A SURVEY OF URBAN PROGRAMS AT SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY NOLEN MYERS ELLISON 19 7 1 L .2 fuxchagan Sate IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII p ~ University 3 1293 00078 709 7 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A SURVEY OF URBAN PROGRAMS AT SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES presented by Nolen M. Ellison has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D Higher Education degree in____ 'fj‘ZQ’ 1251/7/ “52? {If} ‘2 Z:— Major professor Date August 22, 1971 0-169 I: ”alumna ‘5“ -I . ms asu I ‘ ' IBIIIIK BINDERY INC ' LIBRARY BINDER$ AMORL WOW I ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF URBAN PROGRAMS AT SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY Nolen Myers Ellison In the decade of the 60's many colleges and universities responded to the crisis in urban America by establishing a range of new programs specifically designed to address urban problems. With the rapid in- crease in the number of such programs there developed a lack of clarity regarding the nature, scope, and functions of these institutional efforts. The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic body of knowledge related to urban programs in institutions of higher learning. Specifically, the following questions are answered in the study. I 1. Are there generally agreed upon definitions for urban programs in the university? 2. What is the content of university urban programs? 3. What are the staffing and organizational patterns of urban programs? 4. What are the sources of funds for new urban programs in the university? Nolen Myers Ellison What are the major problems confronting contemporary urban programs? What is the future of urban programs in the context of the larger university? A survey of six urban programs selected as repre- sentative of the range of institutional efforts in the urban field provided the basic data for the study. Information on the programs was developed through the utilization of per- sonal interview procedures conducted with key persons in the selected program. The following conclusions were reached regarding urban programs in colleges and universities. 1. No common definition has yet emerged for the variety of urban programs that exist, however, the following functions were common to such institu- tional efforts: (a) academic, (b) research, (0) service, (d) change agent, and (e) special programs. The content of urban programs varied significantly depending upon which of the functions were empha— sized. Three major organizational models emerged in pro- grams in the study. They were: (a) institutional model, (b) program model, and (c) project model. In academic and research oriented urban programs joint appointments with other academic units in the institution were utilized in developing staff. In Nolen Myers Ellison all programs there continued to be a strong reliance upon developing staff with academic credentials. 4. Institutional, foundation, and federal government funds were the chief sources of financial support for urban programs. Each source had unique impli— cations for program development. 5. Although a variety of problems confronted urban programs the most critical ones were related to developing stable sources of finances and hiring and keeping competent staff. 6. The future of urban programs in institutions of higher learning are related to solving the immediate problems confronting them. However, the long range future of these programs is related to: (a) the emerging role of urban programs in the institution, and (b) the emerging urban role of institutions of higher learning. Suggested criteria for the establishment of urban programs and implications for further research are contained in Chapter V of the study. A SURVEY OF URBAN PROGRAMS AT SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY Nolen Myers Ellison A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 ACKNOWLE DGMENTS To my committee chairman, Dr. Max Raines, and my dissertation director, Dr. Robert Green, I will forever be indebted. Their time, effort, patience, and understanding made the completion of this job possible. I also wish to express my appreciation to the members of my advisory committee, Drs. Walter Johnson and Christopher Sower. I also appreciate the efforts of Dr. Richard Featherstone who assisted in the absence of Dr. Johnson. To my family, those who have given me the will to compete, I will always be thankful. To my wife, Carole, and sons, Marc and Steven, who have supported me through this period and given me constant encouragement, I dedicate this work and its benefits. ***** ii Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE P ROBLEM O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . Introduction to the Problem . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . Limitation of the Study . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inner-City . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Affairs . . . . . . . . . . Urban Studies . . . . . . . . . . Ethnic Studies . . . . . . . . . Black Studies . . . . . . . . . . Urban Programs . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . Historical Relationship of Higher Education and Urban America . . . . The Technical Institute . . . . . The Land Grant University . . . . The Municipal University . . . . The Urban University . . . . . . Two-Year Community/Junior Col ege The Urban Crisis . . . . . . . . . . The University Response to the Urban Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Urban Programs . . . . Content of Urban Programs . . . . . . Organizing, Staffing, and Financing Urban Programs . . . . . . . . . . Organization . . . . . . . . . . Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . Financing Urban Programs . . . . STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION . . . Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-Test of Interview Questions . . . iii 17 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 27 30 34 39 42 43 52 52 52 Chapter The Sample--Selection . . . . . . The Interview Guide . . . . . Arrangements for Visits . . . The Interview . . . . . . . . Post-Interview Activity . . . Organizing the Data for Reporting IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Definitions of Urban Programs . . Current Definitions . . . . . Common Elements of Urban Program Definitions . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Urban Programs Contained in the Definitions of Selected Programs . . . . . . . Content of Urban Programs . . . . Academic . . . . . . . . . . Research . . . . . . . . . . Service . . . . . . . . . . . Change Agent . . . . . . . . Special Programs . . . . . . Staffing and Organizational Patterns Staffing . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Patterns . . . Institutional Model . . . . . Program Model . . . . . . . . Project Model . . . . . . . . Funding Sources of Urban Programs Problems of Urban Programs . . . Future of Urban Programs in the Content of the Larger University . . . sumal‘y O I O O O O O O O O O O O V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . Content . . . . . . . . . . . Staffing and Organizational Patterns Funding Sources . . . . . . . Problems of Urban Programs Future of Urban Programs . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 54 55 55 56 56 57 58 59 59 62 63 64 64 70 73 75 76 78 78 82 83 84 84 86 88 91 93 99 99 99 100 101 102 105 110 110 112 112 Issues 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Suggested Criteria for Establishing Urban Programs . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Further Research . . . BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Appendix A. LETTER MAILED TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE URBAN DIRECTORS CONFERENCE HELD AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, OCTOBER 21-23, 1971 . QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT THE URBAN DIRECTORS CONFERENCE O C C O O I O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF URBAN DIRECTORS CONFERENCE O O O O O O O I O O O O O O LETTER SENT TO DIRECTORS OF PROGRAMS SURWYED . O O O O O C O O O O O O C 0 COPY OF INTERVIEW GUIDE . . . . . . . . . TRAVEL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRAM VISITS . . . MODEL OF PROGRAM VISIT SCHEDULE . . . . . TABULATIONS OF PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND SEMISTRUCTURED ACTIVITIES OF URBAN PROGRAMS BY FUNCTIONS . . . . . . . . . Page 115 119 120 123 128 129 133 136 137 138 139 140 I [I 'II I. I E I II I III I I I CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem Institutions of higher learning responded in the decade of the 60's to a variety of pressures by establishing a number and range of new institutional programs that were given urban titles. With this increase in urban activities in the university a general lack of clarity regarding the nature, sc0pe, and functions of institutional urban programs has developed. This study is designed to provide a clearer understanding of the character and thrust of urban programs in institutions of higher learning. Specifically, the following question will be answered in the study. 1. Are there generally agreed upon definitions for urban programs in the university? 2. What is the content of university urban programs? 3. What are the staffing and organizational patterns of urban programs? 4. What are the sources of funds for new urban programs in the university? 5. What are the major problems confronting contemporary urban programs? 6. What is the future of urban programs in the context of the larger university? Introduction to the Problem Institutions of higher learning developed many new academic, research, service, and special1 programs during the decade of the 60's. Many of these programs were designed to have specific impact on the physical, social, economic, and educational problems of urban communities. The 1963 report of the Joint Economic Committee's sub-committee on Urban Affairs2 lists 107 urban research centers in colleges and universities. A 1969 report of the Urban Institute3 lists 230 urban research centers in colleges and universities. This growth in urban programs over a six year period will undoubtedly continue in the future. The continuing pressure to find solutions to the critical problems of urban communities will demand it. Many educational institutions were unprepared to respond to the new demands placed upon them. In many instances responses were fashioned without thoroughly 1Special is a term used to describe "extra" in- stitutional efforts related to recruitment, enrichment, and supportive service activities for minority and disadvantaged students. 2A Directory of Urban Research Study Centers, Subcommittee on Urban Affairs of the Joint Economic Committee, House of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967). 3The Urban Institute, University Urban Research Centers (Washington, D.C.: Publications Office, 1969). considering the long range implications of particular in— stitutional actions. Extremely small budgets were allotted these new programs, faculties and staffs were given lesser program status than regular university academic personnel, and the place of the urban unit was often peripheral to the mainstream of the institutional processes.“ However, part of the problem was related to the fact that few guidelines or program models existed for institutions initiating activities specifically related to urban problem solving. The land-grant university, founded in the latter half of the nineteenth century to address the unique prob- lems of rural America, was looked to in the decade of the 60's to help determine how its functions--teaching, research, and service--could be "urbanized" to meet the pressing prob- lems of urban America. Rural extension was used as a model for urban extension. The concept of the land-grant univer- sity was looked to in the development of a rationale for an "urban-grant" university.5 The implications for the uni- versity were stated clearly by the Urban Extension report: If community, once predominantly rural, has changed in location, ethnic composition, economic activity, and needs for services, “Warner Bloomberg, "Partial Protection Functions of Urban Study Centers," Conference Proceedings: Conference of Egban Study Center Directors, Wayne State University, 1969, p. 24. 5John E. Bebout, "Symposium," The University in Urban Affairs, a report prepared by St. Johns University, New YorE, I969, p. 105. a university must accommodate accordingly if it wishes to remain relevant and a progres- sive force.6 It has been this struggle--"to remain relevant and a pro- gressive force," in addition to the internal and external pressures on institutions of higher learning--that has catapulted them into adapting old programs and creating new ones that would address the critical problems of urban communities. Because the nature of the problems in urban commu- nities are very complex, the university's response has not always been adequate to meet the needs. The truth of the past and the hope for the future is reflected in a question raised in the Urban Extension report. It states: Through a trinity of teaching, research, and extension work, many land grant and state uni- versities have contributed to vast agricultural and rural progress for at least eighty years. Could the pattern yield the same harvest in the twentieth century for urban America?7 Various activities undertaken by universities to urbanize the curriculum, develop "meaningful" action ori- ented extension work, become more sensitively engaged in urban research, give new emphasis to the study of Blacks and other minorities in America, and better serve the poor and disadvantaged in the society have been spurred forward 6Urban Extension, a report prepared by the Ford Foundation, New York, 1968, p. 3. 71bid., p. 1. , [I' 'II‘ [ l l 1 ‘II' I II III I I II by a number of important factors. The urban rebellions of the past decade, the continuing rise of a poverty class in the nation, the lack of higher education opportunities for the poor and the minorities, the general deteriorating nature of the urban environment, and the growing student unrest on campuses all contributed to the increased rate with which higher education institutions were willing to become involved in urban problem solving. Just as the rate of growth of urban research centers has more than doubled in the past ten years, similar growth has been experienced in university academic programs with urban titles. The American Society of Planning Officials in a recent national survey of urban programs that are in some way related to the planning field listed 17 two-year col- leges offering "urban" programs. In addition, they list 100 colleges and universities that have developed urban ° The newly formed Council of academic planning programs. University Institutes for Urban Affairs lists 235 college and university program directors whose programs fall under the Council's general area of interest.9 °"Education and Career Information for Planning and Related Fields: July, 1970," Joint Publication of ASPO and AIP, Chicago, Illinois, 1970. 9"Mailing List of Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs," Council of UIUA, Arlington, Texas, 1970. Need for the Study As institutions of higher education have undertaken the task of developing programs designed to address urban problems it has become increasingly difficult to determine the nature, purpose, functions, and objectives of these programs. Further, it has become difficult to determine where in the institution certain urban activities are most legitimate. In many instances this has tended to be true because as universities have attempted to respond to urban needs and "demands" of students, they have not always been sure of what response to make with these new programs. Thus, the desire to create a "relevant curriculum," do "meaningful" research, and provide "services" to the urban community has resulted in a wide variety and assortment of programs labeled "urban." The lack of adequate definitions and developmental guidelines related to the nature of urban programs appears to have grown more critical as the number of such programs have increased. With this growth in urban programs, further ambiguity has developed as to what constitutes an urban pro- gram. An example of this lack of clarification in the field was reflected in the Urban Directors Conference held at Michigan State University in October of 1970. Of the 44 program directors present at the conference, representing colleges and universities from across the nation, only 13 were directing programs that could be loosely categorized u l ‘ ‘lllllll'l‘l‘l [III II ‘ l I as "urban" by the definition being used to describe the Urban Affairs program at Michigan State University.1° Strong support for a study that would assist in clarifying the functions, organization, financing, and problems of urban programs was indicated by participants at the Urban Directors Conference. When asked to answer the question, "Would a descriptive study designed to clarify the functions and directions of urban affairs in the larger university be helpful to you?" all persons answering the item marked either the response "most helpful" or ”very helpful." No respondents checked the response "little helpful."11 The Office of Urban Affairs of the American Council of Education recently published a pamphlet entitled "Guide- lines for Institutional Self-Study of Involvement in Urban Affairs." This document describes how a university might determine whether they are involved in urban affairs but it does not help operationally define what urban affairs is,for those wishing to be involved. This lack of clear definable boundaries for new urban programs, the desire for such information by those l°Nolen M. Ellison, "A Survey of Urban Directors" (unpublished survey of Directors of Urban Programs at the Urban Directors Conference at Michigan State University, October, 1970). 11Ibid. ll 1 fl 'I‘ l l l l E A A III II I II engaged in the field, and the need for better information in this area is the major impetus for this study. Limitation of the Study The six urban programs selected for the study were chosen through consultation with the doctoral committee, advice of key urban directors attending the 1970 Urban Directors Conference at Michigan State University, and through program and institution descriptions contained in the Ford Urban Extension report and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare report on Urban Universities. The programs were selected as representative of the range of urban programs existing nationally. However, because random selection procedures were not utilized in the selec- tion process the programs cannot be said to be representa- tive of all urban programs. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to the total pOpulation of university urban programs. The descriptions of urban programs in this study are limited to the specific programs surveyed and does not include the range of urban program activities of the institutions visited. Any other limitations of the study relate to those inherent in survey research methodology. Definitions In this study the terms "urban affairs," "urban studies," "ethnic studies," "Black studies," and "urban programs" are used. Because these terms are used inter- changeably in the field, definitions are provided here for clarification. The major objective is to provide a con- sistent framework from which to view this study and its conclusions. Because the terms "urban" and "inner-city" are used in the literature and because they are critical in under- standing the crisis to which institutions have sought to fashion responses, definitions for these two concepts are provided also. 9.2222 The term "urban," although it has generally conveyed the idea of the city, its functional definition has meaning beyond the city. Included in the contemporary definition is the pOpulation that resides in a "metropolitan area." That is, in an integrated economic and social unit with a recog- nized large population nucleus--at least one central city of at least 50,000 inhabitants. It covers the county of the central city and adjacent counties found to be economically and socially integrated with that county.12 12Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1968), p. 408. ll’l‘llllll‘|'lllIl-II 10 Included as essential parts of the definition of urban are the concepts of "urban sprawl" and "inner-city." Each of these terms are important to understanding the concept of urban America and the problems found there. Jane Jacobs describes urban sprawl as the suburban development that has taken place around the city.13 This expansion of the city into the suburbs has caused major “ The urban area most criti- problems for our urban areas.1 cally affected by the unchecked sprawl is the central, core, or inner-city. Inner-City The term "inner-city" is often used interchangeably with "urban." It is important to note that while the term "urban" is inclusive of inner-city, the term "inner-city" does not define inclusively the concept of urban. One of the problems related to deve10ping institutional programs directed toward the solution of urban problems is tied to the question, "Which of these two areas--inner-city or urban--should be the focus of urban program activity?" The U.S. Riot Commission described inner-city as, "a popular expression sometimes meaning central city and sometimes meaning the central business district and densely 13Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), p. 308. 1“Ibid., p. 310. 11 populated downtown neighborhoods of generally poorer 15 residents." It points out further, one of the most critical dilemmas related to urban problems. Central or inner—cities of America contain now a disproportionate number of poor Black Americans. Between 1960 and 1966, 88.9 percent of all Negro population growth occurred in the inner-city. It seems likely that continued concentration will cause the total proportion of Negroes in central cities to reach at least 25 percent by 1975 and 31 percent by 1985.16 This description of "inner-city" and its associa- tion with poverty and race, two of America's most critical 7 problems,1 must be understood in undertaking programs designed to have maximum impact on urban communities. Urban Affairs The term "urban affairs" as currently used in university activities has a number of meanings. In some institutions the term is used to describe a particular academic, action, service, or special program or activity, i.e., degree granting graduate or undergraduate program, recruitment or supportive service activity, research- teaching-service program. In other instances the term is used to describe all of the institution's involvement in 15Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 0p. cit., p. 409. 1‘Ibid., p. 409. 17Martin Jenkins, Guidelines for Institutional Self-Studiegof Involvement in Urban Affairs, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1971, p. 2. [[ 'll! l l l‘ l I [III II I. l I 12 the entire range of programs designed for urban problem solving. Jenkins points out that, The urban affairs program of a college or university relates to the institution's involvement in the entire range of urban problems: the disadvantaged, race relations, education, housing, employment, health services, law enforcement, city management, urban plan- ning and design, transportation, ecology, preparation of students for urban occupations, and for urban living.18 While this definition describes all of the activities which an institution might undertake to have maximum impact on urban problems, Jenkins acknowledges that it is unlikely that any one institution will involve itself in all these areas. While both approaches--the specialized program model and the "holistic"19 model--have gained strong legitimacy in institutions of higher learning, in this study there will be a reference to the latter model when using the term "urban affairs." Urban Studies There does not appear to be strong agreement at this point as to what urban studies is or should be. 1°Ibid., p. 2. 19Morris Janowitz, Institutional Building in Urban Education, Russell Sage Foundation (Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Printers, Inc., 1969), p. 110. 13 20in an address before the Council of Gross, University Institutes for Urban Affairs, uses the terms "urban affairs" and "urban studies" interchangeably. Neither of the two terms are defined for the audience. Beboutzluses the term "urban studies" interchange- ably with "urban extension," the latter term being related to the Ford Urban Extension project.22 For the purpose of this study the term "urban studies" will be used exclusive of any organizational frame- work--center, institute, or college. The addition of such organizational constructs often gives special purpose status to urban studies activities. The term when used in this study will mean an academic program within a college or department. Such programs are usually interdisciplinary and cut across several departments. The intent in such programs is to bring together the various disciplines and focus upon the interrelationships of them as a basis for better understanding the urban community and preparing students to live and work there. In accepting the academic program definition of urban studies, the term is seen as one of the interrelated 2°Bertram Gross, "Urban Studies Centers," Proceedings: lst Annual Conference, Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs, pp. 7-8. 2'John Bebout, "The Need for University Programs in Urban Studies," The University in Urban Affairs, 1969, p. 105. 22Urban Extension, op. cit., 1966. 14 parts of the teaching, research, and extension efforts of new urban programs. Ethnic Studies A focus of university programs on the problems of urban America has necessitated a look at the problems and concerns of minorities as a part of the urban environment. This has meant a focusing of the institution's attention on the historical contributions, aspirations, aims, and goals of minority people. In contemporary programs the emphasis has been on Blacks, North American Indians, Puerto Ricans, and Chicanos--those minorities that increasingly inhabit the urban environment and for whom the system has not worked well. The development of an ethnic studies program has occurred where there are several ethnic groups represented on campus. The program usually consists of an interrelated group of courses from sociology, anthropology, geography, economics, and history which focus on the roles of minor- ities. Bachelor degree programs, and in some institutions, master's and doctoral programs, have been fashioned from such courses. Black Studies Although many institutions have developed Black studies programs, there is not yet a clear definition of what such programs should be. The Black Scholar states, 15 . . . there is no consensus on what a black studies program is or its goals. For some schools it is a mere blackening of the tradi- tional curriculum. In others, it is an attempt to relate the black community to the educational process.23 In many institutions, urban studies and urban pro- gram activities have been linked to Black studies programs.2” The relationship between the problems of urban communities and the increasing population of Blacks in urban areas creates a logical tie. The major question is, in what manner should the two areas properly relate? Black studies, as used in this study, is an academic program encompassing a major or minor area of concentration for a student engaged in a degree program. Such programs are usually located in an area of the university where maximum interrelationship can be achieved between the discipline fields. In some instances departmental or college status is granted to the program. Urban Programs The term "urban program" is used in the study to designate any one of the number of program activities under- taken by institutions of higher learning to address a specific problem or problems in the urban environment. Included in such efforts might be a variety of academic, 23"Literature Review of Black Studies," Editor's comments, Black Scholar, September, 1970, p. 54. 2""A Survey of Urban Directors," op. cit. 16 research, service, or "special" programs. The major objectives of the study is to develop a more precise frame- work from which to view such institutional efforts. Overview of the Study The study is organized into five chapters. In addition to Chapter I, which describes and supports the need for the study, there are four related chapters. Chapter II (Related Literature) contains a review of the literature related to the study. Chapter III (Methodology) contains a description of the methods and procedures used in the study. Presented are descriptions of pre-survey activities, survey procedures and arrangements, and methods employed in presenting and ana- lyzing the data in Chapter IV. Chapter IV (Presentation and Analysis of Data) contains survey information on the "selected" urban programs in the study. An analysis of the data is presented in this chapter. The questions posed in Chapter I are answered in Chapter IV. Chapter V (Summary, Conclusions, Issues, and Sug- gestions for Further Study) contains a summary of the study, basic conclusions that are drawn from the study, major issues that have been identified as a result of the study, and suggestions for further study in the area. CHAPTER II SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE In Chapter II the literature related to the areas of investigation is summarized. Because the contemporary urban thrust as a univer- sity focus is a relatively new concern, much of the liter- ature related to the problem is contained in professional papers, urban conference reports, and professional articles. Following a brief review of the historical relation- ships between higher education and the urban community, the literature related to the first five questions presented in Chapter I of the study are examined. Each question is treated as a separate subtopic of the chapter. Question 6 relates to the perceptions of the directors of the urban programs surveyed. Therefore, it will be examined in reporting information from the survey. The format of Chapter II will be used as the orga- nizational model for Chapter IV. Historical Relationship of Higher Education and Urban America Meeting the challenges of problems in urban America are not new to institutions of higher learning. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century a number of institutions have 17 18 played important roles in relationship to urban communities and their problems. The Technical Institute Rudolph1 pointed out that the role of the Technical Institutes founded in this country in the middle of the nineteenth century was that of providing career training in urban areas through a practical application of applied science. Van Rensselaer, the benefactor of the most prominent of these early institutions-—Rensselaer Polytechnic Insti- tute--described the purpose of the technical institute as being, to train teachers who would go out into the district schools and there instruct the sons and daughters of farmers and mechanics . . . in the application of experimental chemistry, philosophy, and natural history, to agri- culture, domestic economy, the arts, and manufactures.2 The curriculum of these institutes, most of which were found in urbanized areas of the country, consisted of such things as surveying, engineering, collecting specimens, touring workshops and gardening. Each activity was designed as part of the out-of—doors classroom offering.3 1Frederick Rudolph. The American College and University: A History (New York: Vintage Books, Inc., 1962). p. 228. 2Ibid., p. 229. 3Ibid., p. 230. 19 The Land Grant University Few institutions in America did more to change the notion of "education for education's sake" than the land grant university.“ Kerr pointed out that, two great impacts, beyond all other forces, have molded the modern American university system and made it distinctive--the land grant movement which culminated in the Morrill Act of 1862 and the scientific revolution that followed World War II with large scale government involvement.5 Both of these forces have continued today to play prominent roles in determining the capability of higher education to respond to the needs of a changing society. A recent H.E.W. report stated, The Morrill, or Land Grant Act brought reality to the idea of a university as a service insti- tution which admitted new subject matter and new kinds of students and attempted to answer questions growing out of practical fields of activity like agriculture and engineering.6 The Ford Urban Extension Report’ added that the trinity of teaching, research and extension work, undertaken “Ibid., p. 246. 5Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 246. 6Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, Urban Universities: Rhetoric, Reality, and Conflict (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 29. 7Urban Extension, a Report of the Ford Foundation on Experimental Programs in Urban Extension (New York: Ford Foundation, 1966), p. 1. 20 by many state universities and land grant colleges, prepared the nation for the transition from a rural to an urban society. The Municipal University The third and rapidly vanishing member of higher education institutions founded in the nineteenth century with a unique potential for serving the urban community was the municipal university. In 1961 the number of such in- stitutions in the nation granting degrees stood at twelve.8 Carlson observed that, the municipal universities, because of their location in pOpulation centers, have been required to meet the needs revealed by social changes and consequent changes in educational thinking. As a result, during recent years more emphasis has been placed on professional or vocational education than on liberal arts education.9 Municipal universities have played a significant role in determining the place of liberal arts, graduate programs, community service, basic and/or applied research, short courses, off-campus programs, contract programs, evening courses, part-time instructors, televised courses, and inter-collegiate athletics, in the urban setting.'0 6John S. Diekhoff, Democracy's College (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 201. 9William S. Carlson, The Municipal University (Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1962), p. 1. 1°Ibid., pp. 9-10. 21 The major problem faced by these institutions and the chief reason for their decline has been finances.11 Municipal universities now must rely heavily upon assistance from the state governments rather than the local "munici- palities” for their Operation. The trend of the 60's, as witnessed by the cases of Wichita University in Kansas and Wayne University in Detroit, Michigan, was that these in- stitutions eventually became dependent upon the state for financial existence and opted to become part of the state's higher education system. The Urban University The "urban university" became one of America's prominent higher education institutions early in the twentieth century. Two major observations regarding the nature of the urban university were made in a recent study undertaken for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The report first acknowledged that, a variant of the land-grant strain appeared with the rise in the latter part of the 19th century of private institutions, often in cities whose aim was to educate the city's poor or provide professional men for the growing urban centers. Like the land-grant colleges, these schools represented a response to the thrust of upward mobility by immigrant and other poorer groups. And, like the land-grant colleges, these uni- versities represented an accommodation of a changing economy as those changes were felt in ”Ibid. , p. 19. 22 the city. Unlike the land-grant colleges, however, these universities did not in the 19th century receive Federal land or money. They grew hand—to-mouth, largely out of the skills and determination of local entrepre- neurs.12 Later, in a summary of the study, it was stated, A major insight springing from the urban university project is that there is "no such animal" as the urban university. Urban uni- versities really belong to the species uni- versity. Their location in the city is incidental to their functions and does not, at present, lead to educational approaches or activities different in kind from those of non-urban universities.13 What is clear from the report, however, is that this location in the city has not allowed the "urban" university to sit like its counterpart in the small college towns unworried about its contributions to the solutions of urban problems. The national congress created Federal City College and Washington Technical Institute in November of 1966 as "urban" institutions to do for Urban America what the early land-grant institutions did for rural America.“ A recent Carnegie Commission Report on Higher Educa- tion recommended that 50 such "urban" four-year colleges and 12Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, op. cit., p. 29. 13Ibid., p. 34. 1"Wayne L. Morse, "A Federal City College," American Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, September, 1968), p. 31. 23 500 community colleges be created in the major urban com- munities of the nation by 1976.15 Klotche and Brazziellehad similar recommendations for the develOpment of higher education institutions in the nation's urban areas. Two-Year Community/Junior College The two-year community/junior colleges have, since the turn of the twentieth century, represented a new pat- tern of higher education designed to better serve society. Although not expressly nor necessarily intended to serve the growing urban complexes, these colleges have displayed a strong orientation toward meeting the needs of urban communities. Blocker suggested that, the two-year college is potentially capable of fulfilling a wide range of functions in con- temporary society. It may provide the line of demarcation in certain areas between those who are and those who are not educated in a func- tional sense.l7 ' lsCarnegie Commission on Higher Education, Qualit and Equality; New Levels of Federal Responsibilities for Higher Education (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1968), p. 37. 16Martin J. Klotche, The Urban University: And the Future of the Cities (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 51; anHCWilliam F. Brazziel, "New Urban Colleges For the Seventies," Journal of Higher Education, XLI, No. 3 (March, 1970). 169. 17Clyde E. Blocker, Robert H. Plummer, and Richard C. Richardson, Jr., The Two-Year College: A Social Synthesis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrentiEe-Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 6. 24 Recent investigations by Harlacher, Myran, and Goodrich18 helped to clarify the roles of the community college beyond the traditional transfer, liberal arts function of the college. The Urban Crisis In the decade of the 60's America experienced open rebellion in many cities. In 1967 alone, 164 disorders were recorded in major U.S. cities between the months of May and August.19 These incidents of social unrest were problems themselves, but they served to point out a number of more fundamental issues existing in the urban society. Starr1° suggested that race, unemployment, poverty, crime, and overpopulation, are all complicating factors in the urban crisis. Harrington21 pointed out that the condition of the available housing in our cities contributes greatly to the laErvin L. Harlacher, The Community Dimension of the Community College, Report to the American Association of Junior Colleges, November, 1967; Gunder A. Myran, "The Structure and Development of Community Service Programs in Selected Colleges in the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969); and Andrew L. Goodrich, "A Survey of Urban Community Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). 19Otto Kerner et a1., Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 113. 20Roger Starr, Urban Choices: The City and Its Critics (Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1968), p. 98. 21Michael Harrington, The Other America (New York: McMillian Publishers, 1963), p. 137. 25 discontent of those that are expected to live in cities and be happy there. Gerald Leinwand22 looked at crime and juvenile delinquency in our cities and concluded that they are prob- lems, but that they are the results of other more fundamen- tal issues. Kenneth Clark,23 in his work among the urban "disadvantaged" of New York City, concluded that a good education, used by millions in America as their ticket to upward mobility, had been denied the urban poor. Further clarification of the urban crisis was pro- vided by three major national reports: the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders; One Year Later--a report by Urban America Inc. and the Urban Coali- tion; and the Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. The most critical analysis of America's urban prob- lems came from the Report of the National Advisory Commis- sion on Civil Disorders. It stated, the single overriding cause of rioting in the cities was not any one thing commonly adduced-- unemployment, lack of education, poverty, exploitation--but that it was all of those things and more, expressed in the insidious and pervasive white sense of the inferiority of black men. Here is the essence of the 226erald Leinwand, Crime and Juvenile Delinquency-- Problems of American Society (New York: Washington Square Press, Inc., 1968): p. 18. 23Kenneth B. Clark, Dark Ghetto (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 135. 26 charge: What white Americans have never fully understood--but what the Negro can never for- get--is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.’“ The Commission added that, the nation was moving toward two societies, one black, one white-~separate and unequal, and that only a commitment to national action on an unprece- dented scale could shape a future compatible with the historic ideals of American society. The Urban Coalition cited the problems of poverty, education, environment, slums, violence, and crime as part of the nation's unfinished business in the urban commu- nities.25 The report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence26 cited (1) the need for a more SOphisticated understanding and appreciation of the com- plexity of the urban social system; (2) the need for a federal urban policy which would more evenly provide public services to those living in metrOpolitan areas; and (3) the need for the federal government to provide more and better information concerning urban affairs linked with federal 2“Kerner et a1., 0p. cit., p. 1. 25Report of Urban America, Inc., and the Urban Coalition, One Year Later: An Assessment of the Nation's Response to the Crisis Described by the National Advisor Commission on Civil Disorders (Washington, D.C.: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1969), p. 38. 26Milton S. Eisenhower et a1., Report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1970), p. 232. 27 sponsorship of extensive and sustained research into urban problems, as major considerations that must be met at this time. Each of these reports emphasized the critical roles that must be played by the nation's educational institutions in the develOpment of solutions to urban problems. The UniversityARegponse to the Urban Crisis In the past decade a group of scholars emerged in higher education concerned about the new urban role of the university. Klotche observed that, the university should do for the urbanized areas what the land grant colleges have done for the nation's farm pOpulation, taking the knowledge of a scholar into the community and extending the outreach of its influence into all phases of urban life. . . . Neither the complexity nor the controversial nature of many of our urban problems should deter universities from develOping new techniques and approaches.27 He added, creative innovation, rather than the performance of routine urban services, is the special role of the university in the urban community.28 Birenbaum stated that, the unique role of the university in addressing the problems of urban society might well be the conversion of the entire city into the campus ”Klotche, op. cit., p. 124. 28Ibid., p. 127. 28 of the university. The emphasis should be on intricately interweaving the learning process29 into the day- to— day activities of the peOple.29 Murlin suggested, if the universities of the twentieth century are to have the place of leadership in our age held by our institutions of learning in the 18th and 19th centuries, it must . . . be located among the people, seeking to clear their vision, to gird them for new 3tasks, and to enrich and nourish their lives.3 Hodgson31 stated that applied research, problem centered and interdisciplinary academic work, and skills applicability oriented work, are essential to the develop- ment of new models of higher education capable of address- ing urban problems. A number of significant projects and studies were undertaken in the 60's designed to investigate more thor- oughly the emerging role of the university as it related to the urban community. In 1959 the Ford Foundation identified eight insti- tutions of higher learning interested in participating in 29William M. Birenbaum, Overlive: Power, Poverty, and the University (New York: Delacorte Press, 1969), p. 48. 3°Lemuel H. Murlin, "Results of Cooperation by the Municipality and the University in Training for Public Service," Proceedings of the Apnual Meetings of the Association of Urban Universities, 191441915 (Chicago: Association of Urban Universities), p. 37. 31James L. Hodgson, Institutions in Transition: A Study of Change in Higher Education (BerkeIey, California: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1970), p. 2. 29 a project to determine the role of the university in urban 2 Funds were provided the institutions for extension.3 experiments in applying the university's resources directly to the problems of American cities. The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges undertook a study in 1968 to determine the role of the university in public affairs.33 Sower's research at Michigan State University related to determining methods of updating obsolete orga- nizations.3“ The major thesis of this research was that out-dated organizations, those that have failed to make the transition from serving an agrarian society to serving more effectively an urbanized industrial society, can be organi- zationally updated. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare, provided resources for eleven of the leading urban universities to explore the potentially greater role H.E.W. 32Urban Extension, Ford Foundation Report, op. cit., p. 7. 33Bulletin (FYI), Office of Institutional Research, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Circular No. 159, November 24, 1970, p. 4. 3“ChristOpher Sower, "Obsolete Universities: They Can Be Updated" (unpublished paper, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1970); and Memorandum to Michigan State University Administrative Officials, from Christopher Sower, December 9, 1970. 30 could play in helping urban universities respond more appropriately to urban problems.35 The establishment of the Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs in 1970, the National Asso- ciation of Black Urban and Ethnic Directors in 1970, and the Office of Urban Affairs of the American Council on Education was additional evidence that the university's involvement in determining its best response to urban prob- lems was receiving strong attention. Definitions of Urban Programs The first question posed for this study is: Are there generally agreed upon definitions for urban programs? In a recent survey of over 40 colleges and univer- sity programs in urban studies it is pointed out that, . . . there is no common definition of its [urban studies] content or agreement about its form of organization is, therefore, not surprising and probably advantageous.as 7 while not attempting to define Urban Coleman,3 Affairs, pointed out seven major criteria as important in such programs. 35Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, 0p. cit., p. 1. 36The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies Reporter, "Center Surveys Growth In Urban Studies," I, No. 3 (November, 1969), 1-2. . 37Joseph Coleman, "Federal Programs," The University in Urban Affairs: A Symposium (New York: St. Johns Univer- sity Press, 1969), p. 87. 31 1. General commitment on the part of the university to the program, measured by the allocation of funds and the reordering of internal priorities. 2. Interdisciplinary criterion. University coordination of the varied disciplines and professions that have a role to play in urban, black, or ethnic studies. This com- mitment must filter through the entire university: it cannot be buried somewhere in an institute. It must also affect and be affected by the school of medicine, school of law, graduate faculty, and the undergraduate program. 3. Need to provide learning in the actual set- ting of the problems. This should entail experiential learning and some form of field work. 4. Emphasis on student-centered rather than faculty-centered program. 5. A significant community role. Strong efforts should be made to establish rela- tionships between community neighbors and the university. 6. Intellectual rigor in the training program. 7. Continuing evaluation, innovation, research and resources shall be built into the pro- gram which will keep the program alive and flexible instead of rigid and unchangeable. Nash,38 in his survey of 384 institutions of higher learning described "four fundamental areas in which colleges and universities should be involved in urban, community, and minority group problems." 3°George Nash, "Community Service," op. cit., p. 32. 32 l. The college should become involved in the urban crisis in its role as educator. a. Educating different types of people, primarily those who in the past have not met normal standards of admission. b. Providing a different and more relevant type of education to prepare people for life in cities and to deal with urban problems. c. Providing education for public officials and technologists who will work in cities. d. Providing education for professionals. e. Continuing of extension education. f. Expanding the role of the college in educating para-professional, new careerists, and the hard-core unemployed. 2. The institution should be involved in the com- munity in its role as neighbor and citizen. 3. The institution should provide services to the community. 4. The university should deal with the urban crisis by serving as a model for the rest of society. Nash added that one of the most critical aspects of the university's involvement in urban community affairs was how it deals with black students and the black community.39 While the relationship of Urban Affairs, Black students and Black Studies programs have not been closely delineated, it represents an overlap which has been quite prominent in contemporary urban programs. 0 Orlando Taylor,“ in his attempt to define a model for Black Studies, came close to the criteria for urban ”Ibid. , p. 51. '“Orlando L. Taylor, "New Directions For American Education: A Black Perspective," Journal of Black Studies, I, No. 1, 101-111. 33 affairs presented by Coleman and the four fundamental areas of urban programming described by Nash. Taylor listed the following functions as appropriate activities to be included in a Black Studies program: a. Student recruitment b. Admissions policies c. Personal and academic counseling d. Financial aids e. University and community policy and climate vis a vis racism. f. Academic policy, course structure, grades 9. Curriculum h. Community involvement and participation 1. Community education j. Continuing education. To the academic, research, and service functions identified and described by Williams,"1 Nash"2 added the function of educating those normally excluded from admissions to the university, and Bloomberg“3 added the "change agent" func- tion to institutional urban programs. ‘“Frank1in H. Williams, "The University and Urban Affairs," The University in Urban Affairs: A Symppsium, OE. Cit.' p. 13. “zNash, 0p. cit., p. 34. '“Warner Bloomberg, Jr., "University Urban Studies Centers,” Proceedings: The Conference of Urban Study Center Directors (Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Center fbr Urban Studies, 1969). p. 23. 34 Wheaton““ identified these functions and described three specific ways in which the change-agent function could be implemented. They were: 1. 2. Diverting faculty attention from old topics to new topics by buying their time. Creating new interdisciplinary combinations of people which will put new dimensions or new aspects into research efforts. Focusing research on new definable tOpics such as urban systems. Content of Urban Programs The second question posed for the study is: What is the content of urban programs in colleges and univer- sities? reached 1. 2. White,“5 in his study of 30 urban studies programs, two major conclusions. Undergraduate programs in urban studies were not as prevalent as were graduate programs. The undergraduate programs reviewed were not often incipient and did not yet offer many Opportunities for work study, independent research, of direct community action. White listed the following major academic areas where urban studies curricula existed. Interdisciplinary courses in urban studies Administrative science AnthrOpology I"'William.Wheaton, "The Place of the Center in the Total University Structure," op. cit., p. 16. l""Philip V. White, "Trends in Urban Studies," Human Uses of the University: Planning a Curriculum in Urban and Ethfiic Affairs at Columbia University (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), pp. 132-133. 35 Business administration City and regional planning Civil engineering Divinity Economics Education Geography History Law Political science Psychology Real estate Social welfare Sociology. Shidler,"6 in his survey of colleges and univer- sities that offered programs in urban studies, listed the following general characteristics of the programs. a. Few universities yet have both graduate and undergraduate programs, but many that have one are developing the other. b. While a majority of the programs offer degrees, very few, and none of the under- graduate ones surveyed, are organized into departments. c. Architecture and planning schools and the social sciences are moving toward each other--the former by adding courses and other activities dealing with race, social justice and social planning, and the latter by giving increasing attention to the sociology, politics and economics of the physical development process. d. Departments of philOSOphy, religion, liter— ature, psychology and environmental sciences, and schools of law, engineering, health, social work, business and education are still infrequent participants in interdisciplinary urban studies programs. “‘Atlee E. Shidler, Urbanizing the University: A Preliminary Report on a Survey of Urban Studies Prggrams (WaShington: The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, November, 1969), pp. 8-9. 36 History is involved in only about half the graduate programs surveyed and about one- third of the undergraduate programs, and its involvement is almost entirely confined to U.S. history. Very few programs include any concern with the international dimensions of urbanism. There is, as yet, little interuniversity c00peration in urban studies instruction. Only a few programs approach urban affairs in terms of systems and processes rather than problems and issues. very few programs deal with the city as an independent variable, and what many call "urban problems" turn out to be any and all problems that people have in cities. There is a widespread preoccupation with urban pathologies and relatively little attention to the future and to ideal pos- sibilities. This is less the case where professional schools of architecture and/or urban planning are participating. There is a considerable tendency, especially in newer programs, to define urban as synon- ymous with central city and, to some extent, as basically black and poor. Suburban, suburban/central-city, and metrOpolitan-wide affairs are in most cases neglected. Among the social sciences, political science and government are most likely to offer courses with metrOpolitan perspectives. While economics is not as strong in this regard as political science and government, it is much stronger than sociology. Urban studies programs customarily view the communities in which they are located as sources of student internship and work-study opportunities, as places in which to perform services for the needy, as laboratories for developing knowledge and testing ideas, as bodies of officials who need training, and as sets of problems to be researched and solved. But very few programs have ap- proached their environs as communities to assist in a continuing effort to achieve self-understanding. 37 The Ford Foundation report on Urban Extension“7 cited a range of activities undertaken by urban programs in the experiment. Following is a summary of these activities: a. b. Development of an urban graduate degree program DevelOpment of an urban undergraduate program Provision of extension courses for local management and governmental officials Development of multidisciplinary research- action teams to extend into the community Provision of technical assistance to local agencies and community groups through teams of staff "experts" Conduction of studies in the Black community related to the decision making process Development special programs for school drop-outs, poor readers, and community organization DevelOpment of self-help projects in the disadvantaged community Development of community dialogue sessions Infusion of other areas of the institution with new thrusts related to urban concerns Development of research efforts related to complex urban issues Development of projects to bring community groups, local governmental officials, and university people together to solve commu- nity problems Development of a clearinghouse function for the collection and distribution of urban literature and information “7Urban Extension, Ford Foundation Report, op. cit. 38 n. Development of workshops, seminars, and conferences on urban problems. A recent publication of the National Academy of Science“° pointed out that there is a need for academic programs oriented to teaching special skills to meet professional needs in Urban Affairs. This need can be said to be pan-university. A second report stated that, particularly important are the relative devel- Opment of academic interdisciplinary research in the social and behavioral sciences and the widespread lack of departmental interest in interdisciplinary educational programs."9 Barazun somewhat critically observed that, now these universities are expected to devote themselves to urban and minority betterment as a permanent and comprehensive goal. The task falls in three parts: conducting research, training professional workers, and running so called action programs.50 The latter questions raised by Barazun related to urban programs and minority betterment has been a focus for critical attention in the development of these programs. l“Long Range Planningyfor Urban Research and Devel- o ment, a report prepared by the National Academy of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969), p. 19. ‘“A Strategic Approach to Urban Research and Devel- o ment, a report prepared by the National Academy of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969), p. 520 ' 5°Jacques Barazun, The American University: How It Runs,.Where It Is Going (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 27. 39 Organizing, Staffing, and Financing Urban Programs The third and fourth questions posed for the study are: What are the organizing and general staffing patterns of urban programs? What are the funding sources of univer- sity based urban programs? Because the literature related to the three general areas is limited, the three tOpics will be treated jointly. Organization Hodgson stated, "It can be said that at the moment no university exists which by its structure seems deliber- ately designed to deal with the problems of the city."51 He added, It is probably fair to say that existing programs with an urban connotation are still relatively small and do not represent total involvement on the part of the institution.52 Shidler observed there were two major problems confronting urban studies programs--one organizational and the other intellectual. Regarding the organizational problem he stated, How can interdisciplinary urban studies programs be best related to traditional disciplines and to other interdisciplinary programs in environ- mental, black, and international studies? When traditional departments provide the faculty for interdisciplinary programs, the interests of those departments tend to predominate and they have considerable power to make or break the 51Hodgson, op. cit., p. 3. szIbid. , p. 2. 40 programs. This problem may be especially acute at institutions where an urban studies major is offered, since departments are funded partly on the basis of how many students are majoring in their discipline.53 A variety of organizational structures have been utilized in the development of urban programs. In a tabu- lation of the membership list of the Council of Institutes of Urban Affairss“ the following organizational arrangements were represented. Institutes . . . 24 Bureaus . . . . . 4 Centers . . . . 28 Departments . . . 3 Divisions . . . 2 Projects . . . . . 1 Programs . . . . 7 Laboratories . . . l Offices . . . . 4 Administrative . . 10 Schools . . . . 1 Miscellaneous . . 6 Colleges . . . . l Sower pointed out that, the chief dilemma of the multiversity is that as presently structured it is unmanageable for either an effective output with any kind of quality control, or for changing itself. When one dukedom sub-unit becomes obsolete, the tOp management can only set up a new college, instiEute, center, department, or what have you. He added that in the present university structure, No unit can really defend itself from power inroads until it can become a college, offer courses, give degrees. 53Shidler, op. cit., p. 9. 5"Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs-- Regular University Institute Members, 1970/71 (membership list). 55Sower, Memorandum dated December 9, 1970, to Michi- gan State University Administrative Officials, op. cit., p. l. 41 Wheaton56 described how the "center" organization could be used as a leverage in the university structure. Bloomberg57 pointed out the problems of the center, institute, department, or project structures if they were not integral parts of the total university structure--with adequate financing. Reed Martin58 proposed the following organizing steps in develOping an urban affairs program. Step 1. Formation of Joint Committee on Urban affairs. All persons necessary for success of effort are on the team. Step 2. DevelOpment of a Metropolitan Resource Index (see Model from Portland State University). Step 3. Provide Staff Assistance to the Community in the form of student help. Step 4. Amalgamate Special Resources to meet ,already ascertained needs of the com- munity in a continuing way. Step 5. Provide Long-Term Loans of Graduate Students to be of assistance to municipal officials. Step 6. University to Research itself and its relation to the community as a "corporate citizen." Step 7. General Stimulation of graduate stu- dent research toward urban problems. 56Wheaton, op. cit., p. 17. 57Bloomberg, 0p. cit., p. 24. 58Reed Martin, "Steps Toward University Urbanization," Proceedings: The First Annual Conference, Council of Universityinstitutes for Urban Affairs (Washington, D.C.: Council ofIUniversity Institutes for Urban Affairs, 1970), pp. 22-30. 42 The Proceedings59 Of a workshop at a recent con- ference listed the following organizational Options Open to universities undertaking urban prOgrams: 1. A department, school or college, which Operates in line with existing units. 2. A university-wide effort in the form of a center or institute, which is to encourage and support the entire university. 3. An executive effort to shift resources and change priorities, usually in the form Of a high-level position. 4. A council, made up Of interested faculty, who can develop a thrust in independent departments. 5. Development Of specialized corporations on the institutions periphery tO serve the university and community by creating the alliances necessary to getting spe- cific jobs done. Staffing Both the organizing and staffing Of urban programs depends upon the type Of program to be developed. Jenkins pointed out that, College and university urban involvement assumes that institutions have personnel with special competence in urban affairs. This is frequently an assumption contrary to fact.5° He added, 59Proceedipgs: The Conference Of Urban Study Center Directors, Op. cit., p. 45. 6°Martin D. Jenkins, Guidelines for Institutional Self-Study Of Involvement in Urban Affairs (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971). p. 9. 43 Consideration should be given to the feasibil- ity Of utilizing on a full-time or part-time basis, individuals in the community with expertise in urban affairs--city Officials, employees Of business firms and community organizations, and community 1eaders--who may, or may not meet existing criteria for faculty appointments. Also to be considered are joint faculty appointments involving both academic departments and centers within the institution and Other institutions as well. The Ford study raised the following questions and Observations regarding the staffing Of urban extension programs. 1. Can universities that undertake extension Operations use the same system Of academic rewards for staff as they use in the so- called line departments? Observation: The traditional rewards of pro- motion and academic recognition are still based upon scholarship, research, and professional association, rather than upon the service func- tions performed by the new breed Of academicians whose extracurricular labor is extension work in the field. 2. Can the proper incentives be provided to attract the talent and skills needed to do the job in the cities? Observation: The great demand for profes- siOnal assistance in urban matters places new emphasis upon the university trainin programs as well as upon the specialist. Financing Urban Programs The fourth question posed for the study is: What are the funding sources for university based urban programs? 61Urban Extension, Op. cit., p. 8. 44 Sexton“? suggested that the university would respond to whatever society wants provided it gets the money tO pay for it. This statement was made with a critical eye toward the university's past action role in society. Coleman63 asserted that institutions willing to undertake urban programs should be willing to commit institutional resources to the program. Ladd, in his report to the Carnegie Foundation, pointed out two factors in the development of new institu- tional programs: 1. Ultimately, the exercise Of program power tends to be rather closely related tO the possession Of money. 2. "Budgetary leverage" as the Stanford Study rather delicately called it, is essential to changing anything Of consequence.6“ Williams65 suggested that the federal government provided the best long range possibility Of financing urban programs in institutions Of higher learning at the level necessary to make them effective. The National Academy Of Science report on Urban Research and Development pointed out that, 62Patricia CayO Sexton, The American School: Sociological Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: rentice-Hall,Il963)p P. 17. 2* P 63Coleman, Op. cit., p. 88. °“Dwight R. Ladd, Change in Educational Policy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970), p. 195. “Williams, Op. cit., p. 12. 45 the training Of agricultural professionals in the land grant colleges has been heavily supported by federal funds. It is equally reasonable that the training Of urban pro- fessionals should be supported in the same way.66 Gross proposed at the First National Conference Of the National Council Of Institutes of Urban Affairs that, the Council, either wholly or through a com- mittee, give attention to proposing a new Title for the Higher Education Act, which in the spirit Of the earlier Title I (which was oriented toward urban extension centers), would provide under appropriate terms and conditions a new program of federal funding for the educational, research, community services, and community service functions Of universities.67 A recent publication Of the American Council on Education listed 70 federal programs that provided possible sources Of funding for university activities directed toward urban problem solving.68 66Long Range Planning for Urban Research and Development, Op. cit., p. 20. 67Bertram Gross, "Urban Studies Centers: Facades or Change Agents," Proceedipgs: The First Annual Conference Council Of University Institutes for Urban Affairs, op. cit., p. 8. 68A Guide to Federal Funds for Urban Programs at Colleges and Universities, report prepared by the Office Of Urban Programs Of the American Association Of State Colleges and Universities in Cooperation with the Office Of Urban Affairs Of the American Council on Education (Washington, D.C.: American Association Of State Colleges and Univer- sities, 1971). 46 Problems Confrontipg Urban Programs The fifth question posed for the study is: What are the major problems confronting contemporary urban programs in institutions Of higher learning? Wheaton69 Observed that one Of the biggest problems confronting new urban programs in the university is the resistance tO educational change (which is) built into our system Of inter-university competition. This stifles inno- vation and creativity in programming. Bloomberg7o cited "the notoriously conservative character Of universities" as impediments to future internal changes in the institution. Shidler71 cited the following problems as major ones corfronting the develOpment Of urban studies programs. 1. The intellectual problem: What kind Of a core curriculum will best provide students from a growing diversity Of disciplines with a learning experience that is useful to all? 2. The organizational problem: How can inter— disciplinary urban studies programs be best related to traditional disciplines and to other interdisciplinary programs in envi- ronment, black and international studies? 69Wheaton, Op. cit., p. 15. '"Bloomberg, Op. cit., p. 23. ”Shidler, op. cit., p. 8. 47 The Ford Study72 raised two major concerns regarding urban programs and their relationships to the community. 1. Are there limits to the university's engagement in community conflicts? 2. TO what extent are universities inhibited from possible involvement in local politics? Williams, Gross, and Bloomberg73 saw the problem Of finances as most critical to newly developing urban programs. Summary Although institutions Of higher learning have increased their efforts in the past ten years to develop programs with specific urban orientations, a number Of institutions have played historical roles in addressing the needs Of the urban society. The technical institute, land grant university, "urban" university, and the two-year community/junior college are examples of institutions Of higher education that have played roles in the past related to the urban community and its problems. Important roles of these institutions were providing: 1. Professional men for the growing urban centers. 2. Education for the city's poor. 3. Trained teachers who would go into the urban schools and instruct the sons and daughters Of the poor. 'nUrban Extension, Op. cit., pp. 7-8- ”Williams, o . cit., p. 12; Gross, op. cit., p. 8; and Bloomberg, Op. c1t., p. 24. 48 Teaching, research, and extension work tO meet the changing needs Of the society. Career training through a practical application Of applied science. Education through a variety Of mediums specifically designed to get students into the out-Of-doors where the practical matters Of living were. Problems Of the 60's cited as major causes Of the "urban crisis" and which challenged higher education insti- tutions were many. The most critical ones were: a. b. Race and sense Of inferiority Of Black Americans Unemployment Poverty Lack Of gOOd education Need for better understanding the complexed urban social system Need for better information in urban affairs. Institutions Of higher education responded to urban problems by: a. Extending the outreach of the university and its influence into all phases Of urban life. Developing new techniques and approaches to serving urban communities. Developing Black or Ethnic studies programs. Developing urban academic programs which emphasized problem centered, interdisciplinary, and skills applicability oriented work. Several major research projects were either started or nearly completed during this period. Those projects 49 significant to this investigation were directed toward determining: a. The role Of the university in urban extension. b. The role Of the university in public affairs. c. Methods Of updating Obsolete organizations. d. The role Of the federal government in assisting urban universities tO respond most effectively to urban problems. The literature did not reveal a commonly accepted definition for urban programs. However, the following five major functions Of such programs emerged: Academic Research Service--extension Change agent/catalytic Special programs. In the range Of activities cited in the literature as content Of urban programs, two areas can be delineated. One relates to organizational processes and the other our- riculum content. Organizational Processes 1. Development Of new urban undergraduate and graduate programs. DevelOpment Of inter—university cooperation in urban studies. Use Of the community: a. to develop student internships. b. to develOp work-study Opportunities. c. as a laboratory for developing knowledge. d. as a setting in which tO do research. 50 4. Use of the university: a. to perform services for the needy. b. to provide direct technical assistance to the community. c. tO facilitate dialogue in the community. d. as a clearinghouse Operation for urban matters. e. to run seminars, workshops, and conferences on urban problems. f. to develop projects designed to assist urban disadvantaged students. Curriculum Content Urban oriented curriculum work was developed in the following academic fields: a. Planning and architecture b. History c. Political science and government d. Economics e. SociOlOgy. A general consensus emerged from the literature that institutions Of higher learning were not organized to most effectively address themselves to urban problems. However, there were a variety Of institutional organizations used to implement urban programs. The most significant ones were centers, institutes, administrative Offices, and programs. Finding personnel to staff urban programs was cited as a problem. Reliance upon the following areas was suggested as important sources for developing programs. a. Employment Of full or part-time individuals from the community with expertise in urban affairs. b. Employment of community leaders--most Of whom will not meet the standards Of academic departments. C. d. 51 Utilization Of joint faculty appointments. Utilization Of students on staff. Although it was Observed that institutions Of higher learning willing to undertake urban programs should be willing to commit institutional resources to the effort, federal, foundation, and institutional funds were identified as important sources Of financial support. The federal government was seen as the most viable source for long range support Of comprehensive programs. Of the variety Of problems confronting new urban programs, the most significant ones were cited as: a. b. Internal institutional resistance to change. DevelOping a core-curriculum that would best provide students from a growing diversity Of disciplines with a learning experience that would be useful to all. Determining the best organizational relationship tO environmental, Black, and international studies. Financing urban programs. DevelOping an interdisciplinary program. Developing the organizational arrangement within the institution necessary to carry out the functions Of urban programs. CHAPTER III STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION Study Design This is a descriptive study in which no hypothesis is stated to be tested. Rather a design has been developed to Obtain descriptive information on the several dimensions Of the study. A major purpose Of the design is to Obtain information upon which structural and program models Of urban programs can be developed. Also, from this study researchers in the future might be better able to develop testable hypotheses related to urban programs using more precise measurement techniques. Pre-Test Of Interview Questions In October Of 1970 Michigan State University's Center for Urban Affairs hosted 44 Black Directors Of Urban programs. The conference participants were used to pre-test a questionnaire from.which the interview guide for the study was develOped. Based upon the responses Of the directors to items in the questionnaire, face validity for the items was established. The list Of conference participants by programs represented is given in Appendix C. 52 53 Prior to developing the questionnaire, approval tO use the Urban Directors Conference participants was Obtained from the host institution. The procedural details for admin- istering the questionnaire were developed and approved by the conference coordinator. A commitment was made to the host institution to provide a summary Of the results Of responses for inclusion in the conference proceedings. Two weeks prior to the conference a letter was developed to alert the conference participants to the ques- tionnaire they would be filling out. The participants were asked to bring any descriptive materials which they might have on their programs tO the conference. The signature Of the director Of the host institution's Center for Urban Affairs was Obtained for the letter. The letters were mailed a week prior to the conference. The questionnaire was structured to solicit infor- mation in the five basic areas of the study. The questionnaire was administered to the 44 par- ticipants Of the conference in the second session. This was done to get maximum participation. The results Of the questionnaire were used to develop a report which was made available to the host insti- tution staff member who was responsible for the conference proceedings. The sample 54 The Sample--Selection for the study consisted Of six university urban programs. The survey method utilizing the personal interview technique was used to generate data for the study. The following six programs and institutions were selected for the sample: The Urban Center Columbia University, New York City Center for Urban Studies Howard University, Washington, D.C. Center for Urban Affairs Morgan State College, Baltimore, Maryland Center for University Department Community and Metropolitan Studies Of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri of Urban Affairs University Center for Of4WISCOHSin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Urban Studies Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Of the variety Of urban programs that exist, a systematic effort was made to select six programs that encompassed the range of university urban programs. Par- ticular attention was given to the content and structure Of urban programs as a selection criteria. The type Of in- stitution in which the program existed was considered in selecting programs. Two programs at predominantly Black institutions were systematically chosen for the sample. The committee, the dissertation chairman, and participants in the consultative advice Urban Directors Conference provided in the selection Of institutions for 55 the study. Careful consideration was given tO descriptive information available on urban affairs programs at various universities as well as information contained in the Ford Foundation Urban Extension Study, the U.S. Department Of Education Urban University Study, and the Columbia Univer- sity Curriculum Study. The Interview Guide The Interview Guide used in the survey was develOped primarily from the questionnaire administered to the par- ticipants in the Urban Directors Conference. The Interview Guide was organizaed along the line of the principal ques- tions Of the study. The purpose Of the guide was to help direct the interview and not dominate it. Arrangements for Visits Letters were written tO the directors Of the selected programs one month before the visits to the campus. The letters, which contained the signature Of the Michigan State University Center for Urban Affairs Director, explained the purpose Of the study and alerted the directors that they would be contacted by phone to arrange for an appointment. The calls were made and the appointments were set up. Travel arrangements were made through a local travel agency. The schedule was develOped so that the visits to the six campuses could be made in two weeks. 56 The Interview A concerted effort was made to conduct relaxed interviews. Arranging an early morning schedule at the coffee hour facilitated this. A decision was made tO not use a tape recorder in the interview. It was felt that more intimate and complete information would be Obtained without the tape recorder. The interviews lasted approximately one hour and a half. Lunch was scheduled with the program director or one Of his staff persons. Conversations over lunch were helpful in getting casual perceptions regarding the univer- sity's response to the urban crisis and to the program. Post-Interview Activity After lunch, visits were arranged with program staff persons. Although these visits were not long nor formally structured, a feeling Of what was going on in the program was develOped. The prOgram visits lasted between one and two hours. The evening Of the program visits provided an Opportunity to rewrite interview notes and to organize the information that had been gained relative to the specific program. Brochures and other information Obtained during the visit were reviewed. A review Of the next day's visit, including a review Of travel plans, ended the day. 57 Organizingythe Data for Reporting The data are organized for reporting in the same sequence in which it was collected. That is according tO the major focus items Of the study: (1) functional defi- nitions Of urban programs; (2) content Of urban programs; (3) general funding sources Of urban programs; (4) staffing and organizational patterns Of urban programs; (5) problems Of urban programs; and (6) future Of urban programs in the context Of the larger university. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In Chapter IV the data Obtained in the survey Of the six selected programs in the study are presented and analyzed. The presentation Of the data corresponds to the following six questions posed in Chapter I Of this study. 1. 2. Are there generally agreed upon definitions for urban programs? What is the content of urban programs in colleges and universities? What are the general staffing and organizational patterns Of urban programs? What are the funding sources Of university based urban programs? What are the major problems confronting contemporary urban programs in the university? What is the future Of urban programs in the context Of the larger university? In question number two the functions Of urban pro- grams are used as an organizing format for the presentation and analysis Of the data. Major organizational patterns which emerged in urban programs are presented under question number three. Because data presented in this chapter represent a combination Of sources Of information regarding a particular 58 59 program, an effort is made to report the data as an institutional response. In this regard, institutions and programs are identified but particular persons interviewed are not. The focus Of this study is upon develOping a systematic body Of knowledge related to urban programs; therefore, there is nO intent to identify or report on institutional programs in a biased manner. The purpose Of this chapter is to report and analyze what existed. Definitions Of Urban Programs The question addressed in this section is: Are there generally agreed upon definitions for urban programs? TO answer this question it was necessary to respond to the following: 1. What are the definitions currently being used to describe urban programs? 2. Are there common elements in the definitions? Current Definitions One Official in describing his program stated, "My program is everything the institution has not done to solve the problems Of the city." Another said, "The program is an attempt to develop a more meaningful approach to training individuals with the kinds Of skills necessary to function effectively as an urban professional, capable Of identifying problems and helping to solve them." These two responses depicted both the frustration and the hOpe Of two urban directors in developing new programs in their institutions 60 directed toward better understanding and responding to problems in the urban environment. More Specific definitions Of urban programs in the study were contained in Official brochures and other printed materials. The following definitions were Obtained from such publications. The center is a special program fulfilling a three fold function Of teaching, research, and community service--related to the problems Of the urban environment. The focus Of the cen- ter is on urban problems generally and is not necessarily limited to the city adjacent to the campus . ***** Broadly defined, the Center's function is to serve as a catalyst, both to increase the university's sensitivity and commitment to urban and minority problems and to expand its competence and capacity tO deal with them. It supports new teaching and research efforts and explores ways in which the university's expertise can be made more relevant and responsive to urban community needs. ***** The Department Of Urban Affairs is a program designed to meet society's increasing need for young men and women with a broad and intensive education in the field Of urban affairs. The main purpose Of the department's program is to prepare its graduates to deal with interrelated facets Of the various "urban crises" and to develop needed collaboration and integration among those with conventional specialties who become involved in meeting contemporary urban problems. ***** The program is interdisciplinary through which students attain both a broad understanding Of urban society and skill in the use Of analyti- cal and research techniques for studying the modern community. Emphasis throughout the curriculum is placed upon the process Of urbanization, the determination Of policy 61 making in public and civic bodies, and the social, economic, political, and administrative problems that are indigenous to contemporary cities and metropolitan areas. ***** The Center is an all university facility rather than a specialized enclave. Its major functions have been to: - conduct various interdisciplinary programs (in close COOperation with the various col- leges and departments) in urban education, urban research, community activities and international urban affairs. - provide specialized staff services to the university administration, the Council on Urban Affairs, and the various committees of the council. - encourage and support individuals, depart- mental and interdepartmental initiatives in urban affairs. - provide a link between individuals and groups in the university, on the one hand, and the various communities in the immedi- ate neighborhood, the city, the region and elsewhere, on the other hand. *‘k*** The Urban Affairs Program is a wide ranging activity in the college charged with the respon- sibility Of bringing a sense Of the urban commu- nity, its processes, and its problems into the total institution and Specifically its curriculum. ***** The Center is primarily an interdisciplinary academic program at the graduate level which stresses new training approaches to the problems Of modern cities. The development Of skills necessary to actively pursue solu- tions to these problems is the focus Of the program. ***** 62 Common Elements of Urban Program Definitions While the preceding definitions Of urban programs differ as to specific Objectives, there are identifiable elements that are common to these definitions. Analyzing the definitions, the following elements can be identified. 1. A focus on the problems Of the city, which includes a broader perspective of the problems Of minorities. 2. The develOpment Of an interdisciplinary approach to urban problem solving. 3. An emphasis on the teaching, research, and service functions Of the urban program. 4. A focus on methods Of bringing the community and the institution closer together. 5. A focus on the academic aspects Of urban program activities. 6. An emphasis on changing the past relation- ships between the institution and the urban environment. 7. Skills training for urban living and employment. 8. An emphasis on the total urban environment, including the international dimensions Of urbanization. 9. A focus on the understanding Of the process Of urbanization and the accompanying rela- tionship to other urban problems. 10. An emphasis on applying the knowledge and expertise in the university to urban problems. 11. A focus on research and research skills training. The common elements identified in the definitions Of urban programs relate closely to the academic, research, 63 service, and change agent functions which urban programs seek to fulfill. While it cannot be stated from the definitions presented that there was agreement regarding a nition for urban programs, there was consensus functions Of urban programs. A list Of characteristics found in the definitions follows. The characteristics were common defi- regarding urban program developed from a word analysis of the definitions presented earlier. The characteristics are listed from those most those least common. Characteristics of Urban Programs Contained in the Definitions Of Selected Programs common to Focus on the teaching, instructional, or curriculum aspect Of the program. Problem orientation. Identification Of the urban effort as a program. Interdisciplinary aspect. Focus on research. Identification Of community needs, services, and activities. Institutional change orientation. Institution wide implication. Urban described in terms Of the city, state, and international setting. Description in terms Of program functions. 64 Identification Of urban skills training. Association Of minority problems with urban program. Content Of Urban Programs Definitions of urban programs were useful in deter- mining the major focus and thrust Of particular programs; however, they did not provide an adequate framework from which to determine the content. In this section the content of urban programs will be examined. The question which is important in this regard is: What is the content Of urban programs in colleges and universities? An initial analysis Of the information Obtained in the study revealed that the content Of each program varied depending upon which Of the five major functions a partic- ular program emphasized. These functions are used as an organizing framework for the reporting Of data on content Of urban programs. The content of each program will be reported under the function with which the program most closely identified. Academic A variety Of academic activities can be identified among the programs in the study. However, those programs which Offered formal degrees in an urban curriculum have develOped the most systematic approach to such activities. Other programs have develOped COOperative academic courses and projects in colleges and departments throughout the institution. In each Of these two types of efforts the 65 emphasis was on developing interdisciplinary approaches to understanding the problems Of urban communities and developing skills for urban related careers. All programs surveyed in the study related in some way to the academic function. Only three, however, granted an urban degree. The Department Of Urban Affairs at the University Of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Offered course work leading to a Master's Degree in Urban Affairs. The program consisted of a series Of courses at the master's level designed tO provide students with "a broad understanding Of the urban society and skill in the use Of analytical and research techniques for studying the modern community." The academic content Of the program consisted Of the following two components: A. Thirty hours Of course work chosen from the following courses: Comparative Urban Development Seminar in Urban Design Advanced Urban Design Social Objectives Of Urban Development Methods Of Urban Community Development Metropolitan, Regional, and State Planning Simulation in Urban Research Computer Methods in Social Science Seminar: Dynamics Of Metropolitan DevelOpment Urban Developmental Policies Seminar Urban Social Structures Seminar Urban Renewal Seminar Urban Political Process Politics Of Urban Planning and Land Use Seminar: Design Of Urban Research The Internal Structure Of the City Seminar: The City in Theory and Practice Seminar: The City in History Independent Study 66 B. The successful completion Of a major paper or action project which shows evidence Of the analytical skills and multidisciplinary approach developed by the department. The second academic program was Offered through the Center for Community Studies at Howard University. The program consisted Of graduate training at the master's level culminating in an Urban Studies degree. Cooperative aca- demic training was also provided through several graduate departments for persons seeking careers related to mental health work, human services work, urban administration, and city management. The program consisted of 48 hours Of academic course work beyond the baccalaureate degree. The Urban Studies degree program contained academic course work which was divided between core seminars and a practicum experience, work in the area of specialization, thesis preparation, and general work in the social sciences. Courses in the program from which students could choose were: Urban Research and Problem Solving Group Dynamics Theory and Practice Of Small Groups Principles and Practices of Public Administration Urban Social Problems Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Life Styles Of the Poor Social Planning and Social Change Law and Social Change Social Intervention Models Economic DevelOpment and the Black Community Community Development: Theory and Practice Principles and Practices: Health and Welfare Organization Community Mental Health Health and the Urban Environment Introduction to Physical Planning Techniques Of Urban Analysis 67 Seminar in Urban Gaming Simulation Political Systems and Political Power The Black Revolution: History and Implications Core Seminar and Practicum Thesis The students in the program chose 18 hours Of work in the social science department to supplement work from the above program. The third program emphasizing the academic function was the Center for Urban Affairs at Morgan State College. There were two academic components in its Urban Affairs program. One was an undergraduate degree program in Urban Studies and the second was a master's level graduate program in Urban Planning and Public Administration. Both degrees were jointly sponsored by the Center for Urban Affairs and other departmental units in the institution. The Urban Studies program was interdisciplinary with five areas Of skills emphasized. Students in this program chose from 194 course hours Offered in eight departments. One hundred twenty-eight hours were required tO complete the undergraduate training. Although the course Offerings will not be listed here, the five areas of skills training for students were: 1. Community Organization, Development, and Leadership emphasis. 2. Administration and Fiscal Management emphasis. 3. Urban Development and Planning. 4. Urban Delivery Systems. 5. Statistical Analysis and Projection. 68 A staff person in the Morgan State Center remarked that "a particularly unique feature Of our program is that it allows the undergraduate to develop skills and expertise related to a practical urban profession." At the master's level the Center jointly sponsored a degree in Urban Planning and Policy Analysis. Students in this two-year program chose from the following academic course work: Government Observation Laboratory Mathematics and Statistics Public Policy Analysis Contemporary Problems Social Change Laboratory Seminar on Planning Theory and Philosophy Models: Computerized Information and Understanding Community Organization Laboratory Urban Anthropology and Ecology Program DevelOpment and Implementation Elements of Design Technical Planning Laboratory Interpersonal Communication and Group Dynamics Independent Research Project The program was designed to attract persons wishing to pursue an urban career in planning, government, or a related area. The remaining three centers in the study did not Offer a structured academic urban degree program. They OOOperated through joint staff appointments with academic departments in Offering urban related courses which could be taken by students interested in learning about or doing research related to the urban community. 69 The Center for Urban Studies at Wayne State Univer- sity sponsored, either alone or jointly with other units Of the university, the following academic activities. A. The Urban Seminar: taught by joint appointees in variOus departments throughout the university tO graduate students and advanced undergraduates seeking to learn about the city through an inter- disciplinary approach. B. The Urban Affairs Colloquium: a weekly seminar for students and faculty from across the university. Emphasis on urban problems. Independent credit arranged for through some departments. C. Urban Curriculum Development Project: the center participated through the Council on Urban Affairs in the long range development Of an Urban cur- riculum. The project is currently underway. The Center for Community and Metropolitan Studies at the University Of Missouri at St. Louis, in emphasizing the research nature Of its academic effort, did not seem as concerned about developing an academic capability within the program. The director commented that, "the joint staff appointees with the various academic departments make it possible to Offer courses where they are most meaningful-- in the disciplines." However, the center was instrumental in setting up and staffing a university-wide seminar on urban problems. The Urban Center at Columbia University did not Offer academic work. It had, however, an academic advisory committee made up Of academic staff persons from throughout the university. Two of the committee members were persons hired by the urban program and housed in other academic units Of the institution. 70 Although urban degree granting programs in the study were in institutions that also had Black Studies programs, there were no formal relationships between the two. In two of the urban degree programs students taking the urban curriculum were allowed to select courses that related to the Black Studies program. The Chairman of the Department of Urban Affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee commented that in the near future he would like to work out a more structured relationship with the Black Studies pro- gram in the institution. Research The largest increase in the number of urban programs in colleges and universities in the 60's was in those pro- grams that identified their major area of emphasis as research. This growth was largely related to the needs of the federal, state, and local governments for more precise information upon which to make decisions regarding policy issues related to urban redevelopment. The creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Housing and Urban Devel- opment in the decade of the 60's heightened the reality that there was little research data upon which to make decisions regarding the urban environment. Many urban research centers were created to assist in developing more reliable social data upon which to base urban policy and programs. 71 Only two programs in the study acknowledge that their major function was research--the Center for Community and Metropolitan Studies at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and Wayne State's Center for Urban Studies. In the interviews with staff personnel in the Department of Urban Affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, it was stated that the Dean of the College wanted to see the department engage more in the research aspects Of urban programming. In an interview with a staff person from one of the urban "research" programs, it was acknowledged that "the center was founded as a 'think-talk' action oriented re- search unit." As such, most of its professional staff were peOple who were engaged in and concerned about research aspects of urban problems. This program was engaged in a number of research projects. Most of them centered around research related to social indicators. A list of current activities of the Center included: A. The establishment Of an interdisciplinary research seminar on social indicators. B. Undertaking professional research work for the state Office of Planning Coordination on a proto—type policy system related to social indicators. C. Development of special studies and publi- cations as part of the long range approach to the societal indicator research program. D. Sponsoring individual research projects utilizing faculty from various areas of the university. 72 The second research oriented program in the study had initiated activities similar to the first. The emphasis was on developing a staff Of competent researchers from several disciplines to investigate the problems Of the city from an interdisciplinary perspective. A university-wide research seminar co-sponsored by the Center was used as a mechanism for involving students in research and action projects related to the city and its problems. The program director cited a list of forty such projects undertaken in the past year through the seminar. The programs at Columbia, Howard, and Morgan State gave little attention to the concern Of action research. The urban degree programs at the institutions, however, emphasized research skills as a part of their academic offerings. The Urban Center at Columbia University displayed little evidence that it was interested in research related to urban problems. One of the six major program activities to be retained as a part of the Center's "new direction," however, was a component labeled "Research Program in Urban and Minority Affairs." An analysis of the research function Of the six urban programs revealed that the major thrusts were related to: a. research skills training b. problem centered action research activities 73 c. basic and applied social science research d. public policy oriented research. Service Nowhere in the university's activities has change been more evident than in its efforts to develop meaningful service programs. Implied in this function is the utili- zation of institutional resources to benefit the urban community. This implication was particularly critical where the program was in an institution located in or near the inner-city. Whatever the motivation, new urban programs were greatly affected by this outreach concern. The program director at Columbia acknowledged that his program's future role would be that of a university service organization. As such it would deliver technical assistance and educational resources to the adjacent com- munity. The following four major projects were initiated toward this end. Faculty-Student Technical Assistance Project Community Educational Exchange Program Library Clearinghouse Project Puerto Rican Resources Development Program. Each activity was designed to assist the community to deal more effectively with problems which confronted it. "Each project is defined in terms of an 'educational solution' to the problems pinpointed," commented a staff person in the program. 74 The following service activities were undertaken by the Center at Wayne State. - Consultant Services Program for Community Groups - Community Goals Identification Project - Workshops, Seminars, and Conferences on Community Problems - Minority Employment Recruitment Program - Urban Studies Corps. The remaining four programs in the study initiated a wide range of activities designed to bridge the gap between theoretical academic knowledge and practical appli- cation. Each attempted to provide faculty and students with an Opportunity to become involved with the practical prob- lems of the urban community and also to contribute to their solution. This was accomplished through the development of a variety of activities. Examples of such activities in urban programs surveyed were: Field Work for Academic Credit: Five programs, alone or jointly, sponsored activities and projects that allowed students to be involved in urban agencies, institutions, and community groups for academic credit. Work-Study Projects: Three programs had developed projects whereby students could be placed in urban work situations and receive financial support for their work. Two programs attached the possibility of academic credit to the programs. Internship Programs: Three of the programs devel- Oped, jointly or alone, an internship program in cooperation with urban agencies, institutions, and groups that would allow students interested in working in an urban setting to receive academic credit and "on the job experience" as a part of their education. 75 Independent Credit: All the programs surveyed, except one, had developed the Opportunity for students that are associated with the urban pro- gram to be involved in some type of urban action/ service project for which he or she could receive academic credit. Each of the vehicles above enabled urban programs to develop a number Of activities that extended the insti- tution's urban program beyond the campus into the community. Change Agent The most difficult activities of urban programs to pinpoint were those related to the change agent function. While it was strongly evident in the interviews that all programs in the study were committed to changing the uni- versity and the urban society, little evidence other than personal commitments and an espoused philosophy existed to validate this function. Only at the Urban Center at Columbia University was it Openly stated that the major function of the program was a change agent or "catalytic" one. Interviews conducted with program directors and urban staff members pointed out the strong commitment of university urban programs to changing the university and its orientation to problems in urban America. One person interviewed at Missouri said, "I see the reSponsibility of the program to turn the university around and make it relate to the urban community." At Morgan State a student queried about the Urban Affairs Center said that he did not really know what the urban affairs program was but "unless it helps 76 to change the ghetto ain't no students going to be inter- ested in it." The concern and dedication to changing the univer- sity as an institution and the expectation of bringing about change in the urban community was a legitimate part of the perceived role and function of new urban programs. The question which confronted urban programs seemed to be, How is this best accomplished? Special Programs All programs in the study described some type of relationship with the recruitment, enrichment, and suppor- tive service function related to minority and disadvantaged students. The three programs Offering urban academic degrees emphasized the recruitment of larger numbers of minority students into the urban curriculum. The two graduate pro- grams had undertaken special recruitment activities designed to increase the number of minority students in the programs. A staff person in the Community Activities Component of the Wayne State program acknowledged that "in most large cities the biggest gap between the university and the city stems from the composition Of the student body." In order to create a university more responsive to the minority and poor community the urban program had: 1. Developed a close working relationship between the Center and the Department of Special Studies. This special academic program for educationally disadvantaged students is housed in the same building. 77 2. Joined with the Department of Special Studies to develop financial and academic support for students admitted to the university through the special program. 3. Worked with students seeking admissions to the university's medical school program. 4. Developed working relationships with the Community College that serves the city around the university. 5. Provided through the Urban Corps, a positive incentive for minority undergraduates to enter graduate studies. 6. Played a strong role in the recruitment of Black Americans into the faculty and staff ranks of the institution. The Columbia program had involved itself deeply in the special programs area. Examples of activities spon- sored by the program were: 1. Camp Columbia: A summer preparatory program con- ducted for 20 Columbia college entering freshmen which provided support in composition, study habits, and counseling services. Students received stipends and some received academic credit for work completed. 2. Project Double DiscoveryA(Upward Bound): A college preparatory program for educationally disadvantaged high school students from neighboring communities. It involved Columbia students in teaching, counsel— ing, and administrative positions. 3. Supplemental Math Techniques and Skills: A program created by ten Black Columbia College undergraduates to offer supplementary instruction to selected high school students which provides them with a mathemat- ical background that hopefully would enable them to compete in college science and math courses. One urban program was engaged in minority faculty and staff recruitment activities. However, the director quickly pointed out that the Center's program was not related to any institutional wide program in this regard. 78 Staffing and Organizational Patterns As urban programs developed activities, related to the functions described in the previous section, attention was focused on program staffing and organization. The question in the study which is important in this regard and which is addressed in this section is: What are the staff- ing and organizational patterns of urban programs? Staffing The emphasis Of urban programs in the development of interdisciplinary approaches to urban career training, research, and action necessitated the development of staffs with the potential to undertake program activities from a number of academic perspectives. Persons were also needed in the programs that had unique urban experiences and could contribute to the training and development of students seeking to follow careers in the urban community. The development of an urban staff uniquely fitted to creating new directions in institutional programming occurred basically through the utilization of joint appoint- ments between the department representing the discipline of the staff person and the urban program. The need to develOp staff with "unique urban experiences" was Often accomplished by organizing lecture courses and seminars around guest pre- sentations by local urban professionals and community peOple. 79 The pattern of joint staff appointments was used largely in activities of urban programs that had an academic emphasis. The organizational structures of centers, in- stitutes, and bureaus, most Often used in developing urban programs, lended quite readily to joint staff arrangements in building a program, developing activities in urban action, or launching an urban project. The disciplines and depart- ments engaged with urban programs in program development were: Center for Community Studies--Howard University Sociology Psychology Law Business Education Planning History Statistics Political Science Center for Urban Affairs--Morgan State College Economics Sociology History Political Science Psychology Geography Statistics Business Planning The exception to the joint appointment pattern of staff develOpment in urban instructional programs was the Department of Urban Affairs at Wisconsin. This program differed significantly from the urban programs housed in centers and institutes in that staff and students in the program were provided through the department structure a 80 "home base" for their academic activities. The program had a core staff of six full-time professionals representing five different disciplines. The chairman Of the department commented regarding joint appointments that, "the only way that we could get the type of commitment to the program from the staff that we needed was by hiring good people full time." The program does, however, share the time of three staff persons from other departments in the insti— tution. Guest lecturers from local agencies, institutions, and community groups frequently were involved in classroom activities. None of this latter group was part of the department staff. Graduate students serving in assistant roles provided inputs into the academic program. Another urban academic program had a staff listing of 30 professionals. Of this number only one, the center director, served full-time in the program. All of the others shared time in the program but were technically full-time in departments Of their discipline. There were only six that had formal joint appointments with the urban program. The director acknowledged that he had little real leverage over his staff, which he felt was necessary to develOp a strong program. Staff commitments to the program were arranged between the center director, the head of par- ticular departments, and the dean of the graduate school. The third academic program in the study depended entirely upon other departments in the institution for its instructional program. Through the infusion of funds into 81 the departments to support staff, the Center was able to cooperatively develop baccalaureate and master's degree programs related to urban center training. Urban programs not engaged directly in teaching did not face the problems of staff development encountered by degree programs. The two research programs in the study had small full-time staffs which represented several disciplines. The major factor tying the staff together was a common interest in research related to urban problems. Both programs did rely upon "buying time" of persons from other departments that could contribute in a research way to the program. Joint appointments Often facilitated this practice. The Columbia Urban Center was viewed basically as an administrative unit. The program staff was composed of composed of persons hired primarily for administrative purposes. Persons employed to work in projects sponsored by the center were not considered part of the urban program staff. Para-professionals, students, and community peOple were hired to assist in the implementation of these projects. Although there has been much encouragement to employ or use "urban experts" from the community and from agencies and institutions in the city, there was little evidence in the programs surveyed that urban academic and research staffs were being hired from the community. Urban programs utilized student and para-professionals from the community in projects. This was more true of activites related to 82 the change agent, service and special programs functions of urban activities than it was to instructional and research activities. The need in the latter two areas for relation- ships with academic departments and the need for credentials appeared to be most important in making staff appointments. Organizational Patterns A variety of organizational structures have been used to implement urban programs in institutions of higher learning. Programs surveyed in the study, however, repre- sented only two of these structures--centers and departments. Chart A below was developed from an analysis of the functions and organizational structures of urban programs. The chart relates urban program structures to functions. The functions are placed in relative positions with the structures to show which functions appeared to be most related to which structure. The structures and functions can both be seen in relationship to their degree of academic or non-academic nature. An analysis of the organizational structures and activities of urban programs in the study revealed three major program models. These models related to how the institution internally organized its activities to carry out urban programs within the total structure of the in- stitution. The three emerging models were: (1) institu- tional, (2) program, and (3) project. 83 Organizational Structure Non-Academic Functions A Executive Effort Urban Council Special Programs Centers, Institutes Change Research and Bureaus Agent Action/Service Departments Colleges Curriculum (academic) Professional Schools I ——————+— Academic Chart A. Organizational structures of urban program activities and their relationship to urban program functions. Institutional Model The institutional model represented an urban program organization in the university that had urban responsibil- ities on an institution wide basis. The major focus of this model was on developing, supporting, and coordinating urban activities in the total institution. The model was usually implemented through a center or institute. It is possible that it might be implemented through an executive effort designed to shift resources, change institutional priorities, and develOp an institutional thrust in urban programming. A high level administrator could have major institutional responsibilities in this model. The line of administrative authority in the model would run from the program director to the chief executive Officer of the institution. 84 Four programs in the study met the general criteria of this model. They were the Center for Urban Studies at Wayne State University, the Urban Center at Columbia Univer- sity, the Center for Urban Affairs at Morgan State College, and the Center for Community and MetrOpolitan Studies at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. The implementation of these programs was through a center structure and not a high level executive position. Program Model The prOgram model could be one of any number of specific activities in the institution designed to have a systematic impact on urban matters. In this regard it could be an academic, research, or service program implemented through a department, school, college, or division of the institution which Operated in line with existing units. The program model is Operated on institutional or "hard" money. This ensures continuity and stability to the program as part of the institution's urban commitment. An example of this model was the Department of Urban Affairs at Wisconsin. Also the academic urban programs of the Center for Community Studies at Howard and the Center for Urban Affairs at Morgan State fit this model. Project Model The project model was an adjunct activity undertaken through an existing unit of the institution. A faculty person or administrator would administer program activities 85 that fit his model. The funding source of activities for the model were "soft" money, federal or foundation grants. Such activities were not guaranteed existence beyond the period of the grant funds. A center, institute, or bureau might itself be an example of the project model depending on where the source of funds for the activities were derived from to support the effort. Several programs in the study had activities that were examples of this model within their operations. Examples identified were: Urban Center--Columbia University Community Cultural Education Program Enrichment Curriculum Project Harlem Cultural Council Theatre Technical Training Program Camp Columbia Project Double Discovery Center for Urban Studies--Wayne State University Urban Fellow Program Project Scholarships Minority Recruitment Project Urban Festivities Project Programs that fit the institutional model used an urban advisory council. Because Of the advisory status of the council there were no formal relationships to the urban programs and other areas of the university. Given the informal consensus system which Operates in institutions of higher learning, such a coordinating council appeared to be a critical body to the internal coordination of institu- tional activities related to an institutional urban thrust. 86 Funding Sources of Urban Programs One of the most critical areas of urban program consideration is related to financing urban programs in the institution. The question addressed in this section is: What are the sources of funds for new urban programs in the university? It was evident that the building Of significant urban programs in the university was tied to the question of budget. The reality of the prospect of changing the institution, making an impact on the urban community, or changing the institution's approach to the community related to the ability to hire unique staff, support particular kinds of research, and develOp new approaches to curriculum and student matters. In any case this meant developing budgetary leverage. Although specific information related to budgets of urban programs was difficult to obtain, it was possible to obtain the following information regarding the general nature of the budgets of urban programs in the study. Urban Center--Columbia University Source of Funds 1. Ford Foundation five year grant of $10 million to enable the institution "by study, by teaching and by action" to play a useful role "in helping to Open a wide future to New York and all cities, to Harlem and to all who have a disadvantage in our urban life." 87 Center for Urban Studies-—Wayne State University Source Of Funds 1. Hard budget from university--major portion of budget. Housing and Urban DevelOpment--student support. United Auto Workers--student support. Model Cities--student support. State Government--state project work. UlstJN 0 Center for Urban Affairs--Morgan State College Source of Funds 1. Ford Foundation grant. 2. State Legislative support which is to become a part of the institutional budget. Department of Urban Affairs--University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Source of Funds 1. Institutional budget through college structure. 2. Institutional budget--student support. Center for Community Studies--Howard University Source of Funds 1. Institutional budget--supports staff and program. 2. National Institute for Mental Health--student support. 3. Ford Foundation--student support. Center for Community and Metropolitan Studies--University of Missouri at St. Louis Source of Funds 1. Institutional budget. 2. Federal Government--research grants at application stage. Five areas Of financial support could be identified in determining the funding sources of urban programs. The chief sources of urban program funds were the institutional budget, federal programr-project funds, and foundation 88 support. Secondary sources were public-private contribu- tions and contract work with state and local agencies and institutions. The percentages of program support from the above sources varied from the Urban Center at Columbia whose present budget was derived 100 percent from foundation funds to the Department of Urban Affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee where 100 percent of its Operational budget was derived from institutional sources. Other pro- grams in the study had budgets that were mixed between these two extremes with federal and private sources Of funds contributing to the total budget. Another characteristic of urban program budgets was that funds from the federal government tended to be for the support of students and projects while the institutional budgets maintained were for program support. The director of one of the programs in the study stated that, "the future of urban programs as a part of the legitimate efforts of higher education institutions must find permanent support of a more stable nature than pres- ently exists. The long term effectiveness of such efforts will demand it." Problems of Urban Programs Institutions undertaking urban programs encountered a range of problems in developing activities. Many relate to the areas of the study that have preceded this section. 89 In this section, the question addressed is: What are the major problems confronting contemporary urban programs? In the interviews with the urban program directors and their staffs, they were asked to give their Opinions of the major problems confronting their program. The following responses were given: "Inter and intra campus jealousy does not allow for the kind of coordination and cooperation needed in developing a truly effective urban response." "Involvement in action or policy oriented research creates political problems for the program and the institution." "The center has the impossible task of trying to change the entire institution--one that really doesn't want to change." "Funding, I would say, is the major problem confronting the Urban Center." "Because the center is placed in a continual crisis role on campus it makes long range program develOpment impossible." "There is a lack of institutional consensus that something different needs to be done about the urban crisis. This has not helped our program." "It is difficult to develop an urban program without the ability to offer academic work related to our efforts. Depending on other academic units to do that for us doesn't seem to work well." "One of our biggest problems is related to our inability to establish credibility for the urban academic unit in the university." "Finding staff with a strong urban background and willing to come into the program has been a major problem." 90 "The lack of autonomy in charting the direction of the program has hampered our develOpment." "The program needs stronger administrative leverage to enable us to get things done." "We need to develop some additional sources of funds for the program." "One of the major problems has been in develop- ing staff allegiance to the program. This has been difficult to do through the joint appoint- ment arrangement." "There is no one location in the institution charged with the responsibility to coordinate all of the institution's urban programs." "We have had difficulty in attracting and keeping full time staff in the program." "Finding staff with a strong urban perspective has presented a big problem for us." "We have not develOped an effective system to evaluate our programs yet." "Identifying and hiring staff that can write prOposals for federal, state, and foundation funds to support our urban efforts has been a problem." An analysis of the problems cited in the interviews centered around three major areas--staffing, financing, and the problems related to the "emerging nature" Of urban programs. Locating, hiring, and keeping staff that had both an urban orientation and academic credentials was a major problem of the programs. This was particularly true of urban academic efforts. The lack of adequate finances was cited as a factor that hampered the development of strong urban programs. The overdependence on "soft funds" accompanied by the need to 91 spend time at grant prOposal writing did not help those engaged in urban program development. Future of Urban Programs in the Content of the Larger University The develOpment of contemporary urban programs in institutions of higher learning occurred during the decade of the 60's when the problems of the cities were highlighted. This was also the period of campus student unrest and gen- eral public concern regarding the efforts being made by our major institutions to address these problems. Whatever the motivation for the developing urban programs in colleges and universities, they were created in most instances without the benefit of long range planning related to their growth and develOpment. The problems men- tioned in the previous section give some indication of the concerns faced by urban program staffs in the institutions. In reviewing these problems of urban programs, a natural response is: What is the future of urban programs in the context of the larger university. This question is ad- dressed in this section. The director Of one program said, "until the total university decides that it wants to do something different from what it has done in the past about urban problems, the urban center will remain a crisis center, reacting to prob- lems and not forging ahead." Another person interviewed remarked that, "unless the program develops stronger 92 relationships with other units of the university, the problems of isolation in the institution will get worse." Other statements on the future Of urban programs in the university from persons interviewed were: "In order to develop a significant program, we need to have a guarantee of funds from the university." "Stronger links will have to be developed with other units of the university if the program is to survive in the future." "I'm not sure the university is really con- cerned that the program lives or dies." "We need to be able to Offer courses in order to attract students to the program." In analyzing information from the study regarding the future of urban programs, the above comments were viewed in light of the problems cited in the previous section. An analysis of both areas revealed that the future Of urban programs in the content of the larger university is related to the following: 1. The future availability of finances from institutional sources will determine the kind of existence urban programs will have. This will relate to the future ability of the institution to financially support an urban program. Urban programs must develop stronger rela- tionships with the total university if they are to become viable entities in the institution. The long range impact of urban programs will be related to its ability to influence the university's instructional program. 93 4. The future of urban program efforts in the university will be related to the institu- tion's ability to develop an institutional approach to solving the problems of the urban environment. 5. The future of urban program efforts will be related to the kinds of commitments the institutions are willing to make in seeking solutions to urban problems. Two additional factors are related to the future of urban programs in institutions of higher learning. They are: l. The emerging role of urban programs in the institutions. 2. The emerging urban roles of institutions of higher learning. Both of the above factors will undoubtedly affect the future of urban programs in the context of the larger university. Summary In the development of urban programs in institutions of higher learning no common definitions for these programs have yet emerged. However, common characteristics and func- tions can be identified from an analysis of the definitions and activities of programs in the study. The characteris- tics of urban programs ranked from most common to least common were: - Focus on urban related instruction. - Problem orientation approach to the urban environment. - Identification of urban activities as programs. - Interdisciplinary focus of activities. - Focus on research. 94 Identification of the community as a program concern. Orientation of programs toward institu- tional change. Institution wide implication of the urban activities. Urban described in terms of the city, state, and international setting. Identification of urban skills training as an Objective. Association of minority problems with urban programs. From an analysis of these characteristics and from the activities Of urban programs in the study the following functions were identified: Academic Research Service Change Agent Special Programs. The content of urban programs was identified and classified according to these basic functions. In the academic function the following activities were identified: Baccalaureate degree training in Urban Studies. Master's degree training in Urban Planning and Policy Analysis. Master's degree training in Urban Affairs. WorkshOps, seminars, colloquies, and projects sponsored by the urban program jointly with other units of the institution. 95 Urban academic programs were primarily skill oriented. The following areas of skill development and career training were identified in the programs emphasizing the academic function: DevelOping analytical and research skills Mental health worker Human Services worker Urban Administration City Management Community Organization, DevelOpment, and Leadership Urban DevelOpment and Planning Urban Delivery Systems Statistical Analysis and Projection Urban Planning and Policy Analysis. Programs engaged in urban research as a major focus of activities approached the problems of the city from a social science research perspective. The programs emphasized: Research skills training Problem centered, action research activities Basic and applied social science research Public policy oriented research. Urban programs emphasizing service to the community engaged in a range of activities related to this function. Included were: Community technical assistance project Community education program Community library clearinghouse WorkshOps, seminars, and conferences on community problems Minority employment program Puerto Rican Resources Development. One of the major emphases of urban programs in developing community service activities was the involvement of students 96 in the community. To achieve this involvement, the following vehicles were used: Field work for academic credit Work-study projects for credit Internship programs (community) Independent credit programs. The change agent and special programs function of urban activities were viewed as being critically related to the functions of urban programs. Examples of characteris- tics and activities undertaken by urban programs, related to these functions, were: - Perception Of the program as a change agent within the institution. - DevelOped activities related to special programs. - Recruitment of minority faculty and staff into the institution. - Worked closely with disadvantaged stu- dents enrichment programs. In staffing urban programs the emphasis was on developing personnel that reflected a range of disciplines. This was achieved through jointly hiring staff with other academic units in the institution. DevelOping interdisci- plinary approaches to urban problems was facilitated through this procedure. Although only two types of organizational structures--centers and departments--were used in imple- menting urban programs in the study, a close analysis of their functions and activities revealed three basic orga- nizational models of urban programs. They were: 97 Institutional Model The major focus of this model was on stimulating and coordinating urban activities in the total institution. Program Model Any urban activity of the institution designed to have a systematic impact on urban problems. Financed through stable institutional sources. Project Model Any urban activity undertaken as a short term effort, usually financed by federal, state, or foundation funds. Three major sources of funding for urban programs were: (1) institutional allocations, (2) federal sources, and (3) foundations. Two minor sources were: (1) public- private contributions and (2) contract work with state, federal, and local agencies. Institutions develOping urban programs faced in the past and will continue to face in the future a number of very critical problems. The problems can be generally categorized as: - Staffing--finding and keeping staff with unique urban.orientations. , - Financing--securing adequate funds for the develOpment of meaningful program activities. - Problems related to the "emerging" nature of new programs in the institution. 98 The future of urban programs in the larger university is related to a number of factors. Resolving the problems mentioned above is one vital area. Other critical challenges to the future of urban programs are: Developing institutional legitimacy. Developing stable sources of program funding. Developing a meaningful impact on the instructional program of the institution. Developing institutional commitment to the academic research and service roles of the institution as they relate to the urban community. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The purposes Of summary of the problem, present the conclusions issues related to urban of higher learning; and research. Problem this chapter are to present a methodology, and findings; to of the study; to present major program development in institutions to present suggestions for further Summary The rapid increase in urban programs in institutions of higher learning in the past decade contributed to the lack of clarity regarding definitions, content, funding sources, staffing, organizational patterns and problems of these programs. This study has dealt with these concerns by addressing the following six questions: 1. Are there generally agreed upon definitions for urban programs? 2. What is the content of urban programs in colleges and universities? 3. What are the general funding sources of university urban programs? 99 100 4. What are the staffing and organizational patterns of urban programs? 5. What are the major problems confronting contemporary urban programs? 6. What is the future of urban programs in the context of the larger university? Data Collection Data for the study were developed from two major sources. One was through a series of systematic interviews with the directors and staffs of the selected programs; the second was through an analysis of programs from printed brochures and other available literature. Programs in the study were selected through consul- tation with the doctoral committee, selected urban directors attending the Michigan State University Center for Urban Affairs Urban Directors' Conference, and the Director of the Michigan State University Center for Urban Affairs. Selected literature from the field was also used to help determine the programs for the study. Prior to visiting the selected programs a question- naire was developed and administered to the participants at the Michigan State University Urban Directors Conference. The questionnaire was later used in developing the interview guide for the survey of urban programs. Visits to each of the programs were arranged through contacts by mail and telephone with the program directors. 101 Personal interviews were conducted with the program directors, staff personnel, and students. These interviews provided the basic information for the study. The major focus of the study centered on the six questions posed in Chapter I. After analyzing the programs in the study the following results were found. Definitions An analysis of the definitions of urban programs in the study revealed that there was no common definition. Common characteristics and functions were identified from an analysis of the definitions and activities of programs in the study. Characteristics held in common were: - Focus on urban related instruction. - Problem orientation approach to the urban environment. - Identification of urban activities as programs. - Interdisciplinary focus of activities. - Focus on research. - Identification Of the community as a program concern. - Orientation Of programs toward institutional change. - Institution wide implication of program activities. - Urban described in terms of the city, state, and international setting. - Identification of urban skills training as an Objective. 102 - Association of minority problems with urban programs. Functions identified as common to urban programs were: Academic Research Service Change Agent Special Programs. While it was probably good that no hard and fast definitions have been developed for urban programs, it will become increasingly necessary to develOp methods of distin- guishing between the various types of urban activities in institutions Of higher learning. For example, terms like urban affairs and urban studies do not adequately describe the nature of the activities encompassed in the particular programs using these titles. Content The content of urban programs was identified and categorized according to the major functions of the programs. Findings in this area were organized according to these functions. Academic function.-—All of the programs in the study contained, to some degree, urban academic activities. The three programs offering urban academic degrees, however, presented the best example of the academic function in urban programs. The remaining three programs served as vehicles by which academic activities occurred. 103 In the academic function the following content areas were identified: - Baccalaureate degree training in Urban Studies. - Master's degree training in Urban Planning and Policy Analysis. - Master's degree training in Urban Affairs. — Workshops, seminars, colloquies, and projects sponsored by the urban program jointly with other units of the institution. Urban academic programs were also skill oriented. The following areas of skill development and career training were identified in the programs emphasizing the academic function: Mental health worker Human Services worker Urban Administration City Management Community Organization, Development, and Leadership Urban Development and Planning Urban Delivery Systems Statistical Analysis and Projection Urban Planning and Policy Analysis. Research function.--Programs in which urban research was undertaken as a major focus of activity approached the city and its problems from a social science research perspective. Efforts of these programs were centered on research projects related to social indicators. The following areas represented the range Of research activities existent in urban programs: Research skills training Problem centered, action research activities Basic and applied social science research Public policy oriented research. 104 Service function.--Two major program Objectives were evident in service efforts Of urban programs in the study. One was the providing of direct community services for com- munity betterment through an application of institutional resources; the second was the structuring of programs and projects for community betterment using students, Often for academic credit. Change aggnt function.--The change agent function of urban programs was most evident in program activities related to: 1. Developing new academic, research, and service thrusts of faculty persons in the institution by buying portions of their time and engaging them in new urban programs and projects. 2. Creating new inter and intra institutional relationships to address the problems of the urban community. 3. Identifying new areas of activity for institutional involvement and moving it toward greater involvement in critical urban issues. Directors and staffs Of the programs agreed that this was one of the most vital functions that their programs played. The major evidence that this function existed was in the programs themselves and the changes that had occurred in the institutions as a result of the program's existence. Special programs function.--The special programs function was identified as related to the institutional role Of educating those in the society that have normally been excluded from admission to the university. 105 Urban programs in the study had initiated or were cooperating in a range of activities related to the recruit- ment, enrichment, and support of minority and disadvantaged students. Examples of these activities were: a. Camp Columbia: a program designed to provide pre-college enrichment for disadvantaged stu- dents from Harlem. b. Project Recruitment: a program to assist the admissions Office of the institution to recruit minority students from the inner city. Staffing and Organizational Patterns An analysis of the staffing and organizational patterns revealed a number Of distinct features of urban programs. While the features were not uncommon to general institutional practices, the convergence of these features in urban programs represented a uniqueness of urban efforts in institutions of higher learning. Staffing The focus of urban academic and research programs on develOping interdisciplinary approaches to the urban commu- nity and its problems necessitated the development of staff from different disciplines. The use of joint appointments, between the urban program and other academic departments, was the principle method of accomplishing this. In the urban academic programs surveyed "experts" from local agencies, institutions, and the community were used in the classroom and in seminars. None of these 106 non-credentialed experts, however, played a major role in the urban programs. Attracting and keeping staff uniquely fitted for urban academic and research programs was a problem in most urban programs. Less difficulty was experienced in hiring community peOple and non—professional staff for community service related projects and programs. Organizational Patterns Urban programs in the study were organized in two basic patterns within the institution--centers and depart- ments. Each provided for specific positive and negative aspects of program growth and develOpment. The department organization provided a strong framework for the development of an urban academic program. This was true because of the nature Of departments as basic instructional units in institutions of higher learning. Negative aspects of this organizational structure were noted in efforts undertaken to develOp interdisciplinary activities and programs in the department. Also, this structure appeared to limit the program's effect on the institution as a whole. The second and most common of the structures of urban programs in the study were centers. Five such organizational structures were represented in the study. The center was a more loosely organized structure Within the framework of the institution. Maximum latitude was available for centers to create program relationships 107 with other units in the institution. This was conducive to developing relationships with all discipline units Of the institution as well as other special purpose centers and institutes. Weaknesses of the center structure were evident in their inability to offer instruction and certify students as competent in a body Of knowledge. Centers had to rely upon their associations with departments, through joint staff appointees, to offer instruction. One of the major frustrations of urban program staffs and directors related to the lack of academic power present in the center structure. Four of the five centers in the study had some form of an institution wide urban council to assist in developing and maintaining relationships across the institution. The council was made up of persons from those areas of the institution that maintained cooperative relationships with the urban program, including central administration. Emerging from an analysis of the organizational structures of urban programs in the institutions surveyed were the following three organizational models. Institutional Model.--The major focus of this model was on stimulating and coordinating urban activities in the total institution. Strong points of this model were: - Wide institutional influence could be exerted through this model. This was particularly true where the director had budgetary leverage. 108 - The institutional model was in a strong position to draw on all the resources of the institution. - Coordination and development of an institutional urban thrust could be more easily achieved through this model. This coordination appeared to be critical in developing relationships between the various urban functions. - The director or administrative head of the institutional model was in a stronger position to get things done than a program or project head. - Special purpose staff could be easily identified and placed in this model. - The director was in a strong position to influence institutional priorities. - Urban programs and projects could be contained within this model. Weaknesses of the institutional model were: - There was little or no direct control over areas that were vital to the directors' perceptions of an urban thrust. - It was difficult to develop staff allegiance to what appeared to be a disjointed administrative effort that had no direct control. - Without budgetary leverage the institutional model was a "paper tiger." Program Model.--Any activity of the institution designed to have a systematic impact on urban problems. Financed through stable institutional sources. Strong points of this model were: - There was direct control over the program components. - Because institutional funds supported the program there was a sense of security represented in this model. 109 - Stability and long range continuity could be developed in the program because of the institutional commitment to the program. It could compete as an equal with all other program units for funding in the structure in which it was located. It could contain urban projects within it. Weaknesses of the model were: - The program had to compete in the institution like all other similar units for funding. It was difficult to attain priority status for the program in this situation. The ability to strongly influence other units Of the institution was minimized. Program boundaries did not allow for a diversity of activity within the program. Project Model.--Any urban activity undertaken as a short term effort, usually financed by federal, state, or foundation funds. Strengths of the model were: Special purpose activities could be undertaken on short notice. Grant funds could often be used for activities for which institutional funds were not available. The project director was often free to negotiate both inside and outside the institutional boundaries. The ability to hire special purpose staff was more easily accomplished in this model. Weaknesses of the model were: "Soft money" nature of the project made staff recruitment difficult. 110 - Inability to engage in long range planning hampered the program. - Uncertainty over funding negatively affected staff recruitment and morale. - The director of the project was not in a good position to influence larger units in the institution. Funding Sources Five major areas of funding were identified in an analysis of programs in the study. They were: Institutional Budgets Federal Program-~Project Funds Foundation Support Public-Private Contributions Contract Work with State, Federal and Local Agencies. While each of the programs depended on funds from several of the above sources, it was evident that the stability of the program was based on the availability of "hard funds” from the institution. Funds from sources other than the institution were viewed as supplemental. Urban programs that emphasized functions other than academic depended on federal government sources for support of program activities. Problems of Urban Programs Problems of urban programs in institutions of higher learning were related to two major areas: (1) problems associated with developing programs in the institution and (2) problems related to the urban response of the large institution. The problems were identified as: 111 Problems related to the emerging nature of urban programs in the institution Giving meaning to the change agent function of the program. Funding. Crisis nature of program operation. Determining clear objectives of the urban program. Attracting and keeping qualified staff with an urban orientation. Coordinating activities with the rest of the institution. Lack of power to change things. DevelOping an institutional identity for the program. Developing evaluation procedures for program activities. Problems related to the emerging nature of urban roles of institutions Coordination and OOOperation of various urban related activities in the institution. Problems of institutional involvement in local political issues. Funding. Lack of institutional consensus regarding its urban role. Lack of strong administrative leadership. The major problems of urban programs were verbalized most often as a lack of money and the inability to recruit and hire qualified staff. 112 Future of Urban Programs The future of urban programs in the larger univer- sity is related to a number of factors. Resolving the problems cited in the previous section is one vital area. Other critical challenges are: 1. Developing institutional legitimacy for the program. 2. DevelOping stable sources of program funding. 3. DevelOping a meaningful impact on the instructional program of the institution. 4. DevelOping institutional commitment to the academic, research, and service roles of the institution as they relate to the urban community. Conclusions The following conclusions are related to the ques- tions posed in Chapter I of the study. An analysis of the data from the survey of the selected programs was the basis from which the conclusions were drawn. Contained in the conclusions below are also more generalized perceptions drawn from the investigation. 1. A variety of programs and projects in insti- tutions of higher learning were given labels that described them as urban. They include academic curriculum, research activities, service programs, change oriented activities—- internal and external to the institution, and special institutional efforts related to disadvantaged and minority students. 113 2. Urban academic and research programs were interdisciplinary and problem centered efforts designed to provide students with a broad background perspective of the urban condition and skills necessary to pursue urban related careers. 3. Urban academic programs were not related in a formal way with Black or ethnic studies programs. Students could, however, choose from social science courses that focused on the roles of Blacks and other minority groups in the country. 4. Staffing of urban academic and research programs occurred through joint appointments arranged between the urban program and other academic units in the institution. 5. Efforts to develOp overall institutional urban thrusts were evident in the institutions surveyed. It appeared, however, that little real headway was being made to develop concerted institutional efforts in this regard. 6. The content of urban programs was a mixture of activities and efforts ranging from urban academic course work to student service programs designed to impact on Students recruited to the institution from urban and inner- City communities. 7. Urban programs in institutions of higher learn- ing were funded from a variety of sources, including the fecleral government, foundations, public-private sources, anci institutional budgets. 114 8. Persons interviewed in the study agreed that their programs were under-funded and the sources of current program funds were generally not stable. 9. The major problems of urban programs related to securing adequate and stable financing, hiring and keeping competent staff, and determining a program role in the larger institution. 10. While many problems of urban programs were perceived by persons involved as unique to their particular efforts, the problems appeared to be those common to all new programs developing in the institutional bureaucracy. 11. The future of urban programs in institutions of higher learning relates to the ability to solve the short range problems confronting the programs. However, the long range future of urban programs will relate to develOping stable financial resources for program efforts and top level administrative leadership in designing an institutional thrust related to the urban environment. 12. Two major developments that will affect the future of urban programs in the context of the larger university are: (a) the emerging nature of urban programs in higher education institutions, and (b) the emerging urban role of institutions of higher learning. The directions of both of these movements will affect the future of institu- tional urban programs. 115 ISSUES A number of key issues emerged during the course of the study. The issues were related to the nature of urban programs, concerns regarding the nature of institutions of higher learning, and problems of meeting the needs of the urban community. The future development of sound urban prOgrams in institutions of higher learning will relate to the adequate resolution of these issues. Issue l.--Is it realistic to expect urban programs :pefiplfill all of the functions identified with Observation.--Although the five major functions cited as common to urban programs in Chapter I were sub- stantiated as valid in the survey of the selected programs, it was noted that programs identified more closely with certain functions than with others. That is, programs tended to be functionally an urban research program, urban academic program, urban service program, or an urban change agent program. Other programs in the field have chosen the title urban affairs while emphasizing minority student recruitment, enrichment, and supportive service activities. If urban programs are to be successful in institu- tions of higher learning, individual programs must identify specific areas Of expertise and competence that it wants to develop. Its major program energies must go toward develop- ing that particular area of competence. Administratively, 116 linkages with other units of the institution focusing on the other urban functions must be created. The maximum potential for developing an institutional urban thrust will most likely be develOped in this manner. Issue 2.--TO what degree can the university become involved in local political issues and retain the objectivity needed to survive as a viable institu- tion in the society? Observation.--One of the most critical issues confronting institutions of higher learning which develOps urban action or service programs in the community is, "To what extent can the institutions become involved in the political issues Of the local community and survive?" While there does not appear to be clear cut or specific answers to this question, the Obvious limit to which the institution can go is to the point where society fails to provide support for the maintenance of the insti- tution. Rather than attempting to identify this point, it! would seem more apprOpriate to determine the nature of the institution in order to decide what its involvement should be. The role of higher education has been to educate people so that they are able to make decisions regarding actions they deem most appropriate for their lives. Action, in the problem solving approach, occurs as a result of rationally defining the problem and weighing the alternative solutions available. The role of higher education institu- tions in this process should be that of a catalyst. Like a 117 true catalyst, the institution's role should be to equip individuals or groups with knowledge to solve their problems. Institutions must encourage those undertaking programs and projects designed to give students front line experience in the community-urbs, suburbs, and the inner-city. The institution must be willing to accept the criticism of over involvement in local community affairs in the same manner it has accepted past criticism of non- involvement in the affairs of the larger society. Issue 3.--What is the prOper relationship between the urban question and the minority concern? Observation.-—There is little question today that a number Of the nation's major urban areas are becoming predominantly Black. Additionally, the American Indian, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican pOpulations of the nation are becoming increasingly urban. This reality, however, must not cause institutions of higher learning, seeking to meet its urban commitment, to build urban programs around specific minority or ethnic groups. Urban programs in institutions of higher learning should reflect a body of knowledge that deals with the process of urbanization, factors causing it, and problems that have resulted from it. Only through this approach can the cause-effect rela- tionships between urban problems, their causes, and their Solutions be most systematically understood and dealt with. 118 There should be strong formal relationships devel- Oped between ethnic or Black studies programs and urban academic career programs. Persons preparing for careers in urban planning, education, social work, law enforcement, or medicine should be required to study and understand the relationships existing between America's minority groups and the causal factors related to their urban existence. Only urban professionals educated with this knowledge and under- standing will be effective in their chosen urban careers. This formal relationship could exist in the form of formal course work requirements in ethnic or Black studies for students pursuing urban careers, joint faculty appointments between ethnic and institutional career programs, or the hiring of staff from the social science disciplines in pro- fessional school programs with the capability of imparting knowledge relative to the desired minority subject areas. The first two alternatives would seem to be most logical. Urban academic, research, and service programs should relate strongly with the institution's special student recruitment programs. While students from urban communities should not be locked out of the range of career training choices in the total institution, they should be given strong encouragement to investigate careers that are vital to the survival of the communities from which they came . 119 Suggested Criteria for Establishing Urban Programs As a function of the systematic and exploratory work on urban programs the following criteria have been identified as those necessary to establishing such programs in institutions of higher learning. The more nearly an institution's urban program approximates the institutional model the more likely it will meet a larger number of the criteria. Urban programs fitting the program and project models will meet more selectively certain of the following criteria. A. Program relationship with the academic instructional program of the institution. Emphasis on academic or skills development related to urban career training. Emphasis on applied or problem centered research related to urban problem solving. Research skills develOpment included as part of training. Emphasis on multidisciplinary academic approaches to subject content and training activities. Orientation toward serving and training students from minority groups. Students from Black, brown, and red America are singled out for such training. Programs must develOp or have access to vehicles for providing students and staff an Opportunity to engage in "action" projects and activities related to urban community programs. Programs must have budgetary capability to develop staff with unique abilities and urban experiences. Budget stability for urban programs is very critical. 120 G. Programs must have the organizational capability to develop innovative approaches to educating students seeking to enhancing their knowledge of urban processes and acquire urban career training. Implications for Further Research From an analysis of the data in the survey and from an analysis of the concerns expressed by those engaged in the urban program field, reviewed in Chapter II, the fol- lowing areas are suggested for further research. 1. The urban program directors in the study agreed that the change agent function was a very vital one. How- ever, little evidence was available to validate that such a function existed in the programs. A systematic study designed to determine what the critical factors related to this function are would aid in better understanding the purpose and nature of this function. 2. The development of an institutional urban program model would cross a number of organizational lines and areas of responsibility in the university. An orga- nizational study of several types of higher education institutions to determine how such a model might Operate would be helpful. It would be particularly beneficial to institutions attempting to undertake such a program model and to administrators with urban program responsibilities. 3. One of the major challenges facing institutions of higher learning is that of educating students to assume roles in the large society. Few questions have been raised 121 relative to the concern, who is being prepared for what. A study of urban professional needs compared with insti- tutional academic and career training programs would be useful. This would help in determining the compatibility of urban educational and professional needs and university educational programs. 4. The perceptions of those engaged in the field often differed regarding the best and most viable role of the university in urban program activities. A study de- signed to compare the attitudes of the directors of urban research, academic, and service programs relative to the role of the institution in meeting the needs of the urban environment would be valuable. Other dimensions related to the interrelationship between various urban activities in specific institutions might be Obtained from such a study. 5. Priorities are Often difficult to determine in institutions of higher learning. In most instances they are developed on the basis Of the availability of funds from various outside sources. The crisis of urban America has become a priority concern for many of the nation's institutions. A systematic study of priorities in a range of higher education institutions across the nation would give some indication of where the concern for the urban community exists within institutions. Follow-up studies in institutions that listed a high priority for urban pro- grams would be valuable in determining the relationship 122 between priority and urban efforts in specific institutions of higher learning. 6. Comments were often heard in interviews that the institution didn't really care what the urban program did. The inference was that little real attention or con- cern about the program existed at the top administrative level in the institution. A study of the attitudes and perceptions of top level administrators in institutions of higher learning that have urban programs comparing them with those of the directors and staffs of these programs would be a most interesting study. Differences in perceptions re- garding the roles, functions, directions, and administrative support for the urban program could be measured. 7. One of the major concerns of urban program directors was finances. A future research project that would be helpful to institutions and to persons engaged in the field would be one designed to identify the sources of funds available to institutions of higher learning under- taking or engaged in urban program activities. Both institutional and non-institutional funds could be iden- tified in the research project. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Barazun, Jacques. The American University: How It Runs, Where It Is Going. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Birenbaum, William M. Overlive: Power, Poverty, and the University. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969. Blocker, Clyde E., Robert H. Plummer, and Richard C. Richardson, Jr. The Two-Year College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1965. Carlson, William S. The Municipal University. Washington, D.C.: The Center For Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1962. Clark, Kenneth B. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Diekhoff, John S. Democracy's College. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Harrington, Michael. The Other America. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1963. Hodgson, James L. Institutions in Transition: A Study of Change in Higher Education. Berkeley, California: Carnegie FoundatiOn for the Advancement of Teaching, 1970. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. Janowitz, Morris. Institutional Building in Urban Education. Russell Sage Foundation. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Printers, Inc., 1969. Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964. Klotche, Martin J. The Urban University: And the Future of the Cities. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. 123 124 Ladd, Dwight R. Change in Educational Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Leinwand, Gerald. Crime and Juvenile Delinquency-~Problems of American Society. New York: Washington Square Press, Inc., 1968. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A History. New York: Vintage Books, Inc., 1962. Sexton, Patricia Cayo. The American School: A Sociological Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Starr, Roger. Urban Choices: The City And Its Critics. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1968. Urban America, Inc., and the Urban Coalition. One Year Later: An Assessment of the Nation's Response to the Crisis, Described by the National Advisor, Commission on Civil Disorders. Washington, D.C.: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1969. White, Philip V. "Trends in Urban Studies." Human Uses of the University: Planning A Curriculum in Urban and Ethnic Affairs at Columbia UniVersity. New York: Praeger PuinShers, 1970, pp. 132¥l33. Periodicals Brazziel, William F. "New Urban Colleges for the Seventies." Journal of Higher Education, XLI, NO. 3 (March, 1970), 169-177. "Center Surveys Growth in Urban Studies." The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies Reporter, I, No. 3 TNovember, 1969), 1-2. "Literature Review of Black Studies." Black Scholar, September, 1970, pp. 52-55. Morse, Wayne L. "A Federal City College." American Egucation, September, 1968, pp. 31-32. "Report of the Public Affairs Study to the Association." For Your Information Bulletin, Office of Institutional Research, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Circular No. 159, November 24, 1970, p. 4. Taylor, Orlando L. "New Directions for American Education: A Black Perspective." Journal of Black Studies, I, NO. 1 (September, 1970), 101-111. 125 Reports American Society of Planning Officials, American Institute of Planners. "Education and Career Information for Planning and Related Fields: July, 1970," Chicago, Illinois, 1970. Bebout, John E. "Symposium: The Need for University Programs in Urban Studies." The University in Urban Affairs. Edited by Peter M. Tobia. Brooklyn, New York: St. Johns University, October, 1969, pp. 105-106. Bloomberg, Warner. "University Urban Studies Centers: Partial Protection 'Functions' of Urban Studies Centers," Proceedings: The Conference of Urban Study Center Directors. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies, June, 1969, pp. 23-25. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Quality and Equality: Revised Recommendations New Levels of Federal Responsibilityrfor Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Colmen, Joseph G. "Federal Programs." The University in Urban Affairs. Edited by Peter M. Tobia. Brooklyn, New York: St. John's University, October, 1969, pp. 87-90. Eisenhower, Milton S., et a1. Report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1970. Ford Foundation Report on Experimental Programs. Urban Extension. New York: Ford Foundation, 1966. Gross, Bertram M. "Urban Studies Centers: Facades or Change Agents." Proceedings: The First Annual Conference Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs. Washington, D.C.: CounciI'of University Inst1tutes for Urban Affairs, April, 1970, pp. 6-12. Harlacher, Ervin L. The Community Dimension Of the Com- muniterollege. Report to the American Association of JuniOr Colleges, Washington, D.C., November, 1969. Jenkins, Martin D. Guidelines for Institutional Self Study of Involvement in Urban Affairs. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. Kerner, Otto, et a1. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. 126 Martin, Reed. "Steps Toward University Urbanization." Proceedings: The First Annual Conference Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs. Washington, D.C.: Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs, 1970, pp. 22-30. Murlin, Lemuel H. "Results of Cooperation by the Municipal- ity and the University in Training for Public Service." Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of the Association of Urban Universities, 1914-1915. Chicago, Illinois: Association of Urban Universities. Nash, George. "Community Services." The University in Urban Affairs. Edited by Peter M. Tobia. Brooklyn, New York: St. John's University, October, 1969, pp. 32-52. National Academy of Science Report. A Strategic Approach to Urban Research and Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969. National Academy of Science Report. Long Range Planning for Urban Research and Develgpment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy ofiSciences, 1969. Office of Urban Programs of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities in COOperation with the Office of Urban Affairs of the American Council on Education. A Guide to Federal Funds for Urban Programs at Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1971. Organization for Social and Technical Innovation. Urban Universities: Rhetoric, Reality, and Conflict. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970. Proceedings: The Conference of Urban Study Center Directors. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies, June, 1969. Shidler, Atlee E. Urbanizing the University: A Preliminary Report on a Survey of Urban Studies Programs. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, November, 1969. Wheaton, William. "University Urban Studies Centers: The Place of the Center in the Total University Structure." Proceedings: The Conference of Urban Study Center Directors. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies, June, 1969, pp. 15-17. 127 Williams, Franklin H. "The University and Urban Affairs." The University in Urban Affairs. Edited by Peter M. Tobia. Brooklyn, New York: St. John's University, October, 1969, pp. 1-13. Unpublished Materials Ellison, Nolen M. "A Survey of Urban Directors." Unpublished Survey of Directors at the Urban Directors Conference, Michigan State University, October, 1970. Goodrich, Andrew L. "A Survey of Urban Community Colleges." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Myran, Gunder A. "The Structure and DevelOpment of Community Service Programs in Selected Colleges in the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Sower, ChristOpher. "Obsolete Universities: They Can Be Updated." Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1970. "Memorandum to Michigan State University Administrative Officials." Letter accompanying unpublished paper, December 9, 1970. Miscellaneous Mailing List of Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs, Arlington, Texas: Council of UIUA, 1970. Council of University Institutes for Urban Affairs--Regu1ar University Institute Members, 1970/71. (Membership List.) APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER MAILED TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE URBAN DIRECTORS CONFERENCE HELD AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, OCTOBER 21-23, 1971 128 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mumsmO-mcmcm 48823 CENTER FOR URBAN AFFAIRS 0 OWEN GRADUATE CENTER Michigan State University, like most of the insti- tutions represented at this conference, is engaged in the develOpment of programs designed to impact on urban problems and needs of minority students. Generally, this means the development of programs addressed to curriculum, research, community action, minority student recruitment, student sup- port, non-discrimination, and "institutional advisement" on minority concerns. Because there is relatively little information on Urban Affairs programs (and because we cannot wait until all the national studies have been complpted), those engaged in the field have had to develOp definitions and activities that would meet the needs of their particular institutions. This lack of information has been frustrating to all of us with responsibilities to Operate programs "now" and not wait until all the data is analyzed. Purpose of the Questionnaire In order to assist in the develOpment of a body of information that would be useful to "urban" program direc- tors, M.S.U.'s Center for Urban Affairs has undertaken several research projects. Critical to its efforts in these regards is accurate descriptive data from the field. This questionnaire is designed to obtain information that will be useful in develOping a more systematic approach to an under- standing of programs termed "Urban Affairs." We felt that this conference would be representative of contemporary "urban" related programs nationally and therefore, we are attempting to take advantage of your participation so we can provide accurate feedback on information important to all of us. Please assist us in this task by responding to the attached questions. Hopefully, before the current year is over we will forward the results and interpretation of the data to you. All information given here will be treated in a professional manner. Sincerely, {we 21.1... Ro ert Green Director MSU Center for Urban Affairs (biwm. 8.129;... Nolen M. Ellison Assoc. Director Center for Urban Affairs APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE USED AT THE URBAN DIRECTORS CONFERENCE APPENDIX B URBAN QUESTIONNAIRE GENERAL INFORMATION 10. 11. 12. Name of institution represented Location Name of program Director How long has the program been in existence? (years) (months) Is the program degree granting? yes, no If yes, degrees offered. A.A., B.A., M.A., Ph.D., other If no, briefly describe the purpose of the program. How large is the professional staff? (instructors and above) Non-professional staff (other than professional above)? Approximately how many students participate in your program? If there are no sutdents in your program, do you expect there will be? yes, no. When? Approximately how many students are there on your campus? Approximately how many Black students are on your campus? 129 130 PROGRAM STRUCTURE 1. Check the one(s) which best describe your program. Academic Administrative Service The Director reports administratively to the If academic, which university "college" is the program located in? The program would best be described as a: department center Office institute If administrative, in what office is the program located? CONTENT OF PROGRAM 1. Check the following functions which describe your program. Academic Student recruitment graduate undergraduate Research basic applied Student "support" programs tutoring counseling financial aid Institutional advisement Circle the above area which represents the major focus of your program. If the major focus of your program is academic, is the emphasis on graduate or undergraduate education. (Circle the choice.) 131 Is there a Black or Afro-American Studies program on your campus? yes no Is your program related to the Afro-American Studies program? yes no If yes, how is it related? FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM SUPPORT 1. university general budget foundation grants federal grants other (explain) Approximately what percentage of your budget is university "hard money"? 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Is staff provided for your program from other units of the university? no Approximately how many full-time staff equivalents does represent in your program? In the future do you expect that the budget from the university will get (check one): larger smaller stay the same 132 5. DO you engage in proposal writing as part of your job? yes no PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS (Briefly respond to the following questions) 1. The biggest problem I have encountered in my job is: 2. The university could respond more meaningfully to urban problems if: 3. If I planned a conference such as this one, I would include: 4. If I planned a conference such as this one, I would exclude: 5. The help I need most in the job I have is: APPENDIX C LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF URBAN DIRECTORS CONFERENCE APPENDIX C M.S.U.'s URBAN DIRECTORS CONFERENCE PARTICIPANT LIST Cleo Abraham Center for Urban Education University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 Ron Bailey (Student Panel) 2249 Capitol Avenue East Palo Alto, California 94303 Edward Betts Assistant Director Oakland University Rochester, Michigan 48003 Darryl F. Bright Institute of Urban Studies University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Charles Brown State of Michigan Governor's Office of Urban Affairs 7310 Woodward, Room 5 Detroit, Michigan 48202 Singer Buchanan Asst. Professor of Broad- casting & Coordinator for Black Student Programs Purdue University Lafayette, Indiana 46207 *Donald Cheek Human Resources Institute Claremont University 240 East Eleventh Street Claremont, California 91711 *Elmer Cooper Assistant Chancellor Oakland University Rochester, Michigan 48003 (Conference Co-Chairman) Gershon Collier Deputy Chairman Department of Afro-Amer. Studies State University of New York Albany, New York 12201 Martha E. Dawson Dept. of Urban Education Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana 47401 Jack Douglass Asst. to the Chancellor University of California San Diego, California Dewitt Dykes Professor of History Oakland University 2653 South B1vd., E., Apt. Pontiac, Michigan 48507 #148 Benoyd Ellison, Director Model Cities Program City Hall 805 N. Sixth Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Nolen Ellison Asst. to the President Office of the President Hannah Administration Bldg. Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 *Steering Committee members. 133 Philip Gary, Director Institute of Urban Studies University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Donovan Gay, Director Black Studies University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio Atron Gentry Center for Urban Education University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 Solomon Gethers Director, Afro-Asian Inst. Temple University Philadelphia, Pa. 19122 Andrew Goodrich, Director Minority Group Programs 134 *Lloyd Johnson Urban Center Lewisohn Hall Columbia University New York, N.Y. 10027 Roy Jones Center for Community Studies Howard University Washington, D.C. 20001 Don Leavy Community Affairs Drexel Institute Of Technology Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 Charles H. Mitchner Greater Lansing Urban League Consumer Health Program 601 North Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 Amer. Assoc. of Jr. Colleges *M. Lee Montgomery One Dupont Circle, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 *Robert L. Green Asst. Provost and Director Center for Urban Affairs Michigan State University East Lansing, Mich. 48823 (Conference Chairman) *Vincent Harding, Director Institute of the Black World Spelman College 671 Beckwith Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30314 Phillip Hart Greater Lansing Urban League Consumer Health Program 601 North Capitol Ave. Lansing, Michigan 48933 imon Hogan, Educ. Spec. ational Urban League 85 East 52nd Street New York, N.Y. 10022 Office of Urban Affairs Temple University Philadelphia, Pa. 19122 (Conference Co-Chairman) Robert Perry, Director Black Ethnic Studies Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Royce Phillips Center for Urban Education University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 James H. Ramsey Urban University Department Rutgers University Newark, N.J. 07102 Ed Simpkins Center for Urban Studies Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Lucille Simpkins Administrative Assistant Office of External Affairs University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 James D. Smith Asst. Professor of Art Black Studies Department University of California Santa Barbara, Calif. 93106 Virgus Streets Assistant Department Head Urban Affairs Department University of California Berkeley, Calif. 94720 Preston Valian Acting Commissioner of Bureau of Higher Education Seventh & D Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20022 Fred Van Exel Dept. of Urban Affairs California State College 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, Calif. 90036 135 Kenneth Washington, Vice Chancellor California State College 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, Calif. 90036 Joseph Watson, Provost The Third College University of California San Diego, Calif. 92037 John Winchester, Coordinator American Indian Program Center for Urban Affairs Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Nathan Wright, Chairman Dept. of Afro-American Studies State University of New York Albany, New York 12201 APPENDIX D LETTER SENT TO DIRECTORS OF P ROGRAMS S URVEYE D 136 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASTMNSING'MICl-UGAN 48823 CENTER FOR URBAN AFFAIRS - OWEN GRADUATE CENTER November 10, 1970 Mr. Lloyd M. Johnson, Administrator Urban Center, 206 Lewisohn Hall Columbia University New York, New York 10027 Dear Mr. Johnson: Mr. Nolen Ellison of my staff is engaged in a research project related to the roles and functions of urban programs in institutions of higher learning. The data which he develOps will be used in his doctoral dissertation which is entitled "A Descriptive Survey of Urban Programs in Selected Universities." I have worked closely with Mr. Ellison and his committee in choosing six urban programs for his survey. Your program was one of those selected. If it would be possible to grant Mr. Ellison approximately one hour of your time sometime next month for a personal interview, it would be helpful to his efforts. I feel that the study is also a very worthwhile research effort that will be valuable to those of us engaged in the field. Mr. Ellison will call your secretary in the next few weeks to see if the visit with you will be possible. He will make the specific arrangements for the visit at that time if it meets your approval. Thank you in advance for your COOperation in this research effort. Sincerely, Robert L. Green, Director Center for Urban Affairs cc: Nolen M. Ellison APPENDIX E COPY OF INTERVIEW GUIDE APPENDIX E INTERVIEW GUIDE Name Of Institution Name of program Director Length of existence of the program Degrees granted by the program Questions for the Interview l. 10. What are the major purposes of the program? How is the program administratively related to the rest of the university? What does the program do? (content of program) Is there a Black or Ethnic studies program in the institution? Does the urban program have any formal relationships with it? Does the urban program have any formal or informal relationships with minority student programs on campus? How have you developed staff for the program? Where is the programs budget derived from? What do you consider to be the major problem confronting the program? What do you see as the future of the program in the university? GENERAL QUESTIONS (Used if responses were short on others) - Does the institution see the program as a priority consideration? - How do students perceive the program? - DO you get COOperation from the rest of the institution? - What about your budget, is it large enough? 137 APPENDIX F TRAVEL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRAM VISITS APPENDIX F TRAVEL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRAM VISITS (Arrangements made by Washburn Travel Agency) January 25, 1971 Washington, D.C. Howard University, Center for Community Studies, Dr. Roy Jones, Director. January 27, 1971 Baltimore, Maryland, Morgan State College, Center for Urban Affairs, Dr. Homer Favor, Director. January 29, 1971 New York City, Columbia University, the Urban Center, Mr. Lloyd Johnson, Administrator. February 1, 1971 Detroit, Michigan, Wayne State University, Center for Urban Studies, Dr. Bertram Gross, Director. February 3, 1971 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin, Department of Urban Affairs, Dr. Harold Rose, Chairman. February 5, 1971 St. Louis, Missouri, Center for Community and MetrOpolitan Studies, Dr. Norton Long, Director. 138 APPENDIX G MODEL OF PROGRAM VISIT SCHEDULE 10:30 12:00 APPENDIX G MODEL OF PROGRAM VISIT SCHEDULE Leave for the campus Interview with program director Lunch with director and/or staff person Visit with staff persons in the program Conclude visit to program and return to Motel Dinner Review of program visit GO over interview notes Prepare to depart for next visit 139 APPENDIX H TABULATION OF PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND SEMISTRUCTURED ACTIVITIES OF URBAN PROGRAMS BY FUNCTIONS 140 .OOODHOGH who muommonm HHOOHO UHOHM Ho hnoumuonoH coHpmHsomu cH ooooHocH uoc mum oouommo mommMHo OHEmHmom OHMHommmm o m mow MH m m m o H no» no» mm» H m o H mm» NH m m e H H mow OH OH N m o H mm% o mow H N o m no» Hm H m H “mono mamumoum OHD>Hmomu concouxm soummmom OHEoomo< uwofioz HMHoomm ucomd \OOH>Hom Emumoum mmcmno \coHuom mcoHuOcsm mcoHuocom an mEmumoum coon: mo mmoHuH>Huow pououoouumHEom can .mpOOnOHQ .mEmumoum mo COHHMHDQMB .H OHQMB m Nanmmm< IIIIIIIIIIIIIII