Lakewood Assessment Report

Situation
Assessment for Lakewood Region

Background

Lakewood NJ is the fastest growing township in NJ, and the most populous in Ocean County.
The population includes diverse constituencies – the majority is Orthodox Jewish, with a sizable
Latino/Latina population, as well as other ethnic groups. Lakewood also has a significant senior
citizen population, as it has been a popular retirement location. The township borders the
municipalities of Brick, Jackson, and Toms River in Ocean County; and Howell in Monmouth
County.

The Consensus Building Institute (CBI) and the National Charrette Institute (NCI) were hired on
behalf of Lakewood Neighbors to advance the goal of addressing the social and civic challenges
facing the region and developing a shared vision for the future. Lakewood Neighbors is a
diverse constituency of civic actors including leaders from business, local and regional
government, universities (Georgian Court University and Beth Medrash Govoha Yeshiva), and
social service agencies. CBI is a non-profit organization that provides facilitation and mediation
for numerous public issues, with a mission to help solve the world’s most challenging problems
through innovative stakeholder engagement, conflict resolution, and strategic collaboration.
NCI is a program within Michigan State University that is dedicated to transforming the way
people work together by building capacity for collaboration. Both organizations are
internationally recognized, neutral, non-profits and are dedicated to helping groups resolve
issues, reach better, more durable agreements and build stronger relationships.

As a first step, the CBI/NCI team engaged in a situation assessment. The purpose of the
situation assessment is identify the perspectives of the people involved on the issues,
perspectives, and challenges of the situation, and to understand the needs and opportunities
for collaboration, in order to recommend collaborative actions – those things that stakeholders
can do voluntarily and together – to build a positive future for Lakewood and the region.

Methodology

CBI/NCI conducted focus groups and confidential interviews with a variety of willing leaders and
key stakeholders in Lakewood and neighboring communities to understand their thoughts and
concerns. CBI/NCI and the planning team from Lakewood Neighbors sought to include a broad
range of participants from Lakewood and the region. We invited over 160 individuals to speak
Lakewood Region Assessment Report 1

Consensus Building Institute/National Charrette Institute: May 2019
with us, and interviewed a total of 90 people in individual interviews or focus groups, including
elected officials and agency leads at the county and township levels; business, religious,
education, and community leaders from the region; and residents of Lakewood and its
neighboring townships. We developed an initial interviewee list in conversation with a diverse
group from Lakewood Neighbors, and reached out to additional people based on suggestions
from interviewees. Nonetheless, we were not able to connect with everyone that was
suggested to us, and in some spheres there were significant gaps – for example, we invited but
didn’t have a chance to speak with many elected or municipal officials from neighboring
townships. We also missed several key religious leaders in the region. We think that these and
other missing perspectives must be engaged if and when specific collaborative processes are
designed and implemented. All interviews took place face-to-face during the week of February
4-7, 2019 or via subsequent telephone interviews. The names of interviewees are listed in
Appendix A.

CBI/NCI used an interview protocol as a general guide for conducting the interviews, which is
included as Appendix B. The interviewers followed the general structure of the protocol, while
allowing each conversation to follow the interests and comments of the interviewees. The
assessors made extensive notes on each interview, and summarized the interviews for internal
team use.

After reviewing and synthesizing interview findings, CBI/NCI shared initial observations with the
core team and, based on their input, refined our thinking and understanding of the key issues,
needs and potential next steps. We then sent the report in draft to all interviewees, requesting
their comments on mischaracterizations, errors, or omissions on their perspectives or ideas and
in the recommendations, and made additional refinements based on their feedback.

About This Report

An assessment is an effort to identify the issues that matter to stakeholders, understand the
range of stakeholder views on those issues, identify options and proposals the stakeholders
have for addressing the issues, and explore ways that the stakeholders might work
collaboratively to advance improvements on these issues. Assessments aim to help people gain
insights into the underlying situation from multiple points of view, deepen understanding of
one another’s perspectives, and identify opportunities for bringing people together.
The majority of the conversations we had with people in Lakewood and the region were quite
hopeful – in addition to identifying challenges, we heard many examples of positive actions,

and myriad substantive suggestions and process interventions to expand and transform those
challenges. This is an encouraging sign.

At the same time, we are aware that this assessment process is occurring at a time of
heightened sensitivity and tension in the region. Comments on social media and beyond, as
well as public statements and actions and responses from some political leaders in the region,
have raised the level of tension, fear, and mistrust across the spectrum. The presence,
perceptions, and fears of Anti-Semitism, stereotyping, and blame narrows the opportunity for
capturing a productive synthesis of compiled viewpoints. While it is helpful to identify the
challenges that residents experience in the region, reiterating perspectives that appear to
blame any one group for problems is counter-productive to improving relationships and
cooperation. Statements that feel to some as legitimate concerns may nonetheless draw on
stereotypes, or appear that way to others. We must acknowledge and condemn anti-Semitic
rhetoric and behavior and acknowledge legitimate concerns, while we avoid laying blame one-
sidedly or undermining the opportunities for collaboration and problem solving. Ultimately, the
challenges in the region belong to all groups – they are not caused by only one group, and
cannot be solved by only one group.

Given this context and our overarching commitment to help parties strengthen connections and
understanding, we are opting to take a different approach to reporting out our assessment
findings. To set the basis for constructive, face-to-face discussions, this report does not present
a comprehensive synthesis of viewpoints from our interviews. Rather, it identifies a set of key
themes, including areas of commonality and divergence, and then focuses on
recommendations – based directly on suggestions from interviews – that we think can help all
stakeholders in the region who seek to work collaboratively to develop a positive and shared
vision for the future that improves outcomes for all residents. Ultimately, despite the fears, we
see a situation with real opportunity for collaboration.

The report is limited by the information gathered in the interviews/focus groups, and the
assessment team’s interpretation of that information. Any errors or omissions are the sole
responsibility of CBI and NCI.


Findings

Strengths and Values of Lakewood and the Region
There is so much that people appreciate about Lakewood and the region. Interviewees shared
many ideas, stories, and examples about what they valued most or saw as the greatest
strengths of Lakewood and the region. Among the main themes were:
• Good quality of life and access to desirable amenities locally and regionally
• High levels of community vitality, engagement and satisfaction
• Opportunities for diverse and cross-cultural interactions
• Community safety, with low rates of crime and violence
• Strong economic profile and plentiful job opportunities
• Extraordinary commitments to charity, volunteer-ship, and community service

Challenges Faced by Lakewood and the Region
Lakewood is a place of growth and demographic change. How each person experiences,
interprets, and is impacted by that change varies tremendously based on their identities, their
personality and psychological profile, their experiences, their values, and their life histories.
Accordingly, we heard a diversity of different perspectives about how interviewees saw the
challenges in Lakewood and the region. From these, we have identified three overarching
themes:

• Relationships and Attitudes: Many interviewees suggested that, in general,
relationships and co-existence among diverse communities in Lakewood, and to some
extent in surrounding communities, were positive. People shared many stories of cross-
cultural friendships, cooperation, and coexistence, including explicit programs and
efforts to cultivate communication as well as individual and spontaneous relationships.
Simultaneously, most also noted the existence of inter-group tensions. Most
interviewees acknowledged the presence of intolerant attitudes and biased behaviors
toward the Orthodox – examples of these have been well documented. For a few
stakeholders, the experience of bias and Anti-Semitism was a central characteristic of
life in the region and the primary problem that Lakewood Neighbors needed to address.
Some people felt that problems in Lakewood and the region were being unfairly blamed
on the Orthodox, and that the complaints about Lakewood were undergirded by
stereotypes and bias, either explicit or latent. Most interviewees felt that coverage of
Lakewood and the Orthodox community by the media as a whole, and the Asbury Park
Press (APP) in particular, over-emphasized negative stories about Lakewood and

members of the Orthodox community, which exacerbated community tensions.
Interviewees across the spectrum also noted that there was a lot of misinformation,
misunderstanding, and misconceptions that contributed to a lack of trust between and
among residents. Concerns about biased treatment and in-group favoritism were
expressed in both directions. In this sensitive environment, people described situations
of unintentionally triggering offense, or fears that their comments would be received
that way. Many interviewees also noted that mechanisms for broad or universal
community communication seemed insufficient for building shared understanding.

• Cultural Differences, Coexistence, and Impacts of Change: Many interviewees felt that
people had legitimate concerns about the changes in Lakewood and the region that
needed to be addressed. While many expressed appreciation for cultural diversity,
interviewees also spoke about ways in which the changes and the distinct cultural
characteristics of the populations sometimes resulted in conflicts or challenges to civic
unity. Many interviewees acknowledged that the population and density changes in
Lakewood, and more recently in surrounding towns, might be uncomfortable,
frightening, or difficult for some long-time residents, and that is has resulted in some
negative impacts on some people’s quality of life. Simultaneously, some described a
sometimes hostile reception received by some Orthodox moving into new areas.
Overall, there were numerous examples of bridges built, efforts made, and differences
celebrated, along with other stories or examples demonstrating ways in which residents
struggled to understand, accommodate, or transcend the distinct norms, behaviors,
expectations, and needs of the different cultures.

• Managing Land-Use to Respond to Growth: Many interviewees noted that the rapid
pace of the population growth in Lakewood may not have left the region, township, and
residents sufficient time to adapt in the optimal ways. The problems of traffic were
mentioned by almost all interviewees, though some noted that these challenges were
not unique to Lakewood. Other land use challenges named included concerns about
planning, zoning, infrastructure, aesthetics, housing, and other issues. Some expressed
concerns about ways land use policies were being used to exclude Orthodox. Many –
including newer residents – expressed a desire for surrounding communities to retain
their rural character. While some identified these as on-going concerns in Lakewood,
interviewees suggested that the greatest opportunities lay in working together to
prepare for growth in neighboring communities, to avoid discriminatory practices while
supporting existing density patterns. Lastly, many interviewees named concerns about

school funding as a key challenge, and another primary driver of concerns for Lakewood
and neighboring communities.

Opportunities for Collaborative Response to Challenges
Despite any and all of the challenges they perceived, interviewees had no difficulty identifying
myriad substantive solutions and process interventions that they thought could help to mitigate
or resolve them. The following section summarizes those ideas suggested by interviewees.

• Build Knowledge and Understanding: Many interviewees suggested reviving,
expanding, and increasing opportunities to build cultural awareness and increase
people’s understanding of each other. In addition, interviewees suggested establishing
programs, communication strategies, and/or committees to help correct
misinformation, build shared knowledge, answer questions, mediate factual disputes,
and educate different parts of the community. Many interviewees also felt that it was
important to find ways to broadcast the success stories and positive contributions of
Lakewood to the region, the state, and the country.

• Build Relationships and Connections: Many interviewees suggested the importance of
increasing the interpersonal interactions between residents of different backgrounds.
Over and over, interviewees noted that face-to-face and person-to-person interaction
was the best way to break down misunderstanding and fear. Beyond encouraging more
informal interaction, we heard hundreds of Ideas for specific relationship-building
mechanisms that interviewees felt could be developed or expanded, such as:
community programs, citizen-to-citizen dialogue groups, business events, neighborhood
events, sports and arts exchanges, and topic-specific discussion groups.

• Build Community Agreements: Many interviewees suggested some concept of bringing
neighbors together to develop shared agreements around how to live together. While
suggestions took many forms and proposed addressing a wide-range of issues, all
incorporated some form of two-way dialogue to establish a set of shared norms and
expectations about how to foster civic harmony and co-existence. Interviewees
described this as a Neighbors Bill of Rights, a Neighbors Compact, a Social Compact, or a
set of Civic Rules. Some suggested creating an on-going Community Task Force with
community leaders from all demographics that could meet on a regular basis (in public)
to recommend solutions to challenges or problems that arose. Many felt that a
community charrette process or design workshop focused on this topic could be very

valuable and successful. Some suggested that, to add legitimacy, this effort should
include key institutions within the region, such as the municipal leadership of Lakewood,
Toms River, Jackson, Brick, and Howell; religious and university leaders, and; the editors
and writers of the Asbury Park Press (as sponsors, partners, or participants.)

• Expand Community Programs: Several interviewees offered ideas for expanding the
extent and reach of social services and charitable enterprises, and supporting economic
innovation and expansion for less advantaged residents in the region. Some suggested
more direct and targeted outreach to underserved communities to advertise programs
and financial support. A few participants specifically suggested more supports for
business development, such as subsidized incubators and support for entrepreneurship.
Some interviewees also suggested community-wide collaborations to support local
businesses, such as storefront messaging (e.g., sticker or signs promoting “One Ocean
County” as a symbol of businesses committed to serving and benefiting the diverse local
communities.)

• Develop/Advocate for Solutions to Growth Impact Challenges: Many Interviewees
suggested that leaders in the region could come together to envision, develop, advocate
for, and implement solutions to a range of very specific challenges in Lakewood and the
region, such as traffic, school transportation, and public school funding. Many thought
that it would be helpful to have regional collaboration around advocacy to the State to
widen I-9. Some also suggested other potential traffic and transportation fixes. Many
interviewees suggested bringing community and elected officials together to explore
potential approaches for education funding. Some suggested beginning with a
collaborative study of best practices and approaches from other districts or states with
similar challenges, and/or an examination of a series of options and what the
implications might be for districts across New Jersey. Another suggestion was to bring
together a set of communities across the state with similar school demographics to
build a coalition of ideas and support for reforms to the school funding formula.

• Engage in Collaborative Planning: Many interviewees highlighted the opportunity for
neighboring communities to engage in pro-active planning to prepare successfully for
growth. Many felt that a regional visioning and planning process would be extremely
useful and beneficial. Specifically, interviewees noted a need to discuss land use policies
such as zoning, density, housing, aesthetics, infrastructure, and code enforcement that
would be culturally sensitive and responsive to the religious needs of Orthodox

residents while also being protective of existing neighborhood and community
character. Interviewees noted that there currently were not mechanisms in place for
regional or joint planning – some felt that each community might be more likely to do
their own planning, while others felt it would be valuable to help create such a regional
forum. Many expressed support for a regional charrette to accomplish this. Another
approach could be a set of forums or ongoing association of towns in the region that
bring together a few key leaders – mayors, planning directors, etc – to exchange ideas
and work together proactively.

• Build Institutional Home for Collaboration: In addition to (or instead of) the short-term
collaboration approaches mentioned above, some interviewees suggested developing
one or more mechanisms for on-going, institutionalized collaboration between diverse
groups in and beyond Lakewood. Some stated that Lakewood Neighbors was a great
vehicle for this, or at least a good beginning, with the addition of more representation of
diverse voices (i.e., sufficiently representing African American, Latino, and leaders from
other faiths, as well as seniors and a broader set of Orthodox viewpoints.) Others felt
the effort should be more regionally focused – interviewees named “Ocean County
Neighbors” or “One Ocean County” as potential titles. Some named the “Toms River
United” as a potential model, or at least an effort to learn from.


Recommendations:

Based on the findings above, our analysis, our conversations with leaders from Lakewood
Neighbors, and our experience with bringing groups together, we believe there are highly
synergistic interests in engaging in collaborative problem-solving in Lakewood and its
surrounding communities. All residents of the region have much to gain from improved
relationships, reduced tensions and hostilities, and greater cooperation for sharing
neighborhoods and civic space. In that light, we offer the following process recommendations.

We see the most promising opportunities for collaborative engagement to be in the following
areas:
1) Expanding/Refining a Convening Structure for Collaborative Governance
2) Expanding Relationship and Trust Building Activities
3) Developing a Shared Community Coexistence Action Plan, and
4) Conducting Collaborative Visioning and Growth Management Planning

These ideas are synergistic – for example, the collaborative governance body could play a key
role in convening the additional processes, the community coexistence planning might identify
additional relationship-building activities, etc.

The following section describes these recommendations and explains how residents and
leaders in Lakewood and the region might go about moving these forward.

1) Expanding/Refining a Convening Structure for Collaborative Governance

The Lakewood Neighbors coalition was launched in December of 2017 with a gathering of over
50 leaders from Lakewood and across Ocean County, where participants signed onto a
declaration of purpose and a pledge to work together going forward. This is a promising
foundation from which to build a deliberative body that can provide shared leadership for
collaborative efforts.

We recommend refining and expanding on this coalition to function as a clearly structured
collaborative governance body. While this group is not primarily focused on policy issues, a
collaborative governance model would be beneficial for convening, supporting, and
implementing the collaborative activities recommended here as well as serving as an effective
mechanism of on-going collaboration and conflict management.


The public policy literature defines collaborative governance broadly as “the processes and
structures of public decision making and management that engage people constructively across
the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic
spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished.”1
Accomplishing such a task therefore requires shared motivations, conscientious engagement,
and effective structures (and behaviors) that support collective action. Because of the
sensitivity of the situation and the potential for misunderstanding or miscommunication, we
highly recommend enlisting support from a neutral, highly skilled facilitator and process
manager to support this process.

This next phase of development might include some of the following:

• Refining Charter and Developing Operating Protocols: Beyond the declaration of
purpose, the group should clarify and clearly document who it is, what it aims to
achieve, and how it intends to work together. Establishing a clear and transparent
process not only sets the group up for success, but also builds the external credibility
and legitimacy of the group. This might include clarifying its purpose and vision,
developing a set of key principles, identifying a leadership /decision-making structure,
confirming the roles and responsibilities of participants, defining protocols for
communication and transparency, and determining norms and behavioral expectations.

• Expanding Representation and Geographic Focus: As the function of the process and
core group expands, a conscious and serious effort should be made to identify and
recruit additional stakeholders whose interests are affected, and to ensure that there
are capable representatives who can speak for and be accountable to the diverse range
of viewpoints. In this case, it could be helpful to expand the focus of the group beyond
Lakewood to include surrounding communities, and to ensure that the broad diversity
of local and regional perspectives and concerns are represented. Some of the additional
participants to consider might include: elected officials from neighboring towns, faith
leaders from all religions, additional community leaders and advocates, and
representatives from the media.

1
K. Emerson, T. Nabatchi, S. Balogh. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, May 2, 2011.

• Build a Common Understanding of Problems, Interests, and Facts: An initial task of the
group should be to explore and communicate the underlying concerns and needs
(interests) of the regions stakeholders, and to develop a shared common information
base among participants. To work together productively, participants will need to work
hard to listen to each other’s concerns with open minds and agree to uphold each
other’s inherent dignity. That will require mastering the desire to argue, blame, defend
or persuade. Instead, members will need to aim for genuine understanding of each
other’s experiences, fears and hopes.

• Establish a Work Plan: To be effective, the collaborative group needs to have a regular
meeting schedule and a clear set of activities and tasks. We recommend developing a
clear work plan, which might include a prioritization of tasks and actions that the group
can support for building collaboration, relationships, and cross-cultural agreements. It
should also include the tasks for building the group itself, via outreach, community
engagement, and fundraising. Once there is a work plan, the group might develop active
committees, task forces, or work groups, each with clear charters or terms of reference,
who can be responsible for moving the work forward.

• Clarify and Expand Resources: Collaborative processes need to be funded such that
there are appropriate resources to accomplish their objectives. While much work can be
achieved by members on a volunteer basis, there will likely also be a need for external
policy, technical support, facilitation and process support. As mentioned above, we
think it would be critical for the group to enlist support from a neutral facilitator /
process manager to help guide this process – this facilitator should be secured on behalf
of the collaborative group and should be acceptable to and work equally for all parties.
In addition, some of the suggestions below will require additional technical and process
support, which would also be determined collaboratively and transparently.

2) Expanding Relationship and Trust Building Activities

As described earlier, there are and have been a myriad of activities and events focused both on
expanding cross-cultural understandings and building relationships, designed and implemented
by a wide array of actors targeted at many different audiences (e.g., public and private school
children, parents, women, faith groups, civil servants, university students, etc.) This includes
community, inter-generational, and multi-cultural programing that brings people together to
break down stereotypes, do projects together, and learn about each other. These programs

appear to be highly valued and valuable for achieving the goals of community-wide
understanding, positive relationships, and civic unity.

We would recommend that the stakeholders consider the following suggestions:

• Create a diverse working group from the above collaborative governance group to focus
specifically on these programs.
• Develop an inventory of successful educational and relationship-building programs that
have been used in Lakewood and in surrounding communities, as well as additional
approaches being used to build coexistence in other communities around the country. It
might be helpful to bring in experts from organizations who specialize in community
dialogue and intergroup relations.
• Identify specific educational gaps – segments of the community that are currently not
served by these programs, and/or topical or thematic opportunities for collaborative
engagements – and develop or apply programs that can help meet them.
• Set up a clearinghouse for members and the community to disseminate information
about such programs. Develop an outreach plan to expand community participation.

3) Developing a Shared Community Coexistence Action Plan

To move beyond relationships and into the realm of action and problem solving, we
recommend convening a process to develop a “Community Coexistence Action Plan”—a set of
guiding principles about and community agreements to support how we live and grow
together. The product would likely be a living document that could guide expectations,
behaviors, and interactions among residents, and promote understanding and unity among
neighbors and community members with diverse backgrounds and lifestyles – agreements that
citizens can enter into voluntarily to boost positive neighborly coexistence, as opposed to
seeking changes to township rules or regulations.

The development of a Community Coexistence Action Plan would need to be a broad
collaborative process including a wide range of perspectives and stakeholders, with clear
objectives, guidelines for participation, and expected outcomes, developed collectively by
participants themselves or by a diverse convening team, and guided throughout by a diverse
Steering Committee (ideally drawn from the collaborative governance body described above.)
We also recommend the group enlist the support of a facilitator with experience and strong
process skills to help guide and manage this process.


The components of such a process would need to be co-created by the group, but might
include:
• development of a shared vision for community coexistence
• surfacing of challenges and barriers to that vision
• clarifications of disputed facts
• research of case studies or models to help inform
• exploration and evaluation of potential options for improving coexistence, and
• development of a set of shared principles, behaviors, and actions that participants agree
to strive toward together.

Some of these components might be shared across broader geographic areas (e.g., the region
as a whole, or township by township) while other agreements might be created neighborhood
by neighborhood.

We think that a condensed community NCI charrette process could be a promising
methodology to use for such a process. An NCI charrette is a series of public and technical
workshops and meetings that engage all affected parties in the development of preferred plan
of action. The process can be uses for physical planning as well as policy projects like the
Community Coexistence Plan. The charrette for this project might begin with a multi-day
engagement, starting with a community-wide event to explain and refine the task/process,
provide background information to create a shared understanding, identify challenges,
interests, and questions needing further research to resolve disputed facts, and develop diverse
(geographically, socio-economically, culturally, etc.) teams to move the process forward.
Additional sessions might be focused around specific coexistence challenges that have been
identified, in which participants could work to better understand each others’ needs and
perspectives, develop ideas for how to respond to those challenges, and evaluate the pros and
cons of those options. To the extent additional research is seen as helpful (to resolve factual
disputes or create case studies), the teams would define their work and the needed amount of
time (e.g. 4-6 weeks) to achieve it. Once ready, the community could come back together in a
second community-wide event where participants could learn from each other and continue
through the components of the process (identify and weigh options and decide on appropriate
courses of action.) Further refinement of the plans could occur through stakeholder meetings
the following day before they are presented in finality at a third, celebratory community event
that kicks off implementation.

4) Conducting Collaborative Visioning and Growth Management Planning

Our assessment also suggests the potential for collaborative growth management planning for
the region, which would focus on planning around tangible issues such as land use,
infrastructure, transportation, zoning, housing, and schools. Because the focus would be more
closely tied to regulatory and governmental jurisdictions, this would likely benefit from
implementation as a separate process from the community agreement focused approach
described above. Nonetheless, many of the project steps and components would be similar,
beginning with a convening of key partners – in this case, likely a combination of elected
township and county officials, planning directors, non-profits and community leaders - in a
project start-up process focused on co-creating the project purpose, project values, guiding
principles, objectives and metrics for success, project scope, methodologies, schedule and
budget.

A visioning charrette is an effective methodology for growth management planning, and a
powerful tool for creating plans that are owned and supported by the community and its
leaders. Visioning charrettes bring people from varying viewpoints together to ask the question,
“as a community, what do we value the most and how does that translate to the ways that we
manage our growth?” Such a charrette could be a multiple-day public workshop organized
around three “feedback loop” meetings where community members and staff work with a
design team to visualize how change might look for their community. The charrette begins with
a public workshop to identify core community values and shared principles regarding growth.
Facilitation ground rules and processes – co-developed in advance by a diverse leadership team
and enforced by a strong facilitator – assure a safe environment where all voices can be heard.
An expert design team then works on behalf of the participants and community as a whole to
illustrate alternative growth concepts for topics such as zoning, density, aesthetics,
infrastructure, transportation, housing, parks, codes, and other key issues. A set of preferred
concepts result from the merging of the best ideas identified in the feedback meetings. The
feedback meetings are an opportunity for participants to learn about the intricacies, trade-offs
and benefits of different design concepts. The end result is a set of action items and plans that
are likely to move forward with the help of key community support.

Visioning charrettes can be applied to the region as a whole or to individual town. One variation
is to first hold a regional kick-off workshop to establish a large-scale vision for the region. This
regional vision can set the basis for each town to define their own plans using local planning
charrettes.

Appendix A:
List of Interviewees

The following individuals participated in an interview or focus group for this report. (Three
names were omitted based on their request.) Apologies for any spelling or title errors.

Mr. Isaac Akerman Mr. Bill Hobday Mr. Sam Rabinowitz
Rabbi Simon Balsam Reverend Shawn Hyland Mr. Steve Reinman
Mrs. Nechama Basser Mr. Shloime Ingber Mrs. Suri Robinson
Mr. David Becker Mr Michael Inzelbuch Mr. Jorge Rod
Rabbi Moshe Bender Ms Chanie Jacobowitz Mr. Jack Saradnick
Mr. Simon Blum Mr. Booky Kaluszyner Rabbi Yisroel Schenkolewski
Mr. Ken Bressi Freeholder John Kelly Rabbi Avi Schnall
Mr. Joe Buckalew Rabbi Aaron Kotler Mr. Ryan Sharp
Rabbi Mordy Burnstein Rabbi Shneur Kotler Mr. Moshe Shindler
Mr. Mark Chopp Mr. Avraham Krawiec Mr. Rob Sickel
Mayor Ray Coles Chief Rob Lawson Ms. Valerie Smith
Mr. Mike D'Elia Mr. Colin Lewis Mr. Drew Staffenberg
Mr. John Ernst Committeeman Meir Mr. Gregg Staffordsmith
Rabbi Yehuda Farber Lichtenstein Mrs. Sara Sternbach
Mr. Mike Fiuera Mr. Manny Lindenbaum Ms. Reisa Sweet
Dr. Dovid Friedman Officer Stefanie Mahone Rabbi Shmuel Tendler
Ms. Connie Friedman Mr. Larry Mandel Mr. Craig Thiebault
Rabbi Yaakov Friedman Mr. Joe Marbach Mr. Ben Turin, Esq.
Ms. Kate Gamber Mr. Mike McNeil Ms. Dawn Van Brunt
Mrs. Sara Faigie Gelbwachs Chief Greg Meyer Ms. Crystal Van de Zilver
Mr. Yitzchok Goldsmith Deputy Mayor Menashe Miller Mr. Fred Van Looy
Ms. Ada Gonzalez Mr. Jack Mueller Mr. Kim Vargas
Rabbi Moshe Gourarie Rabbi Avrohom Moshe Muller Rabbi Avi Verschleiser
Mr. Simcha Greenwald Rabbi Avraham Naftali Mr. Vince Vita
Officer Alex Guzman Mr. Rob Nicastro Dr. Frank Vozos
Freeholder Ginny Haines Mrs. Vi Peters Rabbi Moshe Z. Weisberg
Mr. Hal Halverson Dr. Tzvi Pirutinsky Mr. Steven Weldler
Rabbi Benny Heinemann Ms Michelle Porter Ms. Laura Winters
Mrs. Tova Herskowitz Rabbi Mendel Rabinowitz Mrs. Rechy Zolty

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
OVERVIEW:

The Consensus Building Institute (CBI) and the National Charrette Institute (NCI) have been
hired by the Lakewood Resource and Referral Center, on behalf of Lakewood Neighbors, to
advance the goal of addressing the social and civic challenges facing the region and developing
a shared vision for the future. Lakewood Neighbors is a diverse constituency of civic actors
including leaders from business, local and regional government, universities (Georgian Court
University and Beth Medrash Govoha Yeshiva), and social service agencies. CBI is a non-profit
organization that provides facilitation and mediation for numerous public issues, with
experience in education and school construction issues. NCI is a program within Michigan State
University that is dedicated to transforming the way people work together by building capacity
for collaboration.

The CBI/NCI team will work to understand the broad range of perspectives of the residents and
stakeholders of Lakewood, identify key issues and needs, and ultimately recommend processes
for developing solutions to pressing community needs. To this end, our team is conducting
confidential interviews and focus groups with a representative sample of leaders and key
stakeholders to understand their thoughts and concerns.

We will be having confidential discussions with key stakeholders, including elected officials and
agency leads at the state, county, and local level, community leaders, and residents of
Lakewood and the county. We developed an initial interviewee list in conversation with a
diverse group from Lakewood Neighbors, and welcome input to help us ensure we include the
full range of perspectives in the region. Please note, we are seeking to capture the range of
views, not weighing or evaluating the frequency or popularity of views.

On completion of the confidential discussions, CBI will prepare a draft summary of our findings,
without attribution, along with a set of recommendations for how the community might work
together to meet its needs – process suggestions, not recommendations on substantive
decisions. This draft will be circulated to interviewees to ensure we captured their views
accurately before it is finalized and shared more broadly. Once the comments have been
incorporated, the final recommendations will be given to LRRC and Lakewood Neighbors, along
with released to the public, for consideration and implementation.


These conversations are entirely confidential, in that we will not attribute any statements to
individuals or individual organizations. That said, please let us know if you want us to take
particular care to keep a something you say out of the report entirely.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Following are the questions we will be using to guide the interview process.

You and Lakewood
• Please tell us a little bit about yourself, and your history/relationship with Lakewood.
How do you identify your role in the community? What motivates your involvement in
civic life?
• How long have you lived in Lakewood, what brought/keeps you here?
• How are you impacted by the growth and cultural diversity in Lakewood?
• What do you value most about Lakewood? What do you see as the community’s
greatest strengths?
• What do you see as Lakewood’s greatest challenges? How do these affect you?

Quality of Life in the Community
• What do you see as the most important factors and issues that should be addressed in
order to improve quality of life and build a positive future for all the residents of
Lakewood? For each of these, help us understand better why it is important to you?
• What substantive ideas do you have for what can be done to address these issues? If
you were “in charge for a day,” what changes would you recommend to improve
coexistence, good planning, and healthy growth in the region?
• How might the community bridge cultural differences, while respecting the diverse
values and ways of life?

Lakewood and the Media
• Do you read local media coverage of Lakewood? What sources do you read?
• How accurate do you think the media coverage is about the strengths of Lakewood?
How accurate or inaccurate is coverage of the challenges?
• What ideas do you have for how to accurately tell the stories of Lakewood?


Process Considerations
• Lakewood Neighbors is interested in bringing the community together to develop and
implement a shared vision for a positive future. This might include a range of activities –
community “charrettes” (an accelerated public process to work collectively on designing
solutions to public challenges); on-going working groups; activities and events for
building understanding and reducing divisions, and more.
• Imagine that a set of county and local representatives were pulled together to work on
this.
o Who should be involved?
o What steps or considerations might be needed to build people’s trust that the
process is fair, legitimate, and non-partisan?
o How do we ensure that a diverse range of Lakewood’s stakeholders are
involved?
o What are the key issues this group should seek to address?
o What information, facts, or studies would this group need to draw from or seek
to get to do their work? Are there sources of information you would
recommend?
o What groundrules or guidance would be needed for this group to be successful?
o What do you think a group like this might be able to achieve or reach agreement
on?
o Given what you know today, what role would you/ your organization want to
play in such a process?
• Are there any points of view or perspectives you think we have missed in our list of
interviewees?
• Any other considerations that we should keep in mind as we’re thinking about these
issues? / Anything that we haven’t touched on that you would like to share?



Lakewood Assessment Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lakewood Assessment Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Situation

Assessment for Lakewood Region

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 1

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 2

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 3

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 4

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 5

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 6

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 7

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 8

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 9

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 10

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 11

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 12

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 14

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 15

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 16

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 17

Lakewood Region Assessment Report 18

You might also like