Policy Lessons
|
Policy Lesson One: It's a Balancing Act
|
|
Respondents indicated that all projects were considered high-priority projects. As such, respondents had to learn how to balance project prioritization and coordination to ensure that all the necessary steps were followed and pieces were in place to ensure project implementation and completion.
|
|
Policy Lesson Two: Red Tape Is Still Red Tape
|
|
Respondents noted that although the grant funding was guaranteed, there were requirements to complete the applications, contracts, and procurement processes; the process mirrored an application for normal state project funding, only at a much faster pace.
|
|
Policy Lesson Three: Need for Project-Specific Administrative Management
|
|
Respondents stated that due to the complexity of the process, there needs to be some set-aside funding for project management. They identified a good project manager as someone whose sole responsibility is to oversee and organize the projects.
|
|
Policy Lesson Four: All State Agencies Should Follow a Community Liaison Model
|
|
Respondents identified the OCRA model as helpful and effective in helping communities navigate through the ISCP process. Respondents recommended that the other two agencies, INDOT and IHCDA, follow a similar model to reduce confusion by pinpointing one target or “go to” person who is knowledgeable about their community and their respective Stellar project.
|
|
Policy Lesson Five: All Participants Need To Exhibit Patience and Flexibility
|
|
One of the initial lessons learned relates to project prioritization. As community partners developed their applications, partners were required to prioritize or rank projects. In doing so, respondents indicated that in an effort to create a “good” or Stellar-worthy application, the process (intentionally or unintentionally) guided them towards selecting those projects which they felt would be able to “fit in” with Stellar goals. Therefore, community partners consequently shifted project priorities. For instance, partners would take a project initially ranked number nine, 10, or 11 on the project list and move it up to a four or a three based on whether the project fit Stellar criteria from a funding standpoint or it was located within community target areas.
|
|
Policy Lesson Six: Make It Work for All Different Types of Jurisdictions
|
|
Respondents noted that there needs to be some work on the state agencies' part to be more inclusive in ISCP selection model towards towns and not just county seat cities to alleviate the exclusivity problem.
|
|
Policy Lesson Seven: Develop a “Stress-Test” to Determine Community Capacity
|
|
Respondents stated that there needed to be some type of mechanism in place in the ISCP selection model to test the communities’ capacity and leadership to implement such an extensive program.
“I think what I would change in the process is more or less to…to 'stress-test' a community…To go from zero and little or no dollars to $19 million is a big leap for communities of their size.... I don’t think that we scaled it in relationship to the size of the community.... So $6 million is not a big deal, but to a community of this size it was really a big deal.” |
|
Policy Lesson Eight: Make Sure a Community Has All the Necessary Components in Place (Its “Ducks in a Row”)
|
|
Respondents noted that there needs to be a better mechanism implemented to make sure that communities have all of the necessary pieces and partners in place. One main issue cited was the lack of site acquisition, which impeded progress in the first round of Stellar awardees.
|
Next Steps and Future Research
|
This summary report represents the culmination of the first year of Sagamore Institute’s contracted research and evaluation of the Indiana Stellar Communities Program. The goal has been to gather information about the Indiana Stellar Communities Program from state agencies, community partners, and stakeholders, so that the evaluation process and implementation within ISCP can be strengthened.
In the second phase of this evaluation, to be in 2014, Sagamore Institute will continue the analysis of the six Stellar communities (Greencastle and North Vernon (2011); Delphi and Princeton (2012); and Bedford and Richmond (2013)). Dissemination of the Research
•Annual year report underway- anticipated completion February 2015 •Research Updates & Upcoming Conference Presentations
· Oct 10 – Bloomington · Oct 30 – Peru |
