Cedar Riverside and Safety: A Report to the NRP Safety Committee
An MPP Professional Paper
In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Public Policy Degree Requirements
The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
The University of Minnesota
Sarah Martyn Crowell
Katie Peacock
Dawn Skelly
Karly Zufall
May 21, 2003
_________________________________
Professor Garry Hesser
Paper Supervisor/Instructor
_________________________________
Hani Mohamed
NRP Organizer
West Bank Community Coalition
May 21, 2008
0
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
II. RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6
A. Safety through Physical Enhancements and Neighborhood Beautification 6
13
Recommendations
17
B. Block Clubs, Community Watch Groups, and Communications
Recommendations
24
C. Overview of Policing Methods and their Impact on Crime Prevention
Recommendations
26
40
D. Youth Violence and Cedar Riverside Neighborhood
Recommendations
43
50
E. Resource and Funding Identification
54
Recommendations
54
III. CONCLUSION
55
IV. BIBILOGRAPHY
56
V. APPENDICES
62
1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cedar-Riverside Neighborhood in Minneapolis recently received approval to
move forward with its Phase I Neighborhood Revitalization Program strategies.
Several members of the course “Engaging the Public in Policy and Planning” spent a
semester meeting with members of numerous organizations in the Cedar-Riverside
neighborhood to develop a neighborhood inventory. From these meetings, a series of
community-based research projects were proposed with select neighborhood
organizations.
Several students identified safety as a primary neighborhood concern cited by many
different organizations. Knowing that the NRP plan had been passed and had
included a number of safety-related initiatives and strategies, a small group of
students enrolled in the Humphrey Institute’s Capstone Class, “Engaging the Public
in Policy and Planning,” and attended a meeting with of the Cedar-Riverside NRP
Safety Committee on February 12, 2008.
At the meeting, a number of facts, issues, and questions surfaced that included the
following:










During 2006-2007, according to Minneapolis Police Department overall crime in
the neighborhood was down 16%, but over the last month isolated incidents of
robbery have increased.
Recently, at Associated Bank, someone was robbed after they cashed their check
and had just left the bank.
The T-Mobile store next to Depth of Field had several expensive cell phones
stolen.
In some cases, robbery has occurred and reoccurred at some businesses along
Cedar-Riverside. Some of the safety committee members visited businesses in
person to tell them to install new locks and improve security. There are
disagreements between landlords and tenants over who should pay for this new
security features since most of the business owners rent space from the tenants.
Citizens and business owners have been asked to call 911 when they see activity,
but they don’t always do it.
Police have assigned two more officers to the area.
People show up to the meetings when they have issues, and then they don’t come
back.
Someone asked by the NRP Safety Committee had not yet spent its allocated
dollars.
It was suggested that the community gather volunteers to walk the neighborhood
to show a united front and to identify problem areas, but some business owners
are afraid to do this.
Another participant said she hears of residents in the Towers who may know who
was involved in a recent robbery, but they don’t do anything about it. They don’t
tell the police. They are afraid.
2











There are some businesses with cameras. Can we get the pictures from these
cameras and circulate them to the residents, who can put pressure on these
people’s families to do something about the robberies?
Can we educate residents? Maybe you don’t go to the bank by yourself. Can we
legally publish pictures? Is there a central clearinghouse to post pictures?
Some businesses are lacking trash cans outside of their businesses.
Can the group develop a crime alert notification system?
Can we spend money to put lighting at the bus stop between the Cedar Cultural
Center and Palmers? Should the bus stop be removed?
The public housing rep asked how the group should be networking and
connecting with existing housing services and programs? Project Lookout has a
program in the towers. Project Lookout has groups in the high-rises linked with
walkie-talkies, etc. There may be a way to get the word out that people are
watching.
Block clubs need to be formed. Businesses need to keep calling 911 to show the
increase in number of calls and to get another police officer.
Maybe a monthly newsletter could highlight crime and what you can do to
prevent it. Almost everyone has a cell phone. Call this person when you see
something, and they call someone else—a phone tree.
April 26th is Global Youth Service Day. Does this group want to help the youth
with clean-up in the neighborhood? A good way to connect with the youth.
We spent $66,000 on security cameras—Are they working? There are no signs
telling criminals that they are on camera. They are not a deterrent. Who has these
pictures?
Last week, two groups of female gang members came to Brian Coyle and attacked
a person. They have cars waiting for them and they leave. The police come, but
they can’t catch them. People say don’t fight in the Towers, do it at Brian Coyle.
Parents are afraid to send their kids here.
Out of this meeting, key questions emerged:










Where should the group spend its money? What will be most effective?
Do they have an inventory of all of the groups involved in safety in the
neighborhood?
Do they connect with the West Bank police group that’s formed?
Do they know the best ways to form block clubs, inform residents and business
owners?
Is there money available to improve the security of Cedar-Riverside businesses?
Are security cameras effective? Can pictures be disseminated? Is this the most
effective way to make people aware of neighborhood concerns and criminals?
What is the best way to motivate people to call 911?
Should the group get a crime alert system in place?
Is walking in a united group throughout the neighborhood a good way to send a
message to potential criminals?
When do you add lighting at a bus stop vs. asking to have the stop removed?
3

How can this group connect to youth?
The above key questions centered around creating a neighborhood safety asset inventory,
developing best practices for getting people engaged and for informing people, for
making physical improvements, for communicating with police, and for developing a
plan for spending Cedar-Riverside NRP allocations.
In a subsequent meeting on February 20, 2008 with Russom Solomon, Cedar-Riverside
NRP Safety Committee Chair, and Hani Mohammed, NRP Safety Committee
Coordinator, the students developed a Memorandum of Agreement to do the following:
1) Help NRP Safety Committee be efficient and effective in carrying out its goals
by:
 Researching what similar neighborhoods locally and across the country
have done;
 Developing recommendations regarding best practices for implementing
NRP goals;
 Developing detailed budget recommendations in support of NRP’s
allocations; and
 Developing additional funding sources (i.e. foundation support for
additional dollars).
2) In collaboration with the NRP Safety Committee mutually agree to focus on
specific research efforts related to the following NRP Safety Committee goals:
 Physical enhancements—lights, trash cans
 Youth and Resource Identification—what are other groups in the
neighborhood doing around youth and safety?
 Police relations—how can the safety committee work with the U of M
police, Minneapolis Police, and others to create safe neighborhoods and
help residents, police and business owners understand one another better?
 Community and Business Engagement Practices—block clubs, patrols,
door knocking, walking, getting the word out about crime, encouraging
safety.
Student Partner Deliverables:
1) A report identifying what has worked well in similar neighborhoods based on
agreed-upon research goals. Report to focus on pros and cons and provide
recommendations.
2) A detailed budget with recommendations and dollar amounts for spending NRP
funding.
3) A report of additional funding sources for the committee to consider.
4) Attendance of at least one student at each Safety Committee meeting.
Community Partner Responsibilities:
4
1) Provide supervision and organizational support to student partners during project
period
2) Actively participate in helping the students locate and connect with appropriate
residents, business owners, community organizers, and police liaisons to
accurately assess neighborhood needs.
3) Add students to monthly agenda for input, feedback, and status updates and
discuss agenda items prior to each meeting.
4) Provide timely feedback to student partners.
5) Attend client/class presentation.
6) Complete evaluation of project, including evaluation of project processes,
deliverables and presentation.
The recommendations were presented to the NRP Safety Committee members at the
committee’s May 6, 2008 monthly meeting. The following pages outline the class
deliverables.
5
II. RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Safety through Physical Enhancements and Neighborhood Beautification
Physical enhancements and beautification of a neighborhood are important
components of both increasing the perception of safety and reducing real crime. This
section of the paper serves to examine the theoretical underpinnings and practical
application of creating physical space that can create a safer neighborhood. The research
relies on three bases of knowledge: a literature review of national and international
research on best practices around neighborhood and environmental design, a review of 27
Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program Phase I outcome reports, and the
knowledge and wisdom of the residents, business owners, and organization staff of the
Cedar Riverside neighborhood. From these three knowledge bases, safety
recommendations with an outlined budget were developed for the Cedar Riverside NRP
Strategy 4.1.2.
Literature Review of Urban Design for Crime Reduction
There are two major theories that dominant the discourse on how best to create
safe neighborhoods through physical design: Defensible Space theory and New Urbanist
theory. Though oppositional in their framework, both provide important information into
best practices for designing a safe neighborhood. Further analysis of Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles, “Broken Windows” theory, and
“Accidental Spaces” theory, offers additional ways of thinking around urban design that
promotes community pride, public safety, and crime prevention.
6
Defensible Space
Defensible Space theory was pioneered by Oscar Newman in the 1970’s and remains an
important way of understanding urban design and creating safe neighborhoods. It argues
that the safest neighborhoods maximize private space and minimize common areas. Safe
neighborhoods reduce “permeability”, that is ease of entry to and exit from the
neighborhood our housing areas (Newman, 1996). This includes things like restricting
footpaths and street thruways. Unlike New Urbanist theory, Defensible Space contends
that the larger the number of people who share a communal space, the more difficult it is
for people to identify it as being in any way theirs or to feel they have a right to control or
determine the activity taking place within it. Thus, Defensible Space operates by
subdividing large portions of public spaces and assigning them to individuals and small
groups to use and control as their own private areas (Town, 2005). An example of this
could include assigning “ownership” of a hallway to a few renters in a high-rise
apartment.
Not only does Defensible Space argue that you need to maximize private space, it also
suggests that mixed-land use generates high crime and vandalism. Shops, businesses
and residential spaces should be clearly delineated. In commercial areas, everyone has a
right or excuse to be present, and offenders are indistinguishable from law-abiding
citizens. Mixed use reduces residential control over the neighborhood and provides
criminals with the anonymity necessary to engage in illegal activity.
Last, Defensible Space encourages restrictive design and the use of security cameras to
produce appropriate behavior. Control of public spaces can be designed by restricting
access through the use of denial cues, which do not hide public spaces but mask their
public character. An example of this could be creating a confusing walking path that
would restrict non-residents from using it. Other design features can discourage certain
behaviors in a neighborhood. Installing “sadistic” street furniture like spiked metal bars
prevent people from sitting on ledges; benches with multiple armrests keep people from
lying down; and sprinkler systems can douse “undesirables” at random moments. These
places of deliberate discomfort have been termed “prickly spaces” (Van Melik et al.,
2007). It is not necessary that they create unattractive spaces just spaces that are
unattractive to unwanted behaviors.
Research suggests that Defensible Space is indeed effective at reducing crime in
neighborhoods. Several studies from the Department of Justice found that closing off
streets to traffic that reduce connectivity are associated with reduced rates of crime
(Town, 2005). There is also research from England that shows assigning common areas
to individual families in multi-family housing all but eliminates burglaries and vandalism.
(Town, 2005). Yet, there are other scholars that suggest this privatization of space and
loss of public and community identity is exactly what promotes crime and leads to the
deterioration of urban life.
New Urbanists
Jane Jacobs pioneered the idea of New Urbanist in her groundbreaking book, The Life
and Death of Great American Cities, published in 1961. She and her successor’s theory
can be summed up in the phrase “More eyes on the street.” In other words, urban design
7
should give people a sense of community by creating features like sidewalks, front
porches, parks, community centers and other common areas. The aim is to have people
interacting with each other and getting people out of their private spaces and into the
public realm. The more crowded the space, the safer it becomes. Contrary to Defensible
Space, New Urbanist theory argues that you create a sense of community through
people’s sense of ownership of public spaces, not private ownership of areas (Town,
2005). It also argues for mixed-land use as a way to create safer public areas.
Another important feature of the New Urbanist theory is the promotion of pedestrian
paths and alternative modes of transportation rather than just automobiles. Walkways
reinforce people to be outside and active while also reducing empty spaces where crime
is more likely to happen. Design that promotes walking can also serve to combat
growing rates of obesity and health problems. These design features support physical
activity and achieve increased numbers of citizens using public spaces for positive
behaviors.
Developed from the fundamental ideas of New Urbanists, Smart Growth and New
Regionalism expand on the impact of the built environment to examine the social
conditions necessary to create safer neighborhoods. New Regionalism works to create
more livable communities through revitalization of the already built environment
(Wesley, 2007). Much like New Urbanists who argue that community ownership is
essential to safety, New Regionalism relies on participation in civic associations and
trusting relationships as the basis for successful neighborhood governance. Central to
creating safer communities is respectful partnerships with citizens, the city, and police
departments. Rather than emphasize formal solutions to metropolitan-area problems, the
focus is on the promotion of institutional conditions within which partnerships, cooperation, and volunteerism can integrate segmented urban areas. This type of
governance requires a “learning-by-doing” process oftentimes creates mistakes that will
not materialize immediately (Wesley, 2007). Nonetheless, the process of engaging
citizens to participate provides the necessary buy-in for such partnership and strategies to
succeed.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
Research into criminal behavior shows that the decision to offend or not to offend is more
influenced by cues to perceived risk of being caught than ease of entry. Consistent with
this research, CPTED strategies emphasize enhancing the perceived risk of detection and
apprehension to reduce crime. The perception of risk and detection can be created
through environmental design strategies. The principles outlined below represent hybrid
of both Defensible Space theory and New Urbanist theory by introducing things like
“more eyes on the street” and controlled spaces.
1st Principle: Natural Surveillance. CPTED argues that communities can increase the
threat of apprehension by increasing the perception that potential offenders can be seen.
Natural surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, activities,
and people in such a way as to maximize visibility and foster positive social interaction
among legitimate users of private and public space. Potential criminals feel increased
8
scrutiny and limitations on their escape routes. One aspect of natural surveillance is
creating proper lighting. This includes avoiding poorly placed lighting that creates blindspots, ensuring potential problem areas like parking areas, ATMS, mailboxes, bus stops
and dumpsters are well-lit, and avoiding too-bright security lighting that creates a
blinding glare or deep shadow. Having said that, lighting in the absence of witnesses
should never be equated with safety. Crimes routinely occur in well lit, yet inadequately
populated areas so natural surveillance must also consider designing the placement of
physical features that promote the public use of space. Keeping public areas observable,
tells potential offenders that they should think twice before committing a crime.
Criminals prefer low-risk situations, and public visibility increases the chance that the
perpetrator will be caught.
2nd Principle: Natural Access Control. CPTED principles argue that communities can
decrease the opportunity for crime by clearly differentiating between public space and
private space. Selectively placing entrances and exits, fencing, lighting and landscape,
and limiting access can establish residential control. Fashioned after the same concept of
“prickly space,” natural access control modifies behavior through the designed
environment. Additionally, streets designed with gateway treatments, roundabouts,
speed bumps and other “traffic calming” devices establish territories and discourage
speeding and cut-through traffic.
3rd Principle: Natural Territorial Reinforcement. Neighborhoods can promote social
control through increased definition of space and improved proprietary concern. An
environment designed to establish boundaries of private spaces does two things. First, it
creates as sense of ownership. Owners have a vested interest and are more likely to
challenge intruders or report them to police. Second, a sense of ownership creates an
environment where strangers stand out and are more easily indentified. By using
buildings, fences, pavements, signs, lighting and landscape to express ownership and
define public, semi-public and private space, natural territorial reinforcement occurs.
4th Principle: Maintenance. Communities express ownership of properties by
maintaining private and public spaces. Deterioration of physical space is an indication of
less control by the intended users and suggests a greater tolerance of disorder. The
broken windows theory explored in a later section is a valuable tool in understanding the
importance of maintenance in deterring crime.
CPTED Principles can be applied to all types of neighborhood spaces such as residential
housing, businesses, public parks, and parking garages. Each has its own set of design
features that will promote safety. Research suggests that such design changes can reduce
crime by increasing the perception of apprehension yet challenges remain to
implementing CPTED principles (Prince William County, 2007). Oftentimes,
environmental designers, land managers, and individual community members are simply
not familiar with the CPTED design principles. Educating both citizens and city officials
is an important first step to implementing CPTED designs. Second, in the development
phase, CPTED principles can be integrated at a relatively inexpensive cost but become
much more costly to retrofit these safety features. For this reason, partnerships between
businesses, city officials and residents are essential to leverage the necessary resources
9
for successful implementation. CPTED principles should not be considered a panacea for
crime but rather a complementary tool to other policing strategies, citizen organizing, and
other crime prevention models.
Broken Windows Theory
In 1982, James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling wrote the article Broken Windows that
introduced another theory of crime prevention through environmental design. The theory
asserts that minor signs of neglect and disrepair, such as abandoned buildings and cars,
and street litter, sends a message of neglect and a lack of community standards (Solutions
for America, 2003). As a result, gang activities, drug markets, prostitution, and violent
crime worsen. By applying a “zero tolerance” policy, broken windows are replaced
within a few days and graffiti is removed immediately. By addressing low-level
livability crimes, broken windows theory argues that it will deter high-level violent
crimes.
During Rudolf Guiliani’s tenure as mayor of New York City in the 1990’s, he
implemented a “zero tolerance” policy on crime. Giuliani had the police strictly enforce
the law against subway fare evasion, and stopped public drinkers, people publicly
urinating, and the "squeegee men" who had been wiping windshields of cars and
demanding payment. Rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and
significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years. Much of the decrease is
attributed to the “zero tolerance” approach but research on the impact of the broken
windows theory has proven hard to disentangle from the implementation of other crime
prevention initiatives. Like CPTED, Broken Windows theory should not be viewed as a
panacea but rather another tool for attacking crime. Neighborhood crime prevention
efforts must also acknowledge the deeper factors that create crime in the first place like
lack of economic opportunities and weak social bonds between residents.
Accidental Spaces
Accidental spaces are typically public spaces where people gather, interact, trade, and
have fun, even if the spaces weren’t intended for that particular purpose. The spaces
create productive and positive interactions that go beyond the spaces intended use.
Accidental spaces share the following traits: a unique character and sense of place
comfort and the perception of safety, proximity to activity generators such as paths, roads
and businesses, and visibility (Zelinka, 2005). Sometimes accidental spaces seem or are
actually threatening. For example parks, traffic intersections, or bus shelters that are used
for drug dealing create negative use of accidental space but these spaces can produce
positive activities as well. They can add value to communities by providing informal
gathering places where people can walk or play, observe each other and interact.
Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program
In the early 1990’s the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) allocated more than
$400 million in public funds for Minneapolis neighborhood groups to spend on
improvement projects. It represented the most financially autonomous neighborhood
governance structure of any American city (Fagotto et al., 2006). The goal of the
10
program was to “stem and reverse the residential exodus by making the city’s residential
areas better places to live, work, learn and play through the procedural innovation of
empowering residents of neighborhoods to set local priorities, design projects and
implement them in collaboration with the city departments” (Fagotto et al., 2006). Cedar
Riverside is the last Minneapolis neighborhood to have NRP funding approved for
allocation, which provides an opportunity to examine the outcomes of other
neighborhoods and learn from their success and failures of Phase I strategies.
The review included twenty-seven Minneapolis neighborhood outcome reports from
Phase I planning with regard to safety, neighborhood beautification, and lighting
strategies. It provides valuable information in thinking about implementing strategies in
Cedar Riverside. While a more detailed outline of the NRP Phase I outcomes are
reviewed in the Appendix 1, it is important to highlight some common threads.
1. Events such as clean-ups, cook-outs, plantings and art festivals are useful because
they not only provide volunteer labor for NRP projects, but also build community
and a “sense of neighborhood” that is very valuable for NPR work.
2. Every safety strategy integrated various partners to successfully complete the
projects. Partners included Public Works Department, Local Businesses, and
residents.
3. The outcomes often differed from the original NRP strategy. An example of this
is a strategy to create more lighting in the Bancroft neighborhood, but after an
lighting audit was conducted by the City of Minneapolis, it was determined that
there was adequate lighting.
4. Almost 100% of the NRP Strategies had matching grant programs for businesses
to make physical enhancements.
5. Many strategies included increased lighting and traffic calming strategies but they
tended to be costly and long-term projects that required strong partnerships with
the City of Minneapolis.
6. Many strategies included financial investment in neighborhood boundary signage
and creating a brand identity to market the neighborhood. An example of this
would be the Whittier Neighborhood and the use of NRP funds to create the “Eat
Street” banners for Nicollet Avenue.
Cedar Riverside Neighborhood Current Safety Concerns
The Cedar Riverside NRP Planning identifies 2 strategies that address physical
enhancements and beautification of the neighborhood. Strategy 4.1.2 states: “Install
physical enhancements to support a clean, neat, and accessible neighborhood.” And was
allocated $29,000. Strategy 4.1.3 states: “Reduce graffiti and trash throughout
neighborhood” and was allocated $500. Over the past four months, meetings with the
NRP Safety Committee, including an evening walk in the neighborhood to identify
“safety concerns,” created a list of four items the Safety committee intends to address:
lighting, traffic, trash, and graffiti.
Lighting
11
The NRP Safety committee identified several areas in the neighborhood that could use
better lighting, most importantly, Cedar Avenue-the central corridor of Cedar Riverside.
One of the challenges is that at their current height, the boulevard trees are hiding many
of the light fixtures. It might be important to consider simply trimming the boulevard
trees to better expose the streetlamps. Local businesses represent one of the major
concerns for poor lighting. This includes simple repairs like replacing light bulbs that are
burnt out to more involved projects like installation of new light fixtures. It is uncertain
as to why businesses have not installed or replaced lighting. A recent survey from the
African Development Center of immigrant-operated businesses in Cedar Riverside found
that ninety-four percent of immigrant businesses rent their space. In a renter situation, it
is often unclear whether it is the responsibility of the tenant or the landlord to make
improvements and maintain general upkeep of the property. Nor is it often clearly
articulated in the lease agreements. Examples of businesses or storefronts that need
upgrades identified on the neighborhood walk include:
1. Darul-Quba Mosque – no outside lights and broken front window.
2. Allied Parking – poorly lit area, no sign for pay box, weak lighting around pay
box.
3. 400 Bar – both front facing entrance and side have lighting that creates shadow
spots.
4. Cedar Cultural Center – no lighting on street level.
5. Otanga Grocery – light out above the store, needs to be changed.
6. Intercontinental, Mediterranean Deli, Tana (connected space)– poor or no
lighting.
7. Between Palmers and Otanga Grocery – recessed space with lots of mismatched
paint and no lighting.
Traffic
Recent population density data of Cedar Riverside show that there are 3,616 people per
square mile, compared to the national average of 1,218 people per square mile. The
population density of the neighborhood means increased pedestrian and car traffic
creating major safety concerns. The NRP Safety committee identified several areas
within the neighborhood that are dangerous because of the limited traffic control
measures, i.e. speed humps, no speed limit signs, uncontrolled intersections, and blind
spots. Specifically, the area between Cedar Avenue and 16th Avenue on 6th Street was
identified as a “hot spot” for parking violations, hazardous pedestrian crossing, and high
speed driving.
Opportunities exist for engaging neighborhood residents in bringing awareness to drivers
about safety concerns. In Enfield, United Kingdom, the police recruited the leaders of
the Al-Masjid Mosque to educate their attendees about the problems caused from illegal
parking. Many of them then volunteered to act as “street hawks” for the local police. In
Burghfield, U.K., the community identified a problem with high speed driving in a
residential neighborhood. In response, the local police department recruited resident
volunteers and trained them to use speed indication devices so that they could monitor the
speed of motorists themselves. (Forrest, et al. 2005).
12
Trash
A negative visual aspect of Cedar Riverside is the amount of trash lying on the streets.
Part of the problem is that there simply are not enough trash containers on Cedar Avenue.
The other problem lies in the fact that people are complicit to throw trash on the ground.
Indeed, several empty bottle and bags lay within feet of nearby trashcans. Any business
can participate in the Adopt-A-Liter Container program whereby the city will install a
trashcan and the business signs a two-year contract to maintain the container. Currently,
there are 16 businesses in Cedar Riverside that participate in the program (See Appendix
2). The City of Minneapolis recommends that there is one trash container per
intersection which means that Cedar Avenue is under the suggested level. In addition to
the trash containers maintained by private businesses, the City of Minneapolis is
responsible for the trash containers at every Metro Transit bus stop and Light Rail
Stations.
There are different options for increasing the number of trashcans in the business district.
First, the neighborhood could advocate becoming a Special Services District. These are
defined areas within the city where special services are rendered including trash
collection. Costs of the services are paid from special charges to the area. State law
mandates the creation of advisory board through city ordinance for each special service
district to advise the city on services within the district. Second, the neighborhood could
lobby to make Cedar Avenue a Commercial Corridor. The city council passes a motion
to identify a designated corridor and the city than pays for various services in the
neighborhood including trash maintenance. At this point, Lake Street, Franklin Avenue,
West Broadway, and Central Avenue NE are the only designated Commercial Corridors
in the Minneapolis.
Graffiti
Graffiti represents a low level crime that impacts the “livability” of a community and the
perception of safety. Cedar Riverside has experienced a growing number of “tags” in the
neighborhood that create time consuming and costly removal. Right now, not all of the
businesses are removing graffiti immediately. It is important that the NRP Safety
committee identify the barriers to removing graffiti for local businesses. Examples of
business in the neighborhood that currently have graffiti include: Red Sea Bar, Keifer
Court Bakery, The Nomad Bar, West Bank Grocery, Palmers Bar, and Triple Rock Social
Club.
Many graffiti reduction programs survey or measure the amount and type of graffiti in the
community or designated area. This can be as simple as counting the graffiti, logging
them in a database, and then checking them off as graffiti is removed (graffitihurts.org,
2008). Graffiti assessments are also helpful to budget for clean up or secure a budget for
graffiti prevention and abatement. If graffiti is a known problem in the area, thorny
plants and bushes can deter access to wall spaces and vines or planted wall coverings can
also act as deterrents.
Recommendations
13
Given that physical enhancements for crime reduction can be approached from a variety
of theories (Defensible Space, New Urbanist, Accidental Space, etc), the NRP Safety
Committee has the opportunity to integrate the most promising aspects of the various
models. While the budget of $29,500 is somewhat limiting, there are a number of ways
to achieve the stated goals, especially if there are partnerships developed and outside
funding sources leveraged. Ten recommendations are outlined below followed with a
detailed budget of expenditures.
1. Establish short term and long-term priorities. The NRP was designed to have
both action-oriented small goals while also providing a framework for the longterm vision of a healthy neighborhood. Because the Cedar Riverside NRP Safety
committee is an active but voluntary organization, it is important to have
established priorities with short-term easily achievable goals balanced with longterm priorities that capture the larger vision of the neighborhood.
2. Success is based on the ability for people to find common ground.
Unquestionably, everyone interviewed in the neighborhood has identified safety
as a concern and it is essential that the common vision for a safer neighborhood
stays salient through the day-to-day process of creating change. Opportunities
need to exist for everyone to participate in activities that promote safety in the
neighborhood. By providing different “layers of engagement,” the Safety
Committee will be able to draw people who are able to contribute varying levels
of time and resources.
3. Leverage external and internal resources. NRP was developed on the assumption
that citizens would be empowered to make decisions on how to improve their
neighborhoods, but would require the technical expertise and partnership of other
organizations and agencies. Given the limited budget of NRP Safety Committee,
it is imperative that partnerships are developed with Public Works and CPED
(Community Planning and Economic Development), non-profit organizations,
local businesses, and residents.
4. Create a business matching grant program. Provide matching grant loans for
businesses that would like to do safety upgrades based on the CPTED Principles.
This could include installing new locks, repairing windows, painting, landscaping
fencing, new siding, or other physical changes that increase the beauty and safety
of a business.
5. Encourage business participation in Adopt-A-Litter Container Program. Identify
businesses on blocks that do not have trashcans and recruit them to participate in
the Adopt-A-Litter. Identify who is caring for the bins adopted by non-operations
businesses (i.e. Falafel King, North Country Co-op and Viking Bar). Also
consider funding trashcans on blocks where businesses are not willing to be
responsible for trashcans. Cost $12/trash can/month or $144 per year for each
trashcan.
6. Think about the positive use of accidental spaces. Schedule several community
events each year. Including the exploration of a farmers market perhaps located
14
on the Dania Hall site. Summer movie screenings with a youth/family emphasis
could be developed in Currie Park or Bedlam Theater parking lot.
7. Develop neighborhood boundary signage. Signs could introduce and welcome
visitors and residents to Cedar Riverside and create a physical enhancement that
demonstrates neighborhood pride.
8. Offer graffiti reduction kits to targeted businesses. The Reno Police Department
in Nevada provided “Graffiti Removal Kits” to businesses and residents in a “hot
spot”. The kit includes 3-ounce can of graffiti removal solution, a sponge, a steel
wool pad, goggles, plastic gloves, a dust mask, and paper towels contained in a
can to mix the removal solution.
9. Fund a resident artist who can work with youth in the neighborhood during the
summer to design and create murals. Engaging youth in safety activities is an
important relationship to develop. There are many possibilities for in-kind
donations for this type of project paint donations from Valspar.
10. Create “Traffic Calming” Features. In a conversation with Cam Gordon, he
explained that creating new traffic features takes a long time and requires
collective action to apply pressure to the city. At this point, it is imperative that to
change the pedestrian and traffic situation on 6th, a partnership must be
established with Public Works Departments. Solutions could include installation
of speed humps, temporary or permanent speedometers, or crosswalks.
Additionally, the NRP Safety committee could request “No Turn on Red” signs
for high pedestrian intersections like 6th Street and Cedar Avenue.
Budget Recommendations for Cedar Riverside NRP Strategy 4.1.2.
Strategy 4.1.2.
Install physical enhancements to support a clean, neat, and accessible neighborhood.
Total Funds $29,000.
Trash Can Installment
Provide 6 new additional trashcans on Cedar Avenue and pay for the city to
maintain them if businesses are not able to “Adopt”
Budget: $12/month for 2 years
$1728
Business Matching Grant Program
Phase I: Provide up to 5 matching grants of $2000 or less to business for physical
and safety enhancements. Businesses must contribute at least 50 cents on the
every dollar provided in grant. Phase II: Release another $10,000.
15
Budget: Up to 10 grants at $2000 each
$20,000
Neighborhood Boundary Signage
Design, produce and install 2 boundary signs to identify neighborhood. Possible
locations include triangle park on Cedar Ave and Washington Ave on the north
side and Cedar Ave and 94 on the south side.
Budget: estimated based on other neighborhoods
$5000
Graffiti Removal Kits
Provide graffiti removal kits and instructions to businesses who are targeted most
by graffiti. The kit includes 3-ounce can of graffiti removal solution, a sponge, a
steel wool pad, goggles, plastic gloves, a dust mask, and paper towels contained
in a can to mix the removal solution.
Budget: Provide 10 kits at $10
$100
Hire Resident Mural Artist
Hire a resident artist to work with youth in the neighborhood to design and
produce neighborhood-identifying murals.
Budget: Salary for resident artist
$2000
TOTAL
$28,828
16
B. Block Clubs, Community Watch Groups, and Communications
Review of the literature and secondary research
According the University of Wisconsin Extension Service (2005), the general objective
of any neighborhood organization should be to improve living conditions for all
neighbors in a given geographical area and the community in general. The goal of a block
club is usually:




To improve the physical and moral environment of the neighborhood
To eliminate nuisances or unwholesome influences in the neighborhood
To cooperate with various City departments and other agencies in improving
health, safety, physical, economic, and cultural standards of residents.
To develop a spirit of cooperation and social interaction among the residents.
In an article titled, “Can Block Clubs Block Despair?,” the writer outlines research
findings from studies in lower-income neighborhoods, which show that strong social
interactions among neighbors “and the degree to which they foster a shared capacity to
solve problems and enforce collective norms,” have a powerful effect on community
violence and even the likelihood that a neighborhood would remain poor (Press, 2007).
In an experiment in Chicago in the mid-1990s, surveyors studied 343 "neighborhood
clusters" (geographically contiguous tracts consisting of roughly 8,000 people each) by
interviewing thousands of residents. Researchers were trying to measure the level of
"social cohesion and trust" and the level of “informal social control” in the community.
Surveyors asked residents to respond to a series of statements related to how much they
felt neighbors were willing to help neighbors, how much they believed people in the
neighborhood could be trusted, how likely they thought their neighbors might intervene if
a fight broke out, or if they saw someone spray-painting graffiti (Press, 2007).
The researchers also drove around the city in vans equipped with video cameras to
observe street life in the various neighborhoods. They found that:
Throughout Chicago, the levels of violence and social disorder were markedly
lower in communities where the sense of social cohesion and shared expectations
about the willingness to intervene were higher -- qualities that, taken together,
constituted something the designers of the experiment called "collective efficacy"
(Press, 2007).
Peter St. Jean, author of Pockets of Crime, studied the Grand Boulevard neighborhood on
the South Side of Chicago. He said that collective efficacy becomes necessary, when
situations are not dealt with.
It's usually when a block or community is under challenge and when public
authorities haven't dealt with things. Garbage doesn't get picked up, resources are
17
missing, and people are unsafe. So people are forced to organize, collectively
(Press, 2007).
According to Ohmer and Beck (2006), collective efficacy is a term used to describe
residents’ perceptions regarding their ability to work with their neighbors to intervene in
neighborhood issues to maintain social control and solve problems.
The authors also found that the more residents who were involved in various activities
and functions of their neighborhood organization, the greater their perception of their
neighborhood organizations’ collective ability to solve neighborhood problems, and get
people in the neighborhood to know one another and work together (Ohmer and Beck,
2006).
This is important, because residents’ perceptions of their collective abilities influence
how they choose to deal with difficult problems, how much effort they exert, and how
long they stick with their efforts when they fail to produced intended results. If the
residents perceive themselves positively and their own organization positively, then they
will be more positive about their “neighborhood’s capacity to intervene in support of
neighborhood social control and vice-versa” (Ohmer and Beck, 2006).
The results of these studies demonstrate the importance of engaging residents in local
neighborhood organizations to help them develop the confidence that they can address
difficult neighborhood problems through organized collective action.
By building leadership, using community organizing to engage residents and key external
resources, and fostering collaboration among community organizations, community
leaders can help facilitate strong neighborhood organizations and build community
capacity. One way to do this is for neighborhood organizations to sponsor block-level
activities, like block club groups, crime watch groups, and projects which help residents
turn vacant lots into community gardens (Ohmer and Beck, 2006).
In yet another study of tenant associations, researchers found that social ties among
residents are very important in identifying levels of participation. “Those with ties are
about 140% more likely to attend a tenant association meeting than those with no ties.”
Further, they found that those that lived in their residencies that longest, were also move
involved. They also found that income levels are not important, but education is. In
addition, the presence of children in the household actually increases instead of decreases
tenant association participation, because having children leads to social ties and increases
global participation (Guest, Cover, Matsueda, Kubrin, 2006). The authors’ state:
Tenants who are more participatory are more likely to have grievances, to have a
sense of their own power, to have lived for a long time in their current
neighborhood, and to have social ties to others. But the evidence indicates that
being resource-poor does not constrain one’s willingness or ability to participate
in tenant associations. Rather the picture is one of a resource-poor population in
which grievances, efficacy, and attachments stimulate participation and
involvement in civic life generally.
18
Additionally, they found that almost 20 percent of tenants in the present study attended a
tenant organization meeting in the last 12 months. The fact that one in five tenants
participates suggests that public housing is a fertile ground for even more participation.
Organizers could increase participation in a specific civic organization like a tenant
association by increasing people’s overall tendency to be more involved in their
community. Three factors in the authors’ analysis point out why: grievances, efficacy and
education (Guest, et. al, 2006).
To heighten grievances, the authors suggest raising awareness of issues through public
meetings that provide tenants with information about and contacts with organizations in
the local community. This would also increase social ties and enhance participation.
Local authorities and organizers could also increase tenants’ participation rates by
empowering tenants through a sense of efficacy and education. Efficacy could be
increased by small successes, and educational could give people the skills, knowledge,
and confidence they need to express themselves in public. The authors said that people
with low levels of education could be recruited as tenant leaders (Guest, et. al, 2006).
Finally, organizers should help tenants create more social ties by creating spaces,
situations, and activities that allow tenants to interact with one another. Such facilitation
may be most important for tenants without children given that the presence of children
already is conducive to the formation of social networks (Guest, et. al, 2006).
In addition to families with children, the elderly can also benefit from participating in
tenant associations and watch programs. In a study of urban crime and the elderly, Clark
found that most of the offenses that are committed against the elderly fall into three major
categories: personal crimes of violence (rape, robbery, and assault), personal crimes of
theft, and household crimes (burglary, household larceny, and motor vehicle theft)
(Clark, Adler and Adler, 1983).
Being afraid of victimization ranks high on the list of concerns by the aged population,
together with worries about their failing health and their financial security. It is suggested
that in order to alleviate the fear of crime, programs should be integrated to deal with
both crime prevention and victim assistance. This would help eliminate the need for
restriction of the elderly’s day and evening routines with avoidance behavior. By
publicizing means of avoiding victimization, the self-confidence of the elderly could be
increased or restored. Clark notes that self-help groups, block clubs, informing neighbors
of crime-prevention activities, involving communities in advocacy, and transportation
and home security assistance programs also should be considered (Clark, et. al, 1983).
There are many seniors who liver in Cedar-Riverside in public housing highrises.
Defensible Space contends that the larger the number of people who share a communal
space, the more difficult it is for people to identify it as being in any way theirs or to feel
they have a right to control or determine the activity taking place within it. Thus,
Defensible Space operates by subdividing large portions of public spaces and assigning
them to individuals and small groups to use and control as their own private areas. An
example of this could include assigning “ownership” of a hallway to a few renters in a
high-rise apartment (Town, 2005).
19
Additional effective organizing strategies can be found in business watch programs.
Business groups and police departments from Burnsville, Minnesota to Kalispell,
Montana, and Detroit to Seattle have created business watch programs to deter and detect
crimes and diminish opportunities for crime. In business watch areas, crime prevention
police officers and business leaders assist business owners, operators, and employees in
reporting crime, marking all equipment with traceable identification, preventing robberies
by eliminating "easy prey" crime opportunities, preventing burglaries by adding security
measures and communicating with police, and learning to recognize dangerous situations
(National Crime Prevention Council, 1995).
Business watch programs typically link a business leader with a police liaison and use a
communication tree (e-mail alerts, faxes, or walkie talkies) to alert other business owners.
Many local police departments have documented significant reductions in reported crime
where neighborhood or business watch programs are instituted. Burglary rates in Seattle,
Washington, were cut in half, substantial reductions were realized in both violent crimes
against persons and property crimes in St. Louis, Missouri, and the Detroit police have
documented lower crime rates in business watch areas (National Crime Prevention
Council, 1995).
Finally, Mcknight and Kretzmann, in their research of low-income neighborhoods, found
that those communities that approached their work through an asset-based rather than a
deficit-based approach could address many neighborhood concerns (Kretzmann and
McKnight, 1996).
In West Garfield Park in Chicago in the mid-1990s, Bethel Lutheran Church used an
assets-based, grassroots approach to completely turn around a rapidly deteriorating
neighborhood with high crime rates. Bethel New Life organizers started with a volunteerled program to turn around its housing stock and ended up expanding to economic
redevelopment, health care programs, programs for seniors, and social action programs
against crime. Bethel brought together a number of coalitions and worked in partnership
with 13 core groups. In John McKnight's terms, the effort arises out of the "gifts and
capacities" of the community itself, and the control, management, and benefits of the
effort stay in the community (Flower, 1996).
According to Mary Nelson, Bethel Lutheran Church organizer, the information that
Bethel needs to decide what the community needs is not scarce. It is all around them.
Usually there is little necessity to do further research to establish a specific need for a
specific program. More often it is a question of doing something about a problem that is
glaringly obvious and has been for years.
This neighborhood is a live being, it takes all of us to make it work. Folks in the
neighborhood may not say things the right way. When you start really interacting
with people who are living with it every day, the first thing you're going to get is a
lot of negativism You have to be tough enough to live through that, then pose
some possibilities and opportunities. I’m action-oriented, I don't pause enough to
listen. It’s when you start hearing things coming through in different words that
20
you know people are really interested in it. They're telling you, ‘We gotta do
something about this’ (Flower, 1996).
That’s how Bethel evolved,” says Nelson, “but it doesn't have to take that long. I
tell people to just start somewhere. The next steps will come. The evolution will
happen. If you try to be global and wait until you can do everything at once, you
can end up waiting too long (Flower, 1996).
Closer to home, the Lyndale Neighborhood Association in Minneapolis also built a
strong network of block clubs to turn the neighborhood around in the 1990s and received
national attention for its efforts (Neighborhood Funders Group, 1998). The Lyndale
Neighborhood Association made the transition from a crime-infested, transient
community to one of the most diverse and vibrant neighborhoods in the city due to the
work of hundreds of resident volunteers. Following dramatic staffing cuts at the Lyndale
Neighborhood Association, the organization was formed to depend on the talents and
abilities of volunteers, who worked to form 48 block clubs in the neighborhood. LNA's
organizing approach emphasizes strengthening relationships among neighbors, finding
common interests, and developing mutually supportive skills and needs, and then
building on these relationships to shape how problems get solved. Residents who work
with LNA choose to be involved in every aspect of the systems that provide them with
services. In this way, they are employing grassroots strategies to solving their
neighborhood problems.
When it comes to communicating regarding crime and block clubs it is important for the
police and block clubs to work together to get important messages out about criminal
activity. In an article about forming effective community and police partnerships, the
authors write:
Communication among a high percentage of the group’s members is
considered a sign of a healthy "interorganizational network," where all
participants are linked to one another. Long-standing coalitions are
characterized by frequent meetings with high attendance and good channels of
internal communication (Rosenbaum, 2002).
A case study shows how improving police relationships in a neighborhood helped
increase the amount of calls to 911 and decrease crime (Beatty, 1996). In Buffalo, New
York, on Jefferson Avenue, is a business district that was beset with drug trafficking,
gang activity, drive-by shootings, and other crimes. The business district consisted of a
two-mile strip of businesses that were surrounded by residential housing, schools, and
churches. The business district was run down, full of trash and graffiti. There was a lack
of community interest, few calls to police over concerns, a lack of city services, and a
lack of community hope. Crime victims consisted of business owners and residents from
the surrounding area.
Officers were frustrated by business owners who did not help solve problems in the area,
but they soon learned that business owners were afraid. So the officers began meeting
one on one with the business owners to slowly develop trusting relationships. Once these
were developed, the officers maintained high visibility, strict enforcement and improved
21
communication in the area by making themselves available to those business owners and
community residents. In addition, 13 officers volunteered to walk the beat in the area and
respond to all calls (Beatty, 1996).
Officers also were frustrated by business owner who did not secure their businesses or
clean up around their businesses. They told owners not to wait for city services. One
business owner stepped forward to start a clean-up committee. With the assistance of the
Community Police Officer assigned to the neighborhood the committee grew to more
than 100 people (Beatty, 1996).
Donations of paint and cleaning supplies were accepted from many of the larger
businesses outside of the area. The Mayor's Impact Team assisted in boarding up
buildings, assisted in building inspections and conducted heavy trash pick-ups in the area.
A city government council member living in the neighborhood became involved and
helped secure clean-up supplies and assisted in proving information to community
members of available city services. The formulation of a Community Prosecution Unit, to
address problems with community nuisance complaints assisted officers in obtaining
Orders of Protection to keep persons away from area after arrest were made (Beatty,
1996).
After the community started their initiative, the results were amazing. An arts festival
returned to the area, new businesses began moving in, the Common Council gave more
attention to the area by bringing in increased city services from departments like Streets
and Sanitation, the number of calls for police service increased by 50%, approximately a
dozen block clubs have been established in the neighborhoods surrounding the target area
(Beatty, 1996).
The level of Police Officer involvement in the project has grown too. Officers have
increased their number of arrests and feel more confident when leaving the area for the
arrest booking process. The community has expressed satisfaction through feedback at
block club meetings, letters of commendation and increased business owner contacts
(Beatty, 1996).
There are a number of ways that block clubs members and police effectively
communicate. Some groups have seen success in using e-mail alerts and in forming
“virtual block clubs.” In the 13th District, Bucktown near Humboldt Park, Chicago,
officers are taking the email alert to a higher level. Members of a new "virtual" block
club receive by email information that they used to get only by attending beat meetings.
Monthly email updates include neighborhood crime statistics, organizing information,
and even news of special meetings like an upcoming conference on youth obesity
(Hermann, 2007).
The above research would suggest block club and watch group strategies that include
opportunities for residents in the high-rises to get to know one another through formal
and informal organizing activities that allow them to build social ties, to pay special
attention to parents with children and the elderly in helping to mobilize tenants, to raise
awareness of community issues and concerns, to empower people to act through
education and cooperation with local police about how to deal effectively with
22
grievances, to work through tenant associations and religious organizations to organize
block club activities and efforts on a grassroots level, and to communicate often, through
a variety of vehicles, and especially between police, community liaisons, residents, and
business owners.
What is currently happening in Cedar-Riverside
The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood is diverse and spread out. There are some
neighborhood block clubs, watch groups, and communications strategies in place, but
these efforts vary and there are few linkages among neighborhood organizers. The
neighborhood is not fully capitalizing on the horizontal relationships that would be
necessary to ensure full block club participation and communication among all groups. In
addition, a variety of cultural and communication differences between various groups, the
City of Minneapolis, and the Minneapolis Police Department can make it more difficult
to carry out effective block group organizing. Although successful block clubs have
formed in areas of the neighborhood where home-ownership is more prevalent, efforts to
form block clubs and watch groups in low-income areas and among business owners,
have been slower.
One effort that has received attention and an award from the City of Minneapolis is The
Cedars Project Lookout Group, which is active at the four Cedars high-rises. The group
consists of some 18 Somali-speaking elders who patrol the area in and around the
buildings. Neighbors say alcohol consumption, fights, and assaults have been reduced
significantly on the grounds of the housing complex. Working with Minneapolis Police
and other groups, volunteers have learned the importance of documenting security
problems and calling 911 when needed. The group also organizes the block’s annual
National Night Out block party (City of Minneapolis, 2007).
According to Dorothy Shelby (2008), Project Lookout coordinator, volunteers also wear
T-shirts that identify them as Project Lookout volunteers, carry Walkie talkies, and use
codes to alert one another of issues inside and outside the buildings. They staff a desk at
the entrances of the buildings, ask of identification from entrants, document trespassers,
and call 911. Shelby said that having the elders involved in this program does help to
reduce their fear of crime. The group holds monthly meetings, where they communicate
progress and invite CCP/Safe liaisons to provide updates and statistics regarding
neighborhood crime and safety.
In a meeting with Luther Krueger (2008), CCP/Safe Community Police Officer for
Cedar-Riverside, he identified several strategies for engaging business owners, business
renters, and residents in helping to deter crime. These include encouraging people to fill
out Community Impact Statements, join the First Precinct’s Virtual Block Club, get one
or two safety committee members to attend the quarterly meetings of the Minneapolis
Police Department, make improvements to businesses based on premise surveys,
continue knocking on doors until everyone has answered when forming block clubs, and
form networks floor by floor within the high-rises.
23
Best practices
Based on the above research and information on the Cedar-Riverside activities, the
following best practices were developed.
Best practices in forming block clubs:
1. When seeking to build a block club in a high-rise, organize floor by floor and
watch common areas.
2. Involve families with young children, the elderly, and those in isolation. Don’t
just go for “model citizens.” Encourage everyone to be involved.
3. Elderly need to feel empowered to feel safe. Parents with young children are
typically active, if child care is available.
4. Allow block clubs to “spring into action” over an issue or situation. Out of
grievances comes action and self-confidence when residents experience success.
5. Partner with religious institutions to develop block clubs and activities.
Best practices for communicating:
1. Communicate often and in a variety of ways.
2. Communicate good news, bad news and facts. Good news celebrates successes
and builds collective efficacy. Bad news allows people to take action. Facts keep
people informed of what is actually happening in their neighborhoods.
3. Use a variety of communication tools, including “virtual” block clubs,
newsletters, fliers, community newspapers, Website, and radio stations.
Resources:
Below is a list of references used for culling information to develop the best practices
above.
1. http://www.ncpc.org/publications/available-online/neighborhoodwatch/nwatch.pdf
2. http://www.ncpc.org/publications/available-online/neighborhood-watch/orgz.pdf
3. http://www.michaelherman.com/cgi/wiki.cgi?action=browse&diff=1&id=Commu
nityPolicing
4. http://kenosha.uwex.edu/cnred/documents/Formingablockclub.pdf
5. http://www.pnn.org/index.htm
6. http://www.center4neighborhoods.org/mcn/topicMaster.cfm?TopicID=35
Recommendations
Block club and watch group recommendations for Cedar-Riverside
1. Schedule a meeting between representatives of the Project Lookout program, the
Riverside Tenants Association and Ahmed Hassan to share ideas and to possibly
start a Project Lookout program or block clubs at the Riverside Towers.
24
2. Work with Ahmed Hassan to network through the mosques to get the word out
about forming block clubs. Ask for volunteers who would go door-to-door in the
various housing units.
3. Work with CRBA to develop business watch clubs.
4. Hold monthly block club meetings with block club leaders around CedarRiverside; and encourage representation at the NRP Safety Committee.
5. Plan monthly walks.
6. Hold annual celebration for all “safety-related” volunteers: Project Lookout,
Block Clubs, Business Watch groups.
Communication recommendations for Cedar-Riverside
1. Develop e-mail lists in cooperation with Luther Krueger’s office to keep block
club leaders and residents informed.
2. Encourage neighbors to notify each other and the proper authorities—right
away—when they see something (a crime, graffiti, a broken store window, etc.)
3. Develop a “safety-related” web page for Cedar-Riverside.
4. Encourage communication in the local newspaper (columns, letters to the editor).
5. Develop a relationship with KFAI radio station to broadcast important news
regarding block clubs, national night out and other events, as well as crime alerts.
Budget recommendations for Cedar-Riverside NRP dollars
Total to spend = $500 NRP dollars
In kind donations:
1. T-shirts for block club organizers, get printing donated.
2. Get block clubs leaders cell phones donated.
3. Get prizes donated for annual block club events to recognize community leaders,
residents and business owners.
4. Develop a safety-related web page for updates on Cedar-Riverside.
25
C. Overview of Policing Methods and their Impact on Crime Prevention
Traditional or Standard Model of Policing
A Brief History
What is now considered the traditional or standard model of policing arose out of reforms
that sought to raise the level of professionalism and objectivity of police officers in the
United States (Greene 2000). Prior to a standardization of process, procedure, and
training, the level of professionalism and parochialism of the police force varied among
states, cities, and neighborhoods. Police officers often were connected directly to the
community in which they worked, enabling them to get to know the members of that
community and develop personal knowledge of the potential crime issues it faced.
However, the close connection to the community also often represented a close
connection to a partisan political factions (Walker 1977). This political partisanship,
along with the lack of professional training led to widespread favoritism, or outright
corruption, in how the law was applied and opened the door for familiar ties or coercion
to compromise the objectivity of the police force (Walker 1977). To combat what was
understood as the root problem of a lack of professionalism, a standardized model of
policing was developed to raise the professionalism and level of service of police officers
nationwide (Walker 1977). By creating standard criminal procedures, an individual
officer’s connection to a community would have less room to influence his or her
willingness to enforce the law. An objective police force was sought, and an emphasis
was placed on separating the police from personal or community politics and on holding
them accountable to the law as they carried out their work (Greene 2000).
Strategies of the Standard Model
The standard model that developed placed an emphasis on law enforcement as the main
focus of police agencies and has relied upon five primary strategies: 1) increasing the
number of police officers and size of police agencies, 2) randomly patrolling all areas of a
police jurisdiction, 3) rapidly responding to calls from the public for service, 4)
employing standard procedures for following up with investigations, and 5) applying
general pressure to comply with the law through a focus on enforcement and arrest for
non-compliance (Weisburd and Eck 2004). The focus of the police under this
standardized model is on serious crime, such as assaults, murder, rape, or robbery, rather
than on general disorder or incivility (Greene 2000). When the incidence of crime
increases, the main strategies of this model to curb that rise in crime is to increase the
police presence in a community by placing more officers on the street, to reduce the
response time to calls for service in the hopes of catching criminals in the act, and to
more aggressively enforce the law, raising the stakes for criminals intent on breaking the
law (Weisburd and Eck 2004; Greene 2000).
Effectiveness of the Standard Model
The standard or traditional model of policing has been criticized on two fronts. First, that
it has removed police too far from the communities in which they serve and strained the
relationships with those communities. The second criticism is that the methods used by
the standard policing model are effective at enforcing the law but not necessarily
26
effective at preventing crime in the first place. The aim of early reformers in distancing
the police force from the community was a good one. It was to reduce the incidence of
favoritism. Yet in carrying out that aim, police agencies may have become too inward
focused on procedures and methodology, shutting out the public in that process (Greene
2000). With a nearly singular focus on serious crime and an enforcement-only strategy,
the standard model also may foster a sense of isolation from the community as the
primary concern becomes responding to danger, maintaining authority, and creating
institutional efficiency (Green 2000).
In looking at the success of the standard model in addressing crime, its effectiveness
depends, of course, on how success is defined. Success in this model of policing is
oftentimes measured by the number of police units available at a given time or the
amount of time it takes to respond to calls for service. Yet in measuring success in these
terms, police agencies are measuring their effort in responding to crime, not a reduction
in the actual incidence of crime (Weisburd and Eck 2004; Greene 2000).
When success is defined in terms of reducing crime, the standard model of policing has
been challenged as largely ineffective in actually preventing crime (Weisburd and Eck
2004). Evaluations looking at the effectiveness of increasing the number of police
officers on the street have returned mixed results, largely because an increase in the size
of a police force is often a result of other organizational or tactical changes and
separating the effects of these different strategies can be difficult (Weisburd and Eck
2004). However, according to a recent review of the literature, “most studies have
concluded that variations in police strength over time do not affect the crime rate”
(Weisburd and Eck 2004). Of course, it takes officers on the street to address issues of
crime and public safety but it may be more important what those officers are doing while
they’re on duty than how many of them there are.
The best studies looking at the impact of randomized patrols in reducing crime are over
25 years old. They did demonstrate that such patrols have a positive impact on reducing
crime (Weisburd and Eck 2004). A more recent study looking to evaluate that impact,
found that random patrols do not decrease the occurrence of crime but it has been
suggested that this study has methodological flaws that call this finding into question
(Weisburd and Eck 2004). With the mixed results, there is a need to undertake more
rigorous evaluations of the impact of randomized patrols on the crime rate to understand
its overall impact. It’s possible that the effectiveness of change from fixed to randomized
patrol routes prompted by early reform has been negatively impacted by changes in
population density, demographics, or crime patterns occurring in the last 25 years.
Studies evaluating a rapid response from police have demonstrated that this focus of the
standard model is also not likely to deter crime, primarily because the majority of crimes
are discovered after they have been committed (Kansas City Police Department 1977 and
Spelman and Brown 1981 qtd. in Weisburd and Eck 2004). For the minority of crimes
where the perpetrator and victim have some contact, delays in calling the police on the
part of the victim or witnesses often effectively reduce the effect of a faster response time
on the part of the police (Weisburd and Eck 2004). A fast police response does serve to
27
maintain the integrity of a crime scene, however, and increase the likelihood of gathering
uncompromised evidence.
An extension of the standard police method that has become popular recently is “zero
tolerance policing” or “broken windows policing,” taken from the “Broken Windows”
theory put forth in 1982 by Wilson and Kelling (Eck and Maguire 2000). The Broken
Windows theory suggests that unchecked disorder, such as simple things as broken
windows left unrepaired, indicate a lack of care in a community and an invitation to
greater disorder (Eck and Maguire 2000). When used a policing philosophy, tough
enforcement of minor crimes, such as traffic violations or urinating in public, is used as
an attempt to address general disorderliness and reduce the incidence of more serious
crimes within a community (Eck 2004). An early evaluation of this strategy found that in
seven cities where this method was tested, no evidence of a reduction in disorder was
found (Skogen 1990, 1992 qtd. in Weisburd and Eck 2004). New York City adopted a
broken windows strategy in 1993 under former Police Commissioner William Bratton.
Recent evidence linking the dramatic fall in crime rate in New York City to this policing
strategy has been challenged, however, because of the confounding impact of other
organizational changes, such as the implementation of the COMPSTAT system, which
employs elements of both hot-spot and problem-oriented policing (to be discussed later),
making it difficult to attribute the drop in crime to a zero tolerance style of policing alone
(Eck and Maguire, 2000). Others have noted that the rate of serious crime was already in
decline when Commissioner Bratton implemented the broken windows method (Karmen
1996 and Muwakkil 1997 qtd. in Eck and Maguire 2000). While broken windows
policing and the COMPSTAT system may have contributed to a faster decline in crime,
they cannot be credited for the overall decline itself (Eck and Maguire 2000). A positive
element the broken windows metaphor has added is a reduced distinction between “soft”
crimes, that represent more quality of life issues including cars parked where they
shouldn’t be, public drinking, petty theft, or vandalism and “hard” crimes, such as
burglaries and assaults (Thacher 2001). In the past, a hard distinction has often been
made between these two aspects of public safety, leaving communities to address soft
crime issues and police forces to address hard crime (Thacher 2001). With an increased
understanding of how minor crimes may contribute to the presence of more serious
criminal activity, an avenue for increased cooperation between communities and the
police has developed.
Crackdowns are another specific strategy of the standard policing method, one which
employs intense police presence and pressure to reduce a particular problem in a
particular place, such as drug dealing, prostitution, or robberies. The crackdown is carried
out over a limited time basis, and has been shown to reduce crime on a short-term basis
(Sherman 1990 qtd. in Weisburd and Eck 2004). However, there are concerns that within
both crackdown and zero-tolerance strategies, if implemented too aggressively or without
community support, there lies a potential for alienating the community and undermining
its support in assisting with crime prevention efforts over the long term (Greene 2000).
Crackdowns have been conducted with community support in some instances (Thacher
2001) and can be one effective method in quelling acute crime in the short term, but
28
without combining this method with other, more long-term policing methods, it is
unlikely the reduction in crime will be sustained.
Community-Oriented Policing Methods
Background
As a result of evaluations demonstrating a need to reach beyond the scope of traditional
policing methods to prevent criminal activity, as well as sociopolitical events that
highlighted a distancing of the police from many segments of the larger public in the
1960s and 1970s, a greater emphasis began to be placed on building stronger relations
between police officers and agencies and the broader community. Two influential books,
Jane Jacobs The Life and Death of Great American Cities, published in 1961, and Oscar
Newman’s Defensible Space in 1971, also highlighted the role communities can play in
crime prevention efforts. One scholar notes the influence of these publications, saying
that conventionally dating from the release of these publications, “community crime
prevention has included efforts to control crime by altering building and neighborhood
design to increase natural surveillance and guardianship, by improving the physical
appearance of areas, by organizing community residents to take preventive actions and
solicit additional political and material resources, and by organizing self-conscious
community crime prevention strategies such as recreational programs for children”
(Tonry and Farrington 1995). In more recent years, community crime prevention efforts
have developed into a more comprehensive model of policing, known as communityoriented policing. With the rise in crime, particularly violent crime, in the 1980’s and
early 1990’s, alternative methods of policing became a focus as a way to try to prevent
crime proactively. One of the main alternative policing strategies has been communityoriented policing. Community-oriented policing received a large push in 1994 with the
passage of the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act” that included a major
funding emphasis on crime prevention, particularly through the use of strategies aimed at
building collaborations between the police and communities and by placing 100,000
additional community police officers on local streets (Tonry and Farrington 1995; Greene
2000).
Strategies of Community-Oriented Policing
There is no single definition of community-oriented policing, and scholars debate the
various dimensions that are included within this model (Eck and Rosenbaum 1994 and
Green and Mastrofski 1988 qtd. in Weisburd and Eck 2004; Maguire and Mastrofski
2000). However, according to the most recent review of community policing literature, a
principal assumption of community policing is that there is a broader array of resources
available to police as they carry out their policing function than is found in the traditional
emphasis on police officers’ law enforcement powers (Weisburd and Eck 2004). Greater
community involvement in defining crime problems and in the prevention and control of
those crimes is one common aspect of community-oriented policing (Goldstein 1990,
Skolnick and Bayley 1986, Weisburd, McElroy, and Hardyman 1988 qtd. in Weisburd
and Eck 2004). Another theme is that law enforcement can be more proactive, sensitive
to the community, and focused in treating crime problems (Greene 2000) and a law
enforcement strategy and philosophy that incorporates forging partnerships with the
29
broader community to address crime related problems (MacDonald 2002). Because of its
collaborative nature and focus on locally targeted initiatives in crime prevention and
control, the range of strategies employed under the model of community-oriented
policing is particularly diverse. Partnerships can be very broad and informal or very
narrow and formal. One such survey, the Community Policing Information Worksheets,
administered through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Strategies, identifies 49
distinct activities included among community-oriented policing efforts (Maguire and
Mastrofsky 2000). While some of these might be more appropriately identified as
strategies of organizational restructuring, problem-oriented policing, or targeted policing,
their inclusion in the survey indicates an aim of connecting more fully with the
community through a variety of policing activities. A table listing each of the survey’s
activity categories, along with the percentage of police agencies participating in each
category in the three years between 1994 and 1997, follows.
Agencies
Participating
(%)
Type of Community Policing Activity
Youth Programs (e.g. in-school, after school,
weekend police/youth programs)
54.8
Antidrug Programs
66.0
Regular Meetings with Community to Discuss
Crime
50.8
Antiviolence Programs
27.8
Identifying Crime Problems with Members of the
Community and Other Governmental Agencies
(e.g. prosecutor and courts, social services,
probation officers)
65.2
Identifying Crime Problems by Looking at Crime
Trends (e.g. keeping records of crimes and the
types of requests for help)
66.5
Identifying Top Problems by Analyzing Repeat
Calls for Service
57.4
Preventing Crime by Focusing on Conditions that
Lead to Crime (e.g. abandoned buildings and cars,
referrals to other civil agencies)
57.1
Building on Information Systems to Enhance
Crime Analysis Capabilities
31.0
30
Regularly Surveying Community Members to
Assist in Identifying and Prioritizing Crime
Problems
41.1
Locating Office or Stations within Neighborhoods
31.9
Providing Community Policing Trainings to
Citizens
Meeting with Community Members to Learn More
about the Nature of Specific Problems
25.2
61.4
Involving Community Members in Selecting
Responses to Problems and Determining Measures
of Success
34.7
Have Written Strategic Plan for Community
Policing
20.4
Department Currently Designates Special Unit (or
a special officer) for Community Policing
Activities
42.1
Department Promotes Agency-Wide Approach to
Community Policing
55.1
Personnel are Given Responsibility for Geographic
Areas
51.0
Call Management Systems are in place to Free
Officer Time for Community Policing (i.e.
telephone reporting, alternative responses, etc)
28.8
Personnel Evaluations Reward Participation in
Collaborative Problem-Solving Efforts
27.0
Decision-Making has been Decentralized
45.8
Management Positions have been Eliminated
19.4
Community Policing Concepts have been
Integrated into Agency's Mission Statement
36.3
Community Policing Concepts have been
Integrated into Departmental Policies and
Procedures
31
36.8
Detectives have been Integrated into Community
Policing Efforts
31.9
Department Staff Routinely Collaborate with other
Municipal Agencies to Address Problems
73.5
Consulted with other Government Agencies (e.g.
probation office, sanitation) to
Address Crime and Disorder
80.3
Consulted with Civic Groups to Address Crime
and Disorder
60.6
Consulted with Neighborhood Associations to
Address Crime and Disorder
53.9
Consulted with Tenant's Association to Address
Crime and Disorder
30.8
Consulted with Organizations of your Employees,
including Collective Bargaining
Groups, to Address Crime and Disorder
35.0
Consulted with Business Groups to Address Crime
and Disorder
58.6
Consulted with Religious Groups to Address
Crime and Disorder
47.4
Consulted with Schools to Address Crime and
Disorder
75.3
Neighborhood Watch
53.8
Citizen Volunteer Program
35.5
Citizen Advisory Groups to your Law Enforcement
Agency
25.7
Citizen Patrols within your Community
19.5
Citizens Participate in Antidrug or Antiviolence
Programs
32
51.7
53.7
Patrol Officers Participate in Foot Patrol, Bicycle
Patrol, or Mounted Patrol
Patrol Officers Make Door-to-Door Contact with
Citizens and Businesses
54.5
Patrol Officers Meet with Community Leaders and
Groups to Learn More about
Crime Problems and Jointly Develop Crime
Prevention Plans
53.1
Patrol Officers use Business Cards, Cellular
Phones, or Beepers to Maintain Contact with, and
be Contacted by, Citizens Regarding Public Safety
Concerns
54.1
Patrol Officers Work in Schools or other Public
Agencies to Teach Crime Prevention
65.6
Patrol Officers Work with Citizens to Identify and
Address Community Crime Problems
59.8
Patrol Officers use Computer Systems to Collect
and Analyze Information, Particularly Repeat Calls
for Service
45.2
Patrol Officers Coordinate Specific ProblemSolving Projects to Address Problems on their
Beats
35.5
Patrol Officers work with Other Public Agencies to
Solve Disorder Problems (e.g. trash collection,
public works agencies to solve lighting problems,
etc.)
62.4
Patrol Officers Map Crime Problems
29.3
Effectiveness of Community-Oriented Policing Strategies
Despite its widespread popularity and increased funding after 1994, there is evidence that
police agencies have struggled in fully implementing community-oriented policing
strategies. This could be due, among other reasons, to the wide range of approaches that
fall under the community policing rubric, the fundamental change in policing strategy
that it represents, or the difference in skill set required in implementing community
policing strategies over traditional strategies. In one evaluation of the impact of
community policing on the nature and function of the police, it was noted that the
33
community policing model “suggests that the range of police goals is greatly expanded
from crime control to reducing fear of crime, improving social relationships and social
order, and bettering community quality of life- i.e., people’s sense of well-being in any
particular neighborhood or business setting. These are large tasks for the police, and they
require a very different set of officer skills, especially communication and interaction
skills” (Greene 2000). Another evaluation carried out in 2002 found that “adopting a
community policing plan and providing the training to officers in community and
problem-solving methods is not enough. Realistically, today most urban police
departments operate in a similar manner as they did before the passage of the 1994 Crime
Act” (MacDonald 2002). Even the survey results above indicate that a minority of police
agencies have community policing principles written into their policies and procedures
(36.8%) or the agency’s mission statement (36.3%), reward individual officers for
collaborative problem-solving efforts in their performance evaluations (27.0%), or have a
written strategic plan for community policing (20.4%). While a majority of police
agencies are participating in community meetings and collaborative efforts across other
law enforcement or social service agencies, without solidifying these collaborative efforts
in their internal processes and procedures, full implementation of community policing
strategies is unlikely.
This lack of full implementation may impact the effect of community policing efforts on
crime prevention. Nonetheless, reviews of many of these strategies have demonstrated a
lack of effectiveness at preventing crime. Evaluations of community meetings,
neighborhood watch groups, newsletters, and storefront police offices have not been
shown to effectively reduce crime, although they have been shown to reduce the
community perception of disorder (Weisburd and Eck 2004). A reduction in the
perception and fear of crime within a community appears to be the most consistent
impact of community-oriented policing efforts. When programs are focused on increasing
the amount of police- community interaction, fear of crime among individuals and the
overall level of concern about crime in a neighborhood is reduced (Weisburd and Eck
2004). When that police-community interaction is extended to the point of door-to-door
contact by police within a neighborhood, the level of crime actually does drop (Weisburd
and Eck 2004). Outside of that individual contact, however, a recent review of
community-oriented policing literature has found that “while the evidence available does
not allow for definitive conclusions regarding community policing strategies, we do not
find consistent evidence that community policing (when it is implemented without
problem-oriented policing) affects either crime or disorder. However, the research
available suggests that when the police partner more generally with the public, levels of
citizen fear will decline. Moreover, growing evidence demonstrates that when the police
are able to gain wider legitimacy among citizens and offenders, the likelihood of
offending will be reduced (Weisburd and Eck 2004).” Community-oriented policing
strategies, then, may be better seen in terms of an effort to relate more effectively to a
community rather than one to reduce its level of crime, unless combined with other crime
prevention strategies. When combined with other strategies, though, the effectiveness of
community-oriented policing can be seen in having laid a foundation of interaction
between the community and police force, allowing other crime prevention strategies to
34
build upon that foundation and perhaps find an increased level of effectiveness as a
result.
Problem-Oriented Policing and Hot-Spots Policing
Background
Two crime prevention strategies that have recently been added to police agencies’
toolbox for preventing crime are problem-oriented and hot-spots policing. These
strategies have developed as the result of technological advances, theoretical reevaluation of policing strategies, and empirical evidence evaluating the effectiveness of
policing methods over the past two decades (Weisburd and Eck 2004). Both are showing
promise in preventing crime, fear, and disorder in neighborhoods.
Methods
Problem-oriented policing moves beyond standard policing strategies in both focus and
the tools used. It defies the one-size-fits-all policing that characterizes the standard model
and calls, instead, for police to focus on specific problems within their jurisdiction and
create a comprehensive approach to addressing those problems (Weisburd and Eck 2004).
It also calls for police to look beyond their traditional law enforcement role to other
methods of addressing the situation either internally or in collaboration with community,
social service, or government agency resources (Weisburd and Eck 2004). This method
overlaps somewhat with community-oriented policing strategies, since oftentimes
community members are involved in defining the problem and thinking through
strategies to address it (Greene 2000) but it moves beyond it in that the focus is on
addressing a problem, not on fostering a relationship (Eck and Maguire 2000).
Problem-oriented policing also moves police agencies beyond taking crime incidents on a
case-by-case basis and seeing crime patterns more comprehensively, trying to understand
the ways that one type of crime may play into other, more serious criminal activity, and
developing strategies to solve the root of the problem. While many successful police
officers and agencies may have employed this type of thinking in the past, the problemoriented policing model has helped formalize it as a strategic and proactive approach to
reducing crime. It has also broadened the traditional policing focus beyond just law
enforcement and yet still firmly places that role within their power, opening up
opportunities to focus on crime through a more open-ended, tailor-made approach. The
norms of problem-oriented policing also require constant evaluation of the effectiveness
of interventions and continual learning on the part of the police agency about best
practices and the impact of particular circumstances on police interventions (Greene
2000).
Hot-spots policing focuses on the geography of crime, mapping where criminal incidents
occur within a jurisdiction and focusing police efforts on the areas with either more
incidents overall or more serious criminal activity, recognizing that it is often a few
locations that create the majority of criminal problems in an area (Weisburd and Eck
2004; Greene 2000). The COMPSTAT system in New York, utilizes a sophisticated
mapping system to pinpoint where criminal activity is occurring, determining where
35
police interventions are focused and holding the agency accountable for the increased
efforts in that area. While some have criticized the COMSPTAT system as used in New
York for being too focused on zero-tolerance and crackdown methods to address hotspots (Eck and Maguire 2000), there is nothing inherent in a mapping system that
requires standard policing methods to address crime in hot-spots. Problem-oriented
policing methods can just as easily be used with a mapping system.
Effectiveness
An early assessment of new policing methods found that, “when police officers
concentrate on small-scale locales- for example, individual streets or apartment blocksand adopt a preventive, collaborative approach with local residents and officials from
other agencies, they may well be able to bring the level of disorder under control, even
when it is associated with drug sales (Hope 1994 qtd. in Tonry and Farrington 1995).”
The latest comprehensive assessment has shown similar findings. Hot-spots policing is
supported by a growing body a literature that suggests it provides increased police
effectiveness over crime and disorder (Weisburd and Eck 2004). Recent evaluations have
demonstrated problem-oriented policing methods as effective in addressing the fear of
crime, along with reducing the incidence of crime and disorder (Weisburd and Eck 2004).
While these methods are just beginning to take hold in many precincts across the nation,
they show promise as approaches that are effective in preventing and reducing the
incidence of crime.
Policing within the Cedar Riverside Neighborhood
MPD Policing Methods to Prevent Crime and Develop Relationships with the
Community
The Minneapolis Police Department has been influenced by recent evaluations of
problem-oriented policing and hot-spots policing, as well as by the reduction in crime
seen in New York City after the implementation of the COMPSTAT crime mapping
system and broken windows approach (Kruger 2008). The MPD makes use of methods
that fall into each of the four policing strategies reviewed. When it comes to communityoriented efforts, Minneapolis police officers attend community meetings with
neighborhood associations, safety groups, and businesses. They also attend block club
meetings and go door-to-door to develop relationships with residents in various areas of
the city (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008). According to one MPD lieutenant, the police
department sees community relationships as the foundation that allows the agency to
anticipate public safety concerns and treat the hot-spots of criminal activities more
effectively when they do arise (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008). To locate those hot
spots, the MPD uses the CODEFOR mapping system, a program similar to COMPSTAT,
to map out where criminal activity is occurring and focus more police resources in that
area. Although individual officers certainly understood the crime patterns within their
beats, the CODEFOR system allows the patterns to be recognized more effectively and
quantified for the entire agency and not just individuals (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite
2008). The mapping system also enables the police department to continually evaluate
the effectiveness of specific interventions and track how public safety problems develop
36
over time to assess the core issues that need to be addressed in order to curb them, a
practice consistent with problem-oriented policing (Kruger 2008).
Within the Cedar Riverside neighborhood, the MPD has attempted to build stronger
relationships with community organizations and residents to address both safety concerns
and concerns about the interaction between the police force and neighborhood residents.
The neighborhood has two community police officers that are available to neighborhood
residents, Luther Kruger and Ahmed Hassan. Hassan is Somali and having him work
within the neighborhood is an attempt to bridge the cultural and language divides that
exist as a result of the large immigrant population in the neighborhood, which is largely
Somali. Both Ahmed and Luther attend community meetings when asked, including the
various safety committee meetings, and a quarterly community meeting designed to
address safety concerns within the neighborhood (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008).
Kathy Waite, the lieutenant responsible for the precinct, also attends the quarterly
meetings and meets regularly with youth workers from the Brian Coyle Center to try to
address the needs of youth in the neighborhood (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008). She
has also met with the University of Minnesota’s Somali Youth Association to discuss
their concerns of racial profiling by police of Somali youth (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite
2008). Overall, the MPD tries to collaborate with the formal organizations within the
neighborhood, including businesses, social service and community centers, churches and
mosques, to provide information related to neighborhood safety and increase the positive
interaction between the police and community members (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite
2008). The MPD also tries to work through the Somali elders in addressing concerns to
try to retain the cultural hierarchy of communication and authority (Kruger, Hassan, and
Waite 2008).
The main difficulty that has been encountered in the neighborhood from the MPD
perspective has been a lack of participation in community meetings and hesitancy to
report suspicious activity. Flyers and brochures are distributed to organizations for further
distribution to residents and various door knocking efforts have been attempted but to this
point, participation in community meetings has remained low. Participation has increased
when a major crime incident has occurred in the neighborhood (Kruger, Hassan, and
Waite 2008). It is the hope of the MPD that more community members will attend
meetings to hear about crime and safety concerns and to give input on issues that are
important to them and sees this consistent attendance as an important step in solidifying
positive police-community relations, as well as effectively addressing public safety
concerns (Kruger, Hassan and Waite 2008). Communication efforts have been made
through community organizations to encourage neighborhood residents to call 911 to
report suspicious or criminal activity. Some residents had expressed fear of reporting
crime, a misunderstanding about the impact of calling 911 (for example, some business
owners thought that if a business called 911 too many times they would have their
business license revoked or would be seen as a problem business), and general hesitancy
around the language barrier in explaining the situation they were reporting (Kruger,
Hassan, and Waite 2008). With sustained communication efforts, the number of 911 calls
has increased and there appears to be less hesitancy from many in the community in
reporting suspicious activity (Cedar Riverside Quarterly Safety Meeting 2008).
37
Unique Factors
There are five local police bodies with varying jurisdictions within Cedar Riverside: the
Minneapolis Police Department, the University of Minnesota Police Department, Metro
Transit Police, Public Housing Authority safety officers, and Augsburg safety officers,
responsible for responding to safety incidents on and near the Augsburg campus. The
Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), because of its overall authority within the city of
Minneapolis, can respond to incidents in any area of the neighborhood and can provide
additional support to any of the other police bodies that may have responded initially to a
public safety incident (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008). The University of Minnesota
Police Department (UMPD) is a fully functioning police department, with its own
internal 911 response system, connection to the police radio system in Hennepin County,
and its own squad cars and officers (Hestness 2008). The UMPD is the primary responder
for incidents that occur on U of M property or in the adjacent vicinity. Because it is a
fully functioning force, the MPD allows the UMPD to address situations on its own
unless it requests support from the MPD (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008). Generally
this support is not needed, but the two agencies do remain within close communication
(Hestness 2008). University police officers frequently respond to incidents off University
property, including along Riverside Avenue within the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood,
and these incidents near campus often involved University students as either the
perpetrator or victim (Hestness 2008). Metro Transit police have authority to respond to
incidents that occur on or near Metro Transit property, such as the light rail line and
stations and bus stops, although the MPD has ultimate authority to respond to any
situation on transit property or to provide support for Metro Transit police officers. The
MPD informs Metro Transit of crime concerns on or near Metro Transit property
(Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008). Public Housing Authority safety officers are first
responders to public safety incidents within the public housing complexes but because
there are limited numbers of safety officers, MPD officers generally supply backup
support to them when an incident does occur (Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008).
Augsburg safety officers are not part of a fully functioning police department, as U of M
officers are, and are more limited in their capacity to respond to criminal complaints,
relying on the MPD for support. Three of these police bodies- the MPD, UMPD, and
Augsburg safety officers- along with representatives from the Fairview University clinic,
Riverside Plaza, and the College of St. Catherine, meet monthly to communicate
regarding public safety concerns in the neighborhood and how they are being addressed
(Kruger, Hassan, and Waite 2008; Hestness 2008). The multiple police bodies with
jurisdictions in and around the neighborhood provide a higher level of complexity in
addressing safety concerns but this regular communication among most of the police
bodies helps to lower that complexity somewhat.
Other aspects of the neighborhood that are unique in addressing issues of public safety
include the demographic makeup of the neighborhood and its segmented geography. The
high proportion of renters, low-income residents, and immigrants (City of Minneapolis
2008) can provide specific challenges to effectively addressing public safety concerns.
Renters and low-income residents tend to move more frequently than those with higher
incomes and homeowners, posing difficulties in reaching residents with communication
38
about community meetings and other activities in which they can participate. It also poses
a challenge in that renters and low-income residents may not feel as vested in their place
of residence if they see it as temporary or if they see themselves as having little to lose
from crime in the community (Hope 1994).
The high percentage of immigrants in the community poses language and cultural
challenges that take time and effort to address. Recently arrived immigrants may carry
with them images of police from their home country that may not be applicable to police
in the U.S. In turn, police officers may have little understanding of the cultural traditions
and practices of specific immigrant communities and may respond in ways that are
culturally insensitive or inappropriate. There have been some instances within the
neighborhood when residents have felt misunderstood by the police force, and police
officers, in turn, have felt they have hit a barrier in their ability to communicate (Gordon
2008).
The geography of the neighborhood impacts the ability of residents to get a
comprehensive understanding of public safety issues. Cedar Riverside is divided into
three distinct sections, the Seven Corners area along Washington Avenue, the area near
Riverside Plaza along Cedar and Riverside Avenues, and Riverside Park, across
Riverside Avenue and behind the Fairview University hospital. The demographics of
each section are fairly distinct, as are the patrons that frequent businesses in each section.
The Seven Corners section has a number of chain restaurants and caters primarily to the
nearby university students, as well as downtown workers on their lunch break. The
housing in this section is made up of apartments and condos, marketed primarily to
students and those seeking a downtown living experience. The area around Seven
Corners is very open, with restaurants placed prominently along the intersections.
The area along Cedar and Riverside Avenues is filled with independent restaurants and
businesses, many with a distinct ethnic focus. While these businesses draw some of their
clientele from the University, the majority is from the immigrant community within the
neighborhood or beyond it coming in to enjoy the authentic ethnic cuisine. The housing
in this section of the neighborhood is overwhelmingly renter occupied, with a variety of
cooperative duplexes and apartments, as well as high rise apartments with a large number
of Section 8 units. There are also public housing apartment complexes in this section of
the neighborhood. Restaurants are smaller and line both Riverside and Cedar Avenues
with less prominence.
The Riverside Park section of the neighborhood is separated from the others by Riverside
Avenue and Fairview University Hospital. This section is primarily residential, and the
housing is primarily owner-occupied. Both the lack of businesses and the prevalence of
owner occupied housing sets this section apart from the others.
With such distinct sections of the neighborhood, it may be difficult for residents from
each area to interact and for common goals to be determined. However, public safety is a
central issue for those from each section and is one common concern that the
39
neighborhood can rally around. The safety needs of each section may be somewhat
different, though, and avenues for communication and interaction will be necessary to
ensure those needs are understood and met.
Recommendations
Given that problem-oriented and hot spot policing methods have demonstrated the most
promising potential for crime prevention, the NRP Safety Committee should focus on
contributing to police efforts using these methods. Aspects of community-oriented
policing should also be adopted, with a focus on increasing interactions among neighbors
and between residents and the police, laying a foundation for a strong relationship that
other crime prevention efforts can be set upon. Utilizing the strategic and comprehensive
natures of the problem-oriented, community-oriented, and hot spots models is likely the
best approach considering the distinct geography and demographics of the neighborhood.
While there is no budget for the Safety Committee to work toward improving community
police relations, there are a number of ways to achieve this goal with little or no funding.
Thirteen recommendations are outlined below, in order from the least time intensive to
the most time intensive. They revolve around three main points of emphasis: increasing
communication between the police agencies and the community, building on current
collaborative efforts, and creating avenues for positive interactions among residents, as
well as between residents and the police.
1. Ask Ahmed Hassan and Jim Nystrom, MPD Community Crime Prevention
Officer for the Cedar-Riverside and UMPD West Bank Community Liaison to
attend each Safety Committee meeting.
2. Increase the promotion of Safety Committee meetings and quarterly Minneapolis
Police Department meetings through flyers in Riverside Plaza, Public Housing
buildings, posted in business entryways, and distributed to organizations
including the Brian Coyle Center, FOLC, the mosques, Trinity, RPTA, etc. An email with meeting information should also be sent to the Safety Committee
listserve to inform those interested of meeting times and topics. Door-to-door
efforts should also be made, perhaps by block club members or Project Lookout
volunteers, to inform neighborhood residents directly.
3. Use an upcoming Minneapolis Police Department quarterly meeting to educate
neighborhood residents on the value of community impact statements, along with
the process of completing those statements. A review of methods for business
owners to enforce “no trespassing” laws should also take place at this meeting.
Information should be summarized in written form and translated to be distributed
among neighborhood residents, businesses, and organizations. While completing
impact statements has been emphasized in the past, it is useful to review the
information and present it for those who may still be unaware of their use.
40
4. Use an upcoming Safety Committee meeting to educate neighborhood residents
and businesses on the various forms on the City of Minneapolis website for
reporting traffic, lighting, or sidewalk issues, along with the process of
completing those reports. Forms on the city of Minneapolis website are available
only in English, which poses a barrier for non-English speakers. However, calling
311 is an additional method of reporting the same issues and has translation
services available. Information should be summarized in written form and
translated to be distributed among neighborhood residents, businesses and
organizations.
5. Work with Lt. Kathy Waite to make sure there is time at each MPD quarterly
meeting for residents to discuss items of concern to them. The issues may not be
able to be addressed at the meeting but could be placed on the agenda for the next
quarterly meeting or for an upcoming Safety Committee meeting. The main
purpose for this time is to ensure that there is two way communication happening
within the meeting.
6. Identify other groups or individuals that should be added to the Safety Committee
listserve to encourage more people to come and to promote broad representation
of neighborhood interests at the meeting.
7. Create a process for identifying crime or disorder hot spots in the community:
places where residents feel unsafe, groups congregate in a menacing manner,
lighting or visibility is poor, etc. Perhaps each time a resident calls 911 or 311 or
fills out a report form on the City website, they also contact a member of the
Safety Committee to make them aware of the situation. Or perhaps time could be
set aside at each Safety Committee meeting for attendees to inform the others of
places where they have seen issues that need to be addressed, along with ideas of
how the community can help to address the problem. Perhaps walks are scheduled
on a regular basis to identify new or recurring areas of concern. Problem areas
that are identified, along with the proposed community involvement, should then
be passed along to Ahmed Hassan and Lt. Kathy Waite to make them aware of the
situation and to request additional police attention in these areas. Some work has
already been done to identify problem areas, such as the safety walk last month to
identify areas that need increased lighting, but formalizing these efforts through
an ongoing process is likely to help spur action on areas identified as “hot spots”.
8. Work with the MPD to have a member of the NRP Safety Committee present at
the monthly meeting of police bodies that work in and near the neighborhood.
This will allow for information to pass more directly between the police
authorities and the NRP Safety Committee and will create an avenue for resident
representation at this meeting.
9. Work with the MPD to have a member of the Metro Transit Police present at the
monthly meeting of police bodies. With the light rail line running along the
neighborhood and the identification of at least one problem bus stop, it would be
41
helpful to have a Metro Transit representative present at the meeting to
collaborate on addressing public safety concerns occurring on or near transit
property.
10. Provide information to the community on positive things that are happening or
upcoming activities for residents and business owners to get involved, including
block club meeting schedules, clean up days, youth or family events at
neighborhood organizations, etc. If the Safety Committee only presents
information on crime or neighborhood problems, there is the potential for
residents to feel overwhelmed or uncertain of how to respond. By also providing
information on positive things happening in the neighborhood, it provides a more
realistic image of the neighborhood as a whole and shows avenues for getting
involved.
11. Work with MPD to provide free safety audits for neighborhood businesses. These
audits tell business owners where their security system is weak and what
improvements can be made to reduce the opportunity for break-ins or other
criminal activity in and around the property. If the NRP Safety Committee
chooses to use some of its funding for matching grants to businesses for property
safety improvements, these audits will be a helpful tool for business owners in
knowing where those funds may be best used.
12. Make use of websites with information on community and problem-oriented
policing strategies. The Center for Problem Oriented Policing is one organization
that offers free guides that can be downloaded from their website on using
problem-oriented policing strategies to address particular problems. Their website
is: http://www.popcenter.org/. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services also offers downloadable guides targeted
toward police officers but which can be used by community members as well.
These guides are available on the COPS website at:
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=248.
13. Work with neighborhood residents, businesses, block clubs, and community
organizations to provide more avenues for positive interaction within the
neighborhood. Youth sports teams sponsored by local businesses, community
walks that include all areas of the neighborhood from the Seven Corners area to
the Riverside Park area, neighborhood picnics or barbeques, and community
forums on topics of interest to residents are all examples of ways to increase
positive interaction.
42
D. Youth Violence and Cedar Riverside Neighborhood
In 2006, the City of Minneapolis published a report on Somali Youth Issues. The report
was prompted by increased Somali youth violence and gang activity. The purpose of the
report was to better understand issues affecting Somali youth in Minneapolis, causes for
Somali youth violence, and recommendations to curb the current trends. This report was
partly the foundation for the Minneapolis Mayor’s new “Blueprint for Action: Preventing
Youth Violence in Minneapolis”, which seeks to address the issues leading to youth
violence in the City and implement programs and partnerships to prevent youth violence
before it starts. This paper will provide an overview of both the report on Somali Youth
Issues and the Youth Violence Prevention Initiative, with a particular focus on how these
reports relate to the Cedar Riverside neighborhood. In doing so, it will explore several
community empowerment models and strategies. It will end with several
recommendations on how these frameworks inform the creation of youth violence
prevention efforts for Cedar Riverside and the Safety Committee.
Blueprint for Action: Preventing Youth Violence in Minneapolis
Between 2002-2004, homicides were the leading cause of death for youth in Minneapolis
aged 15-24 years (Gordon and Samuels, 2006). Crime significantly increased in
Minneapolis in 2006, mostly due to an increase in youth-related crime. In the Cedar
Riverside neighborhood, crime increased by 40% between 2005 and 2006 (Minneapolis
Police Department, 2007). Although that number decreased in 2007 by 16% (and
robberies decreased by 40%), the number of total crimes was still greater in 2007 than
1998 (Gordon, 2008). The decrease in crime from 2006-2007 occurred across the City
and was in large part due to aggressive efforts on behalf of the City, new technology, and
community efforts. However, a more comprehensive strategy was still needed.
Therefore, in 2008 the Mayor launched an initiative called “Blueprint for Action:
Preventing Youth Violence in Minneapolis”. The initiative makes youth violence a
primary public health issue for the City and focuses resources on a broad level to enact
change. Specifically the initiative is “a report and action plan that recognizes youth
violence as a public health epidemic that requires a holistic, multi-faceted response,”
(City of Minneapolis, 2008, 3).
The initiative has four main goals: 1) Every young person in Minneapolis is supported
by at least one trusted adult in their family or their community; 2) Intervene at the first
sign that young people are at risk for violence; 3) Restore young people who have gone
down the wrong path; 4) Unlearn the culture of violence in our community (City of
Minneapolis, 2008, 3). There are an additional 33 action items under these goals (see
Appendix B). The initiative started at the beginning of 2008 and in mid-April a
coordinator, Bass Zanjani, was hired to lead and organize the effort. Currently the
initiative is in the implementation phase. The coordinator is seeking community partners,
available resources and creating benchmarks to evaluate progress. Unfortunately, Cedar
Riverside is not one of the five targeted neighborhoods. However, after a recent meeting
between several community members and Mr. Zanjani, areas for collaboration between
the Blueprint for Action’s goals and the Cedar Riverside neighborhood appear possible in
the future (Zanjani, 2008).
43
There are four primary approaches this initiative could take to create positive change
towards preventing youth violence. The four are 1) Participatory Action Research
(PAR), 2) Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), 3) Collaborative
Betterment Model (CBM), and 4) Community Empowerment Model (CEM) (Kim-Ju et
alt, 2008). Participatory Action Research involves a reciprocal relationship between a
researcher and community members where the researcher provides research skills for a
specific issue and the community members provide the “resources and knowledge about
the community,” (Kim-Ju et alt, 2008, S6). Community-Based Participatory Research
differs from PAR because it seeks to empower both individuals and community groups.
The collaborative nature of the research is similar to PAR, however all partners are
involved in each stage of the research. The process is as transformative as the project
results. Third, the Collaborative Betterment Model is when larger public agencies,
government or universities create partnerships with communities to address issues. In
contrast to PAR or CBPR, the guidance, structure, and control of CBM lie mostly with
the external organizations. Therefore, it is viewed as more of service-delivery model
rather than a community empowerment model. Finally, the Community Empowerment
Model is similar to CMB except the community controls the resources, direction, and
implementation of the project (Kim-Ju et alt, 2008).
It is unclear whether the Blueprint for Action initiative will fall under the CBM model,
giving the city more control and guidance, or the CEM, where the community can use the
basic information and goals of the initiative and implement them as seems the best fit. A
more CBM approach presents some concerns. Studies of successful youth violence
prevention initiatives indicate that the more local governance and city organizational
representatives are involved and control the process, the more difficult it is to empower
local youth and community members. This is particularly true for programs like the
Blueprint for Action that has a very broad reach rather than targeting one specific
community. This broad scope makes it more difficult for local residents and community
organizations to get involved. This could negatively impact the chance of the Blueprint
for Action succeeding. However, it is also shown that if CBM models organize smaller
groups, neighborhood, and collaborations rather than try to disseminate everything from
the top-down, then communities can take at least some ownership of the initiatives. The
success and sustainability of the initiatives is more likely to occur and to occur at a faster
pace (Kim-Ju et alt, 2008). It appears the Blueprint for Action is attempting this at least
through creating small community focus groups that guide the process and progress in
each targeted neighborhood (Zanjani, 2008). It remains to be seen how they community
empowerment structure will impact or direct the initiative.
Somali Youth Violence – Minnesota
Minnesota is home to the largest concentration of East African and Somali refugees in the
nation. Of the 100,000 Somalis that fled to the United States, 40,000 reside in Minnesota
(Confederation of Somali Community, 2008). Some estimate the Somali population in
Minnesota is up to 75,000 (Schuchman and McDonald, 2004). The Cedar Riverside
neighborhood possesses one of the highest concentrations of this population in the state.
Therefore, this section will look at youth violence particularly within the Somali
population. According to the 2006 report on Somali Youth Issues, six problems are
44
identified as the foundation for criminal and violent behavior among Somali youth: 1)
compromised mental health; 2) poverty; 3) lack of community resources; 4)
homelessness; 5) educational system issues; 6) school truancy and gang membership
(Adan, 2006). These issues are echoed in the literature on youth violence as well,
particularly poverty, social connectedness, and gang membership (Elliot et alt, 2001).
While there is no silver bullet to address all of these issues simultaneously, the report
calls for greater collaboration among Minneapolis partners and resources to engage
communities where Somali youth violence is an issue. In addition, the report calls for the
creation of a youth drop-in center and better outreach on behalf of the City to immigrant
communities (Adan, 2006).
These issues appear in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood. For example, up to 75% of the
Somali community suffers from mental health issues, ranging from Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder to depression. The report on Somali Youth issues as well as other studies on the
Somali community in the Twin Cities identify that these mental health issues are caused
by a number of factors including memories of war trauma from their home countries, a
lack of social support, difficulties in resettling in the U.S. such as the language barrier
and poor employment opportunities. In addition, cultural stigmas about mental health
issues prevent many Somalis from seeking help and people with mental health problems
can be socially isolated (Adan, 2006). A final struggle involves family role reversals
where parents become dependent on their children to learn new customs and language,
which can lead to stress and a “strain on parental authority.” (Schuchman and McDonald,
2004, 2)
Poverty is also a significant issue for the Cedar Riverside neighborhood. The Cedar
Riverside community has a significantly higher rate of unemployment and a significantly
lower median household income than the rest of Minneapolis. Where unemployment for
the City of Minneapolis is only 5.8%, unemployment in Cedar Riverside is at 17%. In
addition, the median household income in Minneapolis is $37,974 and steadily rose from
1980-1990, but the median income in Cedar Riverside is only $14,367 and steadily
declined from 1980-1990 (City of Minneapolis, 2008). This is evidence for the poor
economic opportunities available to both the younger and older generation in the
neighborhood. In addition, aid offered through the Office of Refugee Resettlement only
provides eight months of assistance, which is rarely enough time for a family or
community to relocate and acclimate to a new culture and lifestyle. As the Somali Youth
report indicates, these conditions may lead youth to engage in violence or criminal
behavior (Adan, 2006).
The Cedar Riverside neighborhood also lacks significant resources. The Brian Coyle
Center is the neighborhood’s main if not only center for youth. However, only three
workers exist to serve over 300 youth (Adan, 2006). Plus, bus transportation to other
possible recreational opportunities does not exist in the neighborhood. It is still a
question if such resources would increase youth participation and decrease troublesome
activities, but many studies on youth violence prevention point to extracurricular
activities as vital for preventing youth violence before it starts (National Youth Violence
Prevention Resource Center, 2001; Gordon Interview, 2008). As the report points out,
Somali youth violence increases during the summer when fewer of these programs are
45
available. In addition, low-income families have less access to these programs because
many require a fee for participation (Adan, 2006).
Youth homelessness occurs for a variety of reasons. For Somali youth, homelessness can
result from increased family frustrations from role-reversals and increased sense of
autonomy or loss of parental respect. Additionally, many youth lost their immediate
parents or family before entering the U.S. Reports indicate that some of these youth end
up in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood, often causing issues (Adan, 2006; Schuchman
and McDonald, 2004, 2). The Safety Committee in Cedar Riverside has documented this
problem as well, particularly in respect to a group of male East African youth that
neighborhood residents have accused of doing drugs, violating property, trespassing, and
stealing.
Community Mobilization and Engagement – Principles for Successful Youth Violence
Prevention Initiatives
Much of the recent literature on youth violence focuses on how communities can
organize to prevent youth crime before it starts. It is a newer movement that embraces
partnerships and community outreach programs as a superior path to creating resources
that dissuade youth from a lifestyle of violence and provide support for youth who are
caught living that lifestyle. The amount of frameworks to form such a movement are
numerous, but in reviewing the literature, several themes emerged as fundamental to
successful youth violence prevention initiatives: 1) collaborative, trusting partnerships; 2)
community engagement; 3) youth involvement; 4) leadership and training; and 5) funding
(Kim-Ju et alt, 2008; David-Ferdon and Hammond, 2008; Watson-Thompson et alt,
2008; O’Neill et alt, 2008; Lai, 2008; Griffith et alt, 2008; Hertz et alt, 2008; Mirabal et
alt, 2008; Calhoun, 2006; Akeo et alt, 2008; Payne and Williams, 2008)
Collaborative, trusting partnership and community engagement often work together. All
of the successful youth violence prevention initiatives surveyed were successful because
they built cross-sector partnerships to achieve their goals and, in doing so, were able to
actively engage community members to participate in the initiative. One example
illustrated that when these partnerships broke down (due to a lack of funding to keep the
initiative sustained), the community members became cynical and disenchanted with the
promises made to them by partnering organizations who were not originally part of the
community (Mirabal et alt, 2008). This illustrates not only the importance of
partnerships and community participation, but also the that the initial efforts to create
change are most effective when they come from the community first and then
partnerships are built from the ground up on the foundation of community engagement.
This way, even if funding is lost, bonds are maintained that can continue the furthering
the initiative or seek new funding sources.
According to the literature review, one key type of partnership for successful youth
violence prevention initiatives is building long-lasting, trusting, and mutually beneficial
community partnerships with academic institutions. As study summarizes this point and
offers several methods to aid the success of such partnerships:
46
“A common theme in most of the programs described in this supplement is the
importance and complexity of establishing an effective relationship between academic
and community partners. This challenge is made more daunting when academic and
community partners are of different cultural backgrounds. Suggestions for building trust
include: (1) explicitly acknowledging differences and conflicts between researchers and
administrators/elected officials; (2) creating a common vision and shared meaning
through active engagement and the development of consensus; (3) demonstrating
commitment of the university by giving back to the community through membership on
boards and community services; and (4) establishing a shared expectation that effective
mobilization requires a long-term commitment,” (Kim-Ju, 2008, S11).
This point is very pertinent to the Cedar Riverside community because it highlights the
usefulness (and perhaps necessity) of partnerships with the University of Minnesota and
Augsburg College as well as several key suggestions to consider for improving and
strengthening those partnerships.
Youth involvement means that youth are not only engaged in the initiative, but possess an
active role in shaping the core principles and direction of the initiative. The Blueprint for
Action is a good example of this: after establishing the 33 priorities, a diverse youth
committee (comprised of youth all over the City) was created by the City and the youth
ranked the priorities in terms of the most urgent and important issues to the least. The
youth committee’s decisions now serve as the groundwork for the initiative and the
Mayor, Coordinator, and other staff have directed their efforts completed based on the
recommendations of the youth committee (Zanjani, 2008). This example highlights the
type of youth empowerment needed for a successful initiative. As one study explains:
“Community mobilization efforts to promote healthy youth development should provide
opportunities for youth to be agents of change and improvement in the community. It
may be strategic to provide mobilization training and leadership opportunities for youth,
especially between the ages of 10 and 15 years. Including youth in developing and
implementing a strategic plan may be effective in engaging them in community
mobilization efforts,” (Watson-Thompson et alt, 2008, S80).
Most youth understand and can identify safety issues better than people more commonly
thought of as “experts” because the youth are not removed from the situation and can
therefore better distinguish what issues are truly urgent. Moreover, involving youth to
participate in the development process increases their leadership skills and desire to
contribute to and care about their surrounding community. All these factors decrease the
chance that they will engage in criminal activities.
There are several newer initiatives aimed at youth development in the neighborhood
including a Youth Council at the Brian Coyle Community Center, ESL and homework
help programs at BCCC and Trinity Lutheran, theater programs with the Bedlam Theater,
and partnerships with the Humphrey Institute to organize sports games between the youth
and graduate students. However, these efforts have only captured a select portion of the
youth in the neighborhood. A larger community-wide effort involving several
partnerships may be needed to create the type of community change that leads to
“widespread behavior change,” which involves a sustainable investment in preventing
youth violence across many partners and sectors as well as increasing organizational
47
capacity and effectiveness (Watson-Thompson et alt, 2008, S77).. In sum, “sustaining
the work is a critical process that helps to ensure the continued viability of a community
mobilization effort by leveraging ongoing human, financial, organizational, and
community resources and supports,” (Watson-Thompson et alt, 2008, S77).
Securing funding and developing leadership and training are the last significant aspects to
a successful youth violence prevention initiative. In the research surveyed, successful
initiatives provided adequate youth violence prevention training, conciliation training,
and leadership development for staff. This type of training took many different forms
depending on the kind of initiative and the goals it sought to accomplish. Having staff of
a similar cultural or ethnic background was also important because it could provide an
immediate connection and comfort for the youth to trust staff members and work with
them. In addition to training staff and leadership, securing funding is crucial. This is
often the most difficult task for an initiative because it requires extra staff time and
resources to write proposals and evaluate the progress of the initiative. In addition,
funding is rarely self-sustaining and an initiative could easily fail if funding fails to come
through (Mirabal et alt, 2008). The Cedar Riverside NRP budget is key to youth violence
prevention because it offers a guaranteed amount of money that can be carefully used to
begin a youth violence prevention initiative. Only a beginning is needed to illustrate to
potential future funders that an initiative is worth their investment. Therefore, NRP
money (and potentially funds through the Blueprint for Action too) can create a start-up
pilot and initial planning process for youth violence prevention initiatives that other
funders can then continue. This has already started with the Youth Council, which began
with NRP funds and now has started to receive outside grant money.
Community Mobilization and Engagement – Strategies and Programs for Successful
Youth Violence Prevention Initiatives
While it is helpful to know the basics of a successful youth violence prevention initiative,
it does little without specific strategies in which these principles can apply. The research
identified three particular strategies that seemed most applicable to the Cedar Riverside
neighborhood: 1) after-school programs, 2) mentoring programs, 3) entrepreneurship
programs. While other strategies exist, these three were chosen because there are
resources or a precedent for each that already exists in the neighborhood. This is
important because good strategies will fail without enough community support and
infrastructure. Therefore, the research for this project identifies these three strategies as
most viable for the community.
After-school programming dramatically decreases youth crime and delinquent behavior.
For youth under 18 years old, violent crime peaks around 3pm. After-school
programming helps to curb this behavior by providing alternative and worthwhile
activities for youth at a time when crime is most likely to occur. Youth who are not
engaged with after-school programming also have a higher risk for drug use: in a recent
study 49% of youth that do not participate in after school programs are more likely to use
drugs (National Youth Violence Prevention Center, 2008). In addition, youth involved
in after-school programming are more likely to attend school, have a higher self-esteem,
achieve better grades in school, and exhibit healthier peer and familiar relationships and
social skills (Chung, 2000; National Youth Violence Prevention Center, 2008).
48
Therefore, there are many positive developments that a quality after-school programming
can foster.
However, simply having a program is not enough. A good after-school program must
possess clear, defined goals; quality and trained staff, which involves a ratio of 1 staff to
every 10 or 15 youth; adequate space for the program and nutritious snacks; linkages to
the topics that youth study in school; and partnerships between various organizations
(Chung, 2000). While the Cedar Riverside neighborhood possesses several after-school
programs (one at Trinity and one at the Brian Coyle), both could benefit from expansion
and reaching out to more youth. However, given the requirements listed for a successful
program, there is a lack of staff, volunteers, funding, and space for such expansion.
Mentoring programs are another possible strategy to prevent youth violence. Mentoring
programs find direct support in the Blueprint for Action’s first goal: “Every young
person in Minneapolis is supported by at least one trusted adult in their family or
community.” The idea behind a mentoring program is that positive role models are the
main protective factor against youth violence. If youth have a positive role model to
emulate, they are less likely to engage in destructive behavior that their role model would
disapprove of. Mentoring programs are one of the top three youth crime prevention
strategies and have been shown to increase school attendance and improve performance;
decrease delinquent behavior such as drug use; and, similar to after-school programs,
mentoring programs foster healthier relationships with peers and families (Thornton et
alt, 2002). Good mentoring programs clearly and target a population, utilize community
and parental support (or at least parental approval), provide clear goals for the mentoring
relationships, use quality and trained staff, create a recruitment strategy for both mentors
and mentees, and implement the program while making sure to evaluate progress along
the way. Mentoring programs typically either site-based, where the mentor and mentee
always meet and stay at a designated place (more common for academic and reading
programs), or are community-based, where the mentor and mentee often take field trips
and base their relationship on more experiential activities (similar to many Big Brothers,
Big Sisters programs) (Thornton et alt, 2002).
The challenges to mentoring programs is that the most well known, such as Big Brother,
Big Sisters, are overwhelmed with applicants and often there is a 6 month to one year
waiting list. Therefore, communities like Cedar Riverside would find the most success at
creating a more neighborhood based program. However, such a program requires
funding, numerous partnerships, and a high amount of time commitment from additional
staff that do not exist. Moreover, mentoring programs require a significant amount of
time and at least a year commitment from the mentor. This can cause logistical
difficulties. For example, the Hui Malama o ke Kai project sought to use mentoring
programs to reduce youth violence and substance abuse in a Hawaiian community. As
the program grew, so did the need for mentors and after-school tutors. They recruited
volunteers from a local school, however the volunteers were often not well-trained and
exhibited high turnover, creating a “drain of the staff, who were underpaid themselves,”
(Akeo, 2008, S70). Therefore, if the Cedar Riverside community chooses to create a
mentoring program it must ensure that mentors are well trained and prepared as well as
committed for an agreed amount of time. Due to the lack of staff resources and time to
49
provide this training, one suggestion is for outgoing mentors to train their incoming
replacement. This principle is also true for after-school programs, specifically tutoring
programs.
Youth entrepreneurship programs create job and job training opportunities. In
Minneapolis, Achieve!Minneapolis emulates the youth entrepreneurship model. This
program provides work-based learning opportunities, a summer jobs program, shadowing
opportunities, and mentoring internships. These are important programs, particularly for
youth in low-income areas like Cedar Riverside. These types of program provide the
resources for youth to enter the job market and employment is shown to decrease youth
crime and criminal behavior. As one study states, “economic venture holds the potential
for the preparation of young leaders who recognize self-determination in establishing
development priorities within their own communities,” (Lakes, 1996, 68).
A significant aspect to youth entrepreneurship is the type of development it provides.
Aside from merely gaining skills to enter the workforce, many of the most successful
youth entrepreneurship programs provide an opportunity for youth to own their own
project, manage it, and take full responsibility for it. Therefore, youth are not only taught
skills that they can plug into another job, but they critically develop skills through their
own creativity and trial and error. As one study describes it, “the active participation of
the students enables them to distill significant learning from problems they have
personally encountered, from solutions they have tried to implement, and from decisions
they have personally made and for which they have borne the consequences,” (Kourilsky
and Esfandiari, 1997, 213). Quality youth entrepreneurship programs provide
empowerment to youth by not only giving them skills, but also giving them the power to
develop those skills on their own.
While the Cedar Riverside neighborhood has not implemented any comprehensive
strategy for this type of program yet, the opportunity may soon arise. The expansion of
the Brian Coyle Community Center present space for youth to run a coffee shop and the
Director has also looked into models for creating youth banking start-ups. In addition,
some businesses such as Tam Tam’s already employ youth to volunteer (sometimes for
pay) in their establishments. The owner of Tam Tam’s reports that these opportunities
are tremendously important to the youth he has worked with and that the youth gain
invaluable skills. The greatest challenge for the neighborhood is creating an effective
youth entrepreneurship program and creating cross-cutting partnerships with businesses
in the neighborhood to offer more youth opportunities like those available at Tam Tam’s.
Recommendations:
Recommendations are provided under each of the guiding principles discussed from the
literature review.
1. Collaborative, trusting partnerships & 2. Community Engagement
a. Safety Committee participates in link between safety and youth development.
Currently youth development is only apart of the Human
Opportunities/Neighborhood Relations Committee. In order to create successful
50
partnership across the neighborhood, the Safety Committee needs to start
participating in the dialogue on how to further develop youth opportunities that
can specifically lead to a safer neighborhood and decrease youth violence. Action
plans should be outlined and approved by both groups if possible.
b. Find ways other community partners can join the effort (Trinity, Towers,
CHANCE, FOLC, ADC, WBCC, Augsburg, other committees). As
mentioned throughout this report, partnerships are the key to success. The Cedar
Riverside neighborhood possesses a plethora of potential partners, but most of
them are unconnected especially around the issue of youth violence. Once one or
two youth development initiatives are outlined, NRP committees could organize a
partners meeting, similar to the African Development Center meeting for
businesses, which mobilizes a number of different partners around one or two
initiatives.
c. Establish Cedar Riverside as community partner for new Minneapolis
Preventing Youth Violence Initiative. While Cedar Riverside is not currently a
targeted neighborhood in the Blueprint for Action, community members need to
continue to find ways the neighborhood can benefit from the funding and
resources of the Blueprint. This is not a Safety Committee task alone or perhaps
at all, however the committee should stay connected with the Blueprint for Action
Coordinator, Bass Zanjani, to keep aware of updates and potential initiatives that
could benefit the neighborhood. Abdi Mukhtar has made initial contact with Mr.
Zanjani and that connection should stay as open as possible.
Contact Information: Bass Zanjani, Youth Violence Prevention
Coordinator, Department of Health and Family Support,
bass.zanjani@ci.minneapolis.mn.us, Tel: 612-673-5438
3. Youth Involvement
a. Continue development of Youth Council. The Safety Committee should seek to
support the Youth Council wherever possible. Global Youth Service Day provides an
excellent example of how the Committee can both financially and personally support
their efforts. Other suggestions include:
– Include a member from the Youth Council in Safety Committee meetings.
Have them give any pertinent updates or information about the experience
of youth in the neighborhood over the previous month.
– Possible next project between the Youth Council and Safety Committee:
local public education campaign to raise awareness about stopping youth
violence and discussing knowledge and tools needed to work towards
prevention
– Discover other youth service projects that could overlap with the Safety
Committees interests. Possibilities:
•
Business/Youth mentoring or internship program
51
•
Encourage youth involvement in block clubs or walking groups
•
Creating space for discussions between youth (only) and various
policy units (UM, City of Minneapolis, Augsburg, etc)
b. Create/Expand after-school/summer opportunities
– Possible summer programming that the Safety Committee can promote:
YWCA: Camp Kickin’ it: http://www.ywcampls.org/communityprograms/girls-youth/camps.asp
•
Boys and Girls ages 9 – 13
•
June 16 – August 7; Monday – Thursday; 1 - 4:30pm
•
$40 for whole summer per child; scholarships available; no one
turned down for inability to pay
•
Location: Matthews Park
– 7A bus: total trip time from Brian Coyle Center = 15 min
– Total bus cost for summer
» ages 9-12: $32; age 13: $96
c. Expand STEP-UP program and other opportunities for youth job
entrepreneurship. Prepare to partner with organizations like the Brian Coyle
Community Center when opportunities for new youth initiatives arise from the
Center’s expansion. Also discuss possible shadowing and business mentoring
programs for youth with the African Development Center. Look for ways to
expand the model that restaurants like Tam Tam’s are using.
d. Create/Expand mentoring programs
–
Youth Council: This is a good example of group mentoring. Continue to
promote and support the council when possible.
–
Public Achievement: This is a new method for group mentoring that
focuses youth’s efforts on achieving a self-defined project. Trinity is
running a Public Achievement program this summer. All the NRP
Committees concerned with youth safety and development should connect
with the coordinator at Trinity at the end of the summer to get more
information on the success (or lack thereof) of the project. Contact:
Maggie Saylor, Safe Place Coordinator, Trinity Lutheran Congregation,
(612) 333-2561, tutoring@trinity-lc.org
–
Other possible mentoring programs: below are some combinations for
possible one-to-one and group mentoring programs.
•
Somali youth and elders
52
•
Somali youth and Somali Students Association
•
Sports competitions and Humphrey Institute
•
Bedlam Theater programs – mentoring opportunities
•
Service projects with local businesses
4. Leadership and Training
a. Seek opportunities to continue youth violence prevention training for
both youth and Brian Coyle staff. The Partnership for Preventing Violence
(PPV) will soon release some training materials for youth staff on working to
prevent youth violence. For more information, contact:
sonia@preventioninstitute.org
5. Funding for youth initiatives (beyond what is identified in funding section of this
report)
•
21st Century Community Learning Centers Grants:
http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Learning_Support/Safe_and_Healthy_Lear
ners/Out_of_School_Time/After_Sch_Comm_Learn_Prog/index.html
–
Specifically for after-school programs: grant could expand current
programs or build upon them to create new models
–
Minimum $50,000 annually (up to 5 years); no matching grants
required
–
Grant deadline: January 2009 (unsure – waiting confirmation)
53
E. Resource and Funding Identification
The recommendations made in this report may require significant funding beyond NRP
dollars. Therefore, we performed a funding search to find local foundations that could
provide money to sustain or begin some of the initiatives mentioned in this report. From
this search, we identified 31 grant opportunities. These grants covered a variety of areas
and are listed in Appendix E along with a chart that highlights which area is applicable to
which grant (Appendix D). Overall, 89% of the grants identified support community
improvement, 78% support education initiatives, 75% support arts/culture/humanities
projects (including several national grants that support mural projects), and 53% support
youth development programs. In spite of the promise of these opportunities, one
significant challenge for the Cedar Riverside neighborhood involves finding the time and
resources to pursue these grants.
Recommendations
This report recommends that the Safety Committee (and any other party interested in
pursuing these grant options) partner with University of Minnesota and Augsburg
students to gain extra personnel support and resources in writing and applying for
addition funding and grant money. This is best accomplished over the summer months or
during January. Established programs such as CHANCE (Cedar Humphrey Action for
Neighborhood Collaborative Engagement) should help foster these partnerships. If
interested, community members should contact CHANCE Coordinator Merrie Benasutti
(612-624-8300, benas021@umn.edu) to begin building these partnerships.
54
III. CONCLUSION
This report aims to provide the NRP Safety Committee with useful
recommendations to improve safety in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood with respect to
physical enhancements, block clubs, police relations, funding, and preventing youth
violence. Some of these recommendations require relatively little time and effort while
others involve major endeavors and partnerships. This report intentionally does not
prioritize the recommendations nor does it advocate for the Safety Committee to adopt all
of them. Rather, this report seeks to provide a wide array of possible options that the
Committee and other community members could adopt to enhance the neighborhood.
The next step involves sifting through these recommendations and deciding which
recommendations are a priority or worth the Committee’s time and effort to pursue.
Appendix E provides a summary of this report’s recommendations for the Committee’s
review. While we believe in the importance of partnering with institutions like the
University of Minnesota to research and produce reports such as this, we also believe that
the initiatives and possible options outlined in this report must begin with community
members in order for them to thrive and reach success. If the community is not invested
and inspired towards change then change will never occur or last. This is the main
overarching theme that ties all our research together: enhancing a neighborhood is most
effective when the neighborhood identifies and initiates a plan of action. Our report seeks
to provide the possibilities for that plan, but the community must decide which path it
chooses to take.
55
IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adan, Shukri. 2006. “Report on Somali Youth Issues.” City of Minneapolis,
Department of Civil Rights. Retrieved April 25, 2008.
(http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/civil-rights/docs/somali-report.pdf)
Akeo, Nani; Eric Bunyan; Kaui Burgess; David Eckart; Shirley Evensen; Shannon
Hirose-Wong; Sharon Majit-Gorion; Carl Takeshita; Irene Takeshita; and Carl
Vasconcellos. 2008. “Hui Malama o ke Kai: Mobilizing to Prevent Youth Violence and
Substance Use with Passion, Common Goals, and Culture.” American Journal for
Preventative Medicine 34(3S): S67-S71.
Beatty, Kimberly. 1996. “The Jefferson Avenue Neighborhood Initiative Community
Clean-Up/ Revitalization Project.” Retrieved May 17, 2008
(http://popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/1996/96-08.pdf).
Calhoun, John. 2006. “Proven Pathways to Violence Prevention.” Reclaiming Children
and Youth 15(1): 19-23.
Cedar Riverside Quarterly Safety Meeting. 2008. Meeting Notes. March.
Chung, An-Me. 2000. “After-School Programs: Keeping Children Safe and Smart.”
U.S Department of Education Retrieved May 4, 2008.
(http://www.ed.gov/pubs/afterschool/afterschool.pdf)
City of Minneapolis. 2007. “Block clubs from Northeast, Southeast, and Cedar Riverside
win Minneapolis Police Building Blocks Awards.” Retrieved March 9, 2008
(http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/newsroom/200702/20070223nr_BBlocksNortheast.asp).
City of Minneapolis. 2008. “Blueprint for Action: Preventing Youth Violence in
Minneapolis.” Retrieved April 15, 2008.
(http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/communications/docs/blueprint-for-action.pdf)
City of Minneapolis. 2008. “Cedar-Riverside Population: Minneapolis Neighborhood
Profile.” Retrieved May 2, 2008.
(http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/neighborhoods/cedarriverside_population.asp#TopOfP
age)
Clark, S. Patricia, Leonore Ladler and Helmut E. Adler. 1983. “Urban crime and the
elderly.” International Journal of Group Tensions 13(1-4).
Confederation of Somali Community in MN. 2008. “About Us: History.” Retrieved
May 1, 2008. (http://cscmn.org/about.html)
56
Conway, Brian and David S. Hachen, Jr. 2005. “Attachments, Grievances, Resources,
and Efficacy: The Determinants of Tenant Association Participation Among Public
Housing Tenants.” Journal of Urban Affairs 27(1): 25–52.
David-Ferdon, Corinne and Rodney Hammond. 2008. “Community Mobilization to
Prevent Youth Violence and to Create Safer Communities.” American Journal of
Preventative Medicine 34(3S): S1-S3.
Eck, John E and Edward R. Maguire. 2000. “Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent
Crime?” Pp. 207-265 in The Crime Drop in America, edited by Alfred Blumstein and
Joel Wallman. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Elliot, Delbert; Norma Hatot; Paul Sirovatka; and Blair Burns Potter. 2001. “Youth
Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General.” U.S. Surgeon General. Retrieved May 1,
2008. (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/sgsummary/summary.htm)
Fagotto, Elena and Fung, Archon. 2006. "Empowered Participation in Urban
Governance: The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program." International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(3):638-655.
Flower, Joe. 1996. “Bethel New Life, Chicago: A case study of community
transformation,” published as part of The Healthcare Forum's study, Emerging Best
Practices in Partnerships to Improve Health. Retrieved March 9, 2008
(http://www.well.com/~bbear/bethel.html).
Forrest, Sarah, Myhill, Andy, Tilley, Nick. 2005. Practical Lessons for Involving the
Community in Crime and Disorder Problem-Solving. United Kingdom: Crown. Retrieved
March 10, 2008 Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/dprpubs1.html.
Gordon, Cam. 2008. Personal Interview. April 21.
Gordon, Cam. 2008. “Crime Stats in Cedar Riverside.” Retrieved May 4, 2008.
(http://secondward.blogspot.com/2008/01/crime-stats-in-cedar-riverside.html)
Gordon, Cam and Sondra Hollinger Samuels. 2006. “Resoluation of the City of
Minneapolis: Recognizing Youth Violence as a Public Health Problem and Establishing
a Youth Violence Prevention Steering Committee.” Retrieved May 3, 2008.
(http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2006-meetings/20061117/Docs/YouthViolence-Resolution-Final.pdf)
Graffiti Hurts. 2008. "Community Resources, Graffiti Prevention: Best Practices for
Communities." Retrieved March 10, 2008 (www.grafittihurts.org).
Greene, Jack R. 2000. “Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure,
and Function of the Police.” Policies, Practices, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice
System 3:301-370.
57
Griffith, Derek; Julie Allen; Marc Zimmerman; Susan Morrel-Samuels; Tomas Reischl;
Sarah Cohen; and Katie Campbell. 2008. “Organizational Empowerment in Community
Mobilization to Address Youth Violence.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine
34(3S): S89-S99.
Guest, Avery M., Jane K. Cover, Ross L. Matsueda, and Charis E. Kubrin. 2006.
“Neighborhood Context and Neighboring Ties.” City & Community 5(4): 363-385.
Herman, Michael. 2007 “Meet Your Beat: Plugging into Community with CAPS,”
Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved May 7, 2008.
(http://www.michaelherman.com/cgi/wiki.cgi?action=browse&diff=1&id=CommunityPo
licing).
Hertz, Marci Feldman; Edward De Vow; Larry Cohen; Rachel David; and Deborah
Prothrow-Stith. 2008. “Partnerships for Preventing Violence: A Locally-Led Satellite
Training Model.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(3S): S21-S30.
Hestness, Greg. 2008. Personal Interview. April 30.
Hope, Tim. 1995. “Community Crime Prevention.” Crime and Justice 19:21-89.
Jefferson County Sheriff Department. 2007. "Business Watch, Jefferson County,
Colorado.” Retrieved March 10, 2008 (www.jeffco.us/sheriff/sheriff_T62_R195.htm).
Kimberly L. Beaty. 1996. “The Jefferson Avenue Neighborhood Initiative: Community
Clean-Up/ Revitalization Project.” Retrieved May 16, 2008
(http://popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/1996/96-08.pdf).
Kim-Ju, Greg; Gregory Mark, Robert Cohen, Orlando Garcia-Santiago, and Patty
Nguyen. 2008. “Community Mobilization and Its Application to Youth Violence
Prevention.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(3S): S5-S12.
Kourilsky, Marilyn and Mahtash Esfandiari. 1997. “Entrepreneurship Education and
Lower Socioeconomic Black Youth: An Empirical Investigation.” The Urban Review
29(3): 205-215.
Kretzmann, John P. and McKnight, John L. 1996. “Mapping Community Capacity.”
Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University. Retrieved March 17, 2008
(http://airnetfrn.org/eventpdfs/Mapping_Community_Capacity.pdf).
Kruger, Luther, Ahmed Hassan, and Kathy Waite. 2008. Personal Interview. April 23.
Kruger, Luther. 2008. Group Interview. April 14.
Lai, Mary. 2008. “Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center.” American
Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(3S): S48-S55.
58
Lakes, Richard D. 1996. “The New Vocationalism: Community Economic
Development.” Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 33: 66-69.
MacDonald, John M. 2002. “The Effectiveness of Community Policing in Reducing
Urban Violence.” Crime Delinquency 48:592-618.
Maguire, Edward R. and Stephen D. Mastrofski. 2000. “Patterns of Community Policing
in the United States.” Police Quarterly 3:4-45.
Minneapolis Police Department. 2007. "Minneapolis Police Department 2007
Neighborhood Policing Plan: Cedar Riverside/West Bank Neighborhood." Minneapolis,
Retrieved March 10, 2008
(http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/safe/docs/CedarRiversideWestBankPolicingPlan2007.
pdf).
Mirabal, Brenda; Gerardo Lopez-Sanchez; Mariluz Franco-Ortiz; and Milagros Mendez.
2008. “Developing Partnership to Advance Youth Violence Prevention in Puerto Rico:
The Role of an Academic Center of Excellence.” American Journal of Preventative
Medicine 34(3S): S56-S61.
National Crime Prevention Council. 1995. “Strategy: Business Watch.” 50 Tested
Strategies to Prevent Crime: A Resource for Municipal Agencies and Community
Groups. Retrieved March 9, 2008 (http://www.ncpc.org/topics/home-and-neighborhoodsafety/strategies/strategy-business-watch/?searchterm=business%20watch).
National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. 2001. “After-School Program
Fact Sheet.” Retrieved April 30, 2008.
(http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/facts/docs/afterschool.pdf)
Neighborhood Funders Group. 1998. “Case Study #2: Lyndale Neighborhood
Association.” Shelterforce, Orange, NJ, Retrieved March 9, 2008
(http://www.nfg.org/cotb/11cs2.htm).
Newman, Oscar. 1996. Creating Defensible Space. Washington D.C.: US Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
NRP Safety Committee. Meeting with CHANCE students. February 12, 2008. Brian
Coyle Center, Minneapolis.
Ohmer, Mary and Elizabeth Beck. 2006. “Citizen Participation in Neighborhood
Organizations in Poor Communities and its Relationship to Neighborhood and
Organizational Collective Efficacy.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 33(1): 179202.
O’Neill, Kevin; Kara Williams; and Vivian Reznik. 2008. “Engaging Latino Residents
to Build a Healthier Community in Mid-City San Diego.” American Journal of
Preventative Medicine 34(3S): S36-S41.
59
Payne, Pedro and Kirk Williams. 2008. “Building Social Capital Through
Neighborhood Mobilization.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(3S): S42S47.
Press, Eyal. 2007. “Can Block Clubs Block Despair?” The American Prospect. Retrieved
March 9, 2008
(http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=can_block_clubs_block_despair).
Prince William County Police Department. 2007. "CPTED Strategies: Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design.", Retrieved March 10, 2008
(http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/002035.pdf).
Raco, Mike. 2007. "Securing Sustainable Communities: Citizenship, Safety and
Sustainability in the New Urban Planning." European Urban and Regional Studies 14(4):
305-320.
Rosenbaum, Dennis P. 2002. “Evaluating Multi-Agency Anti-Crime Partnerships:
Theory, Design, and Measurement Issues.” Crime Prevention Studies 14: 171-225.
Schuchman, David McGraw and Colleen McDonald. 2004. “Somali Mental Health.”
Bildhaan – An International Journal of Somali Studies. Retrieved April 30, 2008.
(http://ethnomed.org/ethnomed/clin_topics/mental_health/Somali_mental_health.pdf)
Schweitzer, John, June Woo Kim, and Juliette R. Mackin. 1999. "The Impact of the Built
Environment on Crime and Fear of Crime in Urban Neighborhoods." Journal of Urban
Technology 6(3): 59. Retrieved March 10, 2008 The Society of Urban Technology.
Shelby, Dorothy. Phone interview with Dawn Skelly. April 30, 2008.
Solomon, Russom and Hani Mohammed. Meeting with CHANCE students. February 20,
2008. Red Sea Restaurant, Minneapolis.
Solutions for America. 2003. “Thriving Neighborhoods: Shelter, Safety, Opportunity.”
University of Richmond, Retrieved March 3, 2008
(www.solutionsforamerica.org/thrivingneigh/crime-prevention.html)
Stark, Christine. 2000. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design: Central Avenue
Project. Minneapolis: Center on Urban and Regional Planning. Retrieved March 10, 2008
Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization
http://www.cura.umn.edu.floyd.lib.umn.edu/publications/NPCR-reports/npcr1155.pdf.
Thacher, David. 2001. “Conflicting Values in Community Policing.” Law and Society
Review 35:765-798.
Thornton, Timothy; Carole Craft; Linda Dahlberg; Barbara Lynch; and Katie Baer.
2002. “Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community
60
Action.” Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control Retrieved May 1, 2008.
(http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/bestpractices/Introduction.pdf)
Tonry, Michael and David P. Farrington. 1995. “Strategic Approaches to Crime
Prevention.” Crime and Justice 19:1-20.
Town, Stephen and O'Toole, Randal. 2005. "Crime-Friendly Neighborhoods." Reason
36(9):30-36.
University of Wisconsin Extension Service. 2005. “You Don’t Have to Move to a Better
Neighborhood: Try Forming a Block Club.” Retrieved March 10, 2008
(http://kenosha.uwex.edu/cnred/documents/Formingablockclub.pdf).
Van Melik, Rianne, Irina Van Aalst, and Jan Van Weesep. 2007. “Fear and Fantasy in
the Public Domain: The Development of Secured and Themed Urban Space.” Journal of
Urban Design. 12(1): 25-42.
Walker, Samuel. 1977. A Critical History of Police Reform: The Emergence of
Professionalism. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company
Watson-Thompson, Jomella; Stephen Fawcett; and Jerry Schultz. 2008. “A Framework
for Community Mobilization to Promote Healthy Youth Development.” American
Journal of Preventative Medicine. 34(3S): S72-S81.
Weisburd, David and John Eck. 2004. “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder,
and Fear?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593:42-65.
Wesley Scott, James. 2007. "Smart Growth as Urban Reform: A Pragmatic 'Recoding' of
the New Regionalism." Urban Studies 44(1): 15-35.
Williams, Dr. Darlene F. 2007. Empowering Local Communities Through Leadership
Development and Capacity Building. Washington D.C.: Office of University
Partnerships.
Zanjani, Bass. Meeting with Sarah Martyn Crowell and Cedar Riverside community
members. May 5, 2008.
Zelinka, Al. 2005. “Accidental Spaces.” Planning 71(11): 42-44.
61
V. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Powerpoint Presentation to Safety Committee, 5/6/08
62
Appendix B: Blueprint for Action: Preventing Youth Violence in Minneapolis
Action Goals
Goal #1: Connect

Increase the number of quality mentoring opportunities for young people, along
with proper training for mentors of all ages and backgrounds.

Increase the number of private businesses providing jobs through the City of
Minneapolis STEP--UP.

Strengthen the coordination of public and private youth programs, services and
opportunities.

Increase the number of highIncrease high--quality communitycommunity--based
youth programs, services and opportunities, including leadership training.

Reestablish Minneapolis Police liaisons in Public Schools to give young people
opportunities to build positive relationships with the Minneapolis Police and to
strengthen coordination between schools, parks and police.

Provide yearProvide year--round youth buses.

Give young people safe spaces for activities during outactivities out--of--school
times by increasing the hours when Library, Park and School buildings are open.

Provide young people with consistent, effective and meaningful violence
prevention training by developing a shared curriculum and coordinated training
program for the Minneapolis Libraries, Parks, and Schools.

Increase the number of training and support programs for parents of teens.
�Increase teenage pregnancy prevention programs in Minneapolis.

Reduce the number of second children to teen parents by connecting every teen
parent with health, education and parenting resources.
Goal #2: Intervene

Expand summer employment programs for atprograms at--risk youth and youth
already in the justice system.

Establish the juvenile supervision and service center and maintain the
Minneapolis Police DepartmentMinneapolis Department’s juvenile unit.

Develop a standard protocol for parks, schools and health care facilities in the
aftermath of critical violent incidents.

Establish and promote a youth help line to give young people a safe, confidential
way to report trouble or seek help.
63

Establish policies and training making every library, park and school a
nonviolence zone, so that young people see nonviolence being actively practiced
and do not see violence being ignored or condoned.

Support alternatives to suspension and expulsion in Minneapolis schools.

Create a common definition of “risky behavior,” to be shared and used by
Minneapolis Parks, Schools, and City government, Hennepin County, and the
broader juvenile justice system.

Increase the capacity of Hennepin County’s truancy intervention program for
students with mental health and chemical dependency issues.

Create specific mentor programs for young people with an incarcerated parent.

Expand street level outreach, including bold doorbold door--toto--door outreach
that engages families and reengages re--connects youth exhibiting risky behavior
with quality education and employment opportunities.
Goal #3: Restore

Better coordinate different parts of the juvenile justice system to support young
offenders.

Expand the scope and increase the funding of juvenile probation to better
integrate young offenders back into the community.

Implement a comprehensive assessment tool that identifies a juvenile’s mental
health and related needs and connects them to available services without risking
selfself--incrimination.

Better connect youth offenders to educational opportunities, employment skills
and health care services.

Expand restorative justice programs for youth offenders.

Ensure that each youth returning from out of home placement has a
comprehensive plan to recomprehensive re-enter their community.

Develop relevant and culturally appropriate rites of passage to support a more
comprehensive process for youth offenders to reprocess re-enter the community.

Expand sentencing options for youth to include comprehensive and intense
behavioral training and therapy.
Goal #4: Unlearn Violence


64

Work with local experts and youth to develop a local public education campaign
to ensure that young people and our entire community see their roles and
responsibilities in stopping violence, while providing the knowledge and tools to
reduce violence and safely intervene when violence occurs.

Recognize that youth violence is a national problem and Minneapolis should lead
the discussion by partnering with other mayors and leaders in other cities to form
a national coalition against youth violence.

Support sensible illegal gun laws and work to change community values around
the acceptance of guns. This includes seeking stronger penalties for people who
sell and distribute illegal guns, and profit from the sale and distribution of illegal
guns to young people.
Taken from: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/communications/docs/blueprint-for-action-summary.pdf
65
Appendix C: Funding Sources – Organizational Chart
66
Appendix D: Funding Sources – Foundation Descriptions and Details
AHS Foundation
c/o Lowry Hill
90 South Seventh Street
Suite 5300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 667-1784
Contact: Thomas Wright, secretary/treasurer
Established: 05/16/1968
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: Relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion and community
issues.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, National Areas, The majority funded outside Minnesota.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT.
EDUCATION.
HUMAN SERVICES.
RELIGION/SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Sample grants:
Bridge for Runaway Youth, The/MN/general support/$16,000.
Church Within a Church Movement/IL/general support/$30,000.
City Music Cleveland/OH/general support/$2,000.
Cleveland Public Theatre/OH/general support/$5,000.
Ebb&Flow Arts/HI/administrative support/$12,000.
Groundworks Dance Theater/OH/general support/$10,000.
Maui Arts & Cultural Center/HI/administrative support/$10,000.
Reconciling Congregation Program/Chicago, IL/general support/$30,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 06/30/2006
Foundation assets: $10,022,386
Grants paid: $502,500
Number of grants: 42
Largest/smallest: $30,000/$2,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, letter with brief description of intended grant use.
Proposal deadlines: None.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: Gage A. Schubert, 2nd vice president; John D. Schubert, 1st vice president; Leland W. Schubert,
president; Thomas Wright, secretary/treasurer.
67
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
64 Ameriprise Financial Center
Minneapolis, MN 55474
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 671-3052
Email: ameriprise.financial.community.relations@ampf.com
Web site: www.ameriprise.com
Contact: Tracy Hall, manager, grants management and gift matching programs
Established: 12/22/1987
Funder type: Corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: To serve the communities in which we live and work by supporting organizations
whose shared goal is to improve the well-being of individuals from all walks of life.
Funding priorities: Giving platforms: 1. Financial Well-Being for a Lifetime(SM); 2. Arts & Culture; 3.
Employee- and Advisor-Driven Causes.
Program limitations/restrictions: No capital/endowment grants; no grants for travel, religious, political,
fraternal or sports organizations; individuals; books and magazines; fundraising activities such as benefits,
charitable dinners or sporting events; legislative or lobbying efforts; medical research or hospitals; loans;
programs of religious groups except where they provide needed services to the community at large and do
not include or promote a particular religious instruction or belief; programs that do not fall within one of our
three focus areas.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota Statewide, National Areas, Phoenix, AZ,
Boston, MA, Albany and New York City, NY, Green Bay, WI.
Geographic limitations: Ameriprise Financial Community Relations program is a National giving program.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED: Zoo/zoological societies, only requests for Accredited zoos will be considered.
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts/cultural multipurpose, Premier arts organizations.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Economic development.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Educational services, Higher education, Libraries/library
science, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary, Vocational/technical.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Accredited arboretums.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Family violence shelters and services, Multipurpose human service organizations, Services to specific
groups, Only nonprofits where our employees/advisors volunteer.
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTERS/RELIEF: Disaster preparedness and relief, No unsolicited requests will be
considered.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: African Americans/Blacks, Aging/elderly/senior citizens, Asian/Pacific Islanders,
Children and youth (infants-19 years), Disabled - general or unspecified disability, Ethnic/racial minorities other specified group(s), Ethnic/racial populations - general, Females - all ages or age unspecified,
Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender, General public/unspecified, Hispanics/Latinos,
Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Males - all ages or age unspecified, Native American/American Indians,
Other minorities, Poor/economically disadvantaged, Single parents.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: preferred.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Matching grants: employee matching, To any eligible 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization recognized and
approved by the IRS.
Exclusions: Capital & endowment campaigns, Individuals, Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations, Religious
organizations, Research, Scholarships/loans, Review our Corporate Giving guidelines on Ameriprise.com.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Grants paid: $8,100,000
Number of grants: 175
Largest/smallest: $250,000/$250
Application Information
68
Preferred form of initial contact: complete proposal, Visit Ameriprise.com for eligibility requirements and
instructions how to apply for a grant. Ameriprise Financial requires all requests to be submitted using our online
application process. No paper applications will be accepted.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report, website, available at
Ameriprise.com.
Proposal deadlines: February 1, May 1 and September 1 - no exceptions. Check corporate website for deadlines. All
proposals MUST be complete and submitted using the online application. No paper applications will be accepted.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: Do not submit a request sooner than six weeks prior to each deadline.
Deadlines are firm, no exceptions will be made.
Contribution decisions made by: staff, board of directors/trustees, Amerprise Financial Community Relations
Governance Committee.
Frequency of contributions decisions: Three times per year (end of April, July & November) applicable to each cycle
(Financial Well-Being for a Lifetime(SM), Arts & Culture, and Employee- and Advisor-Driven Causes).
Specific times board meets: three times per year.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 8-10weeks.
Special application procedures: We strongly encourage all grant seekers to visit ameriprise.com regularly for any
changes to our guidelines, eligibility requirements or application processes. Use the online application tool located at
Ameriprise.com. No paper applications will be considered. Requests for individual meetings are discouraged.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Katherine Friesz, manager, community relations; Tracy Hall, manager, grants management and gift matching
programs; Brian Pietsch, vice president, community relations and government affairs.
69
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
5701 Golden Hills Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55416-1297
County: Hennepin
Phone: (763) 582-6571
Fax: (763) 765-7229
Email: laura_juergens@allianzlife.com
Web site: www.allianzlife.com
Paid Staff: Yes
Funder type: Corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: Allianz Life has a strong commitment to the community where employees live and
work. Our corporate giving program is anchored by a philosophy of sharing financial resources, time, energy
and expertise to build a stronger, more vibrant local community that improves quality of life for our
customers, employees and the public.
Funding priorities: Employment Readiness and Financial Literacy; Arts and Community Involvement;
Youth and Family Development.
Program limitations/restrictions: Here is a list of areas Allianz does not fund: Individuals, Lobbying,
political or fraternal activities, Program Endowments, Religious groups for religious purposes, Alumni drives,
Labor unions and organizations whose chief purpose is to influence legislation or participate in political
campaigns on behalf of or against any candidate for political office. Allianz does very little event
sponsorship.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Geographic limitations: Grants are primarily in the Twin Cities Metro Area.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts/cultural multipurpose.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community coalitions, Community/neighborhood
development/improvement.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training, Financial literacy.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Family services, Family services for adolescent parents,
Multipurpose human service organizations, Personal social services, Residential/custodial care, Senior
centers and services.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS/SOCIETY BENEFIT: Citizen participation.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Adult/child matching programs, Multipurpose youth centers/clubs, Scouting
organizations, Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, Aging/elderly/senior citizens, Children and youth (infants-19 years),
Ethnic/racial populations - general, Females - all ages or age unspecified, Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender,
Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Males - all ages or age unspecified, Poor/economically disadvantaged.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS: Building/renovation, Computer systems/technology, Equipment.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations, Religious organizations, Scholarships/loans,
Endowments.
Sample grants:
AccessAbility Inc - MN/MN/to support their Project Connect Program/$5,000.
Achieve! Minneapolis/MN/to support their Achieve! Career and College Initiative program/$25,000.
African Assistance Program/MN/to support their Refugee Employment Project/$10,000.
BestPrep/MN/to support their Minnesota Business Venture Program and TECH Corps eMentor
Program/$10,000.
Citizens League - MN (St Paul)/MN/to support their programs which address policy solutions engaging
leaders and renewing policies, institutions and relationships in MN/$10,000.
Dunwoody Institute/MN/to support their The Youth Career Awareness Program/$10,000.
MN Childrens Museum/MN/to support their Access Program/$5,000.
WomenVenture/MN/to support their Financial Literacy programming/$10,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Grants paid: $1,250,000
70
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: email request for Allianz guidelines.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, website, Allianz application form.
Proposal deadlines: February 1 - for Employment Readiness and Financial Literacy; May 1 - for Arts and Community
Involvement; September 1 - for Youth and Family Development.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: Grant applications must be postmarked by the date for each deadline. We
will not be reviewing grant requests outside of the stated deadline dates.
Contribution decisions made by: employee committee.
Frequency of contributions decisions: quarterly.
Specific times board meets: 6 times a year.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 2-3 months.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Betty Carlson, executive administrative assistant; Laura Juergens, senior charitable giving specialist; Juli Wall,
senior vice president.
71
Athwin Foundation
5200 Willson Road
Suite 307
Minneapolis, MN 55424-1332
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 379-3817
Fax: (952) 915-6148
Email: jstormcod1@aol.com
Web site: www.catchcod.com/funding_athwin.php
Contact: Jim Storm, consultant
Established: 03/01/1956
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Athwin Foundation, named for Atherton and Winifred Wollaeger Bean, seeks to
provide support in the areas of human services, education, the arts and humanities, the natural environment,
and organizational capacity building.
Funding priorities: Emphasis is placed on organizations that serve Minnesota or Western Montana or that
have been important in the life of a family member.
Program limitations/restrictions: No grants to individuals. Only to applicants with 501(c)(3) status.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota Statewide, Western Montana.
Geographic limitations: A small number of grants are made outside of of the target areas.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED: Animal protection/welfare, Wildlife preservation/protection, Zoo/zoological societies.
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community coalitions, Community/neighborhood
development/improvement, Nonprofit management.
EDUCATION.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION.
HOUSING/SHELTER.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Family services for adolescent parents, Family violence shelters and services, Multipurpose human service
organizations, Residential/custodial care, Victims services.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Nonprofit sector assistance.
RECREATION.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Multipurpose youth centers/clubs, Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Individuals, Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations, Tax-supported institutions.
Sample grants:
American Composers Forum - St Paul/MN/$8,000.
Hartley Nature Center/MN/$7,000.
Kwanzaa Community Fellowship Presbyterian Church/Minneapolis, MN/$4,000.
Management Assistance Project/MN/$5,000.
Minneapolis College of Art & Design/MN/$17,000.
Northern Pines Mental Health Center/MN/$5,000.
Stevens Square Community Organization/MN/$1,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $10,231,561
Grants paid: $1,002,675
Number of grants: 90
Typical grant amount: $5,000
72
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: Review web page: www.catchcod.com. Click on Funding Information. Go to
Athwin Foundation. Additional information via email or telephone.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report, website, Guidelines
for Letters of Inquiry at www.catchcod.com.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: All proposals due in office no later than date listed on invitation for proposal. If date falls on a
weekend or holiday, materials are due the last working day prior to the weekend or holiday.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: Date for submission of invited proposals will be included in invitation for
proposals.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: Semi-Annual.
Specific times board meets: Twice per year.
Special application procedures: All requests require an initial Letter of Inquiry. See web page for dates and details.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Candi Storm, grants administrator; Jim Storm, consultant.
Directors/trustees: Bruce W. Bean; Glen Atherton Bean; Mary F. Bean; Eleanor Nolan.
73
The Boss Foundation
5858 Centerville Road
St. Paul, MN 55127-6804
County: Ramsey
Phone: (651) 653-0599
Fax: (651) 653-0989
Email: dwm@specialtymfg.com
Contact: Daniel W. McKeown, treasurer
Established: 01/01/1956
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To support qualified 501(c)(3) organizations furthering or engaged in the performing
and fine arts.
Funding priorities: Generally support programs first, and operating second.
Program limitations/restrictions: Contributions to 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations only.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Media/communications, Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Libraries/library science.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Alcohol/drug/substance, prevention and treatment.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT: Annual campaigns.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Sample grants:
Actors Theatre of MN/MN/general operating/$1,000.
Childrens Home Society - MN/MN/annual appeal - child abuse/$5,000.
MN Dance Theatre and School, Inc/MN/annual fund/$2,000.
MN Youth Symphonies/MN/string studio fiscal year 2004/$2,500.
MN Zoo Foundation/MN/annual fund/$1,500.
People Inc - St Paul/MN/9th annual Artability exhibit/$5,000.
Textile Center of MN - St Paul/MN/capital campaign/$5,000.
Twin Cities Gay Mens Chorus/MN/general operating/$2,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 06/30/2007
Foundation assets: $5,888,669
Grants paid: $270,000
Number of grants: 60
Largest/smallest: $40,000/$1,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: complete proposal.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, annual report.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: June 1.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: proposals received by June 1 will receive priority consideration.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: annually.
Specific times board meets: June.
Special application procedures: proposal should consist of five pages and include one-page letter stating dollar
amount of request, purpose for which the funds will be used and any special time constraints on the receipt of the
contribution; evidence of 501(c)(3) status; and up to three pages of any supporting documentation you wish to include.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: W. Andrew Boss, chair; Daniel W. McKeown, treasurer; Heidi S. McKeown, secretary.
74
75
Comcast Cable Company
10 River Park Plaza
St. Paul, MN 55107
County: Ramsey
Phone: (651) 493-5775
Fax: (651) 493-5288
Web site: www.comcast.com/Corporate/About/InTheCommunity/InTheCommunity.html
Contact: Mary Beth Schubert
Paid Staff: Yes
Funder type: Corporate foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Comcast Foundation primarily funds organizations/programs that use
communications technology effectively to address community needs in the areas of education, libraries,
literacy, community service and volunteerism, and scholarships.
Program limitations/restrictions: The Comcast Foundation does not fund organizations without 501(c)(3)
charitable status; organizations that practice discrimination by race, gender, religion, age, sexual preference
or national origin; marketing sponsorships; sporting events (including golf outings, tournaments, teams and
participant sponsorships); trips or tours; capital campaigns; private foundations; individuals; political
candidates or organizations.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Areas outside Minnesota, Comcast communities.
Geographic limitations: Only organizations operating within Comcast communities can be considered.
Areas of interest:
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT.
EDUCATION: Libraries/library science, Literacy, Scholarships.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Youth leadership development.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Capital & endowment campaigns, Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Grants paid: $394,000
Number of grants: 187
Largest/smallest: $20,000/$1,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, website, financial information.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: Letters of inquiry reviewed on a year-round basis.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 4-6 weeks.
Special application procedures: Letters of inquiry no more than 2 pages in length accompanied by confirmation of
501(c)(3) status, no faxes or e-mails, no videotapes or other extra materials unless requested, follow-up phone calls are
strongly discouraged.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Mary Beth Schubert.
76
The Cooperative Foundation
PO Box 64047
St. Paul, MN 55164-0047
County: Dakota
Phone: (651) 355-5481
Fax: (651) 355-5073
Email: mead@ace.coop
Web site: www.thecooperativefoundation.org
Contact: Leslie Mead, president
Established: 01/01/1945
Paid Staff: Yes
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To expand and enhance cooperatives through research, teaching, extension,
innovation and development.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Minnesota Statewide, Areas outside
Minnesota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa.
Geographic limitations: Upper Midwest states of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Wisconsin.
Areas of interest:
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Economic development, Cooperative business approach to community
development.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Graduate education/professional schools, Higher
education, Libraries/library science, Secondary, Vocational/technical, on cooperative business economics
and cooperative business development.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Agricultural programs, related to cooperative business and rural
development.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Development of cooperatively owned housing.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS/SOCIETY BENEFIT: Government/public administration, Leadership development/awards
programs (other than youth), Public policy research and analysis, related to cooperative business and
development.
SOCIAL SCIENCES: Interdisciplinary research/studies to improve understanding of particular
populations/cultures, Interdisciplinary research on cooperative economics.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Conferences/seminars, Curriculum development,
Faculty/staff development, Film/video/radio production, Public policy research/analysis, Publications, Seed
money/start-up funds, Leadership programs.
RESEARCH.
STUDENT AID (GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS): Fellowships.
IN-KIND SERVICES: Speaking, workshops, educational resources.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Capital & endowment campaigns, Political organizations.
Sample grants:
Association of Co-op Education/MN/education programs/$24,496.
Co-op Communicators Association/TX/education program & fellowship project/$5,000.
Cooperative Development Foundation/DC/education program/$6,000.
MAC Education Foundation/MN/education program/$22,500.
National Cooperative Business Association/DC/education program/$2,929.
North Country Cooperative Foundation/MN/training/education programs/$7,125.
South Dakota Association of Cooperatives - SD/SD/cooperative education/$1,500.
University of WI Center for Cooperatives/WI/education/research projects/$3,840.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $2,379,778
Grants paid: $92,518
Number of grants: 34
Largest/smallest: $5,000/$130
77
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, request for guidelines, complete proposal, email, online form.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Proposal deadlines: open.
Contribution decisions made by: CEO, staff, board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: monthly.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: up to 6 months.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Frank Blackburn; Leslie Mead, president; Jennifer Thatcher, manager.
Directors/trustees: Connie Cihak; Terri Dallas; Sheryl Doering Meshke; Brenda Forman, vice chair; Gail Graham,
secretary/treasurer; Michael Gustafson; Patricia Keough-Wilson; Jeff Nielsen; Anne Reynolds; Dan Stoltz, chair;
Jeffrey Swanhorst.
78
The Deikel Family Foundation
4400 Baker Road
Minnetonka, MN 55343
County: Hennepin
Phone: (952) 975-4813
Established: 01/01/1989
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To assist community in building and maintaining human service organizations.
Funding priorities: 1) Agencies demonstrating effectiveness in providing service to communities in need; 2)
Selected health research areas; 3) Primary local support; 4) Education at primary and secondary levels.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED: Wildlife preservation/protection.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil rights/advocacy for specific groups.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Nonprofit
management.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Environmental beautification/open spaces,
Natural resources conservation/protection.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Food service/free food distribution.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES: AIDS/HIV, Allergy related diseases, Parkinson`s disease.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Health support services, Public health programs/wellness
education.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Alcohol/drug/substance, prevention and treatment,
Hot line/crisis intervention, Mental health treatment and services.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Homeless, temporary housing, Housing development/construction/management.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Multipurpose human service organizations, Personal social services.
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: International development/relief.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Federated Funds.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Multipurpose youth centers/clubs.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Sample grants:
B'nai Emet Synagogue/St. Louis Park, MN/general operating/$5,000.
Community of Recovering People/Excelsior, MN/general operating/$5,000.
Fraser Community Services/MN/general operating/$3,000.
Minneapolis Jewish Day School/MN/general operating/$1,000.
MN AIDS Project Inc/MN/general operating/$500.
Parkinson Association of MN/MN/general operating/$500.
State of MN - Education/MN/citizens book/$6,735.
University of California - San Francisco/CA/R Glogau Teddy Bear Fund/$500.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $8,842,344
Grants paid: $370,980
Number of grants: 20
Largest/smallest: $150,000/$250
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, accompanied by financial statement, tax return or equivalent form
indicating financial data.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: none.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: Theodore Deikel, president.
79
80
Deluxe Corporation Foundation/Deluxe Corporation
PO Box 64235
St. Paul, MN 55164-0235
County: Ramsey
Phone: (651) 483-7842
Fax: (651) 481-4371
Email: jenny.anderson@deluxe.com
Web site: www.deluxe.com/foundation
Contact: Pamela Bridger, grants & community affairs administrator
Established: 01/01/1952
Paid Staff: Yes
Funder type: Corporate foundation and corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Deluxe Corporation Foundation partners with nonprofit organizations to enrich the
lives of people and communities through philanthropy and volunteerism.
Funding priorities: Students who struggle with reading, people with limited incomes, people with
disabilities, professional arts, youth programs, people in crisis situations.
Program limitations/restrictions: No special events, individuals, sponsorships, programs that do not serve
Deluxe communities, start-up organizations, athletic events, long-term housing, community arts groups,
libraries, zoos, travel expenses, research, organizations designed for lobbying, religious organizations,
national organizations.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Areas outside Minnesota.
Geographic limitations: Limit grants to the communities where Deluxe facilities are located.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Museums, Performing arts.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Voter education/registration.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Nonprofit management, Volunteer bureaus.
EDUCATION: Limited to Deluxe's Reading Is For Life program and K-12 economic education programs.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Vocational rehabilitation.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Food service/free food distribution.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES: AIDS/HIV, Prevention-education programs, Camping
programs for children with disabilities.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Community health clinics.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Alcohol/drug/substance, prevention and treatment,
Counseling/support groups, Hot line/crisis intervention, Mental health associations, Mental health disorders,
Mental health treatment and services.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Homeless, temporary housing, Low-cost temporary housing.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Family violence shelters and services, Multipurpose human service organizations, Services to specific
groups, Victims services.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Philanthropy associations.
PUBLIC PROTECTION - CRIME/COURTS/LEGAL SERVICES: Crime prevention, Other.
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTERS/RELIEF: Disaster preparedness and relief.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Adult/child matching programs, Multipurpose youth centers/clubs, Scouting
organizations, Youth development programs, Other.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, African Americans/Blacks, Aging/elderly/senior citizens, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, Blind/vision impaired, Children and youth (infants-19 years), Children only (5-14 years),
Crime/abuse victims, Deaf/hearing impaired, Disabled - general or unspecified disability, Ethnic/racial
minorities - other specified group(s), Ethnic/racial populations - general, Female adults, Female
aging/elderly/senior citizens, Female children and youth (infants-19 years), Female infants/babies (under
age 5), Female youth/adolescents (ages 14-19), Females - all ages or age unspecified,
Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender, General public/unspecified, Hispanics/Latinos, Homeless,
Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Infants/babies (under age 5), Infants/children (ages 0-14), Male adults,
Male aging/elderly/senior citizens, Male children and youth (infants 0-19 years), Male youth/adolescents
(ages 14-19), Males - all ages or age unspecified, Mentally/emotionally disabled, Native American/American
Indians, No specified population groups, Other minorities, Physically disabled, Poor/economically
disadvantaged, Single parents, Youth/adolescents (ages 14-19).
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS: Building/renovation, Computer systems/technology, Equipment.
EMERGENCY FUNDS.
81
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT: Annual campaigns.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Curriculum development, Mentoring programs,
Publications.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Matching grants: elementary/secondary education, higher education, public broadcasting, historical
societies, professional arts organizations.
Dollars for Doers: yes.
Exclusions: Individuals, Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations, Religious organizations, Research,
Scholarships/loans.
Sample grants:
Children's Home Society - MN/MN/$20,000.
Children's Theatre Company - MN (Twin Cities)/MN/$25,000.
East Metro Opportunities Industrialization Center/MN/$12,000.
Guthrie Theater, The/Minneapolis, MN/$23,000.
ISD Robbinsdale/Plymouth/New Hope #281/MN/Reading Program/$30,000.
Junior Achievement - MN (Upper Midwest, Maplewood)/MN/$10,000.
Learning Disabilities Association - MN (Mpls)/MN/$12,000.
MN Indian Womens Resource Center/MN/$5,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $35,941,494
Grants paid: $2,199,989
Number of grants: 312
Largest/smallest: $50,000/$1,000
Typical grant amount: $3,000
Matching gifts: $225,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, telephone inquiry, request for guidelines, complete proposal,
email.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Will view video: yes.
Proposal deadlines: Will accept between February 1 and November 1.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: March through October.
Contribution decisions made by: employee committee.
Frequency of contributions decisions: annually, Minnesota contributions committee meets monthly.
Specific times board meets: typically meet twice each year.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 8 weeks.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Jennifer A. Anderson, director of foundation & community affairs; Pamela Bridger, grants & community affairs
administrator.
Directors/trustees: Jennifer A. Anderson, director of foundation & community affairs; Ronald E. Eilers; Katherine L.
Miller; Lawrence J. Mosner; Anthony C. Scarfone; Brett E. Scribner; Douglas J. Treff; Luann E. Widener.
82
Frey Foundation
5000 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 359-6215
Fax: (612) 359-6210
Email: joann@freyfoundationmn.org
Web site: freyfoundationmn.org
Contact: Jo Ann Gruesner, executive assistant
Established: 01/01/1988
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Frey family has long believed in investing in the community. The goals are to help
others become self-sufficient and to reach their full potential.
Funding priorities: Supportive affordable housing, education, human services, health, disability issues.
Program limitations/restrictions: No endowments or funding to individuals; arts by invitation only.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Geographic limitations: Nonprofit organizations located within the Twin Cities metropolitan area are the
primary beneficiaries of the foundation.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Historical societies, Museums.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Educational reform, Educational services, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Food service/free food distribution.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Health support services, Health treatment facilities - primarily
outpatient, Rehabilitative medical services.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Housing development/construction/management, Housing support services, Other.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Multipurpose human service organizations.
RELIGION/SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT: Specific denomination.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Adult/child matching programs, Scouting organizations, Youth development
programs.
Intended beneficiaries: Disabled - general or unspecified disability, General public/unspecified, Homeless.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Sample grants:
Admission Possible/St Paul, MN/General operating support/$25,000.
HOPE Community - MN/Minneapolis, MN/New models to strengthen affordable housing initiatives/$100,000.
MN Historical Society/MN/Mill City Museum/$9,606.
Second Harvest - MN (Heartland, St Paul)/MN/Service improvement plan/$190,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 06/30/2007
Foundation assets: $30,595,470
Grants paid: $1,341,989
Number of grants: 27
Largest/smallest: $200,000/$1,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: email, letter of inquiry (must be e-mailed).
Public information available by request: See guidelines and other info on website: www.freyfoundationmn.org.
Accept common report form: yes.
Proposal deadlines: Letters of Inquiry are due March 15, June 15, and December 15. The board meets 3 times per
year; deadlines coincide with these meetings. Applicants will be invited to submit for appropriate meeting date.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: 3 times per year.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 8 weeks.
83
Special application procedures: We do not accept Common Grant Applications. Request for guidelines/letter of
inquiry are first steps in process. See website: www.freyfoundationmn.org for details.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Jo Ann Gruesner, executive assistant.
Directors/trustees: Eugene U. Frey, chair; James R. Frey; John J. Frey; Mary F. Frey, vice-chair; Mary W. Frey; Jane
E. Letourneau; Carol F. Wolfe; Daniel T. Wolfe.
84
Gannett Foundation
8811 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, MN 55427
County: Hennepin
Phone: (763) 546-1111
Fax: (763) 543-0338
Email: mwhiteside@kare11.com
Web site: www.kare11.com/community
Contact: Mandy Whiteside, project manager
Established: 04/13/1983
Funder type: Corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Gannett Foundation's mission is to invest in the future of the communities in
which Gannett does business, and in the future of our industry.
Funding priorities: We value projects that take a creative approach to fundamental issues such as
education and neighborhood improvement, economic development, youth development, community
problem-solving, assistance to disadvantaged people, environmental conservation and cultural enrichment.
Program limitations/restrictions: We fund only program-specific requests and do not provide general
operating funds. We do not provide funding in consecutive years to the same organization. We also do not
fund: scholarships/endowments; capital expenditures, including equipment; general operating expenditures,
including salaries; start-up monies for programs; short-term projects including
sponsorships/individuals/events/conferences/seminars.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota.
Geographic limitations: Must be within the KARE 11 viewing area.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED: Animal protection/welfare, Veterinary services, Wildlife preservation/protection.
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Media/communications, Performing arts, Visual arts.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil liberties advocacy, Civil rights/advocacy for specific groups, Equal opportunity and
access, Intergroup relations/race relations, Voter education/registration.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community coalitions, Community service clubs, Community/neighborhood
development/improvement, Economic development, Volunteer bureaus.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Educational services, Libraries/library science, Preschool/elementary, Secondary, Student services/organizations of students, Vocational/technical.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training, Vocational rehabilitation.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Botanical/horticultural/landscape,
Environmental beautification/open spaces, Environmental education/outdoor survival, Natural resources
conservation/protection, Pollution abatement and control.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Agricultural programs, Food service/free food distribution, Home
economics, Nutrition promotion, Soil and water conservation/farm land preservation.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES: AIDS/HIV, Allergy related diseases, Birth defects/genetic
disorders, Cancer, Digestive diseases/disorders, Diseases of specific organs, Medical disciplines,
Nerve/muscle/bone diseases, Specific named diseases.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Emergency medical services, Health care financing activities,
Health support services, Public health programs/wellness education, Rehabilitative medical services,
Reproductive health care.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Addiction disorders, Alcohol/drug/substance,
prevention and treatment, Counseling/support groups, Hot line/crisis intervention, Mental health
associations, Mental health disorders, Mental health treatment and services.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Homeless, temporary housing, Housing development/construction/management,
Housing owners/renter organizations, Housing search assistance, Housing support services, Low-cost
temporary housing.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Family services for adolescent parents, Family violence shelters and services, Multipurpose human service
organizations, Personal social services, Residential/custodial care, Senior centers and services, Services to
specific groups, Victims services.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Voluntarism promotion.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS/SOCIETY BENEFIT: Citizen participation, Consumer protection/safety, Leadership
development/awards programs (other than youth), Military/veterans' organizations, Public transportation
services, Telecommunications services.
85
PUBLIC PROTECTION - CRIME/COURTS/LEGAL SERVICES: Crime prevention, Protection/prevention neglect/abuse/exploitation, Rehabilitation of offenders.
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTERS/RELIEF: Disaster preparedness and relief, Safety education.
RECREATION: Amateur sports clubs/leagues, Physical fitness/recreational facilities, Recreation and
sporting camps, Recreational/pleasure/social clubs.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Adult/child matching programs, Multipurpose youth centers/clubs, Scouting
organizations, Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Mentoring programs, Public awareness, Leadership
programs.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Grants paid: $99,000
Number of grants: 22
Largest/smallest: $10,000/$1,500
Typical grant amount: $5,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: complete proposal, All information about our grant program, including the
application, is available on our website at http://www.kare11.com/life/community/gannett_foundation. We would
prefer people to check out this site prior to calling the station.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, website.
Proposal deadlines: February 15 and August 15.
Contribution decisions made by: employee committee.
Frequency of contributions decisions: biannually.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 1 month from deadline for applications.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Mandy Whiteside, project manager.
86
General Mills Community Action
PO Box 1113
Minneapolis, MN 55440
County: Hennepin
Phone: (763) 764-2211
Fax: (763) 764-4114
Web site: www.generalmills.com/foundation
Contact: Ellen Goldberg Luger, executive director, General Mills Foundation, and vice president, General
Mills
Established: 01/01/1954
Funder type: Corporate foundation and corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: To improve and maintain the quality of life in communities with General Mills facilities;
to initiate innovative solutions and approaches to problems in targeted areas of interest; to support and
reinforce personal involvement of employees and retirees; and to reinforce General Mills' image and
reputation as a top corporate citizen.
Funding priorities: Youth Nutrition & Fitness, Education, Social Services, and Arts & Culture.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, General Mills manufacturing communities in the U.S. and
Canada. The Champions for Healthy Kids, is a national program to improve Youth Nutrition and Fitness.
Geographic limitations: General Mills plant communities.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts/cultural multipurpose, Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts, Public
Broadcasting.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Diversity.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Higher education, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary, Vocational/technical.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Food service/free food distribution.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Family services, Multipurpose human service organizations.
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTERS/RELIEF: Disaster relief.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Nutrition and fitness programs for youth.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Exclusions: Individuals, Political organizations, Religious organizations, Research, Travel, Conferences,
Fundraisers.
Sample grants:
Achieve! Minneapolis/MN/$25,000.
Boys & Girls Club - MN (Twin Cities)/MN/$25,000.
Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery/MN/$15,000.
Juxtaposition Arts/MN/West Broadway Gateway project/$10,000.
Mixed Blood Theatre Company/MN/$25,000.
MN Children's Museum/MN/$30,000.
Peta Wakan Tipi (Sacred Fire Lodge)/MN/Dream of Wild Health/$10,000.
Private Schools - MN/MN/NA-WAY-EE Center School, Healthy Choices Project/$15,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 05/31/2007
Foundation assets: $61,231,955
Grants paid: $57,577,373
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: complete proposal, prefer completion of Foundation Application found on website
at www.generalmills.com/foundation.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report, website,
www.generalmills.com/foundation.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: Ongoing. January 15, 2008 for Champions for Healthy Kids. August 1, 2008 for Celebrating
Communities of Color.
87
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees, staff committee.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 4-6 weeks.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Ruth Barlow, administrative assistant; Adrienne Jordan, program manager; Ellen Goldberg Luger, executive
director, General Mills Foundation, and vice president, General Mills; Mary Jane Melendez, program and operations
manager; Donna Nicholson Svendsen, associate director; Chris Shea, president, General Mills Foundation, and senior
vice president, external relations; Cynthia Ann Thelen, coordinator, financial & administrative services; Jan Thon,
grants administrator.
Directors/trustees: Y.M. Belton; R.G. Darcy; J.A. Lawrence; S.S. Marshall; M.A. Peel; K.J. Powell; J.J. Rotsch; S.W.
Sanger, chairman & CEO.
88
HRK Foundation
345 Saint Peter Street
Suite 1200
St. Paul, MN 55102
County: Ramsey
Phone: (651) 293-9001
Fax: (651) 298-0551
Email: info@hrkfoundation.org
Web site: www.hrkfoundation.org
Contact: Kathleen Fluegel, executive director
Established: 10/31/1962
Paid Staff: Yes
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: Family philanthropy: HRK Foundation is a family foundation defined and sustained by
a sense of spirituality, creativity and stewardship. Through quiet leadership and philanthropy, the board
seeks to promote healthy families and communities, to enhance the quality of and access to education, and
to improve the fabric of our society.
Funding priorities: Arts - People and organizations that nourish the human spirit and encourage our
connectedness. Health - Programs that strengthen families and promote healthy lives for children and/or
provide services for people affected by HIV/AIDS. Community Building - Efforts that increase adequate and
affordable housing; encourage responsible land use; promote conservation and preservation of community
resources; advance the work of neighbors who reach across their differences for the common good.
Education - Educational approaches and institutions that promote holistic personal development intellectual, social, emotional and spiritual. Grants in the Education area are board-directed and new
applications are not accepted.
Program limitations/restrictions: HRK Foundation has a commitment to long-term relationships with
grantees and accepts only a limited number of new, capital or project requests in each calendar year. Prior
to submitting a proposal, please call or e-mail the foundation's director to discuss your request.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Geographic limitations: Historically, the foundation's geographic service area has included the Twin Cities
metro area, the St. Croix Valley, and Ashland and Bayfield counties in Wisconsin. In evaluating new
requests, the board's primary focus is St. Paul.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED: Animal protection/welfare.
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts, people and organizations that nourish the human spirit and
encourage our connectedness.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil rights/advocacy for specific groups, Voter education/registration.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community coalitions, Community/neighborhood
development/improvement, Economic development, Community building - efforts that advance the work of
neighbors who reach across their differences for the common good.
EDUCATION: Higher education, Libraries/library science, Pre-school/elementary, Grants in this area are
board-directed and new applications are not accepted.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Environmental beautification/open spaces,
Environmental education/outdoor survival, Natural resources conservation/protection, Community Building efforts that encourage responsible land use and promote conservation and preservation of community
resources.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Food service/free food distribution, Soil and water conservation/farm
land preservation.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES: AIDS/HIV, Programs that provide services for people
affected by HIV/AIDS.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Public health programs/wellness education, Reproductive health
care.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Homeless, temporary housing, Housing support services, Community Building efforts that increase adequate and affordable housing.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Family services, Health - programs that strengthen families
and promote healthy lives for children.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Philanthropy - general.
RELIGION/SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT: Interfaith issues.
89
SOCIAL SCIENCES: Interdisciplinary research/studies to improve understanding of particular
populations/cultures.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified, Military/veterans.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Fundraising.
STUDENT AID (GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS): Scholarship funds.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Individuals, Non-501(c)(3).
Sample grants:
Common Bond Communities - MN/MN/$5,000.
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy/MN/$10,000.
MN Center for Photography/MN/$20,000.
New Americans Community Services/MN/$5,000.
Open Arms of MN Inc/MN/$10,000.
Rondo Community Land Trust/MN/$20,000.
Science Museum of MN, The/MN/$20,000.
St Paul Area Council of Churches/MN/$15,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $34,158,242
Grants paid: $6,504,000
Number of grants: 336
Largest/smallest: $500,000/$1,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, telephone inquiry, or email. Before submitting a proposal, please
call our executive director and visit our website.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: March 15, September 15.
Contribution decisions made by: staff, board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: semi-annually.
Specific times board meets: May, November.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 8-10 weeks.
Special application procedures: HRK Foundation has a commitment to long-term relationships with grantees and
accepts only a limited number of new, capital or project requests in each calendar year.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Katy Davis, executive assistant; Kathleen Fluegel, executive director; Stephanie Hynes, foundation assistant; Jeff
Masco, grants consultant.
Directors/trustees: Jim Hayes; Katherine D. R. Hayes; Eric M. Hynnek; Julia L. Hynnek; Arthur W. Kaemmer, chair;
Frederick C. Kaemmer; Martha H. Kaemmer; Dan Priebe; Mary H. Rice; Molly E. Rice; Katherine R. Tilney.
90
Kopp Family Foundation
7701 France Avenue South
Suite 500
Edina, MN 55435-3201
County: Hennepin
Phone: (952) 841-0438
Fax: (952) 841-0460
Email: foundation@koppinvestments.com
Contact: Lindsey R. Lang, administrator
Established: 11/01/1986
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To benefit local organizations that impact our community in a positive, proactive way.
Funding priorities: Spiritual Growth, Emergency Service/Shelter, Education, Health & Wellness.
Program limitations/restrictions: Each application is reviewed for merit, no restrictions.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED.
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Higher education, Libraries/library science, Preschool/elementary, We give scholarships only through local high schools.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Environmental beautification/open spaces.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Health support services, Public health programs/wellness
education.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Counseling/support groups, Hot line/crisis
intervention, Mental health treatment and services.
HOUSING/SHELTER.
HUMAN SERVICES.
RELIGION/SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, Aging/elderly/senior citizens, Children and youth (infants-19 years), Female
adults, General public/unspecified, Homeless, Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Mentally/emotionally
disabled, Poor/economically disadvantaged, Youth/adolescents (ages 14-19).
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS.
EMERGENCY FUNDS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $35,794,619
Grants paid: $1,780,145
Number of grants: 584
Largest/smallest: $100,000/$100
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, request for guidelines, email.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, annual report.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: The Kopp Family Foundation has no deadlines; we meet every other month.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: monthly.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 2 weeks.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Lindsey R. Lang, administrator.
91
Directors/trustees: Jim Berbee; Barbara Kopp; Brian Kopp; Debbie Kopp; Debra Kopp; Kristin Kopp; Leroy C.
Kopp; Missy Kopp; Terry Kopp.
92
Leonette M. and Fred T. Lanners Foundation
12805 Highway 55
Suite 102
Plymouth, MN 55441
County: Hennepin
Phone: (763) 550-9892
Fax: (763) 550-9630
Email: alanners@lannersfoundation.org
Web site: www.lannersfoundation.org
Contact: Alan Lanners, president
Established: 04/27/1991
Donor: Fred T. Lanners
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Foundation supports charitable organizations whose activities are consistent with
our belief in God, Catholicism, Judeo/Christian principles, family, morality, individual responsibility, economic
freedom and constitutional government.
Program limitations/restrictions: No grants to individuals, endowments, annual fund appeals, political
campaigns, capital campaigns, medical research, environmental organizations, purchase of educational
supplies or physical plant used for education, or the arts.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Areas outside Minnesota.
Geographic limitations: Most grants made to Minnesota based programs. No grants outside United States.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Historical societies.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Educational reform, Higher education, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES: Birth defects/genetic disorders.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Homeless, temporary housing.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Family services.
SOCIAL SCIENCES: Social science research institutes/services.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Sample grants:
Center of the American Experiment/MN/general operating/$10,000.
Cradle of Hope/MN/general operating/$4,000.
Gopher State Railway Museum Inc/MN/general operating/$250.
Hillsdale College/MI/general operating/$8,000.
Jay Phillips Center for Jewish Christian Learning/St. Paul, MN/general operating/$5,000.
Little Sisters of the Poor - MN (St Paul)/MN/general operating/$1,000.
MN Family Institute/MN/general operating/$5,000.
St Johns University - MN/MN/general operating/$5,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $3,019,503
Grants paid: $117,800
Number of grants: 20
Largest/smallest: $10,000/$250
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, complete proposal.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Will view video: yes.
Proposal deadlines: Ongoing, but proposals are evaluated from March through May.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: first half of calendar year.
93
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: annually.
Specific times board meets: July 31, usually.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: Carol T. Hockert; Alan Lanners, president; F. Thomas Lanners; John J. Lanners; Leonette Lanners.
94
Marbrook Foundation
1300 U.S. Trust Building
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 752-1783
Fax: (612) 752-1780
Email: jhara@marbrookfoundation.org
Web site: www.marbrookfoundation.org
Contact: Julie Hara, executive director
Established: 11/01/1948
Paid Staff: Yes
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To promote broad philanthropic objectives through grants and investments in the
areas of the environment, education, mind and spirit, the arts, social empowerment and health.
Funding priorities: Programmatic funding priorities are (in order of priority): environment, education, mind
and spirit, arts, social empowerment, health.
Program limitations/restrictions: Generally does not give to individuals, political organizations, start-up
organizations, recreational programs, to retire debt or cover operating losses, memorials, fundraising
dinners, testimonials, national ceremonies and conferences or other similar events. Also, does not usually
give to specific disease organizations, the elderly, diabetes, domestic abuse, programs serving the
physically or mentally disabled.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Geographic limitations: Generally restricted to Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Museums,
Performing arts, Visual arts.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Economic
development, Nonprofit management.
EDUCATION: Higher education, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary, Vocational/technical.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Environmental beautification/open spaces,
Environmental education/outdoor survival, Natural resources conservation/protection.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Health support services, Wellness education.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Housing development/construction/management, Housing support services.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Family services, Multipurpose human service organizations.
RELIGION/SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT: Mind and Spirit.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
STUDENT AID (GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS).
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Individuals, Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations.
Sample grants:
Childrens Theatre Company, The/MN/capital campaign/$50,000.
Common Ground Meditation Center/MN/capital campaign/$10,000.
Eco Education/St. Paul, MN/Urban Environmental Education Initiative/$6,000.
Friends of the Minneapolis Public Library/MN/capital campaign/$50,000.
Friends of the Mississippi River/MN/general operating support/$6,000.
Lao Family Community of MN/MN/English education program/$5,000.
Project for Pride in Living/MN/general operating support/$7,500.
United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities/MN/general operating support/$5,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $16,424,127
Grants paid: $802,500
95
Number of grants: 118
Largest/smallest: $97,000/$200
Typical grant amount: $5,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, telephone inquiry, complete proposal, review website before
inquiry.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, annual report, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: generally June 1 and December 1.
Contribution decisions made by: staff, board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: semi-annually.
Specific times board meets: June and December.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 1 week after board meeting.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Julie Hara, executive director.
Directors/trustees: Conley Brooks Jr.; Conley Brooks; Markell Brooks; Stephen B. Brooks; Markell Kiefer; Katherine
M. Leighton; Julie B. Zelle, chair.
96
Marquette Financial Companies Community Support Program
60 South Sixth Street
Suite 3900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 661-3903
Fax: (612) 661-3715
Email: community.involvement@marquette.com
Web site: www.marquette.com
Established: 01/01/1999
Funder type: Corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: Marquette dedicates 5% of pre-tax profits to support nonprofits and community
involvement programs. Community support is provided through employee-led regional grantmaking,
corporate and operating business giving programs, and in support of employee interests.
Funding priorities: Affordable housing, community economic development, financial literacy, and human
services where basic needs are addressed.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Chicago, IL; Phoenix, AZ and Inland Empire, CA; Dallas,
Houston, Fort Worth, TX.
Geographic limitations: Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area and Chicago, IL; Phoenix, AZ and Inland
Empire, CA; Dallas, Forth Worth, Houston, TX.
Areas of interest:
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Economic development, Financial literacy.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Affordable housing.
HUMAN SERVICES: Direct service, Basic needs.
.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: limited project support available.
Sample grants:
Arizona Saves/AZ/General operating/$7,500.
BestPrep/MN/General operating/$15,000.
Food Bank - TX/TX/North Texas Food Bank of Dallas/General operating/$10,000.
Greater Chicago Food Depository/IL/General operating/$15,000.
MN Housing Partnership/MN/General operating/$3,000.
Texas Low Income Housing Information Services/TX/General operating/$15,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Grants paid: $1,713,000
Number of grants: 123
Largest/smallest: $75,000/$100
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: Review guidelines posted on www.marquette.com/giving. Submit proposal if work
aligns with giving priorities. Decisions based on community impact, and demonstration of strong financial and
management practices.
Public information available by request: Guidelines and application form posted on website.
Proposal deadlines: March 15 and August 15, 2007
Contribution decisions made by: employee committee.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Terry Egge, senior program officer; Ilse Ekechuku, program assistant; Marina Muñoz Lyon, vice president; Rose
Peterson, grants manager.
97
The McKnight Foundation
710 South Second Street
Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55401
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 333-4220
Fax: (612) 332-3833
Email: info@mcknight.org
Web site: www.mcknight.org
Established: 08/06/1953
Donor: William and Maude McKnight
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The McKnight Foundation, a Minnesota-based private philanthropic organization,
seeks to improve the quality of life for present and future generations. Through grantmaking, coalitionbuilding, and encouragement of strategic policy reform, we use our resources to attend, unite, and empower
those we serve.
Funding priorities: We support efforts to strengthen communities, families, and individuals, particularly
those in need. We contribute to the arts, encourage preservation of our natural environment, and promote
research in selected fields. Please refer to individual program guidelines for specific funding priorities within
each area of grantmaking.
Program limitations/restrictions: Work in the fields of mental health or disabilities; Chemical dependency
treatment; Services for seniors; Health services or policy; Assistance for individuals, including scholarships;
Attendance at or travel to conferences or costs related to conferences; Travel, except when related to other
McKnight support of an organization; Scientific research outside established McKnight research programs;
Endowments, except in rare cases; Activities that have a specific religious purpose.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Minnesota Statewide, International
Areas.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Media/communications,
Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community coalitions, Community/neighborhood
development/improvement, Economic development.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Environmental beautification/open spaces,
Natural resources conservation/protection, Pollution abatement and control, Mississippi River Program.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Soil and water conservation/farm land preservation, Crop Research
Program.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Affordable housing development.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Multipurpose human service organizations, Family services to
build parenting skills.
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: International economic and community development.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, Children and youth (infants-19 years), Ethnic/racial populations - general,
Females - all ages or age unspecified, Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Males - all ages or age unspecified,
Poor/economically disadvantaged, Single parents.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS: Building/renovation, Equipment.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Sample grants:
American Farmland Trust, The/DC/To promote federal agricultural policies that conserve farmland and
protect water quality/$75,000.
Boys & Girls Club - MN (Twin Cities)/MN/For an organization that serves youth in Minneapolis and St
Paul/$150,000.
Center for Marinelife Conservation and Community Development/For a marine conservation, fisheries, and
livelihoods improvement project at two coastal locations in Vietnam/$40,000.
Centro Cultural Chicano Inc/MN/For a multiservice agency that serves Latinos /$100,000.
Chamber Music Society of MN/MN/For an organization that presents live chamber music
performances/$20,000.
98
Parks & Trails Council of MN/MN/For land conservation efforts in the Mississippi River watershed/$50,000.
West Broadway Area Coalition - MN/MN/For comprehensive commercial corridor revitalization
efforts/$25,000.
Whittier Community Development Corporation/MN/For a technical services program for small businesses
/$35,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $22,113,867,840
Grants paid: $93,482,513
Number of grants: 939
Largest/smallest: $6,225,000/$2,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry.
Public information available by request: annual report, newsletter, website, funding guidelines.
Proposal deadlines: Children & Families: Feb 15, May 15, Aug 15, Nov 15; Arts and Region & Communities: Jan 15,
Apr 15, Jul 15, Oct 15; Youth Out-of-School Time: Jan 11; Multiservice: May 1; Environment: Feb 1, May 1, Aug 1,
Nov 1; SE Asia: Jun 1, Dec 1.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: quarterly.
Specific times board meets: Feb., May, Aug., Nov.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 4 months.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Susan Baker, accounting assistant; Jeannine Balfour, program officer, children and families; Dan Bartholomay,
program director, region and communities and international; Vickie Benson, program director, arts; Gretchen Bonfert,
program director, environment; Kathy Bonnifield, program assistant, international; Bernadette Christiansen, vice
president of human resources and administration; Jay Colond, director of information technology; Eli Cortes,
receptionist; Neal Cuthbert, vice president of program; Stephanie Duffy, grants administration manager; Christine
Ganzlin, program director, children and families; Jamie Hagerty, accountant; Tim Hanrahan, communications director;
Jennifer Harshner, communications/administrative assistant; Sarah Hernandez, program officer, region and
communities; Meredith Johnson, program assistant, environment; David Kennedy-Logan, communications production
manager; Shawn Kinniry, operations manager; Kathryn Koenigsmark, executive assistant; Ron Kroese, program
officer, environment; Brenda Krotzer, grants administration associate; Cosandra Lloyd, IT and program associate;
Sarah Lovan, program assistant, arts; Eileen Bloodgood Maler, program coordinator, research; Tom Miller, program
officer, children and families; Mariam Mohamed, program officer, children and families; Becky Monnens, program
assistant, research; Eric Muschler, program officer, region and communities; Kevin Overson, program assistant,
children and families; Janet Peterson, grants administration assistant; Renee Richie, program assistant, region and
communities; Karyn Sciortino, program associate, children and families; Richard J. Scott, vice president for finance
and compliance; Therese Simmons, controller; Janine Steffens, receptionist/administrative assistant; Lori Todd,
meeting and travel coordinator; Alla Vaynberg, accountant; Kate Wolford, president; Laura Zimmermann, program
officer, arts.
Directors/trustees: Anne Binger; Ben Binger; Erika L. Binger, chair; Patricia S. Binger; Peg Birk; Cynthia Binger
Boynton; Meghan Binger Brown; Richard D. McFarland; John Natoli; Ted Staryk; Robert Struyk.
99
The Minneapolis Foundation
800 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 672-3878
Fax: (612) 672-3846
Email: grants@mplsfoundation.org
Web site: www.minneapolisfoundation.org
Established: 01/01/1915
Paid Staff: Yes
Funder type: Community/public foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Minneapolis Foundation and its funding partners are committed to addressing
underlying issues and to effecting long-term change to improve the lives of people in our community.
Funding priorities: Community Grants are awarded for policy or systems change activities in the areas of
affordable housing, economic opportunity, educational achievement, and the health and well-being of
children, youth and families. While these goals direct our grantmaking, the foundation remains open to
unique opportunities in other areas, e.g. the arts, seniors and disabilities. The Connections program
presents an opportunity for Minnesota nonprofits to connect with other funding sources through The
Minneapolis Foundation. Nonprofits may submit a standardized letter of inquiry for possible consideration by
foundation donors. Periodically, The Minneapolis Foundation also publishes Requests for Proposals on
behalf of its donors.
Program limitations/restrictions: Community grantmaking will not fund individuals; endowments
scholarships; participation in conferences; direct religious activities; financial deficits; memberships in
organizations; political organizations or candidates; courtesy advertising or benefit tickets; national
fundraising efforts; fundraising expenses or telephone solicitations.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Minnesota Statewide.
Geographic limitations: State of Minnesota only.
Areas of interest:
CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil liberties advocacy, Civil rights/advocacy for specific groups, Equal opportunity and
access, Intergroup relations/race relations, Voter education/registration.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Economic
development, Grants to programs that can clearly demonstrate how they will accomplish long-term change
in the availability of economic opportunities.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Educational reform, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary,
Vocational/technical, Grants to programs that can clearly demonstrate how they will accomplish long-term
change in the area of educational achievement of children and youth.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training, Economic development. Grants to programs
that can clearly demonstrate how they will accomplish long-term change in the availability of economic
opportunities.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Public health programs/wellness education, Reproductive health
care, Grants to programs that can clearly demonstrate how they will accomplish long-term change in the
area of health and well-being of children, youth and families.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Housing advocacy, Grants to programs that can clearly demonstrate how they will
accomplish long-term change in the area of affordable housing.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Family services, Family services for adolescent parents,
Family violence shelters and services, Multipurpose human service organizations, Grants to programs that
can clearly demonstrate how they will accomplish long-term change in the area of health and well-being of
children, youth and families.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Nonprofit sector assistance, Philanthropy associations.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS/SOCIETY BENEFIT.
PUBLIC PROTECTION - CRIME/COURTS/LEGAL SERVICES: Dispute/conflict resolution, Legal services,
Protection/prevention - neglect/abuse/exploitation, Rehabilitation of offenders.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Youth development programs, Grants to programs that can clearly demonstrate
how they will accomplish long-term change in the area of health and well-being of children, youth and
families.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
100
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS: Building/renovation, Computer systems/technology, Equipment, Land acquisitions.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Public awareness, Public policy research/analysis.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Capital & endowment campaigns, Individuals, Political organizations, Religious organizations,
Scholarships/loans.
Sample grants:
Childrens Advocacy Network - MN (Minneapolis)/MN/For a campaign to establish a commitment to
children's issues among candidates participating in the Minneapolis mayoral and city council races/$75,000.
Immigrant Development Center/To organize and expand micro-enterprise opportunities for immigrant and
refugee communities in the Fargo-Moorhead area, over three years to organize and expand microenterprise opportunities for immigrant and refugee communities in the Fargo-Moorhead area, over 3
years/$90,000.
MN Community Land Trust Coalition/MN/For policy advocacy to protect existing affordable housing and
provide for more permanently affordable housing held in Minnesota community land trusts, over 2
years/$50,000.
Organizing Apprenticeship Project/MN/For the transformation of a grassroots community-organizing
nonprofit to address racial justice and racial equity issues across Minnesota, over 2 years/$100,000.
Parents United Network/MN/To solidify support and increase momentum among parents and community
groups to advocate for restoration of adequate state funding for Minnesota Public Schools, over 2
years/$100,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 03/31/2007
Foundation assets: $710,631,840
Grants paid: $40,454,263
Number of grants: 5333
Largest/smallest: $1,500,000/$250
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: request for guidelines, check website for guidelines and submit request as
appropriate.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report, newsletter, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Proposal deadlines: ongoing.
Contribution decisions made by: Community Philanthropy Committee of TMF and other funding bodies.
Frequency of contributions decisions: Twice per year.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: up to six months
Special application procedures: use Minnesota Common Grant Application Form for Community grant applications
(system change requests, Minnesota only).
101
This grantmaker does not accept unsolicited grant proposals.
Marjorie Weil and Marvin Edward Mitchell Foundation
3832 Richfield Road
Minneapolis, MN 55410-1222
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 922-0343
Fax: (612) 922-3403
Email: emgallaghe@aol.com
Contact: Ellen Mitchell Gallagher, president
Established: 03/26/1996
Donor: Ellen Mitchell Gallagher
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: General charitable purposes.
Funding priorities: The focus is on programs that are approaching issues systemically. Organizations
supported approach their work based on a resilient view of people. Most of the funding to date has been for
youth serving organizations. However, the foundation does not limit its commitment to one age group.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Geographic limitations: Focus is on Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Humanities, Media/communications, Performing arts.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Equal opportunity and access.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community coalitions.
EDUCATION: Educational reform, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary, Literacy.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Innovative collaborations.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Preventive Services.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Homeless, temporary housing, Affordable Housing.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Services to specific groups.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Capacity building.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations.
Sample grants:
Chrysalis, A Center for Women - MN/MN/general operating/$1,500.
Creatives for Causes - MN/MN/general operating/$15,000.
Emergency Food Shelf Network - MN/MN/general operating/$3,000.
Eye of the Storm Theatre/MN/general operating/$100.
Family Service Inc - MN/MN/general operating/$1,000.
Graywolf Press/MN/general operating/$2,000.
Perspectives, Inc - MN/St. Louis Park, MN/general operating/$500.
St Paul Chamber Orchestra/MN/general operating/$100.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $894,684
Grants paid: $35,830
Number of grants: 20
Largest/smallest: $15,000/$50
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: The Foundation initiates contact to organizations that are of interest. Any letter of
inquiry should be in letter form and provide brief information on the applicant's charitable proposal and
funding requirements.
Proposal deadlines: none.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: We do not accept unsolicited proposals.
102
Contribution decisions made by: CEO.
Frequency of contributions decisions: Ongoing.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: Ellen Mitchell Gallagher, president.
103
The Pentair Foundation
5500 Wayzata Boulevard
Suite 800
Golden Valley, MN 55416-1261
County: Hennepin
Phone: (763) 545-1730
Fax: (763) 656-5404
Web site: www.pentair.com/foundation.html
Funder type: Corporate foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To enrich and advance the communities in which Pentair operates by funding local
programs that promote education, vocational readiness, cultural understanding, self-sufficiency and general
well-being.
Program limitations/restrictions: Pentair does not support individuals; political, lobbying or fraternal
activities; religious groups for religious purposes; medical research by individuals; scholarships to
individuals; fundraising events, sponsorships or advertising support; travel or tour expenses; conferences,
seminars, workshops or symposiums; athletic or sports-related organizations.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, West Metropolitan Area/Minneapolis only, East
Metropolitan Area/St. Paul only.
Geographic limitations: Only fund where there is a Pentair operating location with more than 100
employees. National initiatives are handled at foundation headquarters only.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts, Other.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Educational services, Higher education, Preschool/elementary, Secondary, Vocational/technical.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training, Vocational rehabilitation.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Emergency medical services, Health care financing activities,
Health support services, Public health programs/wellness education, Rehabilitative medical services,
Reproductive health care.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Addiction disorders, Alcohol/drug/substance,
prevention and treatment, Counseling/support groups, Hot line/crisis intervention, Mental health treatment
and services.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Homeless, temporary housing, Housing owners/renter organizations, Housing
support services.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Family violence shelters and services, Multipurpose human service organizations.
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTERS/RELIEF: Disaster preparedness and relief, Safety education.
SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY: Science - general.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Multipurpose youth centers/clubs, Scouting organizations, Youth development
programs.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, African Americans/Blacks, Aging/elderly/senior citizens, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, Blind/vision impaired, Children and youth (infants-19 years), Crime/abuse victims, Deaf/hearing
impaired, Disabled - general or unspecified disability, Ethnic/racial minorities - other specified group(s),
Ethnic/racial populations - general, Females - all ages or age unspecified, Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender,
General public/unspecified, Hispanics/Latinos, Homeless, Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Males - all ages
or age unspecified, Mentally/emotionally disabled, Migrant workers, Military/veterans, Native
American/American Indians, Offenders/ex-offenders, People with HIV/AIDS, Physically disabled,
Poor/economically disadvantaged, Single parents, Substance abusers.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Matching grants: Education only.
Sample grants:
Bridge for Runaway Youth, The/MN/$20,000.
Dunwoody Institute/MN/General operating $8K, Capital support $50K/$58,000.
Guthrie Theater Foundation/Minneapolis, MN/$20,000.
House of Charity Inc/MN/$15,000.
MN Independent School Forum/MN/Project Support/$15,000.
104
Neighborhood House - MN/MN/$15,000.
Project for Pride in Living/MN/$15,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $5,578,319
Grants paid: $2,486,438
Number of grants: 148
Largest/smallest: $25,000/$5,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: telephone inquiry, request for guidelines, complete proposal, email.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Proposal deadlines: March 1, June 1, October 1.
Contribution decisions made by: staff, employee committee, board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: 3 times a year.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 2 to 3 months.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Rachael Jarosh, president; Michelle Murphy, foundation administrator.
Directors/trustees: Jack Dempsey; Steve Duea; Pete Dyke; Susan Harrison; Randall J. Hogan; Fred Koury; Michael
G. Meyer; Joan Swartz.
105
People in Business Care, Inc.
PO Box 977
Chanhassen, MN 55317
County: Carver
Phone: (952) 486-6306
Established: 07/25/1983
Funder type: Corporate foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: Make a positive impact on those we help, so they can in turn help others.
Funding priorities: Individuals and organizations in a desperate situation.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Minnesota Statewide, Areas outside
Minnesota, National Areas, International Areas.
Areas of interest:
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT.
EDUCATION.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION.
HOUSING/SHELTER.
HUMAN SERVICES.
PUBLIC PROTECTION - CRIME/COURTS/LEGAL SERVICES.
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTERS/RELIEF.
RELIGION/SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
EMERGENCY FUNDS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: aid to needy persons.
Sample grants:
American Red Cross - MN (Mankato)/MN/$500.
Campus Crusade for Christ - MN/MN/$12,750.
Deer River Endowment/Deer River, MN/$250.
Kosovo Project/MN/$1,000.
Navigators/MN/$2,400.
Santa's Mitten Maids/MN/$500.
Student Venture/MN/$1,000.
Union Gospel Mission - MN (St Paul)/MN/$1,500.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 07/31/2007
Foundation assets: $2,892,158
Grants paid: $54,286
Number of grants: 100
Largest/smallest: $14,800/$17.93
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry.
Contribution decisions made by: employee committee.
Frequency of contributions decisions: monthly.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: LeRoy Morgan.
106
Piper Jaffray
800 Nicollet Mall
J13N03
Minneapolis, MN 55402
County: Hennepin
Email: communityrelations@pjc.com
Web site: www.piperjaffray.com
Contact: Connie McCuskey, vice president, community and brand relations
Funder type: Corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: Piper Jaffray contributes 5 percent of pre-tax earnings to the community through the
Piper Jaffray foundation, corporate giving and sponsorship.
Funding priorities: 1- Community Investment 2- Economic Education and 3- Arts and Cultural
Sponsorship.
Program limitations/restrictions: Piper Jaffray corporate giving will not fund organizations that are not taxexempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) or the equivalent; organizations that do not serve
communities where Piper Jaffray has a business presence; individuals or groups seeking support for
research, planning, personal needs or travel; public service or political campaigns; lobbying, political or
fraternal activities; organizations receiving primary funding from United Way; fundraising campaigns;
scholarships; religious groups for religious purposes; publications, audio-visual productions or special
broadcasts; endowment campaigns.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Areas outside Minnesota.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts/cultural multipurpose.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Economic
development.
EDUCATION: Economic, math and science.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Philanthropy - general.
SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT.
Intended beneficiaries: Poor/economically disadvantaged, Youth/adolescents (ages 14-19).
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Exclusions: Individuals, Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations, Religious organizations, Research,
Lobbying; Organizations receiving primary funding from United Way; golf tournaments; Fundraising
campaigns.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $2,446,476
Grants paid: $2,227,600
Number of grants: 169
Largest/smallest: $150,000/$250
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: www.piperjaffray.com. Please comply with predetermined and published
guidelines.
Public information available by request: annual report, website.
Proposal deadlines: Proposals received between Jan 1 - March 17.
Contribution decisions made by: staff, board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: annually.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: distributions in June.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Connie McCuskey, vice president, community and brand relations; Diane Newes, administrative assistant.
107
The Elizabeth C. Quinlan Foundation, Inc.
5701 Kentucky Avenue North
Suite 201
Crystal, MN 55428-3370
County: Hennepin
Phone: (763) 535-1550
Established: 11/01/1945
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To make donations to tax-exempt organizations within the state of Minnesota;
primarily the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Minnesota Statewide.
Geographic limitations: In accordance with its Articles of Incorporation, the foundation is required to
restrict its donations to organizations that will use them wholly within the state of Minnesota. Emphasis is
placed on Twin Cities metropolitan area and limited Greater Minnesota.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED: Wildlife preservation/protection, Zoo/zoological societies.
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Media/communications, Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil liberties advocacy, Equal opportunity and access, Voter education/registration.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Higher education, Libraries/library science.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Botanical/horticultural/landscape, Natural
resources conservation/protection.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES: AIDS/HIV, Alzheimer's disease.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Nursing care/services.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Mental health treatment and services.
HOUSING/SHELTER.
HUMAN SERVICES: Multipurpose human service organizations.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Philanthropy associations.
RECREATION: Recreation and sporting camps.
RELIGION/SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT: Specific denomination, Catholic.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS: Building/renovation, Computer systems/technology, Debt reduction, Endowment
funds, Equipment, Land acquisitions.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT: Annual campaigns.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Conferences/seminars, Faculty/staff development,
Seed money/start-up funds.
RESEARCH.
STUDENT AID (GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS): Fellowships, Internships, Scholarship funds.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Sample grants:
Bridge for Runaway Youth, The/MN/$2,000.
Childrens Home Society - MN/MN/$5,000.
Fraser, LTD/ND/$2,000.
Jeremiah Program (The)/MN/$2,000.
Project for Pride in Living/MN/$3,000.
St Davids Child Development & Family Services/MN/$3,000.
Tree Trust - Twin Cities/MN/$1,500.
Washburn Child Guidance Center/MN/$2,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $5,653,902
Grants paid: $205,800
Number of grants: 24
Largest/smallest: $15,000/$250
108
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, request for guidelines.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Proposal deadlines: September 1.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: annually.
Specific times board meets: fall of the year.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: notification by mid-December.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Kathryn H. Iverson, office manager.
Directors/trustees: Kathleen L. Budge; Lucia L. Crane; Mari Geis, trustee; Vincent Grundman; Richard A. Klein,
president; David R. Leslie, trustee; Kathleen Leslie.
109
Stevens Square Foundation
800 IDS Tower
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 672-8669
Fax: (612) 672-3846
Email: info@stevenssquarefoundation.org
Web site: www.stevenssquarefoundation.org
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The Stevens Square Foundation is dedicated to inspiring and enabling people to live
with dignity, with particular emphasis on the needs of the elderly and children. We strive to improve the lives
of individuals in the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area by providing support to organizations that are
responsive, innovative, and effective in meeting these needs.
Funding priorities: For 2007 and 2008, our funding priorities will focus on programs for seniors. We are
interested in programs that are innovative and effective in advancing the welfare of the elderly, serving: to
promote independence by providing affordable housing and community accessibility for seniors; to meet the
unique and complex needs of low-income seniors; to address the diverse and growing needs of elders and
their families in different cultural and ethnic communities; to increase public awareness of services available
to seniors; to offer intergenerational opportunities linking children and youth with elders in their communities;
to address the unique needs of seniors with disabilities; to provide elders with opportunities for learning and
social interaction; to promote volunteerism encouraging the use of the talents, time and experience of retired
persons as volunteers; to provide end of life care to elders and their families.
Program limitations/restrictions: We do not make grants to individuals, political organizations or
candidate, fraternal societies or orders, religious organizations for religious purposes, or umbrella
organizations, such as federated fund drives.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Areas of interest:
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Volunteer bureaus.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Affordable housing for seniors.
HUMAN SERVICES: Senior centers and services.
Intended beneficiaries: Aging/elderly/senior citizens.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Exclusions: Individuals, Non-501(c)(3), Political organizations.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $11,592,703
Grants paid: $213,750
Largest/smallest: $50,000/$5,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: complete proposal.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Proposal deadlines: March 1.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: From February 1 to March 1.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: annually.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 6 months.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: Mary Aamoth; Joan Brooks; Debra Bryant; Elizabeth Colburn; Cynthia Emerson; Kathy Farley;
Sarah Goullaud; Ellie Hands; Elizabeth Hawn; Lisa Huey; John Hunsicker; Mary Jackley, president; Emily Johnson;
110
Sheila Morgan; Kitsy Morrison; Tim Murphy; Susan Plimpton; Carole Lee Randall; Brenda Sallstrom; Mary Stotts;
Nancy Thompson Ulvestad; Pam Ulvestad; Jamie Wilson.
111
Think Community Foundation
Think Federal Credit Union
PO Box 5949
Rochester, MN 55903
County: Olmsted
Phone: (507) 536-5702
Fax: (507) 536-5730
Web site: www.thinkbank.com
Funder type: Corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: Think Community Foundation has been established to oversee the distribution of
charitable donations from Think Credit Union of Rochester, Minnesota. The Foundation focuses on
reinvesting in the communities they serve by supporting the many non-profit organizations that are working
to improve those communities.
Funding priorities: 1. Non-profit organizations providing for the physical and social well being of people,
especially children and young adults, and including initiatives to promote general education and economic
well-being. 2. Organizations that alleviate suffering, provide comfort or have programs that are intended to
combat physical or social problems before they occur. 3. Local organizations, or local chapters of
organizations, that focus donations most directly on the health and well being of those in the community.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Southeast Minnesota.
Areas of interest:
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Pre-school/elementary.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Environmental education.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Health support services, Public health programs/wellness
education.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Emergency assistance (food/clothing/cash), Family services,
Family services for adolescent parents, Family violence shelters and services, Multipurpose human service
organizations, Personal social services, Residential/custodial care, Senior centers and services, Services to
specific groups, Victims services.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Adult/child matching programs, Multipurpose youth centers/clubs, Scouting
organizations, Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS: Building/renovation, Computer systems/technology, Equipment, Land acquisitions.
EMERGENCY FUNDS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT: Annual campaigns.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Fundraising, Mentoring programs, Publications,
Leadership programs.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $2,500
Grants paid: $405,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, email.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Accept common report form: yes.
Will view video: yes.
Proposal deadlines: For further information on deadlines, see www.thinkbank.com
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: quarterly.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 6-8 weeks.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Kari Jo Pugh, executive director.
Directors/trustees: Paul Dorn, vice president; Tom Floyd, secretary/treasurer; Paul Horgen, president.
112
113
Travelers Corporation and Travelers Foundation
385 Washington Street
514D
St. Paul, MN 55102-1396
County: Ramsey
Phone: (651) 310-7757
Fax: (651) 310-2327
Email: mnewman@travelers.com
Web site: www.travelers.com/Spt03PortalMain.asp?startpage=/corporate/about/community/index.html
Established: 01/01/1998
Funder type: Corporate foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: Partner with employees, communities and businesses to help build a civil society by
investing in people and institutions for long-term success.
Funding priorities: Arts and culture; community development; education.
Program limitations/restrictions: Generally no funding for events, individuals, religious purposes, veteran
or fraternal groups, benefits or fundraisers, advertising, hospital or other services generally supported by
third-party reimbursement mechanisms, government services.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota Statewide, National Areas, Limited National
and International Areas.
Geographic limitations: Priority for communities, U.S. and non-U.S., where St. Paul Travelers has offices.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Media/communications, Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Economic
development, Nonprofit management.
EDUCATION: Adult/continuing education/literacy, Educational reform, Educational services, Graduate
education/professional schools, Higher education, Pre-school/elementary, Secondary, Adult.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Housing development/construction/management, Housing owners/renter
organizations, Housing search assistance, Low-cost temporary housing, Other.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: Federated Funds, Nonprofit sector assistance, Philanthropy
associations, Voluntarism promotion.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS/SOCIETY BENEFIT: Leadership development/awards programs (other than youth).
PUBLIC SAFETY/DISASTERS/RELIEF: Disaster preparedness and relief, Safety education.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Youth development programs.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, African Americans/Blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Children and youth
(infants-19 years), Disabled - general or unspecified disability, Ethnic/racial populations - general, Females all ages or age unspecified, Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender, Hispanics/Latinos, Homeless,
Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Infants/babies (under age 5), Males - all ages or age unspecified, Native
American/American Indians, Poor/economically disadvantaged, Youth/adolescents (ages 14-19).
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
STUDENT AID (GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS): Scholarship funds.
CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP: Very limited basis, events in headquarters community. Priorities: consistent
with guidelines. Restrictions: downtown St. Paul, Minnesota. Contact: Mike Newman, Community Affairs,
(651) 310-7359, mnewman@travelers.com.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Matching grants: employee matching.
Dollars for Doers: yes.
Sample grants:
Admission Possible/St Paul, MN/$20,000.
African Development Center/MN/Operating support to help African immigrants understand the legal system
for business as well as homeownership/$25,000.
Center for Hmong Arts & Talent/MN/Operating support for this arts organization, which creates, presents
and teaches Hmong arts, and nurtures and develops Hmong artists/$15,000.
La Escuelita/MN/Operating support for this organization, which helps Latino youth achieve greater success
in school by providing cultural and language-based academic skill enhancement/$15,000.
MAP (Management Assistance Program) for NonProfits/MN/Operating support to provide management
assistance to Twin Cities' nonprofit organizations that address St. Paul Travelers' funding objectives in
114
education, community development, and arts and culture and one-time capital support to move the
offices/$70,000.
Page Educational Foundation/MN/Scholarship support for Minnesota low-income students of color attending
Minnesota post-secondary institutions and performing community service to youth as a component of their
scholarship and education. /$20,000.
Pangea World Theater Company/Minneapolis, MN/Operating support for this arts organization, which
produces plays, provides workshops and offers a speaker series that promotes public understanding of
internationally diverse cultures/$10,000.
Womens Campaign School - CT/CT/Operating support to pursue increasing the number of women in
political office and leadership positions within their communities. /$25,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $551,920
Grants paid: $15,215,825
Number of grants: 577
Largest/smallest: $450,000/$200
In-kind gifts: $45,270
Matching gifts: $632,836
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, telephone inquiry, complete proposal, email.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report, website, All
information is available on our website. Please note: we no longer accept paper applications; everything must be
submitted online.
Proposal deadlines: Ongoing. However, the final deadline for consideration for 2008 funding is August 28, 2008.
Preferred time for receiving proposals: none.
Contribution decisions made by: staff, employee committee, board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: quarterly.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 90 to 120 days
Special application procedures: All applications must be submitted online.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Athena Adkins, field operations manager; Shary Hughes-Kempainen, grants administrator; Marlene Ibsen,
president; Mike Newman, vice president.
Directors/trustees: John Albano; Jay Benet; Andy Bessette, chairman; John Clifford; Marlene Ibsen, president;
Marlene Ibsen; Ron James; Michael Klein; Mike Newman, vice president; Sara Radjenovic; Bill Rohde; Kurt
Schwarzkopf; Ken Spence.
115
U.S. Bancorp Foundation
800 Nicollet Mall
BC-MN-H21B
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4302
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 303-0742
Fax: (612) 303-0787
Web site: www.usbank.com/cgi_w/cfm/about/community_relations/commun_relations.cfm
Contact: Kate Waters, foundation manager
Established: 01/11/1979
Funder type: Corporate foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: To connect to our communities by providing support to organizations that improve the
educational and economic opportunities of targeted individuals and families; and enhance the cultural and
artistic life of the communities in which we live and work.
Funding priorities: Economic opportunity, affordable housing, cultural and artistic enrichment, K-12
education and United Way. U.S. Bancorp offers support to strengthen community organizations and higher
education institutions through its Community and Higher Education Matching Gift Program for employees.
Program limitations/restrictions: U.S. Bank will not provide corporate giving grants for organizations that
are not tax-exempt under 501(c)(3) or organizations outside U.S. Bancorp communities; individuals; travel
and related expenses, endowment campaigns, deficit reduction, religious organizations designed for
religious purposes, organizations designed primarily to lobby, fundraising events or sponsorships, medically
oriented charities, or political campaigns.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Areas outside Minnesota, National
Areas.
Geographic limitations: U.S. Bank supports organizations in communities in which we operate.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Organizations and programs that build audiences of arts organizations;
bring the arts to underserved populations; bring select and limited civic amenities to underserved, rural
communities; promote the arts in education.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Economic
development.
EDUCATION: organizations that work in collaboration with K-12 schools (public or private) that develop
and/or deliver innovative programs addressing dropout prevention, economic education, mentoring and
curriculum innovation.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Housing development/construction/management, Home buyer counseling.
PHILANTHROPY/VOLUNTARISM: United Way.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS.
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Matching grants: elementary/secondary education, employee matching, higher education.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $35,628,158
Grants paid: $20,500,000
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: visit www.usbank.com to obtain state contacts and deadlines, grant application and
quidelines.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report, website.
Proposal deadlines: Twin Cities application deadlines: February 1 (Arts and Culture), April 1 (Economic
Opportunity), July 1 (Education). Minnesota communities outside of the Twin Cities are asked to visit their local
branch for more information on deadlines.
Contribution decisions made by: employee committee, board of directors/trustees.
116
Frequency of contributions decisions: quarterly.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 90 days.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Katie Brandt, grants coordinator; Deborah Burke, foundation director; Jenessa Jensen, community relations
specialist; Jodi Piazza, matching gifts coordinator; Kate Waters, foundation manager.
117
Archie D. and Bertha H. Walker Foundation
1121 Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403-1785
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 332-3556
Fax: (612) 333-6615
Contact: Joan Schoepke, foundation administrator
Established: 08/31/1953
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: The purpose of the grant program is to encourage, develop and support activity in
community programs that deal with chemical dependency, the arts and opposition to racism, prejudice and
exclusivity.
Funding priorities: The foundation places primary emphasis on grants to programs dealing with the effect
of chemical dependency, chiefly alcoholism, on children and their development. The trustees also consider
grant proposals in areas of longstanding foundation interest. These interests include programs in the arts,
and programs addressing the treatment of racism, prejudice and exclusivity. Foundation grants are made
only to organizations that operate without prejudice.
Program limitations/restrictions: The foundation will ordinarily give preference to grants for programs over
grants for capital needs. No grants are made either to individuals or private foundations. Grants are usually
awarded for a one-year period.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota Statewide, National Areas.
Geographic limitations: The foundation customarily limits its grantmaking activities to the state of
Minnesota.
Areas of interest:
ANIMAL RELATED: Wildlife preservation/protection.
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Media/communications, Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Civil liberties advocacy, Equal opportunity and access, Intergroup relations/race relations,
Voter education/registration.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Economic
development.
EDUCATION: Educational services, Libraries/library science.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION: Natural resources conservation/protection,
Pollution abatement and control.
FOOD/NUTRITION/AGRICULTURE: Soil and water conservation/farm land preservation.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES: ALS.
HEALTH - GENERAL/REHABILITATIVE: Reproductive health care.
HEALTH - MENTAL HEALTH/CRISIS INTERVENTION: Addiction disorders, Alcohol/drug/substance,
prevention and treatment, Counseling/support groups, Hot line/crisis intervention, Mental health treatment
and services.
HUMAN SERVICES: Family services, Family services for adolescent parents, Family violence shelters and
services.
PUBLIC PROTECTION - CRIME/COURTS/LEGAL SERVICES: Legal services.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, African Americans/Blacks, Aging/elderly/senior citizens, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, Children and youth (infants-19 years), Ethnic/racial minorities - other specified group(s),
Ethnic/racial populations - general, Females - all ages or age unspecified, Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender,
Hispanics/Latinos, Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Males - all ages or age unspecified, Native
American/American Indians, Poor/economically disadvantaged, Single parents, Substance abusers.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Conferences/seminars, Curriculum development,
Exhibitions, Faculty/staff development, Film/video/radio production, Mentoring programs, Public awareness,
Publications, Seed money/start-up funds, Leadership programs.
RESEARCH.
Sample grants:
Center for Victims of Torture/MN/$7,500.
Friends of the Minneapolis Public Library/MN/$10,000.
Friends of the MN Sinfonia/MN/$5,000.
Midwest Art Conservation Center/MN/$2,500.
118
Ramsey County Historical Society/MN/$5,000.
Retreat, The/MN/$5,000.
Southside Family School/MN/$7,500.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $7,265,736
Grants paid: $379,510
Number of grants: 178
Largest/smallest: $20,000/$25
Matching gifts: $40,710
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, telephone inquiry.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, application form, annual report.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: December 1 and July 1.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: semi-annually.
Specific times board meets: March and October.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 4 months.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: Joan Schoepke, foundation administrator.
Directors/trustees: Susannah B. Dunlap; Harriet W. Fitts; William S. Fitts; Bronwyn A. E. Griffith; James H. Heron,
president; Catherine L. Lamb, treasurer; Julia M. Lamb, secretary; Dana D. McCannel; Teri M. Motley; Amy C.
Walker; Berta B. Walker; Colin M. Walker; Elaine B. Walker; Sally L. Walker, vice president; Alexa Griffith Winton.
119
Warren Foundation
US Bank N.A.
101 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
County: Ramsey
Phone: (651) 466-8718
Contact: Nancy H. Frankenberry
Established: 12/01/1958
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Funding priorities: Primarily to educational, cultural, youth and community support organizations located in
Minnesota.
Program limitations/restrictions: No grants to individuals or organizations that require expenditure
responsibility.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota Statewide.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Historical societies, Media/communications, Museums, Performing arts.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT.
EDUCATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY/PROTECTION/BEAUTIFICATION.
HEALTH - DISEASES/MEDICAL DISCIPLINES.
HUMAN SERVICES: Children/youth services, Family services, Multipurpose human service organizations,
Personal social services, Services to specific groups, Victims services.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: Multipurpose youth centers/clubs, Scouting organizations, Youth development
programs.
Intended beneficiaries: General public/unspecified.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Sample grants:
Archdiocesan AIDS Ministry Program/MN/general operating/$5,000.
Big Brothers/Big Sisters - MN (Minneapolis)/MN/general operating/$1,500.
Center for Victims of Torture/MN/general operating/$4,000.
Childrens Chance Inc/MN/general operating/$1,500.
MN Literacy Council/MN/general operating/$2,000.
Ordway Music Theatre/MN/general operating/$2,000.
Parkinson Association of MN/MN/general operating/$5,000.
St Paul Chamber Orchestra/MN/general operating/$2,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $3,924,769
Grants paid: $195,500
Number of grants: 88
Largest/smallest: $7,000/$500
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry.
Proposal deadlines: none.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: U.S. Bank Trust NA; Theodore J. Collins; John E. King.
120
Wells Fargo Foundation Minnesota
90 South Seventh Street
N9305-192
Minneapolis, MN 55479
County: Hennepin
Phone: (612) 667-7860
Fax: (612) 667-8283
Web site: www.wellsfargo.com/donations
Established: 11/29/1979
Funder type: Corporate foundation and corporate giving program
Program Description
Program's purpose: Improve the quality of life in the communities where Wells Fargo does business.
Funding priorities: Organizations that serve a specific neighborhood should contact their local Wells Fargo
Bank for neighborhood specific funding priorities and guidelines. Organizations serving the entire Twin Cities
or cities of Minneapolis or St. Paul may address their request to the Metropolitan Contributions Committee
(MCC), whose priorities are employment and economic development for low-income families and
neighborhoods, affordable housing and economic education.
Program limitations/restrictions: No grants for sponsorships, travel, tours, conferences, individuals,
tickets, benefits, religious purposes, political campaigns, marketing, and organizations that do not comply
with the foundation’s non-discrimination policy. Organization must also be 501(c)(3) nonprofit, government
agency, or school institution. In addition, organization must also have a three-year minimum track record.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota.
Geographic limitations: Wells Fargo communities.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: In the Twin Cities, major arts organizations are supported directly through
grants made by the MCC; small- and mid-sized organizations are supported through a grant made by the
MCC to the Minnesota State Arts Board.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Economic
development, Nonprofit management.
EDUCATION: Wells Fargo supports education through its Employee Matching Gift Program, which matches
employee donations 1:1 up to $6,500.
EMPLOYMENT/JOBS: Employment procurement/job training, Vocational rehabilitation.
HOUSING/SHELTER: Housing development/construction/management.
HUMAN SERVICES: Multipurpose human service organizations, Personal social services, supported
through Wells Fargo’s contribution to the United Way. Occasionally, one-time support to United Way
agencies for capital campaigns may be considered. Support to non-United Way agencies is focused on onetime non-recurring expenses for employment programs.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT: School-to-career and work readiness programs.
Intended beneficiaries: Adults, African Americans/Blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Blind/vision impaired,
Crime/abuse victims, Deaf/hearing impaired, Disabled - general or unspecified disability, Ethnic/racial
populations - general, Females - all ages or age unspecified, Hispanics/Latinos, Homeless,
Immigrants/newcomers/refugees, Males - all ages or age unspecified, Mentally/emotionally disabled,
Migrant workers, Native American/American Indians, Physically disabled, Poor/economically disadvantaged.
Types of support for organizations:
CAPITAL CAMPAIGNS: Building/renovation, Computer systems/technology, Land acquisitions.
MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT: Curriculum development, Faculty/staff development,
Publications, Wells Fargo prefers to fund one-time non-recurring expenses versus general operating or
program support.
Types of support for individuals: none.
Matching grants: Employee contributions to elementary/secondary education and higher education are
matched 1:1 up to $6,500 though the Wells Fargo Education Matching Gift Program.
Sample grants:
AccountAbility MN/MN/Client & Volunteer Education Materials for 2006 Tax Season/$15,000.
African American Mutual Assistance Network - MN/MN/2006 MLK Celebration Jan. 14-16/$500.
Bridging, Inc/MN/Technology System upgrade/$40,000.
City of Northfield - MN/MN/Veterans Memorial/$2,700.
Community & Cultural Center - MN (Detroit Lakes)/MN/Financial Support/$3,000.
Dollars for Scholars - MN/MN/Scholarships/$1,050.
121
Itasca Development Corporation/MN/Jobs 2020/$4,000.
MN Community Foundation/MN/Warroad Library Endowment Fund/$5,000.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $500,000,000
Grants paid: $10,800,000
Number of grants: 2200
Largest/smallest: $1,290,000/$25
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, telephone inquiry, request for guidelines, complete proposal.
Public information available by request: proposal guidelines, annual report, website, proposals must include all
items listed on the Wells Fargo proposal checklist. Contact staff for checklist or download checklist from website.
Accept common grant application: yes.
Proposal deadlines: Deadlines for the Metropolitan Contributions Committee (MCC) are February 1, April 1, July 1,
and October 1. Capital campaigns are reviewed once a year in September. Capital Campaign requests should be
received no later than July 1.
Contribution decisions made by: employee committee.
Frequency of contributions decisions: quarterly.
Typical time from application deadlines to notification: 2-3 months.
Special application procedures: Organizations that serve a specific neighborhood should address applications to their
local Wells Fargo Bank. Organizations serving the entire Twin Cities or cities of Minneapolis or St. Paul should direct
their request to Carolyn Roby at 90 South 7th St, N9305-192, Minneapolis, MN 55479.
Staff/Trustees
Staff: MayKao Fredericks, program associate; Rebecca Jacobson, foundation assistant; Carolyn H. Roby, vice
president.
Directors/trustees: Jon Campbell; Marilyn Dahl; Susan Davis; Jerry Gray; Jim Heinz; Neel Johnson; Diane Lilly;
John McQueen; Bill Meyer; Laurie Nordquist; Debra Paterson; Paula Rak; Paul Schmidt; Jim Steiner; Gerry Stenson;
Tom Tosney.
122
Wenger Foundation
PO Box 142
Navarre, MN 55392
County: Hennepin
Phone: (952) 471-3667
Contact: Wendy Wenger, executive director
Established: 12/20/1982
Funder type: Private foundation
Program Description
Program's purpose: Grants made to qualified nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations in the arts, business
education, and public information areas at the discretion of the board of directors.
Funding priorities: 1) Local; 2) Regional; 3) National.
Geographic focus: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota, Minnesota Statewide, National
Areas.
Areas of interest:
ARTS, CULTURE, HUMANITIES: Arts services, Arts/cultural multipurpose, Historical societies, Humanities,
Media/communications, Museums, Performing arts, Visual arts.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT: Community/neighborhood development/improvement, Owatonna only.
EDUCATION: Higher education, Vocational/technical, Business.
.
Types of support for organizations:
GENERAL PURPOSE/OPERATING SUPPORT.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT SUPPORT.
Sample grants:
Acoustical Society of America/MN/TCAA Design Award/$3,000.
BestPrep/MN/general operating/$4,800.
Minneapolis Institute of Arts/MN/general operating/$3,000.
MN Alliance for Arts in Education/MN/general operating/$1,250.
MN Private College Fund/MN/general operating/$3,000.
Owatonna Arts Center/MN/general operating/$3,200.
Owatonna Hospice/MN/general operating/$25,000.
St Paul Chamber Orchestra/MN/general operating/$4,500.
Financial Information
Financial data for year ending: 12/31/2006
Foundation assets: $6,420,845
Grants paid: $245,999
Number of grants: 23
Largest/smallest: $25,000/$50
Application Information
Preferred form of initial contact: letter of inquiry, complete proposal, any form.
Proposal deadlines: none.
Contribution decisions made by: board of directors/trustees.
Frequency of contributions decisions: semi-annually.
Staff/Trustees
Directors/trustees: Nancy Benjamin; Kari Hoffmeister; Kirsten Johnson; Jerry A. Wenger, president; Sonja Wenger;
Wendy Wenger, executive director.
123
Appendix E: Summary of Recommendations
Physical Enhancements and Beautification to Improve Safety
-Katie Peacock
Safety Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Identify common ground and create “layers of engagement”
Partnership, Partnership, Partnership
Set-up “Adopt-a-Litter Container” program
Offer Graffiti Reduction Kits
Provide Matching Grant Loans for business improvements
Use public spaces for positive activities
Lighting and Neighborhood Signage
1. Pedestrian Level Lighting
2. Neighborhood Banners
3. Neighborhood Welcome Signs
4. Long Term Goal
8. Develop Mural Projects
9. Create “Traffic Calming” Situations
Budget recommendations
$29,000 Allocation for Physical Enhancements
– Adopt-A-Litter Container $1728 for 2 years
– Matching Grant Program for Business Improvements $10,000 First Phase
and $10,000 Second Phase
– Resident Artist and Mural Creation $2000
– Neighborhood Signage $5000
– Graffiti Removal Kits $100
Block Clubs, Watch Clubs, and Communications Strategies
-Dawn Skelly
Block club and watch group getting started recommendations
1. Schedule a meeting between representatives of the Project Lookout program, the
Riverside Tenants Association and Ahmed Hassan to share ideas and to possibly
start a Project Lookout program or block clubs at the Riverside Towers.
124
2. Work with Ahmed Hassan to network through the mosques to get the word out
about forming block clubs. Ask for volunteers who would go door-to-door in the
various housing units.
Ongoing Recommendations
1. Work with CRBA to develop business watch clubs.
2. Hold monthly block club meetings with block club leaders around CedarRiverside; and encourage representation at the NRP Safety Committee.
3. Hold annual celebration for all “safety-related” volunteers: Project Lookout, Block
Clubs, Business association block clubs.
4. Plan monthly walks
Communication recommendations
1. Develop e-mail lists in cooperation with Luther Krueger’s office to keep block club
leaders and residents informed.
2. Encourage neighbors to notify each other and the proper authorities—right
away—when they see something (a crime, graffiti, a broken store window, etc.)
Ongoing Recommendations
1. Develop a “safety-related” web page for Cedar-Riverside.
2. Encourage communication in the local newspaper (columns, letters to the editor).
3. Develop a relationship with KFAI radio station to broadcast important news
regarding block clubs, national night out and other events, as well as crime alerts.
Budget recommendations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total to spend = $500 NRP dollars
In kind donations:
T-shirts for block club organizers, get printing donated
Get block clubs leaders cell phones donated
Get prizes donated for annual block club events to recognize community
leaders, residents and business owners.
6. Develop a safety-related web page for updates on Cedar-Riverside
Building Strong Community-Police Relations in Cedar
Riverside
-Karly Zufall
125
Recommendations: better communication
1. Ask Ahmed Hassan, CCP Officer, and Jim Nystrom, UMPD West Bank Liaison,
to attend each Safety Committee meeting.
2. Work with Kathy Waite to reserve time at each quarterly MPD meeting for
community input and two-way dialogue.
3. Work with MPD to get a member of the Safety Committee present on monthly
meeting of police bodies for resident input.
4. Work with MPD to get representative from Metro Transit to attend monthly
meeting of police bodies, especially since some hot spots already identified
are around transit property.
5. Communicate positive events and opportunities to get involved, such as
block club meeting schedules, clean up days, activities at neighborhood orgs,
etc.
Recommendations: stronger collaboration
1. Review community impact statements and “no trespassing” laws and
procedures.
2. Review forms on Mpls website for lighting, traffic, and sidewalk concerns or
calling 311 to report these structure issues. Review calling 911 for crime
issues.
3. Create a process for identifying hot spots in the neighborhood.
4. Partner with MPD to provide free Safety Audits for businesses to
demonstrate strengths and weaknesses in their security system. Audits could
form basis for matching business grants.
5. Use free guides available from the Center for Problem Oriented Policing and
US DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to get information on
addressing specific concerns.
6. Talk with other neighborhood associations to learn how they’ve addressed a
particular crime problem whenever possible.
Recommendations: creating avenues for interaction
1. Promote Safety Committee and MPD quarterly meetings more broadly
through the Safety Committee e-mail listserve, flyers in business and
distributed to organizations, door knocking by block club leaders or Project
Lookout volunteers, etc.
2. Identify individuals or organizations that should be added to the listserve.
3. Over the longer term, work with residents, businesses, block clubs, and
organizations to provide activities that promote positive interaction, such as
youth sports teams sponsored by local businesses, neighborhood wide walks,
picnics or barbeques, or community forums on topics of interest to residents.
126
Preventing Youth Violence
-Sarah Martyn Crowell
Recommendations: partnerships and community engagement
1. Safety Committee participate in link between safety and youth development
a. Work with Human Opportunities Committee/Neighborhood Relations
Committee to discuss and development action plans
2. Establish Brian Coyle as community partner for new Minneapolis Preventing
Youth Violence Initiative (beginning)
a. Work with partners to develop a community-based strategy for
curbing youth violence
b. Find ways other community partners can join the effort (Trinity,
Towers, CHANCE, FOLC, ADC, WBCC, Augsburg, other committees)
Recommendations: youth involvement
1. Continue development of Youth Council.
– Possible next project: local public education campaign to raise
awareness about stopping youth violence and discussing knowledge
and tools needed to work towards prevention
– Include member from Youth Council on Safety Committee
2. Involve youth in Safety Activities and vise versa
– Global Youth Service Day = successful partnership. Look for more
opportunities like this.
• Possible youth service projects? Talking to businesses?
Involvement in block clubs? Discussions between youth (only)
and policy?
3. Create/Expand after-school/summer opportunities
– YWCA: Camp Kickin’ it
• Boys and Girls ages 9 – 13
• June 16 – August 7; Monday – Thursday; 1 - 4:30pm
• $40 for whole summer per child; scholarships available; no one
turned down for inability to pay
• Location: Matthews Park
– 7A bus: total trip time from Brian Coyle Center = 15
min
– Total bus cost for summer
» ages 9-12: $32; age 13: $96
– Expanding STEP-UP program: youth job entrepreneurship
• Priority of Blueprint for Action; beginning stages for how
Cedar Riverside can benefit
127