corps, all of our partners agreed that the process should begin
with a survey in each community where we would work. The surveys would gauge which informa-
tion sources people relied on, what their patterns of technology use were and what relationship
they had with public media.
Ultimately, in the Public Media Corps beta initiative in Washington, D.C., we did gather a lot of
data. At the end of the day, we found that the surveys put the fellows in face-to-face contact
with over 1,500 community members—answering and asking questions and having a forum for
information and concerns that fellows and residents shared about their communities.
Even though the fellows mostly lived in the very same neighborhoods that they worked in, that
experience—having to turn outward and re-imagine a new role in their own community—was
more valuable to the process than all of the data in the world!

Strategy 5: Create a Discipline of Making Sense of What You Are
Learning
One product of the work I did with newspapers is Tapping Civic Life, a tool for
journalists to report “first, and best,” what is happening in their community. This
work continues to be used in newsrooms, in journalism and communications pro-
grams and elsewhere. This approach entails “civic mapping,” which allows jour-
nalists to identify and map the people, sources, issues and other key elements that
enable them to become more deeply connected and relevant to their communities.
The tendency of many journalists and others when doing civic mapping—their
reflex—is to want to do an exhaustive search for the all elements they are trying to
document. They want to catalogue everything they learn. Before ever making use
of their map, they want it to be fully “complete.”
But the most successful “civic mapmakers” always take a decidedly different
approach. First, they see mapmaking as a discipline not a mechanistic technique.

The Report 19

They view mapping as a way to illuminate and organize connections rather than a
way merely to aggregate more information. For instance, they see the mapmaking
process as a way to think about and make choices to help decide the community
they want to focus on and why, what is most important to know about a com-
munity, and who in the community can help them learn what they need to know.
They also use their maps (or even just the idea of a map) as a device to organize
their thinking—for instance, which insights and data are most critical to keep, and
which merely add clutter? In this way, mapmaking is a way for them to create clar-
ity out of complexity. The goal is always to create knowledge about the community
that is highly practical and useful. Too many details, too many layers, too many
features, and the map itself becomes the focus of one’s efforts and yet another
obstacle to overcome.
Here are some key steps to take when seeking to make sense of what you are
learning as you assess and build your community’s information environment.
These steps are best done initially by a small group of two to four individuals who
are responsible for organizing what is being learned in the community assessment,
who can then engage the larger steering committee as well as other stakeholders
in the community.
• Discuss what you are learning. Make sure to fully discuss the insights that
are being learned from the information environment assessment before
drawing any larger conclusions. Otherwise, you’ll lose important distinc-
tions and nuances.

• Figure out what it means. Spend time to determine how all the informa-
tion fits together, what it means and how it connects. Use the following
questions to move ahead:
o What are the real insights here?
o How do we know these?
o How do these insights relate to the aspirations and concerns we
heard from people?
o What else do we still need to know?

• Produce a synthesis, not a record. Pull together a clear sense of the key
insights, including people’s aspirations, their concerns and the patterns
you notice when it comes to each of the elements of the community’s
information environment. As noted about effective civic mapmakers, the
goal is to discern the most important elements of knowledge.

• Create coherence over time. Do not be concerned if there are gaps and
holes in your knowledge; you will find that you are constantly adding new
information over time. Filling in the picture only happens as your efforts
unfold.


Jessica Durkin, founder of InOtherNews.us, writes in her Field Notes below
about a similar process she used in Scranton, Pennsylvania. After she and another
colleague analyzed what they learned from their community assessment, they
convened 22 stakeholders to review the findings, discuss them and think about
the implications. The group included a cross-section of leaders from different seg-
ments of the broader Scranton community.

Field Notes: To Take Charge, Start a Conversation
Jessica Durkin
Founder, InOtherNews.us

I once heard that the rooms in the communications department building at a prominent West
Coast university were deliberately unlabeled, which forced human interaction—such as visitors
and new students having to ask for directions.
Dialogue gets at the heart of engagement; it’s where a community can start to assess and take
charge, for example, of the health of its information ecology.
As a Knight Media Policy Initiative fellow at the New America Foundation in 2010, a colleague and I
were stewards of a local media conversation in the city where I am based, Scranton, Pennsylvania.
I had completed co-authorship of two local information case studies comparing Seattle, Wash-
ington, and the Scranton-area’s information ecosystems, and it was time to present the findings.
My colleague and I picked a day in May and gathered 22 stakeholders from different sectors of
society to discuss our reports in the context of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs
of Communities’ 2009 study, Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age.
The attendees included an administrator from the local public library, city councilmen, represen-
tatives for state and federal elected officials, the local daily newspaper publisher, the public ac-
cess television operators, an independent blogger, a local university communications department
chairman, a public school district administrator and directors of area non-profit organizations.
In that hour-long working lunch, my colleague and I asked the group, “How healthy is Scranton’s
information ecosystem in the digital age?” The roundtable conversation that ensued, in a forum
that required a frank assessment of our local information systems, brought many issues to light:
the city councilmen praised the newspaper’s online comments section; the university professor
and communications department chairman expressed frustration at the lack of municipal records
transparency, digital outreach and the seeming staleness of the local newspaper’s print edition;
the newspaper publisher lamented the inefficient state Open Records system, which thwarted
reporting efforts and was especially a disadvantage during a tough economic transition for tra-
ditional media; the people from the public access channel expressed concerns about insufficient
city funding; and the non-profit organizations said they have much community news to report but
the shrinking local media covers only a fraction of it.
This was one conversation, but it was a start. The dialogue prompted different groups to criti-
cally examine their role in the local information ecology. These meetings, paired with tools such
as media maps and background research, should be taking place in municipalities across the
country. Whether at the neighborhood level or a more formal gathering of stakeholders, these
conversations are one way for citizens to begin accountability of their local media and to create a
more healthy information ecosystem.

The Report 21

Strategy 6: Make Clear Choices about What Actions to Take
Many civic endeavors stall, or simply fall apart, just at the moment when people
pivot to act on what they have learned. At this moment, efforts often become
focused on a long list of disparate activities that may sound like a plan of action
but that lack coherence and fail to address the real challenge at hand.
What is required is to make clear choices about the kinds of actions that will
make a difference. Jan Schaffer, J-Lab Executive Director, was able to help a group
in Philadelphia make such choices. In her Field Notes below she explains how,
after a deep assessment of Philadelphia’s information environment, a clear and
focused recommendation emerged:
We found the city’s media ecosystem ripe for an innovative Networked
Journalism Collaborative. We suggested that it be anchored by an inde-
pendent news website that would collaborate with other news creators
and help support and amplify some of the excellent reporting originating
in many of the news startups plus provide some original journalism on a
half-dozen key issues.

Note how the Philadelphia recommendation consisted neither of a long laundry
list of activities nor a single silver bullet, but a set of highly targeted, intercon-
nected actions that leveraged existing assets in the community.
Here, then, are some questions to help you move ahead on what you are learn-
ing from an information environment assessment:
• What will make a difference to the community and the people who
live there? Key here is to look for actions that help people move closer
to achieving their aspirations and to addressing their concerns. Test all
actions against these standards.

• What are the real priorities in terms of building the community’s infor-
mation environment? It is nearly impossible to focus simultaneously on all
eight information environment elements in the Knight Commission report;
my recommendation is to pick two or three areas and focus on them.

• Who needs to take action? No doubt, a range of groups and institutions
will have a role to play here. The key is to identify those groups and insti-
tutions that you need most to make progress on the areas of focus you
have selected. Also think about the role individuals can play—of where
and how they need to be engaged.

• What does progress look like? Essential in this particular step is to be
clear and realistic about what can be achieved over different time frames.
Identify the short- and long-term changes that might signal progress. The
goal is to get the community moving on the right trajectory and to help
people see signs of real progress.


Field Notes: Media Mapping Paves Way for News Network
Jan Schaffer
Executive Director, J-Lab

In 2009, Philadelphia’s two daily newspapers were mired in bankruptcy proceedings, their staffs
cut in half and distracted by ownership issues. A city once awash in award-winning journalism
was getting uneven news coverage with occasional splashes of investigative reporting.
Enter the William Penn Foundation. Long concerned about public issues throughout the region,
the foundation approached J-Lab, a center at American University with a deep track record of in-
cubating local news startups and recognizing journalism innovations, to map the area’s existing
media resources and develop a menu of options for amplifying public affairs reporting.
J-Lab started reporting that summer. We analyzed public affairs stories in the city’s two dailies,
counting number and length of articles, comparing August 2009 with 2006. The number of sto-
ries had dropped more than 17 percent in the Philadelphia Inquirer and 7 percent in the Daily
News. We commissioned logs for the May 1–7 evening newscasts for the city’s four commercial
television stations and found a 16 percent drop in coverage in 2009 vs. 2006. We inventoried 260
blogs and news sites and found 60 that had “some journalistic DNA,” meaning they reported, not
just commented, on news. And we interviewed more than 60 people—from local universities to
mainstream and alternative media to government officials. Then, in early 2010, we convened 50
of them to brainstorm with us.
Some key findings from our full report:
News about Philadelphia public affairs had dramatically diminished over three years by many
measures: news hole, airtime, story count, keyword measurements.
Philadelphians wanted more public affairs news than they were getting. They also did not think
the daily newspapers were as good as they used to be.
The city was rich in media and technological assets that could pioneer a new golden era of jour-
nalism.
Our Recommendation: We found the city’s media ecosystem ripe for an innovative networked
journalism collaborative. We suggested that it be anchored by an independent news website that
would collaborate with other news creators and help support and amplify some of the excellent
reporting originating in many of the news startups plus provide some original journalism on a
half-dozen key issues.
To incentivize partnerships, the foundation that summer gave J-Lab a grant to launch another
recommendation: an Enterprise Reporting Awards program, which supplied $5,000 awards for 14
in-depth projects that entailed media collaboration. They are well underway.
Much has happened since then. The William Penn Foundation awarded Temple University a $2.4
million grant to seed the creation of what is called, for now, a broadly collaborative Philadelphia
Public Interest Information Network. Plans are now afoot to make it a reality.

You can see the full report here: http://www.j-lab.org/publications/philadelphia_media_project/

The Report 23

Strategy 7: Actively Cultivate Boundary-Spanning Organizations
and Groups
The Knight Commission calls for “intermediary organizations” to play an
essential role in creating more informed and engaged communities. These inter-
mediaries are envisioned as the engines of assessing and building healthy informa-
tion environments.
In most communities, there are already scores of groups doing good work in
particular niches that fill immediate and long-term needs. But look around and it is
just as likely that there are far fewer groups (often just one or two) that actually span
boundaries within the community, or, for that matter, across communities. Even
those groups that do span boundaries are often overworked, even overwhelmed.
By “boundary-spanning” I mean those organizations and groups that bring
people together across dividing lines, incubate new ideas and spin them off, and
hold up a mirror to a community so people can see and hear one another and
their shared realities. In some communities, public radio and television stations
are natural boundary spanners, as are community foundations, public libraries,
and local United Ways, among others.
Despite the urgent need for more boundary spanners, too many organizations
and groups have become inward looking, obsessed with their own strategic plan-
ning, internal processes, turf battles and positioning. Key to assessing and building
a community’s information environment is to identify and cultivate groups and
organizations that can play a boundary-spanning role.

Strategy 8: Tell the Community’s Story of Change
Telling stories of change is critical to the very innovation required to meet a
community’s information needs. Told well, and over time, such stories can help
a community create a “can-do narrative” about its ability to tackle change, invite
people to step forward and help people to see that it is possible for them to engage
in productive ways with others.
Such stories are especially important in light of the negative conditions that
frame many communities’ realities. And one must take care in telling them, not
offering hype or hyperbole but authentic stories that reflect people’s efforts.
Imagine what these stories might sound like based on the Field Notes from this
paper. In Scranton, the stories might focus on how the community strengthened
its news media outlets to better cover local news and how government transpar-
ency increased, especially on important community issues involving the economic
transition of a hard-hit, rust belt community.
In Philadelphia, there might be stories of how different groups came together to
create a new journalism network and how that network now helps to inform and
engage community members. There also could be stories that follow individuals
over time in how they stepped forward, engaged with others and are taking action
on critical community concerns.


There might be stories in Washington, D.C. about individual Public Media
Corps members and their experiences in engaging people in the community, what
they learned about the community, what they discovered about themselves and
how their own relationship to community and public life is changing.
I often think about such stories as being “civic parables”—that is, they help
people see themselves in the change that’s taking place in the community and how
they themselves can step forward to make a difference. Such parables do not hide
what is hard about making progress or even the failures people have encountered
along their paths.

Strategy 9: Ensure Enough Entry Points for People to Engage
Each day, people make decisions about whether to learn more about a given
issue, engage with others in public life and take action. Each person decides wheth-
er or not to cross the little metal strip beneath their front door—the threshold—to
come into the public square.
Lew Friedland writes about this decision, below, when he says that, when people
consider engaging in community life, “every citizen asks him or herself: is this
worth my time?”
Simply increasing the volume and dissemination of information, or expanding
the number of information sources, will not solve these challenges.
Instead, think about your information environment using the following tests
that gauge whether your community is providing enough opportunities to help
people step over the threshold into public life:
• Can people see and hear themselves—are their lives, their aspirations and
concerns, the things that matter to them, reflected in the information
environment?

• Where are different places across the information environment where
people with different interests, learning styles and varied desires can
become informed and engaged in the community? Think of these places
as “on ramps” for people into community and public life.

• What opportunities exist for people to come together with others and
become part of something larger than themselves?

• How can people stay connected to others over time?

Each person calculates whether his or her decision to step into public life will
have a positive impact. People are not looking for a guarantee, only a sense of pos-
sibility that is created in part when we can meet the tests laid out above.

The Report 25

Field Notes: Finding the Information Commons
Lew Friedland
Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication and Founding Director,
Center for Communication and Democracy, University of Wisconsin-Madison

One of the key challenges of making information environments work is to push those working on
the information needs of communities to stop and first consider the core needs of communities
and how communities come to understand these core needs.
The challenge of building a strong community information infrastructure varies considerably with
the kind of community. Some communities are well resourced economically or civically. In others
there are stark inequalities of both economic and social capital. Some communities have the civic
infrastructure that allows people of different races, incomes and neighborhoods to talk about
civic issues and problems across multiple and often complicated boundaries; others do not.
This paper pushes all of us in the information community to ask the hard question, “What do
communities need?” before we can answer the question, “What can information do?” Community
information ecologies are also civic information ecologies, and the interaction between civic life
and information is key to making them work.
Projects in Madison, Wisconsin, and Seattle geared towards building community information
commons are trying to build community capacity as a way of building information infrastructure.
Both projects assume that before citizens become engaged in information issues they have to see
other core needs being addressed, whether for food, transportation, education or rich and vibrant
neighborhoods.
Because all civic action is subject to the constraints of voluntary action, every citizen asks him or
herself, “Is this worth my time?” Focusing on core community needs first offers a path to building
a more useful information infrastructure as well.

How Change Occurs
When I work with different groups in communities who are concerned with
informing and engaging people—including public broadcasters, local United
Ways, public libraries, community colleges and art groups, among others—they
often want people to see them as the central destination for all things community.
And yet, this viewpoint fails to take into account three key realities: how com-
munities actually change and evolve, the different roles that different people and
groups play in that change and the importance of how information flows through-
out a community.
Newspaper readers, for instance, have routinely said they view newspapers as
just one of many sources for learning about the community and forming their own
judgments about key issues. What newspapers and other community groups often
miss is that people piece together their understanding of issues—indeed, their
understanding of their lives—from various sources over time, and that a commu-
nity’s awareness and change result from a host of factors.


What many community groups need to examine is the space they best occupy
in a community and the implications for what they do.
At a meeting with community foundation executives and thought leaders on
the information needs of communities, I was struck by the extent to which they
too seemed to believe that change would begin and end with them. For example,
creating a community knowledge hub, they assumed, meant they had full respon-
sibility for driving all matters associated with it. They envisioned a large, singular
civic endeavor that they would identify, direct, own and manage. It was as if they
believed they could control the community, and its very nature, simply by plan-
ning and implementing a project.
Faced with such a daunting prospect, many of the leaders were fearful of under-
taking any such effort.
In reality, most change in communities occurs through pockets of activity that
emerge and take root over time. These pockets result from individuals, small
groups, and various organizations seeing an opportunity for change and seizing
it, often through trial and error. Seldom are the collection of such pockets orches-
trated through a top-down, linear plan; instead, they happen when people and
groups start to engage and interact. In this way, different groups at different times
play a crucial catalytic and connecting role—helping to foster the conditions for
people to tap their own potential and join together to forge a way forward.
The point for those seeking to gauge and grow a community’s information
environment is not to see or create a single information destination, but to develop
many and varied touch-points for people who are stepping into and making their
way through community and public life. It is important not to try and own the
space, control the flow of information, or dictate change, but to generate multiple
information sources in the community.

Tapping Into Community Resources: Who Can Do What
Implementing the ideas and strategies in this paper will require a cross-section
of individuals, organizations and groups from throughout the community. Every
community already has existing capacities that can be tapped for this purpose.
Below are suggestions of such resources to help get efforts started and to help
generate additional ideas.
• Local newspapers
• Public library
• Community foundations
• Local television and public broadcasting stations
• Urban League

The Report 27

• Business leaders
• School board
• Elected officials
• Non-profits

There are additional individuals and groups that can bring special knowledge
to efforts to assess and build the community’s information environment. They
can reach deep into the community in authentic ways that hold credibility within
specific parts of the community.
• Leaders of local religious institutions
• Community bloggers
• Neighborhood association members
• Local college or university professors
• Neighborhood businesses
• Community website leaders
• Youth leaders

Getting Started
Sometimes the first step in getting started is to determine if you and others in
your community believe that assessing your information environment would be
beneficial to the community and if now is the right time to undertake such an
endeavor. Here are suggestions for how you can make these decisions:
1. Identify one or two other possible collaborators in your community—for
suggestions, see Tapping Into Community Resources: Who Can Do What,
above.
2. Send a copy of this paper to those individuals you have identified to help
them start thinking about what it means to assess and build a commu-
nity’s information environment.
3. Hold a one-hour conversation that asks the following questions:
a. What are our aspirations for the community?
b. What are the pressing concerns in the community, and which one(s)
might be a good focus for a community information assessment?
c. How would assessing and building the community’s information
environment help the community move ahead on the aspirations and
concerns identified?
d. What “community” might we assess (see Strategy 2)?


4. Based on the discussion, decide if you want to keep moving ahead.
5. If “yes,” then move on to the following:
a. Identify three to five additional potential partners you can involve—
again, use Tapping Into Community Resources: Who Can Do What,
above, for possible ideas.
b. Share with them the results of your initial conversation and ask them
for their thoughts, reflections and interest in moving ahead.
6. Convene the larger group to start using the Community Information
Toolkit and this paper to guide your efforts moving forward.

Fulfilling the Promise
Now that I outlined this approach, I want to return to the central theme that
has animated this paper: the call to turn outward to the community and innovate.
Many civic endeavors start off with great fanfare, sounding all the right phrases
and words, only to end up producing yet another glossy report that sits gathering
dust on the shelf. Such efforts invariably begin by making a pledge to engage peo-
ple, listen to them, and act on their aspirations. But then leaders and implementers
retire to their conference rooms to do their work. At best, such groups may seek
input from a community, but never truly make their work about the community.
The reason why I have repeatedly returned to the need to start with people’s
shared aspirations and their concerns is because that is what matters to people.
These are the things that make up daily life for people—that give meaning and
motivate them to want to come into community and public life.
When it comes to attempts to address a community’s information needs, it
would be easy to disconnect such efforts from what matters most to people. But
little will change if a small collection of well-intentioned people set out to build
all sorts of online information hubs, new networks, enhanced data sets, and other
activities, only for them to miss the mark when it comes to what matters to people.
All the RSS feeds, blogs, recommendation filters, online rating tools, and social
bookmarking sites are only valuable in so much as they help people turn toward
one another and enable a community to make progress on key concerns. It is true
that such functions make the Web what it is—robust, vibrant, alive, teeming with
activity. And yet, efforts to gauge and grow a community’s information environ-
ment must serve a decidedly public purpose. Such efforts must turn from simply
aggregating, recommending and sharing content to helping people see and hear
one another and to make connections on issues and ideas that are often fragment-
ed or not illuminated at all.

The Report 29

We live in a time in which many Americans have retreated from public life
because they no longer feel their realities are accurately reflected there. They can-
not see and hear themselves in public life. They do not see avenues for making a
difference. And yet, at the same time, so many people want to re-engage and re-
connect. They want to come back into the public square. They want to join with
others to make a difference. They want to feel a part of something much larger
than themselves.
It is within this context that we must meet the information needs of communities.


Quick Reference Guide
Four Guideposts for Assessing Local Information Environments

1
Are you turned outward toward your community?

2 Are you focused on a specific issue to assess as the basis
for building your information environment?

3

Are you gauging how information is generated as well
as its quality and flow (versus just counting and
increasing sources and volume of information)?

4 Are you using a mindset of innovating and not simply
doing good planning?

The Report 31

Quick Reference Guide
Nine Strategies for Taking Effective Action

1. Create an authentic steering • Recruit local members
committee • Go beyond usual suspects
• Make it a diverse group
• Build a team
• Make sure it doesn’t drive its own agenda

2. Define “community” • Pick a definition of community that fits the
scope of what can be accomplished
• Choose a clear focus
• Make assumptions explicit

3. Engage the community early on • Know people’s aspirations
• Know people’s “webs of concern”
• Use the four guideposts to discover aspirations
and concerns

4. Mobilize the community as a • Recruit volunteers to help perform assessment
resource

5. Create discipline of making sense of • Discuss what you are learning
what you are learning • Figure out what it means
• Produce a synthesis, not a record
• Create coherence over time

6. Make clear choices about what • Focus on what will make a difference helping
actions to take people reach aspirations and address concerns
• Set real priorities for taking action
• Decide who needs to take action
• Determine what progress looks like

7. Actively cultivate boundary- • Identify possible groups
spanning organizations and groups • Work to cultivate the groups

8. Tell the community’s story of • Identify authentic stories of change
change • Spread stories of change
• Don’t hide the failures or rough spots
• Invite people to step forward and engage

9. Ensure enough entry points for • Reflect people’s lives
people to engage • Provide multiple places for people to engage
• Offer ways for people to come together
• Help people stay connected over time

About the Author
For more than 20 years, Richard C. Harwood has been dedicated to transform-
ing our public and political lives by supporting individuals, organizations and
communities in their quest to create change. His belief in the innate potential of
people to come together to make a difference in the world led him to found The
Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. Since its founding, Harwood has part-
nered with some of the largest nonprofits in the world, as well as foundations and
businesses to help people create meaningful change.
Throughout his career, Harwood has worked extensively with the journalism
community—most notably with the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, public radio and television stations across
the country, and most recently with the National Center for Media Engagement.
He is a faculty member of the Public Affairs Institute and has lectured at the pres-
tigious Poynter Institute, a national school of journalism.
Currently, Harwood serves on the advisory board for J-Lab: The Institute for
Interactive Journalism where he served as a judge for the Knight-Batten Awards
for Innovations in Journalism. Harwood was also recently chosen as one of four
judges for the Strong Communities Award, sponsored by Ashoka’s Changemakers
and the Orton Family Foundation.
Rich Harwood is an expert commentator and contributor on national and
syndicated television, newspapers, radio and web sites, including MSNBC, The
Christian Science Monitor, CNN’s Inside Politics, The Jim Bohannon Show,
Special Report with Brit Hume, and C-SPAN, as well as National Public Radio. He
is the author of Hope Unraveled: The people’s retreat and our way back (2005), Make
Hope Real: How we can accelerate change for the public good (2008) and numerous
studies, articles and essays chronicling vital issues of our time. His most recent
written work, Why We’re Here: The Powerful Impact of Public Broadcasters When
They Turn Outward (2011), is available now (harwoodonline.org/wwh).
His past experience includes service on the policy staffs of U.S. presidential
and congressional election campaigns and as director of issues research for Public
Agenda. Harwood was a featured speaker along with Colin Powell and Doris
Kearns Goodwin at the White House Fellows 35th Anniversary Program. He
received his M.A. in Public Affairs from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs and finished his undergraduate work in
Political Economy at Skidmore College. Rich grew up in Saratoga Springs, New
York and currently lives near Washington D.C.
Rich is a teacher and speaker, inspiring hundreds of audiences, and making a
strong case for his philosophy of turning outward, being relevant, choosing inten-
tionally, and staying true to themselves and their urge to create change.

35

The Aspen Institute
www.aspeninstitute.org/c&s

The Communications and Society Program is an active venue for global leaders
and experts to exchange new insights on the societal impact of digital technol-
ogy and network communications. The Program also creates a multi-disciplinary
space in the communications policy making world where veteran and emerging
decision makers can explore new concepts, find personal growth, and develop new
networks for the betterment of society.
The Program’s projects fall into one or more of three categories: communica-
tions and media policy, digital technologies and democratic values, and network
technology and social change. Ongoing activities of the Communications and
Society Program include annual roundtables on journalism and society (e.g., jour-
nalism and national security), communications policy in a converged world (e.g.,
the future of international digital economy), the impact of advances in informa-
tion technology (e.g., “when push comes to pull”), and serving the information
needs of communities. The Program has taken a deeper look at community infor-
mation needs through the work of the Knight Commission on the Information
Needs of Communities in a Democracy, a project of the Aspen Institute and the
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The Program also convenes the Aspen
Institute Forum on Communications and Society, in which chief executive-level
leaders of business, government and the non-profit sector examine issues relating
to the changing media and technology environment.
Most conferences utilize the signature Aspen Institute seminar format: approxi-
mately 25 leaders from a variety of disciplines and perspectives engage in round-
table dialogue, moderated with the objective of driving the agenda to specific
conclusions and recommendations.
Conference reports and other materials are distributed to key policymakers
and opinion leaders within the United States and around the world. They are also
available to the public at large through the World Wide Web at the following URL:
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/c&s.
The Program’s executive director is Charles M. Firestone, who has served in
that capacity since 1989, and has also served as executive vice president of the
Aspen Institute. He is a communications attorney and law professor, formerly
director of the UCLA Communications Law Program, first president of the Los
Angeles Board of Telecommunications Commissioners, and an appellate attorney
for the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.

37

Assessing community information_needs

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing community information_needs (20)

Assessing community information_needs