CEDAC (Community Economic Development Advisory Committee) (1995). Our Economy: Our Future, Final Report. York, Ontario: City of York



Ashley N. Smith
CEDAC (Community Economic Development Advisory Committee) (1995). Our Economy: Our Future, Final Report. York, Ontario: City of York


Alyssa J. Hinkell, Spring 2009
Interesting…
- the thoroughness with which the City of York took on this project- City government, at least in the U.S., often seems a bit bloated, somewhat corrupt, and mostly ineffective. The City of York seems to have really streamlined the process of economic development and this model would, I can imagine, be very helpful for others especially in this economic climate.
- the collaboration between the numerous stakeholders- the acknowledgement that each of the stakeholders needs to be held responsible for the economic turnaround and the importance of the cooperative partnerships between them is refreshing. Today, it seems that there is a constant blame game and a shifting of responsibility to another’s plate. Even though the report is over a decade old (1995) it still makes me feel hopeful.
- This collaboration is really an example of the PBL process as well!
Puzzling…
- It seems that the CEDAC was able to implement their plan relatively quickly. They began their research in March 1993 and then began the implementation process in September of 1994. I am amazed at this progress given that it has taken me an entire semester to design and plan my project…
Important to find out…
- I am wondering if the City of York has updated their plan in the face of the current economic crisis.
- Besides the narrative-styled “Lessons Learned” list on page 26 there seems to be little evidence of any evaluation. I am wondering if this came later or how it was otherwise built into the process.

Elizabeth H. Naylor
5/6/07
CEDAC Report
Notes and questions

Having read this report I have put together a very basic outline of key factors that were apparent in the CEDAC report. Much of what is written in the report reads like a text book example for the action research process. Clearly the process that CEDAC experienced was effective for the city of York and it is difficult to understand why more communities are not utilizing the action research method to increase development.

• A delegation (Community Economic Development Committee – CEDAC) was created in York to do the following:
(new words/phrases for the action research cycle)

Identify strengths and weaknesses
Develop a plan that allows for flexibility
Focus resources
Use innovative means to finance
Recognize the importance
Activate your constituency

• CEDAC membership included community members from many different sectors. The development of York would need the support the whole community and as a result the whole community needed involvement.

• CEDAC became a catalyst for change as well as an example for York to follow when creating and implementing other plans.

• CEDAC has resulted in increase trust and partnership within the community

• CEDAC followed four basic steps
1. Research Phase
The task force divided into three teams and each team researched a particular area, a follow up meeting was held and each team was able to share what they had discovered.
2. Strategic Planning Phase
Strategic planning allowed the group to move from research to action.
3. Community Consultation Process
Task groups within CEDAC were created to carry out each of the action parts of the strategic plan.
4. Ongoing Implementation Process
The group continues to meet to monitor the ongoing process within the city.

• “Throughout the CEDAC process the City has been able to mobilize a diverse and broad range of organizations and interests. This has ensured that the strategy created by CEDAC reflects the day to day micro level of the community as well as the macro dimension of York’s economic realities” (CEDAC Report p.24).

Questions:
Why isn’t action research being used in cities all around the world? What are the factors that hinder the start of this process? What are the factors that stop this process once it gets going? What other cities/towns have implemented a process like this one with successful outcomes?
Andy Reyes
April 18, 2008

Insights gained:
-Open communication is key to constituency-building. Getting as broad a representation as possible where stakeholders are concerned is crucial. Making thinking processes transparent to others and getting input from everyone, even the ones usually deemed "small players" or "non-essential" constituents TRULY helps make the project a collectively-owned effort.
Applications to my AR:
-I can benefit from sharing my ideas with others, even though they may not directly be part of my AR. Other people can help enrich my process, and even connect me to resources that I didn't even know existed. I need to constantly remind myself that my project has meaning to many people, whether I think so or not. Maybe, it's just a matter of casting a wider net.
-The VISION, OBSTACLES, STRATEGIC DIRECTION, and ACTION PLANNING workshops all have value, not just for AR, but for community team-building, grant-writing, improving teacher-student classroom dynamics, program design, etc. On a small scale, the teacher might try using some of the key points of the V, O, SD, and AP in evaluating, assessing, or planning his/her classroom short-term or long-term "actions."
A possible questionnaire (a bit like a Critical Incident Questionnaire) might look like this: What is your vision for this class? What are some obstacles that you see? How can we surmount these obstacles? What steps can you as a student (as students) take to improve the quality of your learning experience? What steps can I as teacher take to improve everyone's learning experience/my own teaching? What actions could help make this class a stronger learning community? What can we do to make sure we follow up on the actions we plan to take?

Questions sparked by CEDAC:

-What does it take to sustain momentum/spirit on projects (AR, etc.) that are collectively initiated/done? (How do you deal with the shift or move from "we're all in this together" thinking, say, on an all-day Professional Development Planning Day---to a lack of interest to follow through with goals/objectives that were initially viewed as important or crucial for the company?)
-How do we embrace everyone's perspective? How do we make sure nobody feels left out, disvalued, or diminished?
-How do you win over colleagues who are indifferent, unmotivated, not invested in anything the company (school, nonprofit, etc.) is trying to achieve?


Jeremy Szteiter
April 6, 2008

Main themes:
-community-operated strategic planning process for city of York, ON
-direct effort to learn from the processes of simiar cities
-phases: research, strategic planning, community consultation, ongoing implementation
-single "entry point" workshop - all involved have built-in common ground for starting discussion
-committee AR/planning process in initial form, followed by community AR in wider form (assisted by facilitators)
-strategic planning workshops: Vision, Obstacles, Strategic Directions, Action Planning

New insights:
-use my action research not only as a way to enact change in my work/life/teaching situation, but also use it to enact change in the way that I notice how I go about my own life, uncover and address areas of personal improvement, and find new ways to develop relationships with people and ideas
-sometimes, it helps to limit focus of a single meeting or event to a very narrow concept of interest - provides permission to participants to not try to solve every type of problem at the same time
-AR might help to expose the issue that resources may not have been used effectively; at the least, this can help people to simply pay attention to the use of resources in a more critical way
-even though AR might often been seen as a way to create change in an educational environment, it can be use for action researchers to develop their role as "publicists" as well as "educational scientists" - create the imagery, language, and exposure that allows an action research team to "toot one's own horn"

Remaining questions:
-Why does the education system so easily take the blame when a failure of communication/dissemination of information takes place? In which cases is it appropriate to delegate responsibility to "education" to keep people informed, and in which cases does this fall on individuals, businesses, and government?
-How does one weigh the options when all strategic directions cannot be taken at once? If communitity development, or any action research, takes the form of a systems thinking problem, where one action can support the ability to take another action, but the other way around as well, what should be done first?

Applications to own project:
-be prepared for skepticism at first; in fact, this may be a core idea, since the idea of collaborative play with adults may be one such area that is met with skepticism; consider how to work on that angle first before considering what it takes to get people to engage in collaborative play directly, themselves
-in addition to "action", "planning", etc., it may help to develop a list of core principles that apply to my AR - what are the ideals that are supporting my motivation to continue and keep believing that collaborative play is important and worthwhile?
-consider the meaning of "economy" in school-based action research - what are those things which are seen to have VALUE, and upon what conditions does a community begin to perceive itself as having WEALTH?
-think of alternatives to framing AR as having a start and end; for clarity, use the idea of phases, but continue AR in small ways, even if a major portion of the specific intervention is complete (task force, online log/discussion, etc.)
-continue to learn about/attempt/practice facilitation styles and methods