In the second phase of CHAS, change makers (typically called “budget delegates” in other PB processes) organized to develop project proposals that would be placed on a ballot for Cole residents to vote. Changing the title of the people who would develop the submitted project ideas from “budget delegate” to “change agent” was intentional on the part of the steering committee. They wanted to emphasize the leadership, empowerment, and collaboration of the individuals who would fulfill this role. The findings provided in this section are based on the data collected from budget delegates.

Data collected from change makers includes 5 survey questionnaires (a 100% response rate), one interview, and participant observation. Between August 2018 and October 2018, the research team attended six changemaker events and generated 89 pages of fieldnotes. Below are findings from change makers.

Key Findings

• Change makers were mostly comfortable with some civic capacities, with 50% of respondents indicating they were “very” to “extremely” comfortable organizing meetings and 40% of respondents indicating they were “very” to “extremely” comfortable leading a group discussion.

• Change makers were less comfortable with public participation practices often associated with advocacy, with 60% of respondents being “none” to “somewhat” comfortable speaking publicly, 60% “none” to “somewhat” comfortable contacting agencies and officials, and 80% said “none” to “somewhat” comfortable monitoring Denver city government.

• Change makers were relatively involved in their communities, but rarely led or organized meetings, with 75% of respondents indicating they had never organized a meeting about community issues in the past year, but 100% said they had attended more than two community meetings in the past year, and 100% said they had attended at least one rally or protest in the past year.

• College-educated individuals were over-represented as change makers, with 80% of respondents indicating they have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 31% of Cole’s neighborhood population.

• The interview and participant observations found that change makers were successful in accomplishing their goals (developing project proposals to be placed on the PB ballot), that the projects were representative of the neighborhood’s interests, and that the process engaged community members voices in a democratic manner.

• However, challenges during this phase of CHAS included a lack of clarity regarding expectations of change makers, a lack of organization among change makers, and a lack of understanding of the responsibilities of change makers and steering committee members.

• To address these concerns, we recommend future iterations of PB should provide more time for project proposal development, increase collaboration among stakeholders, and increase targeted outreach to residents

Demographic Data

Age

40% of change makers were between the ages of 24 years old and 44 years old, compared to 45% of Cole’s neighborhood population, reflecting the demographics of the neighborhood. 40% of change makers were between 45 years old and 54 years old, compared to only 10% of Cole’s population. In addition, 20% of change makers were between 55 years old and 64 years old, compared to only 8% of Cole’s population. 

• Comparison to neighborhood census data: 60% of change makers were over 45, indicating that older individuals were over-represented among change makers, and young people were under-represented.

Household Income

Breakdown of CHAS Survey Data vs. Cole Census Data in terms of Annual Household Income:

40% of change makers reported a household income of at least $75,000 per year, while 60% reported household incomes of less than $75,000.

• Comparison to neighborhood census data: Median household income in Cole neighborhood is $38,542, which suggests that higher incomes were over-represented among change makers.

Race/Ethnicity

More than half of change makers identified as a person of color, including 50% who identified as Black or African American, and 17% who identified as Asian. 

• Comparison to census data: 50% of change makers identified as Black or African American, in comparison to 16% of the Cole neighborhood, and 17% of change makers identified as Asian, in comparison to 1% of the Cole neighborhood, suggest that Blacks and Asians were significantly over-represented among change makers. On the contrary, 33% of change makers identified as White, in comparison to 66% of Cole neighborhood, and none of the change makers identified as Hispanic or Latino/a compared to 47% of Cole neighborhood, indicating that Whites and Hispanics were under-represented.

More women served as change makers than men.

• Comparison to neighborhood census data: Women were over-represented as change makers by approximately 12%, and men were under-represented by about 12%.

Rent v. Own Home

80% of change makers reported owning their home and 20% reported renting, compared to 50% owner-occupied and 50% renter-occupied in Denver.

• Comparison to neighborhood census data: Homeowners were over-represented among change makers and renters were under-represented among change makers.

Level of Education

Breakdown of CHAS Survey Data vs. Cole Census Data in terms of Level of Education:

80% of change makers had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 31% of Cole neighborhood’s population.

• Comparison to neighborhood census data: College-educated individuals were over-represented as change makers, compared to Cole’s population.

Language Fluency & Country of Origin

All change makers were fluent in English and all change makers were born in the United States.

Civic Engagement, Beliefs, and Efficacy

Prior Involvement in CHAS

All change makers had participated previously in the CHAS PB process. Their participation included attending a neighborhood assembly, submitting project ideas, and serving on the steering committee.

Knowledge, skills, and attitudes
Experience and comfort with democratic practices and civic engagement varied. Half were “very” to “extremely comfortable” organizing meetings, and 40% were “very” to “extremely comfortable” leading a group discussion. On the other hand, there were several areas in need of improvement, as change makers were least comfortable with speaking publicly, relating to others, and contacting city or government officials. Sixty percent of respondents indicated “none” to “somewhat comfortable” for both speaking publicly and contacting government agencies and officials. Eighty percent of respondents also indicated “none” to “somewhat comfortable” for both relating to neighbors and monitoring Denver city government.

Civic Engagement

Among change makers, prior civic action tended to involve service-oriented efforts that were non-political. 40% of respondents had not worked with neighbors in the past 12 months to improve the community. More specifically, 75% said they had never organized a meeting about community issues in the past year, but 100% of respondents had said they attended more than two community meetings in the past year and attended at least one rally or protest in the past year, and 80% had attended more than two religious group meetings in the past year. Although 100% of change makers voted in the 2016 presidential election, political action was not common among change makers. For example, 80% of respondents had either not attended or only attended one political party meeting or event. Only 20% of respondents had attended a political party meeting or event more than two times in the past year.

Change Maker Observations and Interview Findings

Successes

The research team interviewed one lead change maker who worked to vet project proposals. She revealed some successes of the process: the process accomplished its goal of placing projects on the PB ballot, that the winning projects were representative of the neighborhood’s interests, and that the process engaged community members voices in a democratic manner. 

First, the interviewee remarked that one of the most rewarding aspects of participating was that the goal of PB was achieved. She explained that she “had been on committees that petered out” and never accomplished what they had intended. She explained, “Seeing the development of the process and seeing it come to some sort of fruition...this had a definite goal and end. It was rewarding because you reached the goal.” She described the process as smooth and harmonic which influenced change makers’ ability to successfully vet project proposals.

Second, she believed that the chosen projects to be implemented were mostly representative of the neighborhood’s interests. She explained, “I certainly felt that way about the farmer’s market since it’s common knowledge we’re in a food desert.” Alongside the farmer’s market, another project that the interviewee felt aligned with community interests was youth empowerment. She said, “I feel the same way about youth empowerment. I think people are concerned with their youth being disenfranchised. They want them to be empowered. I think that represents the interests of the neighborhood.” Although she felt that many of the projects that made it onto the PB ballot reflected the neighborhood’s interest, she was reticent about others. She remarked, “The movie theater, maybe not so much. But if the neighborhood is interested in coalescing or coming together more in an informal way, I think people might be interested in that.” 

Lastly, she found that the PB process was successful in engaging community member’s voices in a democratic manner that allowed them to be heard. When asked if she had any other comments relating to the PB process, she said, “You don’t just have to elect your representatives. There’s a possibility that you could more directly make that decision. Sometimes it feels like there’s a wide gulf between elected representatives and constituents. This [CHAS PB process] aims somewhere in the middle. You’re still a constituent and have elected representatives, but you’re reaching out more directly into that system. You’re getting a better taste of how you can affect the world around you much more directly.” At one of their meetings, another change maker said, “I didn’t think there were many tensions [among the change makers]. Everyone felt free to speak.” In spite of this project being a pilot process for Denver, it provided the opportunity to make the community voice be heard.

Challenges

While there were many successes eminent throughout the CHAS PB process, several challenges emerged throughout the project development process, namely a lack of clarity regarding the process, a lack of organization, and lack of understanding of the roles between change makers and steering committee members. From the beginning, there was a general misunderstanding regarding the structure of the process and clear communication. One change maker said that, “Even going into the first big event we held, I think there were still, it wasn’t like 100% like I knew what we were supposed to be communicating.” The lack of understanding with regards to each phase of the process interfered with the change makers’ ability to progress as necessary to develop the proposals and work towards implementing them successfully. She indicated that, “There were times where our communication dropped off a little bit, and that affected our effectiveness and not being able to move forward.” A difficulty with the work moving forward was not having access to certain information to know the resources already available within the community. The lack of understanding led to miscommunication, which generated some frustration among changemakers.

One of the biggest challenges observed was the lack of organization throughout the process relating to regular meeting times and next steps. An interviewee stated, “The meeting times, having a more definite meeting place in the beginning would have been better.” There were a few meetings that had not been organized ahead of time that change makers identified made it difficult to prepare and plan ahead for child care, among other things. Some of the change makers had to sacrifice events and other social gatherings in order to attend meetings that had not been planned for appropriately. For example, a hastily scheduled change maker meeting in the evening on Halloween prevented some of the volunteers from celebrating the holiday with their young children. 

Another challenge for CHAS PB was the lack of clarity when it came to the roles and relationships of everyone involved. A change maker remarked that “I think having a better understanding of the steering committee to the change maker committee. It was never quite clear to me. Because we did not meet that early in the process. I guess more communication of the structure and the nature of that relationship.” While this challenge did not interfere with the overall progress of the process, having a clear understanding of the role of committees would have been helpful. She also said, “I feel like I came in the middle of the process. It was like, “Who are all these people that we don’t know.” That was a little challenging.” Understanding the relationships and roles would have been beneficial in their ability to reach out to the appropriate people for clarification and support.

Lessons Learned

The research team and change makers identified some lessons that could be incorporated in future CHAS PB processes:

• Increase the timeline for PB: The limited timeline for the pilot process made it difficult for the change makers to vet proposals adequately in the 3 months they were provided . They did not feel they had enough time to fully engage and understand the process of PB, as well as, the role of the many stakeholders involved within the process. Allowing more time for PB would allow for a more structured and solidified process, more time to vet and develop projects, more time to organize, and more time for change makers to understand the budgeting process. More time would have made it easier to adhere to a schedule for the process to be implemented.

...the lesson learned is that it took longer than we expected it to. Just in terms of being able to communicate it.” - CHAS change maker

• Increase collaboration with stakeholders: There was a general lack of clarity regarding the role of the many stakeholders involved within the PB process. Keeping CHAS PB as neighborhood led, but better incorporating various residents and local organizations in the process would be beneficial, as they provide invaluable knowledge and assistance regarding the PB process. Not knowing which stakeholders (e.g., facilitators, change makers, or steering committee members) were responsible for certain aspects of the process made it difficult for change makers to advocate and communicate appropriately. There needs to be increased collaboration and emphasis on relationship building to generate greater participation and implement projects.

“Maybe more people willing to give more time and commit more. More commitment and follow up with group members.” - CHAS change maker

• Increase targeted outreach: One of the central components of PB is its emphasis on representing community needs. Identifying community needs cannot be achieved if outreach is not implemented properly. Targeted outreach emphasizes equity first to intentionally create a process that brings in the most marginalized to feel empowered to engage in their communities and help make decisions that are equitable and will directly affect them. Outreach requires making residents aware and informed about the process, informing residents of how the cycle works and when voting happens, and encouraging them to get more involved to help change their communities for the better. Increasing outreach generates greater participation levels and more engagement to encourage the community to consider the importance of PB to improving the community.

“That’s what I would advocate for. More time to do the outreach, even if we had a committee in the steering committee that was just for outreach.” - CHAS change maker