Diversity plan workshop packet

Board Workshop of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, October 18, 2017 4:30 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Diversity Plan Workshop This workshop of the Board of Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District is to have a discussion on draft Diversity Strategic Plan.

I.

Call to Order of Board Workshop (President Joe Collins)

II.

Diversity Strategic Plan Presentation (Val Jensen)

III.

Review Draft CRWD Summary & Findings and Diversity Strategic Plan A) Discussion by the Board of Managers

IV.

Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2017\October 18, 2017 Agenda - Diversity Plan Workshop

Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

October 18, 2017 II. Diversity Plan Workshop (Bromelkamp)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

October 18, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Jessica Bromelkamp, Communications & Outreach Specialist Diversity Strategic Plan

Background The Board of Managers developed the following diversity statement in 2010, “The Capitol Region Watershed District embraces and values diversity and seeks to recruit, promote and retain employees that reflect the community we serve. We believe that a diverse mix of employees enrich the workplace and enhance the quality of our service. The Capitol Region Watershed District encourages all qualified to apply for open positions.” In 2016, the Board discussed the need and benefit of developing a Diversity Plan for the District. The Board directed staff to begin developing a Diversity Plan and to initiate a request for qualifications to hire a consultant to guide CRWD through this process. The following list of goals was developed by the Diversity Committee, comprised of Joe Collins, Seitu Jones, Pat Cavanaugh, and Mark Doneux, to guide plan development. Jessica Bromelkamp joined the Committee in 2017.

1) The CRWD staff, Board, Citizen Advisory Committee, consultants should reflect the racial, gender and cultural demographics of the watershed and City of St. Paul.

2) Understand and incorporate cultural perspectives on water and government.

3) Create opportunities for people of color in the environmental/water resources profession through training and recruitment.

4) Consider equity and equality as a means to achieve diversity.

5) Use water management as a tool to help address local and community concerns.

Val Jensen of Azon Consulting was hired in January 2017 to develop a Diversity Plan. As part of this process, Azon Consulting conducted interviews of key Board, CAC and staff to establish a baseline of knowledge and level of cultural competency. Azon also reviewed reports, assessments and the 2010 Watershed Management Plan to better understand CRWD’s mission, vision and values and how they relate to diversity and inclusion efforts.

Issues The Diversity Committee reviewed and provided comments on the draft CRWD Summary & Findings and Diversity Strategic Plan in September 2017. Next, Azon presented both documents to the CAC for comments. Ms. Jensen incorporated the Committee and CAC’s comments into the drafts provided for the board. A staff presentation is also planned for late October 2017. All comments will be incorporated into final drafts for the board to review and adopt in November 2017. Once adopted, staff will begin identifying milestones and indicators of success to guide CRWD’s diversity and inclusion work over the next 2-3 years.

Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Action Requested Review and comment on the draft CRWD Summary & Findings and the draft Diversity Strategic Plan.

Enc: CRWD Summary and Findings.

Diversity Strategic Plan-appendices A, B, C will be transmitted electronically with the Board Packet.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Diversity Plan\Board Memo- Diversity Strategic Plan

2

To:

Capitol Region Watershed District Administrator, Board and Staff

RE: Draft Diversity Strategic Plan Overview, Interview Findings, Analysis and Recommendations Date: April 14th, 2017 – May 14th, 2017

The Capitol Region Watershed District engaged Azon Consulting to assist in developing its first Diversity Strategic Plan. The engagement was requested to enhance an already solid organization and plan for a more diverse organization in the future.

CRWD has the right people and the healthy attitude to get this done.

Timeline: September 2016 -Azon Consulting submitted the proposal, statement of qualifications, biographies and initial plan for implementation.

October/November 2016 – Azon Consulting was invited for an interview with the Diversity Committee. It was subsequently invited back to meet with the Diversity Committee to clarify approach and to discuss what implementation would look like.

December 2016 – Once Azon was selected we met on several occasions to clarify scope of the work and Azon submitted the contract with proper documentation.

January of 2017 - The final contract was signed.

February and March - There were interviews with internal constituents, The Board of Managers and several community members of the CAC. Val Jensen also attended a regularly scheduled Board meeting to observe and better understand how the organization and the Board of Managers work together. In April, there were some follow-up interviews and the beginning of compiling interview data, reviewing documents.

May/June and July– Review draft plan and report by Administrator, Staff and Board, make changes based on feedback.

1

08/17

August and September – Submit to Diversity Committee for review and then to CAC at their September meeting.

October – Present workshop introducing the report and the plan to Board of Managers. Provide training with an introduction to unconscious bias and the impact it can have on the workplace.

The goals and objectives of the contract were as follows based on a meeting of the Diversity Committee; The group identified five draft elements or goals of the District’s Diversity Plan. Those were as follows: 1) The CRWD staff, Board, Citizen Advisory Committee, and consultants should reflect the racial, gender and cultural demographics of the watershed and City of St. Paul.

2) Understand and incorporate cultural perspectives on water and government.

3) Create opportunities for people of color in the environmental/water resources profession through training and recruitment.

4) Consider equity and equality as a means to achieve diversity.

5) Use water management as a tool to help address local and community concerns.

As part of the process Azon Consulting engaged, staff, Board and several CAC members in a series of interviews. Prior to these interviews the different constituencies were asked to take the Implicit Associations Test (IAT) on race and gender. The purpose of this phase of the process was to assess the overall culture and goals of the organization as it relates to Diversity and Inclusion efforts. Overall, Board, staff and community members were open to the process and honest in their feedback.

We began the official interviews in February 2017 with a standard set of questions to assess overall attitudes and awareness as it relates to Diversity and culture. A majority of the interviews were done in focus group settings, however, some were conducted one-on-one to accommodate schedules.

Azon also reviewed reports, assessments and the 2010 Watershed Management Plan to better determine overall mission, vision and values of CRWD and how they relate to Diversity and Inclusion efforts.

What follows is a summary of the interviews, findings and preliminary recommendations.

2

08/17

Summary Azon Consulting engaged CRWD staff, Board and CAC members in a series of interviews and focus groups. Each group was asked the same questions or variations of the same questions.

What words would you use to describe the personality of this organization?

What are you most proud of organizationally and professionally?

What makes this organization feel different or unique from other Watershed Districts?

What key values, if followed, would help this organization thrive in an environment that is increasingly more diverse?

What words do you think others would use to describe your organization? The community? Other watersheds?

We interviewed 11 of 16 staff, all five of the Board of Managers and four of 14 CAC members. The staff members consisted of division managers, outreach staff, technical and administrative staff and the administrator. Throughout the interviews there were several consistent responses to the questions above.

The following words were used to describe the personality of the CRWD (amongst others): Innovative, Principled, Passionate, Collaborative, Open, and Progressive These words were used to describe the overall work of the organization and serve as the basis for the values in the Diversity Work Plan. Overall, there is great respect for the work the organization does at all levels of the organization. Staff and Board believe the leadership team is open and passionate about wanting the do the work to make the organization reflect the racial, gender and cultural demographics of the watershed and the City of St. Paul. The Board trusts the staff and the staff trusts the Board. The CAC believes in its mission and was very open about the challenges it faces when it comes to attracting more diverse community members to its committee and getting the word out to diverse communities about what the CRWD does. All parties expressed the desire to be more Diverse and Inclusive in its own ranks. The overall attitudes of the those I interviewed were very much in line and supported with the issues outlined in the Diversity Committee Plan Draft Goals. This plan was not intended to add or replace current staffing. The plan is designed to leverage and enhance the work and the culture of organization and to equip the organization with tools to meet the challenges ahead as their region becomes more and more Diverse.

The Cities in which CRWD covers and the surrounding communities have the following diversity.

St. Paul - 60-65% White/less than 10% are over the age of 65/Global Communities are much younger.

Roseville, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale and Maplewood - 80-85% White/13- 21% over the age of 65.

3Â

08/17Â

Overall communities of color in CRWD are much younger and more global while surrounding suburbs are older and Whiter.

(Minnesota State Demography Study https://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-bytopic/age-race- ethnicity/https://mn.gov/admin/assets/the-economic-status-ofminnesotans-chartbook-msdc-jan2016-post_tcm36-219454.pdf) Following are the findings based on the interviews, focus groups, reports and materials provided at the beginning of the project. For the purposes of this summary we are looking not only at race and ethnic diversity, we are also looking at religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and class. These categories will ensure the broadest cross section of the community.

Findings and Analysis: CRWD staff and leadership are very similar in their make-up; the majority of staff and leadership interviewed came from a middle-class western European heritage and grew up, if not in Minnesota, in the region. While some have moved into Minnesota from other regions, they have been in Minnesota a long time. This impacts views and exposure to more diverse populations. Increased Diversity both racially, ethnically and religiously is relatively new to Minnesota. And even with increased growth in Diverse populations, Minnesota is still very homogenous.

The groups also had very similar hobbies outside of work; such as camping, hiking, outdoor activities, these activities, while getting more diverse, are typically more prevalent in the majority or dominant culture.

While there is age diversity within the staff and leadership, the Board is overwhelmingly more senior than the populations they represent. The CAC now has some age diversity but increasing diversity in all categories listed above should be a focus of future member recruitment. Unless disclosed, religion and disability were not apparent. Most of the staff and leadership are highly educated, which is required in most positions and have a deep love for the environment and the outdoors. This is true across all groups.

This is not news to anyone within the organization. However, it poses unique challenges when looking to recruit and retain talent and work with community members. Most diverse communities want to see someone who looks likes them, or has some other aspect of their diversity to which they can have an affinity.

Why does the Culture of CRWD organization matter?

In trying to assess the issues or challenges facing an organization with regards to diversity and inclusion, we need to be begin with determining its culture. Culture is defined as the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts. Most people who believe they understand culture actually are describing values etc.

Looking intentionally at language or social habits or even tastes in music impacts how a person views the organization from the outside looking in. These assessments, 4Â 08/17Â

according to Malcolm Gladwell, in his book “Blink”, happen instantly and a person often times makes a decision, conscious or not, on whether this place is somewhere they will want to work. Most individuals will actually assess this rather quickly and then will decide whether an opportunity is worth pursuing.

The different cultures that make up the CRWD external communities diverge in communication styles and expectations from the staff and administration of the CRWD. The homogenous nature of the CRWD workplace does not provide the opportunities for staff to truly build the cultural competency needed to deal with the communities in their district and thus could impede growth and impact across diverse communities.

Minnesota has a strong middle-class European American culture based on hard work, nuclear families and progressive politics. The language and communication styles used within the organization and with the community during training and outreach is very much based on the dominant culture here in Minnesota. Specifically, Minnesotans have a certain cultural blindness, where individuals often try to ignore differences and claim they treat everyone the same.

For example, many Minnesotans claim they are color blind, gender blind etc. And because of this they treat everyone equally; when in studies show that Minnesota has some of the greatest disparities in educational outcomes, health outcomes and job opportunities between Whites and non-White Minnesotans. Further, in recent studies conducted throughout the country, the economic disparities between Whites and Africans Americans in Minnesota is some of the worst in the nation.

These recent studies also found that an African American male with a college degree is less likely to be hired throughout the country than a White male with a felony record. The regression analysis done in the social science studies factored in all the factors they thought could affect the outcomes; region, race, class, religion, education level and the outcomes were uniform; differences in treatment was based on negative views of people of color. In most cases, outside of Asians, who have almost closed the economic gap, for Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans the disparities continue to grow, particularly in Minnesota.

Equity vs Equality It is important to understand that equality does not mean equity. Equality assumes everyone is starting from the same point on the playing field; equity, however, factors in that not everyone is starting from the same the point, so being equitable means meeting people where they are at and providing them with the right tools or opportunities to be equal. Everyone may have good intentions but good intentions are not enough in a community which is increasingly diverse.

5

08/17

In the book “Clash: 8 cultural conflicts that make us who we are” the authors discuss all aspects of the cultural clashes that exist in a globally connected world. In the introduction of the book there is a great description of the two dominant types of cultures operating in the world which are important in understanding the differences here; Independent and Interdependent.

Independent (American) Interdependent (Community) Individual Unique Influencing Free Equal (yet great)

Relational Similar Adjusting Rooted Ranked.

Independent Styles would look like this -

Independent circles, sometimes touching but uniqueness is valued.

Interdependent styles would look like this –

6

08/17

The majority of American Cultures fall into the first style. CRWD, since it is based in the Midwest, has aspects of both; but the majority of the culture at CRWD falls within the dominant culture of America; Independent. Minnesota with its German and Northern European cultural influence definitely impacts how welcome people feel. In a documentary by MPR, in a series on “The Outsiders,” people share stories with people who are not from Minnesota.

Minnesota prides itself on being nice; but people who did not grow up here or are immigrants and/or people of color explain why the culture is nice but not warm and it is very hard to break to into. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ca d=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi6otGR2InVAhVK6IMKHVDCANEQFgg1MAI&url =http%3A%2F%2Fminnesota.publicradio.org%2Fprojects%2F2012%2F03% 2Foutsiders%2F&usg=AFQjCNGADCiInehiyLDwEJPmybQTmT9t4Q Considering most diverse cultures in the CRWD community fall into the second style: Interdependent. Decisions are typically made with the entire extended family or community in mind. For example, if you have a meeting in the Hmong community, decisions about actions or impacts must be made with community in mind. Thus, the community begins the discussion with the elders, and then it is brought to the community where they will have open discussions about how this will impact the community as a whole. A Hmong individual begins by going to his/her elders, community and family; then decides what to do as an individual. If the community is not on board, most things will not move forward. Individualism in not favored or encouraged, in fact it is discouraged. If you approach the community with an American mindset, and talk to the individuals without considering the collective, it can be considered rude and inappropriate. Understanding cultural expectations and making your approach to that community based on those expectations builds connections, not barriers.

In most cultures outside the US the importance of building relationships and understanding each other first; takes priority over getting things done right away.

This can make understanding each other and communication a challenge, but not impossible.

In reviewing the study done by the U of M presented in 2016, “Community Capacity For Stormwater Management – A Social Science Assessment in Three Twin Cities 7

08/17

Metro Area Watersheds” there was an assessment focusing on the following four questions: 

What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater management in the watersheds?



What are the community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water resource management?



What are community members perceptions of existing water programs?



What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among community members? (See appendix A)

While this assessment was focused on external community members it had several findings that are relevant to developing the Diversity Strategic Plan. There were strategies identified in this report that were echoed by CRWD staff and CAC members throughout the interviews and conversations we had during this process. (See appendix A).

While the report notes there is a great desire to reach out to and engage Diverse communities around stormwater management, the community participants talked about language barriers, graphics and connecting with community leaders within, for example, the Hmong Community. One community participant was concerned that their community does not even understand the symbols used by CRWD and the challenges because many of the documents were not translated or easily understood so it was very hard to relate to for new immigrant communities. p. 23 There was also a report done in 2012 “Communication Assessment and Recommendations which held insights into what resources and changes needed to take place to build trust and connections. (See Appendix B).

While this report was focused on resolving conflict between organizations and we are not dealing with conflict per se, one of the key methods in the study was understanding and valuing the concept that “[p]erception is reality” and being able to “[s]ay it – let’s be honest or it’s a waste of time” are important in this context.

Throughout the interviews people were reluctant to say “it” and while they warmed up on several occasions it was still difficult to address the elephant in the room; race, privilege, etc. We must address these issues on several fronts if the organization is to move the process from awareness to action.

CRWD is well respected and innovative. CRWD, within Watershed districts, is highly thought of and is looked to for leadership. However, most people outside in the community know little about what the organization does and it needs to be explained in their terms. This desire for innovation as it relates to Diversity and Inclusion and community engagement, can and will serve as a model for other Watersheds, State and local entities. The Diversity Strategic Plan must address the short and the longterm goals of the organization.

8

08/17

Recommendations The recommendations below are based on my review of organizational materials and reports; the interviews with staff, Board and CAC; observations at the Board meeting; research on D&I as it relates to the St. Paul community and 20 years of working on D & I efforts locally, regionally and nationally. The recommendations are as follows: I.

Expand CRWD’s internal awareness of the opportunities and challenges related to creating a more Diverse and Inclusive environment.

One of the most important steps in creating an inclusive environment for CRWD is to create opportunities for staff, CAC and Board of Managers to get training and actual interactions with more diverse cultures.

CRWD should create safe spaces and opportunities for everyone to explore their own unconscious bias and increase cultural competency. The training should be, for example, in areas of 1) Unconscious Bias 2) Micro-behaviors and 3) Gender Bias.

This training is a key part of understanding both institutional biases and individual biases and how they impact both the workplace and external communities. It also is an opportunity for the organization to bring in experts in these areas who have different backgrounds bringing in different perspectives on some of the same problems. Of course, biases exist in all areas of Diversity and are not just related to race. They can entail gender, sexual orientation, generational, religious, disability and class biases.

Creating a forum where Board of Managers and staff can come together to have conversations around difficult issues will improve the ability of the organization to recruit and retain diverse staff.

The forum may be as simple as a designated diversity committee meeting or an added agenda item to regularly scheduled Board or CAC meetings. The discussion topics may be a recent topic in the news around D & I, or something the outreach workers have seen or heard in the community. Part of the process will be to develop individuals within the organization who become diversity and inclusion champions.

These forums can also provide an opportunity for outside speakers or community members to lead a dialogue on their cultures or issues they are concerned about in the environment. While the topics may not be directly related to what CRWD does it would be a great opportunity to build relationships.

Lastly, this builds cultural competency within the organization and within the community; it will increase the chances that interactions will become a two-way street. Eventually staff and community leaders will be willing and able to work together on common issues and opportunities. Some examples of the work to be done in this area are below: 1. Institutionalize regular (bi-monthly or quarterly) reviews of the strategies and 9Â 08/17Â

training needed to accomplish the goals and strategies in the work plan.

2. Create opportunities for staff to participate in community based events that will push them outside their comfort zone and give them insights into people or communities who are not like them.

3. Create meaningful opportunities with strategic partnerships to earn relational capital. It is critical to move from transactional (typical way business is done) and educational to relational; which requires meeting the community partners where they are at and not expecting them to only come to you in your world.

4. Provide the Board of Managers and the Administrator with resources to increase understanding of unconscious bias, micro-behaviors and communication styles which impact the workplace and outreach.

All of these resources will help the organization develop long term skills to recruit, hire and retain diverse talent and improve participation among and across Diverse Communities. Education may include readings, facilitated conversations, theater, the arts and leadership training that addresses the new attributes of leadership required to lead in a more Diverse community.

II.

Deepen relationships with Diverse Communities within the CRWD.

For CRWD to deepen relationships with Diverse communities there must be an intentional focus on creating meaningful connections in communities where the CRWD believes they should be; to do this, there must be an increase in outreach to Diverse communities in a strategic way.

This does not mean creating new programs or initiatives but looking at current projects and initiatives through a different lens. This will require identifying which communities to target; creating an outreach plan that is focused on building long term, sustainable relationships with those communities and putting together communications designed to be culturally appropriate.

Once the Diversity Strategic Plan with specific strategies and outcomes is approved, the document should serve as the road map to putting these thoughts into action.

There should be reasonable timelines and expectations to ensure the best possible outcome. This plan could be implemented over the next three years.

III.

Along with the strategies in recommendation II, it will be critical to align the staff, Board and community based organizations with CRWD’s overall Diversity and Inclusion efforts.

CRWD’s ability to attract and recruit diverse talent, Board and CAC members, must also include an increase in recruitment of Diverse candidates for the staff, Board of Managers and CAC where possible. For example, when there is a new opening, it will be necessary to commit to having a diverse slate of candidates. While this does not mean you are required to hire a diverse candidate, it will increase the likelihood you 10

08/17

will find Diverse candidates and also increase knowledge in Diverse communities of CRWD opportunities.

The way to begin this process is to outline recruiting efforts that target diverse communities and create a long-term plan focused on increasing the pipeline into STEM and environmental sciences. Further, where partnerships may already exist and are focused on and in underserved communities, there is the opportunity for real sustainable outcomes.

Ultimately, over time there will be metrics determined that make sense to measure success both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, to truly create a pipeline into STEM and environmental sciences it will take time. It is critical to not to bite off more than you can chew. This is a new process and way of looking at the work the CRWD is doing, so setting realistic measures of success does not mean you are not moving ahead, it just means you are moving in an intentional way.

IV.

Expand CRWD’s Influence as an Innovative Diversity and Inclusion Leader

Create Opportunities to showcase CRWD’s efforts around Diversity and Inclusion at the state and local level by assembling a leadership forum focused on D& I and how it relates to the work of Watershed Districts. This forum may include getting all Administrators together to present what CRWD did and is working on and then brainstorming on a process or outcomes that may be opportunities for collaboration.

The discussion could even be facilitated by the staff of CRWD who have been working on these initiatives. Or presented with CRWD staff and community members who have worked together on programs.

Within this report there are recommended readings and suggested outreach opportunities. (See Appendix C) The recommendations are memorialized in the Goals and Priorities section of the Diversity Strategic Plan. The plan format is designed to make it easier to implement and follow the plan. It is important to note that timelines and milestones, as well as, indicators of success will continue to be refined as the organization learns and changes. It is also important to note that this is a journey. Since CRWD is the first to tackle these issues and concerns in systematic and open way, it will be the first to both succeed and have some setbacks. It takes time to put all this together and make it work both individually and organizationally. And this work is designed to enhance the amazing work the CRWD already does in this District.

11

08/17

CRWD 2017-2020 Diversity Strategic Plan 8-17-17 Vision: Capitol Region Watershed District achieves cleaner waters through Strategic initiatives and partnerships that values Diversity and Inclusion at every level.

Results: Capitol Region Watershed District will increase opportunities for engagement across communities, within its hiring and recruitment by building strong community relationships.

Values/Beliefs

Innovation We will be innovative in our approaches to Diverse Communities

Goals/Priorities

Strategies

Expand CRWD’s internal awareness of the opportunities and challenges related to creating a more Diverse and Inclusive environment

Increase opportunities for staff, CAC and Board of Managers to get training and actual interactions with more diverse cultures

Collaboration We will continue to collaborate across differences

Open We will be open to the challenges our community presents as it relates to Diversity and Inclusion

Principled We will approach our Diversity efforts with the principles that have been a hallmark of this organization

Action Steps 1) Create safe spaces and opportunities for staff to explore and understand their own unconscious bias and increase cultural competency.

2) Focus specifically on unconscious bias, micro-aggressions and generational bias 3) Institutionalize regular reviews of strategies and the training needed to accomplish the goals and strategies in the work plan

Increase outreach to Diverse Communities in a strategic way

1.) Identify which communities to target 2.) Create outreach plan which includes community engagement focused on building long term, sustainable relationships 3.) Create Communication plan which includes marketing materials and announcements that are culturally appropriate

Align staff, Board and Community based Organizations with Diversity and Inclusion efforts

Increase recruitment of Diverse Candidates for staff, CAC and Board of Managers

1) Outline recruitment efforts that target diverse communities 2) Create long term plan to increase pipeline into STEM and environmental sciences 3) Determine metrics around

Expand CRWD’s influence as an innovative Diversity and Inclusion leader

Create Opportunities to showcase CRWD’s efforts around Diversity and Inclusion

1) Create a leadership forum focused on D & I for other Watershed Districts 2) Partner with other state and local entities on D & I efforts

Deepen relationships with Diverse Communities within the CRWD

1

COMMUNITY CAPACITY FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE TWIN CITIES METRO AREA

Preliminary Findings from Interviews with Stakeholders in the Capitol Region Watershed District Capitol Region Watershed District Project Advisory Team Update December 3, 2014

PROJECT PROGRESS

Project planning, local coordination, & stakeholder inventory

Key informant interviews and focus groups

Resident survey

Outreach workshop and reporting

AIMS OF THE STUDY

AIMS OF THE STUDY To inform water resource communication, education, outreach and civic engagement programs in the Metro Area and other urban watersheds.

AIMS OF THE STUDY To inform water resource communication, education, outreach and civic engagement programs in the Metro Area and other urban watersheds.

What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater management?

AIMS OF THE STUDY To inform water resource communication, education, outreach and civic engagement programs in the Metro Area and other urban watersheds.

What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water resources and water resource management?

AIMS OF THE STUDY To inform water resource communication, education, outreach and civic engagement programs in the Metro Area and other urban watersheds.

What are community member perceptions of existing water resource programs?

AIMS OF THE STUDY To inform water resource communication, education, outreach and civic engagement programs in the Metro Area and other urban watersheds.

What water resource programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among community members?

Metropolitan Council

Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

Issue/Opportunity Community Members Assessment Questions Large landowners How to best engage landowners in water resource issues and conservation actions?

Stormwater runoff & non-point source Living Streets Program How to best design Implementation: Living Streets Program pollution participants and non- that resonates with participants and engages property owners?

Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

Issue/Opportunity Community Members New immigrant community members in the watershed and near areas

Assessment Questions How to best engage the new immigrant community in water resource issues and conservation actions?

Stormwater runoff Community members How to best engage & non-point source of North Minneapolis, community members pollution Fridley, and Colombia of North Minneapolis, Fridley, and Colombia Heights Heights in water resource issues and conservation actions?

Capitol Region Watershed District

Issue/Opportunity Community Members Non-point source Business and pollution commercial property owners along the Green Line Corridor

Assessment Questions What are perspectives on stormwater BMPs? How to best engage and inspire business owners in conservation actions?

How to best engage Lack of Organizations that opportunities for serve racial and ethnic community members community minority communities in interactive dialogue member actions along the Green Line around clean water? toward clean water Corridor

PROJECT PROGRESS

PAT members (n) Key stakeholders (n)

CRWD

RWMWD

MWMO

14

6

7

40

15 phase I 113 phase II

33

INTERVIEWS METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Adapted Grounded Theory Approach (Charmaz 2014) • Interviews conducting using a semistructured format • Interviews recorded, transcribed verbatim • Mixed open and focused coding process

INTERVIEWS METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Examined convergent and divergent themes around: • Perceptions of stormwater • Ways to better engage the community • Drivers and constraints to engaging in water resource issues • Community strengths, assets, and challenges

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT PROFILE CRWD

RWMWD

MWMO

Interviewees

13

10

7

Age (mean)

48

47

61

Age (min/max)

25-60

33-65

35-71

Years lived in community (mean)

21

18

40

Years in community (min/max)

0-52

6-47

12-64

Gender

7 female, 5 male, 1 not provided

10 male

4 female, 3 male

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Reported Highest Level of Education • • • • •

Some college (2) Bachelor’s degree (3) Master’s degree (4) Multiple degrees (1) Other (2)

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Reported Race/Ethnicity • • • • • • • •

White (5) Mexican American Hmong Asian American Indian/Mixed African American Human na (2)

Photo: http://community.becomeanex.org/pg/blog/read/7345311/freedom-train

Photo: Eric Wheeler, Metro Transit Flickr

ANTICIPATED OUTCOME

Meeting clean water goals can be advanced by leveraging existing community values, assets, and concerns.

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Preliminary analysis indicates‌ Community members are not thinking much about stormwater Local community connections and relationships matter Businesses are driven by economic concerns and limiting risk

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Preliminary analysis indicates‌ Community members are not thinking much about stormwater Local community connections and relationships matter Businesses are driven by economic concerns and limiting risk

COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE NOT THINKING MUCH ABOUT STORMWATER

I: How familiar are you with stormwater runoff?

P: Not at all.

COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE NOT THINKING MUCH ABOUT STORMWATER

Some stormwater perceptions…

• • • •

Sewer stencils Solid waste Flooding Safety

COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE NOT THINKING MUCH ABOUT STORMWATER

The community is thinking about water in other ways: • Recreation • Fish consumption • Gardening • Drought • Drinking water

COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE NOT THINKING MUCH ABOUT STORMWATER

We have that conception that the Mississippi is really dirty…we feel like our lakes are really dirty, like Como Lakes, Phalen Lake. We feel like they’re dirty. And I think the community kind of feels like that.

COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE NOT THINKING MUCH ABOUT STORMWATER

I think for drinking purposes we almost have no choice. I don’t think it is the cleanest. When people think about clean, they think about [water] coming from a source that is clean, but where is the water coming from?

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Preliminary analysis indicates‌ Community members are not thinking much about stormwater Local community connections and relationships matter Businesses are driven by economic concerns and limiting risk

LOCAL COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS MATTER

• Success stories all included strong partnerships • Cultural context is critical • Strong potential partners exist in communities

LOCAL COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS MATTER

A lot of people don’t know those symbols, and it doesn’t make sense. My parents didn’t know what the toxic symbol meant.

If you were to explain something to somebody who has never seen that symbol, who doesn’t know what clean water means, how would you explain that in the most simplest form? That is probably one of the challenges.

LOCAL COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS MATTER

Language is one barrier, but there is also this whole other thing that goes along with language, which is…it’s not really cultural competence, but that’s the only word I can think of. …It’s how you approach someone. How you look at them, whether or not they are going to want to actually talk to you or say anything to you…

LOCAL COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS MATTER

I think working with groups like us is just a smart way to go. The more that we are educated in it and understand it enough to send people at the right times or provide the information, the better we are.

In many cases we are the first folks that are introduced to a business when they are ready to expand and make some exterior/interior changes.

Those are key moments .

PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Preliminary analysis indicates‌ Community members are not thinking much about stormwater Local community connections and relationships matter Businesses are driven by economic concerns and limiting risk

BUSINESSES ARE DRIVEN BY ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND LIMITING RISK

• Businesses respond to initiatives perceived to have positive economic return (e.g., energy) • New immigrants and minority populations are challenged to navigate regulatory hurdles • Businesses may perceive community improvements positively but could be wary to share “secrets to success” with other businesses

BUSINESSES ARE DRIVEN BY ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND LIMITING RISK

They don’t care whether anyone else on the street has a rain garden or not , that’s not their biggest concern.

They care about their community, and they love their community and they want their customers to come in and buy stuff. But, unless there is an incentive or reason for them to do the best that they can by the environment, then why would they? Their competitors aren’t.

BUSINESSES ARE DRIVEN BY ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND LIMITING RISK

When you’re talking about immigrants and people of color, especially black business owners, they are definitely wary [of the government]. They have run into ridiculous challenges that they feel like, it’s just because of who I am or just because of the neighborhood I am from. They get turned down a lot, they get shut down a lot. So, you come here hoping for a better life, and the next thing you know you have this guy coming in with his board, and he is asking you a bunch of questions that you don’t understand. Then all of the sudden you have to get all this work done in 30 days or else.

BUSINESSES ARE DRIVEN BY ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND LIMITING RISK

What other property owners do is what they do. We aren’t on a campaign to get them to do what we do [environmentally-oriented building/business improvements]. We want to set ourselves apart.

ANTICIPATED OUTCOME

Meeting clean water goals can be advanced by leveraging existing community values, assets, and concerns.

NEXT STEPS

Project planning, local coordination, & stakeholder inventory

Key informant interviews and focus groups

Property owner survey

Outreach workshop and reporting

PROJECT DESIGN

Scoping

Develop questionnaire

Review

Input on survey design from partners, PAT, & CACs

Draft survey questionnaires

Feedback on draft survey questionnaire from partners, PAT, and others

Pilot

Sampling

Implement

Pilot draft survey

Develop sampling plan

Administer survey

Data entry and analysis Collect surveys, enter data and conduct statistical analyses

Feedback from PAT: Need to consider sampling strategies to reach specific communities (e.g., onsite surveys at events)

PROJECT ADVISORY TEAM RANKING OF INFORMATION NEEDS

Ranking Research Questions What are residents' values, beliefs and norms associated 1 with water resource conservation?

Are residents aware of and familiar with water resource 2 problems?

3

What are residents' perceptions about water pollution?

4

Who influences residents' conservation decisions?

5

What conservation practices do residents currently use?

What civic actions do residents engage in related to water resource issues?

How do residents perceive water resource management organizations in the area?

How likely are residents to take future conservation actions to protect water resources?

6 7 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding • CRWD • RWMWD • MWMO Partners • PAT members Interviewees

Project Personnel • Amit Pradhananga • Sarah Fellows • Bree Duever • Laura Dorle • Bjorn Olson

CONTACT INFORMATION

Mae Davenport mdaven@umn.edu Vanessa Perry perry497@umn.edu Amit Pradhananga prad0047@umn.edu

MEMO TO: Tina Carstens and Sage Passi, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District; Elizabeth Beckman, Lindsay VanPatten, and Mark Doneux, Capitol Region Watershed District; Doug Snyder and Nick Busse, Mississippi Watershed Management Organization FROM: Katie Eukel, Tom Elko and Cleo Zins, Fourth Sector Consulting; Cathy Kennedy, Cathryn Kennedy Consulting, Ltd. SUBJECT: Audit Findings and Joint Communications Collaboration Plan DATE: December 23, 2015 Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO) and Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) hired Fourth Sector Consulting and Cathryn Kennedy Consulting, Ltd. to create individual communications plans for each watershed, along with a joint communications plan outlining opportunities for collaboration among the three watersheds. The joint communications work was undertaken for several reasons – many staff members believed that the watersheds shared similar communications and that staff and cost efficiencies could result from exploring collaboration.

Following are our team’s recommendations, along with a timeline and staffing recommendations, for collaborating over the next 18 months.

RESEARCH SUMMARY To create the communications plans, Fourth Sector Consulting and Cathryn Kennedy 1

Consulting, Ltd. used the following research process, which ran during the summer and fall of 2015: ● Onboarding Days. Three members of our team – Katie Eukel, Tom Elko and Cathy Kennedy – each spent a full onboarding day with each watershed district. These onboarding days featured project tours, staff conversations and identification of potential communications opportunities. ● One-on-One Interviews. Our team conducted a series of 45 to 60-minute interviews with key staff members from each watershed. Interviewees included: ○ Sage Passi, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ○ Tina Carstens, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ○ Elizabeth Beckman, Capitol Region Watershed District ○ Lindsay VanPatten, Capitol Region Watershed District ○ Doug Snyder, Mississippi Watershed Management Organizations ● Group Interviews. Our team conducted 60 to 120 minute group interviews with staff members and board members from each watershed. Individual interviews were conducted with executive staff members and communications/education staff members, while group interviews were conducted with other staff members and board members. ● Research Review. Our team reviewed previous research conducted by the watershed districts, including the Capitol Region Watershed District’s communications research and Mae Davenport’s community capacity interviews. ● Materials Audit. Our team audited? each of the watershed districts’ existing communications materials to assess how the districts currently communicate about their organizations and their issues. Materials reviewed included 2

brochures, briefing materials, messaging documents, visual brand materials, websites, social media posts and other materials shared by the watersheds. ● Best Practices Comparison. Our team reviewed the communications practices of other watersheds in Minnesota and similar campaigns from across the country.

Our team facilitated a full-day planning meeting in August 2015 to review research findings and recommendations and prepared draft communications plans for each of the watersheds, along with a list of potential opportunities for collaboration. The first half of the meeting focused on working with each watershed to review and gain feedback on individual communications plans, while the latter half of the meeting focused on discussing opportunities for collaboration among the three watersheds.

The three individual communications plans were finalized during September/October 2015. The following memo outlines our team’s recommendations for the joint communications plan.

JOINT COMMUNICATIONS PLAN Following is the joint communications plan, outlining collaboration opportunities for Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization.

GOALS As Fourth Sector Consulting and Cathryn Kennedy Consulting, Ltd. conducted individual communications planning processes with each of the watersheds, we learned that each watershed shared similar goals for their communications work. The following goals are the same goals used in each watershed’s individual

3

communications plan; we also recommend that these goals govern joint communications work. ● Goal One: Increase overall awareness and understanding of the importance of water quality, stormwater management and watershed protection. ● Goal Two: Increase awareness and knowledge of actions that key audiences can take to improve water quality in the watershed. ● Goal Three: Increase awareness and understanding of watersheds and their role in water quality management.

AUDIENCES Fourth Sector Consulting and Cathryn Kennedy Consulting, Ltd. also found that the watersheds shared similar audiences, although there were variations in the prioritization of those audiences among watersheds (e.g. one watershed may prioritize engaging homeowners in a specific neighborhood, while another watershed may prioritize engaging homeowners across the district). Within joint communications work, our team recommends prioritizing the following categories of audiences, recognizing that the precise scope of audience engagement may vary across watersheds. ● Homeowners/Residents ○ Youth (CRWD w/stronger focus) ○ Empty nesters (RWMWD w/stronger focus) ○ Lakeshore property owners (RWMWD) ○ Property owners who don’t live directly on water (RWMWD) ● Municipalities ○ City agencies (all watersheds) ○ County agencies (all watersheds) ○ State agencies (all watersheds) 4

● Elected Officials ○ City elected officials and staff (all watersheds) ○ County elected officials and staff (all watersheds) ○ State elected officials and staff (all watersheds) ● Businesses/Property/Land Owners (Large) ○ Churches (RWMWD, MWMO w/stronger focus) ○ Schools (MWMO w/stronger focus) ○ Commercial property owners (all watersheds) ○ Developers (all watersheds) ● Underserved Communities ○ Communities of color (all watersheds) ○ Immigrant populations (all watersheds) ● Partners/Advocates ○ University of Minnesota (all watersheds) ○ Engineering Firms (all watersheds) ○ Teachers (RWMWD w/stronger focus) ○ Master gardeners/Master stewards (all watersheds) ○ Volunteers (all watersheds) ○ Advisory Committees (all watersheds) ● Community Organizations ○ Non-profit organizations (all watersheds) ○ Neighborhood associations (all watersheds) MESSAGES: ORGANIZATIONAL Fourth Sector Consulting and Cathryn Kennedy Consulting also found similarities in organizational messaging across the watersheds. As the watersheds seek to help others understand the work of watersheds, we recommend using similar messaging 5

– tailored to the interests/needs of specific audiences – to help people understand the work of the watersheds. ● Message One: RESOURCE & PARTNER – The watersheds partner with homeowners, municipalities, businesses and other organizations to help improve water quality and solve water runoff issues in the district. ● Message Two: FUNDER – The watersheds provide grants to homeowners, businesses and municipalities for qualifying projects, such as rain gardens, that will help conserve water and keep our water clean, as well as training (and grants) for municipalities. ● Message Three: EXPERTS – Staff members at the watersheds are experts in their fields and serve as resources for advice and guidance on any watershed issue. ● Message Four: PROTECTING AMERICA’S WATER ICONS – Watersheds direct-ly affect water quality, whether it's for wildlife or recreation. By protecting water in the local watersheds, we are helping to protect rivers, lakes, and streams from Minnesota all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

We also recommend using the following targeted messages with specific audiences. ● Additional Message for Homeowners: HELPER/TRAINER – The watersheds provide training on a variety of water conservation and quality issues for homeowners, ranging from installing a rain barrel to building a rain garden that captures and filters water before it heads to local lakes, rivers and streams. ● Additional Message for Municipalities: HELPER/TRAINER – The watersheds provide training on a variety of water conservation and quality issues for municipal staffs, ranging from snowplow drivers to county commissioners.

6

● Additional/Refined Key Message for Elected Officials & Staff: HERE TO HELP YOU – The watersheds are your water quality partners in helping make Minnesota an even better place to live, work and play.

MESSAGES: EDUCATION Each watershed places a different emphasis on educational efforts – some focus on behavior change, while others approach education using a policy/systems/environmental change lens. All three watersheds employ a combination of both approaches, however, and share a commitment to thoughtful messaging focused on changing behaviors and attitudes toward water quality and protection.

Vanessa Perry and Mae. A Davenport, working for the Department of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota, conducted a thorough research process to uncover key messages that resonate with specific constituencies.

Following is a brief summary of themes that arose for two of the three watersheds:

CRWD ● 1. Community members are not thinking much about stormwater ○ Community considers water important in other ways (e.g. recreation, fish consumption, watering, etc.) ○ Concerns about water (e.g. availability, drinking water quality) ● 2. Local community connections and relationships matter ○ Success stories all included strong partnerships ○ Cultural context is critical ○ Strong potential partners already exist in communities. ● 3. Businesses are driven by economic concerns and limiting risk 7

○ Businesses respond to initiatives perceived to have positive economic return (e.g., energy) ○ New immigrants and minority populations are challenged to navigate regulatory hurdles ○ Businesses may be wary to share “secrets to success” with other businesses.

RWMWD ● High awareness of and concern for water quantity issues ○ Perception that drinking water is clean ○ Observation of decreased water levels ● RWMWD plays an important role ○ A good partner ○ Technical assistance a driver to implement water management projects ○ Financial assistance a driver to implement water management projects ● Concern for natural environment is not a primary decision making driver ○ Aesthetic concerns ○ Financial concerns ○ Community concerns (e.g. norms and impacts) STRATEGIES The following strategies were determined as part of a shared workshop between Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. Fourth Sector Consulting and Cathryn Kennedy Consulting, Ltd. presented the findings of our thorough research process (summarized in Appendix A) and facilitated a conversation focused on identifying opportunities to collaborate in 2016 and 2017. The following strategies 8

are focused on narrowing down strategies to those that watersheds will commit to work on together during 2016 and 2017.

Strategy One: Develop Shared Communications Resources and Training Opportunities. Several watersheds raised concerns about potentially duplicating efforts on developing communications resources and pursuing training opportunities. The following tactics are intended to streamline messaging, resources, training and evaluation across watersheds. â—? Tactic One: Finalize and Adopt Messaging Toolkit. Implement shared organizational and educational messaging that could be used in individual and joint communications efforts. Toolkit could include: o Organizational Messaging: What is a watershed? What are the types of watersheds? How do they work? What do they do? o Educational Messaging: How should residents care for lawns? How do we talk about blue-green algae? o Final Deliverable: Messaging toolkit, featuring shared messaging across watersheds and answers to frequently asked questions. o Short-Term Measure(s) of Success: 1) Completion of toolkit; 2) Adoption of messaging by individual watersheds. o Long-Term Measure(s) of Success: 1) Increased understanding of organizational and educational priorities for watersheds among target audiences. â—? Tactic Two: Develop a Shared Set of Wayfinding/Signage Iconography.

The watersheds currently use different iconography for wayfinding and signage, with different standards on when and where to deploy these 9

resources. Watersheds expressed an interest in developing shared iconography for wayfinding and signage, which would help key audiences understand watershed concepts as they travel across the boundaries of watershed districts. o Final Deliverable: Shared set of iconography for wayfinding and signage, along with a set of standards for usage. o Short-Term Measure(s) of Success: 1) Completion of shared set of iconography and signage; 2) Completion of standards for usage. o Long-Term Measure(s) of Success: 1) Implementation of shared iconography and signage across watersheds; 2) Increased identification of watershed resources among key audiences.

Following are examples of different types of rain garden signage and iconography used by the watersheds.

10

â—? Tactic Three: Invest in Jointly Produced Educational Content. Each of the watersheds identified education as a priority, but there were variances in how educational work was structured, managed/staffed and implemented. There was, however, a shared interest in developing educational content that would be used across watersheds. Fourth Sector Consulting and Cathryn Kennedy Consulting, Ltd. recommend that the watersheds identify at least three concrete opportunities to pursue this tactic during 2016 and 2017. o Idea #1: Create three brief, well-produced videos, targeted toward local homeowners, answering key questions facing the watersheds: 1) What is a watershed? 2) What are the top five things residents can do to protect their local rivers, lakes and streams? 3) Why should I care about stormwater? Watersheds could potentially build upon imagery developed by Capitol Region Watershed District and/or employ illustrations and animation that could be repurposed on social media or websites.

11

o Idea #2: Create a shared editorial calendar. Each watershed produces its own content; the watersheds would build a shared, 12month editorial calendar to guide content development decisions at each of the watersheds. For instance, each watershed would commit to sharing content related to snow management in January, etc.

Ultimately, this calendar would also help the watersheds determine opportunities to collaborate on developing content. o Idea #3: Create a website providing a one-stop shop for news and information about water quality in Minnesota. This website would be targeted toward thought leaders – municipalities, elected officials, journalists – and focus on advancing thought leadership on water quality. The website would highlight existing news coverage, lift up innovative examples of water quality management from the watersheds and help target audiences understand the importance of water quality to their work. o Final Deliverables: ▪

Idea #1: The final deliverable would be three brief, wellproduced videos.

▪

Idea #2: The final deliverable would be a 12-month editorial calendar.

▪

Idea #3: The final deliverable would be a website providing a one-stop shop for news and information about water quality in Minnesota.

o Short-Term Measure(s) of Success: 12

▪

Idea #1: Completion of the videos, along with the completion/execution of a thoughtful distribution plan.

Viewership goals: 1,000 views/video.

▪

Idea #2: Completion of the 12-month editorial calendar.

▪

Idea #3: Completion of the website, along with completion of a plan for management over time.

o Long-Term Measure(s) of Success: ▪

Idea #1: Viewers able to articulate what watersheds are, what they can do to protect local rivers/lakes/streams and why they should care about stormwater.

▪

Idea #2: Editorial calendar drives broader, public dialogue on key priorities for the watersheds (e.g. more earned media stories on snow management in January, etc.)

▪

Idea #3: Thought leaders can articulate the importance of watersheds to advancing water quality in Minnesota.

● Tactic Four: Develop Shared Training Opportunities. The watersheds expressed interest in pursuing shared communications training opportunities, focused on building skillsets in key areas of interest. These trainings would include: o Crisis Communications Training. The watersheds would participate in a crisis communications training facilitated by an outside consultant, then work with that consultant to build a shared approach to managing crisis communications situations across watersheds.

13

o Spokesperson/Media Trainings. Key watershed leaders would participate in a spokesperson training, ensuring that people designated as spokespeople have the skills necessary to serve as a spokesperson in numerous media engagement situations (e.g. TV interviews, radio interviews, print reporting interviews, etc.).

Strategy Two: Develop a Shared Understanding of Key Communications Metrics.

All watersheds expressed a strong interest in measurement, which could be managed by Watershed Partners. Following are key metrics, which the watersheds could use to gauge ongoing impact of communications activities: ● Earned Media. Earned media is most easily tracked by the number of media hits; it is often helpful to set up a shared tracking system that captures the title of the piece, the date of placement, the name of the outlet, the name of the reporter, the general subject of the article (e.g. watershed project, water quality, etc.), and tone (e.g. positive/neutral/negative). This can help the watersheds, over time, gain a better understanding of water quality media coverage and opportunities to shape stronger coverage. ● Social Media. There are numerous metrics for tracking social media effectiveness, but one of the strongest metrics is engagement – how many people are liking/favoriting posts? How many people are commenting on posts? How many people are sharing posts? Tracking this in an ongoing way, ideally in a spreadsheet, can help the watersheds better understand which posts are garnering the strongest levels of engagement, which can help guide content development decisions. ● Survey Audience. Develop and conduct communications surveys every six months. How are we doing? Which tools are most effective? Where are we making progress.

14

STAFFING, BUDGETS AND TIMELINES We recommend that the watersheds appoint one person from each watershed to staff a small working group to oversee the joint communications work undertaken

by Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Mississippi Watershed Management Organization and Capitol Region Watershed District. We recommend that this working group convene once per month to review the joint communications strategy and determine necessary adjustments. We also recommend that this working group have one representative designated as the person accountable for making final decisions on behalf of the working group.

We also recommend that the watersheds undertake much of this work with consulting partners. Most of the watersheds do not have dedicated communications staff, which would make it challenging to advance joint work without additional support. We also recommend that a consulting partner participate in the small communications working group calls/meetings.

TIMELINE Responsible?

Budget

Q1:

Q2:

Q3:

Q4:

2016

2016 2016

2016

$3,000 -

Q1:

Q2:

Q4:

$5,000

2016

2016 2016

Strategy One: Develop Shared Communications Resources and Training Opportunities.

Tactic One: Develop a Messaging Toolkit

Responsible?

Q3:

2016

15

Determine list of questions

Watershed Partners

to address in a messaging toolkit Write first draft of messaging

Watershed Partners

toolkit Compile feedback; share with

Watershed Partners

consulting partner Write second draft of

Watershed Partners

messaging toolkit Compile final feedback; share

Watershed Partners

with consulting partner Finalize messaging toolkit

Watershed Partners

Tactic Two: Develop a

Responsible?

Shared Set of

$15,000-

Q1:

Q2:

$20,000

2016

2016 2016

Q3:

Q4: 2016

Wayfinding/Signage Iconography Survey key audiences on

Watersheds

existing wayfinding signage

Communications

options

Group Lead, working closely with watershed communications group

Create RFP for developing a Watersheds shared set of

Communications

wayfinding/signage

Group Lead

iconography Conduct interviews to hire a Watersheds consultant

Communications Group

16

Develop and finalize shared

Watersheds

set of wayfinding/signage

Communications

iconography

Group

Tactic Three: Invest in

Responsible?

Jointly Produced

See

Q1:

Q2:

Below

2016

2016 2016

Q3:

Q4: 2016

Educational Content.

Idea #1: Create three brief,

$10,000

well-produced videos

$15,000

Discuss and determine final

Watersheds

video approach

Communications Group

Hire videographer

Watersheds Communications Group

Conduct filming (could

Videographer

occurs at different times of year, depending on focus of video) Compile feedback; share

Watersheds

with consulting

Communications

partner/videographer (could Group Lead also occur at different times of year, depending on focus of videos) Edit videos

Videographer

Compile second round of

Watersheds

feedback; share with

Communications

consulting

Group Lead

partner/videographer Finalize videos

Videographer

17

Develop and execute

Watershed

dissemination/advertising

Communications

plan

Group

Idea #2: Create a shared

$2,500 -

editorial calendar

$3,000

Collect and compile ideas

Watershed Partners

for a shared editorial calendar Create first draft of editorial Watershed Partners calendar Compile feedback; share

Watershed Partners

with consulting partner Create second draft of

Watershed Partners

editorial calendar Finalize editorial calendar

Watershed Partners

Idea #3: Create a website

$30,000 -

providing a one-stop shop

$50,000

for news and information about water quality in Minnesota.

Create RFP for web design

Watershed

firm

Communications Group Lead

Conduct interviews to hire a Watershed web design firm

Communications Group

Develop and finalize

Watershed

website

Communications Group Lead, with

18

support/feedback from Watershed Communications Group Tactic Four: Develop

$10,000

Shared Training

-

Opportunities

$20,000

Develop and conduct crisis

Watershed

communications training

Communications Group Lead/Consulting Partner, with support/feedback from Watershed Communications Group

Develop and conduct

Watershed

spokesperson/media

Communications

training

Group Lead/Consulting Partner, with support/feedback from Watershed Communications Group

Strategy Two: Develop a Shared Understanding of Key Communications Metrics

Finalize list of metrics used

Watershed Partners

to gauge communications

19

success; establish structure for gauging success

APPENDIX A: AUDIT FINDINGS

What do you see as some of the most important things your organization needs to tackle in the next year? In the next three years? ● New websites ● Address heavy workloads; strong desire for targeted work in communications and across the board ● Audience education 20

● Audiences should understand role of watershed district in water/ecosystem management ● Audiences should understand key topics of interest – blue-green algae, stormwater vs. groundwater, etc. ● Capital project communications ● Creative and effective communication with target audiences

How do you think communications could help achieve these goals? ● Develop new ways to explain what watersheds are ● Communicate effectively before, during and after projects ● Identify target audiences and reach them effectively

Whom do you see as priority audiences for your organization? ● Elected officials ● Government staff ● Community partners ● Community pillars ● “Regular people” (homeowners, students, people who live near water, people who don’t live near water) ● Underserved communities

For each of these audiences, what do you think is the most important information they need to know? ● Homeowners need to know how they connect to water resources, and that what they do has a direct impact on water quality. ● Businesses and developers need to be aware of healthy approaches to stormwater management.

21

● Government agencies need to know what watersheds do and that watersheds and cities share common water goals. ● Nonprofits and neighborhood groups need to know how watersheds can help and how to access watersheds.

Currently, what do you consider your organization’s most effective communications strategies and tactics? ● Face to face communication! When watersheds get an audience, they use it well.

Currently, what do you consider your organization’s least effective communications strategies and tactics? ● Digital/website/social media ● An overarching impression that we don’t know what’s working and what’s not working ● Translating the technical into more accessible formats

How do you think this list should change in the next year or two? Do practices need to be added or stopped? ● We’re “throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.” We should be more deliberate, and kill what isn’t working. ● We need to determine whether or not we should be marketing our organization. What would “the larger world” find interesting? ● We need to make better use of technology and social media. ● “We need to pick out our top audiences, determine who the messaging needs to reach, apply it, evaluate it, and follow up.”

22

In your opinion, what resources are needed to achieve the communications vision?

E.g. Staff? Tools? Technology? Training? Etc. ● All of it! ● Better and more efficient ways of updating a blog, engaging Facebook followers, maintaining the website, etc. ● Effective storytelling methods ● Crisis communications training ● Embrace our scientific nature and make it more fun for our audience

What opportunities do you see for partnership with the other two watersheds? ● Development of a watersheds core message and collaboration on lifting up that message ● Share core messaging on general education topics ● Shared training on topics such as crisis communications and social media ● Shared learning. We each have different age diversity, ethnic diversity and political situations. We should be talking about that, seeing where our work merges, and learning where we can work together.

What would an effective collaboration feel like to you? What would success look like? ● Using one another as resources ● Developing a streamlined way to share information ● Establishing shared messaging ● Developing shared outreach materials ● Building a shared vocabulary ● Created a shared understanding of what communications success looks like

23

Do you see any challenges to partnering on communications? Do you have any ideas on how to overcome those challenges? ● Collaboration requires a different way of working from what we’re currently doing. We need to understand that there may be emotional attachments to work, board issues, and other things at play. We will all need to agree to do things differently. ● It’s already been hard to work through three separate process/timelines on this project. We should address that in future collaboration. ● Our communications goals might be different, and until we complete this process, it’s hard to know whether collaboration will be effective. ● Parochialism. We aren’t the same, but we can coordinate on key things and like helping people understand watersheds and seeing the bigger picture.

Whom do you consider the spokesperson for your organization? Who manages the daily communications work? Do you have opinions on how it should be organized? ● Across all three organizations, the administrator is the primary spokesperson, although several others are spokespeople in various capacities as well.

What does your organization need to be more effective in informal, one-to-one communications or conversations? ● We need to better communicate our vision/mission/work succinctly and clearly.

Do you feel external partners have a clear sense of your organizations work? Why or why not? ● Many agencies do, but elected officials don’t. Some get the big picture, but most don’t understand what we do on projects.

24

● Lots of nonprofits understand the piece we’re working on with them, but they might not understand the whole issue, big picture. ● Our biggest partners understand our work.

How do you currently gauge success / effectiveness in communications? How do you evaluate whether you’re successful or not? ● There’s a general feeling that we don’t have a good way of doing this right now. ● We don’t always know whether our message is resonating. ● Partner feedback ● Formal program evaluations ● Analytics ● numbers of newsletter subscriptions, ● website hits, ● Facebook likes, etc. ● Also measuring success of programs/activities – pollution reduction, etc.

Recommendations ● Share training ● Crisis communications ● Social media ● Share messaging ● Build out common message around who we are and what we do ● Develop a shared project communications plan ● Develop a common vocabulary ● Celebrate and promote one another’s work ● Build a Metro Watershed Identity 25

● Develop a shared website ● Create standard icons for inclusion on project signage ● Develop a shared evaluation mechanism ● Share resources and technology ● Develop and share interactive project maps on websites ● Share outreach materials such as blue green algae information, tips for homeowners, etc. ● Individual watersheds focus on targeted communications to defined audiences ● Outsource blog posts, newsletters, etc. ● Form a Watersheds Collaborative Council

APPENDIX B: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT MEDIA ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES

The purpose of this news audit is to examine the stories the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District placed with Minnesota media in 2014-2015. The questions we will ask are: ● Where were their stories placed? ● What types of stories were they telling? ● What types of partnerships were they utilizing? ● Do the stories look like they were placed and initiated by the Watershed District itself?

Minnehaha Creek news items from 2015 26

The following 21 stories are the news items listed on the website of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, along with outlet, date and likely source. The District had ten that were based directly on press releases (also found on its website), four bylined articles, and four likely based on partnerships (along with partner listed). Of the remaining three stories listed, one was the announcement of the reception of a grant, one was the reception of an award (likely self-nominated) and one was an announcement seeking volunteers.

“Christmas Lake holds off zebra mussel spread” Star Tribune | October 9, 2015 Based on press release “Meadowbrook Golf Course will reopen in 2017” Sun Sailor | October 6, 2015 Likely placed through partnership with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board “Hopkins celebrates new park, transformed neighborhood” KARE 11 | September 30, 2015 Based on a press release “Master Water Stewards program expands” SW News Media | September 30, 2015 Based on a press release “More than buzzwords: Forming partnerships key for clean water” Sun Sailor | September 16, 2015 Bylined article “Minnehaha Creek Preserve celebrated” Sun Sailor | August 1, 2015 27

Based on a press release “Minnehaha Creek cleanup yields 4 tons of trash” Star Tribune | July 26, 2015 Based on a press release “St. Louis Park celebrates new boardwalk along restored Minnehaha Creek” Star Tribune | July 24, 2015 Based on a press release “MCWD provides tips on identifying dangerous blue-green algae” The Journal | July 14, 2015 Based on a press release “Join me in cleaning up Minnehaha Creek July 26” Lakeshore Weekly News | July 14, 2015 Bylined article “And the Environmental Initiative Award goes to …”

Star Tribune | May 27, 2015 Award for Environmental Education, likely self-nominated by MCWD “Union Congregation prepares for a rainy day” Sun Sailor | May 24, 2015 Photo series, based on partnership with Union Congregational Church “District expands early detection” Star Tribune | May 19, 2015 Seeking volunteers “Site of former sewage plant restored to wetland near Long Lake” 28

Star Tribune | April 24, 2015 Based on a press release “Treatments on Christmas Lake kill off zebra mussels” Star Tribune | April 20, 2015 Based on a press release “Celebrate Spring with a Stroll through Shorewood’s Gideon Glen” Lake Minnetonka Magazine | April 1, 2015 Likely based on partnerships with Hennepin County, Met Council and Lake Fellowship of Unitarian-Universalists.

“County awards grants to prevent spread of aquatic invasive species” Laker & Pioneer | March 28, 2015 Announcement of grant “Cottageville design and construction upcoming” Sun Sailor | March 28, 2015 Likely based on partnership with city of Hopkins and the Met Council “Forum examines shallow lakes” Chaska Herald | March 25, 2015 Based on a press release “Let’s get started working together” Sun Sailor | March 13, 2015 Bylined article “Turning back the clock for clean water” Lakeshore Weekly News | January 28, 2015 29

Bylined article Negative Press in 2014 and Response The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District earned some negative press in 2014. The head of its board of 15-years was ousted for unspecified reasons (http://m.startribune.com/minnehaha-creek-watershed-district-headousted/256789611/). Shortly thereafter, the Citizen’s Advisory Committee there held a vote of “no-confidence” in the board (http://current.mnsun.com/2014/08/07/noconfidence-vote-in-minnehaha-creek-watershed-district-board/).

After these two events, members of the public urged the Board to begin videotaping meetings and having those meetings made public (something the MCWD agreed to do) (http://m.startribune.com/after-increasing-public-pressureminnehaha-creek-watershed-district-to-start-videotaping-meetings/281982431/).

It is interesting to note the newspaper that published news of the “no-confidence” vote (The Sun Sailor) now appears to have an on-going current relationship by its acceptance of bylined articles by the MCWD. Despite these negative stories, the MCWD maintained a strong positive presence in the news by continually pushing Minnehaha Creek cleanup stories and bylined articles throughout 2014 and early 2015, when its election of a new district head was covered closely. It had several successful, "Let's clean up Minnehaha Creek together," stories throughout 2014. Even in the midst of negative press, such as when a story appeared about how the creek was too polluted to be safe for canoers (http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/05/23/water-levels-unsafe-for-canoes-kayaks/), the MCWD successfully defended itself several days later by announcing a massive clean-up. This response to public criticism demonstrated its value to the public 30

(http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-metro-briefs-minnehaha-creekcleanup/261386431/). These optimistic stories gave way to those with slightly more substance in 2015, where they placed a great number of bylined articles on and a guide for the public to avoid water-borne illnesses.

The final story of 2014 listed for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is also notable for its having been run on Minnpost.com, the most successful news blog in the state: http://www.minnpost.com/stroll/2014/12/6-most-interesting-comebacksreinventions-and-second-acts-2014.

In this story, Minnehaha Creek was listed as the one of the six “comebacks” of 2014, with the Watershed District noted specifically for its restoration projects. This was likely a situation where MinnPost set out feelers for nominations for this list and the District sent details about their “comeback” efforts. This is a good example of a place that was not an obvious environmental pitch, but which made an excellent success when reinterpreted by the District’s communications team.

Social Media An extensive social media analysis was not part of the set project, but I thought it interesting to note that the MCWD has 1,214 likes on Facebook, 1,039 followers on Twitter, and 116 followers on Instagram. It also has a YouTube channel where it now publishes its meetings, as well as video guides, and small, humorous sketches. Its guide about how to install a permeable paver driveway has garnered over 71k views.

Summary Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was able to overcome negative press in 2014 by consistently forging partnerships, placing stories demonstrating its value to the

31

community, winning fans on social media, and placing bylined articles establishing its authority in traditional media sources.

32

Appendix C

Harvard Magazine, “The Psyche on Automatic” http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/11/the‐psyche‐on‐automatic

Harvard Business Review, “Educate Everyone About Second‐Generation Gender Bias” http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/08/educate‐everyone‐about‐second/

Harvard Business Review, “Leadership in You Midst: Tapping the Hidden Strengths of Minority Executives” http://hbr.org/2005/11/leadership‐in‐your‐midst‐tapping‐ the‐hidden‐strengths‐of‐minority‐executives/ar/1

Forbes, “Hidden Bias Prevents Gender Equality in the C‐Suite” http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2013/10/29/hidden‐bias‐prevents‐gender‐ equality‐in‐the‐c‐suite/

“Proven Strategies for Addressing Unconscious Bias in the Workplace” http://www.cookross.com/docs/UnconsciousBias.pdf.

Wall Street Journal, “Bringing Hidden Biases into the Light” http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023037544045793085626 90896896 What Would You Do? Would You Stop a Bike Thief? http://www.hulu.com/watch/148098

Jerry Kang on Implicit Bias: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Immaculate‐ perception‐Jerry‐Kan;search%3Atag%3A%22TEDxSanDiego%22 Harvard Implicit Bias test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html Please review the following two tests: 1. Skin‐tone IAT 2. Gender‐Career IAT NPR interview with Joan C. Williams that wrote What Works for Woman at Work: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/02/03/daily‐circuit‐women‐workplace?from=dc Malcolm Gladwell; http://gladwell.com/blink/ Microagressions: In Everyday Life, Dr. Donald Wing Sue.(https://world‐trust.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2011/05/7‐Racial‐Microagressions‐in‐Everyday‐Life.pdf) See Harvard Business Review articles attached on Mentoring, Hiring and Why Diversity Initiatives Fail