W331 3“ fitvfi'!‘ ‘.' fi' ; emr 3%: 4' .. r - . 7333“,. \ ' ' ,- 1.4 \- - V” ,0 ”(1.. 1 ' ' m u. ' Lac-v. «w» 4-yea- Itr ‘ L:-.M.;.~ ~ «1!. ”f. “s. z :2" g- . - A . $111554. Ami" . It. “‘3‘" :{r A v . ‘23:; m, mun “+33 xerfé'}. .‘T y 'KL L £5. Luokfi ‘ " Y Q‘ ‘1‘“ ' .2 ~ ~$§4§pr -‘L ‘ t .. ‘5?“f“? w...- 4-; _ , ~ .""*.'.:c£.L ?‘ . - 1.4%,... 6.”: t 1:" "rm . . , m? w M a~'~‘"~&::.‘..:zr§‘:..._. 1 \‘ -'r'- ”-39; ' u‘~' “ ‘- 4L'hus- '-» . ' Vt “mu - .5.- . A a ..u- «min-A 0'5...“ ~L- {A . 1x L..\.L_‘.n. - o- a. .,. .4. ..~ 3. g". ‘ .(muAL'; LHLI u '41.].‘v . H‘m‘ .Zlk \ «3‘J'Jufi‘l Ié‘lf -_.u . “,9.— ...’ .m ““9: «up? . $115.; r. 'fl‘ .1 LA. n .. r33" r 3:41 ~u]!- '. M t z‘vr'fl ~2‘§s%- I :vrrL 1 ,.,_,...£. 1"” . r 1:1... ., , ’r; 97:? r. £,.,.., :fo vn . uh ,3", . 734...". -'.. . '3.” .J mp-“ , I" ': 0' :1: ’3‘ ,,,. .. .4,” v' - .a h I .. .. .. hm. .72- «‘er v‘ runr'g , m « !-*1vr~-" , , $1.. . av .11... £5,301... v». My» 3‘- -' "‘ "‘ .. ”9.5“?!” m" '23".’-.::Jln f 1' (gm ’2." 442v.“ . ”um-a: .. ”1‘ ~..\, '5’. $5114; A La. Ill 9: . 0”,} .v 1' .-r‘ ' . g ‘ Nur- {" ‘ vu- Vy’r I“4c"‘:: . L. . 11.7.. m H: '38:; 4 £0.11}; ”(ng Ir , "l .. ywy':1v“‘;f,\dufxafimt'AE—Ei; 3.3: "-1 Lu» LIBRARIES Illllllllllllllllllllllllllzlll 3 1293 00885 341 - 1 jl“ “1'29; EU Fifi mu -.J l . ...w J ‘1 w' ~4'. ~ ‘ ..--1‘. ,“_ . mI-u st -M“. ”mrfij—a '2 r Iv a: x l in U b'....¢ \ ‘1 M'~A- . 1" “m'r' ‘ This is flogertify that the . ~» 7 dissertation entitled THE IMPACT OF PARTICIPATION IN A LOCAL UNITED WAY PLANNING PROCESS ON SENSE OF COMMUNITY, PERSONAL EFFICACY, AND ACTUAL INFLUENCE ON POLICY presented by David A. Julian has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D degree in Psychology twist/6,30% Major professor (9-0274; Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE W09g§5 1/” WWW“ THE IMPACT OF PARTICIPATION IN A LOCAL UNITED WAY PLANNING PROCESS ON SENSE OF COMMUNITY, PERSONAL EFFICACY, AND ACTUAL INFLUENCE ON POLICY BY David A. Julian A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1991 682- 57633 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF PARTICIPATION INIA LOCAL UNITED WAY PLANNING PROCESS ON SENSE OF COMMUNITY, PERSONAL EFFICACY, AND ACTUAL INFLUENCE ON POLICY BY David A. Julian In this study, local United Way volunteers were randomly assigned to one of three planning groups that varied in terms of level of participation. Participation was defined in terms of attendance at planning group meetings and access to planning information. Participants in the highest level of participation condition perceived the planning process in which they participated as more effective than participants in the low and moderate level of participation conditions. There were no significant differences in sense of community or actual influence due to level of participation. To Teresa and Danielle and Vic and Virginia Julian iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the contributions of several individuals. Thanks to my committee members including Bill Davidson, Mike Lindell, Tom Lyons, and especially Tom Reischl. Thanks are also due to Cathy Katrenich, Rick Carrick, and the rest of the United Way Agency relations staff and planning volunteers. Fred Ruland, Jack Nasar, and Tom Knapp helped with the statistical analyses and instrument design. A special thanks is due to Teresa Julian. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLESOI ...... O ..... 00...... ........... ......OViii LISTOF FIGURESOOOO...O......0.0.0.0.000.........OOOOOOOXi CHAPTER I.................................. ......... .....1 Statement of the Problem ............................ ...1 Review of the Literature...... ......... .. ..... . ..... ...2 Citizen Participation.................... ............ 2 Citizen Participation: A Typology......... ...... ..2 Characteristics of People Who Participate..........3 Outcomes of Citizen Participation..................7 Psychological Sense of Community and Participation.10 Psychological Sense of Community: Definitions...11 Efforts to Measure Psychological Sense of Community.......................................13 Empirical Research.... ....... ........ ......... ...14 Citizen Participation and Personal Efficacy.........22 Empirical Research: Efficacy Theory.............22 The Present Study........ .......................... ...28 Setting and Background..............................28 Hypotheses................................. ..... ........32 CHAPTER II............ .................................. 35 Methods and Procedures....................... ..... ....35 Experimental Design........ ..... ....................35 Sampling Procedures.................................37 Sample Description ................................ ..39 Procedures for Levels of Participation.............41 Procedures for High Level of Participation.......41 Procedures for Moderate Level of Participation...43 Procedures for Low Level of Participation........43 Manipulation Check..................................44 Data Collection Procedures........... ...... .........45 Measurement of Dependent Variables..................47 Psychological Sense of Community..................47 Personal Efficacy. ..... ............... ..... .......48 Level of Agreement................................48 CHAPTER III................ ........ .......... ........ ..51 Data Analyses and Results............................51 Data Analyses......................................51 Tests of Experimental Hypotheses...... ..... ..........55 CEIAPTER IVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000 .000000000000058 Discussion and Implications. ..... ....................58 Effects of Participation........... ...... ..........58 Correlational Analyses...........................58 The Effect of Participation on Personal Efficacy.60 The Effect of Participation on Actual Influence..63 The Effect of Participation on Sense of comunity.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... ..... .0065 Methodological Concerns............... ....... .......67 Breach of Experimental Protocol...................67 The Personal Characteristics of Study Participants.....................................68 Differential Attrition Rates. .................... .69 Future ResearCh.........OOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.00.000000070 Implications for Planning ............. . ............. 71 vi APPENDICES A: Recruitment Letter..............................74 B: Sense of Community-Residence Scale..............77 C: Sense of Community-United Way Scale.............78 D: Perceived Influence on Policy Decisions Scale...79 E: Effectiveness of United Way Planning Procedures.80 F: Service Rating Scale............................81 LIST OF REFERENCES........... ...... ...................82 vii LIST OF TABLES The Experimental Design Utilized in the Present StudYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...0.00.00.00.000000036 Number of Participants in Each Phase of the Experimental Design.................. ..... . ......... 40 Percentage of Participants in Experimental Conditions Who Answered Manipulation Check Questions.Affirmatively ............................. 45 ., Criteria Utilized to Rate Community Human SemicesoOO 000000000000000 .....OOOOOOOOOOOO 000000 00.49 Intercorrelations Among Measures ................. ...52 Correlations Among Socio-Demographic variables and Dependents Measures... ..... ... ................. .....53 Effect of Participation on Sense of Community, Perceived Influence, and Level of Agreement.........56 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1. Hierarchical relationship among participants in the United Way planning process...........................30 2. Distribution of level of agreement scores ............. 51 ix CHAPTER I Statement of the Problem Wandersman (1984) defines citizen participation as "a process in which individuals take part in decision making in the institutions, programs, and environments that effect them" (p.339). Citizen participation is thought to promote feelings of control and to provide a mechanism for citizen input in the policy formulation process (Checkoway, 1977; Peattie, 1967; Tilley & Carr, 1975). Florin and Wandersman (1990) point out that citizen participation has been advocated as a means of addressing such diverse community problems as poverty, educational reform, and drug abuse. Some theorists suggest that an important result of citizen participation is increased sense of community (Wandersman, 1984). Sarason (1974) claims that the absence of psychological sense of community is the most destructive dynamic in the lives of people in contemporary western societies. According to Heller (1989), increasing opportunities for positive social contact (participation) fosters a sense of community and increases influence through collective political power. However, what exactly is meant by sense of community and the relationship between sense of community and participation have not been examined in previous research. 2 The following review of the literature will focus on three major issues: (a) the citizen participation process, (b) the relationship between citizen participation and sense of community, and (c) the relationship between citizen participation and efficacy. Review of the Literature Citizen Participation In this section, a typology of citizen participation and research aimed at defining the characteristics of people who tend to participate in community affairs will be reviewed. In addition, a variety of outcomes related to citizen participation will be discussed. t ze Pa tici ation: A lo Arnstein (1969) defines citizen participation in terms of a ladder with eight rungs. Each rung of the ladder corresponds to the degree of power available to participants in terms of influence on the products of the participatory process. The bottom two rungs of the ladder are defined as non-participatory and include "manipulation” and "therapy". Arnstein defines manipulation as situations in which participants are placed on “rubberstamping” advisory boards for the purposes of educating them or gaining their support. Therapy implies that participants are fixed or cured of some form of pathology. Examples of therapy cited by Arnstein include public housing programs where tenant groups are used as mechanisms to promote "control your child" or clean-up campaigns. 3 Rungs three, four, and five include "informing", "consultation", and "placation." Informing refers to situations in which participants are engaged in a one way flow of information. In informing types of participation, participants listen to what an authority figure has to tell them with little exchange of dialogue. Consultation involves the solicitation of participants' opinions but no guarantee that concerns will be taken into account. Placation involves placing a few true representatives of the community or other disenfranchised groups on policy making bodies. Arnstein characterizes these three rungs of the ladder as "tokenism" and precursors to actual participation. The last three rungs of Arnstein's ladder represent true participation. ”Partnership", the sixth rung, refers to situations in which power is redistributed through negotiation. When participants obtain "delegated power", the seventh rung on Arnstein's ladder, traditional powerholders retain final decision making authority but relinquish some power. "Citizen control", the final rung on Arnstein's ladder, represents situations in which participants have enough power to guarantee that they can influence policy. Characteristics of People Who Participate The most common method of predicting participation has relied on analyses of specific demographic variables. Typically, variables such as race, sex, educational level, occupation, marital status, family size, commitment to 4 locality, and length of residence have been related to participation (Florin & Wandersman, 1984). Florin and Wandersman (1984) are critical of this type of research because emphasis is usually placed on the predictive power of a single demographic variable. However, single variable studies have provided a great deal of information about the kinds of people who are likely to take part in community activities. Research suggests that middle class individuals are more likely to participate in community affairs than lower class individuals (Alford & Scoble, 1968; Hyman & Wright, 1971; Milbrath, 1965) and that Blacks are more likely to participate than Whites of the same social class (Williams, Babchuk, & Johnson, 1973). Bennett and Lavrakas (1988) found that lower class individuals were less likely than more affluent individuals to participate in local crime prevention programs. Wandersman (1974) suggests that citizens are more likely to participate in areas that affect their daily lives or in areas in which they have some level of expertise. Axelrod (1956) contends that people who are socially connected are likely to participate in voluntary organizations. Research conducted by Booth and Babchuk (1969) indicates that people join organizations based on contacts with friends and acquaintances. Hunter (1974) claims that individuals with more friends in a particular setting are more likely to be members of neighborhood organizations. 5 In contrast to single variable studies, Edwards and White (1980) examined 11 demographic variables simultaneously and attempted to account for variance in participation rates in voluntary organizations. The 11 demographic variables included race, sex, home ownership, length of residence, family size, age, marital status, work status, occupation, and education. Analysis based on all 11 variables was only able to account for 8% of the variance in participation rates. Similarly, Florin and Wandersman (1984) attempted to explain participation in neighborhood block organizations based on a set of five demographic variables including age, sex, length of residence, home ownership, and marital status. This set of variables accounted for approximately 14% of variance in participation rates. Results indicated that individuals were more likely to participate if they were older, married, home owners, females, and members of small households. In the same study, Florin and Wandersman (1984) reported that a group of variables referred to as cognitive social learning variables (CSLVs) were able to account for 19% of the variance in participation rates. In a study of leaders, members, and nonmembers of neighborhood block organizations, Florin, Mednick, and Wandersman (1986) reported that the five CSLVs were able to account for 21% of the variance in participation rates in a discriminant function analysis. Using the CSLVs and traditional demographic variables together in the 6 discriminant function analysis accounted for 29% of variance. Thus, using either set of variables alone would have resulted in less ability to differentiate between members, nonmembers, and leaders of block organizations. Definitions of the CSLVs and hypothesized impacts on citizen participation are summarized below: 1. gppgtruction competencies refer to the individual's cognitive and behavioral capabilities and skills which allow for participation. Individuals with highly developed skills are more likely to participate than individuals with lower skill levels. 2. Encoding strategies refer to the way environmental stimuli are perceived, coded, and categorized by the individual. Individuals who perceive environmental stimuli as problematic are more likely to participate. 3. Expectancies refer to the perceived consequences of different behavioral actions. Individuals who feel that their actions will have some impact on a particular set of circumstances are more likely to participate. 4. Subjective stimulus value refers to the value the individual attaches to specific outcomes. If the expected outcome of participation is highly valued, individuals are more likely to participate. 5. Self regplatogy systems and plans refer to the regulation of behavior based on self imposed standards. Individuals who believe it is appropriate to participate are more likely to actually participate. 7 According to Florin and Wandersman (1984) the real value of the cognitive social learning approach is in providing an organizational framework that might aid in understanding participation phenomena and intervention efforts. The CSLVs provide theoretical justification for specific interventions designed to promote participation. Chavis, Florin, Wandersman, and Rich (1986) have designed a series of activities based on the cognitive social learning approach that allow voluntary organizations to intervene in specific problem areas. For example, if participants' skills were perceived as weak, then workshops could be provided that might strengthen specific abilities. Qutcomes of Citizen Participation Langton (1978) suggests several outcomes of citizen participation. Citizens are able to function as "watchdogs" to ensure the responsible expenditure of public funds and to monitor the distribution of other scarce resources. According to Langton, the primary benefits of citizen participation are related to improved policy decisions and increased public support. Citizen participation serves to connect individuals to the larger social order and provides a mechanism for influencing public policy. Citizen participation represents what Berger and Neuhaus (1977) refer to as a mediating structure that provides a means of incorporating the needs and values of individuals and groups in public policy decisions. To the extent that citizens are able to 8 influence public policy, collective community goals may be attained. Attempts to empirically validate claims regarding the beneficial impacts of citizen participation on community goal attainment and public policy decisions are relatively recent. Over a period of several years, researchers (Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Prestby & Wandersman, 1985; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980) collected data related to the outcomes of citizen participation from several thousand residents of 39 blocks with active or inactive block organizations in Nashville, Tennessee. Active block organizations were successful in improving neighborhood conditions such as repairing sidewalks and painting houses; increasing police protection and fighting crime; regulating traffic and promoting safety; improving sanitation; and providing social activities for block residents (Wandersman, Florin, Chavis, Rich, & Prestby 1985). In most of the research conducted by Wandersman and his colleagues, organizational viability was strongly related to beneficial outcomes of the citizen participation process. Wandersman and Prestby (1985) developed a framework of organizational characteristics that was hypothesized to be related to the maintenance and viability of block organizations. The framework is based on Katz's and Kahn's (1978) open-systems model of organizations and includes resource acquisition; a maintenance subsystem; a production 9 subsystem; and a goal achievement or output component. Resource acquisition refers to inputs such as members and information necessary for the organization to maintain itself. The maintenance subsystem provides the structure necessary for the organization to achieve it's objectives. The production subsystem functions to transform resources into specific products related to organizational goals. In a longitudinal study of 17 block organizations, Wandersman and Prestby (1985) concluded that block organizations that acquired greater member and other external resources and that had effective organizational controls were likely to remain active over long periods of time. Participation was clearly related to organizational viability. Such block groups appeared to have a high likelihood of accomplishing organizational goals. Other research of the same ilk has provided support for the conclusion that goal attainment is related to organizational structure and resources acquisition. Gruber and Trickett (1987) found that organizational structure contributed to goal attainment in a study of empowerment in an alternative public high school. Several researchers have noted the importance of leadership in promoting organizational viability (Florin, Mednick, & Wandersman, 1986; Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Yates, 1976). Cherniss and Cherniss (1987) reported that viable self-help groups were likely to emerge if professionals provided consultation and structure when groups were formed. Yoak and Chesler (1985) 10 suggested that the stability of self-help groups was related to a moderate level of professional leadership. Several researchers have concluded that affiliation with national organizations provides the structure essential for organizational viability of self-help groups (Maton, Leventhal, Madara, & Julien, 1989). These results suggest that organizations with access to resources such as members, professional consultation, national affiliation, and organizational structure are highly likely to achieve organizational goals. Members and their participation are clearly important organizational resources. Citizen participation appears to have the potential to dramatically impact the public policy formulation process and may provide a mechanism for achieving community goals. However, in order for citizens to participate in an efficient and effective manner, it may be necessary to provide adequate structure and resources to support such participation. Wandersman and Prestby (1985) claim that such structure will support citizen participation to the degree that resources are acquired and applied to goal attainment. Thus it appears that citizen participation within the confines of structured groups plays an important role in achieving beneficial community outcomes. Psypholpgical Sense of Community and Participation In this section, sense of community will be defined. In addition, efforts to measure psychological sense of community and several empirical studies that provide 11 information related to the relationship between sense of community and citizen participation will be reviewed. gsychological Sense of Community: Definitions .A number of theorists have provided definitions of psychological sense of community or related constructs. Gaertner and Nolan (1989) define "psychological commitment" in terms of attraction to an organization or group. High levels of ”congruence" or "person-environment fit” have been hypothesized to be directly related to high levels of satisfaction, performance, and permanence (Gati, 1989; Spokane, 1985). Owen (1985) equates "social cohesion” with a strong sense of "we-ness”, while O'Reilly and Roberts (1977) suggest that cohesive groups are characterized by "connectedness." These constructs appear to be similar to sense of community, however, they have application to different problems and social interventions. Organizational development specialists have utilized measures of congruence and commitment as determinants of organizational viability. Social psychologists have observed the effects of manipulating social cohesion within the confines of the laboratory. Sense of community appears to be more relevant to field research and situations in which investigators desire to measure community attitudes. Sarason (1974) defined psychological sense of community as "the sense that one belongs in and is meaningfully a part of a larger collectivity" (p. 1). Davidson and Cotter 12 (1986) referred to sense of community as "a special attachment between people and their social milieu" (p. 608). Buckner (1988) defined psychological sense of community as "the sense of belongingness, fellowship, we-ness, identity, etc., experienced in the context of a functional (group) or geographically based collective" (p. 773). These conceptualizations of sense of community stress feelings of belonging and attachment with respect to geographical location or ties to neighborhood. Some theorists are of the opinion that sense of community has more to do with social interaction than attachment to place (Dunham, 1977; Chavis & Newbrough, 1985; Klein & D'Aunno, 1986; Wellman, 1979). These theorists advocate a position that suggests that sense of community may be experienced as a result of membership or participation in a variety of social groups or voluntary organizations as well as within the confines of geographically defined locales. Attempts to define sense of community have culminated in the development of a comprehensive theory proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986). According to McMillan and Chavis psychological sense of community is composed of four elements including membership; influence; integration and fulfillment of needs; and shared emotional connection. These four elements are considered to work together in a dynamic fashion to produce the experience of sense of community. 13 Eggppps to Measppe Psychological Sense of Community While many theorists contend that sense of community is an important aspect of modern social environments, the measurement of this construct is a relatively recent development. Glynn (1981) was one of the early researchers who attempted to measure psychological sense of community. His instrument was composed of 120 forced choice items and 13 open ended questions. The forced choice questions included 60 items about actual community conditions and 60 identical items to which the stem, ”In an ideal community..." was added. The administration of Glynn's instrument at the level of the city produced reliable results and differentiated between communities hypothesized to have differing levels of psychological sense of community. Julian and Nasar (1990) developed an instrument to measure sense of community in residential neighborhoods based on Glynn's scale. Glynn's "actual" community questions were converted to Likert scales and were administered to 54 residents of three suburban neighborhoods in Columbus, Ohio. The Cronbach alpha reliability for the 60 item scale was 0.61. Higher reliabilities were obtained for shorter versions of the scale. The shorter versions also discriminated between the highest and lowest scorers on Glynn's original scale. Julian and Nasar concluded that sense of community could be reliably and validly measured with a scale containing as few as 11 items. 14 W The relationship between citizen participation and psychological sense of community is well defined from a theoretical point of view (Ahlbrandt & Cunningham, 1979; Altschuler, 1970; Hallman, 1974; Morris & Hess, 1975; Perlman, 1976; Wandersman, 1981; Yates, 1973, 1976; Yin, 1977). Davidson and Cotter (1989) suggest that people who are attached to a locale, as is implied by a strong sense of community, are likely to get involved or may even feel obligated to participate in community affairs. Citizen participation has even been proposed as a means of creating psychological sense of community (Wandersman, 1984). Recent research has suggested that participation and sense of community are strongly related. Davidson and Cotter (1986) measured the sense of community of residents of Tuscaloosa and Birmingham, Alabama and Aiken, South Carolina. People who reported high levels of civic involvement and charitable contributions tended to have high levels of sense of community. In a separate study, the same authors (Davidson and Cotter, 1989) reported that political participation was also strongly related to sense of community. People with the highest sense of community tended to vote more, to have more contacts with public officials, and were more likely to be involved in working on public problems. The Davidson and Cotter studies suggested that political participation, of a variety of sorts, was strongly 15 related to psychological sense of community. People who were active in community affairs had relatively high levels of sense of community. However, these results provided no indication of the causal relationship between participation and sense of community. Bachrach and Zautra (1985) provided the first evidence suggesting a causal relationship between participation and psychological sense of community in a study of community reactions to a proposed hazardous waste facility. Bachrach and Zautra developed a causal model in which sense of community was hypothesized to directly influence community involvement. The zero order correlation between these two variables was statistically significant but the path coefficient was only .007. This suggested that sense of community did not have a direct effect on participation. Further analysis indicated that the effect of sense of community on participation could be explained indirectly through a variable called "problem focused coping." Bachrach and Zautra (1985) defined problem focused coping as attempts to directly address or alter a situation posing a threat. Based on the results of their study, Bachrach and Zautra concluded that a high level of sense of community resulted in greater participation in community affairs and problem focused behaviors. Chavis and wandersman (1990) also developed a causal model indicating a direct relationship between participation and sense of community. Participation in this case was 16 defined as membership in neighborhood block associations. In Chavis' and Wandersman's model, sense of community played a catalytic role, contributing significant unique variance to participation through a number of variables including evaluation of residential environments, satisfaction with environmental conditions, relations with neighbors, and personal and group power to effect change. These results were particularly compelling given the temporal dimension of the analysis. Chavis and Wandersman (1990) collected data from 349 respondents during the Summer of 1978 (Time 1) and again in the Summer of 1979 (Time 2). A hierarchical multiple regression technique was utilized to improve the estimation of causal parameters. Time 2 scores for various measures were the dependent variables with Time 1 or measures from the previous year acting as the independent variables. For example, Chavis and Wandersman found that participation at Time 2 was significantly predicted by participation at Time 1 and sense of community at Time 1. The research reviewed thus far provides evidence of a causal association between psychological sense of community and participation. It appears that individuals with a strong sense of community are likely to choose to be involved in community affairs. These results are significant in that community organizers might choose to approach individuals with high levels of sense of community in order to rally community support for any one of a variety 17 of local causes. However, these results provide no indication of whether sense of community might be enhanced through citizen participation. Some theorists suggest that the relationship between sense of community and participation is bi-directional, that is that sense of community promotes participation and participation promotes sense of community (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Heller, 1989). Several recent studies suggest that social interaction or participation are major components of the psychological sense of community construct. Such research suggests that participation in community affairs might function to enhance psychological sense of community. Research conducted by Unger and Wandersman (1982) supported the importance of neighborhood relationships to sense of community. In a survey of 702 residents of a neighborhood in Nashville, Tennessee, sense of community was found to be strongly related to neighboring activities. Sense of community accounted for 14.8% of variance in neighboring behaviors. Participation in neighborhood activities was the second strongest predictor of neighboring activities and accounted for 7.7% of variance. Given these results, it was likely that sense of community and participation were also positively related. Unger's and Wandersman's (1982) results suggested that sense of community was strongly related to neighborhood interaction patterns. Residents who engaged in frequent 18 neighboring behaviors also appeared to have a relatively well developed sense of community. However, because of the correlational nature of the research, it was unclear whether neighboring behavior fostered psychological sense of community or vice versa. Ahlbrant and Cunningham (1979) demonstrated that sense of community was related to commitment to neighborhood and satisfaction. Interactions with neighbors was found to be an important attribute of satisfaction and commitment to neighborhood. Committed and satisfied residents interacted more with neighbors, viewed their neighborhood as a small community within the city, were more loyal to their neighborhood as compared to the city in which they lived, and thought that their neighborhood offered special amenities. Ahlbrant and Cunningham defined these factors as instrumental to residents' sense of community. These results supported the contention the social interaction was related to sense of community. Research conducted by Prestby and Wandersman (1985) suggested that an organization's ability to maintain itself was positively related to members' perceived sense of community. In 1978, 538 residents of Nashville, Tennessee, living on 17 blocks with block organizations were interviewed. Of these residents, 204 reported that they were members of active block organizations, 64 reported that they belonged to inactive block organizations, and the remainder indicated that they were not members of block 19 organizations. The following year, 701 respondents were interviewed. One hundred fourteen individuals reported that they were members of active block organizations and 56 individuals reported that they belonged to inactive block organizations. Based on survey data collected from active, inactive, and nonmember respondents, Prestby and Wandersman (1985) concluded that organizations that were active over a relatively long period of time were composed of members with a stronger sense of community than members of organizations that were not active over a long period of time. Prestby's and Wandersman's (1985) results suggested that participation and psychological sense of community were highly correlated. However, it was unclear whether participation lead to enhanced psychological sense of community or high levels of psychological sense of community lead to participation. Again the correlational nature of the study precluded drawing inferences concerning the causal relationship between these two variables. Wandersman and Giamartino (1980) demonstrated that a high level of sense of community distinguished those who participated in community block organizations from those who did not. Seventy-four residents of an urban neighborhood in Nashville were interviewed to determine the factors that predicted high levels of community involvement. Results indicated that participation was significantly influenced by sense of community. However, the nonexperimental nature of 20 the research prevented Wandersman and Giamartino from drawing conclusions concerning the direction of the relationship between participation and psychological sense of community. Based on secondary analyses of survey data collected from 155 residents of several Milwaukee neighborhoods, Doolittle and MacDonald (1978) developed a sense of community scale and were able to distinguish between high and low sense of community respondents on six different dimensions. Several of these dimensions appeared to represent constructs related to participation. The six dimensions comprising sense of community were defined as: (a) a supportive climate conducive to informal interactions among neighbors, (b) family life cycle which referred to ages and number of household members, (c) sense of safety, (d) frequency of contact with neighbors, (e) localism or the desire to participate in neighborhood affairs, and (f) neighborly integration or the sense that neighbors were close but that formal mechanisms for interaction were not necessary. Doolittle and MacDonald (1978) concluded that the residents of the neighborhoods they studied differed in terms of interaction patterns, participation in community events, and perceptions of safety. They suggested that these differences were due to differing levels of sense of community. Again, these results provided evidence suggesting that sense of community and participation were 21 related. However, several limitations existed concerning the interpretation of Doolittle's and MacDonald's (1978) results. Data were originally collected to investigate the functioning of neighborhood communications systems. Post hoc factor analysis was utilized to investigate patterns in the data and relationships among survey items. As a result, the extent to which the six factors identified in this study contributed to or constituted sense of community or some other construct was unclear. Glynn (1981) conducted a study that provided stronger evidence supporting the relationship between participation and psychological sense of community. As Glynn predicted, residents of an Israeli kibbutz had a greater sense of community than residents of Greenbelt or Hyattsville, Maryland. Glynn (1981) also determined that respondents' psychological sense of community in the three communities he studied was strongly related to competence and satisfaction. These results suggested that individuals who lived in an environment such as a kibbutz that fostered participation also had high levels of sense of community. However, as ‘with most of the historical research in this area, Glynn's results provided no indication of the direction or causal nature of the relationship between participation and psychological sense of community. In summary, psychological sense of community appears to be a viable construct that is worthy of scientific 22 investigation. The research described above indicates that sense of community is strongly related to citizen participation, satisfaction, perceived power, influence, and social interaction patterns. Chavis and Wandersman (1990) and Bachrach and Zautra (1985) demonstrated a causal relationship between sense of community and participation. In both studies, sense of community predicted participation. However, Bachrach and Zautra (1985) noted that their model was only one explanation and that researchers employing different structural models might have arrived at different conclusions. Theory suggests that there is an interactive relationship between participation and sense of community. If such is the case, participation should function to enhance psychological sense of community. While there is theoretical support for this hypothesis, it has not been empirically tested. Qitizen Participation and Personal Efficacy In this section, efficacy theory and empirical research related to the concept of personal efficacy will be reviewed. The impact of personal efficacy on citizen participation will also be discussed. irica Resea ch: Effi ac Theo According to Bandura (1982) personal efficacy refers to the belief that one can produce and regulate events in one's daily life. Efficacy theory indicates that personal efficacy judgements function as a mediator between knowledge 23 and action. Thus an individuals' personal efficacy judgements influence the types of activities in which she/he is likely to participate. People tend to avoid activities that they think exceed their capabilities. On the other hand, people will exert great effort to achieve goals if they have a strong sense of efficacy. Efficacy theory suggests that there may be a strong relationship between personal efficacy and participation in community affairs. Bandura (1982) reviewed a number of studies that strongly support efficacy theory. For example, in one study differing levels of perceived efficacy were induced in phobic individuals and their coping behaviors were measured. Induction of personal efficacy was obtained by providing participants with the opportunity to master progressively more threatening activities. Individuals whose personal efficacy was the highest were also the most successful in coping with stressful stimuli. In a similar study, participants' personal efficacy was manipulated vicariously. Phobic individuals watched other individuals model coping behaviors. Again, higher levels of self-efficacy were related to higher performance levels. In a series of studies with individuals who were severely snake phobic, researchers determined that participants provided the opportunity to master stressful situations gained the most in terms of successful coping skills (Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980). Again, 24 participants who showed the greatest gains were those whose levels of personal efficacy were the highest. Similar results have been obtained in studies involving smokers (DiClemente, 1981) and cardiac patients (Bandura, 1982). These studies suggest that personal efficacy functions as a mediator between knowledge and behavior and that the most effective way of increasing efficacy may be through actual experience. These notions have a number of implications for researchers interested in citizen participation. First, individuals are not likely to participate in community problem solving activities unless they have a relatively well developed sense of personal efficacy. Knowing that neighborhood or community conditions are inadequate is probably not enough to promote action. Secondly, participation in community affairs might function to enhance personal efficacy, particularly if such efforts are viewed as successful. However, the studies reviewed by Bandura (1982) pertain to individual behavior. These studies provide little information relative to the group efforts or citizen participation characteristic of neighborhood or community problem solving. In addition, most of the work reviewed by Bandura pertained to the responses of psychologically distressed individuals such as phobics. It is unclear whether individuals engaged in community problem solving efforts would behave in the same way as the participants in the self-efficacy research reviewed by Bandura. 25 A series of studies conducted by Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) provided strong evidence that participation was related to an efficacy like variable they called empowerment. Zimmerman and Rappaport defined empowerment as ”the process by which individuals gain mastery or control over their own lives and democratic participation in the life of their community” (p. 726). Based on this definition, empowerment appeared to be closely associated with efficacy. In the first study (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988), college students were classified according to their willingness to attempt to change two situations described in scenarios. One situation was relevant to the students' personal lives (receiving a lower grade than expected or having an instructor in a required class that could not be understood). The other situation was relevant to community life (an increase in property taxes or a school closing). Those participants who indicated that they would attempt to change both situations scored the highest on a measure of empowerment while those participants who indicated that they would not try to change either situation scored the lowest. Participants were also asked to indicate the hours they expended in specific activities in which they participated. Activities included participation in social groups such as clubs or service organizations. Results indicated that those who were most involved in activities also had the 26 highest levels of empowerment (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). In a second study (Zimmerman 5 Rappaport, 1988), level of participation in community organizations was measured for a group of community residents. Those with the highest levels of involvement also tended to have the highest empowerment scores as revealed by multivariate analysis of variance. However, univariate analysis indicated that only one component of the empowerment indices (internal political efficacy) was significant. This series of studies provides strong evidence linking participation and empowerment. The quasi-experimental nature of the research strongly suggests that participation enhances empowerment. However, all that can be said with certainty is that those individuals who are most likely to participate are also likely to feel a strong sense of empowerment. The causal nature of the relationship between participation and empowerment is still uncertain. The research reviewed in this section focuses on the relationship between participation and personal efficacy. Personal efficacy refers to individuals' beliefs about their influence or control related to important events in their lives. It appears that personal efficacy functions as a mediating variable between knowledge and action. Thus an individual who is aware of a community problem and has a high level of personal efficacy is likely to participate in community problem solving efforts. Research also suggests 27 that such participation should function to enhance personal efficacy. While our understanding of the relationship between citizen participation and personal efficacy has been furthered by this research, little knowledge has accumulated concerning the relationship between participation and actual influence. Personal efficacy as described by Bandura (1982) and empowerment as described by Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) refer to perceptions of influence. Actual influence requires that participants have the ability to control specific outcomes relevant to their lives. One arena in which citizen participation and influence is particularly important concerns policy development. The question of measuring how public policy is developed and who controls the policy development process is central to democratic government. Measuring control or power in the policy formulation process has proven to be problematic. Level of agreement between participants and policy makers would appear to provide one means of measuring the actual influence of citizen participants. One would certainly not expect participants who were influential to disagree strongly with policy established through a democratic process. This argument suggests that at a minimum, researchers must demonstrate a high level of agreement between the policy preferences of participants and policy-makers in order to demonstrate actual influence. 28 The Present Study The present study provided an opportunity to test the effects of participation on psychological sense of community, personal efficacy, and actual influence. Study participants participated in a local United Way planning process designed to establish community human services funding priorities. Participation in a local planning activity constituted a natural opportunity to test the effects of participation. Planning by definition functions to channel information, shape participation, deliver services, and provide solutions to problems (Forester, 1982). Forester claims that well informed planning activities must include four essential elements: (a) accurate information, (b) sincere reports, (c) high levels of participation, and (d) clear issue formulation. Thus individuals involved in a planning process based on accurate and sincere information; with high levels of participation; and addressing clear issues might also feel a strong sense of community and would probably be relatively successful in influencing public policy. Setting and Background The present study was conducted in Franklin County, Ohio during the Fall and Winter of 1990 with the assistance of the local United Way. Population estimates suggested that in 1990, the population of Franklin County approached 29 one million people (Metropolitan Human Services Commission, 1990). CALLVAC, the local information and referral service, estimated that in excess of 450 human services agencies were providing services to Franklin County residents. Most of those agencies were located in Columbus, the largest city in Franklin County and the capital of Ohio. Historically, the United Way of Franklin County has engaged in an annual planning process designed to assist in the allocation of funds to community human services agencies. Local United Way officials agreed to assist in conducting an experiment designed to test several hypotheses related to the relationship between participation, sense of community, personal efficacy, and actual influence, provided additional data were collected concerning the effectiveness and efficiency of United Way planning procedures. Experimental data and evaluation data related to the effectiveness of United Way planning procedures were collected concurrently. At the time data were collected, the United Way system in Franklin County consisted of 69 agencies that provided an array of services ranging from counseling to community development. In 1989, the United Way of Franklin County raised over $28.5 million which were distributed to local United Way agencies. The United Way planning process provided the information on which allocations decisions were based. 30 Primary actors in the United Way planning process include members of: (a) citizen planning groups, (b) the United Way Planning Committee, and (c) the United Way Board of Trustees. Citizen planning groups are described below. The United Way Planning Committee is a formal Board level committee charged with making recommendations to the Board of Trustees concerning local human services priorities. The Board of Trustees is responsible for United Way policy. The hierarchical relationship among these groups is illustrated in Figure 1. United Way Board of Trustees United Way Planning Committee Citizen PlanningGroups Citizen Planning Group 1: Income, Economic Opportunity, and the Provision of Basic Material Needs Citizen Planning Group 2: Health Citizen Planning Group 3: Family Substitute Services and Educational Opportunities Citizen Planning Group 4: Individual/Family Preservation and Strengthening Services Citizen Planning Group 5: Social Group Services and Individual and Collective Safety Services Citizen Planning Group 6: Support and Effectiveness Services Figure 1. Hierarchical relationship among participants in United Way planning process. 31 The United Way planning and allocations process is composed of four distinct phases. These phases can be described as: (a) review of information, (b) definition of United Way goals relative to specific community human services problems, (c) prioritization of community human services problems, and (d) allocation of resources to specific human services providers. The planning function is represented by the first three phases of the planning and allocations process. In phase one, six citizen planning groups composed of representatives of local human services agencies and other constituency groups are convened by United Way. As indicated in Figure 1, the six citizen planning groups evaluate human services that are categorized in one of six service areas including: (a) Income, Economic Opportunity and Provision of Basic Material Needs; (b) Health; (c) Family Substitute Services and Educational Opportunities; (d) Individual and Family Preservation and Strengthening Services; (e) Social Group Services and Individual and Collective Safety Services; and (f) Support and Effectiveness Services. A service area is composed of a number of individual but related human services. For example, the health service area is composed of 12 services related to health promotion, prevention, evaluation, treatment, rehabilitation, and mental health. Members of citizen planning groups review 32 information corresponding to a specific service area such as health, income support, or family substitute services. Citizen planning groups are the basic mechanism for the review of data related to the need for specific human services in the community. Individual analyses of the local need for specific human services are produced by the citizen planning groups and forwarded to the United Way Planning Committee. For example, members of the Health Citizen Planning Group review information and produce separate analyses for 12 services. The Planning Committee reviews needs information and makes recommendations to the United Way Board of Trustees concerning the relative priority of all United Way funded services. The United Way Board of Trustees makes final allocations decisions regarding the funding allotted to specific local human services agencies. Hypotheses The present study was designed to provide pertinent information related to key effects of citizen participation. The study was guided by the premise that high levels of participation would lead to heightened levels of psychological sense of community, personal efficacy, and actual influence on policy decisions. Thus the key independent variable in the present study was level of partigipatigg. Study participants participated in three different planning groups in which level of participation was varied. 33 Participants in the high level of participation condition attended citizen planning group meetings and had access to an array of planning information. Participants in the moderate level of participation condition had access to planning information but did not attend citizen planning group meetings. Participants in the low level of participation condition did not attend citizen planning group meetings or have access to planning information. Only participants in the high level of participation condition had formal contact with the United way Planning Committee. Participation involved processing data and providing information to policy makers. However, high participation group members did not work directly with decision makers. Their participation could be best characterized as consultation (Arnstein, 1969). The impact of level of participation on three dependent variables including sense of communit , rsonal efficac , and actual influence on community pglicy was assessed. Experimental hypotheses are summarized below: Hypgthesis . The greater individuals' participation in structured planning activities, the greater their perceived efficacy. Perceived efficacy referred to the belief that one's participation in planning activities was likely to have an impact on United Way policy decisions. Perceived efficacy was measured in two ways. Participants were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the planning 34 procedures in which they were engaged and to judge the degree to which they were able to influence United Way policy. Hypothesis 2. The greater individuals' participation in structured planning activities, the greater their actual influence on community policy. Actual influence on community policy referred to the degree to which study participants' priorities concerning the relative importance of United Way services matched the priorities established by the United Way Planning Committee. Such correspondence was viewed as the minimal requirement necessary to demonstrate actual influence on community policy. Hypothesis 3. The greater individuals' participation in structured planning activities, the greater their psychological sense of community. Sense of community was measured with respect to two reference points: (a) community of residence and (b) United Way. Sense of community referred to the feelings that one was a valued member of a social or geographical community. CHAPTER II Methods and Procedures Experimental Desigp A oneway experimental design was utilized to test the effects of the independent variable, participation, on a number of dependent variables. Study participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions representing high, moderate, or low levels of the independent variable. In the high level of participation condition, respondents participated in the citizen planning process and had access to planning information. In the moderate level of participation condition, respondents did not participate in the citizen planning process but had access to planning information and in the low level of participation condition, respondents did not participate in the citizen planning process or have access to planning information. It is important to note that only those individuals in the high level of participation condition had formal contact with the United Way Planning Committee. Individuals in the moderate and low level of participation conditions believed that they had input in the policy making process. However, United Way Planning Committee members did not have access to recommendations generated by moderate and low level of participation planning group members. Table 1 provides a graphic depiction of the experimental design. Participation in various combinations of five steps constituted the experimental intervention for 35 36 53:3 at: E gnaw—.9 3.3.55.2. be...” .5: 9.33:2: ..x. =< 6......2: x 3.1 x x 22252 x x x x .3: 3.3.32 2:830 ..iamczgoav... 1229.50 mealsw 2.5 .2392 .5395»?— 3:53... 12.2.33. guise—.55 E 12.2.33...»— cczfizcés 33033. 552.323.. .c .95.— =:_=§>._2=_ 3:25.23. 13:52.5 .323 333:2 Ezra :53... 9: :. NE D ... Boa _ 5.58 gm 2:. _ 033,—. 37 participants in the high, moderate, and low level of participation conditions. In step 1, participants reviewed planning information. Discussion of planning issues constituted step 2. In step 3, participants summarized needs related information. In step 4, participants evaluated United Way funded services and in step 5, participants completed of a number of psychological outcome measures. Members of three of the six citizen planning groups (see Figure 1) convened by United Way participated in the experiment. The three experimental citizen planning groups were chosen randomly. Limited resources precluded the use of all six citizen planning groups in the experimental design. The experimental planning groups included: (a) Health; (b) Individual and Family Strengthening Services; and (c) Social Group and Individual and Collective Safety Services. The citizen planning groups excluded from the study were: (a) Income, Economic Opportunity, and Provision of Basic Material Needs; (b) Family Substitute Services and Educational Opportunities; and (c) Support and Effectiveness Services. Sampling Procedures Study participants were drawn from United Way and non- United Way human services agency staff. United Way agencies included 69 human services agencies affiliated with the United Way of Franklin County. United Way agency staff were recruited by asking the executive directors of United Way 38 agencies to nominate two to four staff members interested in participating in the United Way planning process. Non-United Way agency staff were recruited in the same way. Non-United Way agencies were defined as agencies not affiliated with United Way and were identified by reviewing the local information and referral service’s directory of Franklin County human services agencies. Copies of the letters that were sent to United Way and non-United Way agency executive directors asking them to nominate potential participants are included in Appendix A. Executive directors nominated 120 potential study participants. On follow-up, 115 individuals agreed to actually take part in the experiment. Prior to assignment to experimental conditions, participants were matched-on three variables. Matching variables included whether participants were United Way or non-United way agency staff, whether participants had previously participated in the United Way planning process, and area of expertise. Participants were assigned to the citizen planning group that corresponded to their area of expertise through a three step process. For example, participants who defined their area of expertise as related to health were assigned to the Health Citizen Planning Group. This constituted step 1. In step 2, participants were grouped in triads based on prior experience and employer, and in step 3, members of triads were randomly assigned to the high, moderate, or low level of participation conditions. 39 Although 115 participants were assigned to the various experimental conditions, only 101 participants actually completed required planning tasks (steps 1 through 4 in Table 1). Ninety-five participants completed the psychological outcome questionnaires. Table 2 provides a summary of the number of participates who participated in each phase of the study. Review of Table 2 indicates that 20 participants dropped out of the experiment. Work experience and employment history were available for 18 of these individuals. The individuals who dropped out of the experiment appeared to be very similar to study participants in terms of prior experience. Approximately 23% of dropouts compared to 28% of study participants had participated in the United Way planning process in the past. Almost 56% of dropouts compared to 60% of study participants indicated that they had no prior history of participation in the United Way planning process. However, 72% of dropouts worked for United Way agencies, while 41% of study participants indicated that they worked for a United Way agency. Most of the participants who declined to participate were familiar with the United Way planning process. Sample Description The demographic characteristics of study participants (N=101) corresponded to the profile of typical United Way volunteers. Most (65%) were between the ages of 30 4O ma vm 3 ..m 5. on ..m mm '.¢I:O.l..ls.'..|c. :..:.IODII.I. I I; 0:- 1.101. v‘.v.|l0..v<“ODII-l m: an ..m on .33... 23.. 2.29.52 ..3: 3:532 2:850 389.... 9:53... 393......5 ..c .2352 ”.033ch 9.3 acoflwza> ..c comm—a2 5:33....5 ..o .95-. ....u.m._wQL.fl.=uE.coaxm. a... .c 3. ...n. . .o. ...... .c .2 N 2...“... 41 and 50. The mean age of the participants was 40.2 years. More than 60% of the sample had resided in Columbus or surrounding communities for 6 or more years. Thirty-two percent of study participants were male and 57% were female. Approximately two thirds were white while 24% were African American. Slightly more than half (52%) were married. Most study participants were well educated. Eighty- three percent had graduated from college while 55% had post college degrees. More than three quarters (76%) defined themselves as human services professionals. Forty-one percent of the study participants indicated that they worked for a United Way human services agency. Approximately, one quarter of the study participants had previously participated in the United Way planning process. Procedures for Levels of Participation High, moderate, and low level of participation citizen planning group members were asked to assess the severity of the local need for specific human services. The experiment was designed such that members of moderate and low level of participation groups believed that their input would be utilized by the United Way Planning Committee in establishing United Way funding priorities. However, only high level of participation group members actually had input in United Way policy decisions. grggedures for High Level of Participation Each high level of participation planning group was staffed by a United Way professional who had participated in 42 a two hour training session. During the training session, the goals of the research project were explained and the importance of conducting citizen planning group meetings according to specified protocol were stressed. The experimental protocol called for high level of participation citizen planning groups to meet three or four times depending on the number of services study participants were required to review. At the first planning group meetings, participants reviewed organizational issues and were introduced to the planning task. Subsequent planning group meetings were devoted to reviewing and summarizing planning information. Planning information was incorporated in three types of documents: 1. Service profiles-A service profile was made available to citizen planning group members for each of the services they were required to review. Service profiles included information related to the magnitude of local need for specific services, populations in need, and alternative services available to address particular community problems. 2. Qommunity Trends Report-The "Community Trends Report" included a number of social indicators such as the local poverty rate and population statistics. These indicators provided a means of assessing the environment within which human services agencies Operated. 3. Environmental Scan Report-The "Environmental Scan Report" was similar to the community trends document but the 43 focus was on national level indicator data. members of each high level of participation planning group completed a formal summary report for each of the services they reviewed. Summary reports were intended to summarize information related to specific services. The summary reports were one to two pages in length and were submitted to the United Way Planning Committee. The United Way Planning Committee utilized summary reports as the basis for recommendations submitted to the United Way Board of Trustees regarding funding priorities. P oc d e or o erate Level of Partici tion Participants assigned to the moderate level of participation citizen planning groups were exposed to the same information as members of the high level of participation citizen planning groups but did not attend planning group meetings. The service profiles, "Community Trends Report" and "Environmental Scan Report" were mailed to members of the moderate level of participation citizen planning groups. Mbderate level of participation planning group members were instructed to review this information so that they would be prepared to make judgements concerning the severity of specific local human services problems. Procedures for Low Level of Participation Members of the low level of participation citizen planning groups did not have access to services profiles or other planning information nor did they attend citizen planning group meetings. Members of the low level of 44 participation citizen planning groups were asked to evaluate the local need for specific human services based on their own experience and expertise without the benefit of planning information or face-to-face interaction with other planning group members. Manipulation Check Attendance data, audio tapes of citizen planning group meetings, and summary reports were reviewed to ensure that the citizen planning group process was implemented as intended. This data suggested that experimental protocol was maintained for all of the citizen planning groups. In addition, data were collected to determine the extent of experimental contamination that occurred between members of high, moderate, and low level of participation planning group members prior to the initiation of measurement procedures. Unsanctioned discussion of United Way planning issues was viewed as a potential confounding variable, since the experimental intervention was based on controlling the level of interaction among participants. In order to determine the level of contamination, participants in all three conditions were asked if they had discussed United Way planning issues with other individuals. Approximately, 24% of participants in the moderate level of participation condition and 25% of participants in the low level of participation condition indicated that they engaged in unsanctioned discussion of United Way planning issues with individuals who participated in the same way they did. 45 Approximately 18% of participants in the moderate level of participation condition and 22% of participants in the low level of participation condition engaged in unsanctioned discussion of United Way planning issues with individuals who participated in the process in a way that was different from the way respondents participated. Data representing the proportion of each experimental group that engaged in unsanctioned discussion of United Way planning issues are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Percentage of Participants in Experimental Conditions Who Answered Manipulation Check Questions Affirmatively Level of Participation Question High Moderate Low -— I discussed United Way planning 59.3 23.5 25.0 issues with individuals who participated in the United Way planning process in the same way I did. I discussed United Way planning 14.8 17.6 21.9 issues with individuals who participated in the United Way planning process in a way that was different from the way I participated. Data Collection Procedures High level of participation citizen planning group members completed a paper and pencil measure designed to establish members' views concerning the priority ranking of local human services. This measure was completed at final 46 subgroup meetings. Moderate and low level of participation citizen planning group members completed the same rating exercise via the U.S. mail. Rating score sheets along with instructions and return postage were sent to each member of the low and moderate level of participation planning groups. Low and moderate level of participation planning group members were instructed to complete the questionnaire and return it to United Way. Participants who had not completed the service rating exercise within a two week period were called every few days until they returned the completed rating sheet or indicated that they did not wish to participate. Approximately four weeks after the conclusion of the citizen planning group process, the United Way Planning Committee completed deliberations and forwarded recommendations for United Way funding to the United Way Board of Trustees. Shortly thereafter, high, moderate, and low level of participation planning group members were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to elicit psychological outcome data related to the dependent variables of interest. Only those participants who completed the service rating exercise were eligible to complete the psychological outcome questionnaire. Eligible study participants were mailed the questionnaire and instructions along with funding priorities established by the United Way Planning Committee. Participants who did return their questionnaires within a two week period were called every few days until they 47 complied or indicated that they did not wish to participate. Meagurement of Dependent Variables Participants were asked to respond to five separate scales that pertained to the dependent variables of interest. The scales that pertained to psychological sense of community included the "psychological sense of community- United Way" scale and the "psychological sense of community- residence“ scale. The scales that pertained to personal efficacy included the "perceived influence on United Way policy decisions" scale and the "perceived effectiveness of United Way planning procedures" scale. The "services rating" scale was utilized to measure level of agreement between study participants and United Way Planning Committee members concerning the priority of local human services. Ps c lo ical ense of ommunit ' Two sense of community measures were administered to study participants. The first scale measured sense of community relative to community of residence. Sense of community-residence was measured based on participants' responses to Julian's and Nasar's (1990) scale. The alpha reliability for the sense of community-residence scale was .90. The sense of community-residence scale is reproduced in Appendix B. The second sense of community scale measured sense of community relative to United Way. The second scale was identical to the first except that some wording was changed in order to make the scale applicable to United Way. The 48 alpha reliability for the sense of community-United Way scale was .88. The sense of community-United Way scale is reproduced in Appendix C. W Similarly, personal efficacy was measured based on participants' responses to two separate scales. Perceived influence on United Way policy decisions was measured via a 9 item scale developed by Fleischer (1979). Slight modifications were made to the Fleischer scale to make it applicable to the United Way citizen planning process. The alpha reliability for the perceived influence scale was .83. The perceived influence instrument is reproduced in Appendix D. Perceived effectiveness of United Way planning procedures was measured via a 12 item scale developed by United Way (United Way of Franklin County, 1987). This scale has been used in previous years to evaluate United Way planning procedures. The alpha reliability of the effectiveness scale was .86. The effectiveness scale is reproduced in Appendix E. Level of Agreement Measurement of level of agreement consisted of three distinct steps. In step 1, study participants were asked to apply 10 criteria (see Table 4) to the specific services they reviewed. Services were evaluated against these criteria on five point Likert type scales where 1 meant ”low congruence" with the criteria, 3 meant ”neutral" and 5 meant 49 "high congruence." Table 4 Criteria Ctilized to Rate Community Human Services Needs Criteria This service is provided to vulnerable populations. . This service addresses need experienced by many people. This service addresses need that is severe or serious. This service addresses documented unmet community need. bWNH Resource Criteria This service is not likely to be supported by non- United Way agencies or other systems. This service employs non-financial resources effectively (e.g. volunteers). Problem Resolution Criteria This service produces immediate impacts. This service produces impacts of lasting duration. united Way System Criteria 9. This service is consistent with the community's values and is likely to enhance United Way's fund- raising abilities. 10. This service is likely to be acceptable to the United Way system and related constituencies. mm ms! In step 2, each participant's service rating scores were correlated with corresponding service rating scores assigned by the United Way Planning Committee. Sixteen members of the United Way Planning Committee assigned scores to relevant services in the normal course of establishing United Way funding priorities. Planning committee members used the same scoring device used by citizen planning group 50 members (see Appendix F). It is important to note that Planning Committee members evaluated all United Way services while study participants evaluated services corresponding to the citizen planning groups to which they were assigned. In step 3, a similarity score was calculated for each study participant based on the similarity between her/his services rating scores and the services rating scores assigned by the United Way Planning Committee. The similarity scores ranged from -.34, a low level of agreement to .73, a relatively high level of agreement. Review of the scatter plot of similarity scores for study participants indicates that it approximates a nonmal distribution. The distribution of the similarity scores is illustrated in Figure 2. Frequency ”1 l 25; a %/ i 22%;. 1o; //%3/ % ’ éaéé /’,/ 1 co o/¢¢¢% . 122/222? -22222222“ " ¢¢3%//%// coo J§Z‘° ° gar / ,/./ 3.1025 -0.1 005! 02 30.35I 0.5 l0.05i 0.3 0.95 -0.325 -0.175 0.025 0.125 0275 0.425 0.575 0.725 0.075 Midpoint of Interval Eigpre 2. Distribution of level of agreement scores. CHAPTER III Data Analyses and Results Data Analyses Based on the intercorrelations of multiple dependent variables, a series of MANOVA procedures were utilized to test hypothesized differences between the experimental groups. Haase and Ellis (1987) recommended using multi- variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedures in experiments with multiple, conceptually related, dependent variables. Five dependent variables served as measures of three separate constructs in this experiment. Sense of community ‘was measured via the sense of community-residence and sense of community-United Way scales. Personal efficacy was measured via the perceived effectiveness of United Way planning procedures scale and perceived influence on United Way policy scale. Actual influence on community policy was measured via the level of agreement scale. The intercorrelations among the five dependent variables are indicated in Table 5. Sense of community-United Way scores were highly correlated with the other dependent variables with the exception of level of agreement. It appeared that there was some degree of consistency in how participants responded to measures associated directly with United Way (sense of community, effectiveness of United Way planning procedures, and influence on United Way policy). However, level of 51 52 agreement was negatively correlated with measures associated with United Way. Sense of community-residence scores were highly correlated with sense of community-United Way but were not highly correlated with other dependent variables. Table 5 Intercor ela ions Amon Measures N= 4 Measures 1 2 3 4 S 1. Sense of Community -- .48* .68* .56* -.20* (United Way) 2. Sense of Community -- .24* .15 .04 (Residence) 3. Effectiveness of U.W. Planning -- .64* -.27* Procedures 4. Influence on U.W. Policy -- -.14 Policy 5. Level of .Agreement -- * p<.05. Correlations among socio-demographic variables and dependent measures are summarized in Table 6. A.number of these correlations were significant. Sense of community- United Way was positively correlated with age and work status (whether participants worked for United Way agencies). Sense of community-residence was positively correlated with age and the number of years participants had 53 ..8»n~ .....u S auscu< .35 .... 3.53 gains .....u 3 ..o..«...o...n.. .3... xfixn~ .....n .. 2...... ... 5.320 ..wdxnm .....u .v .23.... .AfianN .....u 3 8233......— xvdanfi .....u .. 23.32.: 03...... ”.3. n N .....u .. Eta—2 ..o.......-=.x.u~ .o....>.n 3 33. ..u.~...u.u~ 6.3.71... now. ”8:11.... 39:55.3... .... 3...; .3. v ... auscu< .2.- ~.. 9... 2. ...... .35 2.. .5523 .... ~.. 8. 8. ... . 23.2.3.5... 5.... ...... .5. N. . . .n. 2. 3.2.5.25”. ... 23> c...- c..- n..- a... 2... 2...... ... ..2—..2... ... .- N... 8.- a... S ...2...— 8: ....- ..N.- 8. __ - .235 2...... EN. 8. ... .- S - cc... ..o..3.._.m. 93:2... 2. .... N. .- o... no - 53...... ... .. v. .- m... 8. 2.. 3.... 3.- .8.- c. .- n... 8. new .....- 2.. .... .2. .2. ...... 2.2.52.2 3...... .35 .... 9:25.... .35 ... .3538... 225 52.23. 835:3 ... .96.. 3:25... 23.83.55. 3.22.2.5”. ... 3....” a...====...U ... arson u...a.a.x..o......o..w I'll id§._m..fi.dwm..fiz$53.35....93259455435 a.3.55125...«2.551353533333523 2:52.21...qu .. 2...... 54 resided in their communities. Influence on United Way policy was negatively correlated with age and level of agreement was negatively correlated with age and work status. Level of agreement was positively correlated with educational status (whether participants had a college education). Based on correaltional data, tenure in the community and whether participants worked for United Way agencies were utilized as covariates in the MANOVA.models. These two variables were highly correlated with dependent measures. However, not all of the 101 participants provided data related to their tenure in the community or work status. Complete data was a criterion for inclusion in the MANOVA analyses. Responses of 15 participants were dropped from the sense of community and perceived efficacy MANOVAs due to incomplete data. Responses of 86 participants were included in these analyses. The level of agreement ANOVA was based on responses of 85 participants. Responses of 16 participants were dropped. Since 16 individuals were excluded from one or more of the analysis of variance procedures, it was necessary to determine if these individuals differed from the group of participants whose responses were analyzed. Student's t- tests were utilized to test for significant differences between the participants whose responses were included in the analysis of variance procedures and participants whose responses were excluded because of 55 missing data. Results of g-tests suggested that there were no significant differences between the participants whose responses were included and participants whose responses were excluded. Tests gf Experimental Hypotheses In order to test the experimental hypotheses, three separate analysis of variance procedures were performed. Hypothesis 1 stated that the greater individuals' participation in structured planning activities, the greater their sense of community. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that there were no significant sense of community differences due to level of participation. The mean scores on the sense of community scales for low, moderate and high level of participation groups are indicated in Table 7. Hypothesis 2 stated that the greater individuals' level of participation in structured planning activities, the greater their personal efficacy. A MANOVA procedure with perceived effectiveness of planning procedures and perceived influence on United Way policy as dependent variables indicated that there was a significant overall effect for these variables (Wilks Lambda=.887; act. E(2,82)=2.48, p<.05). Means scores for the low, moderate, and high participation groups on the perceived efficacy measures are indicated in Table 7. Univariate tests indicated significant participation differences in perceived effectiveness of planning procedures, but no significant 56 ...... v .... Cad. o... :3 N... Am... 3.. :3 c... ...2..8.w< 3.95-— <>OZ< .23.. .3... .5 5.5 3.. 8.... .2” 2.... a; 6.... and 85.553383. ”8:32.... «55...... :3“. ...-fin 2.: mad Gm... and at... .....n .35... m8ao>..8tm <>Oz<2 .8528... and 2. 3.... a...“ a... 8.. a... ...... €2.58... 3.3 a...» 8.2:. 8.3. on. 3.... no... 3.... and 63 56 3.5.5.50 .6 ......5w <>OZ<2 c... n. aw. ......- SA. ...2. arm. .2. 83%; 2252.5 22.82.. 3.... 2.5.5.2 ..mz. - 03a... 57 differences in perceived influence on United Way policy. Participants in the highest level of participation group had the highest effectiveness scores. Fisher's least significant difference test at the .05 level indicated that the high participation group differed significantly from the moderate and low level of participation groups. There were no significant differences between the moderate and low level of participation groups. Hypothesis 3 stated that the greater individuals' participation in structured planning activities, the greater their actual influence on community policy. Actual influence was operationalized as the degree to which participants' priority ratings of United Way programs matched the United Way Planning Committee's priority ratings. Analysis of variance indicated that there were no significant differences due to level of participation between experimental groups on the level of agreement measure. Mean scores on the level of agreement measure for the low, moderate, and high level of participation groups are indicated in Table 7. CHAPTER IV Discussion and Implications Multivariate and univariate analysis of variance procedures were utilized to test for differences related to the three experimental hypotheses defined in Chapter I. No significant differences were found due to level of participation with respect to sense of community or actual influence on community policy. However, a significant overall effect due to level of participation was found on personal efficacy. Personal efficacy was composed of the dependent variables perceived effectiveness of planning procedures and perceived influence on United Way policy. Univariate analysis suggested that participants in the high level of participation condition felt that the planning process in which they participated was more effective than participants in the low or moderate level of participation conditions. However, individuals in the high level of participation condition did not appear to feel that they had any more influence on United Way policy than participants in the moderate or low level of participation conditions. Effects of Participation correlational Analyses Correlational data suggested several interesting conclusions related to the dependent variables measured in this study. Participants who worked for United Way agencies and who were older tended to have the highest sense of 58 59 community-United Way scores. Thus sense of community appears to be relevant to the work environment (Klein & D'Aunno, 1985) and may develop over time. Membership in a work group appeared to be an important component of sense of community. However, individuals who worked for United way agencies were less likely than individuals who worked for non-United Way agencies to agree with the priorities established by the United Way Planning Committee. Perhaps this reflects a greater involvement over a longer period of time in the policy making process. In addition, participants who worked for United Way agencies had much more to lose based on the decisions of the Planning Committee. Unfavorable decisions could have resulted in significant reductions in dollar allocations to United Way agencies. Correlational data also suggested that sense of community with respect to community of residence was related to a person's age and tenure in a community. Thus as persons establish residence and start families, they may be more likely to become involved in community affairs, to identify themselves as members of a community, and to become emotionally attached to that community. Such relationships have been demonstrated in other sense of community research (Davidson & Cotter, 1986, 1989; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Glynn, 1981). 60 WW Participants in the high level of participation condition rated the planning process in which they participated as more effective than participants in the moderate or low level of participation conditions. This difference was responsible for the observed differences in personal efficacy. In other words, participants in the high level of participation condition felt that the procedures in which they engaged were adequate to achieve the goals of the planning process. Post hoc analysis indicated that there were not significant differences in the effectiveness ratings of the moderate and low level of participation planning groups. The major difference between these groups involved access to planning information. Planning information in this case referred to descriptions of need for United Way services in the community and social indicator data reflective of local and national conditions. The moderate level of participation group had access to information while the low level of participation group did not have access to planning information. It did not appear that access to planning information was sufficient to produce differences in effectiveness of planning procedures or influence ratings. However, face-to-face interaction did appear to influence perceived effectiveness of planning procedures. The high participation group was characterized by face-to- face interaction among group members. Face-to-face 61 interaction was absent in the moderate and low level of participation groups while other key variables were held constant. Thus face-to-face interaction appeared to have a beneficial impact on perceived effectiveness of planning procedures. This finding is consistent with research concerning organizational viability. Prestby and Wandersman (1985) suggest that organizations that effectively utilize resources such as members are highly effective in terms of goal achievement. Similarly, organizational structures that promote face-to-face interactions such as leadership, decision making, and organizational climate appear to be essential ingredients in successful voluntary organizations (Wandersman, 1979; Wandersman, Florin, Chavis, Rich, & Prestby, 1985). It appears that face-to-face interaction is a critical means of promoting organizational effectiveness. While participants in the high level of participation condition believed that the planning process in which they participated was effective, they did not believe they were likely to influence United Way decisions. It should be noted that the influence measure was administered after study participants were shown Planning Committee recommendations. Thus study participants had feedback concerning the degree to which their participation had influenced Planning Committee recommendations. There were no significant differences between the high, moderate, and low level of participation conditions with 62 respect to perceived influence on United Way policy. Scores on the perceived influence measure for all three experimental groups approached the mid-range (undecided) of a five point scale where 5 represented a high perceived influence score. Respective mean scores on the perceived influence measure for the high, moderate, and low level of participation groups were 3.33, 3.17 and 3.28. Regardless of their level of participation and views concerning the effectiveness of planning procedures, participants appeared to be uncertain about whether they actually had any influence on United Way policy. This fact was made particularly clear in debriefing sessions with study participants. A.number of respondents were extremely frustrated about how the citizen planning process was implemented. Participants suggested that the process was a "waste of time" and that their input was not likely to significantly influence United Way policy. In fact, United Way planners have committed to revising United Way planning procedures, partly, as a result of input from study participants. Participants in this study, regardless of level of participation, had little perceived power to influence United Way policy. Much of the citizen participation research is based on the assumption that power is available to participants or that it can be obtained through the participatory process (Bachrach & Zautra, 1985; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). In addition, it is assumed that 63 participants are aware of the power at their disposal. In fact, rewards such as power and influence resulting from participation are hypothesized to be a primary reason why people participate in community affairs in the first place (Prestby & Wandersman, 1985; Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990; Wandersman, 1981; Wandersman, 1984). In this study, it was likely that predicted differences in perceived influence were not detected due to the fact that participants accurately perceived their lack of influence. The participatory process provided little opportunity to actually influence United Way policy. It appeared that high levels of participation were not related to greater perceived influence. This contention was confirmed based on experimental analysis of participant's actual influence scores. The Effect of Participation on Actual Influence Participants were accurate in their perceptions of having little actual influence on United Way policy. It was predicted that as an individual's level of participation increased, her/his actual influence on community policy decisions was also likely to increase. However, there were no significant differences in the ratings assigned to United Way services by the three experimental groups. Thus participation in the citizen planning process did not appear to be related to actual influence on policy. The actual influence construct was operationalized as the degree to which experimental planning groups' ratings of 64 United Way services corresponded to the United Way Planning Committee's ratings of United Way services. If the high level of participation group was influential, a high degree of similarity in the ratings of services by the high level of participation group and the United Way Planning Committee was expected. Examination of the mean level of agreement scores indicated that none of the members of experimental groups were particularly adept at anticipating the ratings assigned to specific services by the United Way Planning Committee. The United Way Planning Committee appeared to assign ratings to services irrespective of input from the high participation citizen planning groups. The respective mean scores for the high, moderate, and low level of participation groups were .40, .44 and .42 on a zero to plus or minus one point scale. It can be hypothesized that study participants had very little actual power to influence United Way policy. It appeared that study participants were not empowered (Rappaport, 1987) to make or influence United Way policy decisions. Rather, study participants appeared to act more as consultants to actual decision makers (Arnstein, 1969). While the high participation condition may have been emppweripg in that participants reported greater feelings of effectiveness; the high participation group was not emppwereg because participants appeared to have little actual ability to influence United Way policy decisions 65 (Swift & Levine, 1987). Comparisons of sense of community-United Way and sense of community-residence scores provided a means of testing the hypothesis that high level of participation participants had little power to influence United Way policy. If high participation group members were powerless to effect United Way policy, it appeared reasonable to assume that there would be greater differences between their sense of community-United Way scores and sense of community-residence scores than moderate or low level of participation group members. Because influence is a major component of sense of community, one would expect relatively low sense of community-United Way scores relative to sense of community- residence for the high level of participation group members. In order to test this hypothesis a variable was created that reflected the difference between sense of community- United Way and sense of community-residence. Dependent t- tests revealed no significant differences between the high level of participation group and the other groups with respect to differences between sense of community-United Way and sense of community-residence scores. Th3 Effect of Participation on Sense of Community It is not surprising that there were no significant differences between the experimental groups on the sense of community measures given the fact that participation did not effect perceived or actual influence on United Way policy. McMillan and Chavis (1982) propose that influence is a major 66 component of the sense of community construct. Individuals tend to be attracted to groups, organizations, or communities in which they feel influential. Other researchers have also demonstrated that control or empowerment are important aspects of sense of community (Bachrach & Zautra, 1985; Chavis & McMillan, 1990). The present study suggests that it is not reasonable to expect participation to enhance sense of community in the absence of influence. The low level of perceived and actual influence on United Way policy exhibited by participants in this study is the most plausible explanation for the fact that sense of community was not affected by level of participation. In summary, experimental results suggest that face-to- face interaction is a key ingredient in participants' satisfaction with planning procedures. Procedures that involve face-to-face interaction are judged to be more effective than non-interactive planning methods. It is also clear from this study that participation and face-to-face interaction do not guarantee that participants have influence in the policy formulation process. Finally, it appears that participation in the absence of influence has little impact on sense of community. However, a great deal of caution must be exercised in the interpretation of the non-significant differences between experimental groups. Because power is low, it is inappropriate to conclude that there were no differences 67 between experimental groups with respect to sense of community or actual influence (Cohen, 1988). Power analysis indicates that power for the sense of community MANOVA was .65 (alpha=.05, u=4, v=162, lambda=8.35) and power for the actual influence ANOVA was .20 (alpha=.05, u=2, n=29, f=.15). Given the results of the power analyses, experimental hypotheses cannot be rejected. It is quite likely that the experimental design did not yield enough statistical power to detect hypothesized differences between experimental groups. Low power was due, in large part, to methodological flaws in the research design. At least three threats to the validity of the experimental results are worth noting. Methodological Concerns Bre h o rimen l P 0 col The experimental intervention was based on controlling access to information and face-to-face interaction. In order to satisfy the requirements for the low and moderate level of participation conditions, participants were not to engage in discussion of United Way planning issues. Manipulation check data indicated that a significant number of low and moderate level of participation condition participants discussed United Way planning issues with other individuals. This violation of experimental protocol could have diminished the distinction between the high, moderate, and low level of participation planning groups. 68 In order to determine if contamination influenced the experimental results, a separate series of multivariate analysis of variance procedures was conducted. In this series of analyses, contamination variables along with tenure in the community and whether participants worked for United Way agencies were utilized as covariates in the MANOVA procedures. Contamination was measured based on whether participants discussed United Way planning issues with other participants (see Table 3). Controlling for contamination in the MANOVA procedures produced no significant differences in sense of community, personal efficacy, or level of agreement between the high, moderate, and low level of participation groups. The Personal Characteristics of Study Participants The unique character of the study sample may also have constituted a threat to validity. Study participants in the high, moderate, and low level of participation conditions were extremely well educated, affluent, middle class, human services professionals. Most were married, had lived in the community for a relatively long time and owned their own homes. Research has confirmed a strong relationship among these variables and participation (Edwards a White, 1980; Hyman & Wright, 1971; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). It is significant to note that all the participants in this study volunteered to participate in the United Way planning process and did participate to some degree. Due to personal characteristics, the distinction between the levels 69 of participation defined in this study may have been insignificant to the study participants. In addition, it is likely that participants across all experimental groups had a relatively high sense of community prior to exposure to the experimental intervention. The sense of community-residence scores of study participants ranged from 3.86 for the low level of participation group, to 3.92 for the moderate level of participation group to 3.88 for the high level of participation group. In an earlier study conducted by the author (Julian, 1983), the average sense of community score of residents of three middle class, Columbus neighborhoods was more than a point lower than the average score of members of the three experimental groups in this study. It was probably not reasonable to expect the experimental intervention in this study to alter sense of community to the extent necessary to show significant differences between experimental groups. Differential Attrition Rates Sixty percent of the participants who dropped out of the experiment were high level of participation group members. Twenty percent were moderate and 20% were low level of participation group members. The degree to which attrition could have effected experimental outcomes was analysized based on two variables. Differences in attrition among experimental groups did not appear to present a problem with respect to prior 70 participation in the United Way planning process. Dropouts and participants were similar on this dimension. Approximately, 23% of dropouts compared to 28% of study participants had participated in the United Way planning process in the past. However, a greater proportion of the dropouts (72%) worked for United Way agencies than the proportion of study participants (46%) that worked for United Way agencies. In the high level of participation condition, 75% of dropouts worked for United Way agencies. Thus a significant number of individuals who would have been expected to have high sense of community-United Way and level of agreement scores dropped out of the experiment. It is likely that the loss of these participants reduced the power of the experimental design. Future Research In future research of this kind, great effort should be undertaken to control the amount of unsanctioned interaction among study participants. At a minimum, study participants should be cautioned not to discuss pertinent issues with other individuals. In addition, researchers might employ larger sample sizes in an effort to counter problems associated with the restricted range of responses provided by study participants. Researchers might also utilize more reliable measures of key constructs such as sense of community, personal efficacy, and actual influence. Finally, researchers interested in replicating this study 71 might generate more definitive results by utilizing a true control group. Comparing the responses of individuals engaged in a high level of participation with non- participants might provide the best means of demonstrating the effects of participation. Implications for Planning This study has several implications for how United Ways conduct community planning and how human services agencies conduct planning at a more general level. It is clear that planning is a necessary step in the problem resolution process. It is equally clear that effective planning is characterized by efficient use of member and informational resources. Planning for the delivery of services in the most effective and efficient manner possible is likely to require access to information and face-to-face interaction with other participants. At least such planning activities appear to be perceived as more effective than processes that involve little information or interaction. Results also suggest that if planners are forced to choose, face-to-face interaction is more important than information. Regardless of the amount of information and face-to- face interaction available, this research suggests that the most critical element in any planning process may be power. Planning without authority is at best mere tokenism (Arnstein, 1969). At worst it is a shame that is contrary to the democratic ideals on which decision making in the 72 public sector is based. By definition, participation must include some ability to influence the end product of the planning process. The value of participation of this sort cannot be overemphasized. Theorists claim that participation has a variety of benefits including protection of the individual, increased citizen control over public decisions, and promotion of individual well being. Participation may also play an important role in the development of a competent citizenry. In addition, participation appears to result in improvement in the quality of human environments and residents' satisfaction with the environments they occupy (Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). Wandersman and Giamartino (1980) also suggest that participation has beneficial psychological effects. Many theorists propose that one of the major psychological benefits of participation is enhanced psychological sense of community. That sense of community is important is of no doubt. However, it is not clear whether enhancing sense of community is a worthy goal of planning activities. It remains for future research to determine whether participation in local planning activities is a viable mechanism for enhancing sense of community. While research results are inconclusive, it may be inferred that participation may function to enhance psychological sense of community but only through a mediating variable that has been referred to as 73 "empowerment." A number of researchers have suggested that sense of community promotes participation in community affairs through mediating variables such as problem focused behavior (Bachrach & Zautra, 1985) or group or personal power (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Problem focused coping, group power, and personal power appear to be related to feelings of empowerment or the sense that one has control over one's own life. Perhaps the degree to which participation enhances sense of community is dependent upon the level of psychological empowerment experienced by participants. Citizen participation has been touted as a means of addressing many of the issues confronting the residents of local communities. Providing opportunities to influence public policy through citizen participation is an important aspect of a good and competent community (Smith, 1984). One of the greatest challenges to community psychologists is to document and implement local mechanisms that enhance participation and lead to true influence in the policy formulation process. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 74 APPENDIX A RECRUITMENT LETTER July 18, 1990 To: Agency Executive Directors From: Douglas E. Olsen, Chair, Board of Trustees Janet E. Jackson, Chair, PEA Planning Committee Re: United Way Planning Process United Way needs your help to complete its 1991 Planning Process. We invite you and/or members of your staff to join a United Way citizen planning group. Citizen planning group members evaluate specific human services needs in the local community and report their interpretations to the United Way Planning Committee. This year United Way staff and volunteers are also attempting to evaluate some of the major assumptions concerning the citizen planning process. Please nominate two to four members of your staff who can effectively evaluate community human services needs related to their areas of expertise. If your choose, you can also nominate yourself. The time commitment for this volunteer effort will not exceed 12 hours spread throughout the month of August. The individuals you nominate should complete one of the enclosed "planning group information" forms. Return all forms in the enclosed envelope to United Way by July 25, 1990. We need this information as soon as possible in order to assign volunteers to planning groups corresponding to their areas of expertise. We hope you will take advantage of this unique opportunity for members of the community to participate in the United Way planning process. If you have any questions,please feel free to call the United Way Assistant Planning Director. Thank you for your time. We look forward to hearing from you or your staff soon. 75 Planning Croup Informatfon Form If you would like to participate in the United Way citizen planning process, please answer all of the following questions and return this form to United Way in the enclosed envelope by July 25, 1990. If you do not wish to participate in the citizen planning process complete question 1, 2, 3, and 4. 1. 2. Name: Agency Name: Agency Address: Phone: You have been identified as a person with considerable knowledge and expertise concerning local human services problems. Would you be willing to participate in the United Way citizen planning process? Yes No Home Address: Phone: Preferred Mailing Address: Bus Home Listed below are programs corresponding to the six United Way citizen planning groups. Place a check on the line next to the group of programs which most closely matches your areas of interest and/or expertise. Subgroup 1: Employment, Housing, Transportation, and Basic Material Needs Subgroup 2: Physical and Mental Health Subgroup 3: Day Care, Adoption, Foster care, Pre-School, and Special Education Subgroup 4: Family Life Education, Companionship, and Homemaker Services Subgroup 5: Social Development, Recreation, and Social Adjustment Subgroup 6: Information and Referral, Public Information, and Community Development 76 8. Have you previously participated in the United Way citizen planning process? Yes No You will be contacted later this month concerning the next steps in the citizen planning process. THANK YOU! JII'J APPENDIX B 77 APPENDIX B Sense of Community-Residence Scale Participants responded to the following statements on a five point scale where "l" meant strongly agree, "2" meant agree, "3" meant undecided, ”4" meant disagree, and "5" meant strongly disagree. 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. I am quite similar to most of the people who live in my community. If I feel like talking, I can generally find someone in my community to talk to right away. It is important to me that my community do well. The police in my community are generally friendly. People in my community know that they can get help from the community if they are in trouble. Friends in my community are part of my everyday activities. If I am upset about something personal, there are people in my community to whom I can turn. I have friends in my community on whom I can depend. If there was a serious problem in my community, people would get together and solve it. If someone does something good for my community, it makes me feel good. If I had an emergency, even people I do not know in my community would be willing to help. What is good for my community is good for me. Being a member of my community is like being a member of a group of good friends. We have community leaders we can trust. There are people in my community other than my friends who really care about me. '3"- APPENDIX C 78 APPENDIX C Sense of Community-United Way Participants responded to the following statements on a five point scale where "1" meant strongly agree, "2" meant agree, "3” meant undecided, "4" meant disagree, and "5" meant strongly disagree. 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. I am quite similar to most of the people who participate in the United Way planning process. If I feel like talking about United Way issues, I can generally find a United Way volunteer to talk to right away. It is important to me that United Way do well. United Way staff are generally friendly. VOlunteers know they can get help from United Way if they have a problem with United Way policies. Friends among United Way volunteers are part of my everyday activities. If I disagree with United Way policy, there are United Way volunteers to whom I can turn. There are United Way volunteers on whom I can depend. If there were a serious problem in my community, United Way volunteers could get together and solve it. If a United Way volunteer does something good for United Way, it makes me feel good. If I were trying to correct a serious United Way policy mistake, even volunteers I do not know would be willing to help. What is good for United Way is good for me. Being a United Way planning volunteer is like being a member of a group of good friends. There are United Way leaders you can trust. There are United Way volunteers who really care about me. APPENDIX D 79 APPENDIX D Perceived Influence on United Way Policy Participants responded to the following statements on a five point scale where ”1" meant strongly agree, "2" meant agree, "3" meant undecided, "4" meant disagree, and "5" meant strongly disagree. 1. I feel that I can have an influence on United Way decisions. 2. In the long run I feel that I am responsible for United Way decisions. 3. I feel that I can control United Way affairs by taking an active part in them. 4. Most of the time I do not understand why the United Way Board makes the decisions it does. 5. With enough effort I can help to eliminate bad United Way decisions. 6. United Way is run by a few people in power and there is not much I can do about it. 7. It is difficult for me to have much control over what United Way does. 8. As far as United Way goes, most of us are victims of forces we cannot control. 9. As far as United Way goes most of us are victims of forces we cannot understand. APPENDIX E 80 APPENDIX E Perceived Effectiveness of United Way Planning Procedures Participants responded to the following statements on a five point scale where "1” meant strongly agree, "2” meant agree, "3" meant undecided, "4" meant disagree, and "5" meant strongly disagree. 1. 10. 11. 12. The United Way planning process has been adequately explained to me. My participation in the United Way planning process is likely to impact policy decisions made by the United Way Board. My views concerning human services needs in the community are reflected in United Way funding priorities. I understand my role in the United Way planning process. A broad section of the community was involved in the United Way planning process. I believe it is necessary for a broad section of the community to be involved in the United Way planning process. The best way for people to be involved in the United Way planning process was the way I was involved. The current United Way planning process enhances United Way's ability to raise money in the community. Through its planning process, United Way has demonstrated its concern with the community's most important human services needs. I am satisfied with the United Way planning process. I feel that the United Way planning process is effective. I agree with United Way's 1991 funding priorities. APPENDIX E 81 APPENDIX F Service Rating Form Participants responded to the following statements on a five point scale where "1" meant strongly agree, "2" meant agree, ”3" meant undecided, ”4” meant disagree, and "5" meant strongly disagree. Service Name: 1. 10. Population in Need-This service supports or directly addresses the provision of assistance to vulnerable populations such as the elderly; the disabled; the physically or mentally handicapped; low income individuals or families; youth; and single heads of households. Magpitude of NeeCZDemand-This service addresses a need experienced by many people. Significance of the Problem to the Community-This service addresses a need that is severe or serious. Unmet NeedZMagnitude of Service Caps-This service addresses a documented unmet need in the community. Availability of Non-Cnited Way Funding-This service is not likely to be supported by or be the responsibility of other community agencies or systems. Non-Financial Resources-This service develops and employs non-financial resources effectively (e.g. volunteers). Immediacy of Service Impact-This service produces immediate impacts. Duration of Service Benefits-This service produces benefits generally perceived to be of lasting duration. Campaign Appeal-This service is consistent with the community's values and is likely to enhance United Way’s fund-raising abilities. Acceptability to Cnited Way System-This service is likely to be accepted by the United Way system and related constituencies. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Ahlbrandt R. S., & Cunningham, J. V. (1979). .A new public policy for neighbofaood preservafion. New York: Praeger. Alford , R. R., & Scoble, H. M. (1968). Community leadership: Education and political behavior. American Sociological Review, SS, 259-272. Altschuler, A. A. (1970). Commupity control: The Black demand f ontro in ar e e can cities. New York: Pegasus. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Joufna; pf the Americap Institute of Elanners, SS, 216- 224. Axelrod, M. (1956). Urban structure and social participation. American Sociological Revfaw, Sf, 13-18 0 Bandura, A. (1982). Self efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Ps cholo ist, 11, 122-147. Bandura,.A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self- efficacy theory in behavioral change. Cogpitiva Therapy and Research, ;, 287-308. Bandura, A1, Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Sournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 125-139. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Test of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cogaitive Thefapy aad Research, a, 39-66. Bachrach R., & Zautra, A. (1985). Coping with a community stressor: The threat of a hazardous waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, SC, 127-141. Bennett, S. E., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1988). A process evaluation of the Eisenhower neighborhood anti-crime self-help program: Summapy repop . Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empgwer paople. Washington D. C.: American Enterprise Institute. Booth A., & Babchuk, N. (1969). Personal influence networks and voluntary association affiliations. Sociological In 1 ’ 12' 179-1880 82 Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. Amefican Journal of Community gsychology, lg, 771-791. Chavis, D. M., Florin, P., Wandersman, A., a Rich, R. C. (1986, August). Crganization developpent for grassroots community development organizations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association, Washington D.C. Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., & McMillan, D. W. (1986). Sense of community through Brunswik's lens: A first look. Jpgfnal of Compunlty Esychology, lg 24-40. Chavis, D. M., & Newbrough, J. R. (1985). The meaning of "community" in community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, lg, 335-339. Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. Ameficah Journal of Cgmmunity Psychology, l8, 55-81. Checkoway, B. (1977). n a on c o . Monticello, IL: Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography No. 1329. Cherniss C., & Cherniss, D . S. (1987). Professional involvement in self-help groups for parents of high risk newborns. American Joupnal of Community Ps cholo , lS, 435-444. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1986). Measurement of sense of community within the sphere of the city. Journal of Appllad Soglal Psychology, l5, 608-619. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1989). Sense of community and political participation. Journal of Copgpnlfy Psychology, l1, 119-125. DiClemente, C. C. (1981). Self-efficacy and smoking cessation maintenance. Cognitive Therapy and Reaearch, S, 175-187. Doolittle, R. J., & MacDonald, D. (1978). Communication and a sense of community in a metropolitan neighborhood: A factor analytic examination. Cophphicatlon Quartefly, &' 2-70 83 Dunham, H. W. (1977). Community as process: Maintaining the delicate balance. Ameflcah Journal of Coppuhity Ps cholo , S, 257-268. Edwards, J. N., 8 White, R. P. (1980). Predictors of social participation: Apparent or real? Journal of Vbluntagy Action Research, 9, 60-73. Fleischer, M. (1979). Effects of site visits on inngvation adoption. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Florin, P., Mednick, M., 8 Wandersman A. (1986). Cognitive social learning variables and the characteristics of leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, lg, 808-830. Florin P., 8 Wandersman, A. (1990). An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organizations, and community development: Insights for empowerment through research. American Journal of Community Psychology, lS, 41-54. Florin P. R., 8 Wandersman A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, lg, 689-708. Forester, J. (1982). Critical reason and political power in project review activity: Serving freedom in planning and public administration. Policy and Politics, lg, 65-830 Gaertner, K. N., 8 Nolan, S. D. (1989). Career experiences, perceptions of employment practices, and psychological commitment to the organization. Human Relations, ll, 975-9910 Gati, I. (1989). Person-environment fit research: Problems and prospects. ournal of VOcational Behavior, 15, 181-193. Glynn, T. J. (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human Relations, SS, 789- 818. Gruber, J., 8 Trickett, E. J. (1987). Can we empower others: The paradox of empowerment in an alternative public high school. The American Journal of Community P8!Ch°;°g!' lip 353-3720 Haase, R. F., 8 Ellis, M. V. (1987). Multivariate analysis of variance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 404-413. 84 Hallman, H. (1974). Neighborhood ggverhpent in mefropolitah sattihg . Beverly Hills: Sage. Heller, K. (1989). The return to community. American Journal pf Community Psychology, (l1 1-15. Hunter, A. (1974). Sypholic communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hyman, H., 8 Wright, C. (1971). Trends in voluntary association memberships of American adults: Replication based on secondary analysis of national sample surveys. American Sociolo ical Review, SS, 191- 206. Julian, D. A- (1983). The effect of traffic patterns and street desigh on territoriality and the psychological sense of community in three suhurban neighborhoods. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Julian, D. A-, 8 Nasar, J. L. (1990). The psychological sense of community in the neighborhood. Unpublished manuscript. Katz, D., 8 Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of orgahizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Klein, K. J., 8 D'Aunno, T. A. (1985). Psychological sense of community in the workplace. Journal of Community Ps cholo , lg, 365-377. Langton, S. (1978). Citizah participation in Amarica. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Maton, K. I., Leventhal, G. S., Madara, E. L., 8 Julien, M. (1989). Factors affecting the birth and death of self- help groups: The role of national affiliation, professional involvement, and member focal problem. American Journal of Community Psychology, ll, 643-671. McMillan, D. W., 8 Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, lg, 6-23. Metropolitan Human Services Commission. (1990). Franklin County Community Trehds Report. (Available from Metropolitan Human Services Commission, 360 South Third Street, Columbus, Ohio, 43215). Milbrath, L. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in pglitics. Chicago: Rand McNally. 85 Morris, D. E., 8 Hess, K. (1975). N hborhood war: The new localiam. Boston: Beacon. O'Reilly, C. A., 8 Roberts, K. H. (1977). Task group structure, communication, and effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, SS, 674- 681. Owen, W. F. (1985). Metaphor analysis of cohesiveness in small group discussion. Small Croup Behavior, if, 415- 424. Peattie, L. (1967). Reflections on advocacy planning. Jour l of the American Institute of Planners, March, 80-88 a Perlman, J. E. (1976). Grassrooting the system. Social Polic , 1, 4-20. Prestby, J. E., 8 Wandersman, A. (1985). An empirical exploration of a framework of organizational viability: Maintaining block organizations. e o a of Applied Behavioral Science, Cl 287-305. Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A1, Florin, P., Rich, R., 8 Chavis, D. M. (1990). Benefits, costs, incentive management, and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to understanding and promoting empowerment. American Joafnal of Communify Psyghology, fl, 117-1490 Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment: Exemplars of prevention. American Journal of Community psychology, lS, 121-148. Riger, S., 8 Lavrakas, P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Commuhity Psychology, 2, 55- 66. Sarason, S. B. (1974). The 3 ch lo 1 sense of commuhify: Prospecta for a community psychology. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Smith, T. M. (1984). Becoming a good and competent community. In P. R. Porter 8 D. Sweet (Eds.), Rebuilding America's cities: Roads to recovefy (pp. 123-142). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. Spokane, A. R. (1985). A review of research on person- environment congruence in Holland's theory of careers. Journal of VOcational Behavior, SS, 306-343. 86 Swift, C., 8 Levine, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging mental mental health technology. Journal of Primamy Preve tion, S, 71-94. Tilley, S., 8 Carr, S. (1975). Downtown Washingfon streets for paople: Cser consultancy. Paper presented at the EDRA 6 Conference, Lawrence, Kansas. United Way of Franklin County, Inc. (1987). PS; Plannihg Questionnaire. (Available from United Way of Franklin County, 360 South Third Street, Columbus, Ohio, 43215). Unger D. G., 8 Wandersman, A. (1982). Neighboring in the urban environment. American Journal of Community Ps cholo , lg, 493-509. Unger, D. G., 8 Wandersman, A. (1983). Neighboring and it's role in block organizations: An exploratory report. Americah Journal pf Community Psychology, ll 291-300. Wandersman, A, (1979). User participation: .A study of types of participation, effects, mediators and individual differences. Environment ahd Sehavior, ll, 185-208. Wandersman, A. (1981). A framework of participation in community organizations. Journal gf Applied Behavioral Science, l1, 27-58. Wandersman A. (1984). Citizen participation. In K. Heller, R. Price, S. Reinharz, S. Riger, 8 A, Wandersman (Eds.), Ps cho o a d omm nit chan e: halle es of the fgfure. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Chavis, D., Rich, R., 8 Prestby, J. (1985). Getting together and getting things done. Ps cholo Toda , November, 64-71. Wandersman, A., 8 Giamartino, G. (1980). Community and individual difference characteristics as influences on initial participation. American Journal of Community Wellman, B. (1979). The community question. American Journal gf Spciplogy, S5, 1201-1231. Williams, J. A., Babchuk, N., 8 Johnson, D. R. (1973). VOluntary associations and minority status: A comparative analysis of anglo, black and Mexican- Americans. American Sociological Reviaw, SS, 637-646. 87 Yates, D. T. (1973). Neighborhopd democracy: The pplitics and impact of decentralizatioh. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yates, D. (1976). Political innovation and institution building: The experience of decentralization experiments. In D. W. Hawley 8 M. Lipsky (Eds.), Theoretical perspactives on urban politics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Yin, R. K. (1977). Goals for citizen involvement: Some possibilities and some evidence. In P. Marshal (Ed.), Citizen participation certification for community development. Washington D.C.: NAHRO. Yoak, M., 8 Chesler, M. (1985). Alternative professional roles in health care delivery: Leadership patterns in self-help groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, ll, 427-444. Zimmerman, M. A., 8 Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, g, 725-7500 88 "I711111‘111171‘1111111S