Groundwork Yonkers, NY; Children at Sterling Forest, NJ; Union Square, Sept. 11, 2002
Left to Right: Families of September 11th victims at Connecticut's Living Memorial in Sherwood Island State Park, Sept. 2003. Memorial tree dedication in Queens, NY to firefighter Michael E. Brennan, Spring 2002.

Living Memorials: Acts of Social Meaning Create Places of Resilience

"A living memorial, we find, is any place that over time rises to meet people where they are rather than where they are expected to be. Living memorials can be the physical, mental, and social spaces for thought, reflection, teaching, community action, and recovery. Oftentimes, stewards comment that the healing aspects of living memorials come not just from the finished site, but also from the process of conceptualizing a project, finding a site, creating events, and working with other community members on the project. This value is both challenging to document and to quantify, but may be a powerful example of social capital at work." -- E. Svendsen and L. Campbell, Living Memorials Project, Lessons Learned Year One 2002-2003.

The LMP assessment focused on the level of commitment, the number of people involved, the volunteer-staff ratio, and the type of stewardship group. Presented here are a few of the year one findings on stewardship forms and networks.

Do you expect LMP participants to stay involved?

In the early stages of assessment there was a strong sense of commitment and responsibility to the project. The high commitment to the project (94%) was expected, but to be valid it must be measured over time. In the second round of observations, some of the groups that we had thought were professing to have stronger community interest than they truly had, actually developed a strong sense of ownership. There were a few groups that were committed in the early days but lost interest because they did not have the full support of either the municipality or the community. For a core group to stay involved, there must be a clear partnership or rather, an understanding between city and community.

How many people are involved in the project?

The number of people involved in the memorials is quite high. On the one hand, this supports the theory that people came together, frustrated in the wake of 9-11, and just wanted to "do something." But what is perhaps most important is what people said when we asked them to justify the numbers. First, respondents' answers were not based upon the "core group" but rather, on all those who helped move the project forward. This included those who were involved on a one-time basis only. There was a common understanding that these marginal participants were still part of the memorial community, often providing services above and beyond the norm or in many cases, donating meeting space, labor, time or materials.

Although the sustainability of a core group is critical for many of the memorials (particularly those which require on-going maintenance and have become places/destinations), reaching out to a larger community in the initial stages of project development helps establish project legitimacy, group confidence and in turn, may inspire a marginal participant to become a core member in his or her community. This is indeed a form of social and perhaps cultural capital.

How many were strictly volunteer?

Forty-two per cent of sites inventoried were created by groups comprised of 100% volunteers, and an additional 38% of groups were at least 50% volunteer. What is impressive about this response is not only the significant number of volunteers but those persons who were employed in official capacities considered themselves "volunteers on the job." The assessment team further questioned officials when they would put themselves in the volunteer category. Officials universally replied that involvement in the memorial was larger than a particular job title and responsibilities. It was, in fact, an obligation of service that was valued above and beyond the workplace.

What type of organization initiated the project?

Forty-nine per cent of the living memorial sites were initiated by non-profit groups; 28% were initiated by government; and 13% were designed by individuals. It is interesting to note that there was a great sense of "pride" when respondents answered this question. Again, this may reinforce the overall feeling that these memorials are serving a public, social purpose and a clear need. Each group type took strong ownership over their projects, although this ownership has different forms. All respondents stated their commitment to stay involved, but the non-profit groups typically had a longer-term agenda that involved a return to the site for plantings and on-going events. Government often initiated the project from a sense of civic obligation and was much more content to finish the project and make a general commitment to bring the project into its existing site maintenance schedule. Ironically, both are needed to sustain the projects. In this we find a good lesson echoed in many community-based initiatives: the great benefit of public-private partnerships is to keep the site in the public trust (government) while assuring the site remains relevant and responds to the needs of the community (non-profit, individuals).

If you are interested in receiving a copy of the full lessons-learned report, email Erika Svendsen.